[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce) 00

Transport Working Group                                        J. Morton
Internet-Draft                                          R.W. Grimes, Ed.
Updates3168, 8311 (if approved)                              3 July 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 4 January 2020


             The Some Congestion Experienced ECN Codepoint
                       draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-00

Abstract

   This memo reclassifies ECT(1) to be an early notification of
   congestion on ECT(0) marked packets, which can be used by AQM
   algorithms and transports as an earlier signal of congestion than CE.
   It is a simple, transparent, and backward compatible upgrade to
   existing IETF-approved AQMs, RFC3168, and nearly all congestion
   control algorithms.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 January 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text




Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Some Congestion Experienced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Examples of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Codel-type AQMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  RED-type AQMs (including PIE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Introduction

   This memo reclassifies ECT(1) to be an early notification of
   congestion on ECT(0) marked packets, which can be used by AQM
   algorithms and transports as an earlier signal of congestion than CE
   ("Congestion Experienced").

   This memo limits its scope to the redefinition of the ECT(1)
   codepoint as SCE, "Some Congestion Experienced", with a few brief
   illustrations of how it may be used.

3.  Background

   [RFC3168] defines the lower two bits of the (former) TOS byte in the
   IPv4/6 header as the ECN field.  This may take four values: Not-ECT,
   ECT(0), ECT(1) or CE.

   Binary Keyword References



Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


   ------------------------------------------------------------

    00     Not-ECT (Not ECN-Capable Transport)     [RFC3168]
    01     ECT(1) (ECN-Capable Transport(1))       [RFC3168]
    10     ECT(0) (ECN-Capable Transport(0))       [RFC3168]
    11     CE (Congestion Experienced)             [RFC3168]

   Research has shown that the ECT(1) codepoint goes essentially unused,
   with the "Nonce Sum" extension to ECN having not been implemented in
   practice and thus subsequently obsoleted by [RFC8311] (section 3).
   Additionally, known [RFC3168] compliant senders do not emit ECT(1),
   and compliant middleboxes do not alter the field to ECT(1), while
   compliant receivers all interpret ECT(1) identically to ECT(0).
   These are useful properties which represent an opportunity for
   improvement.

   Experience gained with 7 years of [RFC8290] deployment in the field
   suggests that it remains difficult to maintain the desired 100% link
   utilisation, whilst simultaneously strictly minimising induced delay
   due to excess queue depth - irrespective of whether ECN is in use.
   This leads to a reluctance amongst hardware vendors to implement the
   most effective AQM schemes because their headline benchmarks are
   throughput-based.

   The underlying cause is the very sharp "multiplicative decrease"
   reaction required of transport protocols to congestion signalling
   (whether that be packet loss or CE marks), which tends to leave the
   congestion window significantly smaller than the ideal BDP when
   triggered at only slightly above the ideal value.  The availability
   of this sharp response is required to assure network stability (AIMD
   principle), but there is presently no standardised and backwards-
   compatible means of providing a less drastic signal.

4.  Some Congestion Experienced

   As consensus has arisen that some form of ECN signaling should be an
   earlier signal than drop, this Internet Draft changes the meaning of
   ECT(1) to be SCE, meaning "Some Congestion Experienced".  The above
   ECN-field codepoint table then becomes:

   Binary Keyword References

   ------------------------------------------------------------

    00     Not-ECT (Not ECN-Capable Transport)     [RFC3168]
    01     SCE (Some Congestion Experienced)       [This Internet-draft]
    10     ECT (ECN-Capable Transport)             [RFC3168]
    11     CE (Congestion Experienced)             [RFC3168]



Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


   This permits middleboxes implementing AQM to signal incipient
   congestion, below the threshold required to justify setting CE, by
   converting some proportion of ECT codepoints to SCE ("SCE marking").
   Existing [RFC3168] compliant receivers MUST transparently ignore this
   new signal with respect to congestion control, and both existing and
   SCE-aware middleboxes MAY convert SCE to CE in the same circumstances
   as for ECT, thus ensuring backwards compatibility with [RFC3168] ECN
   endpoints.

   Permitted ECN codepoint packet transitions by middleboxes are:

           Not-ECT ->   Not-ECT or DROP
           ECT     ->   ECT or SCE or CE or DROP
           SCE     ->   SCE or CE or DROP
           CE      ->   CE or DROP

   In other words, for ECN-aware flows, the ECN marking of an individual
   packet MAY be increased by a middlebox to signal congestion, but MUST
   NOT be decreased, and packets SHALL NOT be altered to appear to be
   ECN-aware if they were not originally, nor vice versa.  Note however
   that SCE is numerically less than ECT, but semantically greater, and
   the latter definition applies for this rule.

   New SCE-aware receivers and transport protocols SHALL continue to
   apply the [RFC3168] interpretation of the CE codepoint, that is, to
   signal the sender to back off send rate to the same extent as if a
   packet loss were detected.  This maintains compatibility with
   existing middleboxes, senders and receivers.

   New SCE-aware receivers and transport protocols SHOULD interpret the
   SCE codepoint as an indication of mild congestion, and respond
   accordingly by applying send rates intermediate between those
   resulting from a continuous sequence of ECT codepoints, and those
   resulting from a CE codepoint.  The ratio of ECT and SCE codepoints
   received indicates the relative severity of such congestion, such
   that 100% SCE is very close to the threshold of CE marking, 100% ECT
   indicates that the bottleneck link may not be fully utilised, and
   some mixture of ECT and SCE codepoints indicates that some degree of
   queuing delay exists at the bottleneck link.

   Details of how to implement SCE awareness at the transport layer will
   be left to additional Internet Drafts yet to be submitted.  To ensure
   RTT-fair convergence with single-queue SCE AQMs, transports SHOULD
   stabilise at lower SCE-mark ratios for higher BDPs, and MAY reduce
   their response to CE marks IFF they are responding to SCE signals
   received at around the same time (eg. within 1-2 RTTs) in the same
   flow.




Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


   To maximise the benefit of SCE, middleboxes SHOULD produce SCE
   markings sooner than they produce CE markings, when the level of
   congestion increases.  Single-queue AQMs MAY choose to prefer
   fairness between SCE and non-SCE flows, by instead beginning SCE
   marking at the lowest threshold of CE marking.

5.  Examples of use

5.1.  Codel-type AQMs

   A simple and natural way to implement SCE in a Codel-type AQM is to
   mark all ECT packets as SCE if they are over half the Codel target
   sojourn time, and not marked CE by Codel itself.  This threshold
   function does not necessarily produce the best performance, but is
   very easy to implement and provides useful information to SCE-aware
   flows, often sufficient to avoid receiving CE marks whilst still
   efficiently using available capacity.

   For a more sophisticated approach avoiding even small-scale
   oscillation, a stochastic ramp function may be implemented with 100%
   marking at the Codel target, falling to 0% marking at or above zero
   sojourn time.  The lower point of the ramp should be chosen so that
   SCE is not accidentally signalled due to CPU scheduling latencies or
   serialisation delays of single packets.  Absent rigorous analysis of
   these factors, setting the lower limit at half the Codel target
   should be safe in many cases.

   The default configuration of Codel is 100ms interval, 5ms target.  A
   typical ramp function for these parameters might cease marking below
   2.5ms sojourn time, increase marking probability linearly to 100% at
   5ms, and mark at 100% for sojourn times above 5ms (in which CE
   marking is also possible).

   In single-queue AQMs, the above strategy will result in SCE flows
   yielding to pressure from non-SCE flows, since CE marks do not occur
   until SCE marking has reached 100%.  A balance between smooth SCE
   behaviour and fairness versus non-SCE traffic can be found by having
   the marking ramp cross the Codel target at some lower SCE marking
   rate, perhaps even 0%.  A two-part ramp, reaching 1/sqrt(X) at the
   Codel target (for some chosen X, a cwnd at which the crossover
   between smoothness and fairness occurs) and ramping up more steeply
   thereafter, has been implemented successfully for experimentation.

   Flow-isolating AQMs should avoid signalling SCE to flows classified
   as "sparse" in order to encourage the fastest possible convergence to
   the fair share.





Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


   For the avoidance of doubt, a decision to mark CE or to drop a packet
   always takes precedence over SCE marking.

5.2.  RED-type AQMs (including PIE)

   There are several reasonable methods of producing SCE signals in a
   RED-type AQM.

   The simplest would be a threshold function, giving a hard boundary in
   queue depth between 0% and 100% SCE marking.  This could be a
   sensible option for limited hardware implementations.  The threshold
   should be set below the point at which a growing queue might trigger
   CE marking or packet drops.

   Another option would be to implement a second marking probability
   function, occupying a queue-depth space just below that occupied by
   the main marking probability function.  This should be arranged so
   that high marking rates (ideally 100%) are achieved at or before the
   point at which CE marking or packet drops begin.

   For PIE specifically, a second marking probability function could be
   added with the same parameters as the main marking probability
   function, except for a lower QDELAY_REF value.  This would result in
   the SCE marking probability remaining strictly higher than the CE
   marking probability for ECT flows.

5.3.  TCP

   Some mechanism should be defined to feed back SCE signals to the
   sender explicitly.  Details of this are left to future I-Ds covering
   TCP in detail; use could be made of the redundant NS bit in the TCP
   header, which was formerly associated with ECT(1) in the Nonce Sum
   specification.

   Alternatively, SCE can potentially be handled entirely by the
   receiver, and thus be entirely independent of any of the dozens of
   [RFC3168] compliant congestion control algorithms on the sender side.
   This would be done by adjusting the Receive Window, which has been a
   standard part of TCP from its inception.  This alternative therefore
   requires the minimum amount of protocol changes on the wire.

   The recommended response to each single segment marked with SCE is to
   reduce cwnd by an amortised 1/sqrt(cwnd) segments.  Other responses,
   such as the 1/cwnd from DCTCP, are also acceptable but may perform
   less well.






Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


5.4.  Other

   New transports under development, such as QUIC, may implement a fine-
   grained signal back to the sender based on SCE.  QUIC itself appears
   to have this sort of feedback already (counting ECT(0), ECT(1) and CE
   packets received), and the data should be made available for
   congestion control.

6.  Related Work

   [RFC8087][RFC7567][RFC7928][RFC8290][RFC8289][RFC8033][RFC8034]

7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations.

8.  Security Considerations

   An adversary could inappropriately set SCE marks at middleboxes he
   controls to slow down SCE-aware flows, eventually reaching a minimum
   congestion window.  However, the same threat already exists with
   respect to inappropriately setting CE marks on normal ECN flows, and
   this would have a greater impact per mark.  Therefore no new threat
   is exposed by SCE in practice.

   An adversary could also simply ignore SCE marks at the receiver, or
   ignore SCE information fed back from the receiver to the sender, in
   an attempt to gain some advantage in throughput.  Again, the same
   could be said about ignoring CE marks, so no truly new threat is
   exposed.  Additionally, correctly implemented SCE detection may
   actually improve long-term goodput compared to ignoring SCE.

   An adversary could erase congestion information by converting SCE
   marks to ECT or Not-ECT codepoints, thus hiding it from the receiver.
   This has equivalent effects to ignoring SCE signals at the receiver.
   An identical threat already exists for erasing congestion information
   from CE marked packets, and may be mitigated by AQMs switching to
   dropping packets from flows observed to be non-responsive to CE.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dave Taht for his contributions to the SCE effort, and his
   work on writing the original draft-morton-taht-sce-00 that was
   submitted for IETF/104 on which this draft is based.

   Many thanks to John Gilmore, the members of the ecn-sane project and
   the cake@lists.bufferbloat.net mailing list, and the former IETF AQM
   working group.



Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


10.  Normative References

   [RFC8311]  Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
              Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311>.

11.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.

   [RFC7928]  Kuhn, N., Ed., Natarajan, P., Ed., Khademi, N., Ed., and
              D. Ros, "Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue
              Management (AQM)", RFC 7928, DOI 10.17487/RFC7928, July
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7928>.

   [RFC8033]  Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White,
              "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A
              Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat
              Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>.

   [RFC8034]  White, G. and R. Pan, "Active Queue Management (AQM) Based
              on Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced PIE) for
              Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS)
              Cable Modems", RFC 8034, DOI 10.17487/RFC8034, February
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8034>.

   [RFC8087]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC




Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    sceb                         July 2019


              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8289]  Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., Ed., and J.
              Iyengar, Ed., "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management",
              RFC 8289, DOI 10.17487/RFC8289, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8289>.

   [RFC8290]  Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P., Taht, D., Gettys,
              J., and E. Dumazet, "The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler
              and Active Queue Management Algorithm", RFC 8290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8290, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8290>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Morton
   Kokkonranta 21
   FI-31520 Pitkajarvi
   Finland

   Phone: +358 44 927 2377
   Email: chromatix99@gmail.com


   Rodney W. Grimes (editor)
   Redacted
   Portland, OR 97217
   United States

   Email: rgrimes@freebsd.org




















Morton & Grimes          Expires 4 January 2020                 [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/