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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion

LEDBAT WG                                                    S. Shalunov
Internet-Draft                                            BitTorrent Inc
Intended status: Experimental                              March 4, 2009
Expires: September 5, 2009

             Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   LEDBAT is an alternative experimental congestion control algorithm.

   LEDBAT enables an advanced networking application to minimize the

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   extra delay it induces in the bottleneck while saturating the
   bottleneck.  It thus implements an end-to-end version of scavenger
   service.  LEDBAT has been been implemented in BitTorrent DNA, as the
   exclusive congestion control mechanism, and in uTorrent, as an
   experimental mechanism, and deployed in the wild with favorable

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  LEDBAT design goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  LEDBAT motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Simplest network topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.2.  Extra delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.3.  Queuing delay target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.4.  Need to measure delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.5.  Queing delay estimate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.6.  Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.7.  Max rampup rate same as TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.8.  Halve on loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.9.  Yield to TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.10. Need for one-way delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.11. Measuring one-way delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.12. Route changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.13. Timestamp errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.13.1.  Clock offset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.13.2.  Clock skew  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.14. Noise filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.15. Safety of LEDBAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  LEDBAT congestion control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   The standard congestion control in TCP is based on loss and has not
   been designed to drive delay to any given value.  Because TCP needs
   losses to back off, when a FIFO bottleneck lacks AQM, TCP fills the
   buffer, effectively maximizing possible delay.  Large number of the
   thinnest links in the Internet, particularly most uplinks of home
   connections, lack AQM.  They also frequently contain enough buffer
   space to get delays into hundreds of milliseconds and even seconds.
   There is no benefit to having delays this large, but there are very
   substantial drawbacks for interactive applications: games and VoIP
   become impossible and even web browsing becomes very slow.

   While a number of delay-based congestion control mechanisms have been
   proposed, they were generally not designed to minimize the delay
   induced in the network.

   LEDBAT is designed to allow to keep the latency across the congested
   bottleneck low even as it is saturated.  This allows applications
   that send large amounts of data, particularly upstream on home
   connections, such as peer-to-peer application, to operate without
   destroying the user experience in interactive applications.  LEDBAT
   takes advantage of delay measurements and backs off before loss
   occurs.  It has been deployed by BitTorrent in the wild with the
   BitTorrent DNA client and now, experimentally, with the uTorrent
   client.  This mechanism not only allows to keep delay across a
   bottleneck low, but also yields quickly in the presence of competing
   traffic with loss-based congestion control.

   Beyond its utility for P2P, LEDBAT enables other advanced networking
   applications to better get out of the way of interactive apps.

   In addition to direct and immediate benefits for P2P and other
   application that can benefit from scavenger service, LEDBAT could
   point the way for a possible future evolution of the Internet where
   loss is not part of the designed behavior and delay is minimized.

3.  LEDBAT design goals

   LEDBAT design goals are:

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   1.  saturate the bottleneck
   2.  keep delay low when no other traffic is present
   3.  quickly yield to traffic sharing the same bottleneck queue that
       uses standard TCP congestion control
   4.  add little to the queuing delays induced by TCP traffic
   5.  operate well in networks with FIFO queuing with drop-tail
   6.  be deployable for popular applications that currently comprise
       noticeable fractions of Internet traffic
   7.  where available, use explicit congestion notification (ECN),
       active queue management (AQM), and/or end-to-end differentiated
       services (DiffServ).

4.  LEDBAT motivation

   This section describes LEDBAT informally and provides some
   motivation.  It is expected to be helpful for general understanding
   and useful in discussion of the properties of LEDBAT.

   Without a loss of generality, we can consider only one direction of
   the data transfer.  The opposite direction can be treated

4.1.  Simplest network topology

   Consider first the desired behavior when there's only a single
   bottleneck and no competing traffic whatsoever, not even other LEDBAT
   connections.  The design goals obviously need to be robustly met for
   this trivial case.

4.2.  Extra delay

   Consider the queuing delay on the bottleneck.  This delay is the
   extra delay induced by congestion control.  One of our design goals
   is to keep this delay low.  However, when this delay is zero, the
   queue is empty and so no data is being transmitted and the link is
   thus not saturated.  Hence, our design goal is to keep the queuing
   delay low, but non-zero.

4.3.  Queuing delay target

   How low do we want the queuing delay to be?  Because another design
   goal is to be deployable on networks with only simple FIFO queuing
   and drop-tail discipline, we can't rely on explicit signaling for the
   queuing delay.  So we're going to estimate it using external
   measurements.  The external measurements will have an error at least
   on the order of best-case scheduling delays in the OSes.  There's

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   thus a good reason to try to make the queuing delay larger than this
   error.  There's no reason that would want us to push the delay much
   further up.  Thus, we will have a delay target that we would want to

4.4.  Need to measure delay

   To maintain delay near the target, we have to use delay measurements.
   Lacking delay measurements, we'd have to go only by loss (when ECN is
   lacking).  For loss to occur (on a FIFO link with drop-tail
   discipline), the buffer must first be filled.  This would drive the
   delay to the largest possible value for this link, thus violating our
   design goal of keeping delay low.

4.5.  Queing delay estimate

   Since our goal is to control the queuing delay, it is natural to
   maintain an estimate of it.  Let's call delay components propagation,
   serialization, processing, and queuing.  All components but queuing
   are nearly constant and queuing is variable.  Because queuing delay
   is always positive, the constant propagation+serialization+processing
   delay is no less than the minimum delay observed.  Assuming that the
   queuing delay distribution density has non-zero integral from zero to
   any sufficiently small upper limit, minimum is also an asymptotically
   consistent estimate of the constant fraction of the delay.  We can
   thus estimate the queuing delay as the difference between current and
   base delay as usual.

4.6.  Controller

   When our estimate of the queuing delay is lower than the target, it's
   natural to send faster.  When our estimate is higher, it's natural to
   send slower.  To avoid trivial oscillations on round-trip-time (RTT)
   scale, the response of the controller needs to be near zero when the
   estimate is near the target.  To converge faster, the response needs
   to increase as the difference increases.  The simplest controller
   with this property is the linear controller, where the response is
   proportional to the difference between the estimate and the target.
   This controller happens to work well in practice obviating the need
   for more complex ones.

4.7.  Max rampup rate same as TCP

   The maximum speed with which we can increase our congestion window is
   then when queuing delay estimate is zero.  To be on the safe side,
   we'll make this speed equal to how fast TCP increases its sending
   speed.  Since queuing delay estimate is always non-negative, this
   will ensure never ramping up faster than TCP would.

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

4.8.  Halve on loss

   Further, to deal with severe congestion when most packets are lost
   and to provide a safety net against incorrect queuing delay
   estimates, we'll halve the window when a loss event is detected.
   We'll do so at most once per RTT.

4.9.  Yield to TCP

   Consider competition between a LEDBAT connection and a connection
   governed by loss-based congestion control (on a FIFO bottleneck with
   drop-tail discipline).  Loss-based connection will need to experience
   loss to back off.  Loss will only occur after the connection
   experiences maximum possible delays.  LEDBAT will thus receive
   congestion indication sooner than the loss-based connection.  If
   LEDBAT can ramp down faster than the loss-based connection ramps up,
   LEDBAT will yield.  LEDBAT ramps down when queuing delay estimate
   exceeds the target: the more the excess, the faster the ramp-down.
   When the loss-based connection is standard TCP, LEDBAT will yield at
   precisely the same rate as TCP is ramping up when the queuing delay
   is double the target.

4.10.  Need for one-way delay

   Now consider a case when one link direction is saturated with
   unrelated TCP traffic while another direction is near-empty.
   Consider LEDBAT sending in the near-empty direction.  Our design goal
   is to saturate it.  However, if we pay attention to round-trip
   delays, we'll sense the delays on the reverse path and respond to
   them as described in the previous paragraph.  We must, thus, measure
   one-way delay and use that for our queuing delay estimate.

4.11.  Measuring one-way delay

   A special IETF protocol, One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP),
   exists for measuring one-way delay.  However, since LEDBAT will
   already be sending data, it is more efficient to add a timestamp to
   the packets on the data direction and a measurement result field on
   the acknowledgement direction.  This also prevents the danger of
   measurement packets being treated differently from the data packets.
   The failure case would be better treatment of measurement packets,
   where the data connection would be driven to losses.

4.12.  Route changes

   Routes can change.  To deal, base delay needs to be computed over a
   period of last few minutes instead of since the start of connection.
   The tradeoff is: for longer intervals, base is more accurate; for

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   shorter intervals, reaction to route changes is faster.

   A convenient way to implement an approximate minimum over last N
   minutes is to keep separate minima for last N+1 minutes (last one for
   the partial current minute).

4.13.  Timestamp errors

   One-way delay measurement needs to deal with timestamp errors.  We'll
   use the same locally linear clock model as Network Time Protocol
   (NTP).  This model is valid for any differentiable clocks.  The clock
   will thus have a fixed offset from the true time and a skew.  We'll
   consider what we need to do about the offset and the skew separately.

4.13.1.  Clock offset

   First, consider the case of zero skew.  The offset of each of the two
   clocks shows up as a fixed error in one-way delay measurement.  The
   difference of the offsets is the absolute error of the one-way delay
   estimate.  We won't use this estimate directly, however.  We'll use
   the difference between that and a base delay.  Because the error
   (difference of clock offsets) is the same for the current and base
   delay, it cancels from the queuing delay estimate, which is what
   we'll use.  Clock offset is thus irrelevant to the design.

4.13.2.  Clock skew

   Now consider the skew.  For a given clock, skew manifests in a
   linearly changing error in the time estimate.  For a given pair of
   clocks, the difference in skews is the skew of the one-way delay
   estimate.  Unlike the offset, this no longer cancels in the
   computation of the queuing delay estimate.  On the other hand, while
   the offset could be huge, with some clocks off by minutes or even
   hours or more, the skew is typically not too bad.  For example, NTP
   is designed to work with most clocks, yet it gives up when the skew
   is more than 500 parts per million (PPM).  Typical skews of clocks
   that have never been trained seem to often be around 100-200 PPM.
   Previously trained clocks could have 10-20 PPM skew due to
   temperature changes.  A 100-PPM skew means accumulating 6
   milliseconds of error per minute.  The expiration of base delay
   related to route changes mostly takes care of clock skew.  A
   technique to specifically compute and cancel it is trivially possible
   and involves tracking base delay skew over a number of minutes and
   then correcting for it, but usually isn't necessary, unless the
   target is unusually low, the skew is unusually high, or the base
   interval is unusually long.  It is not further described in this

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

4.14.  Noise filtering

   In addition to timestamp errors, one-way delay estimate includes an
   error of measurement when part of the time measured was spent inside
   the sending or the receiving machines.  Different views are possible
   on the nature of this delay: one view holds that, to the extent this
   delay internal to a machine is not constant, it is a variety of
   queuing delay and nothing needs to be done to detect or eliminate it;
   another view holds that, since this delay does not have the same
   characteristics as queuing delay induced by a fixed-capacity
   bottleneck, it is more correctly classified as non-constant
   processing delay and should be filtered out.  In practice, this
   doesn't seem to matter very much one way or the other.  The way to
   filter the noise out is to observe, again, that the noise is always
   nonnegative and so a good filter is the minimum of several recent
   delay measurements.

4.15.  Safety of LEDBAT

   LEDBAT is most aggressive when its queuing delay estimate is most
   wrong and is as low as it can be.  Queuing delay estimate is
   nonnegative, therefore the worst possible case is when somehow the
   estimate is always returned as zero.  In this case, LEDBAT will ramp
   up as fast as TCP and halve the rate on loss.  Thus, in case of worst
   possible failure of estimates, LEDBAT will behave identically to TCP.
   This provides an extra safety net.

5.  LEDBAT congestion control

   Consider two parties, a sender and a receiver, with the sender having
   an unlimited source of data to send to the receiver and the receiver
   merely acknowledging the data.  (In an actual protocol, it's more
   convenient to have bidirectional connections, but unidirectional
   abstraction suffices to describe the congestion control mechanism.)

   Consider a protocol that uses packets of equal size and acknowledges
   each of them separately.  (Variable-sized packets and delayed
   acknowledgements are possible and are being implemented, but
   complicate the exposition.)

   Assume that each data packet contains a header field timestamp.  The
   sender puts a timestamp from its clock into this field.  Further
   assume that each acknowledgement packet contains a field delay.  It
   is shown below how it is populated.

   Slow start behavior is unchanged in LEDBAT.  Note that rampup is
   faster in slow start than during congestion avoidance and so very

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   conservative implementations MAY skip slow start altogether.

   As far as congestion control is concerned, the receiver is then very
   simple and operates as follows, using a pseudocode:

   on data_packet:
           remote_timestamp = data_packet.timestamp
           acknowledgement.delay = local_timestamp() - remote_timestamp
           # fill in other fields of acknowledgement

   The sender actually operates the congestion control algorithm and
   acts, in first approximation, as follows:

   on acknowledgement:
           current_delay = acknowledgement.delay
           base_delay = min(base_delay, current_delay)
           queuing_delay = current_delay - base_delay
           off_target = TARGET - queuing_delay
           cwnd += GAIN * off_target / cwnd

   The pseudocode above is a simplification and ignores noise filtering
   and base expiration.  The more precise pseudocode that takes these
   factors into account is as follows and MUST be followed:

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

   on acknowledgement:
           delay = acknowledgement.delay
           queuing_delay = current_delay() - base_delay()
           off_target = TARGET - queuing_delay
           cwnd += GAIN * off_target / cwnd

           # Maintain a list of NOISE_FILTER last delays observed.
           forget the earliest of NOISE_FILTER current_delays
           add delay to the end of current_delays

           min(the NOISE_FILTER delays stored by update_current_delay)

           # Maintain BASE_HISTORY min delays. Each represents a minute.
           if round_to_minute(now) != round_to_minute(last_rollover)
                   last_rollover = now
                   forget the earliest of base delays
                   add delay to the end of base_delays
                   last of base_delays = min(last of base_delays, delay)

           min(the BASE_HISTORY min delays stored by update_base_delay)

   TARGET parameter MUST be set to 25 milliseconds and GAIN MUST be set
   so that max rampup rate is the same as for TCP.  BASE_HISTORY MUST be
   no less than 2 and SHOULD NOT be more than 10.  NOISE_FILTER SHOULD
   be tuned so that it is at least 1 and no more than cwnd/2.

6.  Security Considerations

   An network on the path might choose to cause higher delay
   measurements than the real queuing delay so that LEDBAT backs off
   even when there's no congestion present.  Shaping of traffic into an
   artificially narrow bottleneck can't be counteracted, but faking
   timestamp field can and SHOULD.  A protocol using the LEDBAT
   congestion control SHOULD authenticate the timestamp and delay
   fields, preferably as part of authenticating most of the rest of the
   packet, with the exception of volatile header fields.  The choice of
   the authentication mechanism that resists man-in-the-middle attacks
   is outside of scope of this document.

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   LEDBAT                       March 2009

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Author's Address

   Stanislav Shalunov
   BitTorrent Inc
   612 Howard St, Suite 400
   San Francisco, CA  94105

   Email: shalunov@bittorrent.com
   URI:   http://shlang.com

Shalunov                Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/