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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

TCPM Working Group                                             J. Touch
Internet Draft                                                  USC/ISI
Intended status: Standards Track                                  (TBD)
Expires: June 2011                                                (TBD)
                                                      December 23, 2010



                   Automating the Initial Window in TCP
                   draft-touch-tcpm-automatic-iw-00.txt


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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (http://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.





Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010



Abstract

   The Initial Window (IW) provides the starting point for TCP's
   feedback-based congestion control algorithm. Its value has increased
   over time to increase performance and to reflect increased
   capability of Internet devices. This document describes a mechanism
   to adjust the IW over long timescales, to make future changes more
   safely deployed and to potentially avoid reexamination of this value
   in the future.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
   3. Design Considerations..........................................3
   4. Proposed IW Algorithm..........................................4
   5. Discussion.....................................................6
   6. Security Considerations........................................7
   7. IANA Considerations............................................8
   8. Conclusions....................................................8
   9. References.....................................................8
      9.1. Normative References......................................8
      9.2. Informative References....................................9
   10. Acknowledgments...............................................9

1. Introduction

   TCP's congestion control algorithm uses an initial window value
   (IW), both as a starting point for new connections and after one RTO
   or more [RFC2581][RFC2861]. This value has evolved over time,
   originally one maximum segment size (MSS), and increased to the
   lesser of four MSS or 4,380 bytes [RFC3390][RFC5681]. For typical
   Internet connections with an maximum transmission units (MTUs) of
   1500 bytes, this permits three segments of 1,460 bytes each.

   The IW value was originally implied in the original TCP congestion
   control description, and documented as a standard in 1997
   [RFC2001][Ja88]. The value was last updated in 1998 experimentally,
   and moved to the standards track in 2002 [RFC2414][RFC3390]. There
   have been recent proposals to update the IW based on further
   increases in host and router capabilities and network capacity, some
   focusing on specific values (e.g., IW=10), and others prescribing a
   schedule for increases over time (e.g., IW=6 for 2011, increasing by
   1-2 MSS per year).



Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


   This document proposes that TCP can objectively measure when an IW
   is too large, and that such feedback should be used over long
   timescales to adjust the IW automatically. The result should be
   safer to deploy and might avoid the need to repeatedly revisit IW
   size over time.

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.

   In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
   indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
   listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
   or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.

3. Design Considerations

   TCP's IW value has existed statically for over two decades, so any
   solution to adjusting the IW dynamically should have similarly
   stable, non-invasive effects on the performance and complexity of
   TCP. In order to be fair, the IW should be similar for most machines
   on the public Internet. Finally, a desirable goal is to develop a
   self-correcting algorithm, so that IW values that cause network
   problems can be avoided. To that end, we propose the following list
   of design goals:

   o  Little to no impact to TCP in the absence of loss, i.e., it
      should not increase the complexity of default packet processing
      in the normal case.

   o  Tend to converge to a uniform IW across all hosts in the absence
      of other information.

   o  Adapt to network feedback over long timescales, avoiding values
      that persistently cause network problems.








Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


   We expect that, without other context, a good IW algorithm will
   converge to a single value. An endpoint with additional context or
   information, or deployed in a constrained environment, can always
   use a different value. In specific, information from previous
   connections, or sets of connections with a similar path, can already
   be used as context for such decisions [RFC2140].

   However, if a given IW value persistently causes packet loss during
   the initial burst of packets, it is clearly inappropriate and could
   be inducing unnecessary loss in other competing connections. This
   might happen for sites behind very slow boxes with small buffers,
   which may or may not be the first hop.

4. Proposed IW Algorithm

   Below is a simple description of the proposed IW algorithm. It
   relies on the following parameters:

   o  MinIW = 3 MSS or 4,380 bytes (as per RFC3390]

   o  MaxIW = date.year - 2000

   o  MulDecr = 0.5

   o  AddIncr = 2 MSS

   o  Threshold = 0.05

   We assume that the minimum IW (MinIW) should be as currently
   specified [RFC3390]. The maximum IW can either be set to a fixed
   value [Ch10], or set based on a schedule [Al10]. Regardless, we
   propose that the value converge to a single value, so have specified
   it in terms of the current date. If that is not feasible or the time
   is not available, a fixed value can be used. We also propose to use
   an AIMD algorithm, with increase and decreases as noted.

   Note that all of these parameters are up for discussion, though
   should be determined by the time this document is issued as an RFC.
   We do not anticipate that any of them are critical to the overall
   design, especially because both current proposals are degenerate
   cases of the algorithm below for given parameters (notably MulDec =
   1.0 and AddIncr = 0 MSS, thus disabling the automatic part of the
   algorithm).

   The specific algorithm is as follows:

   1. Start the connection


Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


      CWND = IW;
      conncount++;
      IWnotchecked = 1; # true

   2. If SYN-ACK includes ECN, consider it an error

      if (synackecn == 1) {
         losscount++;
         IWnotchecked = 0; # never check again
      }

   3. During a retransmission, check the seqno of the outgoing packet

      if (IWnotchecked && ((ISN - seqno)/MSS < IW))) {
         losscount++;
         IWnotchecked = 0; # never do this entire "if" again
      }

   4. Once a month, or once ever 1000 connections if no date is
      available:

      if (conncount > 1000) {
         if (losscount/conncount > threshold) {
            # the number of connections with errors is too high
            IW = IW * MulDecr;
         } else {
            IW = IW + AddIncr;
         }
      }

   We recognize that this algorithm can yield a false positive when the
   sequence number wraps around. In that case, we might be able to use
   PAWS to avoid the issue, encourage the use of 64-bit sequence
   numbers internal to the implementation, or ignore the issue and just
   allow the false positives [RFC1323].

   Standards language (as a shopping list):

      MAY implement this as an alternative to RFC3390

      If implemented:

         MUST start IW at MaxIW (or MinIW??) - i.e., initial case

         MUST limit MaxIW (? Static or to year if poss)

         MUST check once a month or 1,000 connections (as larger)


Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


         MUST decrease by at least 0.5x

         MUST NOT increase by more than 2 MSS

         SHOULD use IW that is integer multiple of 2 MSS (?)

         MUST decrease IW if > 95% connections have errors

         MAY increase IW if ?? (don't know)

            But MUST limit increase to 2 MSS/year (? Needed?)

         SHOULD be implemented to limit performance impact

         SHOULD be implemented to avoid seqno wrap issues

         (anything else?)

   There are some TCP connections which might not be counted at all,
   such as those to/from loopback addresses, or those within the same
   subnet as that of a local interface (for which congestion control is
   sometimes disabled anyway). This may also include connections that
   terminate before the IW is full, i.e., as a separate check at the
   time of the connection closing.

   The period over which the IW is updated is intended to be a long
   timescale, e.g., a month or so, or 1,000 connections, whichever is
   longer. An implementation might check the IW once a month, and
   simply not update the IW or clear the connection counts in months
   where the number of connections is too small.

5. Discussion

   The following is intended as a list of notes to be fleshed out on
   the next interation:

   o  Use even-numbered IW due to RFC ??  (ACK compression)

   o  Impact of SEQNO wraparound vs. use of PAWS

  o  Granularity (per-machine -same as now, per-interface? per-subnet?
     vs. cost?)

   o  Need to keep ISN - needed for other uses (e.g., TCP-AO), and
      typically kept except in Linux.

  o  Interaction with 2140


Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


   Basically 2140 sets CWND to something other than IW when it knows
   better; this doc is for IW which is used there only for 'new' places
   (or forgotten old ones).

   o  Explain why RWIN is not involved

      Receiver-limited space

      Space for reordering

      NOT congestion control

      Although sender window isn't useful if larger than this

      CWND is a path property; RWIN is an endpoint property

   o  Reasons not to report-back:

   - privacy concerns

   - opportunity for spoofer poisoning the data (more on that in the
   doc)

   - using a DNS query is a bad idea
       - requires every TCP stack support DNS queries
       - requires a resolution step in addition to the reporting
       - could cause the kernel to block on a timeout

   - biased reporting
       if cellphones (e.g.) never do this, we won't know about a
       potentially large percent of endpoints

6. Security Considerations

   Obvious ones - poisoning the info (fake loss, fake success), what
   happens when one party disobeys, and whether anything is different

   ---

   You can already do that within a connection too. Yes, you can
   pollute aggregate info by virtue of it being aggregate. There's a
   tradeoff of trust here - how much do you believe what's happening
   most of the time, and how do you react to it.

   If most of the connections lie about receiving data, then you see a
   world where larger IW is working, and unless you detect data loss
   some other way, TCP worked exactly as it should.


Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


   IMO, the good news is that:

       - the IW drops if you get lots of lies about dropped packets but
   then those endpoints could have just dropped the packets, and
   dropping the IW is the right response anyway

       - the IW increases if you get lots of lies about non-drops, but
   then if you don't see anything else, you have no reason to claim
   that anything is amiss anyway

   So yes, there's spoofing in the aggregate. The law of large numbers
   - connecting to lots of places - should help reduce that effect. But
   ultimately it's not all that clear that the reactions of this sort
   of poisoning aren't the right ones anyway.

   In the end, it might be safer to require a high percent of
   connections react badly to IW (i.e., over 95%) - that means that

       a) if you did see loss, someone bad is controlling nearly all of
   your connections anyway

       b) if you don't see loss through TCP, and you didn't detect data
   drops by other means for that many connections, you really don't
   have a problem

   I.e., increasing the threshold increases your ability to detect the
   false IW increase case, so it's safer...

7. IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA considerations. This section should be
   removed prior to publication.

8. Conclusions

   <Add any conclusions>

9. References

9.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., Partridge, C., "Increasing TCP's
             Initial Window", RFC 3390 (Standards Track), Oct. 2002.



Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


   [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., Blanton, E., "TCP Congestion
             Control," RFC 5681 (Standards Track), Sep. 2009.

9.2. Informative References

   [Al10]    Allman, M., "Initial Congestion Window Specification",
             (work in progress), draft-allman-tcpm-bump-initcwnd-00,
             Nov. 2010.

   [Ch10]    Chu, J., Cheng, Y., Mathis, M., "Increasing TCP's Initial
             Window," (work in progress), draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-00,
             Oct. 2010.

   [Ja88]    Jacobson, V., M. Karels, "Congestion Avoidance and
             Control", Proc. Sigcomm 1988.

   [RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., Borman, D., "TCP Extensions for
             High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

   [RFC2001] Stevens, W., "TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast
             Retransmit, and Fast Recovery Algorithms", RFC2001
             (Standards Track), Jan. 1997.

   [RFC2140] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140 /
             STD 7(Informational), Apr. 1997.

   [RFC2414] Allman, M., Floyd, S., Partridge, C., "Increasing TCP's
             Initial Window", RFC 2414 (Experimental), Sept. 1998.

   [RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., Stevens, W., "TCP Congestion
             Control," RFC2581 (Standards Track), Apr. 1999.

   [RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., Floyd, S., "TCP Congestion Window
             Validation", RFC2861 (Experimental),

10. Acknowledgments

   Mark Allman and Aki Nyrjinen contributed to the development of this
   algorithm. Members of the TCPM mailing list also participated in
   providing useful feedback.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.







Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Automating the Initial Window in TCP     December 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Joe Touch
   USC/ISI
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 U.S.A.

   Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151
   Email: touch@isi.edu


   TBD

   Email: TBD



































Touch, (TBD)            Expires June 23, 2011                 [Page 10]


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