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

Versions: 00 draft-welzl-tcp-ccc

Internet Congestion Control Research Group                      M. Welzl
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Islam
Intended status: Experimental                                  K. Hiorth
Expires: September 22, 2016                           University of Oslo
                                                                  J. You
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          March 21, 2016


                               TCP in UDP
                  draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00

Abstract

   This document specifies a method to encapsulate multiple TCP
   connections using only one UDP port number pair.  Doing so allows for
   a relatively easy implementation of coupled congestion control for
   the TCP connections.  This can have several performance benefits, and
   it makes it possible to precisely assign a share of the congestion
   window to the connections based on priorities.  It also enables use
   of UDP-based NAT traversal techniques, and it can act as a framework
   for experimentation with novel changes to the TCP standard.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

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 http://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 September 22, 2016.






Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  More related work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Protocol operation and implementation notes . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Coupled congestion control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Example algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Usage considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Note that this document is written in a style that should facilitate
   quick reading by focusing on the key changes from prior similar
   proposals.  A future version of this document will provide more
   details about the parts that are "inherited" from such prior work.

   TCP-in-UDP (TiU) is based on [Che13].  It differs from it in that:

   o  Other than [Che13], TiU encapsulates multiple TCP connections
      using the same UDP port number pair.  TCP port numbers are
      preserved; a single well-known UDP port is used for TiU.  If TiU
      is implemented in the kernel, this allows using normal TCP
      sockets, where enabling the usage of TiU could be done via a
      socket option, for example.



Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   o  The header format is slightly different to allow representing a
      TCP connection with a few bits that are encoded across the
      original TCP header's "Reserved" field and the URG (Urgent) flag
      to encode a Connection ID.  With this encoding, similar to the
      encapsulation in [Che13], the total TiU header size does not
      exceed the original TCP header size.

   o  A (TiU-encapsulated) TCP SYN uses a newly defined TCP option to
      establish the mapping between a Connection ID and the original TCP
      port number pair.

   o  A method to couple the congestion controls of the TCP connections
      is presented.  This coupling can have various performance benefits
      (explained in detail in Section 6) and allows to precisely
      allocate a desired share to one of the coupled TCP connections
      based on a priority from the application.  Coupled congestion
      control is possible in TiU because the common preceding UDP header
      makes it reasonable to assume that the connections traverse the
      same network bottleneck.  This is not necessarily a correct
      assumption when the outer header's port numbers differ due to
      mechanisms like Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP).  Note that ECMP can
      have performance benefits which TiU eliminates.  This trade-off is
      also discussed in Section Section 6.

   o  This document provides some new and/or somewhat different
      explanations: Section 4 discusses how TiU support can work with
      preceding extra information such as a SPUD header
      ([I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype]) without exceeding the MTU and
      elaborates on a possible method of implementating TiU including
      robust "Happy Eyeballing".

   TiU inherits all the benefits of [Che13] and a preceding similar
   proposal, [Den08].  It adds potential benefits that are due to
   coupled congestion control, and it adds the potential disadvantage of
   not being able to benefit from ECMP.  In short, the benefits and
   features of TiU that are already explained in detail in [Che13] and
   [Den08] are:

   o  To establish direct communication between two devices that are
      both behind NAT gateways, Interactive Connectivity Establishment
      (ICE) [RFC5245] is used to create the necessary mappings in both
      NAT gateways, and ICE can have higher success rates using UDP
      [RFC5128].

   o  TCP options, as required for Multipath TCP [RFC6824], for example,
      are expected to work more reliably because middleboxes will be
      less able to interfere with them.




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   o  Because the packet format allows the first octet to be in the
      range 0x0-0x3 (as is the case for a STUN [RFC5389] packet, where
      the most significant two bits are always zero), the UDP port
      number pair used by TiU can be used to exchange STUN packets with
      a STUN server that is unaware of TiU.

   o  Following the method described in [Che13] and [Den08], other
      transport protocols than TCP (e.g., SCTP) could be UDP-
      encapsulated in a similar fashion.  With TiU, the same outer UDP
      port number pair could be used for different encapsulated
      protocols at the same time.

   [Che13] also lists a disadvantage of UDP-encapsulating TCP packets:
   because NAT gateways typically use shorter timeouts for UDP port
   mappings than they do for TCP port mappings, long-lived UDP-
   encapsulated TCP connections will need to send more frequent
   keepalive packets than native TCP connections.  TiU inherits this
   problem too, although using a single five-tuple for multiple TCP
   connections alleviates it by reducing the chance of experiencing long
   periods of silence.

2.  More related work

   The TCPMUX mechanism in [RFC1078] multiplexes TCP connections under
   the same outer transport port number; it does however not preserve
   the port numbers of the original TCP connections, and no method to
   couple congestion controls is described in [RFC1078].

   TiU's congestion control coupling follows the style of RTP
   application congestion control coupling in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] which is designed to be easy to
   implement, and to minimize the number of changes that need to be made
   to the underlying congestion control mechanisms.  This method was
   shown to yield several benefits in [fse].  TiU's congestion control
   requires slightly deeper changes to the TCP's congestion control,
   making it harder to implement than [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc], but
   it is still a much smaller code change than the Congestion Manager
   [RFC3124].

   Combining congestion controls as TiU does it has some similarities
   with Ensemble Sharing in [RFC2140], which however only concerns
   initial values of variables used by new connections and does not
   share the congestion window (cwnd), which is the variable of interest
   in TiU.  The cwnd variable is shared across ongoing connections in
   [ETCP] and [EFCM], and the mechanism described in Section 5 resembles
   the mechanisms in these works, but neither [ETCP] nor [EFCM] address
   the problem of ECMP.




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   Coupled congestion control has also been specified for Multipath TCP
   [RFC6356].  MPTCP's coupled congestion control combines the
   congestion controls of subflows that may traverse different paths,
   whereas TiU builds on the assumption that all its encapsulated TCP
   connections traverse the same path.  This makes the two methods for
   coupled congestion control very different, even though they both aim
   at emulating the behavior of a single TCP connection in the case
   where all flows traverse the same network bottleneck.

3.  Specification

   TiU uses a header that is very similar to the header format in
   [Den08] and [Che13], where it is explained in greater detail.  It
   consists of a UDP header that is followed by a slightly altered TCP
   header.  The UDP source and destination ports are semantically
   different from [Den08] and [Che13]: TiU uses a single well-known UDP
   port, and multiple TCP connections use the same UDP port number pair.
   The encapsulated TCP header is changed to fit into a UDP packet
   without increasing the MSS; this is achieved by removing the TCP
   source and destination ports, the Urgent Pointer and the (now
   unnecessary) TCP checksum.  Moreover, the order of fields is changed
   to move the Data Offset field to the beginning of the UDP payload.
   This allows using it to identify other encapsulated content such as a
   STUN packet: for TCP, the Data Offset must be at least 5, i.e. the
   most-significant four bits of the first octet of the UDP payload are
   in the range 0x5-0xF, whereas this is not the case for other
   protocols (e.g., STUN requires these bits to be 0).  The altered TCP
   header for TiU is shown below:























Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            Length             |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Data | Conn  |C|E|C|A|P|R|S|F|                               |
     | Offset|  ID   |W|C|I|C|S|S|Y|I|            Window             |
     |       |       |R|E|D|K|H|T|N|N|                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Sequence Number                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    Acknowledgment Number                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      (Optional) Options                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Figure 1: Encapsulated TCP-in-UDP Header Format (the first 8 bytes
                            are the UDP header)

   Different from [Den08] and [Che13], the least-significant four bits
   of the first octet and a bit that replaces the URG bit in the next
   octet together form a five-bit "Connection ID" (Conn ID).  TiU
   maintains the port numbers of the TCP connections that it
   encapsulates; the Connection ID is a way to encode the port number
   information with a few unused header bits.  It uniquely identifies a
   port number pair of a TCP connection that is encapsulated with TiU.
   Using these five bits, TiU can combine up to 32 TCP connections with
   one UDP port number pair.

   The TiU-TCP SYN and SYN/ACK packets look slightly little different,
   because they need to establish the mapping between the Connection ID
   and the port numbers that are used by TiU-encapsulated TCP
   connections:
















Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            Length             |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Data |Re-    |C|E| |A|P|R|S|F|                               |
     | Offset|served |W|C|0|C|S|S|Y|I|            Window             |
     |       |       |R|E| |K|H|T|N|N|                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Sequence Number                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    Acknowledgment Number                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Encapsulated Source Port    | Encapsulated Destination Port |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Options                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: Encapsulated TCP-in-UDP SYN and SYN/ACK Packet Header
                                  Format

   The Encapsulated Source Port and Encapsulated Destination Port are
   the port numbers of the TCP connection.  To create this header, an
   implementation can simply swap the position of the original TCP
   header's port number fields with the position of the Data Offset /
   Reserved / Flags / Window fields.

   Every TiU SYN or TiU SYN-ACK packet also carries at least the TiU-
   Setup TCP option.  This option contains a Connection ID number.  On a
   SYN packet, it is the Connection ID that the sender intends to use in
   future packets to represent the Encapsulated Source Port and
   Encapsulated Destination Port.  On a SYN/ACK packet, it confirms that
   such usage is accepted by the recipient of the SYN.  A special value
   of 255 is used to signify an error, upon which TiU will no longer be
   used (i.e., the next packet is expected to be a non-encapsulated TCP
   packet).  The TiU-Setup TCP option is defined as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Kind          |    Length     |     ExID                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Connection ID |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 3: TiU Setup TCP Option



Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   The option follows the format for Experimental TCP Options defined in
   [RFC6994].  It has Kind=253, Length=5, an ExID that is with value TBD
   (see Section 8) and the Connection ID.  The Connection ID is an 8-bit
   field for easier parsing, but only values 0-31 are valid Connection
   IDs (because the Connection ID in non - SYN or SYN/ACK TiU packets is
   only 5 bit long).

4.  Protocol operation and implementation notes

   There can be several ways to implement TCP-in-UDP.  The following
   gives an overview of how a TiU implementation can operate.  This
   description matches the implementation described in Section 7.

   A goal of TiU is to achieve congestion control coupling with a simple
   implementation that minimizes changes to existing code.  It is thus
   recommendable to implement TiU in the kernel, as a change to the
   existing kernel TCP code.  The changes fall in two basic categories:

   o  Encapsulation and decapsulation: this is code that should, in the
      simplest case, operate just before a TCP segment is transmitted.
      Based on e.g.  a socket option that enables/disables TiU, the TCP
      segment is changed into the TiU header format (Figure 1).  In case
      it is a TCP SYN or TCP SYN/ACK packet, the header format is
      defined as in Figure 2, and the TiU-Setup TCP option is appended.
      This packet is then transmitted.  For decapsulation, the reverse
      mechanism applies, upon reception of a UDP packet that uses
      destination port XXX (TBD, see Section 8).  Both hosts keep a list
      of encapsulated TCP port numbers and their corresponding
      Connection IDs.  In case a SYN packet requests using a Connection
      ID that is already reserved, an error (Connection ID value 255 in
      the TiU Setup TCP option) must be signified to the other end in a
      TiU-encapsulated TCP SYN/ACK, and encapsulation must be disabled
      on all further TCP packets.  Similarly, when receiving a TiU SYN/
      ACK with an error, a TCP sender must stop encapsulating TCP
      packets.

   o  Coupled congestion control: this is code that influences the
      congestion control of TCP.  Section 5 describes a simple coupled
      congestion control algorithm that can be applied to couple TCP
      connections and assign them a share of the total congestion window
      that is based on a priority.

   The TCP port number space usage on the host is left unchanged: the
   original code can reserve TCP ports as it always did.  Except for the
   TiU encapsulation compressing the port numbers into a Connection ID
   field, TCP ports should be used similar to normal TCP operation.  A
   TCP port that is in use by a TiU-encapsulated TCP connection must




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   therefore not be made available to non-encapsulated TCP connections,
   and vice versa.

   For each TCP connection, two variables must be configured: 1) TiU-
   ENABLE, which is a boolean, deciding whether to use TiU or not, and
   2) Priority, which is a value, e.g. from 1 to 10, that is used by the
   coupled congestion control algorithm to assign an appropriate share
   of the total cwnd to the connection.  Priority values are local and
   their range does not matter for this algorithm: the algorithm works
   with a flow's priority portion of the sum of all priority values.
   The configuration of the two per-connection variables can be
   implemented in various ways, e.g. through an API option.

   With these code changes in place, TiU can operate as follows,
   assuming no previous TiU connections have been made between a
   specific host pair and a client tries to connect to a server:

   o  An application uses an API option to request TiU operation.  The
      kernel then sends out a TiU TCP SYN that contains a TiU-Setup TCP
      option.  This packet header contains the encapsulated TCP port
      numbers (source port A and destination port B) and the Connection
      ID X.

   o  The server listens on UDP port XXX (TBD, see Section 8).  Upon
      receiving a packet on this port, it knows that it is a TiU packet
      and decodes it, handing the resulting TCP packet over to "normal"
      TCP processing.  The TiU-Setup TCP option allows the server to
      associate future TiU packets containing Connection ID X with ports
      A and B.  The server sends its response as a TiU SYN-ACK.

   o  TCP operates as normal from here on, but packets are TiU-
      encapsulated before sending them out and decapsulated upon
      reception, using Connection ID X.  Both hosts associate TiU
      packets carrying Connection ID X with a local identifier that
      matches ports A and B, just like they would associate non-
      encapsulated TCP packets with the same local identifier when
      seeing ports A and B in the TCP header.

   o  If an application on either side of the TiU connection wants to
      connect to a destination host on the other side and requests TiU
      operation, the kernel sends out another TiU TCP SYN, this time
      containing a different TCP source port number and either the same
      or a different destination port number (C and D), and a TiU-Setup
      TCP option with Connection ID Y.  From now on, packets carrying
      Connection ID Y will be associated with ports C and D on both
      hosts.  Otherwise, TiU operation continues as described above.





Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   o  Now, because there are two or more connections available between
      the same host pair, coupled congestion control begins to operate
      for all outgoing TiU packets (see Section 5 for details).  This is
      a local operation, applying the priority values that were
      configured to use for the TiU-encapsulated TCP connections.

   Unless it is known that UDP packets with destination port number XXX
   (TBD, see Section 8) can be used without problems on the path between
   two communicating hosts, it is advisable for TiU implementations to
   contain methods to fall back to non-encapsulated ("raw") TCP
   communication.  Such fall-back must be supported for the case of
   Connection ID collisions anyway.  Middleboxes have been known to
   track TCP connections [Honda11], and falling back to communication
   with raw TCP packets without ever using a raw TCP SYN - SYN/ACK
   handshake may lead to problems with such devices.  The following
   method is recommended to efficiently fall back to raw TCP
   communication:

   o  After sending out a TiU SYN packet, additionally send a raw TCP
      SYN packet.

   o  After sending out a TiU SYN/ACK packet, additionally send a raw
      TCP SYN/ACK packet.

   o  Upon receiving a TiU SYN packet, after responding with a TiU SYN/
      ACK packet and raw TCP SYN/ACK packet, immediately store the
      encapsulated port numbers and Connection ID.  As long as a TiU
      connection is ongoing, ignore any additional incoming TCP SYN or
      TCP SYN/ACK packets from the same host that carry port numbers
      matching the stored encapsulated port numbers.  Otherwise, process
      TCP SYN or TCP SYN/ACK packets as normal.

   This method ensures that the TCP SYN / SYN/ACK handshake is visible
   to middleboxes and allows to immediately switch back to raw TCP
   communication in case of failures.  If implemented on both sides as
   described above and no TiU SYN or TiU SYN/ACK packet arrives, yet a
   TCP SYN or TCP SYN/ACK packet does, this can only mean that the other
   host does not support TiU, a UDP packet was dropped, or the UDP and
   TCP packets were reordered in transit.  Reordering in the host (e.g.,
   a server responding to a TCP SYN before it responds to a TiU SYN) can
   be a problem for similar methods (e.g.  [RFC6555]), but it can be
   eliminated by prescribing the processing order as above.

   Because TCP does not preserve message boundaries and the size of the
   TCP header can vary depending on the options that are used, it is
   also no problem to precede the TCP header in the UDP packet with a
   different header (e.g.  SPUD [I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype]) without
   exceeding the known MTU limit.  When creating a TCP segment, a TCP



Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   sender needs to consider the length of this header when calculating
   the segment size, just like it would consider the length of a TCP
   option.  For this to work, the usage of other headers such as SPUD
   in-between the UDP header and the TiU header must therefore be known
   to both the sender-side and receiver-side code that processes TiU.

5.  Coupled congestion control

   For each TCP connection c, the algorithm described below receives
   cwnd and ssthresh as input and stores the following information:

   o  the Connection ID.

   o  a priority P(c) -- e.g., an integer value in the range from 1
      (unimportant) to 10 (very important).

   o  The previously used cwnd used by the connection c, ccc_cwnd(c).

   o  The previously used ssthresh used by the connection c,
      ccc_ssthresh(c).

   Three global variables S_CWND, S_SSTHRESH and S_P are used to
   represent the sum of all the ccc_cwnd values, ccc_sshtresh values and
   priorities of all TCP connections, respectively.  S_CWND and
   S_SSTHRESH are used to update the cwnd and ssthresh values for all
   connections.

5.1.  Example algorithm

   This algorithm emulates the behavior of a single TCP connection by
   choosing one connection as the connection that dictates the increase
   / decrease behavior for the aggregate.  It was designed to be as
   simple as possible.  In the algorithm description below,
   abbreviations are used to refer to the phases of TCP congestion
   control as defined in [RFC5681]: SS refers to Slow Start, CA refers
   to Congestion Avoidance and FR refers to Fast Recovery.

   For simplicity, this algorithm refrains from changing cwnd when a
   connection is in FR.  SS should not happen as long as ACKs arrive.
   Hence, the algorithm ensures that the aggregate's behavior is only
   dictated by SS when all connections are in the SS phase.

   (1)  When a connection c starts, it adds its priority P(c) to S_P.
        If it is the very first connection that uses the outer UDP port
        number pair, it also sets S_CWND to its own cwnd.  After that,
        the connection's globally known cwnd and ssthresh values
        (ccc_cwnd(c) and ccc_ssthresh(c)) are updated, and the




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


        connection updates its own cwnd and ssthresh values to be equal
        to ccc_cwnd(c) and ccc_ssthresh(c).


     S_P = S_P + P(c)
     ccc_cwnd(c) = P(c) * S_CWND / S_P
     ccc_ssthresh(c) = ssthresh
     if (S_SSTHRESH > 0)
       ccc_ssthresh(c) = P(c) * S_SSTHRESH / S_P
     end if
     // Update c's own cwnd and ssthresh for immediate use:
     send ccc_cwnd(c) and ccc_ssthresh(c) to the connection c


   (2)  When a connection c stops, its entry is removed.  S_P is
        recalculated.

   (3)  Every time the congestion controller of a connection c
        calculates a new cwnd, the connection calls UPDATE, which
        carries out the tasks listed below to derive the new cwnd and
        ssthresh values for all the connections.  Since we intend to
        emulate the behavior of one connection, we designate one of the
        connections as the "Coordinating Connection" (CoCo).  Whenever
        the coordinating connection calls UPDATE, S_CWND and S_SSTHRESH
        are additionally updated to reflect the current sum of all
        stored ccc_cwnd and ccc_ssthresh values.  Initially, there is
        only one connection and this connection automatically becomes
        the CoCo.  It updates S_CWND to its own cwnd and sets S_SSTHRESH
        to 0.

   (4)  WHEN a non-CoCo connection c CALLS UPDATE......


     if(all of the connections including CoCo are in CA but c is in FR)
        c becomes the new CoCo.
     else
        if(c is in CA or SS)
           c's cwnd is assigned its previously stored ccc_cwnd value.

   (5)  WHEN c(CoCo) CALLS UPDATE......











Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


     if (c is in CA)
         if(cwnd >= ccc_cwnd(c)) // cwnd has increased
            S_CWND = S_CWND + cwnd - ccc_cwnd(c)
         else
            S_CWND = S_CWND * cwnd / ccc_cwnd(c)
         end if
         ccc_cwnd(c) = P(c) * S_CWND / S_P
         ccc_ssthresh(c) = ssthresh
         if (S_SSTHRESH > 0)
            ccc_ssthresh(c) = P(c) * S_SSTHRESH / S_P
         end if
         // Update c's own cwnd and ssthresh for immediate use:
         send ccc_cwnd(c) and ccc_ssthresh(c) to the connection c
     end if

     else if (c is in FR)
         S_SSTHRESH = S_CWND/2

     else if (c is in SS)
         if (all other connections are in SS)
            S_SSTHRESH = S_CWND/2
            S_CWND = S_CWND * cwnd / ccc_cwnd(c)
            ccc_cwnd(c) = P(c) * S_CWND / S_P
            // Update c's own cwnd for immediate use:
            send ccc_cwnd(c) to the connection c
         else
            make any other connection which is not in SS the CoCo
         end if
     end if

6.  Usage considerations

   TiU cannot work with applications that require the Urgent pointer
   (which is not recommended for use by new applications anyway
   [RFC6093], but should be consider if TiU is implemented in a way that
   allows it to be applied onto existing applications; telnet is a well-
   known example of an application that uses this functionality).  It
   enables use of TCP with methods such as SPUD
   [I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype].  It can also be used as a method to
   experimentally test new TCP functionality in the presence of
   middleboxes that would otherwise create problems (as some have been
   known to do [Honda11]).  TCP option space is getting scarce, in
   particular on TCP SYN and TCP SYN/ACK packets.  Rather than
   stretching the Data Offset field on TCP SYN / TCP SYN/ACK packets
   (which was considered for TiU design), it is recommended to use one
   of the other proposed mechanisms to stretch option space, e.g.
   "Inner Space" [I-D.briscoe-tcpm-inner-space].




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   Reasons to use TiU include the benefits of [Che13] and [Den08] that
   were discussed in Section 1.  TiU has the disadvantage of disabling
   ECMP for the TCP connections that it encapsulates.  This can reduce
   the capacity usage of these TCP connections.  It has the advantage of
   being able to apply coupled congestion control, which can provide
   precise congestion window assignment based on a priority.  Other
   benefits of TiU's coupled congestion control are:

   o  Reduced average loss and queuing delay (because the competition
      between the encapsulated TCP connections is avoided)

   o  Even in the absence of prioritization, better fairness between the
      TiU-encapsulated TCP connections

   o  No need for new TiU connections to slow start up to a reasonable
      cwnd value that ongoing TiU connections already have: a connection
      can immediately be assigned its share of the aggregate's total
      cwnd.  This can significantly reduce the completion time of short
      connections.

   All of these benefits only play out when there are more than one TCP
   connections.  Some of the benefits in the list above are more
   significant when some transfers are short.  Moreover, short transfers
   are less likely than long ones to saturate the capacity of a path,
   reducing the chance to benefit from ECMP (which TiU eliminates).
   This makes the usage of TiU especially attractive in situations where
   some transfers are short.

7.  Implementation status

   The University of Oslo is currently working on a FreeBSD kernel
   implementation of TCP-in-UDP.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies a new TCP option that uses the shared
   experimental options format [RFC6994].  No value has yet been
   assigned for ExID.

   This document requires a well-known UDP port (referred to as port XXX
   in this document).  Due to the highly experimental nature of TiU,
   this document is being shared with the community to solicit comments
   before requesting such a port number.








Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


9.  Security Considerations

   We have not thought about security yet.  This will surely be fun!

10.  Acknowledgement

   This work has received funding from Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
   and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
   programme under grant agreement No. 644334 (NEAT).  The views
   expressed are solely those of the author(s).

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

11.2.  Informative References

   [Che13]    Cheshire, S., Graessley, J., and R. McGuire,
              "Encapsulation of TCP and other Transport Protocols over
              UDP", Internet-draft draft-cheshire-tcp-over-udp-00, June
              2013.

   [Den08]    Denis-Courmont, R., "UDP-Encapsulated Transport
              Protocols", Internet-draft draft-denis-udp-transport-00,
              July 2008.

   [EFCM]     Savoric, M., Karl, H., Schlager, M., Poschwatta, T., and
              A. Wolisz, "Analysis and performance evaluation of the
              EFCM common congestion controller for TCP connections",
              Computer Networks (2005) , 2005.

   [ETCP]     Eggert, L., Heidemann, J., and J. Joe, "Effects of
              ensemble-TCP", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
              (2000) , 2000.

   [fse]      Islam, S., Welzl, M., Gjessing, S., and N. Khademi,
              "Coupled Congestion Control for RTP Media", ACM SIGCOMM
              Capacity Sharing Workshop (CSWS 2014) and ACM SIGCOMM CCR
              44(4) 2014; extended version available as a technical
              report from
              http://safiquli.at.ifi.uio.no/paper/fse-tech-report.pdf ,
              2014.




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   [Honda11]  Honda, M., Nishida, Y., Raiciu, C., Greenhalgh, A.,
              Handley, M., and H. Tokuda, "Is it still possible to
              extend TCP?", Proc. of ACM Internet Measurement
              Conference (IMC) '11, November 2011.

   [I-D.briscoe-tcpm-inner-space]
              Briscoe, B., "Inner Space for TCP Options", draft-briscoe-
              tcpm-inner-space-01 (work in progress), October 2014.

   [I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype]
              Hildebrand, J. and B. Trammell, "Substrate Protocol for
              User Datagrams (SPUD) Prototype", draft-hildebrand-spud-
              prototype-03 (work in progress), March 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
              Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
              control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-00
              (work in progress), September 2015.

   [RFC1078]  Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
              RFC 1078, DOI 10.17487/RFC1078, November 1988,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1078>.

   [RFC2140]  Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2140, April 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2140>.

   [RFC3124]  Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager",
              RFC 3124, DOI 10.17487/RFC3124, June 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3124>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.

   [RFC6093]  Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the
              TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, DOI 10.17487/RFC6093,
              January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6093>.

   [RFC6356]  Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
              Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
              RFC 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6356>.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.




Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                     TiU                        March 2016


   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.

   [RFC6994]  Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options",
              RFC 6994, DOI 10.17487/RFC6994, August 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6994>.

Authors' Addresses

   Michael Welzl
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no


   Safiqul Islam
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Phone: +47 22 84 08 37
   Email: safiquli@ifi.uio.no


   Kristian Hiorth
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Email: kristahi@ifi.uio.no


   Jianjie You
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing  210012
   China

   Email: youjianjie@huawei.com





Welzl, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/