TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry
draft-ietf-pilc-asym-08
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 3449.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Mahesh Sooriyabandara, Gorry Fairhurst , Venkata Padmanabhan , Hari Balakrishnan | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2002-10-02) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | Best Current Practice | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 3449 (Best Current Practice) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Allison J. Mankin | ||
IESG note | |||
Send notices to | <falk@isi.edu> |
draft-ietf-pilc-asym-08
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. BCP 69 RFC 3449 Title: TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry Author(s): H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, G. Fairhurst, M. Sooriyabandara Status: Standards Track Date: December 2002 Mailbox: hari@lcs.mit.edu, padmanab@microsoft.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, mahesh@erg.abdn.ac.uk Pages: 41 Characters: 108839 See Also: BCP 69 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pilc-asym-08.txt URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3449.txt This document describes TCP performance problems that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons. However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both cases: performance often degrades significantly because of imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver to the sender. The document details several mitigations to these effects, which have either been proposed or evaluated in the literature, or are currently deployed in networks. These solutions use a combination of local link-layer techniques, subnetwork, and end-to-end mechanisms, consisting of: (i) techniques to manage the channel used for the upstream bottleneck link carrying the ACKs, typically using header compression or reducing the frequency of TCP ACKs, (ii) techniques to handle this reduced ACK frequency to retain the TCP sender's acknowledgment-triggered self-clocking and (iii) techniques to schedule the data and ACK packets in the reverse direction to improve performance in the presence of two-way traffic. Each technique is described, together with known issues, and recommendations for use. A summary of the recommendations is provided at the end of the document. This document is a product of the Performance Implications of Link Characteristics Working Group of the IETF. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution.echo Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information.