TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2018-05-17 (latest revision 2018-03-20)
Replaces draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Mar 2018 - Submit document on A... )
Document shepherd Michael Tüxen
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-05-17)
IESG IESG state Publication Requested
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Mirja Kühlewind
Send notices to =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen?= <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Network Working Group                                         N. Khademi
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Welzl
Intended status: Experimental                         University of Oslo
Expires: September 21, 2018                                  G. Armitage
                                      Swinburne University of Technology
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                          March 20, 2018

                 TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
               draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-07

Abstract

   Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms allow for burst tolerance
   while enforcing short queues to minimise the time that packets spend
   enqueued at a bottleneck.  This can cause noticeable performance
   degradation for TCP connections traversing such a bottleneck,
   especially if there are only a few flows or their bandwidth-delay-
   product is large.  An Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) signal
   indicates that an AQM mechanism is used at the bottleneck, and
   therefore the bottleneck network queue is likely to be short.  This
   document therefore proposes an update to RFC3168, which changes the
   TCP sender-side ECN reaction in congestion avoidance to reduce the
   Congestion Window (cwnd) by a smaller amount than the congestion
   control algorithm's reaction to inferred packet loss.

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 September 21, 2018.

Khademi, et al.        Expires September 21, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     ABE                        March 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 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.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Why Use ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff?  . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Focus on ECN as Defined in RFC3168  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Choice of ABE Multiplier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  ABE Deployment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Revision Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] makes it possible
   for an Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism to signal the presence
   of incipient congestion without incurring packet loss.  This lets the
   network deliver some packets to an application that would have been
   dropped if the application or transport did not support ECN.  This
   packet loss reduction is the most obvious benefit of ECN, but it is
   often relatively modest.  Other benefits of deploying ECN have been
   documented in RFC8087 [RFC8087].

   The rules for ECN were originally written to be very conservative,
   and required the congestion control algorithms of ECN-Capable
Show full document text