TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-05

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2017-12-11
Replaces draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         N. Khademi
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Welzl
Intended status: Experimental                         University of Oslo
Expires: June 14, 2018                                       G. Armitage
                                      Swinburne University of Technology
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                       December 11, 2017

                 TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
               draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-05

Abstract

   Recent 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 June 14, 2018.

Khademi, et al.           Expires June 14, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     ABE                     December 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   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 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.  Definitions

   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].

2.  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

Khademi, et al.           Expires June 14, 2018                 [Page 2]
Show full document text