Increasing TCP's Initial Window
draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-07

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2013-01-28
Replaces draft-hkchu-tcpm-initcwnd
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
Telechat date
Has enough positions to pass.
Responsible AD Wesley Eddy
IESG note Yoshifumi Nishida (nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp) is the Document Shepherd for this document.
Send notices to tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd@tools.ietf.org
Internet Draft                                                    J. Chu
draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-07.txt                             N. Dukkipati
Intended status: Experimental                                   Y. Cheng
                                                               M. Mathis
Expiration date: July 2013                                  Google, Inc.
                                                        January 28, 2013

                    Increasing TCP's Initial Window

Status of this Memo

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   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/1id-abstracts.html

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.
 

Chu, et. al.               Expires July 2013                    [Page 1]
Internet Draft      Increasing TCP's Initial Window         January 2013

Abstract

   This document proposes an experiment to increase the permitted TCP
   initial window (IW) from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in
   RFC 3390, to 10 segments, with a fallback to the existing
   recommendation when performance issues are detected. It discusses the
   motivation behind the increase, the advantages and disadvantages of
   the higher initial window, and presents results from several large
   scale experiments showing that the higher initial window improves the
   overall performance of many web services without resulting in a
   congestion collapse. The document closes with a discussion of usage
   and deployment for further experimental purpose recommended by the
   IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group.

Terminology

   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].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  TCP Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Implementation Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Advantages of Larger Initial Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1 Reducing Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2 Keeping up with the growth of web object size  . . . . . . .  8
     5.3 Recovering faster from loss on under-utilized or wireless 
         links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Disadvantages of Larger Initial Windows for the Network  . . .  9
   8.  Mitigation of Negative Impact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Interactions with the Retransmission Timer . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. Experimental Results From Large Scale Cluster Tests  . . . . . 10
     10.1 The benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2 The cost  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. Other Studies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. Usage and Deployment Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   13. Related Proposals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   14. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   15. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   16. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Show full document text