Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-12

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2015-06-25 (latest revision 2015-06-11)
Replaces draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Nov 2013 - Submit document on T... )
Document shepherd Yoshifumi Nishida
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-04-29)
IESG IESG state Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Stiemerling
Send notices to tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv@ietf.org, "Yoshifumi Nishida" <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state None
TCPM Working Group                                          G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                           A. Sathiaseelan
Obsoletes: 2861 (if approved)                                  R. Secchi
Intended status: Experimental                     University of Aberdeen
Expires: December 13, 2015                                 June 11, 2015

              Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
                       draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-12

Abstract

   This document provides a mechanism to address issues that arise when
   TCP is used to support traffic that exhibits periods where the
   sending rate is limited by the application rather than the congestion
   window.  It provides an experimental update to TCP that allows a TCP
   sender to restart quickly following a rate-limited interval.  This
   method is expected to benefit applications that send rate-limited
   traffic using TCP, while also providing an appropriate response if
   congestion is experienced.

   It also evaluates the Experimental specification of TCP Congestion
   Window Validation, CWV, defined in RFC 2861, and concludes that RFC
   2861 sought to address important issues, but failed to deliver a
   widely used solution.  This document therefore recommends that the
   status of RFC 2861 is moved from Experimental to Historic, and that
   it is replaced by the current specification.

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 December 13, 2015.

Fairhurst, et al.       Expires December 13, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                       June 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Implementation of new CWV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Standards Status of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Initialisation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Estimating the validated capacity supported by a path . .   8
     4.3.  Preserving cwnd during a rate-limited period. . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  TCP congestion control during the non-validated phase . .  11
       4.4.1.  Response to congestion in the non-validated phase . .  12
       4.4.2.  Sender burst control during the non-validated phase .  13
       4.4.3.  Adjustment at the end of the Non-Validated Period
               (NVP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.5.  Examples of Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.5.1.  Implementing the pipeACK measurement  . . . . . . . .  15
       4.5.2.  Measurement of the NVP and pipeACK samples  . . . . .  16
       4.5.3.  Implementing detection of the cwnd-limited condition   16
   5.  Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd  . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Author Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.1.  Other related work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. Revision notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
Show full document text