Coding and congestion control in transport
draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nwcrg RG)
Last updated 2019-12-05
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NWCRG                                                       N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                      CNES
Intended status: Informational                                 E. Lochin
Expires: June 7, 2020                                       ISAE-SUPAERO
                                                               F. Michel
                                                               UCLouvain
                                                                M. Welzl
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                        December 5, 2019

               Coding and congestion control in transport
               draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the interaction between congestion control
   and coding mechanism at the transport layer.  The scope of the
   document is end-to-end communications.  Examples of interest for the
   proposed solution is to better deal with tail losses or with networks
   with non-congestion losses.  Coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope
   of the document.

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 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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

Kuhn, et al.              Expires June 7, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion            December 2019

   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.  Separate channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Base solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Server-side coding solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Coded packets without considering CWND progression  . . .   4
     4.2.  Coded packets driven by CWND progression  . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Server-side reaction to recovered packet signals  . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  The server congestion control considers recovered packet
           signals as congestion-implied packet losses . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  The server adapts its window reduction to recovered
           packet signals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  The server ignores recovered packet signals . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   There are cases where deploying coding improves the quality of the
   transmission.  As example, the server may hardly detect tail losses
   that impact may impact the application layer.  Another example may be
   the networks where non-congestion losses are persistent and prevent
   the server from exploiting the link capacity.  [RFC5681] defines TCP
   as a loss-based congestion control and coding mechanisms can hide
   congestion signals to the server.  This memo discusses simple best
   practices on how coding and congestion control mechanisms could
   coexist.

   The proposed recommendations apply for coding at the transport or
   application layer and coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope of the
   document.

Kuhn, et al.              Expires June 7, 2020                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion            December 2019

2.  Separate channels

   Figure 1 presents the notations that will be used in this document
Show full document text