TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-09-22
Replaced by draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response, draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         N. Khademi
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Welzl
Updates: 3168 (if approved)                           University of Oslo
Intended status: Experimental                                G. Armitage
Expires: March 24, 2016               Swinburne University of Technology
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                      September 21, 2015

                 TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
                draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn-01

Abstract

   This memo provides an experimental update to RFC3168.  It updates the
   TCP sender-side reaction to a congestion notification received via
   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN).  ECN-marking can allow a
   network device to signal congestion at a point before a transport
   experiences congestion loss or additional queueing delay.  The
   updated method is less conservative than the TCP reaction in response
   to loss.  The intention is to achieve good throughput when the queue
   at the bottleneck is smaller than the bandwidth-delay-product of the
   connection.  This is more likely when an Active Queue Management
   (AQM) mechanism has used ECN to CE-mark a packet, than when a packet
   was lost.  Future versions of this document will discuss SCTP as well
   as other transports using ECN.

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 March 24, 2016.

Khademi, et al.          Expires March 24, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     ABE                    September 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Why use ECN to vary the degree of backoff?  . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Choice of ABE multiplier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Updating the Sender-side ECN Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  RFC 2119  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Update to RFC 3168  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Status of the Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is specified in [RFC3168].  It
   allows a network device that uses Active Queue Management (AQM) to
   set the congestion experienced, CE, codepoint in the ECN field of the
   IP packet header, rather than to drop ECN-capable packets when
   incipient congestion is detected.  When an ECN-capable transport is
   used over a path that supports ECN, it provides the opportunity for
   flows to improve their performance in the presence of incipient
   congestion [I-D.AQM-ECN-benefits].

   [RFC3168] not only specifies the router use of the ECN field, it also
   specifies a TCP procedure for using ECN.  This states that a TCP
   sender should treat the ECN indication of congestion in the same way
   as that of a non-ECN-Capable TCP flow experiencing loss, by halving
Show full document text