Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Congestion Control Response
draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-05-31
Replaces draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized 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: 3168,4774 (if approved)                      University of Oslo
Intended status: Standards Track                             G. Armitage
Expires: December 2, 2016                        Swinburne University of
                                                              Technology
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                            May 31, 2016

 Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Congestion Control
                                Response
                  draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00

Abstract

   RFC3168 and RFC4774 state that, upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable
   transport of a single CE packet, the congestion control algorithms
   followed at the end-systems MUST be essentially the same as the
   congestion control response to a single dropped packet.  This
   document relaxes this rule in order to encourage experimentation with
   different backoff strategies.  This sender-side update makes it
   possible to achieve greater benefits with ECN, encouraging wider ECN
   deployment.

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 2, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Khademi, et al.         Expires December 2, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                ECN-response                      May 2016

   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
   2.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Why Use ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff? . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Focus on ECN as Defined in RFC3168 . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Updating the Sender-side ECN Reaction  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  RFC 2119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Update to RFCs 3168 and 4774 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  ABE: An Experiment That Follows the New Rule . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Revision Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Khademi, et al.         Expires December 2, 2016                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                ECN-response                      May 2016

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, this 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
Show full document text