Increase of the Congestion Window when the Sender Is Rate-Limited
draft-welzl-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-03
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Welzl , Tom Henderson , Gorry Fairhurst | ||
| Last updated | 2024-10-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-welzl-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-03
Congestion Control Working Group M. Welzl
Internet-Draft University of Oslo
Updates: RFC5681, RFC9002, RFC9260, RFC9438 (if T. Henderson
approved) University of Washington
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fairhurst
Expires: 24 April 2025 University of Aberdeen
21 October 2024
Increase of the Congestion Window when the Sender Is Rate-Limited
draft-welzl-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-03
Abstract
This document specifies how transport protocols increase their
congestion window when the sender is rate-limited, and updates RFC
5681, RFC 9002, RFC 9260, and RFC 9438. Such a limitation can be
caused by the sending application not supplying data or by receiver
flow control.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://mwelzl.github.io/draft-ccwg-ratelimited-increase/draft-welzl-
ccwg-ratelimited-increase.html. Status information for this document
may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-welzl-ccwg-
ratelimited-increase/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Congestion Control
Working Group Working Group mailing list (mailto:ccwg@ietf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccwg/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/mwelzl/draft-ccwg-ratelimited-increase.
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/.
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
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 24 April 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Increase rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Rate-based congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Pacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. The state of RFCs and implementations . . . . . . . 7
A.1. TCP ("Reno" congestion control) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1.2. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1.3. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2. CUBIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2.2. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2.3. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.3. SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.3.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.3.2. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.4. QUIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
A.4.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.4.2. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.5. DCCP CCID2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.5.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.5.2. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
A sender of a congestion controlled transport protocol becomes "rate-
limited" when it does not send any data even though the congestion
control rules would allow it to transmit data. This could occur
because the application has not provided sufficient data to fully
utilise the congestion window (cwnd). It could also occur because
the receiver has limited the sender using flow control (e.g., by the
advertised TCP receiver window (rwnd) or by the connection or stream
flow credit in QUIC). Current RFCs specifying congestion control
algorithms diverge regarding the rules for increasing the cwnd when
the sender is rate-limited.
Congestion Window Validation (CWV) [RFC7661] provides an experimental
specification defining how to manage a cwnd that has become larger
than the current flight size. In contrast, this present document
concerns the increase in cwnd when a sender is rate-limited. These
two topics are distinct, but are related, because both describe the
management of the cwnd when the sender does not fully utilise the
current cwnd.
This document specifies a uniform rule that congestion control
algorithms MUST apply and provides a recommendation that congestion
control implementations SHOULD follow. An appendix provides an
overview of the divergence in current RFCs and some current
implementations regarding cwnd increase when the sender is rate-
limited.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the terms defined in Section 2 of [RFC5681].
Additionally, we define:
* maxFS: the largest value of FlightSize since the last time that
cwnd was decreased. If cwnd has never been decreased, maxFS is
the maximum value of FlightSize since the start of the data
transfer.
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Increase rules
Irrespective of the current state of a congestion control algorithm,
senders using a congestion controlled transport protocol:
1. MUST include a limit to the growth of cwnd when FlightSize <
cwnd.
2. SHOULD limit cwnd when FlightSize < cwnd to be no larger than
limit(maxFS).
3. MAY limit maxFS as min(maxFS, pipeACK), using "pipeACK" as
defined in [RFC7661], when FlightSize < cwnd.
In rule #2, "limit()" is a function that returns the maximum cwnd
value that would result from the congestion control algorithm within
one RTT, based on the "maxFS" parameter. For example, for Slow
Start, as specified in [RFC5681], limit(maxFS)=2*maxFS, such that
equation 2 in [RFC5681] becomes:
cwnd_new = cwnd + min (N, SMSS)
cwnd = min(cwnd_new, 2*maxFS)
Similarly, with rule #2 applied to Congestion Avoidance,
limit(maxFS)=1+maxFS, such that equation 3 in [RFC5681] becomes:
cwnd_new = cwnd + SMSS*SMSS/cwnd
cwnd = min(cwnd_new, 1+maxFS)
As with cwnd, without a way to reduce it when the transport sender
becomes rate-limited, rule #2 allows for maxFS to stay valid for a
long time, possibly not reflecting the reality of the end-to-end
Internet path in use. For cwnd, this is remedied by "Congestion
Window Validation" in [RFC7661], which also defines a "pipeACK"
variable that measures the acknowledged size of the network pipe when
the sender is rate-limited. Accordingly, to implement CWV, rule #3
can be used.
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
3.1. Discussion
If the sending rate is less than permitted by cwnd for multiple RTTs,
limited either by the sending application or by the receiver-
advertised window, continuously increasing the cwnd would cause a
mismatch between the cwnd and the capacity that the path supports
(i.e., over-estimating the capacity). Such unlimited growth in the
cwnd is therefore disallowed by the first rule.
However, in most common congestion control algorithms, in the absence
of an indication of congestion, a cwnd that has been fully utilized
during an RTT is permitted to be increased during the immediately
following RTT. Thus, such an increase is allowed by the second rule.
3.1.1. Rate-based congestion control
The present document updates congestion control specifications that
use a congestion window (cwnd) to limit the number of unacknowledged
packets a sender is allowed to emit. Use of a congestion window
variable to control sending rate is not the only mechanism available
and used in practice.
Congestion control algorithms can also constrain data transmission by
explicitly calculating the sending rate over some time interval, by
"pacing" packets (injecting pauses in between their transmission) or
via combinations of the above (e.g., BBR combines these three methods
[I-D.cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control]). The guiding principle
behind the rules in Section 3 applies to all congestion control
algorithms: in the absence of a congestion indication, a sender
should be allowed to increase its rate from the amount of data that
it has transmitted during the previous RTT. This holds irrespective
of whether the sender is rate-limited or not.
3.1.2. Pacing
Pacing mechanisms seek to avoid the negative impacts associated with
"bursts" (flights of packets transmitted back-to-back). This is
usually without limiting the number of packets that are sent per RTT.
The present specification introduces a limitation using "maxFS",
which is measured over an RTT; thus, as long as the number of packets
per RTT is unaffected by pacing, the rules in Section 3 also do not
constrain the use of pacing mechanisms.
4. Security Considerations
While congestion control designs could result in unwanted competing
traffic, they do not directly result in new security considerations.
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
Transport protocols that provide authentication (including those
using encryption), or are carried over protocols that provide
authentication, can protect their congestion control algorithm from
network attack. This is orthogonal to the congestion control rules.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests no IANA action.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, DOI 10.17487/RFC2861, June
2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2861>.
[RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
Congestion Control", RFC 4341, DOI 10.17487/RFC4341, March
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4341>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5681>.
[RFC7661] Fairhurst, G., Sathiaseelan, A., and R. Secchi, "Updating
TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic", RFC 7661,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7661, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7661>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC9002] Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.
[RFC9260] Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9260>.
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
[RFC9438] Xu, L., Ha, S., Rhee, I., Goel, V., and L. Eggert, Ed.,
"CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks", RFC 9438,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9438, August 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9438>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control]
Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., Yeganeh, S. H., Swett, I., and V.
Jacobson, "BBR Congestion Control", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-
control-02, 7 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cardwell-
iccrg-bbr-congestion-control-02>.
Appendix A. The state of RFCs and implementations
This section is provided as input for IETF discussion, and should be
removed before publication.
A.1. TCP ("Reno" congestion control)
A.1.1. Specification
[RFC5681] does not contain a rule to limit the growth of cwnd when
the sender is rate-limited. This statement (page 8) gives an
impression that such cwnd growth might be expected:
Implementation Note: An easy mistake to make is to simply use
cwnd, rather than FlightSize, which in some implementations may
incidentally increase well beyond rwnd.
[RFC7661] also suggests there is no increase limitation in the
standard TCP behavior (which [RFC7661] changes), on page 4:
Standard TCP does not impose additional restrictions on the growth
of the congestion window when a TCP sender is unable to send at
the maximum rate allowed by the cwnd. In this case, the rate-
limited sender may grow a cwnd far beyond that corresponding to
the current transmit rate, resulting in a value that does not
reflect current information about the state of the network path
the flow is using.
A.1.2. Implementation
* ns-2 allows cwnd to grow when it is rate-limited by rwnd. (Rate-
limited by the sending application: not tested.)
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
* Until release 3.42, ns-3 allowed cwnd to grow when rate-limited,
either due to an application or rwnd limit. Since release 3.42,
ns-3 TCP models conform to rule #2 in Section 3, following the
current Linux TCP approach in this regard (see next bullet).
* In Congestion Avoidance, Linux only allows the cwnd to grow when
the sender is unconstrained. Before kernel version 3.16, this
also applied to Slow Start. The check for "unconstrained" is
perfomed by checking if FlightSize is greater or equal to cwnd.
Since kernel version 3.16, which was published in August 2014, in
Slow Start, the increase implements rule #2 in Section 3 in the
tcp_is_cwnd_limited function in tcp.h.
A.1.3. Assessment
Linux implements a limit to cwnd growth in accordance with rule #1 in
Section 3; in Slow Start, this limit follows rule #2, while in
Congestion Avoidance, it is more conservative than rule #2. The
specification and the ns-2 and (older) ns-3 implementations are in
conflict with rules #1 and #2 in Section 3.
A.2. CUBIC
A.2.1. Specification
Section 5.8 of [RFC9438] says:
Cubic doesn't increase cwnd when it's limited by the sending
application or rwnd.
A.2.2. Implementation
The description of Linux described in Appendix A.1.2 also applies to
Cubic.
A.2.3. Assessment
Both the specification and the Linux implementation limit the cwnd
growth in accordance with rule #1 in Section 3; in Congestion
Avoidance, this limit is more conservative than rule #2 in Section 3,
and in Slow Start, it implements rule #2 in Section 3.
A.3. SCTP
A.3.1. Specification
Section 7.2.1 of [RFC9260] says:
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
When cwnd is less than or equal to ssthresh, an SCTP endpoint MUST
use the slow-start algorithm to increase cwnd only if the current
congestion window is being fully utilized and the data sender is
not in Fast Recovery. Only when these two conditions are met can
the cwnd be increased; otherwise, the cwnd MUST NOT be increased.
A.3.2. Assessment
The quoted statement from [RFC9260] prescribes the same cwnd growth
limitation that is also specified for Cubic and implemented for both
Reno and Cubic in Linux. It is in accordance with rule #1 in
Section 3, and more conservative than rule #2 in Section 3.
Section 7.2.1 of [RFC9260] is specifically limited to Slow Start.
Congestion Avoidance is discussed in Section 7.2.2 of [RFC9260]
However, this section neither contains a similar rule, nor does it
refer back to the rule that limits the growth of cwnd in
Section 7.2.1. It is thus implicitly clear that the quoted rule only
applies to Slow Start, whereas the rules in Section 3 apply to both
Slow Start and Congestion Avoidance.
A.4. QUIC
A.4.1. Specification
Section 7.8 of [RFC9002] states:
When bytes in flight is smaller than the congestion window and
sending is not pacing limited, the congestion window is
underutilized. This can happen due to insufficient application
data or flow control limits. When this occurs, the congestion
window SHOULD NOT be increased in either slow start or congestion
avoidance.
A.4.2. Assessment
With the exception of pacing, this specification conservatively
limits the growth in cwnd, similar to Cubic and SCTP. It is in
accordance with rule #1 in Section 3, and more conservative than rule
#2 in Section 3.
A.5. DCCP CCID2
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
A.5.1. Specification
Section 5.1 of [RFC4341] states: >There are currently no standards
governing TCP's use of the congestion window during an application-
limited period. In particular, it is possible for TCP's congestion
window to grow quite large during a long uncongested period when the
sender is application limited, sending at a low rate. [RFC2861]
essentially suggests that TCP's congestion window not be increased
during application-limited periods when the congestion window is not
being fully utilized.
A.5.2. Assessment
A DCCP Congestion Control ID (CCID) specifing TCP-like behaviour
ought to follow the method specified in this document. The current
guidance relates only to [RFC2861]. The text in Section 5.1 of
[RFC4341] is updated by this document to specify the management of
the cwnd during an application-limited period.
Appendix B. Change Log
* -00 was the first individual submission for feedback by CCWG.
* -01 includes editorial improvements
- Removes application interaction with QUIC pacing, since pacing
might be within the QUIC stack.
- Adds explicit mention of DCCP/CCID2.
- Adds this change log.
* -02 addresses comments from IETF-119
- Discusses rate-based controls and pacing.
- Trims the list of possible RFCs to update.
- Some editorial fixes: "congestion control algorithm" instead of
"mechanism" for consistency with RFC5033.bis; earlier
definition of maxFS; explicit mention of RFCs to update in
abstract.
* -03 addresses comments from IETF-120
- Introduces a third rule, with MAY, that avoids having an
unvalidated long-lived maxFS (using pipeACK from RFC 7661).
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limited cwnd Increase October 2024
- Changes "inc" to "limit" and adapts the wording of rule 2 to
make it clearer (thanks to Neal Cardwell).
- Appendix: updates ns-3 in line with the recent implementation.
- Appendix: makes the RFC 9002 text clearer and shorter.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Neal Cardwell for suggesting
improvements to this document.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
0316 Oslo
Norway
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
URI: http://welzl.at/
Tom Henderson
University of Washington
185 Stevens Way
Seattle, WA 98195,
United States
Email: tomh@tomh.org
URI: https://www.tomh.org/
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: https://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/
Welzl, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 11]