Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft UC3M
Intended status: Informational B. Briscoe
Expires: January 9, 2017 Simula Research Lab
July 8, 2016
Adding Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to TCP control packets
draft-bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn-01
Abstract
This documents explores the possibility of adding ECN support to TCP
control packets.
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 January 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The reliability argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TCP SYNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Pure ACKs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Retransmitted packets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Window probe packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
RFC3168 [RFC3168] specifies the support of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) to IP. By using the ECN capability, switches
performing Active Queue Management (AQM) can use ECN marks instead of
packets drops to signal congestion to the endpoints of a
communication. This results in lower packet loss and increased
performance. However, RFC3168 specifies the support of ECN in TCP
data packets, but precludes the use of ECN in TCP control packets
(TCP SYN, TCP SYN/ACK, pure ACKs, Window probes) and in retransmitted
packets. RFC 5562 [RFC5562] is an experimental extension to ECN that
enables the ECN support for TCP SYN/ACK packets.
The inability of using ECN in TCP control packets has a potential
harmful effect, especially in environments where ECN support is
pervasive. For example, [judd-nsdi] shows that in a data center
environment where DCTCP is used (in conjunction with ECN), the the
probability of being able to establish a new connection using a non-
ECT-marked SYN packet drops to close to 0 when there are 16 ongoing
TCP flows transmitting at full speed. In this particular context of
a datacenter using DCTCP, the issue is that the proposed AQM
aggressively marks packets to keep the buffer queues small and this
implies that non-ECT-marked packets are in turn dropped aggressively
as well, rendering nearly impossible to establish new connection when
there is ongoing traffic.
These limitations are not limited to the data center environment. In
any ECN deployment, non ECT marked packets suffer a penalty when they
traverse a congested bottleneck. For instance, with a drop
probability of 1%, 1% of connection attempts suffer a timeout before
the SYN is retransmitted, which is very deterimental to the
performance of short flows. Dropping TCP control traffic, such as
TCP SYNs and pure ACKs have a negative effect on the overall
performance of the communication, so it is beneficial to avoid it.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
Finally, there are ongoing efforts to promote the adoption of DCTCP
(and similar transports) over the Internet to achieve low latency for
all communications [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem].
In such approach, ECN capable packets are treated more favorably, as
they are likely to experience less delay and lower packet drop
probability. Preventing TCP control packets, which are critical for
TCP performance, to obtain the benefits of ECN would result in
degraded performance.
However, RFC3168 does not prevents from using ECN in TCP control
packets lightly. It provides a number of specific reasons for each
packet type. In this note, we revisit each of the arguments provided
by RFC3168 and explore possibilities to enable the ECN capability in
the different packet types. We do so in the context of a data center
network and in the context of the public Internet.
2. The reliability argument
While for each type of packet RFC 3168 provides a set of specific
arguments for preventing their marking, RFC3168 presents the reliable
delivery of the congestion signal as an overarching argument that
needs to be consider when trying to enable the ECT marking of TCP
control packets. In particular, Section 5.2 of RFC3168 states:
To ensure the reliable delivery of the congestion indication of
the CE codepoint, an ECT codepoint MUST NOT be set in a packet
unless the loss of that packet in the network would be detected by
the end nodes and interpreted as an indication of congestion.
We believe this argument is overly conservative. The overall
principle that should determine the level of reliability required for
ECN capable packets should be the one of "do not harm". Reliable
delivery of the CE codepoint is indeed paramount but the level of
reliability required should be the one of the original congestion
signal (i.e. the detection of the loss of the original packet). In
other words, the situation without ECN is that when a packet is to be
transmitted through a congested link, the packet may be dropped and
that is the congestion signal sent to the endpoint. When ECN is
introduced, the reliability of the delivery of the congestion signal
should be no worse than without ECN. In particular, setting the CE
codepoint in the very same packet seem to fulfill this criteria,
since either the packet is delivered and the CE codepoint signal is
delivered to the endpoint, or the packet is dropped, so the original
congestion signal through the packet loss is delivered to the
endpoint. Requiring more than this implies that the ECN congestion
signal is delivered more reliably than the current situation, which
is not a bad thing per se, but, as we describe in this memo, it
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
results in performance penalties that should be reconsidered in the
view of current deployments.
In addition, the reliability of the delivery of the congestion signal
is used an argument for not setting the ECT codepoint in TCP control
packets, which effectively reduced the reliability of the
transmission of these TCP control packets. There is the then a
tradeoff between the reliability of the delivery of the congestion
signal and the reliability of the delivery of TCP control packets.
As currently specified, ECN adoption implies an increased reliability
of the ECN congestion signal and a decrease in the reliability in the
TCP control packets. We believe that it is possible and desirable to
restore the tradeoff existent in non ECN capable networks in terms of
reliability, where the congestion signal delivery is as reliable as
in a non ECN capable network and so it is the delivery of TCP control
packets.
3. TCP SYNs
We next describe he arguments exhibited by current specification for
precluding the ECT marking of SYN packets.
In addition to the reliability argument above, RFC 5562 presents two
arguments against ECT marking of SYN packets (cited verbatim):
There are several reasons why an ECN-Capable codepoint must not be
set in the IP header of the initiating TCP SYN packet. First,
when the TCP SYN packet is sent, there are no guarantees that the
other TCP endpoint (node B in Figure 2) is ECN-Capable, or that it
would be able to understand and react if the ECN CE codepoint was
set by a congested router.
Second, the ECN-Capable codepoint in TCP SYN packets could be
misused by malicious clients to "improve" the well-known TCP SYN
attack. By setting an ECN-Capable codepoint in TCP SYN packets, a
malicious host might be able to inject a large number of TCP SYN
packets through a potentially congested ECN-enabled router,
congesting it even further.
We next go through all the arguments stated above to enable ECT
marking of SYN packets.
Argument 1: Unknown ECN capability capability at the responder. The
initiator does not know whether the responder supports ECN and in
particular, the initiator does not know if the responder supports ECT
marked SYNs.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
In the DC context, this argument does not hold (at least in single
tenant DCs, possibly in multi-tenant DCs, if we assume that each
tenant mostly communicates with its own VMs). The DC is a much more
controlled environment than the public Internet, so the server's
support of ECN can be guaranteed administratively i.e. the manager of
the DC makes sure that the servers support ECN and in particular ECT
marked SYN packets.
In the public Internet context, it cannot be assumed that all servers
support ECN, and much less that they support ECT marked SYN packets.
When sending an ECT marked SYN to a legacy responder (i.e. a
responder that does not support ECT marked SYNs), different
behaviours are possible.
The responder may drop the SYN (either silently or by sending a RST)
or may reply with a non ECT marked SYN/ACK. If it is the latter,
then this is a non-issue (the second issue presented next still
applies though). If it is the former, then the initiator will have
to retransmit the SYN (without the ECT mark). Depending how extended
is this behaviour, this can reduce significantly the benefits of
adding ECT capability to the SYN or even be detrimental for the
performance. According to [ecn-pam], out of the top 1M Alexa web
sites, 0,82% of IPv4 sites and 0,61% of IPv6 sites fail to establish
a connection when they receive a TCP SYN with any ECN codepoint set.
If based on this data, we conclude that the fraction of fraction of
servers that discard the ECT marked SYN is a non negligible, further
options depend on whether they silently discard it or they send a RST
back. If they send a RST back, the initiator can then send a non ECT
marked SYN. In this case the penalty would be an extra RTT, which
may or may not be acceptable, depending on the fraction of servers
that behaves like this. If the server silently discard the ECT
marked SYN, then the initiator needs to wait for the retransmission
timer to expire and retransmit a non-ECT marked SYN. This is a high
penalty. If this is the case, one option, would be to first send an
ECT marked SYN and then a non-ECT marked SYN (possibly with a small
delay between them) and establish the ECT capable connection if the
former is replied. But it is questionable whether the level of
failure of ECT on SYNs warrants this, particularly given failures
could reduce if ECN on SYNs is standardized.
Argument 2: Loss of congestion notification in the SYN packet due to
lack of support from the responder. If the ECT marked SYN packet is
tagged as CE by a router along the path and the server does not
support ECT marked SYN packets, even if the server replies with a
SYN/ACK, the congestion information would be lost.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
The accurate ECN (AccECN) proposal [I-D.ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn]
suggests a two-pringed solutions to this problem. First AccECN
provides a way for the responder to feedback whether there was CE on
the SYN, and second AccECN introduces a different combination of TCP
header flags on the SYN/ACK so that the initiator knows whether or
not the responder supports AccECN. Then if the responder does
indicate that it supports AccECN the initiator can be sure that, if
there is no CE feedback on the SYNACK, then there really was no CE on
the SYN.
If the responder's SYN/ACK shows that it does not support AccECN, the
initiator can take a conservative approach and assume the SYN was
marked with CE and reduce its initial window. However, the initiator
knows that congestion is not serious, because both the SYN and the
SYN/ACK were delivered through the network. Therefore congestion is
not serious enough for a router to have had to turn off ECN.
Therefore, even a conservative initiator would not have to reduce its
initial window as much as it would in response to a timeout following
no response to its SYN.
Nonetheless, even a slight conservative reduction in initial window
might be a significant penalty, especially in the early days of
deployment, when little support for ECT SYN packets will be
available. This could be mitigated by caching previous experience of
which servers support AccECN.
Argument 3: DoS attacks. There are two possible DoS attacks involved
in the text contained in RFC3168. On one hand, the mention about
improving the well-known TCP SYN attack. The reference to the TCP
SYN attack we interpret it as a reference to the TCP SYN flood attack
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYN_flood). This attack is
addressed to the responder endpoint of the connection. The argument
is basically, because SYN can be used to launch attacks, their
transmission should not be more reliable. While it is true that SYNs
can be used to launch attacks, it is also true that SYNs are
fundamental for legitimate communications, so the argument for
increasing reliability of legitimate communications should take
precedence. On the other hand in the RFC3168 refers about ECN
capable SYN packets to congest further a bottleneck. It is not clear
why a TCP SYN packet is worse than any other packet in this respect.
In any case, section 7 of RFC3168 already provides the means to
address this concern, as it reads:
First, ECN-Capable routers will only mark packets (as opposed to
dropping them) when the packet marking rate is reasonably low.
During periods where the average queue size exceeds an upper
threshold, and therefore the potential packet marking rate would
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
be high, our recommendation is that routers drop packets rather
then set the CE codepoint in packet headers.
Safe deployment of ECN requires that network devices drop
excessive traffic, even when marked as originating from an ECN-
capable transport. This is a necessary safety precaution
because:..
Alternative behaviour. If we were to allow setting the ECT codepoint
in the SYN packets, we need to define how it would behave.
One challenge is to support legacy ECN responders that do not support
ECT marked SYNs but do support ECN.
One possible behaviour could be something along these lines. The SYN
packet will carry the ECT(1) bit set as well as the ECE and CWR bits
set. This is needed to support legacy ECN responders that would
ignore the ECT bit, but properly process the ECN support negotiation
using the ECE and CWR flags. Routers can then set the CE bit in the
SYN.
If the responder receives a SYN with ECT(1), ECE and CWR bits set, it
replies with a SYN/ACK that includes ECT(1) bit set. Because the
ECT(1) bit is set, (and the CWR bit is not set) the initiator can
realize that the responder supports ECN and also ECT marked SYNs.
If the responder receives a SYN with ECT(1), ECE, CWR and CE bits
set, it replies with a SYN/ACK that includes the ECT(1) and the ECE
bits set. Because the ECT(1) bit is set (and the CWR bit is not
set), the initiator can realize that the ECE bit means that the CE
bit was set in the SYN and then can react accordingly. The reaction
to the ECE bit is then to halve the initial CWND for the connection.
4. Pure ACKs.
RFC3168 exposes the following arguments for not allowing the ECT
marking of pure ACKs. In section 5.2 it reads:
To ensure the reliable delivery of the congestion indication of
the CE codepoint, an ECT codepoint MUST NOT be set in a packet
unless the loss of that packet in the network would be detected by
the end nodes and interpreted as an indication of congestion.
Transport protocols such as TCP do not necessarily detect all
packet drops, such as the drop of a "pure" ACK packet; for
example, TCP does not reduce the arrival rate of subsequent ACK
packets in response to an earlier dropped ACK packet. Any
proposal for extending ECN- Capability to such packets would have
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
to address issues such as the case of an ACK packet that was
marked with the CE codepoint but was later dropped in the network.
We believe that this aspect is still the subject of research, so
this document specifies that at this time, "pure" ACK packets MUST
NOT indicate ECN-Capability.
Later on, in section 6.1.4 it reads:
For the current generation of TCP congestion control algorithms,
pure acknowledgement packets (e.g., packets that do not contain
any accompanying data) MUST be sent with the not-ECT codepoint.
Current TCP receivers have no mechanisms for reducing traffic on
the ACK-path in response to congestion notification. Mechanisms
for responding to congestion on the ACK-path are areas for current
and future research. (One simple possibility would be for the
sender to reduce its congestion window when it receives a pure ACK
packet with the CE codepoint set). For current TCP
implementations, a single dropped ACK generally has only a very
small effect on the TCP's sending rate.
We next address each of the arguments presented above.
The first argument is about lack of reliability while conveying
congestion notification information when carried in pure ACKs. This
is the specific instance for the pure ACK messages of the reliability
argument discussed in Section 2. In some cases, the loss of pure
ACKs is not detected by the endpoints, loosing the congestion
notification information indadvertedly if it was to be carried in
those packets. As we argued before, the bar for deciding if a packet
can be marked with the ECT codepoint i.e. if it is suitable for
carrying congestion notification information is that the congestion
signal communication should be as reliable as dropping the packet.
After all, the alternative of setting the CE bit in the packet is
dropping the packet. So, the question is whether carrying congestion
information in a pure ACK conveys the congestion information as
reliably as when the pure ACK is dropped and it is obvious that the
answer to that question is clearly yes. If the pure ACK carrying the
ECT and the CE bits set is later dropped by the network, it will be
essentially falling back to the use of drop as congestion signal.
The second argument exhibited in RFC3168 is the lack of means in the
sender of the pure ACKs to reduce the load that is creating the
congestion. Again, marking the pure ACKs with the ECT codepoint and
allowing them to carry congestion notification information would be
no worse than not doing so from this perspective (and it would be
much more detrimental form the overall performance perspective). The
sender of the pure ACKs will receive the echo of the congestion
notification and it may be able to reduce the CWND of the connection.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
If it happens to be only sending pure ACKs and no data and it can
react reducing the rate at which data is being sent, it would not be
worse in terms of congestion than in the case that the pure ACK is
dropped.
So, overall, we believe that in terms of conveying and reacting to
congestion, allowing to set the ECT (and the CE) flags in the pure
ACKs is not worse than not doing so (and dropping the pure ACK), but
in terms of performance, not ECT marking the pure ACKs is certainly
detrimental.
5. Retransmitted packets.
RFC3168 does not allow setting the ECT codepoint in retransmitted
packets. The arguments presented in the specification for supporting
this design choice are the following ones (the text is quite long,
not sure if we should keep it all):
This document specifies ECN-capable TCP implementations MUST NOT
set either ECT codepoint (ECT(0) or ECT(1)) in the IP header for
retransmitted data packets, and that the TCP data receiver SHOULD
ignore the ECN field on arriving data packets that are outside of
the receiver's current window. This is for greater security
against denial-of-service attacks, as well as for robustness of
the ECN congestion indication with packets that are dropped later
in the network.
First, we note that if the TCP sender were to set an ECT codepoint
on a retransmitted packet, then if an unnecessarily-retransmitted
packet was later dropped in the network, the end nodes would never
receive the indication of congestion from the router setting the
CE codepoint. Thus, setting an ECT codepoint on retransmitted
data packets is not consistent with the robust delivery of the
congestion indication even for packets that are later dropped in
the network.
In addition, an attacker capable of spoofing the IP source address
of the TCP sender could send data packets with arbitrary sequence
numbers, with the CE codepoint set in the IP header. On receiving
this spoofed data packet, the TCP data receiver would determine
that the data does not lie in the current receive window, and
return a duplicate acknowledgement. We define an out-of-window
packet at the TCP data receiver as a data packet that lies outside
the receiver's current window. On receiving an out-of-window
packet, the TCP data receiver has to decide whether or not to
treat the CE codepoint in the packet header as a valid indication
of congestion, and therefore whether to return ECN-Echo
indications to the TCP data sender. If the TCP data receiver
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
ignored the CE codepoint in an out-of-window packet, then the TCP
data sender would not receive this possibly- legitimate indication
of congestion from the network, resulting in a violation of end-
to-end congestion control. On the other hand, if the TCP data
receiver honors the CE indication in the out-of-window packet, and
reports the indication of congestion to the TCP data sender, then
the malicious node that created the spoofed, out-of- window packet
has successfully "attacked" the TCP connection by forcing the data
sender to unnecessarily reduce (halve) its congestion window. To
prevent such a denial-of-service attack, we specify that a
legitimate TCP data sender MUST NOT set an ECT codepoint on
retransmitted data packets, and that the TCP data receiver SHOULD
ignore the CE codepoint on out-of-window packets.
One drawback of not setting ECT(0) or ECT(1) on retransmitted
packets is that it denies ECN protection for retransmitted
packets. However, for an ECN-capable TCP connection in a fully-
ECN-capable environment with mild congestion, packets should
rarely be dropped due to congestion in the first place, and so
instances of retransmitted packets should rarely arise. If
packets are being retransmitted, then there are already packet
losses (from corruption or from congestion) that ECN has been
unable to prevent.
We note that if the router sets the CE codepoint for an ECN-
capable data packet within a TCP connection, then the TCP
connection is guaranteed to receive that indication of congestion,
or to receive some other indication of congestion within the same
window of data, even if this packet is dropped or reordered in the
network. We consider two cases, when the packet is later
retransmitted, and when the packet is not later retransmitted.
In the first case, if the packet is either dropped or delayed, and
at some point retransmitted by the data sender, then the
retransmission is a result of a Fast Retransmit or a Retransmit
Timeout for either that packet or for some prior packet in the
same window of data. In this case, because the data sender
already has retransmitted this packet, we know that the data
sender has already responded to an indication of congestion for
some packet within the same window of data as the original packet.
Thus, even if the first transmission of the packet is dropped in
the network, or is delayed, if it had the CE codepoint set, and is
later ignored by the data receiver as an out- of-window packet,
this is not a problem, because the sender has already responded to
an indication of congestion for that window of data.
In the second case, if the packet is never retransmitted by the
data sender, then this data packet is the only copy of this data
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
received by the data receiver, and therefore arrives at the data
receiver as an in-window packet, regardless of how much the packet
might be delayed or reordered. In this case, if the CE codepoint
is set on the packet within the network, this will be treated by
the data receiver as a valid indication of congestion.
There are essentially three arguments for not ECT marking
retransmitted packets, namely, reliability, DoS attacks and over-
reaction to congestion. We address all of them next in order.
About reliability, as described in Section 2, we believe that the bar
should be that the congestion signal should be delivered as reliably
as if it was a packet drop. So, if a retransmitted packet is dropped
and this goes by unnoticed by the receiver, then the congestion
signal expressed as a drop would be lost. The same applies to the
congestion signal resulting from marking with ECT and CE the very
same retransmitted packet which later is dropped.
About the possibility of DoS attacks, the protection against the DoS
attack does not result from not allowing retransmitted packets to be
ECT marked. If an attacker decided to launch such an attack, it
would craft the packet with the ECT codepoint set. Effectively, the
protection against the described DoS attack comes from the
requirement that the receiver should not ignore the CE codepoint in
out-of-window packets. We proposed to allow ECT marking of
retransmitted packets, in order reduces the chances of it being
dropped, but keep the requirement to ignore the CE codepoint in out-
of-window packets.
Finally, the third argument is about over-reacting to congestion.
Basically, if the retransmitted packet is dropped, the sender will
not react again to congestion (it has reacted already when it
generated the retransmitted packet). If the retransmitted packet is
CE tagged instead of dropped, then the congestion signal will arrive
again to the sender who could potentially react again to congestion.
However, this should not happen as RFC3168 imposes the condition that
a sender must only react once per window to the congestion signal and
this should not be an exception to this rule.
6. Window probe packets
RFC3168 presents only the reliability argument for preventing setting
the ECT codepoint in Window Probe packets. Specifically, it states:
When the TCP data receiver advertises a zero window, the TCP data
sender sends window probes to determine if the receiver's window
has increased. Window probe packets do not contain any user data
except for the sequence number, which is a byte. If a window
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
probe packet is dropped in the network, this loss is not detected
by the receiver. Therefore, the TCP data sender MUST NOT set
either an ECT codepoint or the CWR bit on window probe packets.
However, because window probes use exact sequence numbers, they
cannot be easily spoofed in denial-of-service attacks. Therefore,
if a window probe arrives with the CE codepoint set, then the
receiver SHOULD respond to the ECN indications.
The reliability argument has been addressed in Section 2. dropping
the window probe message in the case the conditions for the Silly
Window Syndrome are on, basically implies that the sender will be
stalled until the new Window Probe message reaches the receiver,
which agains results in a performance penalty.
On the bright side, receivers should respond to ECN messages in these
packets, so changing the behaviour should be less painful than for
other packet types.
7. Security considerations
TBD, not sure if there is any.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this memo.
9. Acknowledgments
TBD
10. Informative References
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC5562] Kuzmanovic, A., Mondal, A., Floyd, S., and K.
Ramakrishnan, "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets", RFC 5562,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5562, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5562>.
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ECN and TCP control packets July 2016
[I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem]
Briscoe, B., Schepper, K., and M. Bagnulo, "Low Latency,
Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service:
Problem Statement", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-tcpm-rmcat-
l4s-problem-02 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn]
Briscoe, B., Kuehlewind, M., and R. Scheffenegger, "More
Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP", draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-
ecn-01 (work in progress), June 2016.
[judd-nsdi]
Judd, G., "Attaining the promise and avoiding the pitfalls
of TCP in the Datacenter", NSDI 2015, 2015.
[ecn-pam] Brian, B., Mirja, M., Damiano, D., Iain, I., Gorry, G.,
and R. Richard, "Enabling Internet-Wide Deployment of
Explicit Congestion Notification", PAM 2015, 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6249500
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es
Bob Briscoe
Simula Research Lab
Email: ietf@bobbriscoe.net
URI: http://bobbriscoe.net/
Bagnulo & Briscoe Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 13]