PANRG S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational June 18, 2018
Expires: December 20, 2018
Path Aware Networking: A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken
draft-dawkins-panrg-what-not-to-do-01
Abstract
At the first meeting of the proposed Path Aware Networking Research
Group, Oliver Bonaventure led a discussion of our mostly-unsuccessful
attempts to exploit Path Awareness to achieve a variety of goals,
over the past decade. At the end of that discussion, the research
group agreed to catalog and analyze these ideas, to extract insights
and lessons for path-aware networking researchers.
This document contains that catalog and analysis.
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 December 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. About this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. A Note for Contributors (Consider removing after
approval) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. A Note for the Editor (Remove after taking these actions) 3
1.4. Architectural Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary of Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Template for Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Integrated Services (IntServ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Reasons for Non-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Lessons Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Quick-Start TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Reasons for Non-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Reasons for Non-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Lessons Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Shim6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. Reasons for Non-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.2. Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
At IETF 99, the proposed Path Aware Networking Research Group [PANRG]
held its first meeting [PANRG-99], and the first presentation in that
session was "A Decade of Path Awareness" [PATH-Decade]. At the end
of this discussion, two things were abundantly clear.
o The Internet community has accumulated considerable experience
with many Path Awareness ideas over a long period of time, and
o Although some Path Awareness ideas have been successfully deployed
(for example, Differentiated Services, or DiffServ [RFC2475]),
most of these ideas haven't seen widespread adoption. The reasons
for this non-adoption are many, and are worthy of study.
The meta-lessons from this experience are
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
o Path Aware Networking is more Research than Engineering, so
establishing an IRTF Research Group for Path Aware Networking is
the right thing to do [RFC7418], and
o Cataloging and analyzing our experience to learn the reasons for
non-adoption is a great first step for the proposed Research
Group.
This document contains that catalog and analysis.
1.1. About this Document
This document is not intended to include every idea about Path Aware
Networking that we can find. Instead, we include enough ideas to
provide background for new lessons to guide researchers in their
work, in order to add those lessons to Section 2.
1.2. A Note for Contributors (Consider removing after approval)
There is no shame to having your idea included in this document.
When these proposals were made, we were trying to engineer something
that was research. The document editor started with a subsection on
his own idea. The only shame is not learning from experience, and
not sharing that experience with other networking researchers and
engineers.
This document is being built collaboratively. To contribute your
experience, please send a Github pull request to
https://github.com/panrg/draft-dawkins-panrg-what-not-to-do.
Discussion of specific contributed experiences and this document in
general should take place on the PANRG mailing list.
1.3. A Note for the Editor (Remove after taking these actions)
The to-do list for upcoming revisions includes
o Rearrange the Summary of Lessons Learned so that it flows (the
current revision is more or less in the order of contributions).
o Tag the Lessons Learned so that they are tied to one or more
specific contributions.
1.4. Architectural Guidance
As background for understanding the Lessons Learned contained in this
document, the reader is encouraged to become familiar with the
Internet Architecture Board's documents on "What Makes for a
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
Successful Protocol?" [RFC5218] and "Planning for Protocol Adoption
and Subsequent Transitions" [RFC8170].
Although these two documents do not specifically target path-aware
networking protocols, they are helpful resources on successful
protocol adoption and deployment.
2. Summary of Lessons Learned
This section summarizes the Lessons Learned from the contributed
sections in Section 4.
o The benefit of Path Awareness has to be great enough to overcome
entropy for already-deployed devices. The colloquial American
English expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is in full
flower on today's Internet.
o If intermediate devices along the path can't be trusted, it's
difficult to rely on intermediate devices to drive changes to
endpoint behaviors.
o If operators can't charge for a Path Aware technology in order to
recover the costs of deploying it, the benefits must be really
significant.
o Impact of a Path Aware technology on operational practices can
prevent deployment of promising technology.
o Per-connection state in intermediate devices is an impediment to
adoption and deployment.
o Providing benefits for early adopters is key - if everyone must
deploy a technology in order for the topology to provide benefits,
or even to work at all, the technology is unlikely to be adopted.
o The Internet is a distributed system, so the more a technology
relies on information propagated from distant hosts and routers,
the less likely that information is to be accurate.
o Transport protocol technologies may require information from
applications, in order to work effectively, but applications may
not know the information they need to provide.
3. Template for Contributions
There are many things that could be said about the Path Aware
networking technologies that have been developed. For the purposes
of this document, contributors are requested to provide
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
o the name of a technology, including an abbreviation if one was
used
o if available, a long-term pointer to the best reference describing
the technology
o a short description of the problem the technology was intended to
solve
o a short description of the reasons why the technology wasn't
adopted
o a short statement of the lessons that researchers can learn from
our experience with this technology.
4. Contributions
The editor has added some suggested subsections as a starting place,
but others are solicited and welcome.
4.1. Integrated Services (IntServ)
The suggested references for IntServ are:
o RFC 1633 Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an
Overview [RFC1633]
o RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element
Service [RFC2211]
o RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service [RFC2212]
o RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for Integrated
Service Network Elements [RFC2215]
o RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205]
In 1994, when the IntServ architecture document [RFC1633] was
published, real-time traffic was first appearing on the Internet. At
that time, bandwidth was a scarce commodity. Internet Service
Providers built networks over DS3 (45 Mbps) infrastructure, and sub-
rate (< 1 Mpbs) access was common. Therefore, the IETF anticipated a
need for a fine-grained QoS mechanism.
In the IntServ architecture, some applications require service
guarantees. Therefore, those applications use the Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] to signal bandwidth
reservations across the network. Every router in the network
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
maintains per-flow state in order to a) perform call admission
control and b) deliver guaranteed service.
Applications use Flow Specification (Flow Specs) [RFC2210] to
describe the traffic that they emit. RSVP reserves bandwidth for
traffic on a per Flow Spec basis.
4.1.1. Reasons for Non-deployment
IntServ was never widely deployed because of its cost. The following
factors contributed to cost:
o IntServ must be deployed on every router within the QoS domain
o IntServ maintained per flow state
As IntServ was being discussed, the following occurred:
o It became more cost effective to solve the QoS problem by adding
bandwidth. Between 1994 and 2000, Internet Service Providers
upgraded their infrastructures from DS3 ( 45 Mbps ) to OC-48 ( 2.4
Gbps )
o DiffServ [RFC2475] offered a more cost-effective, albeit less
fine-grained, solution to the QoS problem.
4.1.2. Lessons Learned.
The following lessons were learned:
o Any mechanism that requires a router to maintain state is not
likely to succeed.
o Any mechanism that requires an operator to upgrade all of its
routers is not likely to succeed.
IntServ was never widely deployed. However, the technology that it
produced was deployed for reasons other than bandwidth management.
RSVP is widely deployed as an MPLS signaling mechanism. BGP uses
Flow Specs to distribute firewall filters.
4.2. Quick-Start TCP
Quick-Start [RFC4782] is an experimental TCP extension that leverages
support from the routers on the path to determine an allowed sending
rate, either at the start of data transfers or after idle periods.
In these cases, a TCP sender cannot easily determine an appropriate
sending rate, given the lack of information about the path. The
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
default TCP congestion control therefore uses the time-consuming
slow-start algorithm. With Quick-Start, connections are allowed to
use higher sending rates if there is significant unused bandwidth
along the path, and if the sender and all of the routers along the
path approve the request. By examining Time To Live (TTL) fields, a
sender can determine if all routers have approved the Quick-Start
request. The protocol also includes a nonce that provides protection
against cheating routers and receivers. If the Quick-Start request
is explicitly approved by all routers along the path, the TCP host
can send at up to the approved rate; otherwise TCP would use the
default congestion control. Quick-Start requires modifications in
the involved end-systems as well in routers. Due to the resulting
deployment challenges, Quick-Start has been being proposed in
[RFC4782] for controlled environments such as intranets only.
The Quick-Start protocol is a lightweight, coarse-grained, in-band,
network-assisted fast startup mechanism. The benefits are studied by
simulation in a research paper [SAF07] that complements the protocol
specification. The study confirms that Quick-Start can significantly
speed up mid-sized data transfers. That paper also presents router
algorithms that do not require keeping per-flow state. Later studies
[Sch11] comprehensively analyzes Quick-Start with a full Linux
implementation and with a router fast path prototype using a network
processor. In both cases, Quick-Start could be implemented with
limited additional complexity.
4.2.1. Reasons for Non-deployment
However, the experiments with Quick-Start in [Sch11] reveal several
challenges:
o Having information from the routers along the path can reduce the
risk of congestion, but it cannot avoid it entirely. Determining
whether there is unused capacity is not trivial in actual router
and host implementations. Data about available bandwidth visible
at the IP layer may be imprecise, and due to the propagation
delay, information can already be outdated when it reaches the
sender. There is a trade-off between the speedup of data
transfers and the risk of congestion even with Quick-Start.
o For scalable router fast path implementation, it is important to
enable parallel processing of packets, as this is a widely used
method e.g. in network processors. One challenge is
synchronization of information between different packets, which
should be avoided as much as possible.
o Only selected applications can benefit from Quick-Start. For
achieving an overall benefit, it is important that senders avoid
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
sending unnecessary Quick-Start requests, e.g. for connections
that will only send a small amount of data. This typically
requires application-internal knowledge. It is a mostly unsolved
question how a sender can indeed determine the data rate that
Quick-Start shall request for.
After completion of the Quick-Start specification, there have been
large-scale experiments with an initial window of up to 10 MSS
[RFC6928]. This alternative "IW10" approach can also ramp up data
transfers faster than the standard TCP congestion control, but it
only requires sender-side TCP modifications. As a result, this
approach can be easier and incrementally deployed in the Internet.
While theoretically Quick-Start can outperform "IW10", the absolute
improvement of data transfer times is rather small in many cases.
After publication of [RFC6928], most modern TCP stacks have increased
their default initial window. There is no known deployment of Quick-
Start TCP.
4.2.2. Lessons Learned
There are some lessons learned from Quick-Start. Despite being a
very light-weight protocol, Quick-Start suffers from poor incremental
deployment properties, both regarding the required modifications in
network infrastructure as well as its interactions with applications.
Except for corner cases, congestion control can be quite efficiently
performed end-to-end in the Internet, and in modern TCP stacks there
is not much room for significant improvement by additional network
support.
4.3. Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN)
TCP [RFC0793] has a well-known weakness - the end-to-end flow control
mechanism has only a single signal, the loss of a segment, and semi-
modern TCPs (since the late 1980s) have interpreted the loss of a
segment as evidence that the path between two endpoints has become
congested enough to exhaust buffers on intermediate hops, so that the
TCP sender should "back off" - reduce its sending rate until it knows
that its segments are now being delivered without loss [RFC2581].
More modern TCPs have added a growing array of strategies about how
to establish the sending rate [RFC5681], but when a path is no longer
operational, TCPs can wait many seconds before retrying a segment,
even if the path becomes operational while the sender is waiting to
retry.
The thinking in Triggers for Transport was that if a path completely
stopped working because its first-hop link was "down", that somehow
TCP could be signaled when the first-hop link returned to service,
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
and the sending TCP could retry immediately, without waiting for a
full Retransmission Time Out (RTO).
4.3.1. Reasons for Non-deployment
Two TRIGTRAN BOFs were held, at IETF 55 [TRIGTRAN-55] and IETF 56
[TRIGTRAN-56], but this work was not chartered, and there was no
interest in deploying TRIGTRAN unless it was chartered in the IETF.
4.3.2. Lessons Learned.
The reasons why this work was not chartered provide several useful
lessons for researchers.
o TRIGTRAN triggers are only provided when the first-hop link is
"down", so TRIGTRAN triggers couldn't replace normal TCP
retransmission behavior if the path failed because some link
further along the network path was "down". So TRIGTRAN triggers
added complexity to an already complex TCP state machine, and
didn't allow any existing complexity to be removed.
o The state of the art in the early 2000s was that TRIGTRAN triggers
were assumed to be unauthenticated, so they couldn't be trusted to
tell a sender to "speed up", only to "slow down". This reduced
the potential benefit to implementers.
o intermediate forwarding devices required modification to provide
TRIGTRAN triggers, but operators couldn't charge for TRIGTRAN
triggers, so there was no way to recover the cost of modifying,
testing, and deploying updated intermediate devices.
4.4. Shim6
The IPv6 routing architecture [RFC1887] assumed that most sites on
the Internet would be identified by Provider Assigned IPv6 prefixes,
so that Default-Free Zone routers only contained routes to other
providers, resulting in a very small routing table.
For a single-homed site, this could work well. A multi-homed site
with only one upstream provider could also work well, although BGP
multihoming from a single upstream provider was often a premium
service (costing more than twice as much as two single-homed sites),
and if the single upstream provider went out of service, all of the
multi-homed paths could fail simultaneously.
IPv4 sites often multihomed by obtaining Provider Independent
prefixes, and advertising these prefixes through multiple upstream
providers. With the assumption that any multihomed IPv4 site would
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
also multihome in IPv6, it seemed likely that IPv6 routing would be
subject to the same pressures to announce Provider Independent
prefixes, resulting in a global IPv6 routing table that exhibited the
same problems as the global IPv4 routing table. During the early
2000s, work began on a protocol that would provide the same benefits
for multihomed IPv6 sites without requiring sites to advertise
Provider Independent prefixes into the global routing table.
This protocol, called Shim6, allowed two endpoints to exchange
multiple addresses ("Locators") that all mapped to the same endpoint
("Identity"). After an endpoint learned multiple Locators for the
other endpoint, it could send to any of those Locators with the
expectation that those packets would all be delivered to the endpoint
with the same Identity. Shim6 was an example of an "Identity/Locator
Split" protocol.
Shim6, as defined in [RFC5533] and related RFCs, provided a workable
solution for IPv6 multihoming using Provider Assigned prefixes,
including capability discovery and negotiation, and allowing end-to-
end application communication to continue even in the face of path
failure, because applications don't see Locator failures, and
continue to communicate with the same Identity using a different
Locator.
4.4.1. Reasons for Non-deployment
Note that the problem being addressed was "site multihoming", but
Shim6 was providing "host multihoming". That meant that the decision
about what path would be used was under host control, not under
router control.
Although more work could have been done to provide a better technical
solution, the biggest impediments to Shim6 deployment were
operational and business considerations. These impediments were
discussed at multiple network operator group meetings, including
[Shim6-35] at [NANOG-35].
The technology issues centered around scaling concerns that Shim6
relied on the host to track all the TCP connections and the file
descriptions with associated HTTP state, while also tracking
Identity/Locator mappings in the kernel, and tracking failures to
recognize that a backup path has failed.
The operator issues centered around concerns that operators were
performing traffic engineering, but would have no visibility or
control over hosts when they chose to begin using another path, and
relying on hosts to engineer traffic exposed their networks to
oscillation based on feedback loops, as hosts move from path to path.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
At a minimum, traffic engineering policies must be pushed down to
individual hosts. In addition, the usual concerns about firewalls
that expected to find a transport-level protocol header in the IP
payload, and won't be able to perform firewalling functions because
its processing logic would have to look past the Identity header.
The business issues centered removing or reducing the ability to sell
BGP multihoming service, which is often more expensive than single-
homed connectivity.
4.4.2. Lessons Learned
It is extremely important to take operational concerns into account
when a path-aware protocol is making decisions about path selection
that may conflict with existing operational practices and business
considerations.
We also note that some path-aware networking ideas recycle. Although
Shim6 did not achieve significant deployment, the IETF chartered a
working group to specify "Multipath TCP" [MP-TCP] in 2009, and
Multipath TCP allows TCP applications to control path selection, with
many of the same advantages and disadvantages of Shim6.
4.5. Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS)
Write-up of Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) [RFC5974]
Your description could be here.
5. Security Considerations
This document describes ideas that were not adopted and widely
deployed on the Internet, so it doesn't affect the security of the
Internet.
If this document meets its goals, we may develop new ideas for Path
Aware Networking that would affect the security of the Internet, but
security considerations for those ideas will be described in the
corresponding RFCs that propose them.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests of IANA.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
7. Acknowledgements
The section on IntServ was provided by Ron Bonica.
The section on Quick-Start TCP was provided by Michael Scharf.
The section on Shim6 builds on input provided by Erik Nordmark, with
background added by Spencer Dawkins.
The section on Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) was provided by
Spencer Dawkins.
Review comments were provided by (your name could be here).
8. Informative References
[MP-TCP] "Multipath TCP Working Group Home Page", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/about/>.
[NANOG-35]
"North American Network Operators Group NANOG-35 Agenda",
October 2005,
<https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog35/agenda>.
[PANRG] "Path Aware Networking Research Group (Home Page)", n.d.,
<https://irtf.org/panrg>.
[PANRG-99]
"Path Aware Networking Research Group - IETF-99", July
2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/sessions/panrg>.
[PATH-Decade]
Bonaventure, O., "A Decade of Path Awareness", July 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
slides-99-panrg-a-decade-of-path-awareness/>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1633] Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
RFC 1633, DOI 10.17487/RFC1633, June 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1633>.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
[RFC1887] Rekhter, Y., Ed. and T. Li, Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6
Unicast Address Allocation", RFC 1887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1887, December 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1887>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.
[RFC2215] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization
Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements",
RFC 2215, DOI 10.17487/RFC2215, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2215>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, DOI 10.17487/RFC2581, April 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2581>.
[RFC4782] Floyd, S., Allman, M., Jain, A., and P. Sarolahti, "Quick-
Start for TCP and IP", RFC 4782, DOI 10.17487/RFC4782,
January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4782>.
[RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful
Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5218>.
[RFC5533] Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, DOI 10.17487/RFC5533,
June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5533>.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC5974] Manner, J., Karagiannis, G., and A. McDonald, "NSIS
Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for Quality-of-Service
Signaling", RFC 5974, DOI 10.17487/RFC5974, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5974>.
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.
[RFC7418] Dawkins, S., Ed., "An IRTF Primer for IETF Participants",
RFC 7418, DOI 10.17487/RFC7418, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7418>.
[RFC8170] Thaler, D., Ed., "Planning for Protocol Adoption and
Subsequent Transitions", RFC 8170, DOI 10.17487/RFC8170,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8170>.
[SAF07] Sarolahti, P., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Determining an
appropriate sending rate over an underutilized network
path", Computer Networking Volume 51, Number 7, May 2007.
[Sch11] Scharf, M., "Fast Startup Internet Congestion Control for
Broadband Interactive Applications", Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Stuttgart, April 2011.
[Shim6-35]
Meyer, D., Huston, G., Schiller, J., and V. Gill, "IAB
IPv6 Multihoming Panel at NANOG 35", NANOG North American
Network Operator Group, October 2005,
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji6Y_rYHAQs>.
[TRIGTRAN-55]
"Triggers for Transport BOF at IETF 55", July 2003,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/55/239.htm>.
[TRIGTRAN-56]
"Triggers for Transport BOF at IETF 56", November 2003,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/56/251.htm>.
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft What Not To Do June 2018
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Dawkins Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 15]
