TCPM Working Group                                          G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                           A. Sathiaseelan
Obsoletes: 2861 (if approved)                     University of Aberdeen
Updates: 5681 (if approved)                              August 06, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 7, 2013

          Updating TCP to support Application-Limited Traffic


   This document addresses issues that arise when TCP is used to support
   traffic that exhibits periods where the transmission rate is limited
   by the application rather than the congestion window.  It updates TCP
   to allow a TCP sender to restart quickly following either an idle or
   application-limited interval.  The method is expected to benefit
   application-limited TCP applications, while also providing an
   appropriate response if congestion is experienced.

   It also evaluates TCP Congestion Window Validation, CWV, an IETF
   experimental specification defined in RFC 2861, and concludes that
   CWV sought to address important issues, but failed to deliver a
   widely used solution.  This document therefore proposes an update to
   the status of RFC 2861 by recommending it is moved from Experimental
   to Historic status, and that it is replaced by the current

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

   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 February 7, 2013.

Copyright Notice

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   ( 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.  Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited
       periods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  A method for preserving cwnd in idle and
           application-limited periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  The nonvalidated phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase . . .  6
       4.3.1.  Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase . . .  7
       4.3.2.  Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase  . . .  7
   5.  Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  Other related work - Author Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

1.  Introduction

   TCP is used to support a range of application behaviours.  The TCP
   congestion window (cwnd) controls the number of packets/bytes that a
   TCP flow may have in the network at any time.  A bulk application
   will always have data available to transmit.  The rate at which it
   sends is therefore limited by the maximum permitted by the receiver
   and congestion windows.  In contrast, a rate-limited application will
   experience periods when the sender is either idle or is unable to
   send at the maximum rate permitted by the cwnd.  This latter case is
   called application-limited.  The focus of this document is on the
   operation of TCP in such an idle or application-limited case.

   Standard TCP [RFC5681] requires the cwnd to be reset to the restart
   window (RW) when an application becomes idle.  [RFC2861] noted that
   this TCP behaviour was not always observed in current
   implementations.  Recent experiments [Bis08] confirm this to still be
   the case.

   Standard TCP does not control growth of the cwnd when a TCP sender is
   application-limited.  An application-limited sender may therefore
   grow a cwnd 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.  Use of such an
   invalid cwnd may result in reduced application performance and/or
   could significantly contribute to network congestion.

   [RFC2861] proposed a solution to these issues in an experimental
   method known as Congestion Window Validation (CWV).  CWV was intended
   to help reduce cases where TCP accumulated an invalid cwnd.  The use
   and drawbacks of using CWV with an application are discussed in
   Section 2.

   Section 4 specifies an alternative to CWV that seeks to address the
   same issues, but does this in a way that is expected to mitigate the
   impact on an application that varies its transmission rate.  The
   method described applies to both an application-limited and an idle

2.  Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV

   RFC 2861 described a simple modification to the TCP congestion
   control algorithm that decayed the cwnd after the transition to a
   "sufficiently-long" idle period.  This used the slow-start threshold
   (ssthresh) to save information about the previous value of the
   congestion window.  The approach relaxed the standard TCP behaviour
   [RFC5681] for an idle session, intended to improve application

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   performance.  CWV also modified the behaviour for an application-
   limited session where a sender transmitted at a rate less than
   allowed by cwnd.

   RFC 2861 has been implemented in some mainstream operating systems as
   the default behaviour [Bis08].  Analysis (e.g.  [Bis10]) has shown
   that a TCP sender using CWV is able to use available capacity on a
   shared path after an idle period.  This can benefit some
   applications, especially over long delay paths, when compared to
   slow-start restart specified by standard TCP.  However, CWV would
   only benefit an application if the idle period were less than several
   Retransmission Time Out (RTO) intervals [RFC6298], since the
   behaviour would otherwise be the same as for standard TCP, which
   resets the cwnd to the RW after this period.

   Experience with CWV suggests that although CWV benefits the network
   in an application-limited scenario (reducing the probability of
   network congestion), the behaviour can be too conservative for many
   common rate-limited applications.  This mechanism does not therefore
   offer the desirable increase in application performance for rate-
   limited applications and it is unclear whether applications actually
   use this mechanism in the general Internet.

   It is therefore concluded that CWV is often a poor solution for many
   rate-limited applications.  It has the correct motivation, but has
   the wrong approach to solving this problem.

3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The document assumes familiarity with the terminology of TCP
   congestion control [RFC5681].

4.  An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited periods

   This section proposes an update to the TCP congestion control
   behaviour during an idle or application-limited period.  The new
   method permits a TCP sender to preserve the cwnd when an application
   becomes idle for a period of time (set in this specification to 5
   minutes, see section 5).  This period, where actual usage is less
   than allowed by cwnd, is named the non-validated phase.  The method
   allows an application to resume transmission at a previous rate
   without incurring the delay of slow-start.  However, if the TCP

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   sender experiences congestion using the preserved cwnd, it is
   required to immediately reset the cwnd to an appropriate value
   specified by the method.  If a sender does not take advantage of the
   preserved cwnd within five minutes, the value of cwnd is reduced,
   ensuring the value then reflects the capacity that was recently
   actually used.

   The method requires that the TCP SACK option is enabled.  This allows
   the sender to select a cwnd following a congestion event that is
   based on the measured path capacity, better reflecting the fair-
   share.  A similar approach was proposed by TCP Jump Start [Liu07], as
   a congestion response after more rapid opening of a TCP connection.

   It is expected that this update will satisfy the requirements of many
   rate-limited applications and at the same time provide an appropriate
   method for use in the Internet.  It also reduces the incentive for an
   application to send data simply to keep transport congestion state.
   (This is sometimes known as "padding").

   The new method does not differentiate between times when the sender
   has become idle or application-limited.  This is partly a response to
   recognition that some applications wish to transmit at a rate-
   limited, and that it can be hard to make a distinction between
   application-limited and idle behaviour.  This is expected to
   encourage applications and TCP stacks to use standards-based
   congestion control methods.  It may also encourage the use of long-
   lived connections where this offers benefit (such as persistent

   The method is specified in following subsections.

4.1.  A method for preserving cwnd in idle and application-limited

   The method described in this document updates [RFC5681].  Use of the
   method REQUIRES a TCP sender and the corresponding receiver to enable
   the TCP SACK option [RFC3517].

   [RFC5681] defines a variable FlightSize , that indicates the amount
   of outstanding data in the network.  This equal to the value of Pipe
   calculated based on the pipe algorithm [RFC3517].  In RFC5681 this
   value is used during loss recovery, whereas in this method it is also
   used during normal data transfer.  A sender is not required to
   continuously track this value, but SHOULD measure the volume of data
   in the network with a sampling period of not less than one RTT

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

4.2.  The nonvalidated phase

   The updated method creates a new TCP sender phase that captures
   whether the cwnd reflects a validated or non-validated value.  The
   phases are defined as:

   o  Validated phase: FlightSize >=(3/4)*cwnd.  This is the normal
      phase, where cwnd is expected to be an approximate indication of
      the available capacity currently available along the network path,
      and the standard methods are used to increase cwnd (currently

   o  Non-validated phase: FlightSize <(1/4)*cwnd.  This is the phase
      where the cwnd has a value based on a previous measurement of the
      available capacity, and the usage of this capacity has not been
      validated in the previous RTT.  That is, when it is not known
      whether the cwnd reflects the currently available capacity
      available along the network path.  The mechanisms to be used in
      this phase seek to determine whether any resumed rate remains safe
      for the Internet path, i.e., it quickly reduces the rate if the
      flow is known to induce congestion.  These mechanisms are
      specified in section 4.3.

   The values 1/4 and 3/4 were selected to reduce the effects of
   variations in the measured FlightSize.

4.3.  TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase

   A TCP sender that enters the non-validated phase MUST preserve the
   cwnd (i.e., this neither grows nor reduces while the sender remains
   in this phase).  The phase is concluded after a fixed period of time
   (five minutes, as explained in section or when the sender transmits
   using the full cwnd (i.e. it is no longer application-limited).

   The behaviour in the non-validated phase is specified as:

   o  If the sender consumes all the available space within the cwnd
      (i.e., the remaining unused cwnd in bytes is less than one Sender
      Maximum Segment Size, SMSS), then the sender MUST exit the non-
      validated phase.  The threshold value of cwnd required for the
      sender to enter the non-validated phase is intentionally different
      to that required to leave the phase.  This introduces hysteresis
      to avoid rapid oscillation between the phases.  Note that a change
      between phases does not significantly impact an application-
      limited sender, but serves to determine its behaviour if it
      substantially increases its transmission rate.

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   o  If the sender receives an indication of congestion while in the
      non-validated phase (i.e. detects loss, or an Explicit Congestion
      Notification, ECN, mark [RFC3168]), the sender MUST exit the non-
      validated phase (reducing the cwnd as defined in section 4.3.1).

   o  If the Retransmission Time Out (RTO) expires while in the non-
      validated phase, the sender MUST exit the non-validated phase.  It
      then resumes using the Standard TCP RTO mechanism [RFC5681].  (The
      resulting reduction of cwnd describe din section 4.3.2 is
      appropriate, since any accumulated path history is considered

4.3.1.  Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase

   Reception of congestion feedback while in the non-validated phase is
   interpreted as an indication that it was inappropriate for the sender
   to use the preserved cwnd.  The sender is therefore required to
   quickly reduce the rate to avoid further congestion.  Since the cwnd
   does not have a validated value, a new cwnd value must be selected
   based on the utilised rate.

   A sender that detects a packet-drop or receives an ECN marked packet
   MUST calculate a safe cwnd, by setting it to the value specified in
   Section 3.2 of [RFC5681].

   At the end of the recovery phase, the TCP sender MUST reset the cwnd
   using the method below:
           cwnd = ((FlightSize - R)/2).

   Where, R is the volume of data that was reported as unacknowledged by
   the SACK information.  This follows the method proposed for Jump
   Start [[Liu07].

   The inclusion of the term R makes this adjustment is more
   conservative than standard TCP.  This is required, since the sender
   may have sent more segments than Standard TCP would have done.

   If the sender implements a method that allows it to identify the
   number of ECN-marked segments within a windowthat were observed by
   the receiver, the sender SHOULD use the method above, further
   reducing R by the number of marked segments.

4.3.2.  Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase

   During the non-validated phase, the sender may produce bursts of data
   of up to the cwnd in size.  While this is no different to standard
   TCP, it is desirable to control the maximum burst size, e.g. by
   setting a burst size limit, using a pacing algorithm, or some other

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   method [Hug01].

   An application that remains in the non-validated phase for a period
   greater than five minutes is required to adjust its congestion
   control state.  At the end of the non-validated phase, the sender
   MUST update the ssthresh:
           sthresh = max(ssthresh, 3*cwnd/4).

   (This adjustment of ssthresh ensures that the sender records that it
   has safely sustained the present rate.  The change is beneficial to
   application-limited flows that encounter occasional congestion, and
   could otherwise suffer an unwanted additional delay in recovering the
   transmission rate.)

   The sender MUST then update cwnd:
             cwnd = max(FlightSize*2, IW).

   Where IW is the TCP inital window [RFC5681].

   (This allows an application to continue to send at the currently
   utilised rate, and not incur delay should it increase to twice the
   utilised rate.)

   After completing this adjustment, the sender MAY re-enter the non-
   validated phase, if required (see section 4.2).

5.  Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd

   This section documents the rationale for selecting the maximum period
   that cwnd may be preserved.

   Preserving cwnd avoids undesirable side effects that would result if
   the cwnd were to be preserved for an arbitrary long period, which was
   a part of the problem that CWV originally attempted to address.  The
   period a sender may safely preserve the cwnd, is a function of the
   period that a network path is expected to sustain the capacity
   reflected by cwnd.  There is no ideal choice for this time.

   The period of five minutes was chosen as a compromise that was larger
   than the idle intervals of common applications, but not sufficiently
   larger than the period for which the capacity of an Internet path may
   commonly be regarded as stable.  The capacity of wired networks is
   usually relatively stable for periods of several minutes and that
   load stability increases with the capacity.  This suggests that cwnd
   may be preserved for at least a few minutes.

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   There are cases where the TCP throughput exhibits significant
   variability over a time less than five minutes.  Examples could
   include wireless topologies, where TCP rate variations may fluctuate
   on the order of a few seconds as a consequence of medium access
   protocol instabilities.  Mobility changes may also impact TCP
   performance over short time scales.  Senders that observe such rapid
   changes in the path characteristic may also experience increased
   congestion with the new method, however such variation would likely
   also impact TCP's behaviour when supporting interactive and bulk

   Routing algorithms may modify the network path, disrupting the RTT
   measurement and changing the capacity available to a TCP connection,
   however such changes do not often occur within a time frame of a few

   The value of five minutes is therefore expected to be sufficient for
   most current applications.  Simulation studies also suggest that for
   many practical applications, the performance using this value will
   not be significantly different to that observed using a non-standard
   method that does not reset the cwnd after idle.

   Finally, other TCP sender mechanisms have used a 5 minute timer, and
   there could be simplifications in some implementations by reusing the
   same interval.  TCP defines a default user timeout of 5 minutes
   [RFC0793] i.e. how long transmitted data may remain unacknowledged
   before a connection is forcefully closed.

6.  Security Considerations

   General security considerations concerning TCP congestion control are
   discussed in [RFC5681].  This document describes an algorithm that
   updates one aspect of the congestion control procedures, and so the
   considerations described in RFC 5681 also apply to this algorithm.

7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr I Biswas and Dr R
   Secchi in supporting the evaluation of CWV and for their help in
   developing the mechanisms proposed in this draft.  We also
   acknowledge comments received from the Internet Congestion Control

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013              [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   Research Group, in particular Yuchung Cheng, Mirja Kuehlewind, and
   Joe Touch.

9.  Other related work - Author Notes

   There are several issues to be discussed more widely:

      o Should the method explicitly state a procedure for limiting
      burstiness or pacing?

         This is often regarded as good practice, but isn't a formal
         part of TCP. draft-hughes-restart-00.txt provides some
         discussion of this topic.

      o There are potential interaction with the proposal to raise the
      TCP initial Window to ten segments, do these cases need to be

         This relates to draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd.

         The two methods have different functions and different response
         to loss/congestion.

         IW=10 proposes an experimental update to TCP that would allow
         faster opening of the cwnd, and also a large (same size)
         restart window.  This approach is based on the assumption that
         many forward paths can sustain bursts of up to ten segments
         without (appreciable) loss.  Such a significant increase in
         cwnd must be matched with an equally large reduction of cwnd if
         loss/congestion is detected, and such a congestion indication
         is likely to require future use of IW=10 to be disabled for
         this path for some time.  This guards against the unwanted
         behaviour of a series of short flows continuously flooding a
         network path without network congestion feedback.

         In contrast, new-CWV proposes a standards-track update with a
         rationale that relies on recent previous path history to select
         an appropriate cwnd after restart.

         The behaviour differs in three ways:

         1) For applications that send little initially, new-cwv may
         constrain more than IW=10, but would not require the connection

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013             [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

         to reset any path information when a restart incurred loss.  In
         contrast, new-cwv would allow the TCP connection to preserve
         the cached cwnd, any loss, would impact cwnd, but not impact
         other flows.

         2) For applications that utilise more capacity than provided by
         a cwnd=10, this method would permit a larger restart window
         compared to a restart using IW=10.  This is justified by the
         recent path history.

         3) new-CWV is attended to also be used for application-limited
         use, where the application sends, but does not seek to fully
         utilise the cwnd.  In this case, new-cwv constrains the cwnd to
         that justified by the recent path history.  The performance
         trade-offs are hence different, and it would be possible to
         enable new-cwv when also using IW=10, and yield the benefits of

      o There is potential overlap with the Laminar proposal

         The current draft was intended as a standards-track update to
         TCP, rather than a new transport variant.  At least, it would
         be good to understand how the two interact and whether there is
         a possibility of a single method.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2861]  Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
              Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, September 2001.

   [RFC3517]  Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A
              Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss

Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013             [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

              Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.

   [RFC6298]  Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
              "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
              June 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [Bis08]    Biswas and Fairhurst, "A Practical Evaluation of
              Congestion Window Validation Behaviour, 9th Annual
              Postgraduate Symposium in the Convergence of
              Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting (PGNet),
              Liverpool, UK", June 2008.

   [Bis10]    Biswas, Sathiaseelan, Secchi, and Fairhurst, "Analysing
              TCP for Bursty Traffic, Int'l J. of Communications,
              Network and System Sciences, 7(3)", June 2010.

   [Hug01]    Hughes, Touch, and Heidemann, "Issues in TCP Slow-Start
              Restart After Idle (Work-in-Progress)", December 2001.

   [Liu07]    Liu, Allman, Jiny, and Wang, "Congestion Control without a
              Startup Phase, 5th International Workshop on Protocols for
              Fast Long-Distance Networks (PFLDnet), Los Angeles,
              California, USA", February 2007.

Authors' Addresses

   Godred Fairhurst
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen, Scotland  AB24 3UE


Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013             [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                     August 2012

   Arjuna Sathiaseelan
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen, Scotland  AB24 3UE


Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan  Expires February 7, 2013             [Page 13]