Network Working Group                                       G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                    University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Informational                                  M. Welzl
Expires: October 4, 2015                              University of Oslo
                                                          April 02, 2015

      The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)


   This document describes the potential benefits when applications
   enable Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN).  It outlines the
   principal gains in terms of increased throughput, reduced delay and
   other benefits when ECN is used over network paths that include
   equipment that supports ECN-marking.  It also identifies some
   potential problems that might occur when ECN is used.  The document
   does not propose new algorithms that may be able to use ECN or
   describe the details of implementation of ECN in endpoint devices,
   routers and other network devices.

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 October 4, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   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.

1.  Introduction

   Internet Transports (such as TCP and SCTP) have two ways to detect
   congestion: the loss of a packet and, if Explicit Congestion
   Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] is enabled, by reception of a packet
   with a Congestion Experienced (CE)-marking in the IP header.  Both of
   these are treated by transports as indications of (potential)
   congestion.  ECN may also be enabled by other transports: UDP
   applications that provide congestion control may enable ECN when they
   are able to correctly process the ECN signals [RFC5405] (e.g., ECN
   with RTP [RFC6679]).

   Active Queue Management (AQM) is a class of techniques that can be
   used by network devices to manage the size of queues that build in
   network buffers.  A network device (router, middlebox, or other
   device that forwards packets through the network) that does not
   support AQM, typically uses a drop-tail policy to drop excess IP
   packets when its queue becomes full.  The discard of packets serves
   as a signal to the end-to-end transport that there may be congestion
   on the network path being used.  This triggers a congestion control
   reaction to reduce the maximum rate permitted by the sending

   When an application uses a transport that enables the use of ECN, the
   transport layer sets the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoint in the IP header
   of packets that it sends.  This indicates to network devices that
   they may mark, rather than drop, packets as the network queue builds.
   This can allow a network device to signal at a point before a
   transport experiences congestion loss or additional queuing delay.
   The marking is generally performed as the result of various AQM
   algorithms, where the exact combination of AQM/ECN algorithms does
   not need to be known by the transport endpoints.

   Since ECN makes it possible for the network to signal the presence of
   incipient congestion (network queueing) without incurring packet
   loss, it lets the network deliver some packets to an application that
   would otherwise have been dropped if the application or transport did
   not support ECN.  This packet loss reduction is the most obvious
   benefit of ECN, but it is often relatively modest.  However, enabling
   ECN can also result in a number of beneficial side-effects, some of
   which may be much more significant than the immediate packet loss
   reduction from ECN-marking instead of dropping packets.  Several of

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   these benefits have to do with reducing latency in some way (e.g.,
   reduced Head-of-Line Blocking and potentially smaller queuing delay,
   depending on the marking rules in network devices).  The remainder of
   this document discusses the potential for ECN to positively benefit
   an application without making specific assumptions about
   configuration or implementation.

   [RFC3168] describes a method in which a network device sets the CE
   codepoint of an ECN-Capable packet at the time that the router would
   otherwise have dropped the packet.  While it has often been assumed
   that network devices should CE-mark packets at the same level of
   congestion at which they would otherwise have dropped them, separate
   configuration of the drop and mark thresholds is known to be
   supported in some network devices and this is recommended
   [RFC2309.bis].  Some benefits of ECN that are discussed rely upon
   network devices marking packets at a lower level of congestion,
   before they would otherwise drop packets from queue overflow [KH13].

   The focus of this document is on usage of ECN by transport and
   application layer flows, not its implementation in hosts, routers and
   other network devices.

2.  ECN Deployment

   For an application to use ECN requires that the endpoint first
   enables ECN within the transport.

   The ability to use ECN requires network devices along the path to at
   least forward IP packets with any ECN codepoint (i.e., packets with
   ECT(0), ECT(1), or with a CE-mark).  Network devices must not drop
   packets solely because these codepoints are used [RFC2309.bis].  This
   is further explained in (Section 2.2).

   For an application to gain benefit from using a transport that
   enables ECN, network devices need to enable ECN marking.  However,
   not all network devices along the path need to enable ECN.  Any
   network device that does not mark an ECN-enabled packet with a CE-
   codepoint can be expected to drop packets under congestion.
   Applications that experience congestion in these network devices do
   not see any benefit from using ECN, but would see benefit if the
   congestion were to occur within a network device that did support

   IETF-specified AQM algorithms need to be designed to work with
   network paths that may experience multiple bottlenecks.  Transports
   can therefore experience dropped or CE-marked packets from more than
   one network device related to the same network flow.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   ECN can be deployed both in the general Internet and in controlled

   o  ECN can be incrementally deployed in the general Internet.  The
      IETF has provided guidance on configuration and usage in
      [RFC2309.bis].  A recent survey reported growing support for ECN
      on common network paths [TR15].

   o  ECN may also be deployed within a controlled environment, for
      example within a data centre or within a well-managed private
      network.  In this case, the use of ECN may be tuned to the
      specific use-case.  An example is Datacenter TCP (DCTCP) [AL10].

   Some mechanisms that can assist in using ECN across paths that only
   partially supports ECN are noted in Section 4.  Applications and
   transports (such as TCP or SCTP) can be designed to fall-back to not
   using ECN when they discover they are using a path that does not
   allow use of ECN (e.g., a firewall or other network device configured
   to drop the ECN codepoint) Section 4.1.

2.1.  Enabling ECN in Network Devices

   The ECN behaviour of a network device should be configurable
   [RFC2309.bis].  An AQM algorithm that supports ECN needs to define
   the threshold and algorithm for ECN-marking.

   Network deployment needs also to consider the requirements for
   processing ECN at tunnel endpoints of network tunnels, and guidance
   on the treatment of ECN is provided in [RFC6040].  Further guidance
   on the encapsulation and use of ECN by non-IP network devices is
   provided in [ID.ECN-Encap].

2.2.  Bleaching and Middlebox Requirements to deploy ECN

   Cases have been noted where a sending endpoint marks a packet with a
   non-zero ECN mark, but the packet is received with a zero ECN value
   by the remote endpoint.

   The current IPv4 and IPv6 specifications assign usage of 2 bits in
   the IP header to carry the ECN codepoint.  This 2-bit field was
   reserved in [RFC2474] and assigned in [RFC3168].  A previous usage
   assigned these bits as a part of the now deprecated Type of Service
   (ToS) field [RFC1349].  Network devices that conform to this older
   specification may still remark or erase the ECN codepoints, and such
   equipment needs to be updated to the current specifications to
   support ECN.  This remarking has also been called "ECN bleaching".

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   Some networks have been observed to implement a policy that erases or
   "bleaches" the ECN marks at a network edge (resetting these to zero).
   This may be implemented for various reasons (including normalising
   packets to hide which equipment supports ECN).  This policy prevents
   use of ECN by applications.  A network device should therefore not
   remark an ECT(0) or ECT(1) mark to zero [RFC2309.bis].  A network
   device must also not set the CE-mark in a packet except to signal
   incipient congestion, since this will be interpreted as incipient
   congestion by the transport endpoints.

   A network device must not change a packet with a CE mark to a zero
   codepoint (if the CE marking is not propagated, the packet must be
   discarded) [RFC2309.bis].  Such a packet has already received ECN
   treatment in the network, and remarking it would then hide the
   congestion signal from the endpoints.

   Some networks may use ECN internally or tunnel ECN for traffic
   engineering or security.  Guidance on the correct use of ECN in this
   case is provided in [RFC6040].

3.  Benefit of using ECN to avoid Congestion loss

   When a non-ECN capable packet would be discarded as a result of
   incipient congestion, an ECN-enabled router may be expected to CE-
   mark, rather than drop an ECN-enabled packet [RFC2309.bis].  An
   application can benefit from this marking in several ways:

3.1.  Improved Throughput

   ECN can improve the throughput of an application, although this
   increase in throughput offered by ECN is often not the most
   significant gain.

   When an application uses a light to moderately loaded network path,
   the number of packets that are dropped due to congestion is small.
   Using an example from Table 1 of [RFC3649], for a standard TCP sender
   with a Round Trip Time, RTT, of 0.1 seconds, a packet size of 1500
   bytes and an average throughput of 1 Mbps, the average packet drop
   ratio is 0.02.  This translates into an approximate 2% throughput
   gain if ECN is enabled.  In heavy congestion, packet loss may be
   unavoidable with, or without, ECN.

3.2.  Reduced Head-of-Line Blocking

   Many transports provide in-order delivery of received data segments
   to the applications they support.  This requires that the transport
   stalls (or waits) for all data that was sent ahead of a particular
   segment to be correctly received before it can forward any later

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   data.  This is the usual requirement for TCP and SCTP.  PR-SCTP
   [RFC3758], UDP [RFC0768][RFC5405], and DCCP [RFC4340] provide a
   transport that does not have this requirement.

   Delaying data to provide in-order transmission to an application
   results in additional latency when segments are dropped as
   indications of congestion.  The congestive loss creates a delay of at
   least one RTT for a loss event before data can be delivered to an
   application.  We call this Head-of-Line (HOL) blocking.

   In contrast, using ECN can remove the resulting delay following a
   loss that was a result of congestion:

   o  First, the application receives the data normally.  This also
      avoids the inefficiency of dropping data that has already made it
      across at least part of the network path.  It also avoids the
      additional delay of waiting for recovery of the lost segment.

   o  Second, the transport receiver notes that it has received CE-
      marked packets, and then requests the sender to make an
      appropriate congestion-response to reduce the maximum transmission
      rate for future traffic.

3.3.  Reduced Probability of RTO Expiry

   In some situations, ECN can help reduce the probability of a
   transport retransmission timer expiring (e.g., expiry of the TCP or
   SCTP retransmission timeout, RTO [RFC5681]).  When an application
   sends a burst of segments and then becomes idle (either because the
   application has no further data to send or the network prevents
   sending further data - e.g., flow or congestion control at the
   transport layer), the last segment of the burst may be lost.  It is
   often not possible to recover this last segment (or last few
   segments) using standard methods such as Fast Recovery [RFC5681],
   since the receiver generates no feedback because it is unaware that
   the lost segments were actually sent [Fla13].

   In addition to avoiding HOL blocking, this allows the transport to
   avoid the consequent loss of state about the network path it is
   using, which would have arisen had there been a retransmission
   timeout.  Typical impacts of a transport timeout are to reset path
   estimates such as the RTT, the congestion window, and possibly other
   transport state that can reduce the performance of the transport
   until it again adapts to the path.

   Avoiding timeouts can hence improve the throughput of the
   application.  This benefits applications that send intermittent
   bursts of data, and rely upon timer-based recovery of packet loss.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   It can be especially significant when ECN is used on TCP SYN/ACK
   packets [RFC5562] where the RTO interval may be large because in this
   case TCP cannot base the timeout period on prior RTT measurements
   from the same connection.

3.4.  Applications that do not Retransmit Lost Packets

   Some latency-critical applications do not retransmit lost packets,
   yet they may be able to adjust the sending rate in the presence of
   incipient congestion.  Examples of such applications include UDP-
   based services that carry Voice over IP (VoIP), interactive video or
   real-time data.  The performance of many such applications degrades
   rapidly with increasing packet loss, and many therefore employ loss-
   hiding mechanisms (e.g., packet forward error correction, or data
   duplication) to mitigate the effect of congestion loss on the
   application.  However, such mechanisms add complexity and can
   themselves consume additional network capacity reducing the available
   capacity for application data and contributing to the path latency
   when congestion is experienced.

   By decoupling congestion control from loss, ECN can allow the
   transports supporting these applications to reduce their rate before
   the application experiences loss from congestion.  Because this
   reduces the negative impact of using loss-hiding mechanisms, ECN can
   have a direct positive impact on the quality experienced by the users
   of these applications.

3.5.  Making Incipient Congestion Visible

   A characteristic of using ECN is that it exposes the presence of
   congestion on a network path to the transport and network layers.
   This information can be used for monitoring performance of the path,
   and could be used to directly meter the amount of congestion that has
   been encountered upstream on a path; metering packet loss is harder.
   ECN measurements are used by Congestion Exposure (ConEx) [RFC6789].

   A network flow that only experiences CE-marks and no loss implies
   that the sending endpoint is experiencing only congestion and not
   other sources of packet loss (e.g., link corruption or loss in
   middleboxes).  The converse is not true - a flow may experience a
   mixture of ECN-marks and loss when there is only congestion or when
   there is a combination of packet loss and congestion [RFC2309.bis].
   Recording the presence of CE-marked packets can therefore provide
   information about the performance of the network path.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

3.6.  Opportunities for new Transport Mechanisms

   CE-marked packets carry an indication that network queues are
   filling, without incurring loss.  This has the possibility to provide
   richer feedback (more frequent and fine-grained indications) to
   transports.  This may utilise new thresholds and algorithms for ECN-
   marking.  Supporting ECN therefore provides a mechanism that can
   benefit evolution of transport protocols.

3.6.1.  Other forms of ECN-Marking/Reactions

   ECN requires a definition of both how network devices CE-mark packets
   and how applications/transports need to react to reception of these
   CE-marked packets.  ECN-capable receiving endpoints need to provide
   feedback indicating that CE-marks were received.  An endpoint may
   provide more detailed feedback describing the set of received ECN
   codepoints using Accurate ECN Feedback [ID.Acc.ECN].  This can
   provide more information to a sending endpoint's congestion control

   Precise feedback about the number of packet marks encountered is
   supported by the Real Time Protocol (RTP) when used over UDP
   [RFC6679] and proposed for SCTP [ST14] and TCP [ID.Acc.ECN].

   Benefit has been noted when packets are CE-marked earlier using an
   instantaneous queue, and if the receiver provides precise feedback
   about the number of packet marks encountered, a better sender
   behavior has been shown to be possible (e.g, Datacenter TCP (DCTCP)
   [AL10]).  DCTCP is targeted at confined environments such as a
   datacenter.  It is currently unknown whether or how such behaviour
   could be safely introduced into the Internet.

4.  ECN Transport Mechanisms for Paths with Partial ECN support

   Early deployment of ECN encountered a number of operational
   difficulties when the network only partially supports the use of ECN,
   or to respond to the challenges due to misbehaving network devices
   and/or endpoints.  These problems have been observed to diminish with
   time, but may still be encountered on some Internet paths [TR15].

   This section describes transport mechanisms that allow ECN-enabled
   endpoints to continue to work effectively over a path with partial
   ECN support.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

4.1.  Verifying whether a Path Really Supports ECN

   ECN transport and applications need to implement mechanisms to verify
   ECN support on the path that they use and fall back to not using ECN
   when it would not work.  This is expected to be a normal feature of
   IETF-defined transports supporting ECN.

   Before a transport relies on the presence or absence of CE-marked
   packets, it may need to verify that any ECN marks applied to packets
   passed by the path are indeed delivered to the remote endpoint.  This
   may be achieved by the sender setting known ECN codepoints into
   specific packets in a network flow and then verifying that these
   reach the remote endpoint [ID.Fallback], [TR15].

   Endpoints also need to be robust to path changes.  A change in the
   set of network devices along a path may impact the ability to
   effectively signal or use ECN across the path, e.g., when a path
   changes to use a middlebox that bleaches ECN codepoints.  As a
   necessary, but short term fix, transports could implement mechanisms
   that detect this and fall-back to disabling use of ECN [BA11].

4.2.  Detecting ECN Receiver Feedback Cheating

   It is important that receiving endpoints accurately report the loss
   they experience when using a transport that uses loss-based
   congestion control.  So also, when using ECN, a receiver must
   correctly report the congestion marking that it receives and then
   provide a mechanism to feed the congestion information back to the
   sending endpoint.

   The transport at endpoint receivers must not try to conceal reception
   of CE-marked packets in the ECN feedback information that they
   provide to the sending endpoint [RFC2309.bis].  Transport protocols
   are actively encouraged to include mechanisms that can detect and
   appropriately respond to such misbehavior (e.g., disabling use of
   ECN, and relying on loss-based congestion detection [TR15]).

5.  Conclusion

   This section summarises the benefits of deploying and using AQM
   within the Internet.  It also provides a list of key requirements to
   achieve ECN deployment.

   Network devices should enable ECN and people configuring host stacks
   should also enable ECN [RFC2309.bis].  Specifically network devices
   must not change a packet with a CE mark to a zero codepoint (if the
   CE marking is not propagated, the packet must be discarded).  These
   are prerequisites to allow applications to gain the benefits of ECN.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   Prerequisites for network devices (including IP routers) to enable
   use of ECN include:

   o  should not reset the ECN codepoint to zero by default (see
      Section 2.2).

   o  should correctly update the ECN codepoint in the presence of
      congestion [RFC2309.bis].

   o  should correctly support alternate ECN semantics [RFC4774].

   Prerequisites for network endpoints to enable use of ECN include:

   o  should use transports that can set and receive ECN marks.

   o  when ECN is used, must correctly return feedback of congestion to
      the sending endpoint.

   o  when ECN is used, must use transports that react appropriately to
      received ECN feedback (see Section 4.2).

   o  when ECN is used, should use transports that can detect misuse of
      ECN and detect paths that do not support ECN, providing fallback
      to loss-based congestion detection when ECN is not supported (see
      Section 4.1).

   Application developers should where possible use transports that
   enable the benefits of ECN.  Applications that directly use UDP need
   to provide support to implement the functions required for ECN
   [RFC5405].  Once enabled, an application that uses a transport that
   supports ECN will experience the benefits of ECN as network
   deployment starts to enable ECN.  The application does not need to be
   rewritten to gain these benefits.  Table 1 summarises some of these

   | Section | Benefit                                             |
   |   3.1   | Improved throughput                                 |
   |   3.2   | Reduced Head-of-Line blocking                       |
   |   3.3   | Reduced probability of RTO Expiry                   |
   |   3.4   | Applications that do not retransmit lost packets    |
   |   3.5   | Making incipient congestion visible                 |
   |   3.6   | Opportunities for new transport mechanisms          |

   Table 1: Summary of Key Benefits

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors were part-funded by the European Community under its
   Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet Transport
   Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700).  The views expressed are solely
   those of the authors.

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their
   comments on prior versions of this document: Bob Briscoe, David
   Collier-Brown, John Leslie, Colin Perkins, Richard Scheffenegger,
   Dave Taht, Wes Eddy, Fred Baker and other members of the TSVWG.

7.  IANA Considerations


   This memo includes no request to IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations.  Each RFC
   listed in this document discusses the security considerations of the
   specification it contains.

9.  Revision Information

   XXX RFC-Ed please remove this section prior to publication.

   Revision 00 was the first WG draft.

   Revision 01 includes updates to complete all the sections and a
   rewrite to improve readability.  Added section 2.  Author list
   reversed, since Gorry has become the lead author.  Corrections
   following feedback from Wes Eddy upon review of an interim version of
   this draft.

   Note: Wes Eddy raised a question about whether discussion of the ECN
   Pitfalls could be improved or restructured - this is expected to be
   addressed in the next revision.

   Revision 02 updates the title, and also the description of mechanisms
   that help with partial ECN support.

   We think this draft is ready for wider review.  Comments are welcome
   to the authors or via the IETF AQM or TSVWG mailing lists.

   Revision 03 includes updates from the mailing list and WG discussions
   at the Dallas IETF meeting.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

   The section "Avoiding Capacity Overshoot" was removed, since this
   refers primarily to an AQM benefit, and the additional benefits of
   ECN are already stated.  Separated normative and infoirmative

   XX Note: The reference to AQM Eval Requirements relises on addition
   of material to this document to define multiple bottleneck

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

              Baker, F. and G. Fairhurst, "IETF Recommendations
              Regarding Active Queue Management", Internet-draft draft-
              ietf-aqm-recommendation-06, October 2014.

   [RFC2474]  "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers".

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

   [RFC5405]  .

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.

10.2.  Informative References

   [AL10]     Alizadeh, M., Greenberg, A., Maltz, D., Padhye, J., Patel,
              P., Prabhakar, B., Sengupta, S., and M. Sridharan, "Data
              Center TCP (DCTCP)", SIGCOMM 2010, August 2010.

   [BA11]     Bauer, Steven., Beverly, Robert., and Arthur. Berger,
              "Measuring the State of ECN Readiness in Servers, Clients,
              and Routers, ACM IMC", 2011.

   [Fla13]    Flach, Tobias., Dukkipati, Nandita., Terzis, Andreas.,
              Raghavan, Barath., Cardwell, Neal., Cheng, Yuchung., Jain,
              Ankur., Hao, Shuai., Katz-Bassett, Ethan., and Ramesh.
              Govindan, "Reducing web latency: the virtue of gentle
              aggression.", SIGCOMM 2013, October 2013.

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

              Kuhn, Nicolas., Natarajan, Preethi., Khademi, Naeem., and
              David. Ros, "AQM Characterization Guidelines, Work-in-

              Briscoe, Bob., Scheffeneger, Richard., and Mirja.
              Kuehlewind, "More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP, Work-in-

              Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler,
              "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to
              Protocols that Encapsulate IP", Internet-draft, IETF work-
              in-progress draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines.

              Kuehlewind, Mirja. and Brian. Trammell, "A Mechanism for
              ECN Path Probing and Fallback, draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-ecn-
              fallback, Work-in-Progress".

   [KH13]     Khademi, N., Ros, D., and M. Welzl, "The New AQM Kids on
              the Block: Much Ado About Nothing?", University of Oslo
              Department of Informatics technical report 434, October

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", 1980.

   [RFC1349]  "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite".

   [RFC3649]  Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows",
              RFC 3649, December 2003.

   [RFC3758]  Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
              Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4774]  Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
              RFC 4774, November 2006.

   [RFC5562]  Kuzmanovic, A., Mondal, A., Floyd, S., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
              (ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets", RFC 5562, June

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               Benefits of ECN                  April 2015

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

   [RFC6679]  Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
              and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, August 2012.

   [RFC6789]  Briscoe, B., Woundy, R., and A. Cooper, "Congestion
              Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Use Cases", RFC 6789,
              December 2012.

   [ST14]     Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and X. Dong, "ECN for Stream
              Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", Internet-draft
              draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpecn-05.txt, January 2014.

   [TR15]     Tranmmel, Brian., Kuehlewind, Mirja., Boppart, Damiano,
              Learmonth, Iain., and Gorry.  Fairhurst, "Enabling
              internet-wide deployment of Explicit Congestion
              Notification Tramwell, B., Kuehlewind, M., Boppart, D.,
              Learmonth, I., Fairhurst, G. & Scheffnegger, Passive and
              Active Measurement Conference (PAM)", March 2015.

Authors' Addresses

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


   Michael Welzl
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316

   Phone: +47 22 85 24 20

Fairhurst & Welzl        Expires October 4, 2015               [Page 14]