Internet Engineering Task Force                              Sally Floyd
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                      ICIR
draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-00.txt                            Eddie Kohler
Expires: July 2005                                                  UCLA
                                                          6 January 2005

              TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) for Voice:
                    VoIP Variant and Faster Restart

Status of this Memo

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
    of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
    author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
    which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
    which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
    RFC 3668.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

    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."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

    This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2005.

Copyright Notice

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Floyd/Kohler                                                    [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005


    TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) is a congestion control mechanism
    for unicast flows operating in a best-effort Internet environment
    [RFC 3448]. This document adds a VoIP variant to TFRC.  TFRC was
    intended for applications that use a fixed packet size, and was
    designed to be reasonably fair when competing for bandwidth with TCP
    connections using the same packet size.  The VoIP variant of TFRC is
    designed for applications that send small packets, where the design
    goal is to achieve the same bandwidth in bps as a TCP flow using
    1500-byte data packets.  The VoIP variant of TFRC enforces a Min
    Interval of 10 ms between data packets, to prevent a single flow
    from sending small packets arbitrarily frequently.  This document
    also introduces faster restart, a mechanism for safely improving the
    behavior of interactive flows that use TFRC.

Floyd/Kohler                                                    [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

                             Table of Contents

    1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    2. VoIP Variant Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    3. VoIP Variant Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    4. VoIP Variant Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1. The TCP Throughput Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2. Accounting for Header Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.3. The VoIP Min Interval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    5. Faster Restart Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
    6. Faster Restart Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.1. Entering and Leaving Idle Periods. . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.2. Feedback Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    7. Faster Restart Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    8. Simulations of the VoIP Variant of TFRC . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       8.1. Packet Dropping Behavior at Routers. . . . . . . . . . .  13
    9. Simulations of Faster Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    10. Implementation Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    11. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    12. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    13. Thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
    Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
    Intellectual Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Floyd/Kohler                                                    [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

1.  Conventions

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].

2.  VoIP Variant Introduction

    This document specifies a VoIP variant for TCP-friendly rate control
    (TFRC) [RFC 3448].  TFRC was designed to be reasonably fair when
    competing for bandwidth with TCP flows, but to avoid the abrupt
    changes in the sending rate characteristic of TCP's congestion
    control mechanisms.  TFRC is intended for applications such as
    streaming media applications where a relatively smooth sending rate
    is of importance.

    The VoIP variant is intended for flows that need to send frequent
    small packets.  Conventional TFRC measures loss rates by estimating
    the loss event ratio as described in [RFC 3448], without considering
    packet size.  This has consequences for the rate a TFRC flow can
    achieve when sharing a bottleneck with large-packet TCP flows.  In
    particular, a low-bandwidth, small-packet TFRC flow sharing a
    bottleneck with high-bandwidth, large-packet TCP flows may be forced
    to slow down, even though the application's nominal rate in bytes
    per second is less than the rate achieved by the TCP flows.
    Intuitively, this would be "fair" only if the network limitation was
    in packets per second (such as a routing lookup), rather than bytes
    per second (such as link bandwidth).  Conventional wisdom is that
    many of the network limitations in today's Internet are in bytes per
    second, even though the network limitations of the future might move
    back towards limitations in packets per second.

    The VoIP variant of TFRC described here will better support
    applications that do not want their sending rates in bytes per
    second to suffer from their use of small packets.  This variant is
    restricted to applications that send packets no more than once every
    10 ms (the Min Interval).  Given this restriction, the VoIP variant
    effectively calculates the TFRC fair rate as if the bottleneck
    restriction was in bytes per second.  Applications using the VoIP
    variant of TFRC could have a fixed packet size, or could vary their
    packet size in response to congestion.

    The VoIP variant of TFRC is motivated by the approach in [RFC 3714],
    which argued that it was acceptable for VoIP flows to assume that
    the network limitation was in bytes per second (Bps) rather in
    packets per second (pps), and to have the allowed drop rates for the
    VoIP flow be determined by the drop rates experienced by a TCP flow
    with 1500-byte packets and the same sending rate in Bps as the VoIP

Floyd/Kohler                                        Section 2.  [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    flow.  [RFC 3714] states the following:

        "While the ideal would be to have a transport protocol that is
        able to detect whether the bottleneck links along the path are
        limited in Bps or in pps, and to respond appropriately when the
        limitation is in pps, such an ideal is hard to achieve. We would
        not want to delay the deployment of congestion control for
        telephony traffic until such an ideal could be accomplished.  In
        addition, we note that the current TCP congestion control
        mechanisms are themselves not very effective in an environment
        where there is a limitation along the reverse path in pps.
        While the TCP mechanisms do provide an incentive to use large
        data packets, TCP does not include any effective congestion
        control mechanisms for the stream of small acknowledgement
        packets on the reverse path.  Given the arguments above, it
        seems acceptable to us to assume a network limitation in Bps
        rather than in pps in considering the minimum sending rate of
        telephony traffic."

    Translating the discussion in [RFC 3714] to the congestion control
    mechanisms of TFRC, it seems acceptable to standardize a variant of
    TFRC that allows VoIP flows sending small packets to achieve a rough
    fairness with TCP flows in terms of the sending rate in Bps, rather
    than in terms of the sending rate in pps.  This is accomplished by a
    simple two-line modification at the TFRC sender, as described below.
    No changes are required at the TFRC receiver.

    However, because the bottlenecks in the network in fact can include
    limitations in pps as well as in Bps, we pay special attention to
    the potential dangers of encouraging a large deployment of best-
    effort traffic in the Internet consisting entirely of small packets.
    This is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3. In addition, as
    again discussed in Section 4.3, the VoIP variant of TFRC includes
    the limitation of the Min Interval between packets of 10 ms.

3.  VoIP Variant Congestion Control

    TFRC uses the TCP throughput equation given in Section 3.1 of [RFC
    3448], which gives the allowed sending rate X in bytes per second as
    a function of the loss event rate, packet size, and round-trip time.
    [RFC 3448] specifies that the packet size s used in the throughput
    equation should be the packet size used by the application, or the
    estimated mean packet size if there are variations in the packet
    size depending on the data.  This gives rough fairness with TCP
    flows using the same packet size.

    The VoIP variant changes this behavior in the following ways.

Floyd/Kohler                                        Section 3.  [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    o  The nominal packet size s is set to 1460 bytes.  Following [RFC
       3714], this provides a goal of fairness, in terms of the sending
       rate in bytes per second, with a TCP flow with 1460 bytes of
       application data per packet.

    o  The allowed transmit rate X in bytes per second is reduced by a
       factor that accounts for packet header size.  This gives the
       application some incentive, beyond the Min Interval, not to use
       unnecessarily small packets.  In particular, we introduce a new
       parameter H, which represents the expected size in bytes of
       network and transport headers to be used on the TFRC connection's
       packets.  This is used to reduce the allowed transmit rate X as

       X <- X * s_true / (s_true + H),

       where s_true is the true average packet size for the connection
       in bytes.

       The H parameter is set to the constant 40 bytes.  Thus, if the
       VoIP TFRC application used 40-byte data segments, the allowed
       transmit rate X would be halved to account for the fact that half
       of the sending rate would be used by the headers.  Section 4.2
       justifies this definition.  However, a connection using the VoIP
       variant MAY instead use a more precise estimate of H, based on
       the actual network and transport headers to be used on the
       connection's packets.  For example, a DCCP connection [DCCP] over
       IPv4, where data packets use the DCCP-Data packet type, and there
       are no IP or DCCP options, could set H to 20 + 12 = 32 bytes.

    o  Finally, the VoIP variant of TFRC enforces a Min Interval between
       packets of 10 ms.  A flow that wished to exceed this Min Interval
       MUST use the conventional TFRC equations, rather than the VoIP
       variant.  The motivation for this is discussed below.

4.  VoIP Variant Discussion

4.1.  The TCP Throughput Equation

    The VoIP variant of TFRC uses the TCP throughput equation given in
    [RFC 3448].  As shown in Table 1 of [RFC 3714], for high packet drop
    rates, this throughput equation gives rough fairness with most
    aggressive possible current TCP: a SACK TCP flow using timestamps
    and ECN.

Floyd/Kohler                                      Section 4.1.  [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

4.2.  Accounting for Header Size

    [RFC 3714] makes the optimistic assumption that the limitation of
    the network is in bandwidth in bytes per second (Bps), and not in
    CPU cycles or in packets per second (pps).  However, some attention
    must be paid to the load in pps as well as to the load in Bps.  Even
    aside from the Min Interval, the VoIP variant of TFRC gives the
    application some incentive to use fewer but larger packets, when
    larger packets would suffice, by including the bandwidth used by the
    packet header in the allowed sending rate.

    As an example, a sender using 120-byte packets needs a TCP-friendly
    rate of 128 Kbps to send 96 Kbps of application data.  This is
    because the TCP-friendly rate is reduced by a factor of
    s_true/(s_true + H) = 120/160, to account for the effect of packet
    headers.  If the sender suddenly switched to 40-byte data segments,
    the allowed sending rate would reduce to 64 Kbps of application
    data; and one-byte data segments would reduce the allowed sending
    rate to 3.12 Kbps of application data.  (In fact, the Min Interval
    would prevent senders from achieving these rates, since applications
    using the VoIP variant cannot send more than 100 packets per

    The VoIP variant assumes 40 bytes for the header size, although the
    header could be larger (due to IP options, IPv6, IP tunnels, and the
    like) or smaller (due to header compression) on the wire, because
    using the exact header size in bytes would have little additional
    benefit.  The VoIP variant's use of an assumed 40-byte header is
    sufficient to get a rough estimate of the throughput, and to give
    the application some incentive not to use unnecessarily-many small
    packets.  Because we are only aiming at rough fairness, and at a
    rough incentive for applications, the use of a 40-byte header in the
    calculations of the header bandwidth seems sufficient.

4.3.  The VoIP Min Interval

    The header size calculation provides an incentive for applications
    to use fewer, but larger, packets.  Another incentive is that when
    the path limitation is in pps, the application using more small
    packets is likely to receive more packet drops, and to have to
    reduce its sending rate accordingly.  That is, if the congestion is
    in terms of pps, then the flow sending more pps will receive more
    congestion indications, and have to adjust its sending rate
    accordingly.  However, the increased congestion caused by the use of
    small packets in an environment limited by pps is experienced not
    only by the flow using the small packets, but by all of the
    competing traffic on that congested link.  These incentives are
    therefore insufficient to provide sufficient protection for pps

Floyd/Kohler                                      Section 4.3.  [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    network limitations.

    The VoIP variant for TFRC, then, includes a Min Interval of 10 ms.
    This provides additional restrictions on the use of unnecessarily
    many small packets.

    One justification for the Min Interval is the practical one that the
    applications that currently want to send small packets are the VoIP
    applications that send at most one packet every 10 ms, so this
    restriction does not affect current traffic.  A second justification
    is that there is no pressing need for best-effort traffic in the
    current Internet to send small packets more frequently than once
    every 10 ms (rather than taking the 10 ms delay at the sender, and
    merging the two small packets into one larger one).  This 10 ms
    delay for merging small packets is likely to be dominated by the
    network propagation, transmission, and queueing delays of best-
    effort traffic in the current Internet.  As a result, our judgement
    would be that the benefit to the user of having less than 10 ms
    between packets is outweighed by the benefit to the network of
    avoiding unnecessarily many small packets.

    The Min Interval causes the VoIP variant of TFRC not to support
    applications sending small packets very frequently.  Consider a TFRC
    flow with a fixed packet size of 100 bytes, but with a variable
    sending rate and a fairly uncongested path.  When this flow was
    sending at most 100 pps, it would be able to use the VoIP variant of
    TFRC.  If the flow wished to increase its sending rate to more than
    100 pps, but to keep the same packet size, it would no longer be
    able to achieve this with the VoIP variant to TFRC, and would have
    to swich to the default TFRC, receiving a dramatic, discontinuous
    decrease in its allowed sending rate.  This seems not only
    acceptable, but desirable for the global Internet.

    What is to prevent flows from opening multiple connections, each
    with a 10 ms Min Interval, and thereby getting around the limitation
    of the Min Interval?  Obviously, there is nothing to prevent flows
    from doing this, just as there is currently nothing to prevent flows
    from using UDP, or from opening multiple parallel TCP connections,
    or from using their own congestion control mechanism.  Of course,
    implementations are also free to limit the number of parallel TFRC
    connections opened to the same destination in times of congestion,
    if that seems desirable.  And flows that open multiple parallel
    connections are subject to the inconveniences of reordering and the
    like.  But even without a mechanism to prevent flows from subverting
    the Min Interval by opening multiple parallel connections, it seems
    useful to include the Min Interval in the VoIP variant of TFRC.

Floyd/Kohler                                      Section 4.3.  [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

5.  Faster Restart Introduction

    In any RTT, a TFRC flow may not send more than twice X_recv, the
    amount that was received in the previous RTT.  The TFRC nofeedback
    timer reduces this number by half during each nofeedback timer
    interval (at least four RTT) in which no feedback is received.  The
    effect of this is that applications must slow start after going idle
    for any significant length of time.

    This behavior is safe for the network.  A silent application stops
    receiving feedback about current network conditions, and thus should
    not be able to send at an arbitrary rate.  But this behavior can
    damage the perceived performance of interactive applications, such
    as voice.  Connections for interactive telephony and conference
    applications, for example, will usually have one party active at a
    time, with seamless switching between active parties.  Incurring
    slow start on every switch between parties may cause perceived
    performance to seriously degrade.  Some of the strategies suggested
    for coping with this problem, such as sending padding data during
    application idle periods, might have worse effects on the network
    than simply switching onto the desired rate with no slow start.

    There is some justification for somewhat accelerating the slow start
    process after idle periods (as opposed to at the beginning of a
    connection).  A connection that fairly achieves a sending rate of X
    has proved, at least, that some path between the endpoints can
    support that rate.  The path might change, due to endpoint reset or
    routing adjustments; or many new connections might start up,
    significantly reducing the application's fair rate.  However, it
    seems reasonable to allow an application to contribute to transient
    congestion in times of change, in return for improving application
    responsiveness after idle periods.

    This document suggests a relatively simple approach to this problem.
    Soome protocols using TFRC [CCID 3 PROFILE] already specify that the
    allowed sending rate is never reduced below the RFC-3390 sending
    rate of four packets per RTT during an idle period.  Faster Restart
    specifies that the allowed sending rate is never reduced below eight
    packets per RTT, for small packets.  In addition, because flows
    already have some (possibly old) information about the path, Faster
    Restart allows flows to quadruple their sending rate in every
    congestion-free RTT, instead of doubling, up to the previously
    achieved rate.  Any congestion event stops this faster restart and
    switches TFRC into congestion avoidance.

Floyd/Kohler                                        Section 5.  [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

6.  Faster Restart Congestion Control


    A connection goes "idle" when the application has nothing to send
    for at least a nofeedback interval (as least four round-trip times).
    However, when Faster Restart is used, the transport layer MUST send
    a "ping" packet every several round trip times, to continue getting
    RTT samples and some idea of the loss event rate.

    Faster Restart introduces four new state variables to TFRC, as

        The time the connection went idle.

        The rate at which to turn off faster restart; 0 if not in faster
        restart.  Initially 0.

        The rate at which packets were received in the last active
        sending period.  An active sending period is a period in which
        the sender was neither idle nor in fast restart.  It is
        initialized to 0 until there has been an active sending period.

        The most recent time in an active sending period.

    Several previously existing state variables are also particularly
    important, as follows.

    R   The RTT estimate; kept current during any idle periods as
        described above.

    X   The current allowed sending rate in bytes per second.

    p   The recent loss event rate.

        The rate at which the receiver estimates that data was received
        since the last feedback report was sent.  Note that this
        includes "ping" packets sent during idle periods (above) as well
        as application packets.

    Other variables have values as described in [RFC 3448].

Floyd/Kohler                                       Section 6.  [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

6.1.  Entering and Leaving Idle Periods

    When the application has nothing to send (an idle period is
    entered), TFRC sets T_idle := now.

    When the application has something to send, TFRC uses the following
    code to determine whether it is leaving an idle period, and if so,
    how the sending rate should be adjusted.  The code will use Faster
    Restart up to the full last fair rate after an idle period of
    10 minutes or less; will not use Fast Testart after an idle period
    of 30 minutes or more; and interpolates between these extremes after
    idle periods between 10 and 30 minutes.

    If (now - T_idle) > max(R, 1 / max(X_calc, s/t_mbi)),
       /* If idle for <= 10 minutes, end fast start at the
          full last fair rate; if idle for >= 30 minutes,
          don't do fast start; in between, interpolate. */
       delta_T := now - T_active_recv
       F := (30 min - min(max(delta_T, 10 min), 30 min)) / 20 min
       /* Initialize X_fast_max to a fraction of the last active
          rate */
       X_fast_max := F*X_active_recv
       /* Alter the cached X_recv so we start out between 4
          and 8 packets/RTT */
       X_recv := max(2*s/R, X_recv)

6.2.  Feedback Packets

    The core of the Faster Restart algorithm is a replacement for the
    4th step of Section 4.3, Sender behavior when a feedback packet is
    received, of [RFC 3448], as follows.

Floyd/Kohler                                     Section 6.2.  [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    To update X when you receive a feedback packet
    If (2*X_recv < X_fast_max) and the feedback packet
          indicates a loss or mark,
       /* Stop faster restart at the first sign of congestion */
       X_fast_max := 0,
       X_recv := X_recv/2.
    If p > 0,
       Calculate X_calc using the TCP throughput equation.
       If (2*X_recv < X_fast_max),
          /* Faster restart case */
          X := max(min(X_calc, 4*X_recv), s/t_mbi).
          X_fast_max := 0,  /* Stop faster restart */
          X := max(min(X_calc, 2*X_recv), s/t_mbi).
       If (t_now - tld >= R)
          X := max(min(2*X, 2*X_recv), s/R);
          tld := now.

7.  Faster Restart Discussion

    TCP has historically dealt with idleness either by keeping cwnd
    entirely open ("immediate start") or by entering slow start, as
    recommended in RFC 2581.  The first option is too liberal, the
    second too conservative.  Clearly a short idle period is not a new
    connection: recent evidence shows that the connection could fairly
    sustain some rate.  However, longer idle periods are more
    problematic, and idle periods of hours would seem to require slow
    start.  RFC 2861 [RFC 2861], which is fairly widely implemented
    [MAF04], gives a moderate mechanism for TCP, where the congestion
    window is halved for every round-trip time that the sender has
    remained idle, and the window in re-opened in slow-start when the
    idle period is over.

    Faster Restart should be acceptable for TFRC if its worst-case
    scenario is acceptable. Realistic worst-case scenarios might include
    the following scenarios:

    o  The path changes and the old rate isn't acceptable on the new
       path.  RTTs are shorter on the new path too, so Faster Restart
       clobbers other connections for multiple RTTs, not just one.

    o  Two (or more) connections enter Faster Restart simultaneously.
       The packet drop rate can be twice as bad, for one RTT, than if
       they had slow-started after their idle periods.

Floyd/Kohler                                       Section 7.  [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    o  In addition to connections Fast-Restarting, there are short TCP
       or DCCP connections starting and stopping all the time, with
       initial windows of three or four packets.  There are also TCP
       connections with short quiescent periods (web browsing sessions
       using HTTP 1.1).  The audio and video connections have idle
       periods.  And the available bandwidth might vary over time,
       because of bandwidth used by higher-priority traffic (routing
       traffic, and diffserv).  All of this is happening at once, so the
       aggregate arrival rate naturally varies from one RTT to the next.
       And the congested link is an access link, not a backbone link, so
       the level of statistical multiplexing is not high enough to make
       everything just look like lovely white noise.

    Further analysis is required to analyze the effects of these

    We note that Faster Restart in VoIP TFRC is considerably more
    restrained that Faster Restart in the default TFRC;  in VoIP TFRC,
    the sender is restricted to sending at most one packet every Min
    Interval.  Similarly, Faster Restart in the default TFRC is more
    restrained that Faster Restart would be if added to TCP;  TFRC is
    controlled of a sending rate, while TCP is controlled by a window,
    and could send in a very bursty pattern, in the absence of rate-
    based pacing.

8.  Simulations of the VoIP Variant of TFRC

    VoIP mode for TFRC has been added to the NS simulator, and is
    illustrated in the validation test "./test-all-friendly" in the
    directory tcl/tests.

8.1.  Packet Dropping Behavior at Routers

    The default TFRC, without the VoIP variant, was designed for rough
    fairness with TCP, for TFRC and TCP flows with the same packet size,
    and experiencing the same packet drop rate.  When the issue of
    fairness between flows with different packets sizes is addressed, it
    matters whether the packet drop rates experienced by the flows is
    related to the packet size.  That is, are small VoIP packets just as
    likely to be dropped as large TCP packets, or are the smaller
    packets less likely to be dropped [WBL02]?

    In our simulations of TCP flows competing with a VoIP TFRC flow with
    smaller packets, in a scenario with a congested router with a
    DropTail queue, the VoIP TCP flow receives more than its fair share
    in bytes per second.  This is the case even for a scenario where the

Floyd/Kohler                                     Section 8.1.  [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    TCP flows are the most aggressive, with SACK TCP, timestamps, and
    ECN.  This is in part because in the simulations with a DropTail
    queue, even one measured in packets rather than in bytes, the TFRC
    flow with a smooth sending rate and small packets receives a smaller
    packet drop rate than the TCP flow with a burstier sending rate and
    larger packets.

    As expected, the packet dropping behavior can be varied by varying
    the Active Queue Management mechanism in the router.  When the
    routers use RED in packet mode, where each *packet* has the same
    probability of being dropped, the TFRC and TCP flows receive roughly
    the same packet drop rate.  In contrast, when the routers use RED in
    byte mode, where each *byte* has the same probability of being
    dropped, the TFRC flow sees a much smaller packet drop rate than the
    TCP flows.

    The goal of the VoIP variant of TFRC has been for the TCP flows and
    the VoIP TFRC flows to have rough fairness in the sending rate in
    bps, in a scenario where each packet receives roughly the same
    probability of being dropped.  In a scenario where large packets are
    more likely to be dropped than small packets, or where flows with a
    bursty sending rate are more likely to have packets dropped than are
    flows with a smooth sending rate, flows using the VoIP variant of
    TFRC could receive more bandwidth than competing TCP flows.

    Although the VoIP variant of TFRC doesn't require that applications
    are limited by a maximum sending rate, in fact VoIP flows do have
    such a limitation.  As illustrated in the simulations by Tom Phelan,
    this complicates the issue of exploring the fairness between TCP and
    VoIP TFRC flows.

    In addition, for VoIP TFRC flows with a maximum sending rate of 96
    Kbps, or with a smaller maximum sending rate, VoIP TFRC only reduces
    the sending rate of these flows when the packet drop rate is fairly
    high.  In this regime, the performance of TFRC is very much
    determined by the accuracy of the TCP response function in
    representing the actual sending rate of a TCP connection.  In this
    regime of high packet drop rates, the performance of the TCP
    connection is very much affected by the TCP algorithm (e.g., SACK or
    not), by the use of timestamps and/or of ECN, by the minimum RTO, by
    the use or not of Limited Transmit, and the like.  Thus, for
    simulations in this regime, there are many parameters to consider.

9.  Simulations of Faster Restart


Floyd/Kohler                                       Section 9.  [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

10.  Implementation Issues


11.  Security Considerations


12.  IANA Considerations

    There are no IANA considerations in this document.

13.  Thanks

    Tom Phelan.  The DCCP Working Group.

Normative References

    [RFC 2119] S. Bradner. Key Words For Use in RFCs to Indicate
        Requirement Levels. RFC 2119.

    [RFC 2434] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand.  Guidelines for Writing an
        IANA Considerations Section in RFCs.  RFC 2434.

    [RFC 2581] M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens.  TCP Congestion
        Control.  RFC 2581.

    [RFC 3448] M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, and J. Widmer, TCP
        Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification, RFC 3448,
        Proposed Standard, January 2003.

Informative References

    [CCID 3 PROFILE] S. Floyd, E. Kohler, and J. Padhye.  Profile for
        DCCP Congestion Control ID 3: TFRC Congestion Control.  draft-
        ietf-dccp-ccid3-06.txt, work in progress, October 2004.

    [DCCP] E. Kohler, M. Handley, and S. Floyd.  Datagram Congestion
        Control Protocol, draft-ietf-dccp-spec-08.txt, work in progress,
        October 2004.

    [MAF04] Alberto Medina, Mark Allman, and Sally Floyd, Measuring the
        Evolution of Transport Protocols in the Internet, May 2004, URL

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

Floyd/Kohler                                                   [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    [RFC 3714] S. Floyd and J. Kempf, Editors.  IAB Concerns Regarding
        Congestion Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet.  RFC 3714.

    [WBL02] J. Widmer, C. Boutremans, and  Jean-Yves Le Boudec,
        Congestion Control for Flows with Variable Packet Size,
        Technical Report.

Authors' Addresses

    Sally Floyd <>
    ICSI Center for Internet Research
    1947 Center Street, Suite 600
    Berkeley, CA 94704

    Eddie Kohler <>
    4531C Boelter Hall
    UCLA Computer Science Department
    Los Angeles, CA 90095

Full Copyright Statement

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2004.  This document is subject
    to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
    except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

    This document and the information contained herein are provided on

Intellectual Property

    The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
    Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
    to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
    in this document or the extent to which any license under such
    rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
    it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
    Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
    documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

    Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an

Floyd/Kohler                                                   [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: July 2005               January 2005

    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
    of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository

    The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-

Floyd/Kohler                                                   [Page 17]