[Search] [pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 rfc2018                                              
Internet Engineering Task Force                 TCPLW WG
INTERNET-DRAFT                                  Mathis/Mahdavi/Floyd/Romanow
Draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt                    PSC/LBL/Sun
                                                26 April 1996
                                                Expires: 29/7/96


                        TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

    This document is an Internet-Draft.  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-Drafts.

    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.''

    To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
    the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
    Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
    nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
    ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

ABSTRACT

    TCP may experience poor performance when multiple packets are lost
    from one window of data.   With the limited information available
    from cumulative acknowledgments, a TCP sender can only learn
    about a single lost packet per round trip time.  An aggressive
    sender could choose to retransmit packets early, but such
    retransmitted segments may have already been successfully
    received.

    A Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism, combined with a
    selective repeat retransmission policy, can help to overcome these
    limitations.  The receiving TCP sends back SACK packets to the
    sender informing the sender of data that has been received. The
    sender can then retransmit only the missing data segments.

    This draft proposes an implementation of SACK and discusses its
    performance and related issues.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    Much of the text in this document is taken directly from RFC1072
    ``TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths'' by Bob Braden and Van
    Jacobson.  The authors would like to thank Kevin Fall (LBNL),
    Christian Huitema (INRIA), Van Jacobson (LBNL), Greg Miller
    (MITRE), Greg Minshall (Ipsilon), Lixia Zhang (XEROX PARC and
    UCLA), Dave Borman (BSDI), Allison Mankin (ISI) and others for
    their review and constructive comments.

Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 1]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt

1.  INTRODUCTION

    Multiple packet losses from a window of data can have a
    catastrophic effect on TCP throughput. TCP [Postel81] uses a
    cumulative acknowledgment scheme in which received segments that
    are not at the left edge of the receive window are not
    acknowledged.  This forces the sender to either wait a roundtrip
    time to find out about each lost packet, or to unnecessarily
    retransmit segments which have been correctly received [Fall95].
    With the cumulative acknowledgment scheme, multiple dropped
    segments generally cause TCP to lose its ACK-based clock, reducing
    overall throughput.

    Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) is a strategy which corrects this
    behavior in the face of multiple dropped segments.  With selective
    acknowledgments, the data receiver can inform the sender about all
    segments that have arrived successfully, so the sender need
    retransmit only the segments that have actually been lost.

    Several transport protocols, including NETBLT [Clark87], XTP
    [Strayer92], RDP [Velten84], NADIR [Huitema81],
    and VMTP [Cheriton88] have used selective
    acknowledgment.  There is some empirical evidence in favor of
    selective acknowledgments -- simple experiments with RDP have shown
    that disabling the selective acknowledgment facility greatly
    increases the number of retransmitted segments over a lossy,
    high-delay Internet path [Partridge87]. A recent simulation study
    by Kevin Fall and Sally Floyd [Fall95], demonstrates the strength of
    TCP with SACK over the non-SACK Tahoe and Reno TCP implementations.

    RFC1072 [VJ88] describes one possible implementation of SACK
    options for TCP.  Unfortunately, it has never been deployed in the
    Internet, as there was disagreement about how SACK options should
    be used in conjunction with the TCP window shift option (initially
    described RFC1072 and revised in [Jacobson92]).

    We propose slight modifications to the SACK options as proposed in
    RFC1072.  Specifically, sending a selective acknowledgment for the
    most recently received data reduces the need for long SACK options
    [Keshav94, Mathis95].  In addition, the SACK option now carries full
    32 bit sequence numbers.  These two modifications represent the only
    changes to the proposal in RFC1072.  They make SACK easier to
    implement and address concerns about robustness.

    The selective acknowledgment extension uses two TCP options. The
    first is an enabling option, "SACK-permitted", which may be sent in
    a SYN segment to indicate that the SACK option can be used once the
    connection is established.  The other is the SACK option itself,
    which may be sent over an established connection once permission
    has been given by SACK-permitted.




Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 2]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt

    The SACK option is to be included in a segment sent from a TCP that
    is receiving data to the TCP that is sending that data; we will
    refer to these TCP's as the data receiver and the data sender,
    respectively.  We will consider a particular simplex data flow; any
    data flowing in the reverse direction over the same connection can
    be treated independently.

2.  SACK-PERMITTED OPTION

    This two-byte option may be sent in a SYN by a TCP that has been
    extended to receive (and presumably process) the SACK option once
    the connection has opened.  It MUST NOT be sent on non-SYN segments.

    TCP Sack-Permitted Option:

    Kind: 4

    +---------+---------+
    | Kind=4  | Length=2|
    +---------+---------+


3.  SACK OPTION FORMAT

    The SACK option is to be used to convey extended acknowledgment
    information from the receiver to the sender over an established
    TCP connection.

    TCP SACK Option:

    Kind: 5

    Length: Variable

                      +--------+--------+
                      | Kind=5 | Length |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |      Left Edge of 1st Block       |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |      Right Edge of 1st Block      |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |                                   |
    /            . . .                  /
    |                                   |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |      Left Edge of nth Block       |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |      Right Edge of nth Block      |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+



Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 3]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt


    The SACK option is to be sent by a data receiver to inform the
    data sender of non-contiguous blocks of data that have been
    received and queued.  The data receiver awaits the receipt of data
    (perhaps by means of retransmissions) to fill the gaps in sequence
    space between received blocks.  When missing segments are
    received, the data receiver acknowledges the data normally by
    advancing the left window edge in the Acknowledgment Number field
    of the TCP header.  The SACK option does not change the meaning of
    the Acknowledgment Number field.

    The SACK option provides additional information which the data
    transmitter can use to optimize retransmissions.  The TCP data
    receiver includes the SACK option in an acknowledgment segment
    whenever it has data that is queued and unacknowledged.
    The SACK option may be sent only when the TCP has received the
    SACK-permitted option in the SYN segment for that connection.

    This option contains a list of some of the blocks of contiguous
    sequence space occupied by data that has been received and queued
    within the window.

    Each contiguous block of data queued at the data receiver is
    defined in the SACK option by two 32-bit unsigned integers in
    network byte order:

    *    Left Edge of Block

         This is the first sequence number of this block.

    *    Right Edge of Block

         This is the sequence number immediately following the last
         sequence number of this block.

    Each block represents received bytes of data that are contiguous and
    isolated; that is, the bytes just below the block, (Left Edge of
    Block - 1), and just above the block, (Right Edge of Block), have
    not been received.

    A SACK option that specifies n blocks will have a length of
    8*n+2 bytes, so the 40 bytes available for TCP options can
    specify a maximum of 4 blocks.  It is expected that SACK will
    often be used in conjunction with the Timestamp option used for
    RTTM [Jacobson92], which takes an additional 10 bytes (plus two
    bytes of padding); thus a maximum of 3 SACK blocks will be
    allowed in this case.

    The SACK option is advisory, in that, while it notifies the data
    sender that the data receiver has received the indicated segments,
    the data receiver is permitted to later discard data which have been
    reported in a SACK option.  A discussion appears below in Section 8
    of the consequences of advisory SACK, in particular that the data
    receiver may renege, or drop already SACKed data.


Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 4]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt

4.  GENERATING SACK OPTIONS:  DATA RECEIVER BEHAVIOR

    If the data receiver has received a SACK-Permitted option on the
    SYN for this connection, the data receiver MAY elect to generate
    SACK options as described below.  If the data receiver generates
    SACK options under any circumstance, it SHOULD generate them under
    all permitted circumstances.  If the data receiver has not received
    a SACK-Permitted option for a given connection, it MUST NOT send
    SACK options on that connection.

    If sent at all, SACK options SHOULD be included in all ACKs which
    do not ACK the highest sequence number in the data receiver's queue.
    In this situation the network has lost or mis-ordered data, such
    that the receiver holds non-contiguous data in its queue.  RFC
    1122, Section 4.2.2.21, discusses the reasons for the receiver to
    send ACKs in response to additional segments received in this
    state.  The receiver SHOULD send an ACK for every valid segment
    that arrives containing new data, and each of these "duplicate"
    ACKs SHOULD bear a SACK option.

    If the data receiver chooses to send a SACK option, the following
    rules apply:

        * The first SACK block (i.e., the one immediately following the
        kind and length fields in the option) MUST specify the
        contiguous block of data containing the segment which triggered
        this ACK, unless that segment advanced the Acknowledgment Number
        field in the header.  This assures that the ACK with the SACK
        option reflects the most recent change in the data receiver's
        buffer queue.

        * The data receiver SHOULD include as many distinct SACK blocks
        as possible in the SACK option.  Note that the maximum
        available option space may not be sufficient to report all
        blocks present in the receiver's queue.

        * The SACK option SHOULD be filled out by repeating the most
        recently reported SACK blocks (based on first SACK blocks in
        previous SACK options) that are not subsets of a SACK block
        already included in the SACK option being constructed.  This
        assures that in normal operation, any segment remaining part
        of a non-contiguous block of data held by the data receiver is
        reported in at least three successive SACK options, even for
        large-window TCP implementations [RFC1323]).  After the first
        SACK block, the following SACK blocks in the SACK option may be
        listed in arbitrary order.

    It is very important that the SACK option always reports
    the block containing the most recently received segment, because
    this provides the sender with the most up-to-date information
    about the state of the network and the data receiver's queue.






Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 5]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt


5.  INTERPRETING THE SACK OPTION AND RETRANSMISSION STRATEGY:
    DATA SENDER BEHAVIOR


    When receiving an ACK containing a SACK option, the data sender
    SHOULD record the selective acknowledgment for future reference.
    The data sender is assumed to have a retransmission queue
    that contains the segments that have been transmitted but not yet
    acknowledged, in sequence-number order.  If the data sender
    performs re-packetization before retransmission, the block
    boundaries in a SACK option that it receives may not fall on
    boundaries of segments in the retransmission queue; however, this
    does not pose a serious difficulty for the sender.

    One possible implementation of the sender's behavior is as follows.
    Let us suppose that for each segment in the retransmission queue
    there is a (new) flag bit "SACKed", to be used to indicate that
    this particular segment has been reported in a SACK option.

    When an acknowledgment segment arrives containing a SACK option,
    the data sender will turn on the SACKed bits for segments that
    have been selectively acknowledged.  More specifically, for each
    block in the SACK option, the data sender will turn on the
    SACKed flags for all segments in the retransmission queue that are
    wholly contained within that block.  This requires straightforward
    sequence number comparisons.

    After the SACKed bit is turned on (as the result of processing a
    received SACK option), the data sender will skip that segment during
    any later retransmission.  Any segment that has the SACKed bit turned
    off and is less than the highest SACKed segment is available for
    retransmission.

    After a retransmit timeout the data sender SHOULD turn off all of
    the SACKed bits, since the timeout might indicate that the data
    receiver has reneged.  The data sender MUST retransmit the segment
    at the left edge of the window after a retransmit timeout, whether or
    not the SACKed bit is on for that segment.  A segment will not be
    dequeued and its buffer freed until the left window edge is
    advanced over it.

5.1  Congestion Control Issues

    This document does not attempt to specify in detail the congestion
    control algorithms for implementations of TCP with SACK.  However,
    the congestion control algorithms present in the de facto standard
    TCP implementations MUST be preserved [Stevens94].  In particular,
    to preserve robustness in the presence of packets reordered by the
    network, recovery is not triggered by a single ACK reporting
    out-of-order packets at the receiver.  Further, during recovery the
    data sender limits the number of segments sent in response to each
    ACK.  Existing implementations limit the data sender to sending one


Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 6]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt

    segment during Reno-style fast recovery, or to two segments during
    slow-start [Jacobson88].  Other aspects of congestion control, such
    as reducing the congestion window in response to congestion, must
    similarly be preserved.

    The use of time-outs as a fall-back mechanism for detecting dropped
    packets is unchanged by the SACK option.  Because the data receiver
    is allowed to discard SACKed data, when a retransmit timeout
    occurs the data sender MUST ignore prior SACK information in
    determining which data to retransmit.

    Future research into congestion control algorithms may take
    advantage of the additional information provided by SACK.  One such
    area for future research concerns modifications to TCP for a
    wireless or satellite environment where packet loss is not
    necessarily an indication of congestion.

6.  EFFICIENCY AND WORST CASE BEHAVIOR

    If the return path carrying ACKs and SACK options were lossless,
    one block per SACK option packet would always be sufficient.  Every
    segment arriving while the data receiver holds discontinuous data
    would cause the data receiver to send an ACK with a SACK option
    containing the one altered block in the receiver's queue.  The data
    sender is thus able to construct a precise replica of the
    receiver's queue by taking the union of all the first SACK blocks.

    Since the return path is not lossless, the SACK option is
    defined to include more than one SACK block in a single packet.
    The redundant blocks in the SACK option packet increase the
    robustness of SACK delivery in the presence of lost ACKs.  For a
    receiver that is also using the time stamp option [Jacobson92], the
    SACK option has room to include three SACK blocks.  Thus each SACK
    block will generally be repeated at least three times, if necessary,
    once in each of three successive ACK packets.  However, if all
    of the ACK packets reporting a particular SACK block are dropped,
    then the sender might assume that the data in that SACK block has
    not been received, and unnecessarily retransmit those segments.

    The deployment of other TCP options may reduce the number of
    available SACK blocks to 2 or even to 1.  This will reduce the
    redundancy of SACK delivery in the presence of lost ACKs.  Even so,
    the exposure of TCP SACK in regard to the unnecessary retransmission
    of packets is strictly less than the exposure of current
    implementations of TCP.  The worst-case conditions necessary
    for the sender to needlessly retransmit data is discussed in more
    detail in a separate document [Floyd96].

    Older TCP implementations which do not have the SACK option will not
    be unfairly disadvantaged when competing against SACK-capable TCPs.
    This issue is discussed in more detail in [Floyd96].

7.  SACK OPTION EXAMPLES

    The following examples attempt to demonstrate the proper behavior of
    SACK generation by the data receiver.


Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 7]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt

    Assume the left window edge is 5000 and that the data transmitter
    sends a burst of 8 segments, each containing 500 data bytes.


         Case 1: The first 4 segments are received but the last 4 are
         dropped.

         The data receiver will return a normal TCP ACK segment
         acknowledging sequence number 7000, with no SACK option.


         Case 2:  The first segment is dropped but the remaining 7 are
         received.


         Upon receiving each of the last seven packets, the data
         receiver will return a TCP ACK segment that acknowledges
         sequence number 5000 and contains a SACK option specifying
         one block of queued data:

             Triggering    ACK      Left Edge   Right Edge
             Segment

             5000         (lost)
             5500         5000     5500       6000
             6000         5000     5500       6500
             6500         5000     5500       7000
             7000         5000     5500       7500
             7500         5000     5500       8000
             8000         5000     5500       8500
             8500         5000     5500       9000



         Case 3:  The 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th (last) segments are
         dropped.

         The data receiver ACKs the first packet normally.  The
         third, fifth, and seventh packets trigger SACK options as
         follows:

          Triggering  ACK    First Block   2nd Block     3rd Block
          Segment            Left   Right  Left   Right  Left   Right
                             Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge

          5000       5500
          5500       (lost)
          6000       5500    6000   6500
          6500       (lost)
          7000       5500    7000   7500   6000   6500
          7500       (lost)
          8000       5500    8000   8500   7000   7500   6000   6500
          8500       (lost)

Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 8]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt


         Suppose at this point, the 4th packet is received out of
         order.  (This could either be because the data was badly
         misordered in the network, or because the 2nd packet was
         retransmitted and lost, and then the 4th packet was
         retransmitted). At this point the data receiver has only two
         SACK blocks to report.  The data receiver replies with the
         following Selective Acknowledgment:

          Triggering  ACK    First Block   2nd Block     3rd Block
          Segment            Left   Right  Left   Right  Left   Right
                             Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge

          6500       5500    6000   7500   8000   8500

         Suppose at this point, the 2nd segment is received.  The
         data receiver then replies with the following Selective
         Acknowledgment:

          Triggering  ACK    First Block   2nd Block     3rd Block
          Segment            Left   Right  Left   Right  Left   Right
                             Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge   Edge

          5500       7500    8000   8500

8.  DATA RECEIVER RENEGING

    Note that the data receiver is permitted to discard data in its
    queue that has not been acknowledged to the data sender, even if
    the data has already been reported in a SACK option.  Such
    discarding of SACKed packets is discouraged, but may be used if the
    receiver runs out of buffer space.

    The data receiver MAY elect not to keep data which it has reported
    in a SACK option.  In this case, the receiver SACK generation is
    additionally qualified:

      * The first SACK block MUST reflect the newest segment.  Even
      if the newest segment is going to be discarded and the receiver
      has already discarded adjacent segments, the first SACK block
      MUST report, at a minimum, the left and right edges of the
      newest segment.

      * Except for the newest segment, all SACK blocks MUST NOT
      report any old data which is no longer actually held by the
      receiver.

    Since the data receiver may later discard data reported in a SACK
    option, the sender MUST NOT discard data before it is acknowledged
    by the Acknowledgment Number field in the TCP header.





Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 9]


draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt


9.  SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

    This document neither strengthens nor weakens TCP's current
    security properties.


10. REFERENCES

    [Cheriton88]  Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction
    Protocol", RFC 1045, Stanford University, February 1988.

    [Clark87] Clark, D., Lambert, M., and L. Zhang, "NETBLT: A Bulk
    Data Transfer Protocol", RFC 998, MIT, March 1987.

    [Fall95]  Fall, K. and Floyd, S., "Comparisons of Tahoe, Reno,
    and Sack TCP", ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/sacks.ps.Z, December 1995.

    [Floyd96]  Floyd, S.,  "Issues of TCP with SACK",
    ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/issues_sa.ps.Z, January 1996.

    [Huitema81] Huitema, C., and Valet, I., An Experiment on High
    Speed File Transfer using Satellite Links, 7th Data Communication
    Symposium, Mexico, October 1981.

    [Jacobson88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control",
    Proceedings of SIGCOMM '88, Stanford, CA., August 1988.

    [Jacobson88}, V. and Braden, R., TCP Extensions for Long-Delay
    Paths, RFC 1072, October 1988.

    [Jacobson92] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and Borman, D., TCP
    Extensions for High Performance, RFC 1323, May 1992.

    [Keshav94]  Keshav, presentation to the Internet End-to-End
    Research Group, November 1994.

    [Mathis95]  Mathis, M., and Mahdavi, J., TCP Forward
    Acknowledgment Option, presentation to the Internet End-to-End
    Research Group, June 1995.

    [Partridge87]  Partridge, C., "Private Communication", February
    1987.

    [Postel81]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA
    Internet Program Protocol Specification", RFC 793, DARPA,
    September 1981.

    [Stevens94] Stevens, W., TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The
    Protocols, Addison-Wesley, 1994.

    [Strayer92] Strayer, T., Dempsey, B., and Weaver, A., XTP -- the
    xpress transfer protocol. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
    1992.

    [Velten84] Velten, D., Hinden, R., and J. Sax, "Reliable Data
    Protocol", RFC 908, BBN, July 1984.
Expires 29/7/96                                                 [page 10]

draft-ietf-tcplw-sack-02.txt


11. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

    Matt Mathis and Jamshid Mahdavi
    Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
    4400 Fifth Ave
    Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    mathis@psc.edu
    mahdavi@psc.edu

    Sally Floyd
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    One Cyclotron Road
    Berkeley, CA 94720
    floyd@ee.lbl.gov

    Allyn Romanow
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
    2550 Garcia Ave., MPK17-202
    Mountain View, CA 94043
    allyn@eng.sun.com