TCP Maintenance (TCPM) D. Borman
Internet-Draft Quantum Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track B. Braden
Expires: August 17, 2013 University of Southern
California
V. Jacobson
Packet Design
R. Scheffenegger, Ed.
NetApp, Inc.
February 13, 2013
TCP Extensions for High Performance
draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-05
Abstract
This document specifies a set of TCP extensions to improve
performance over paths with a large bandwidth*delay product and to
provide reliable operation over very high-speed paths. It defines
TCP options for scaled windows and timestamps. The timestamps are
used for two distinct mechanisms, RTTM (Round Trip Time Measurement)
and PAWS (Protection Against Wrapped Sequences).
This document updates and obsoletes RFC 1323.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. 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.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. TCP Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. TCP Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Using TCP options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. TCP Window Scale Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Window Scale Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Using the Window Scale Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Addressing Window Retraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. RTTM -- Round-Trip Time Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. TCP Timestamps Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. The RTTM Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Which Timestamp to Echo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. PAWS -- Protection Against Wrapped Sequence Numbers . . . . . 17
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. The PAWS Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.1. Basic PAWS Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.2. Timestamp Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.3. Outdated Timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.4. Header Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.5. IP Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. Duplicates from Earlier Incarnations of Connection . . . . 24
6. Conclusions and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Implementation Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix B. Duplicates from Earlier Connection Incarnations . . . 29
B.1. System Crash with Loss of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.2. Closing and Reopening a Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C. Summary of Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix D. Pseudo-code Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix E. Event Processing Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix F. Timestamps Edge Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix G. Changes from RFC 1072, RFC 1185, and RFC 1323 . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
1. Introduction
The TCP protocol [RFC0793] was designed to operate reliably over
almost any transmission medium regardless of transmission rate,
delay, corruption, duplication, or reordering of segments. Over the
years, advances in networking technology has resulted in ever-higher
transmission speeds, and the fastest paths are well beyond the domain
for which TCP was originally engineered.
This document defines a set of modest extensions to TCP to extend the
domain of its application to match the increasing network capability.
It is an update to and obsoletes [RFC1323], which in turn is based
upon and obsoletes [RFC1072] and [RFC1185].
For brevity, the full discussions of the merits and history behind
the TCP options defined within this document have been omitted.
[RFC1323] should be consulted for reference. A modern TCP
implementation SHOULD implement and make use of the extensions
described in this document.
1.1. TCP Performance
TCP performance problems arise when the bandwidth*delay product is
large.
There are three fundamental performance problems with the current TCP
over LFN paths:
(1) Window Size Limit
The TCP header uses a 16 bit field to report the receive window
size to the sender. Therefore, the largest window that can be
used is 2^16 = 65K bytes.
To circumvent this problem, Section 2 of this memo defines a new
TCP option, "Window Scale", to allow windows larger than 2^16.
This option defines an implicit scale factor, which is used to
multiply the window size value found in a TCP header to obtain
the true window size.
(2) Recovery from Losses
Packet losses in an LFN can have a catastrophic effect on
throughput.
To generalize the Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery mechanism to
handle multiple packets dropped per window, selective
acknowledgments are required. Unlike the normal cumulative
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
acknowledgments of TCP, selective acknowledgments give the
sender a complete picture of which segments are queued at the
receiver and which have not yet arrived.
Selective acknowledgements are specified in a separate document,
"A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss
Recovery Algorithm for TCP" [RFC6675], and not further discussed
in this document.
(3) Round-Trip Measurement
TCP implements reliable data delivery by retransmitting segments
that are not acknowledged within some retransmission timeout
(RTO) interval. Accurate dynamic determination of an
appropriate RTO is essential to TCP performance. RTO is
determined by estimating the mean and variance of the measured
round-trip time (RTT), i.e., the time interval between sending a
segment and receiving an acknowledgment for it [Jacobson88a].
Section 4.2 introduces a new TCP option, "Timestamps", and then
defines a mechanism using this option that allows nearly every
segment, including retransmissions, to be timed at negligible
computational cost. We use the mnemonic RTTM (Round Trip Time
Measurement) for this mechanism, to distinguish it from other
uses of the Timestamps option.
1.2. TCP Reliability
An especially serious kind of error may result from an accidental
reuse of TCP sequence numbers in data segments. TCP reliability
depends upon the existence of a bound on the lifetime of a segment:
the "Maximum Segment Lifetime" or MSL.
Duplication of sequence numbers might happen in either of two ways:
(1) Sequence number wrap-around on the current connection
A TCP sequence number contains 32 bits. At a high enough
transfer rate, the 32-bit sequence space may be "wrapped"
(cycled) within the time that a segment is delayed in queues.
(2) Earlier incarnation of the connection
Suppose that a connection terminates, either by a proper close
sequence or due to a host crash, and the same connection (i.e.,
using the same pair of port numbers) is immediately reopened. A
delayed segment from the terminated connection could fall within
the current window for the new incarnation and be accepted as
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
valid.
Duplicates from earlier incarnations, Case (2), are avoided by
enforcing the current fixed MSL of the TCP spec, as explained in
Section 5.3 and Appendix B. However, case (1), avoiding the reuse of
sequence numbers within the same connection, requires an MSL bound
that depends upon the transfer rate, and at high enough rates, a new
mechanism is required.
A possible fix for the problem of cycling the sequence space would be
to increase the size of the TCP sequence number field. For example,
the sequence number field (and also the acknowledgment field) could
be expanded to 64 bits. This could be done either by changing the
TCP header or by means of an additional option.
Section 5 presents a different mechanism, which we call PAWS
(Protection Against Wrapped Sequence numbers), to extend TCP
reliability to transfer rates well beyond the foreseeable upper limit
of network bandwidths. PAWS uses the TCP Timestamps option defined
in Section 4.2 to protect against old duplicates from the same
connection.
1.3. Using TCP options
The extensions defined in this document all use new TCP options.
When RFC 1323 was published, there was concern that some buggy TCP
implementation might be crashed by the first appearance of an option
on a non-SYN segment. However, bugs like that can lead to DOS
attacks against a TCP, so it is now expected that most TCP
implementations will properly handle unknown options on non-SYN
segments. But it is still prudent to be conservative in what you
send, and avoiding buggy TCP implementation is not the only reason
for negotiating TCP options on SYN segments. Therefore, for each of
the extensions defined below, it is recommended that TCP options will
be sent on non-SYN segments only after an exchange of options on the
SYN segments has indicated that both sides understand the extension.
Furthermore, an extension option will be sent in a <SYN,ACK> segment
only if the corresponding option was received in the initial <SYN>
segment.
The timestamps option may appear in any data or ACK segment, adding
12 bytes to the 20-byte TCP header. We believe that the bandwidth
saved by reducing unnecessary retransmission timeouts will more than
pay for the extra header bandwidth.
Appendix A contains a recommended layout of the options in TCP
headers to achieve reasonable data field alignment.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Finally, we observe that most of the mechanisms defined in this memo
are important for LFN's and/or very high-speed networks. For low-
speed networks, it might be a performance optimization to NOT use
these mechanisms. A TCP vendor concerned about optimal performance
over low-speed paths might consider turning these extensions off for
low-speed paths, or allow a user or installation manager to disable
them.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. TCP Window Scale Option
3.1. Introduction
The window scale extension expands the definition of the TCP window
to 32 bits and then uses a scale factor to carry this 32-bit value in
the 16-bit Window field of the TCP header (SEG.WND in RFC 793). The
scale factor is carried in a new TCP option, Window Scale. This
option is sent only in a SYN segment (a segment with the SYN bit on),
hence the window scale is fixed in each direction when a connection
is opened.
The maximum receive window, and therefore the scale factor, is
determined by the maximum receive buffer space. In a typical modern
implementation, this maximum buffer space is set by default but can
be overridden by a user program before a TCP connection is opened.
This determines the scale factor, and therefore no new user interface
is needed for window scaling.
3.2. Window Scale Option
The three-byte Window Scale option MAY be sent in a SYN segment by a
TCP. It has two purposes: (1) indicate that the TCP is prepared to
do both send and receive window scaling, and (2) communicate a scale
factor to be applied to its receive window. Thus, a TCP that is
prepared to scale windows SHOULD send the option, even if its own
scale factor is 1. The scale factor is limited to a power of two and
encoded logarithmically, so it may be implemented by binary shift
operations.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
TCP Window Scale Option (WSopt):
Kind: 3
Length: 3 bytes
+---------+---------+---------+
| Kind=3 |Length=3 |shift.cnt|
+---------+---------+---------+
1 1 1
This option is an offer, not a promise; both sides MUST send Window
Scale options in their SYN segments to enable window scaling in
either direction. If window scaling is enabled, then the TCP that
sent this option will right-shift its true receive-window values by
'shift.cnt' bits for transmission in SEG.WND. The value 'shift.cnt'
MAY be zero (offering to scale, while applying a scale factor of 1 to
the receive window).
This option MAY be sent in an initial <SYN> segment (i.e., a segment
with the SYN bit on and the ACK bit off). It MAY also be sent in a
<SYN,ACK> segment, but only if a Window Scale option was received in
the initial <SYN> segment. A Window Scale option in a segment
without a SYN bit SHOULD be ignored.
The Window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN> or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself
is never scaled.
3.3. Using the Window Scale Option
A model implementation of window scaling is as follows, using the
notation of [RFC0793]:
o All windows are treated as 32-bit quantities for storage in the
connection control block and for local calculations. This
includes the send-window (SND.WND) and the receive-window
(RCV.WND) values, as well as the congestion window.
o The connection state is augmented by two window shift counts,
Snd.Wind.Scale and Rcv.Wind.Scale, to be applied to the incoming
and outgoing window fields, respectively.
o If a TCP receives a <SYN> segment containing a Window Scale
option, it sends its own Window Scale option in the <SYN,ACK>
segment.
o The Window Scale option is sent with shift.cnt = R, where R is the
value that the TCP would like to use for its receive window.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
o Upon receiving a SYN segment with a Window Scale option containing
shift.cnt = S, a TCP sets Snd.Wind.Scale to S and sets
Rcv.Wind.Scale to R; otherwise, it sets both Snd.Wind.Scale and
Rcv.Wind.Scale to zero.
o The window field (SEG.WND) in the header of every incoming
segment, with the exception of SYN segments, is left-shifted by
Snd.Wind.Scale bits before updating SND.WND:
SND.WND = SEG.WND << Snd.Wind.Scale
(assuming the other conditions of [RFC0793] are met, and using the
"C" notation "<<" for left-shift).
o The window field (SEG.WND) of every outgoing segment, with the
exception of SYN segments, is right-shifted by Rcv.Wind.Scale
bits:
SND.WND = RCV.WND >> Rcv.Wind.Scale
TCP determines if a data segment is "old" or "new" by testing whether
its sequence number is within 2^31 bytes of the left edge of the
window, and if it is not, discarding the data as "old". To insure
that new data is never mistakenly considered old and vice versa, the
left edge of the sender's window has to be at most 2^31 away from the
right edge of the receiver's window. Similarly with the sender's
right edge and receiver's left edge. Since the right and left edges
of either the sender's or receiver's window differ by the window
size, and since the sender and receiver windows can be out of phase
by at most the window size, the above constraints imply that two
times the max window size must be less than 2^31, or
max window < 2^30
Since the max window is 2^S (where S is the scaling shift count)
times at most 2^16 - 1 (the maximum unscaled window), the maximum
window is guaranteed to be < 2^30 if S <= 14. Thus, the shift count
MUST be limited to 14 (which allows windows of 2^30 = 1 Gbyte). If a
Window Scale option is received with a shift.cnt value exceeding 14,
the TCP SHOULD log the error but use 14 instead of the specified
value.
The scale factor applies only to the Window field as transmitted in
the TCP header; each TCP using extended windows will maintain the
window values locally as 32-bit numbers. For example, the
"congestion window" computed by Slow Start and Congestion Avoidance
is not affected by the scale factor, so window scaling will not
introduce quantization into the congestion window.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
3.4. Addressing Window Retraction
When a non-zero scale factor is in use, there are instances when a
retracted window can be offered [Mathis08]. The end of the window
will be on a boundary based on the granularity of the scale factor
being used. If the sequence number is then updated by a number of
bytes smaller than that granularity, the TCP will have to either
advertise a new window that is beyond what it previously advertised
(and perhaps beyond the buffer), or will have to advertise a smaller
window, which will cause the TCP window to shrink. Implementations
MUST ensure that they handle a shrinking window, as specified in
section 4.2.2.16 of [RFC1122].
For the receiver, this implies that:
1) The receiver MUST honor, as in-window, any segment that would
have been in-window for any ACK sent by the receiver.
2) When window scaling is in effect, the receiver SHOULD track the
actual maximum window sequence number (which is likely to be
greater than the window announced by the most recent ACK, if more
than one segment has arrived since the application consumed any
data in the receive buffer).
On the sender side:
3) The initial transmission MUST honor window on most recent ACK.
4) On first retransmission, or if the sequence number is out-of-
window by less than (2^Rcv.Wind.Scale) then do normal
retransmission(s) without regard to receiver window as long as
the original segment was in window when it was sent.
5) On subsequent retransmissions, treat such ACKs as zero window
probes.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
4. RTTM -- Round-Trip Time Measurement
4.1. Introduction
Accurate and current RTT estimates are necessary to adapt to changing
traffic conditions and to avoid an instability known as "congestion
collapse" [RFC0896] in a busy network. However, accurate measurement
of RTT may be difficult both in theory and in implementation.
Many TCP implementations base their RTT measurements upon a sample of
one packet per window or less. While this yields an adequate
approximation to the RTT for small windows, it results in an
unacceptably poor RTT estimate for a LFN. If we look at RTT
estimation as a signal processing problem (which it is), a data
signal at some frequency, the packet rate, is being sampled at a
lower frequency, the window rate. This lower sampling frequency
violates Nyquist's criteria and may therefore introduce "aliasing"
artifacts into the estimated RTT [Hamming77].
A good RTT estimator with a conservative retransmission timeout
calculation can tolerate aliasing when the sampling frequency is
"close" to the data frequency. For example, with a window of 8
packets, the sample rate is 1/8 the data frequency -- less than an
order of magnitude different. However, when the window is tens or
hundreds of packets, the RTT estimator may be seriously in error,
resulting in spurious retransmissions.
If there are dropped packets, the problem becomes worse. Zhang
[Zhang86], Jain [Jain86] and Karn [Karn87] have shown that it is not
possible to accumulate reliable RTT estimates if retransmitted
segments are included in the estimate. Since a full window of data
will have been transmitted prior to a retransmission, all of the
segments in that window will have to be ACKed before the next RTT
sample can be taken. This means at least an additional window's
worth of time between RTT measurements and, as the error rate
approaches one per window of data (e.g., 10^-6 errors per bit for the
Wideband satellite network), it becomes effectively impossible to
obtain a valid RTT measurement.
A solution to these problems, which actually simplifies the sender
substantially, is as follows: using TCP options, the sender places a
timestamp in each data segment, and the receiver reflects these
timestamps back in ACK segments. Then a single subtract gives the
sender an accurate RTT measurement for every ACK segment (which will
correspond to every other data segment, with a sensible receiver).
We call this the RTTM (Round-Trip Time Measurement) mechanism.
It is vitally important to use the RTTM mechanism with big windows;
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
otherwise, the door is opened to some dangerous instabilities due to
aliasing. Furthermore, the option is probably useful for all TCP's,
since it simplifies the sender.
4.2. TCP Timestamps Option
TCP is a symmetric protocol, allowing data to be sent at any time in
either direction, and therefore timestamp echoing may occur in either
direction. For simplicity and symmetry, we specify that timestamps
always be sent and echoed in both directions. For efficiency, we
combine the timestamp and timestamp reply fields into a single TCP
Timestamps Option.
TCP Timestamps Option (TSopt):
Kind: 8
Length: 10 bytes
+-------+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
|Kind=8 | 10 | TS Value (TSval) |TS Echo Reply (TSecr)|
+-------+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
1 1 4 4
The Timestamps option carries two four-byte timestamp fields. The
Timestamp Value field (TSval) contains the current value of the
timestamp clock of the TCP sending the option.
The Timestamp Echo Reply field (TSecr) is valid if the ACK bit is set
in the TCP header; if it is valid, it echoes a timestamp value that
was sent by the remote TCP in the TSval field of a Timestamp option.
When TSecr is not valid, its value MUST be zero. However, a value of
zero does not imply TSecr being invalid. The TSecr value will
generally be from the most recent Timestamps Option that was
received; however, there are exceptions that are explained below.
A TCP MAY send the Timestamps option (TSopt) in an initial <SYN>
segment (i.e., a segment containing a SYN bit and no ACK bit). Once
a TSopt has been sent or received in a non <SYN> segment, it MUST be
sent in all segments. Once a TSopt has been received in a non <SYN>
segment, then any successive segment that is received without the RST
bit and without a TSopt MAY be dropped without further processing,
and an ACK of the current SND.UNA generated.
In the case of crossing SYN packets where one SYN contains a TSopt
and the other doesn't, both sides SHOULD put a TSopt in the <SYN,ACK>
segment.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
4.3. The RTTM Mechanism
RTTM places a Timestamps option in every segment, with a TSval that
is obtained from a (virtual) "timestamp clock". Values of this clock
values MUST be at least approximately proportional to real time, in
order to measure actual RTT.
These TSval values are echoed in TSecr values in the reverse
direction. The difference between a received TSecr value and the
current timestamp clock value provides a RTT measurement.
When timestamps are used, every segment that is received will contain
a TSecr value. However, these values cannot all be used to update
the measured RTT. The following example illustrates why. It shows a
one-way data flow with segments arriving in sequence without loss.
Here A, B, C... represent data blocks occupying successive blocks of
sequence numbers, and ACK(A),... represent the corresponding
cumulative acknowledgments. The two timestamp fields of the
Timestamps option are shown symbolically as <TSval=x,TSecr=y>. Each
TSecr field contains the value most recently received in a TSval
field.
TCP A TCP B
<A,TSval=1,TSecr=120> ----->
<---- <ACK(A),TSval=127,TSecr=1>
<B,TSval=5,TSecr=127> ----->
<---- <ACK(B),TSval=131,TSecr=5>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<C,TSval=65,TSecr=131> ---->
<---- <ACK(C),TSval=191,TSecr=65>
(etc.)
The dotted line marks a pause (60 time units long) in which A had
nothing to send. Note that this pause inflates the RTT which B could
infer from receiving TSecr=131 in data segment C. Thus, in one-way
data flows, RTTM in the reverse direction measures a value that is
inflated by gaps in sending data. However, the following rule
prevents a resulting inflation of the measured RTT:
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
RTTM Rule: A TSecr value received in a segment is used to update
the averaged RTT measurement only if
a) the segment acknowledges some new data, i.e., only if it
advances the left edge of the send window, and
b) the segment does not indicate any loss or reordering, i.e.
contains SACK options
Since TCP B is not sending data, the data segment C does not
acknowledge any new data when it arrives at B. Thus, the inflated
RTTM measurement is not used to update B's RTTM measurement.
Implementers should note that with Timestamps multiple RTTMs can be
taken per RTT. Many RTO estimators have a weighting factor based on
an implicit assumption that at most one RTTM will be sampled per RTT.
When using multiple RTTMs per RTT to update the RTO estimator, the
weighting factor needs to be decreased to take into account the more
frequent RTTMs. For example, an implementation could choose to just
use one sample per RTT to update the RTO estimator, or vary the gain
based on the congestion window, or take an average of all the RTTM
measurements received over one RTT, and then use that value to update
the RTO estimator. This document does not prescribe any particular
method for modifying the RTO estimator.
4.4. Which Timestamp to Echo
If more than one Timestamps option is received before a reply segment
is sent, the TCP must choose only one of the TSvals to echo, ignoring
the others. To minimize the state kept in the receiver (i.e., the
number of unprocessed TSvals), the receiver should be required to
retain at most one timestamp in the connection control block.
There are three situations to consider:
(A) Delayed ACKs.
Many TCP's acknowledge only every Kth segment out of a group of
segments arriving within a short time interval; this policy is
known generally as "delayed ACKs". The data-sender TCP must
measure the effective RTT, including the additional time due to
delayed ACKs, or else it will retransmit unnecessarily. Thus,
when delayed ACKs are in use, the receiver SHOULD reply with the
TSval field from the earliest unacknowledged segment.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
(B) A hole in the sequence space (segment(s) have been lost).
The sender will continue sending until the window is filled, and
the receiver may be generating ACKs as these out-of-order
segments arrive (e.g., to aid "fast retransmit").
The lost segment is probably a sign of congestion, and in that
situation the sender should be conservative about
retransmission. Furthermore, it is better to overestimate than
underestimate the RTT. An ACK for an out-of-order segment
SHOULD therefore contain the timestamp from the most recent
segment that advanced the window.
The same situation occurs if segments are re-ordered by the
network.
(C) A filled hole in the sequence space.
The segment that fills the hole represents the most recent
measurement of the network characteristics. On the other hand,
an RTT computed from an earlier segment would probably include
the sender's retransmit time-out, badly biasing the sender's
average RTT estimate. Thus, the timestamp from the latest
segment (which filled the hole) MUST be echoed.
An algorithm that covers all three cases is described in the
following rules for Timestamps option processing on a synchronized
connection:
(1) The connection state is augmented with two 32-bit slots:
TS.Recent holds a timestamp to be echoed in TSecr whenever a
segment is sent, and Last.ACK.sent holds the ACK field from the
last segment sent. Last.ACK.sent will equal RCV.NXT except when
ACKs have been delayed.
(2) If:
SEG.TSval >= TS.recent and SEG.SEQ <= Last.ACK.sent
then SEG.TSval is copied to TS.Recent; otherwise, it is ignored.
(3) When a TSopt is sent, its TSecr field is set to the current
TS.Recent value.
The following examples illustrate these rules. Here A, B, C...
represent data segments occupying successive blocks of sequence
numbers, and ACK(A),... represent the corresponding acknowledgment
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
segments. Note that ACK(A) has the same sequence number as B. We
show only one direction of timestamp echoing, for clarity.
o Packets arrive in sequence, and some of the ACKs are delayed.
By case (A), the timestamp from the oldest unacknowledged segment
is echoed.
TS.Recent
<A, TSval=1> ------------------->
1
<B, TSval=2> ------------------->
1
<C, TSval=3> ------------------->
1
<---- <ACK(C), TSecr=1>
(etc)
o Packets arrive out of order, and every packet is acknowledged.
By case (B), the timestamp from the last segment that advanced the
left window edge is echoed, until the missing segment arrives; it
is echoed according to Case (C). The same sequence would occur if
segments B and D were lost and retransmitted.
TS.Recent
<A, TSval=1> ------------------->
1
<---- <ACK(A), TSecr=1>
1
<C, TSval=3> ------------------->
1
<---- <ACK(A), TSecr=1>
1
<B, TSval=2> ------------------->
2
<---- <ACK(C), TSecr=2>
2
<E, TSval=5> ------------------->
2
<---- <ACK(C), TSecr=2>
2
<D, TSval=4> ------------------->
4
<---- <ACK(E), TSecr=4>
(etc)
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
5. PAWS -- Protection Against Wrapped Sequence Numbers
5.1. Introduction
Section 5.2 describes a simple mechanism to reject old duplicate
segments that might corrupt an open TCP connection; we call this
mechanism PAWS (Protection Against Wrapped Sequence numbers). PAWS
operates within a single TCP connection, using state that is saved in
the connection control block. Section 5.3 and Appendix G discuss the
implications of the PAWS mechanism for avoiding old duplicates from
previous incarnations of the same connection.
5.2. The PAWS Mechanism
PAWS uses the same TCP Timestamps option as the RTTM mechanism
described earlier, and assumes that every received TCP segment
(including data and ACK segments) contains a timestamp SEG.TSval
whose values are monotonically non-decreasing in time. The basic
idea is that a segment can be discarded as an old duplicate if it is
received with a timestamp SEG.TSval less than some timestamp recently
received on this connection.
In both the PAWS and the RTTM mechanism, the "timestamps" are 32-bit
unsigned integers in a modular 32-bit space. Thus, "less than" is
defined the same way it is for TCP sequence numbers, and the same
implementation techniques apply. If s and t are timestamp values,
s < t if 0 < (t - s) < 2^31,
computed in unsigned 32-bit arithmetic.
The choice of incoming timestamps to be saved for this comparison
MUST guarantee a value that is monotonically increasing. For
example, we might save the timestamp from the segment that last
advanced the left edge of the receive window, i.e., the most recent
in-sequence segment. Instead, we choose the value TS.Recent
introduced in Section 4.4 for the RTTM mechanism, since using a
common value for both PAWS and RTTM simplifies the implementation of
both. As Section 4.4 explained, TS.Recent differs from the timestamp
from the last in-sequence segment only in the case of delayed ACKs,
and therefore by less than one window. Either choice will therefore
protect against sequence number wrap-around.
RTTM was specified in a symmetrical manner, so that TSval timestamps
are carried in both data and ACK segments and are echoed in TSecr
fields carried in returning ACK or data segments. PAWS submits all
incoming segments to the same test, and therefore protects against
duplicate ACK segments as well as data segments. (An alternative
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
non-symmetric algorithm would protect against old duplicate ACKs: the
sender of data would reject incoming ACK segments whose TSecr values
were less than the TSecr saved from the last segment whose ACK field
advanced the left edge of the send window. This algorithm was deemed
to lack economy of mechanism and symmetry.)
TSval timestamps sent on <SYN> and <SYN,ACK> segments are used to
initialize PAWS. PAWS protects against old duplicate non-SYN
segments, and duplicate SYN segments received while there is a
synchronized connection. Duplicate <SYN> and <SYN,ACK> segments
received when there is no connection will be discarded by the normal
3-way handshake and sequence number checks of TCP.
[RFC1323] recommended that RST segments NOT carry timestamps, and
that they be acceptable regardless of their timestamp. At that time,
the thinking was that old duplicate RST segments should be
exceedingly unlikely, and their cleanup function should take
precedence over timestamps. More recently, discussions about various
blind attacks on TCP connections have raised the suggestion that if
the Timestamps option is present, SEG.TSecr could be used to provide
stricter acceptance tests for RST packets. While still under
discussion, to enable research into this area it is now RECOMMENDED
that when generating a RST, that if the packet causing the RST to be
generated contained a Timestamps option that the RST also contain a
Timestamps option. In the RST segment, SEG.TSecr SHOULD be set to
SEG.TSval from the incoming packet and SEG.TSval SHOULD be set to
zero. If a RST is being generated because of a user abort, and
Snd.TS.OK is set, then a Timestamps option SHOULD be included in the
RST. When a RST packet is received, it MUST NOT be subjected to PAWS
checks, and information from the Timestamps option MUST NOT be used
to update connection state information. SEG.TSecr MAY be used to
provide stricter RST acceptance checks.
5.2.1. Basic PAWS Algorithm
The PAWS algorithm requires the following processing to be performed
on all incoming segments for a synchronized connection:
R1) If there is a Timestamps option in the arriving segment,
SEG.TSval < TS.Recent, TS.Recent is valid (see later discussion)
and the RST bit is not set, then treat the arriving segment as
not acceptable:
Send an acknowledgement in reply as specified in [RFC0793]
page 69 and drop the segment.
Note: it is necessary to send an ACK segment in order to
retain TCP's mechanisms for detecting and recovering from
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
half-open connections. For example, see Figure 10 of
[RFC0793].
R2) If the segment is outside the window, reject it (normal TCP
processing)
R3) If an arriving segment satisfies: SEG.SEQ <= Last.ACK.sent (see
Section 4.4), then record its timestamp in TS.Recent.
R4) If an arriving segment is in-sequence (i.e., at the left window
edge), then accept it normally.
R5) Otherwise, treat the segment as a normal in-window, out-of-
sequence TCP segment (e.g., queue it for later delivery to the
user).
Steps R2, R4, and R5 are the normal TCP processing steps specified by
[RFC0793].
It is important to note that the timestamp is checked only when a
segment first arrives at the receiver, regardless of whether it is
in-sequence or it must be queued for later delivery.
Consider the following example.
Suppose the segment sequence: A.1, B.1, C.1, ..., Z.1 has been
sent, where the letter indicates the sequence number and the digit
represents the timestamp. Suppose also that segment B.1 has been
lost. The timestamp in TS.Recent is 1 (from A.1), so C.1, ...,
Z.1 are considered acceptable and are queued. When B is
retransmitted as segment B.2 (using the latest timestamp), it
fills the hole and causes all the segments through Z to be
acknowledged and passed to the user. The timestamps of the queued
segments are *not* inspected again at this time, since they have
already been accepted. When B.2 is accepted, TS.Recent is set to
2.
This rule allows reasonable performance under loss. A full window of
data is in transit at all times, and after a loss a full window less
one packet will show up out-of-sequence to be queued at the receiver
(e.g., up to ~2^30 bytes of data); the timestamp option must not
result in discarding this data.
In certain unlikely circumstances, the algorithm of rules R1-R5 could
lead to discarding some segments unnecessarily, as shown in the
following example:
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Suppose again that segments: A.1, B.1, C.1, ..., Z.1 have been
sent in sequence and that segment B.1 has been lost. Furthermore,
suppose delivery of some of C.1, ... Z.1 is delayed until AFTER
the retransmission B.2 arrives at the receiver. These delayed
segments will be discarded unnecessarily when they do arrive,
since their timestamps are now out of date.
This case is very unlikely to occur. If the retransmission was
triggered by a timeout, some of the segments C.1, ... Z.1 must have
been delayed longer than the RTO time. This is presumably an
unlikely event, or there would be many spurious timeouts and
retransmissions. If B's retransmission was triggered by the "fast
retransmit" algorithm, i.e., by duplicate ACKs, then the queued
segments that caused these ACKs must have been received already.
Even if a segment were delayed past the RTO, the Fast Retransmit
mechanism [Jacobson90c] will cause the delayed packets to be
retransmitted at the same time as B.2, avoiding an extra RTT and
therefore causing a very small performance penalty.
We know of no case with a significant probability of occurrence in
which timestamps will cause performance degradation by unnecessarily
discarding segments.
5.2.2. Timestamp Clock
It is important to understand that the PAWS algorithm does not
require clock synchronization between sender and receiver. The
sender's timestamp clock is used to stamp the segments, and the
sender uses the echoed timestamp to measure RTTs. However, the
receiver treats the timestamp as simply a monotonically increasing
serial number, without any necessary connection to its clock. From
the receiver's viewpoint, the timestamp is acting as a logical
extension of the high-order bits of the sequence number.
The receiver algorithm does place some requirements on the frequency
of the timestamp clock.
(a) The timestamp clock must not be "too slow".
It MUST tick at least once for each 2^31 bytes sent. In fact,
in order to be useful to the sender for round trip timing, the
clock SHOULD tick at least once per window's worth of data, and
even with the window extension defined in Section 3.2, 2^31
bytes must be at least two windows.
To make this more quantitative, any clock faster than 1 tick/sec
will reject old duplicate segments for link speeds of ~8 Gbps.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
A 1 ms timestamp clock will work at link speeds up to 8 Tbps
(8*10^12) bps!
(b) The timestamp clock must not be "too fast".
The recycling time of the timestamp clock MUST be greater than
MSL seconds. Since the clock (timestamp) is 32 bits and the
worst-case MSL is 255 seconds, the maximum acceptable clock
frequency is one tick every 59 ns.
However, it is desirable to establish a much longer recycle
period, in order to handle outdated timestamps on idle
connections (see Section 5.2.3), and to relax the MSL
requirement for preventing sequence number wrap-around. With a
1 ms timestamp clock, the 32-bit timestamp will wrap its sign
bit in 24.8 days. Thus, it will reject old duplicates on the
same connection if MSL is 24.8 days or less. This appears to be
a very safe figure; an MSL of 24.8 days or longer can probably
be assumed in the internet without requiring precise MSL
enforcement.
Based upon these considerations, we choose a timestamp clock
frequency in the range 1 ms to 1 sec per tick. This range also
matches the requirements of the RTTM mechanism, which does not need
much more resolution than the granularity of the retransmit timer,
e.g., tens or hundreds of milliseconds.
The PAWS mechanism also puts a strong monotonicity requirement on the
sender's timestamp clock. The method of implementation of the
timestamp clock to meet this requirement depends upon the system
hardware and software.
o Some hosts have a hardware clock that is guaranteed to be
monotonic between hardware resets.
o A clock interrupt may be used to simply increment a binary integer
by 1 periodically.
o The timestamp clock may be derived from a system clock that is
subject to being abruptly changed, by adding a variable offset
value. This offset is initialized to zero. When a new timestamp
clock value is needed, the offset can be adjusted as necessary to
make the new value equal to or larger than the previous value
(which was saved for this purpose).
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
5.2.3. Outdated Timestamps
If a connection remains idle long enough for the timestamp clock of
the other TCP to wrap its sign bit, then the value saved in TS.Recent
will become too old; as a result, the PAWS mechanism will cause all
subsequent segments to be rejected, freezing the connection (until
the timestamp clock wraps its sign bit again).
With the chosen range of timestamp clock frequencies (1 sec to 1 ms),
the time to wrap the sign bit will be between 24.8 days and 24800
days. A TCP connection that is idle for more than 24 days and then
comes to life is exceedingly unusual. However, it is undesirable in
principle to place any limitation on TCP connection lifetimes.
We therefore require that an implementation of PAWS include a
mechanism to "invalidate" the TS.Recent value when a connection is
idle for more than 24 days. (An alternative solution to the problem
of outdated timestamps would be to send keep-alive segments at a very
low rate, but still more often than the wrap-around time for
timestamps, e.g., once a day. This would impose negligible overhead.
However, the TCP specification has never included keep-alives, so the
solution based upon invalidation was chosen.)
Note that a TCP does not know the frequency, and therefore, the
wraparound time, of the other TCP, so it must assume the worst. The
validity of TS.Recent needs to be checked only if the basic PAWS
timestamp check fails, i.e., only if SEG.TSval < TS.Recent. If
TS.Recent is found to be invalid, then the segment is accepted,
regardless of the failure of the timestamp check, and rule R3 updates
TS.Recent with the TSval from the new segment.
To detect how long the connection has been idle, the TCP MAY update a
clock or timestamp value associated with the connection whenever
TS.Recent is updated, for example. The details will be
implementation-dependent.
5.2.4. Header Prediction
"Header prediction" [Jacobson90a] is a high-performance transport
protocol implementation technique that is most important for high-
speed links. This technique optimizes the code for the most common
case, receiving a segment correctly and in order. Using header
prediction, the receiver asks the question, "Is this segment the next
in sequence?" This question can be answered in fewer machine
instructions than the question, "Is this segment within the window?"
Adding header prediction to our timestamp procedure leads to the
following recommended sequence for processing an arriving TCP
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
segment:
H1) Check timestamp (same as step R1 above)
H2) Do header prediction: if segment is next in sequence and if
there are no special conditions requiring additional processing,
accept the segment, record its timestamp, and skip H3.
H3) Process the segment normally, as specified in RFC 793. This
includes dropping segments that are outside the window and
possibly sending acknowledgments, and queuing in-window, out-of-
sequence segments.
Another possibility would be to interchange steps H1 and H2, i.e., to
perform the header prediction step H2 FIRST, and perform H1 and H3
only when header prediction fails. This could be a performance
improvement, since the timestamp check in step H1 is very unlikely to
fail, and it requires unsigned modulo arithmetic. To perform this
check on every single segment is contrary to the philosophy of header
prediction. We believe that this change might produce a measurable
reduction in CPU time for TCP protocol processing on high-speed
networks.
However, putting H2 first would create a hazard: a segment from 2^32
bytes in the past might arrive at exactly the wrong time and be
accepted mistakenly by the header-prediction step. The following
reasoning has been introduced in [RFC1185] to show that the
probability of this failure is negligible.
If all segments are equally likely to show up as old duplicates,
then the probability of an old duplicate exactly matching the left
window edge is the maximum segment size (MSS) divided by the size
of the sequence space. This ratio must be less than 2^-16, since
MSS must be < 2^16; for example, it will be (2^12)/(2^32) = 2^-20
for a FDDI link. However, the older a segment is, the less likely
it is to be retained in the Internet, and under any reasonable
model of segment lifetime the probability of an old duplicate
exactly at the left window edge must be much smaller than 2^-16.
The 16 bit TCP checksum also allows a basic unreliability of one
part in 2^16. A protocol mechanism whose reliability exceeds the
reliability of the TCP checksum should be considered "good
enough", i.e., it won't contribute significantly to the overall
error rate. We therefore believe we can ignore the problem of an
old duplicate being accepted by doing header prediction before
checking the timestamp.
However, this probabilistic argument is not universally accepted, and
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
the consensus at present is that the performance gain does not
justify the hazard in the general case. It is therefore recommended
that H2 follow H1.
5.2.5. IP Fragmentation
At high data rates, the protection against old packets provided by
PAWS can be circumvented by errors in IP fragment reassembly (see
[RFC4963]). The only way to protect against incorrect IP fragment
reassembly is to not allow the packets to be fragmented. This is
done by setting the Don't Fragment (DF) bit in the IP header.
Setting the DF bit implies the use of Path MTU Discovery as described
in [RFC1191], [RFC1981], and [RFC4821], thus any TCP implementation
that implements PAWS MUST also implement Path MTU Discovery.
5.3. Duplicates from Earlier Incarnations of Connection
The PAWS mechanism protects against errors due to sequence number
wrap-around on high-speed connections. Segments from an earlier
incarnation of the same connection are also a potential cause of old
duplicate errors. In both cases, the TCP mechanisms to prevent such
errors depend upon the enforcement of a maximum segment lifetime
(MSL) by the Internet (IP) layer (see Appendix of RFC 1185 for a
detailed discussion). Unlike the case of sequence space wrap-around,
the MSL required to prevent old duplicate errors from earlier
incarnations does not depend upon the transfer rate. If the IP layer
enforces the recommended 2 minute MSL of TCP, and if the TCP rules
are followed, TCP connections will be safe from earlier incarnations,
no matter how high the network speed. Thus, the PAWS mechanism is
not required for this case.
We may still ask whether the PAWS mechanism can provide additional
security against old duplicates from earlier connections, allowing us
to relax the enforcement of MSL by the IP layer. Appendix B explores
this question, showing that further assumptions and/or mechanisms are
required, beyond those of PAWS. This is not part of the current
extension.
6. Conclusions and Acknowledgements
This memo presented a set of extensions to TCP to provide efficient
operation over large-bandwidth*delay-product paths and reliable
operation over very high-speed paths. These extensions are designed
to provide compatible interworking with TCP's that do not implement
the extensions.
These mechanisms are implemented using new TCP options for scaled
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
windows and timestamps. The timestamps are used for two distinct
mechanisms: RTTM (Round Trip Time Measurement) and PAWS (Protection
Against Wrapped Sequences).
The Window Scale option was originally suggested by Mike St. Johns of
USAF/DCA. The present form of the option was suggested by Mike
Karels of UC Berkeley in response to a more cumbersome scheme defined
by Van Jacobson. Lixia Zhang helped formulate the PAWS mechanism
description in [RFC1185].
Finally, much of this work originated as the result of discussions
within the End-to-End Task Force on the theoretical limitations of
transport protocols in general and TCP in particular. Task force
members and other on the end2end-interest list have made valuable
contributions by pointing out flaws in the algorithms and the
documentation. Continued discussion and development since the
publication of [RFC1323] originally occurred in the IETF TCP Large
Windows Working Group, later on in the End-to-End Task Force, and
most recently in the IETF TCP Maintenance Working Group. The authors
are grateful for all these contributions.
7. Security Considerations
The TCP sequence space is a fixed size, and as the window becomes
larger it becomes easier for an attacker to generate forged packets
that can fall within the TCP window, and be accepted as valid
packets. While use of Timestamps and PAWS can help to mitigate this,
when using PAWS, if an attacker is able to forge a packet that is
acceptable to the TCP connection, a timestamp that is in the future
would cause valid packets to be dropped due to PAWS checks. Hence,
implementers should take care to not open the TCP window drastically
beyond the requirements of the connection.
Middle boxes and options: If a middle box removes TCP options from
the SYN, such as TSopt, a high speed connection that needs PAWS would
not have that protection. In this situation, an implementer could
provide a mechanism for the application to determine whether or not
PAWS is in use on the connection, and chose to terminate the
connection if that protection doesn't exist.
Mechanisms to protect the TCP header from modification should also
protect the TCP options.
Expanding the TCP window beyond 64K for IPv6 allows Jumbograms
[RFC2675] to be used when the local network supports packets larger
than 64K. When larger TCP packets are used, the TCP checksum becomes
weaker.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[Garlick77]
Garlick, L., Rom, R., and J. Postel, "Issues in Reliable
Host-to-Host Protocols", Proc. Second Berkeley Workshop on
Distributed Data Management and Computer Networks,
May 1977, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien12.txt>.
[Hamming77]
Hamming, R., "Digital Filters", Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. ISBN 0-13-212571-4, 1977.
[Jacobson88a]
Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", SIGCOMM
'88, Stanford, CA., August 1988,
<http://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf>.
[Jacobson90a]
Jacobson, V., "4BSD Header Prediction", ACM Computer
Communication Review, April 1990.
[Jacobson90c]
Jacobson, V., "Modified TCP congestion avoidance
algorithm", Message to the end2end-interest mailing list,
April 1990,
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/end2end/end2end-interest-1990.mail>.
[Jain86] Jain, R., "Divergence of Timeout Algorithms for Packet
Retransmissions", Proc. Fifth Phoenix Conf. on Comp. and
Comm., Scottsdale, Arizona, March 1986,
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
<http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/9809/9809097.pdf>.
[Karn87] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Estimating Round-Trip Times in
Reliable Transport Protocols", Proc. SIGCOMM '87,
August 1987.
[Martin03]
Martin, D., "[Tsvwg] RFC 1323.bis", Message to the tsvwg
mailing list, September 2003, <http://www.ietf.org/
mail-archive/web/tsvwg/current/msg04435.html>.
[Mathis08]
Mathis, M., "[tcpm] Example of 1323 window retraction
problem", Message to the tcpm mailing list, March 2008,
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/
msg03564.html>.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay
paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.
[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
RFC 1110, August 1989.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1185] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and L. Zhang, "TCP Extension for
High-Speed Paths", RFC 1185, October 1990.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option
for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC6675] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,
and Y. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm
Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP",
RFC 6675, August 2012.
[Watson81]
Watson, R., "Timer-based Mechanisms in Reliable Transport
Protocol Connection Management", Computer Networks, Vol.
5, 1981.
[Zhang86] Zhang, L., "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well", Proc. SIGCOMM
'86, Stowe, VT, August 1986.
Appendix A. Implementation Suggestions
TCP Option Layout
The following layouts are recommended for sending options on non-
SYN segments, to achieve maximum feasible alignment of 32-bit and
64-bit machines.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| NOP | NOP | TSopt | 10 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| TSval timestamp |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| TSecr timestamp |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Interaction with the TCP Urgent Pointer
The TCP Urgent pointer, like the TCP window, is a 16 bit value.
Some of the original discussion for the TCP Window Scale option
included proposals to increase the Urgent pointer to 32 bits. As
it turns out, this is unnecessary. There are two observations
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
that should be made:
(1) With IP Version 4, the largest amount of TCP data that can be
sent in a single packet is 65495 bytes (64K - 1 -- size of
fixed IP and TCP headers).
(2) Updates to the urgent pointer while the user is in "urgent
mode" are invisible to the user.
This means that if the Urgent Pointer points beyond the end of the
TCP data in the current packet, then the user will remain in
urgent mode until the next TCP packet arrives. That packet will
update the urgent pointer to a new offset, and the user will never
have left urgent mode.
Thus, to properly implement the Urgent Pointer, the sending TCP
only has to check for overflow of the 16 bit Urgent Pointer field
before filling it in. If it does overflow, than a value of 65535
should be inserted into the Urgent Pointer.
The same technique applies to IP Version 6, except in the case of
IPv6 Jumbograms. When IPv6 Jumbograms are supported, [RFC2675]
requires additional steps for dealing with the Urgent Pointer,
these are described in section 5.2 of [RFC2675].
Appendix B. Duplicates from Earlier Connection Incarnations
There are two cases to be considered: (1) a system crashing (and
losing connection state) and restarting, and (2) the same connection
being closed and reopened without a loss of host state. These will
be described in the following two sections.
B.1. System Crash with Loss of State
TCP's quiet time of one MSL upon system startup handles the loss of
connection state in a system crash/restart. For an explanation, see
for example "When to Keep Quiet" in the TCP protocol specification
[RFC0793]. The MSL that is required here does not depend upon the
transfer speed. The current TCP MSL of 2 minutes seems acceptable as
an operational compromise, as many host systems take this long to
boot after a crash.
However, the timestamp option may be used to ease the MSL
requirements (or to provide additional security against data
corruption). If timestamps are being used and if the timestamp clock
can be guaranteed to be monotonic over a system crash/restart, i.e.,
if the first value of the sender's timestamp clock after a crash/
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
restart can be guaranteed to be greater than the last value before
the restart, then a quiet time will be unnecessary.
To dispense totally with the quiet time would require that the host
clock be synchronized to a time source that is stable over the crash/
restart period, with an accuracy of one timestamp clock tick or
better. We can back off from this strict requirement to take
advantage of approximate clock synchronization. Suppose that the
clock is always re-synchronized to within N timestamp clock ticks and
that booting (extended with a quiet time, if necessary) takes more
than N ticks. This will guarantee monotonicity of the timestamps,
which can then be used to reject old duplicates even without an
enforced MSL.
B.2. Closing and Reopening a Connection
When a TCP connection is closed, a delay of 2*MSL in TIME-WAIT state
ties up the socket pair for 4 minutes (see Section 3.5 of [RFC0793].
Applications built upon TCP that close one connection and open a new
one (e.g., an FTP data transfer connection using Stream mode) must
choose a new socket pair each time. The TIME-WAIT delay serves two
different purposes:
(a) Implement the full-duplex reliable close handshake of TCP.
The proper time to delay the final close step is not really
related to the MSL; it depends instead upon the RTO for the FIN
segments and therefore upon the RTT of the path. (It could be
argued that the side that is sending a FIN knows what degree of
reliability it needs, and therefore it should be able to
determine the length of the TIME-WAIT delay for the FIN's
recipient. This could be accomplished with an appropriate TCP
option in FIN segments.)
Although there is no formal upper-bound on RTT, common network
engineering practice makes an RTT greater than 1 minute very
unlikely. Thus, the 4 minute delay in TIME-WAIT state works
satisfactorily to provide a reliable full-duplex TCP close.
Note again that this is independent of MSL enforcement and
network speed.
The TIME-WAIT state could cause an indirect performance problem
if an application needed to repeatedly close one connection and
open another at a very high frequency, since the number of
available TCP ports on a host is less than 2^16. However, high
network speeds are not the major contributor to this problem;
the RTT is the limiting factor in how quickly connections can be
opened and closed. Therefore, this problem will be no worse at
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
high transfer speeds.
(b) Allow old duplicate segments to expire.
To replace this function of TIME-WAIT state, a mechanism would
have to operate across connections. PAWS is defined strictly
within a single connection; the last timestamp (TS.Recent) is
kept in the connection control block, and discarded when a
connection is closed.
An additional mechanism could be added to the TCP, a per-host
cache of the last timestamp received from any connection. This
value could then be used in the PAWS mechanism to reject old
duplicate segments from earlier incarnations of the connection,
if the timestamp clock can be guaranteed to have ticked at least
once since the old connection was open. This would require that
the TIME-WAIT delay plus the RTT together must be at least one
tick of the sender's timestamp clock. Such an extension is not
part of the proposal of this RFC.
Note that this is a variant on the mechanism proposed by
Garlick, Rom, and Postel [Garlick77], which required each host
to maintain connection records containing the highest sequence
numbers on every connection. Using timestamps instead, it is
only necessary to keep one quantity per remote host, regardless
of the number of simultaneous connections to that host.
Appendix C. Summary of Notation
The following notation has been used in this document.
Options
WSopt: TCP Window Scale Option
TSopt: TCP Timestamps Option
Option Fields
shift.cnt: Window scale byte in WSopt
TSval: 32-bit Timestamp Value field in TSopt
TSecr: 32-bit Timestamp Reply field in TSopt
Option Fields in Current Segment
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
SEG.TSval: TSval field from TSopt in current segment
SEG.TSecr: TSecr field from TSopt in current segment
SEG.WSopt: 8-bit value in WSopt
Clock Values
my.TSclock: System wide source of 32-bit timestamp values
my.TSclock.rate: Period of my.TSclock (1 ms to 1 sec)
Snd.TSoffset: A offset for randomizing Snd.TSclock
Snd.TSclock: my.TSclock + Snd.TSoffset
Per-Connection State Variables
TS.Recent: Latest received Timestamp
Last.ACK.sent: Last ACK field sent
Snd.TS.OK: 1-bit flag
Snd.WS.OK: 1-bit flag
Rcv.Wind.Scale: Receive window scale power
Snd.Wind.Scale: Send window scale power
Start.Time: Snd.TSclock value when segment being timed was
sent (used by pre-1323 code).
Procedure
Update_SRTT(m) Procedure to update the smoothed RTT and RTT
variance estimates, using the rules of
[Jacobson88a], given m, a new RTT measurement
Appendix D. Pseudo-code Summary
Create new TCB => {
Rcv.wind.scale =
MIN( 14, MAX(0, floor(log2(receive buffer space)) - 15) );
Snd.wind.scale = 0;
Last.ACK.sent = 0;
Snd.TS.OK = Snd.WS.OK = FALSE;
Snd.TSoffset = random 32 bit value
}
Send initial <SYN> segment => {
SEG.WND = MIN( RCV.WND, 65535 );
Include in segment: TSopt(TSval=Snd.TSclock, TSecr=0);
Include in segment: WSopt = Rcv.wind.scale;
}
Send <SYN,ACK> segment => {
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
SEG.ACK = Last.ACK.sent = RCV.NXT;
SEG.WND = MIN( RCV.WND, 65535 );
if (Snd.TS.OK) then
Include in segment:
TSopt(TSval=Snd.TSclock, TSecr=TS.Recent);
if (Snd.WS.OK) then
Include in segment: WSopt = Rcv.wind.scale;
}
Receive <SYN> or <SYN,ACK> segment => {
if (Segment contains TSopt) then {
TS.Recent = SEG.TSval;
Snd.TS.OK = TRUE;
if (is <SYN,ACK> segment) then
Update_SRTT(
(Snd.TSclock - SEG.TSecr)/my.TSclock.rate);
}
if (Segment contains WSopt) then {
Snd.wind.scale = SEG.WSopt;
Snd.WS.OK = TRUE;
if (the ACK bit is not set, and Rcv.wind.scale has not been
initialized by the user) then
Rcv.wind.scale = Snd.wind.scale;
}
else
Rcv.wind.scale = Snd.wind.scale = 0;
}
Send non-SYN segment => {
SEG.ACK = Last.ACK.sent = RCV.NXT;
SEG.WND = MIN( RCV.WND >> Rcv.wind.scale, 65535 );
if (Snd.TS.OK) then
Include in segment:
TSopt(TSval=Snd.TSclock, TSecr=TS.Recent);
}
Receive non-SYN segment in (state >= ESTABLISHED) => {
Window = (SEG.WND << Snd.wind.scale);
/* Use 32-bit 'Window' instead of 16-bit 'SEG.WND'
* in rest of processing.
*/
if (Segment contains TSopt) then {
if (SEG.TSval < TS.Recent && Idle less than 24 days) then {
if (Send.TS.OK AND (NOT RST) ) then {
/* Timestamp too old =>
* segment is unacceptable.
*/
Send ACK segment;
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Discard segment and return;
}
}
else {
if (SEG.SEQ <= Last.ACK.sent) then
TS.Recent = SEG.TSval;
}
}
if (SEG.ACK > SND.UNA) then {
/* (At least part of) first segment in
* retransmission queue has been ACKed
*/
if (Segment contains TSopt) then
Update_SRTT(
(Snd.TSclock - SEG.TSecr)/my.TSclock.rate);
else
Update_SRTT( /* for compatibility */
(Snd.TSclock - Start.Time)/my.TSclock.rate);
}
}
Appendix E. Event Processing Summary
OPEN Call
...
An initial send sequence number (ISS) is selected. Send a SYN
segment of the form:
<SEQ=ISS><CTL=SYN><TSval=Snd.TSclock><WSopt=Rcv.Wind.Scale>
...
SEND Call
CLOSED STATE (i.e., TCB does not exist)
...
LISTEN STATE
If the foreign socket is specified, then change the connection
from passive to active, select an ISS. Send a SYN segment
containing the options: <TSval=Snd.TSclock> and
<WSopt=Rcv.Wind.Scale>. Set SND.UNA to ISS, SND.NXT to ISS+1.
Enter SYN-SENT state. ...
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
SYN-SENT STATE
SYN-RECEIVED STATE
...
ESTABLISHED STATE
CLOSE-WAIT STATE
Segmentize the buffer and send it with a piggybacked
acknowledgment (acknowledgment value = RCV.NXT). ...
If the urgent flag is set ...
If the Snd.TS.OK flag is set, then include the TCP Timestamps
option <TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in each data
segment.
Scale the receive window for transmission in the segment
header:
SEG.WND = (RCV.WND >> Rcv.Wind.Scale).
SEGMENT ARRIVES
...
If the state is LISTEN then
first check for an RST
...
second check for an ACK
...
third check for a SYN
if the SYN bit is set, check the security. If the ...
...
if the SEG.PRC is less than the TCB.PRC then continue.
Check for a Window Scale option (WSopt); if one is found,
save SEG.WSopt in Snd.Wind.Scale and set Snd.WS.OK flag on.
Otherwise, set both Snd.Wind.Scale and Rcv.Wind.Scale to
zero and clear Snd.WS.OK flag.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Check for a TSopt option; if one is found, save SEG.TSval in
the variable TS.Recent and turn on the Snd.TS.OK bit.
Set RCV.NXT to SEG.SEQ+1, IRS is set to SEG.SEQ and any
other control or text should be queued for processing later.
ISS should be selected and a SYN segment sent of the form:
<SEQ=ISS><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=SYN,ACK>
If the Snd.WS.OK bit is on, include a WSopt option
<WSopt=Rcv.Wind.Scale> in this segment. If the Snd.TS.OK
bit is on, include a TSopt
<TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in this segment.
Last.ACK.sent is set to RCV.NXT.
SND.NXT is set to ISS+1 and SND.UNA to ISS. The connection
state should be changed to SYN-RECEIVED. Note that any
other incoming control or data (combined with SYN) will be
processed in the SYN-RECEIVED state, but processing of SYN
and ACK should not be repeated. If the listen was not fully
specified (i.e., the foreign socket was not fully
specified), then the unspecified fields should be filled in
now.
fourth other text or control
...
If the state is SYN-SENT then
first check the ACK bit
...
...
fourth check the SYN bit
...
If the SYN bit is on and the security/compartment and
precedence are acceptable then, RCV.NXT is set to SEG.SEQ+1,
IRS is set to SEG.SEQ, and any acknowledgements on the
retransmission queue which are thereby acknowledged should
be removed.
Check for a Window Scale option (WSopt); if it is found,
save SEG.WSopt in Snd.Wind.Scale; otherwise, set both
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Snd.Wind.Scale and Rcv.Wind.Scale to zero.
Check for a TSopt option; if one is found, save SEG.TSval in
variable TS.Recent and turn on the Snd.TS.OK bit in the
connection control block. If the ACK bit is set, use
Snd.TSclock - SEG.TSecr as the initial RTT estimate.
If SND.UNA > ISS (our SYN has been ACKed), change the
connection state to ESTABLISHED, form an ACK segment:
<SEQ=SND.NXT><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=ACK>
and send it. If the Snd.Echo.OK bit is on, include a TSopt
option <TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in this ACK
segment. Last.ACK.sent is set to RCV.NXT.
Data or controls which were queued for transmission may be
included. If there are other controls or text in the
segment then continue processing at the sixth step below
where the URG bit is checked, otherwise return.
Otherwise enter SYN-RECEIVED, form a SYN,ACK segment:
<SEQ=ISS><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=SYN,ACK>
and send it. If the Snd.Echo.OK bit is on, include a TSopt
option <TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in this segment.
If the Snd.WS.OK bit is on, include a WSopt option
<WSopt=Rcv.Wind.Scale> in this segment. Last.ACK.sent is
set to RCV.NXT.
If there are other controls or text in the segment, queue
them for processing after the ESTABLISHED state has been
reached, return.
fifth, if neither of the SYN or RST bits is set then drop the
segment and return.
Otherwise,
First, check sequence number
SYN-RECEIVED STATE
ESTABLISHED STATE
FIN-WAIT-1 STATE
FIN-WAIT-2 STATE
CLOSE-WAIT STATE
CLOSING STATE
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
LAST-ACK STATE
TIME-WAIT STATE
Segments are processed in sequence. Initial tests on
arrival are used to discard old duplicates, but further
processing is done in SEG.SEQ order. If a segment's
contents straddle the boundary between old and new, only the
new parts should be processed.
Rescale the received window field:
TrueWindow = SEG.WND << Snd.Wind.Scale,
and use "TrueWindow" in place of SEG.WND in the following
steps.
Check whether the segment contains a Timestamps option and
bit Snd.TS.OK is on. If so:
If SEG.TSval < TS.Recent and the RST bit is off, then
test whether connection has been idle less than 24 days;
if all are true, then the segment is not acceptable;
follow steps below for an unacceptable segment.
If SEG.SEQ is less than or equal to Last.ACK.sent, then
save SEG.TSval in variable TS.Recent.
There are four cases for the acceptability test for an
incoming segment:
...
If an incoming segment is not acceptable, an acknowledgment
should be sent in reply (unless the RST bit is set, if so
drop the segment and return):
<SEQ=SND.NXT><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=ACK>
Last.ACK.sent is set to SEG.ACK of the acknowledgment. If
the Snd.Echo.OK bit is on, include the Timestamps option
<TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in this ACK segment.
Set Last.ACK.sent to SEG.ACK and send the ACK segment.
After sending the acknowledgment, drop the unacceptable
segment and return.
...
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
fifth check the ACK field.
if the ACK bit is off drop the segment and return.
if the ACK bit is on
...
ESTABLISHED STATE
If SND.UNA < SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT then, set SND.UNA <-
SEG.ACK. Also compute a new estimate of round-trip time.
If Snd.TS.OK bit is on, use Snd.TSclock - SEG.TSecr;
otherwise use the elapsed time since the first segment in
the retransmission queue was sent. Any segments on the
retransmission queue which are thereby entirely
acknowledged...
...
Seventh, process the segment text.
ESTABLISHED STATE
FIN-WAIT-1 STATE
FIN-WAIT-2 STATE
...
Send an acknowledgment of the form:
<SEQ=SND.NXT><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=ACK>
If the Snd.TS.OK bit is on, include Timestamps option
<TSval=Snd.TSclock,TSecr=TS.Recent> in this ACK segment.
Set Last.ACK.sent to SEG.ACK of the acknowledgment, and send
it. This acknowledgment should be piggy-backed on a segment
being transmitted if possible without incurring undue delay.
...
Appendix F. Timestamps Edge Cases
While the rules laid out for when to calculate RTTM produce the
correct results most of the time, there are some edge cases where an
incorrect RTTM can be calculated. All of these situations involve
the loss of packets. It is felt that these scenarios are rare, and
that if they should happen, they will cause a single RTTM measurement
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
to be inflated, which mitigates its effects on RTO calculations.
[Martin03] cites two similar cases when the returning ACK is lost,
and before the retransmission timer fires, another returning packet
arrives, which ACKs the data. In this case, the RTTM calculated will
be inflated:
clock
tc=1 <A, TSval=1> ------------------->
tc=2 (lost) <---- <ACK(A), TSecr=1, win=n>
(RTTM would have been 1)
(receive window opens, window update is sent)
tc=5 <---- <ACK(A), TSecr=1, win=m>
(RTTM is calculated at 4)
One thing to note about this situation is that it is somewhat bounded
by RTO + RTT, limiting how far off the RTTM calculation will be.
While more complex scenarios can be constructed that produce larger
inflations (e.g., retransmissions are lost), those scenarios involve
multiple packet losses, and the connection will have other more
serious operational problems than using an inflated RTTM in the RTO
calculation.
Appendix G. Changes from RFC 1072, RFC 1185, and RFC 1323
The protocol extensions defined in RFC 1323 document differ in
several important ways from those defined in RFC 1072 and RFC 1185.
(a) SACK has been split off into a separate document, [RFC2018].
(b) The detailed rules for sending timestamp replies (see
Section 4.4) differ in important ways. The earlier rules could
result in an under-estimate of the RTT in certain cases (packets
dropped or out of order).
(c) The same value TS.Recent is now shared by the two distinct
mechanisms RTTM and PAWS. This simplification became possible
because of change (b).
(d) An ambiguity in RFC 1185 was resolved in favor of putting
timestamps on ACK as well as data segments. This supports the
symmetry of the underlying TCP protocol.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
(e) The echo and echo reply options of RFC 1072 were combined into a
single Timestamps option, to reflect the symmetry and to
simplify processing.
(f) The problem of outdated timestamps on long-idle connections,
discussed in Section 5.2.2, was realized and resolved.
(g) RFC 1185 recommended that header prediction take precedence over
the timestamp check. Based upon some skepticism about the
probabilistic arguments given in Section 5.2.4, it was decided
to recommend that the timestamp check be performed first.
(h) The spec was modified so that the extended options will be sent
on <SYN,ACK> segments only when they are received in the
corresponding <SYN> segments. This provides the most
conservative possible conditions for interoperation with
implementations without the extensions.
In addition to these substantive changes, the present RFC attempts to
specify the algorithms unambiguously by presenting modifications to
the Event Processing rules of RFC 793; see Appendix E.
There are additional changes in this document from RFC 1323. These
changes are:
(a) The description of which TSecr values can be used to update the
measured RTT has been clarified. Specifically, with Timestamps,
the Karn algorithm [Karn87] is disabled. The Karn algorithm
disables all RTT measurements during retransmission, since it is
ambiguous whether the ACK is for the original packet, or the
retransmitted packet. With Timestamps, that ambiguity is
removed since the TSecr in the ACK will contain the TSval from
whichever data packet made it to the destination.
(b) In RFC1323, section 3.4, step (2) of the algorithm to control
which timestamp is echoed was incorrect in two regards:
(1) It failed to update TS.recent for a retransmitted segment
that resulted from a lost ACK.
(2) It failed if SEG.LEN = 0.
In the new algorithm, the case of SEG.TSval >= TS.recent is
included for consistency with the PAWS test.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
(c) One correction was made to the Event Processing Summary in
Appendix E. In SEND CALL/ESTABLISHED STATE, RCV.WND is used to
fill in the SEG.WND value, not SND.WND.
(d) New pseudo-code summary has been added in Appendix D.
(e) Appendix A has been expanded with information about the TCP MSS
option and the TCP Urgent Pointer.
(f) It is now recommended that Timestamps options be included in RST
packets if the incoming packet contained a Timestamps option.
(g) RST packets are explicitly excluded from PAWS processing.
(h) Snd.TSoffset and Snd.TSclock variables have been added.
Snd.TSclock is the sum of my.TSclock and Snd.TSoffset. This
allows the starting points for timestamps to be randomized on a
per-connection basis. Setting Snd.TSoffset to zero yields the
same results as [RFC1323].
(i) RTTM update processing explicitly excludes packets containing
SACK options. This addresses inflation of the RTT during
episodes of packet loss in both directions.
(j) In Section 4.2 the if-clause allowing sending of timestamps only
when received in a <SYN> or <SYN,ACK> was removed, to allow for
late timestamp negotiation.
(k) Section 3.4 was added describing the unavoidable window
retraction issue, and explicitly describing the mitigation steps
necessary.
(l) Section 2 was added for RFC2119 wording. Normative text was
updated with the appropriate phrases.
(m) Removed much of the discussion in Section 1 to streamline the
document. However, detailed examples and discussions in
Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 are kept as guideline for
implementers.
(n) Moved Appendix "Changes" at the end of the appendices for easier
lookup.
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft TCP Extensions for High Performance February 2013
Authors' Addresses
David Borman
Quantum Corporation
Mendota Heights MN 55120
USA
Email: david.borman@quantum.com
Bob Braden
University of Southern California
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey CA 90292
USA
Email: braden@isi.edu
Van Jacobson
Packet Design
2465 Latham Street
Mountain View CA 94040
USA
Email: van@packetdesign.com
Richard Scheffenegger (editor)
NetApp, Inc.
Am Euro Platz 2
Vienna, 1120
Austria
Email: rs@netapp.com
Borman, et al. Expires August 17, 2013 [Page 43]