TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) WG I. Rhee
Internet-Draft NCSU
Intended status: Informational L. Xu
Expires: July 21, 2016 UNL
S. Ha
Colorado
A. Zimmermann
L. Eggert
R. Scheffenegger
NetApp
January 18, 2016
CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks
draft-ietf-tcpm-cubic-01
Abstract
CUBIC is an extension to the current TCP standards. The protocol
differs from the current TCP standards only in the congestion window
adjustment function in the sender side. In particular, it uses a
cubic function instead of a linear window increase of the current TCP
standards to improve scalability and stability under fast and long
distance networks. BIC-TCP, a predecessor of CUBIC, has been a
default TCP adopted by Linux since year 2005 and has already been
deployed globally and in use for several years by the Internet
community at large. CUBIC is using a similar window growth function
as BIC-TCP and is designed to be less aggressive and fairer to TCP in
bandwidth usage than BIC-TCP while maintaining the strengths of BIC-
TCP such as stability, window scalability and RTT fairness. Through
extensive testing in various Internet scenarios, we believe that
CUBIC is safe for deployment and testing in the global Internet. The
intent of this document is to provide the protocol specification of
CUBIC for a third party implementation and solicit the community
feedback through experimentation on the performance of CUBIC.
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
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
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 July 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. CUBIC Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Window growth function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. TCP-friendly region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Concave region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Convex region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Multiplicative decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Fast convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Fairness to standard TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Using Spare Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Difficult Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Investigating a Range of Environments . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Protection against Congestion Collapse . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Fairness within the Alternative Congestion Control
Algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. Performance with Misbehaving Nodes and Outside Attackers 11
4.8. Responses to Sudden or Transient Events . . . . . . . . . 11
4.9. Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The low utilization problem of TCP in fast long-distance networks is
well documented in [K03][RFC3649]. This problem arises from a slow
increase of congestion window following a congestion event in a
network with a large bandwidth delay product (BDP). Our experience
[HKLRX06] indicates that this problem is frequently observed even in
the range of congestion window sizes over several hundreds of packets
(each packet is sized around 1000 bytes) especially under a network
path with over 100ms round-trip times (RTTs). This problem is
equally applicable to all Reno style TCP standards and their
variants, including TCP-RENO [RFC5681], TCP-NewReno [RFC6582], TCP-
SACK [RFC2018], SCTP [RFC4960], TFRC [RFC5348] that use the same
linear increase function for window growth, which we refer to
collectively as Standard TCP below.
CUBIC [HRX08] is a modification to the congestion control mechanism
of Standard TCP, in particular, to the window increase function of
Standard TCP senders, to remedy this problem. It uses a cubic
increase function in terms of the elapsed time from the last
congestion event. While most alternative algorithms to Standard TCP
uses a convex increase function where after a loss event, the window
increment is always increasing, CUBIC uses both the concave and
convex profiles of a cubic function for window increase. After a
window reduction following a loss event, it registers the window size
where it got the loss event as W_max and performs a multiplicative
decrease of congestion window and the regular fast recovery and
retransmit of Standard TCP. After it enters into congestion
avoidance from fast recovery, it starts to increase the window using
the concave profile of the cubic function. The cubic function is set
to have its plateau at W_max so the concave growth continues until
the window size becomes W_max. After that, the cubic function turns
into a convex profile and the convex window growth begins. This
style of window adjustment (concave and then convex) improves
protocol and network stability while maintaining high network
utilization [CEHRX07]. This is because the window size remains
almost constant, forming a plateau around W_max where network
utilization is deemed highest and under steady state, most window
size samples of CUBIC are close to W_max, thus promoting high network
utilization and protocol stability. Note that protocols with convex
increase functions have the maximum increments around W_max and
introduces a large number of packet bursts around the saturation
point of the network, likely causing frequent global loss
synchronizations.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
Another notable feature of CUBIC is that its window increase rate is
mostly independent of RTT, and follows a (cubic) function of the
elapsed time since the last loss event. This feature promotes per-
flow fairness to Standard TCP as well as RTT-fairness. Note that
Standard TCP performs well under short RTT and small bandwidth (or
small BDP) networks. Only in a large long RTT and large bandwidth
(or large BDP) networks, it has the scalability problem. An
alternative protocol to Standard TCP designed to be friendly to
Standard TCP at a per-flow basis must operate to increase its window
much less aggressively in small BDP networks than in large BDP
networks. In CUBIC, its window growth rate is slowest around the
inflection point of the cubic function and this function does not
depend on RTT. In a smaller BDP network where Standard TCP flows are
working well, the absolute amount of the window decrease at a loss
event is always smaller because of the multiplicative decrease.
Therefore, in CUBIC, the starting window size after a loss event from
which the window starts to increase, is smaller in a smaller BDP
network, thus falling nearer to the plateau of the cubic function
where the growth rate is slowest. By setting appropriate values of
the cubic function parameters, CUBIC sets its growth rate always no
faster than Standard TCP around its inflection point. When the cubic
function grows slower than the window of Standard TCP, CUBIC simply
follows the window size of Standard TCP to ensure fairness to
Standard TCP in a small BDP network. We call this region where CUBIC
behaves like Standard TCP, the TCP-friendly region.
CUBIC maintains the same window growth rate independent of RTTs
outside of the TCP-friendly region, and flows with different RTTs
have the similar window sizes under steady state when they operate
outside the TCP-friendly region. This ensures CUBIC flows with
different RTTs to have their bandwidth shares linearly proportional
to the inverse of their RTT ratio (the longer RTT, the smaller the
share). This behavior is the same as that of Standard TCP under high
statistical multiplexing environments where packet losses are
independent of individual flow rates. However, under low statistical
multiplexing environments, the bandwidth share ratio of Standard TCP
flows with different RTTs is squarely proportional to the inverse of
their RTT ratio [XHR04]. CUBIC always ensures the linear ratio
independent of the levels of statistical multiplexing. This is an
improvement over Standard TCP. While there is no consensus on a
particular bandwidth share ratios of different RTT flows, we believe
that under wired Internet, use of the linear share notion seems more
reasonable than equal share or a higher order shares. HTCP [LS08]
currently uses the equal share.
CUBIC sets the multiplicative window decrease factor to 0.7 while
Standard TCP uses 0.5. While this improves the scalability of the
protocol, a side effect of this decision is slower convergence
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
especially under low statistical multiplexing environments. This
design choice is following the observation that the author of HSTCP
[RFC3649] has made along with other researchers (e.g., [GV02]): the
current Internet becomes more asynchronous with less frequent loss
synchronizations with high statistical multiplexing. Under this
environment, even strict MIMD can converge. CUBIC flows with the
same RTT always converge to the same share of bandwidth independent
of statistical multiplexing, thus achieving intra-protocol fairness.
We also find that under the environments with sufficient statistical
multiplexing, the convergence speed of CUBIC flows is reasonable.
In the ensuing sections, we provide the exact specification of CUBIC
and discuss the safety features of CUBIC following the guidelines
specified in [RFC5033].
2. Conventions
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. CUBIC Congestion Control
The unit of all window sizes in this document is segments of the
maximum segment size (MSS), and the unit of all times is seconds.
3.1. Window growth function
CUBIC maintains the acknowledgment (ACK) clocking of Standard TCP by
increasing congestion window only at the reception of ACK. The
protocol does not make any change to the fast recovery and retransmit
of TCP-NewReno [RFC6582] and TCP-SACK [RFC2018]. During congestion
avoidance after fast recovery, CUBIC changes the window update
algorithm of Standard TCP. Suppose that W_max is the window size
before the window is reduced in the last fast retransmit and
recovery.
The window growth function of CUBIC uses the following function:
W_cubic(t) = C*(t-K)^3 + W_max (Eq. 1)
where C is a constant fixed to determine the aggressiveness of window
growth in high BDP networks, t is the elapsed time from the last
window reduction,and K is the time period that the above function
takes to increase the current window size to W_max when there is no
further loss event and is calculated by using the following equation:
K = cubic_root(W_max*(1-beta_cubic)/C) (Eq. 2)
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
where beta_cubic is the CUBIC multiplication decrease factor, that
is, when a packet loss occurs, CUBIC reduces its current window cwnd
to cwnd*beta_cubic. We discuss how we set C in the next Section in
more details.
Upon receiving an ACK during congestion avoidance, CUBIC computes the
window growth rate during the next RTT period using Eq. 1. It sets
W_cubic(t+RTT) as the candidate target value of congestion window.
Depending on the value of the current window size cwnd, CUBIC runs in
three different modes. First, if cwnd is less than the window size
that Standard TCP would reach at time t after the last loss event,
then CUBIC is in the TCP friendly region (we describe below how to
determine this window size of Standard TCP in term of time t).
Otherwise, if cwnd is less than W_max, then CUBIC is the concave
region, and if cwnd is larger than W_max, CUBIC is in the convex
region. Below, we describe the exact actions taken by CUBIC in each
region.
3.2. TCP-friendly region
When receiving an ACK in congestion avoidance, we first check whether
the protocol is in the TCP region or not. This is done as follows.
We can analyze the window size of a TCP-friendly AIMD in terms of the
elapsed time t. Using a simple analysis in [FHP00], we can analyze
the average window size of additive increase and multiplicative
decrease (AIMD) with an additive factor alpha_aimd and a
multiplicative factor beta_aimd with the following function:
AVG_W_aimd = [ alpha_aimd * (1+beta_aimd) /
(2*(1-beta_aimd)*p) ]^0.5 (Eq. 3)
By the same analysis, the average window size of Standard TCP is
(1.5/p)^0.5, as the Standard TCP is a special case of AIMD with
alpha_aimd=1 and beta_aimd=0.5. Thus, for Eq. 3 to be the same as
that of Standard TCP, alpha_aimd must be equal to
3*(1-beta_aimd)/(1+beta_aimd). As AIMD increases its window by
alpha_aimd per RTT, we can get the window size of AIMD in terms of
the elapsed time t as follows:
W_aimd(t) = W_max*beta_aimd +
[3*(1-beta_aimd)/(1+beta_aimd)] * (t/RTT) (Eq. 4)
If W_cubic(t) is less than W_aimd(t), then the protocol is in the TCP
friendly region and cwnd SHOULD be set to W_aimd(t) at each reception
of ACK.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
3.3. Concave region
When receiving an ACK in congestion avoidance, if the protocol is not
in the TCP-friendly region and cwnd is less than W_max, then the
protocol is in the concave region. In this region, cwnd MUST be
incremented by (W_cubic(t+RTT) - cwnd)/cwnd for each received ACK.
3.4. Convex region
When the current window size of CUBIC is larger than W_max, it passes
the plateau of the cubic function after which CUBIC follows the
convex profile of the cubic function. Since cwnd is larger than the
previous saturation point W_max, this indicates that the network
conditions might have been perturbed since the last loss event,
possibly implying more available bandwidth after some flow
departures. Since the Internet is highly asynchronous, some amount
of perturbation is always possible without causing a major change in
available bandwidth. In this phase, CUBIC is being very careful by
very slowly increasing its window size. The convex profile ensures
that the window increases very slowly at the beginning and gradually
increases its growth rate. We also call this phase as the maximum
probing phase since CUBIC is searching for a new W_max. In this
region, cwnd MUST be incremented by (W_cubic(t+RTT) - cwnd)/cwnd for
each received ACK.
3.5. Multiplicative decrease
When a packet loss occurs, CUBIC reduces its window size by a factor
of beta. Parameter beta_cubic SHOULD be set to 0.7.
W_max = cwnd; // save window size before reduction
cwnd = cwnd * beta_cubic; // window reduction
A side effect of setting beta_cubic to a bigger value than 0.5 is
slower convergence. We believe that while a more adaptive setting of
beta_cubic could result in faster convergence, it will make the
analysis of the protocol much harder. This adaptive adjustment of
beta_cubic is an item for the next version of CUBIC.
3.6. Fast convergence
To improve the convergence speed of CUBIC, we add a heuristic in the
protocol. When a new flow joins the network, existing flows in the
network need to give up their bandwidth shares to allow the flow some
room for growth if the existing flows have been using all the
bandwidth of the network. To increase this release of bandwidth by
existing flows, the following mechanism called fast convergence
SHOULD be implemented.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
With fast convergence, when a loss event occurs, before a window
reduction of congestion window, a flow remembers the last value of
W_max before it updates W_max for the current loss event. Let us
call the last value of W_max to be W_last_max.
if (W_max < W_last_max){ // check downward trend
W_last_max = W_max; // remember the last W_max
W_max = W_max*(1+beta_cubic)/2; // further reduce W_max
} else { // check upward trend
W_last_max = W_max // remember the last W_max
}
This allows W_max to be slightly less than the original W_max. Since
flows spend most of time around their W_max, flows with larger
bandwidth shares tend to spend more time around the plateau allowing
more time for flows with smaller shares to increase their windows.
4. Discussion
With a deterministic loss model where the number of packets between
two successive lost events is always 1/p, CUBIC always operates with
the concave window profile which greatly simplifies the performance
analysis of CUBIC. The average window size of CUBIC can be obtained
by the following function:
AVG_W_cubic = [C*(3+beta_cubic)/(4*(1-beta_cubic))]^0.25 *
(RTT^0.75) / (p^0.75) (Eq. 5)
With beta_cubic set to 0.7, the above formula is reduced to:
AVG_W_cubic = (C*3.7/1.2)^0.25 * (RTT^0.75) / (p^0.75) (Eq. 6)
We will determine the value of C in the following subsection using
Eq. 6.
4.1. Fairness to standard TCP
In environments where standard TCP is able to make reasonable use of
the available bandwidth, CUBIC does not significantly change this
state.
Standard TCP performs well in the following two types of networks:
1. networks with a small bandwidth-delay product (BDP)
2. networks with a short RTT, but not necessarily a small BDP
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
CUBIC is designed to behave very similarly to standard TCP in the
above two types of networks. The following two tables show the
average window size of standard TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC. The average
window size of standard TCP and HSTCP is from [RFC3649]. The average
window size of CUBIC is calculated by using Eq. 6 and CUBIC TCP
friendly mode for three different values of C.
+----------+-------+--------+-------------+-------------+-----------+
| Loss | TCP | HSTCP | CUBIC | CUBIC | CUBIC |
| Rate P | | | (C=0.04) | (C=0.4) | (C=4) |
+----------+-------+--------+-------------+-------------+-----------+
| 10^-2 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| 10^-3 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 59 |
| 10^-4 | 120 | 263 | 120 | 187 | 333 |
| 10^-5 | 379 | 1795 | 593 | 1054 | 1874 |
| 10^-6 | 1200 | 12279 | 3332 | 5926 | 10538 |
| 10^-7 | 3795 | 83981 | 18740 | 33325 | 59261 |
| 10^-8 | 12000 | 574356 | 105383 | 187400 | 333250 |
+----------+-------+--------+-------------+-------------+-----------+
Response function of standard TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC in networks with
RTT = 0.1 seconds. The average window size is in MSS-sized segments.
Table 1
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+---------+
| Loss | Average | Average | CUBIC | CUBIC | CUBIC |
| Rate P | TCP W | HSTCP W | (C=0.04) | (C=0.4) | (C=4) |
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+---------+
| 10^-2 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| 10^-3 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 |
| 10^-4 | 120 | 263 | 120 | 120 | 120 |
| 10^-5 | 379 | 1795 | 379 | 379 | 379 |
| 10^-6 | 1200 | 12279 | 1200 | 1200 | 1874 |
| 10^-7 | 3795 | 83981 | 3795 | 5926 | 10538 |
| 10^-8 | 12000 | 574356 | 18740 | 33325 | 59261 |
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+---------+
Response function of standard TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC in networks with
RTT = 0.01 seconds. The average window size is in MSS-sized
segments.
Table 2
Both tables show that CUBIC with any of these three C values is more
friendly to TCP than HSTCP, especially in networks with a short RTT
where TCP performs reasonably well. For example, in a network with
RTT = 0.01 seconds and p=10^-6, TCP has an average window of 1200
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
packets. If the packet size is 1500 bytes, then TCP can achieve an
average rate of 1.44 Gbps. In this case, CUBIC with C=0.04 or C=0.4
achieves exactly the same rate as Standard TCP, whereas HSTCP is
about ten times more aggressive than Standard TCP.
We can see that C determines the aggressiveness of CUBIC in competing
with other protocols for the bandwidth. CUBIC is more friendly to
the Standard TCP, if the value of C is lower. However, we do not
recommend to set C to a very low value like 0.04, since CUBIC with a
low C cannot efficiently use the bandwidth in long RTT and high
bandwidth networks. Based on these observations, we find C=0.4 gives
a good balance between TCP-friendliness and aggressiveness of window
growth. Therefore, C SHOULD be set to 0.4. With C set to 0.4, Eq. 6
is reduced to:
AVG_W_cubic = 1.054 * (RTT^0.75) / (p^0.75) (Eq. 7)
Eq. 7 is then used in the next subsection to show the scalability of
CUBIC.
4.2. Using Spare Capacity
CUBIC uses a more aggressive window growth function than Standard TCP
under long RTT and high bandwidth networks.
The following table shows that to achieve 10Gbps rate, standard TCP
requires a packet loss rate of 2.0e-10, while CUBIC requires a packet
loss rate of 2.9e-8.
+------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Throughput(Mbps) | Average W | TCP P | HSTCP P | CUBIC P |
+------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 1 | 8.3 | 2.0e-2 | 2.0e-2 | 2.0e-2 |
| 10 | 83.3 | 2.0e-4 | 3.9e-4 | 2.9e-4 |
| 100 | 833.3 | 2.0e-6 | 2.5e-5 | 1.4e-5 |
| 1000 | 8333.3 | 2.0e-8 | 1.5e-6 | 6.3e-7 |
| 10000 | 83333.3 | 2.0e-10 | 1.0e-7 | 2.9e-8 |
+------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
Required packet loss rate for Standard TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC to
achieve a certain throughput. We use 1500-byte packets and an RTT of
0.1 seconds.
Table 3
Our test results in [HKLRX06] indicate that CUBIC uses the spare
bandwidth left unused by existing Standard TCP flows in the same
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
bottleneck link without taking away much bandwidth from the existing
flows.
4.3. Difficult Environments
CUBIC is designed to remedy the poor performance of TCP in fast long-
distance networks. It is not designed for wireless networks.
4.4. Investigating a Range of Environments
CUBIC has been extensively studied by using both NS-2 simulation and
test-bed experiments covering a wide range of network environments.
More information can be found in [HKLRX06].
4.5. Protection against Congestion Collapse
In case that there is congestion collapse, CUBIC behaves likely
standard TCP since CUBIC modifies only the window adjustment
algorithm of TCP. Thus, it does not modify the ACK clocking and
Timeout behaviors of Standard TCP.
4.6. Fairness within the Alternative Congestion Control Algorithm.
CUBIC ensures convergence of competing CUBIC flows with the same RTT
in the same bottleneck links to an equal bandwidth share. When
competing flows have different RTTs, their bandwidth shares are
linearly proportional to the inverse of their RTT ratios. This is
true independent of the level of statistical multiplexing in the
link.
4.7. Performance with Misbehaving Nodes and Outside Attackers
This is not considered in the current CUBIC.
4.8. Responses to Sudden or Transient Events
In case that there is a sudden congestion, a routing change, or a
mobility event, CUBIC behaves the same as Standard TCP.
4.9. Incremental Deployment
CUBIC requires only the change of TCP senders, and does not require
any assistant of routers.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
5. Security Considerations
This proposal makes no changes to the underlying security of TCP.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations regarding this document.
7. Acknowledgements
Alexander Zimmermann and Lars Eggert have received funding from the
European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
2014-2018 under grant agreement No. 644866 (SSICLOPS). This document
reflects only the authors' views and the European Commission is not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information it
contains.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2018, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2018>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3649] Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows",
RFC 3649, DOI 10.17487/RFC3649, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3649>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
RFC 5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5348>.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC6582] Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The
NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm",
RFC 6582, DOI 10.17487/RFC6582, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6582>.
8.2. Informative References
[CEHRX07] Cai, H., Eun, D., Ha, S., Rhee, I., and L. Xu, "Stochastic
Ordering for Internet Congestion Control and its
Applications", In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM , May 2007.
[FHP00] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and J. Padhye, "A Comparison of
Equation-Based and AIMD Congestion Control", May 2000.
[GV02] Gorinsky, S. and H. Vin, "Extended Analysis of Binary
Adjustment Algorithms", Technical Report TR2002-29,
Department of Computer Sciences , The University of Texas
at Austin , August 2002.
[HKLRX06] Ha, S., Kim, Y., Le, L., Rhee, I., and L. Xu, "A Step
toward Realistic Performance Evaluation of High-Speed TCP
Variants", International Workshop on Protocols for Fast
Long-Distance Networks , February 2006.
[HRX08] Ha, S., Rhee, I., and L. Xu, "CUBIC: A New TCP-Friendly
High-Speed TCP Variant", ACM SIGOPS Operating System
Review , 2008.
[K03] Kelly, T., "Scalable TCP: Improving Performance in
HighSpeed Wide Area Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review , April 2003.
[LS08] Leith, D. and R. Shorten, "H-TCP: TCP Congestion Control
for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Paths", Internet-draft
draft-leith-tcp-htcp-06 , April 2008.
[XHR04] Xu, L., Harfoush, K., and I. Rhee, "Binary Increase
Congestion Control for Fast, Long Distance Networks", In
Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM , March 2004.
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
Authors' Addresses
Injong Rhee
North Carolina State University
Department of Computer Science
Raleigh, NC 27695-7534
US
Email: rhee@ncsu.edu
Lisong Xu
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Lincoln, NE 68588-01150
US
Email: xu@unl.edu
Sangtae Ha
University of Colorado at Boulder
Department of Computer Science
Boulder, CO 80309-0430
US
Email: sangtae.ha@colorado.edu
Alexander Zimmermann
NetApp
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Phone: +49 89 900594712
Email: alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com
Lars Eggert
NetApp
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Phone: +49 151 12055791
Email: lars@netapp.com
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CUBIC January 2016
Richard Scheffenegger
NetApp
Am Euro Platz 2
Vienna 1120
Austria
Phone: +43 1 3676811 3146
Email: rs@netapp.com
Rhee, et al. Expires July 21, 2016 [Page 15]