TCPM                                                               L. Xu
Internet-Draft                                                       UNL
Obsoletes: 8312 (if approved)                                      S. Ha
Updates: 5681 (if approved)                                     Colorado
Intended status: Standards Track                                 I. Rhee
Expires: 28 April 2022                                            Bowery
                                                                 V. Goel
                                                              Apple Inc.
                                                          L. Eggert, Ed.
                                                                  NetApp
                                                         25 October 2021


               CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks
                     draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-05

Abstract

   CUBIC is a standard TCP congestion control algorithm that uses a
   cubic function instead of the linear window increase function on the
   sender side to improve scalability and stability over fast and long-
   distance networks.  CUBIC has been adopted as the default TCP
   congestion control algorithm by the Linux, Windows, and Apple stacks.

   This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include
   algorithmic improvements based on these implementations and recent
   academic work.  Based on the extensive deployment experience with
   CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track,
   obsoleting RFC 8312.  This also requires updating RFC 5681, to allow
   for CUBIC's occasionally more aggressive sending behavior.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the TCPM working group
   mailing list (mailto:tcpm@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/.

   Working Group information can be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm/; source code and issues list
   for this draft can be found at https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis.

Note to the RFC Editor

   xml2rfc currently renders <em></em> in the XML by surrounding the
   corresponding text with underscores.  This is highly distracting;
   please manually remove the underscores when doing the final edits to
   the text version of this document.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   (There is an issue open against xml2rfc to stop doing this in the
   future: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/596)

   Also, please manually change "Figure" to "Equation" for all artwork
   with anchors beginning with "eq" - xml2rfc doesn't seem to be able to
   do this.

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 https://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 28 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Design Principles of CUBIC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Principle 1 for the CUBIC Increase Function . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Principle 2 for Reno-Friendliness . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Principle 3 for RTT Fairness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Principle 4 for the CUBIC Decrease Factor . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  CUBIC Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


     4.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.1.  Constants of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.2.  Variables of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Window Increase Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Reno-Friendly Region  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Concave Region  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.5.  Convex Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.6.  Multiplicative Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.7.  Fast Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.8.  Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.9.  Spurious Congestion Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.10. Slow Start  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  Fairness to Reno  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.2.  Using Spare Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.3.  Difficult Environments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.4.  Investigating a Range of Environments . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.5.  Protection against Congestion Collapse  . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.6.  Fairness within the Alternative Congestion Control
            Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.7.  Performance with Misbehaving Nodes and Outside
            Attackers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.8.  Behavior for Application-Limited Flows  . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.9.  Responses to Sudden or Transient Events . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.10. Incremental Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix B.  Evolution of CUBIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     B.1.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-04 . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     B.2.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03 . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     B.3.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     B.4.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     B.5.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.6.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03 . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.7.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02 . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.8.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01 . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.9.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00 . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.10. Since RFC8312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     B.11. Since the Original Paper  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32







Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


1.  Introduction

   CUBIC has been adopted as the default TCP congestion control
   algorithm in the Linux, Windows, and Apple stacks, and has been used
   and deployed globally.  Extensive, decade-long deployment experience
   in vastly different Internet scenarios has convincingly demonstrated
   that CUBIC is safe for deployment on the global Internet and delivers
   substantial benefits over classical Reno congestion control
   [RFC5681].  It is therefore to be regarded as the currently most
   widely deployed standard for TCP congestion control.  CUBIC can also
   be used for other transport protocols such as QUIC [RFC9000] and SCTP
   [RFC4960] as a default congestion controller.

   The design of CUBIC was motivated by the well-documented problem
   classical Reno TCP has with low utilization over fast and long-
   distance networks [K03][RFC3649].  This problem arises from a slow
   increase of the congestion window following a congestion event in a
   network with a large bandwidth-delay product (BDP).  [HKLRX06]
   indicates that this problem is frequently observed even in the range
   of congestion window sizes over several hundreds of packets.  This
   problem is equally applicable to all Reno-style standards and their
   variants, including TCP-Reno [RFC5681], TCP-NewReno
   [RFC6582][RFC6675], SCTP [RFC4960], TFRC [RFC5348], and QUIC
   congestion control [RFC9002], which use the same linear increase
   function for window growth.  We refer to all Reno-style standards and
   their variants collectively as "Reno" below.

   CUBIC, originally proposed in [HRX08], is a modification to the
   congestion control algorithm of classical Reno to remedy this
   problem.  Specifically, CUBIC uses a cubic function instead of the
   linear window increase function of Reno to improve scalability and
   stability under fast and long-distance networks.

   This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include
   algorithmic improvements based on the Linux, Windows, and Apple
   implementations and recent academic work.  Based on the extensive
   deployment experience with CUBIC, it also moves the specification to
   the Standards Track, obsoleting [RFC8312].  This requires an update
   to [RFC5681], which limits the aggressiveness of Reno TCP
   implementations in its Section 3.  Since CUBIC is occasionally more
   aggressive than the [RFC5681] algorithms, this document updates
   [RFC5681] to allow for CUBIC's behavior.

   Binary Increase Congestion Control (BIC-TCP) [XHR04], a predecessor
   of CUBIC, was selected as the default TCP congestion control
   algorithm by Linux in the year 2005 and had been used for several
   years by the Internet community at large.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   CUBIC uses a similar window increase function as BIC-TCP and is
   designed to be less aggressive and fairer to Reno in bandwidth usage
   than BIC-TCP while maintaining the strengths of BIC-TCP such as
   stability, window scalability, and round-trip time (RTT) fairness.

   In the following sections, we first briefly explain the design
   principles of CUBIC, then provide the exact specification of CUBIC,
   and finally 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Design Principles of CUBIC

   CUBIC is designed according to the following design principles:

   Principle 1:  For better network utilization and stability, CUBIC
      uses both the concave and convex profiles of a cubic function to
      increase the congestion window size, instead of using just a
      convex function.

   Principle 2:  To be Reno-friendly, CUBIC is designed to behave like
      Reno in networks with short RTTs and small bandwidth where Reno
      performs well.

   Principle 3:  For RTT-fairness, CUBIC is designed to achieve linear
      bandwidth sharing among flows with different RTTs.

   Principle 4:  CUBIC appropriately sets its multiplicative window
      decrease factor in order to balance between the scalability and
      convergence speed.

3.1.  Principle 1 for the CUBIC Increase Function

   For better network utilization and stability, CUBIC [HRX08] uses a
   cubic window increase function in terms of the elapsed time from the
   last congestion event.  While most alternative congestion control
   algorithms to Reno increase the congestion window using convex
   functions, CUBIC uses both the concave and convex profiles of a cubic
   function for window growth.





Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   After a window reduction in response to a congestion event detected
   by duplicate ACKs, Explicit Congestion Notification-Echo (ECN-Echo,
   ECE) ACKs [RFC3168], TCP RACK [RFC8985] or QUIC loss detection
   [RFC9002], CUBIC remembers the congestion window size at which it
   received the congestion event and performs a multiplicative decrease
   of the congestion window.  When CUBIC enters into congestion
   avoidance, it starts to increase the congestion window using the
   concave profile of the cubic function.  The cubic function is set to
   have its plateau at the remembered congestion window size, so that
   the concave window increase continues until then.  After that, the
   cubic function turns into a convex profile and the convex window
   increase begins.

   This style of window adjustment (concave and then convex) improves
   the algorithm stability while maintaining high network utilization
   [CEHRX07].  This is because the window size remains almost constant,
   forming a plateau around the remembered congestion window size of the
   last congestion event, where network utilization is deemed highest.
   Under steady state, most window size samples of CUBIC are close to
   that remembered congestion window size, thus promoting high network
   utilization and stability.

   Note that congestion control algorithms that only use convex
   functions to increase the congestion window size have their maximum
   increments around the remembered congestion window size of the last
   congestion event, and thus introduce many packet bursts around the
   saturation point of the network, likely causing frequent global loss
   synchronizations.

3.2.  Principle 2 for Reno-Friendliness

   CUBIC promotes per-flow fairness to Reno.  Note that Reno performs
   well over paths with short RTTs and small bandwidths (or small BDPs).
   There is only a scalability problem in networks with long RTTs and
   large bandwidths (or large BDPs).

   A congestion control algorithm designed to be friendly to Reno on a
   per-flow basis must increase its congestion window less aggressively
   in small BDP networks than in large BDP networks.

   The aggressiveness of CUBIC mainly depends on the maximum window size
   before a window reduction, which is smaller in small-BDP networks
   than in large-BDP networks.  Thus, CUBIC increases its congestion
   window less aggressively in small-BDP networks than in large-BDP
   networks.






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   Furthermore, in cases when the cubic function of CUBIC would increase
   the congestion window less aggressively than Reno, CUBIC simply
   follows the window size of Reno to ensure that CUBIC achieves at
   least the same throughput as Reno in small-BDP networks.  We call
   this region where CUBIC behaves like Reno the "Reno-friendly region".

3.3.  Principle 3 for RTT Fairness

   Two CUBIC flows with different RTTs have a throughput ratio that is
   linearly proportional to the inverse of their RTT ratio, where the
   throughput of a flow is approximately the size of its congestion
   window divided by its RTT.

   Specifically, CUBIC maintains a window increase rate independent of
   RTTs outside the Reno-friendly region, and thus flows with different
   RTTs have similar congestion window sizes under steady state when
   they operate outside the Reno-friendly region.

   This notion of a linear throughput ratio is similar to that of Reno
   under high statistical multiplexing where packet loss is independent
   of individual flow rates.  However, under low statistical
   multiplexing, the throughput ratio of Reno flows with different RTTs
   is quadratically proportional to the inverse of their RTT ratio
   [XHR04].

   CUBIC always ensures a linear throughput ratio independent of the
   amount of statistical multiplexing.  This is an improvement over
   Reno.  While there is no consensus on particular throughput ratios
   for different RTT flows, we believe that over wired Internet paths,
   use of a linear throughput ratio seems more reasonable than equal
   throughputs (i.e., the same throughput for flows with different RTTs)
   or a higher-order throughput ratio (e.g., a quadratical throughput
   ratio of Reno under low statistical multiplexing environments).

3.4.  Principle 4 for the CUBIC Decrease Factor

   To balance between scalability and convergence speed, CUBIC sets the
   multiplicative window decrease factor to 0.7, whereas Reno uses 0.5.

   While this improves the scalability of CUBIC, a side effect of this
   decision is slower convergence, especially under low statistical
   multiplexing.  This design choice is following the observation that
   HighSpeed TCP (HSTCP) [RFC3649] and other approaches (e.g., [GV02])
   made: the current Internet becomes more asynchronous with less
   frequent loss synchronizations under high statistical multiplexing.






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   In such environments, even strict Multiplicative-Increase
   Multiplicative-Decrease (MIMD) can converge.  CUBIC flows with the
   same RTT always converge to the same throughput independent of
   statistical multiplexing, thus achieving intra-algorithm fairness.
   We also find that in environments with sufficient statistical
   multiplexing, the convergence speed of CUBIC is reasonable.

4.  CUBIC Congestion Control

   In this section, we discuss how the congestion window is updated
   during the different stages of the CUBIC congestion controller.

4.1.  Definitions

   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.
   Implementations can use bytes to express window sizes, which would
   require factoring in the maximum segment size wherever necessary and
   replacing _segments_acked_ with the number of bytes acknowledged in
   Figure 4.

4.1.1.  Constants of Interest

   β__cubic_: CUBIC multiplicative decrease factor as described in
   Section 4.6.

   α__cubic_: CUBIC additive increase factor used in Reno-friendly
   region as described in Section 4.3.

   _C_: constant that determines the aggressiveness of CUBIC in
   competing with other congestion control algorithms in high BDP
   networks.  Please see Section 5 for more explanation on how it is
   set.  The unit for _C_ is

                                  segment
                                  -------
                                        3
                                  second

4.1.2.  Variables of Interest

   This section defines the variables required to implement CUBIC:

   _RTT_: Smoothed round-trip time in seconds, calculated as described
   in [RFC6298].

   _cwnd_: Current congestion window in segments.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   _ssthresh_: Current slow start threshold in segments.

   _W_max_: Size of _cwnd_ in segments just before _cwnd_ was reduced in
   the last congestion event when fast convergence is disabled.
   However, if fast convergence is enabled, the size may be further
   reduced based on the current saturation point.

   _K_: The time period in seconds it takes to increase the congestion
   window size at the beginning of the current congestion avoidance
   stage to _W_max_.

   _current_time_: Current time of the system in seconds.

   _epoch_start_: The time in seconds at which the current congestion
   avoidance stage started.

   _cwnd_start_: The _cwnd_ at the beginning of the current congestion
   avoidance stage, i.e., at time _epoch_start_.

   W_cubic(_t_): The congestion window in segments at time _t_ in
   seconds based on the cubic increase function, as described in
   Section 4.2.

   _target_: Target value of congestion window in segments after the
   next RTT, that is, W_cubic(_t_ + _RTT_), as described in Section 4.2.

   _W_est_: An estimate for the congestion window in segments in the
   Reno-friendly region, that is, an estimate for the congestion window
   of Reno.

   _segments_acked_: Number of MSS-sized segments acked when a "new ACK"
   is received, i.e., an ACK that cumulatively acknowledges the delivery
   of new data.  This number will be a decimal value when a new ACK
   acknowledges an amount of data that is not MSS-sized.  Specifically,
   it can be less than 1 when a new ACK acknowledges a segment smaller
   than the MSS.

4.2.  Window Increase Function

   CUBIC maintains the acknowledgment (ACK) clocking of Reno by
   increasing the congestion window only at the reception of a new ACK.
   It does not make any changes to the TCP Fast Recovery and Fast
   Retransmit algorithms [RFC6582][RFC6675].

   During congestion avoidance, after a congestion event is detected by
   mechanisms described in Section 3.1, CUBIC changes the window
   increase function of Reno.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   CUBIC uses the following window increase function:

                                             3
                      W     (t) = C * (t - K)  + W
                       cubic                      max

                                  Figure 1

   where _t_ is the elapsed time in seconds from the beginning of the
   current congestion avoidance stage, that is,

                       t = current_time - epoch
                                               start

   and where _epoch_start_ is the time at which the current congestion
   avoidance stage starts. _K_ is the time period that the above
   function takes to increase the congestion window size at the
   beginning of the current congestion avoidance stage to _W_max_ if
   there are no further congestion events and is calculated using the
   following equation:

                                  ________________
                                 /W    - cwnd
                             3  /  max       start
                         K = | /  ----------------
                             |/           C

                                  Figure 2

   where _cwnd_start_ is the congestion window at the beginning of the
   current congestion avoidance stage.

   Upon receiving a new ACK during congestion avoidance, CUBIC computes
   the _target_ congestion window size after the next _RTT_ using
   Figure 1 as follows, where _RTT_ is the smoothed round-trip time.
   The lower and upper bounds below ensure that CUBIC's congestion
   window increase rate is non-decreasing and is less than the increase
   rate of slow start.













Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


                  /
                  |                if W     (t + RTT) < cwnd
                  |cwnd                cubic
                  |
                  |
                  |
         target = <                if W     (t + RTT) > 1.5 * cwnd
                  |1.5 * cwnd          cubic
                  |
                  |
                  |W     (t + RTT)
                  | cubic          otherwise
                  \

   The elapsed time _t_ in Figure 1 MUST NOT include periods during
   which _cwnd_ has not been updated due to an application limit (see
   Section 5.8).

   Depending on the value of the current congestion window size _cwnd_,
   CUBIC runs in three different regions:

   1.  The Reno-friendly region, which ensures that CUBIC achieves at
       least the same throughput as Reno.

   2.  The concave region, if CUBIC is not in the Reno-friendly region
       and _cwnd_ is less than _W_max_.

   3.  The convex region, if CUBIC is not in the Reno-friendly region
       and _cwnd_ is greater than _W_max_.

   Below, we describe the exact actions taken by CUBIC in each region.

4.3.  Reno-Friendly Region

   Reno performs well in certain types of networks, for example, under
   short RTTs and small bandwidths (or small BDPs).  In these networks,
   CUBIC remains in the Reno-friendly region to achieve at least the
   same throughput as Reno.

   The Reno-friendly region is designed according to the analysis in
   [FHP00], which studies the performance of an AIMD algorithm with an
   additive factor of α (segments per _RTT_) and a multiplicative factor
   of β, denoted by AIMD(α, β). _p_ is the packet loss rate.
   Specifically, the average congestion window size of AIMD(α, β) can be
   calculated using Figure 3.






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


                                        _______________
                                       /  α * (1 + β)
                   AVG_AIMD(α, β) = | / ---------------
                                    |/  2 * (1 - β) * p

                                  Figure 3

   By the same analysis, to achieve the same average window size as Reno
   that uses AIMD(1, 0.5), α must be equal to,

                                     1 - β
                                 3 * -----
                                     1 + β

   Thus, CUBIC uses Figure 4 to estimate the window size _W_est_ in the
   Reno-friendly region with

                                       1 - β
                                            cubic
                          α      = 3 * ----------
                           cubic       1 + β
                                            cubic

   which achieves the same average window size as Reno.  When receiving
   a new ACK in congestion avoidance (where _cwnd_ could be greater than
   or less than _W_max_), CUBIC checks whether W_cubic(_t_) is less than
   _W_est_. If so, CUBIC is in the Reno-friendly region and _cwnd_
   SHOULD be set to _W_est_ at each reception of a new ACK.

   _W_est_ is set equal to _cwnd_start_ at the start of the congestion
   avoidance stage.  After that, on every new ACK, _W_est_ is updated
   using Figure 4.  Note that this equation is for a connection where
   Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC) [RFC3465] is disabled.  For a
   connection with ABC enabled, this equation SHOULD be adjusted by
   using the number of acknowledged bytes instead of acknowledged
   segments.  Also note that this equation works for connections with
   enabled or disabled Delayed ACKs [RFC5681], as _segments_acked_ will
   be different based on the segments actually acknowledged by a new
   ACK.

                                          segments_acked
                   W    = W    + α      * --------------
                    est    est    cubic        cwnd

                                  Figure 4






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   Note that once _W_est_ reaches _W_max_, that is, _W_est_ >= _W_max_,
   CUBIC needs to start probing to determine the new value of _W_max_.
   At this point, α__cubic_ SHOULD be set to 1 to ensure that CUBIC can
   achieve the same congestion window increment as Reno, which uses
   AIMD(1, 0.5).

4.4.  Concave Region

   When receiving a new ACK in congestion avoidance, if CUBIC is not in
   the Reno-friendly region and _cwnd_ is less than _W_max_, then CUBIC
   is in the concave region.  In this region, _cwnd_ MUST be incremented
   by

                               target - cwnd
                               -------------
                                   cwnd

   for each received new ACK, where _target_ is calculated as described
   in Section 4.2.

4.5.  Convex Region

   When receiving a new ACK in congestion avoidance, if CUBIC is not in
   the Reno-friendly region and _cwnd_ is larger than or equal to
   _W_max_, then CUBIC is in the convex region.

   The convex region indicates that the network conditions might have
   changed since the last congestion 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.

   Unless it is overridden by the AIMD window increase, CUBIC is very
   careful in this region.  The convex profile aims to increase the
   window very slowly at the beginning when _cwnd_ is around _W_max_ and
   then gradually increases its rate of increase.  We also call this
   region the "maximum probing phase", since CUBIC is searching for a
   new _W_max_. In this region, _cwnd_ MUST be incremented by

                               target - cwnd
                               -------------
                                   cwnd

   for each received new ACK, where _target_ is calculated as described
   in Section 4.2.






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


4.6.  Multiplicative Decrease

   When a congestion event is detected by mechanisms described in
   Section 3.1, CUBIC updates _W_max_ and reduces _cwnd_ and _ssthresh_
   immediately as described below.  In case of packet loss, the sender
   MUST reduce _cwnd_ and _ssthresh_ immediately upon entering loss
   recovery, similar to [RFC5681] (and [RFC6675]).  Note that other
   mechanisms, such as Proportional Rate Reduction [RFC6937], can be
   used to reduce the sending rate during loss recovery more gradually.
   The parameter β__cubic_ SHOULD be set to 0.7, which is different from
   the multiplicative decrease factor used in [RFC5681] (and [RFC6675])
   during fast recovery.

   In Figure 5, _flight_size_ is the amount of outstanding data in the
   network, as defined in [RFC5681].  Note that a rate-limited
   application with idle periods or periods when unable to send at the
   full rate permitted by _cwnd_ may easily encounter notable variations
   in the volume of data sent from one RTT to another, resulting in
   _flight_size_ that is significantly less than _cwnd_ on a congestion
   event.  This may decrease _cwnd_ to a much lower value than
   necessary.  To avoid suboptimal performance with such applications,
   some implementations of CUBIC use _cwnd_ instead of _flight_size_ to
   calculate the new _ssthresh_ in Figure 5.  Alternatively, the
   mechanisms described in [RFC7661] may also be adopted to mitigate
   this issue.

            flight_size * β      // new ssthresh
ssthresh =                 cubic

            /max(ssthresh, 2)    // reduction on packet loss, cwnd is at least 2 MSS
            |
cwnd =      <
            |max(ssthresh, 1)    // reduction on ECE, cwnd is at least 1 MSS
            \

            max(ssthresh, 2)     // ssthresh is at least 2 MSS
ssthresh =

                               Figure 5

   A side effect of setting β__cubic_ to a value bigger than 0.5 is
   slower convergence.  We believe that while a more adaptive setting of
   β__cubic_ could result in faster convergence, it will make the
   analysis of CUBIC much harder.

   Note that CUBIC will continue to reduce _cwnd_ in response to
   congestion events due to ECN-Echo ACKs until it reaches a value of 1
   MSS.  If congestion persists, a sender with a _cwnd_ of 1 MSS needs



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   to reduce its sending rate even further.  It can achieve that by
   using a retransmission timer with exponential backoff, as described
   in [RFC3168].

4.7.  Fast Convergence

   To improve convergence speed, CUBIC uses a heuristic.  When a new
   flow joins the network, existing flows need to give up some of their
   bandwidth to allow the new flow some room for growth, if the existing
   flows have been using all the network bandwidth.  To speed up this
   bandwidth release by existing flows, the following "Fast Convergence"
   mechanism SHOULD be implemented.

   With Fast Convergence, when a congestion event occurs, we update
   _W_max_ as follows, before the window reduction as described in
   Section 4.6.

       /
       |       1 + β
       |            cubic if cwnd < W    and fast convergence is enabled,
       |cwnd * ----------            max
       |            2
W    = <
 max   |                  further reduce W
       |                                  max
       |
       |                  otherwise, remember cwnd before reduction
       \cwnd

   At a congestion event, if the current _cwnd_ is less than _W_max_,
   this indicates that the saturation point experienced by this flow is
   getting reduced because of a change in available bandwidth.  Then we
   allow this flow to release more bandwidth by reducing _W_max_
   further.  This action effectively lengthens the time for this flow to
   increase its congestion window, because the reduced _W_max_ forces
   the flow to plateau earlier.  This allows more time for the new flow
   to catch up to its congestion window size.

   Fast Convergence is designed for network environments with multiple
   CUBIC flows.  In network environments with only a single CUBIC flow
   and without any other traffic, Fast Convergence SHOULD be disabled.

4.8.  Timeout

   In case of a timeout, CUBIC follows Reno to reduce _cwnd_ [RFC5681],
   but sets _ssthresh_ using β__cubic_ (same as in Section 4.6) in a way
   that is different from Reno TCP [RFC5681].




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   During the first congestion avoidance stage after a timeout, CUBIC
   increases its congestion window size using Figure 1, where _t_ is the
   elapsed time since the beginning of the current congestion avoidance,
   _K_ is set to 0, and _W_max_ is set to the congestion window size at
   the beginning of the current congestion avoidance stage.  In
   addition, for the Reno-friendly region, _W_est_ SHOULD be set to the
   congestion window size at the beginning of the current congestion
   avoidance.

4.9.  Spurious Congestion Events

   In cases where CUBIC reduces its congestion window in response to
   having detected packet loss via duplicate ACKs or timeouts, there is
   a possibility that the missing ACK would arrive after the congestion
   window reduction and a corresponding packet retransmission.  For
   example, packet reordering could trigger this behavior.  A high
   degree of packet reordering could cause multiple congestion window
   reduction events, where spurious losses are incorrectly interpreted
   as congestion signals, thus degrading CUBIC's performance
   significantly.

   When there is a congestion event, a CUBIC implementation SHOULD save
   the current value of the following variables before the congestion
   window reduction.

                       prior_cwnd = cwnd

                       prior_ssthresh = ssthresh

                       prior_W    = W
                              max    max

                       prior_K = K

                       prior_epoch      = epoch
                                  start        start

                       prior_W_{est} = W
                                        est

   CUBIC MAY implement an algorithm to detect spurious retransmissions,
   such as Forward RTO-Recovery [RFC5682].  Experimental alternatives
   include DSACK [RFC3708] and Eifel [RFC3522].  Once a spurious
   congestion event is detected, CUBIC SHOULD restore the original
   values of above-mentioned variables as follows if the current _cwnd_
   is lower than _prior_cwnd_. Restoring the original values ensures
   that CUBIC's performance is similar to what it would be without
   spurious losses.



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


                                         \
            cwnd = prior_cwnd            |
                                         |
            ssthresh = prior_ssthresh    |
                                         |
            W    = prior_W               |
             max          max            |
                                         >if cwnd < prior_cwnd
            K = prior_K                  |
                                         |
            epoch      = prior_epoch     |
                 start              start|
                                         |
            W    = prior_W               |
             est          est            /

   In rare cases, when the detection happens long after a spurious loss
   event and the current _cwnd_ is already higher than _prior_cwnd_,
   CUBIC SHOULD continue to use the current and the most recent values
   of these variables.

4.10.  Slow Start

   CUBIC MUST employ a slow-start algorithm, when _cwnd_ is no more than
   _ssthresh_. In general, CUBIC SHOULD use the HyStart++ slow start
   algorithm [I-D.ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus], or MAY use the Reno TCP
   slow start algorithm [RFC5681] in the rare cases when HyStart++ is
   not suitable.  Experimental alternatives include hybrid slow start
   [HR08], a predecessor to HyStart++ that some CUBIC implementations
   have used as the default for the last decade, and limited slow start
   [RFC3742].  Whichever start-up algorithm is used, work might be
   needed to ensure that the end of slow start and the first
   multiplicative decrease of congestion avoidance work well together.

   When CUBIC uses HyStart++ [I-D.ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus], it may
   exit the first slow start without incurring any packet loss and thus
   _W_max_ is undefined.  In this special case, CUBIC switches to
   congestion avoidance and increases its congestion window size using
   Figure 1, where _t_ is the elapsed time since the beginning of the
   current congestion avoidance, _K_ is set to 0, and _W_max_ is set to
   the congestion window size at the beginning of the current congestion
   avoidance stage.

5.  Discussion

   In this section, we further discuss the safety features of CUBIC
   following the guidelines specified in [RFC5033].




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   With a deterministic loss model where the number of packets between
   two successive packet losses 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:

                                  ________________      ____
                                 /C * (3 + β     )   4 /   3
                            4   /           cubic    |/ RTT
               AVG_W      = |  /  ---------------- * -------
                    cubic   | /   4 * (1 - β     )       __
                            |/              cubic     4 / 3
                                                      |/ p

                                  Figure 6

   With β__cubic_ set to 0.7, the above formula reduces to:

                                                  ____
                                     _______   4 /   3
                                 4  /C * 3.7   |/ RTT
                    AVG_W      = | / ------- * -------
                         cubic   |/    1.2         __
                                                4 / 3
                                                |/ p

                                  Figure 7

   We will determine the value of _C_ in the following subsection using
   Figure 7.

5.1.  Fairness to Reno

   In environments where Reno is able to make reasonable use of the
   available bandwidth, CUBIC does not significantly change this state.

   Reno performs well in the following two types of networks:

   1.  networks with a small bandwidth-delay product (BDP)

   2.  networks with a short RTTs, but not necessarily a small BDP

   CUBIC is designed to behave very similarly to Reno in the above two
   types of networks.  The following two tables show the average window
   sizes of Reno TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC TCP.  The average window sizes of
   Reno TCP and HSTCP are from [RFC3649].  The average window size of
   CUBIC is calculated using Figure 7 and the CUBIC Reno-friendly region
   for three different values of _C_.



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   +=============+=======+========+================+=========+========+
   | Loss Rate P |  Reno |  HSTCP | CUBIC (C=0.04) |   CUBIC |  CUBIC |
   |             |       |        |                | (C=0.4) |  (C=4) |
   +=============+=======+========+================+=========+========+
   |     1.0e-02 |    12 |     12 |             12 |      12 |     12 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-03 |    38 |     38 |             38 |      38 |     59 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-04 |   120 |    263 |            120 |     187 |    333 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-05 |   379 |   1795 |            593 |    1054 |   1874 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-06 |  1200 |  12280 |           3332 |    5926 |  10538 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-07 |  3795 |  83981 |          18740 |   33325 |  59261 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+
   |     1.0e-08 | 12000 | 574356 |         105383 |  187400 | 333250 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+--------+

        Table 1: Reno TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC with RTT = 0.1 seconds

   Table 1 describes the response function of Reno TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC
   in networks with _RTT_ = 0.1 seconds.  The average window size is in
   MSS-sized segments.

    +=============+=======+========+================+=========+=======+
    | Loss Rate P |  Reno |  HSTCP | CUBIC (C=0.04) |   CUBIC | CUBIC |
    |             |       |        |                | (C=0.4) | (C=4) |
    +=============+=======+========+================+=========+=======+
    |     1.0e-02 |    12 |     12 |             12 |      12 |    12 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-03 |    38 |     38 |             38 |      38 |    38 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-04 |   120 |    263 |            120 |     120 |   120 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-05 |   379 |   1795 |            379 |     379 |   379 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-06 |  1200 |  12280 |           1200 |    1200 |  1874 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-07 |  3795 |  83981 |           3795 |    5926 | 10538 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+
    |     1.0e-08 | 12000 | 574356 |          18740 |   33325 | 59261 |
    +-------------+-------+--------+----------------+---------+-------+

        Table 2: Reno TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC with RTT = 0.01 seconds






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   Table 2 describes the response function of Reno TCP, HSTCP, and CUBIC
   in networks with _RTT_ = 0.01 seconds.  The average window size is in
   MSS-sized segments.

   Both tables show that CUBIC with any of these three _C_ values is
   more friendly to Reno TCP than HSTCP, especially in networks with a
   short _RTT_ where Reno TCP performs reasonably well.  For example, in
   a network with _RTT_ = 0.01 seconds and p=10^-6, Reno TCP has an
   average window of 1200 packets.  If the packet size is 1500 bytes,
   then Reno 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 Reno TCP, whereas HSTCP is about ten times more aggressive than
   Reno TCP.

   We can see that _C_ determines the aggressiveness of CUBIC in
   competing with other congestion control algorithms for bandwidth.
   CUBIC is more friendly to Reno TCP, if the value of _C_ is lower.
   However, we do not recommend setting _C_ to a very low value like
   0.04, since CUBIC with a low _C_ cannot efficiently use the bandwidth
   in fast and long-distance networks.  Based on these observations and
   extensive deployment experience, we find _C_=0.4 gives a good balance
   between Reno-friendliness and aggressiveness of window increase.
   Therefore, _C_ SHOULD be set to 0.4.  With _C_ set to 0.4, Figure 7
   is reduced to:

                                               ____
                                            4 /   3
                                            |/ RTT
                       AVG_W      = 1.054 * -------
                            cubic               __
                                             4 / 3
                                             |/ p

                                  Figure 8

   Figure 8 is then used in the next subsection to show the scalability
   of CUBIC.

5.2.  Using Spare Capacity

   CUBIC uses a more aggressive window increase function than Reno for
   fast and long-distance networks.

   The following table shows that to achieve the 10 Gbps rate, Reno TCP
   requires a packet loss rate of 2.0e-10, while CUBIC TCP requires a
   packet loss rate of 2.9e-8.





Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


      +===================+===========+=========+=========+=========+
      | Throughput (Mbps) | Average W |  Reno 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 |
      +-------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+

        Table 3: Required packet loss rate for Reno TCP, HSTCP, and
                   CUBIC to achieve a certain throughput

   Table 3 describes the required packet loss rate for Reno TCP, HSTCP,
   and CUBIC to achieve a certain throughput.  We use 1500-byte packets
   and an _RTT_ of 0.1 seconds.

   Our test results in [HKLRX06] indicate that CUBIC uses the spare
   bandwidth left unused by existing Reno TCP flows in the same
   bottleneck link without taking away much bandwidth from the existing
   flows.

5.3.  Difficult Environments

   CUBIC is designed to remedy the poor performance of Reno in fast and
   long-distance networks.

5.4.  Investigating a Range of Environments

   There is decade-long deployment experience with CUBIC on the
   Internet.  CUBIC has also been extensively studied by using both NS-2
   simulation and testbed experiments, covering a wide range of network
   environments.  More information can be found in [HKLRX06].

   Same as Reno, CUBIC is a loss-based congestion control algorithm.
   Because CUBIC is designed to be more aggressive (due to a faster
   window increase function and bigger multiplicative decrease factor)
   than Reno in fast and long-distance networks, it can fill large drop-
   tail buffers more quickly than Reno and increases the risk of a
   standing queue [RFC8511].  In this case, proper queue sizing and
   management [RFC7567] could be used to mitigate the risk to some
   extent and reduce the packet queuing delay.  Also, in large-BDP
   networks after a congestion event, CUBIC, due its cubic window
   increase function, recovers quickly to the highest link utilization



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   point.  This means that link utilization is less sensitive to an
   active queue management (AQM) target that is lower than the amplitude
   of the whole sawtooth.

   Similar to Reno, the performance of CUBIC as a loss-based congestion
   control algorithm suffers in networks where a packet loss is not a
   good indication of bandwidth utilization, such as wireless or mobile
   networks [LIU16].

5.5.  Protection against Congestion Collapse

   With regard to the potential of causing congestion collapse, CUBIC
   behaves like Reno, since CUBIC modifies only the window adjustment
   algorithm of Reno.  Thus, it does not modify the ACK clocking and
   timeout behaviors of Reno.

   CUBIC also satisfies the "full backoff" requirement as described in
   [RFC5033].  After reducing the sending rate to one packet per RTT in
   response to congestion events due to ECN-Echo ACKs, CUBIC then
   exponentially increases the transmission timer for each packet
   retransmission while congestion persists.

5.6.  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 throughput.  When competing
   flows have different RTT values, their throughput ratio is linearly
   proportional to the inverse of their RTT ratios.  This is true
   independently of the level of statistical multiplexing on the link.

5.7.  Performance with Misbehaving Nodes and Outside Attackers

   This is not considered in the current CUBIC design.

5.8.  Behavior for Application-Limited Flows

   CUBIC does not increase its congestion window size if a flow is
   currently limited by the application instead of the congestion
   window.  Section 4.2 requires that _t_ in Figure 1 does not include
   application-limited periods, such as idle periods, otherwise
   W_cubic(_t_) might be very high after restarting from these periods.

5.9.  Responses to Sudden or Transient Events

   If there is a sudden increase in capacity, e.g., due to variable
   radio capacity, a routing change, or a mobility event, CUBIC is
   designed to utilize the newly available capacity faster than Reno.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   On the other hand, if there is a sudden decrease in capacity, CUBIC
   reduces more slowly than Reno.  This remains true whether or not
   CUBIC is in Reno-friendly mode and whether or not fast convergence is
   enabled.

5.10.  Incremental Deployment

   CUBIC requires only changes to the congestion control at the sender,
   and it does not require any changes at receivers.  That is, a CUBIC
   sender works correctly with Reno receivers.  In addition, CUBIC does
   not require any changes to routers and does not require any
   assistance from routers.

6.  Security Considerations

   CUBIC makes no changes to the underlying security of TCP.  More
   information about TCP security concerns can be found in [RFC5681].

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus]
              Balasubramanian, P., Huang, Y., and M. Olson, "HyStart++:
              Modified Slow Start for TCP", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-03, 25 July 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-
              hystartplusplus-03>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3168>.

   [RFC5033]  Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
              Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5033>.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5348>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5681>.

   [RFC5682]  Sarolahti, P., Kojo, M., Yamamoto, K., and M. Hata,
              "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting
              Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP", RFC 5682,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5682, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5682>.

   [RFC6298]  Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
              "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6298>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6582>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6675, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6675>.

   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7567>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8985]  Cheng, Y., Cardwell, N., Dukkipati, N., and P. Jha, "The
              RACK-TLP Loss Detection Algorithm for TCP", RFC 8985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8985, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8985>.

   [RFC9002]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
              and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


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", IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International
              Conference on Computer Communications,
              DOI 10.1109/infcom.2007.111, 2007,
              <https://doi.org/10.1109/infcom.2007.111>.

   [FHP00]    Floyd, S., Handley, M., and J. Padhye, "A Comparison of
              Equation-Based and AIMD Congestion Control", May 2000,
              <https://www.icir.org/tfrc/aimd.pdf>.

   [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, 11 August 2002,
              <https://www.cs.utexas.edu/ftp/techreports/tr02-39.ps.gz>.

   [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,
              <https://pfld.net/2006/paper/s2_03.pdf>.

   [HR08]     Ha, S. and I. Rhee, "Hybrid Slow Start for High-Bandwidth
              and Long-Distance Networks", International Workshop
              on Protocols for Fast Long-Distance Networks, March 2008,
              <http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/g/GDARN-IT/pfldnet2008/paper/
              Sangate_Ha%20Final.pdf>.

   [HRX08]    Ha, S., Rhee, I., and L. Xu, "CUBIC: a new TCP-friendly
              high-speed TCP variant", ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems
              Review Vol. 42, pp. 64-74, DOI 10.1145/1400097.1400105,
              July 2008, <https://doi.org/10.1145/1400097.1400105>.

   [K03]      Kelly, T., "Scalable TCP: improving performance in
              highspeed wide area networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review Vol. 33, pp. 83-91,
              DOI 10.1145/956981.956989, April 2003,
              <https://doi.org/10.1145/956981.956989>.

   [LIU16]    Liu, K. and J. Lee, "On Improving TCP Performance over
              Mobile Data Networks", IEEE Transactions on Mobile
              Computing Vol. 15, pp. 2522-2536,
              DOI 10.1109/tmc.2015.2500227, October 2016,
              <https://doi.org/10.1109/tmc.2015.2500227>.




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   [RFC3465]  Allman, M., "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte
              Counting (ABC)", RFC 3465, DOI 10.17487/RFC3465, February
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3465>.

   [RFC3522]  Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm
              for TCP", RFC 3522, DOI 10.17487/RFC3522, April 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3522>.

   [RFC3649]  Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows",
              RFC 3649, DOI 10.17487/RFC3649, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3649>.

   [RFC3708]  Blanton, E. and M. Allman, "Using TCP Duplicate Selective
              Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate Transmission Sequence Numbers
              (TSNs) to Detect Spurious Retransmissions", RFC 3708,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3708, February 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3708>.

   [RFC3742]  Floyd, S., "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large
              Congestion Windows", RFC 3742, DOI 10.17487/RFC3742, March
              2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3742>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4960>.

   [RFC6937]  Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional
              Rate Reduction for TCP", RFC 6937, DOI 10.17487/RFC6937,
              May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6937>.

   [RFC7661]  Fairhurst, G., Sathiaseelan, A., and R. Secchi, "Updating
              TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic", RFC 7661,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7661, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7661>.

   [RFC8312]  Rhee, I., Xu, L., Ha, S., Zimmermann, A., Eggert, L., and
              R. Scheffenegger, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks",
              RFC 8312, DOI 10.17487/RFC8312, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8312>.

   [RFC8511]  Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst,
              "TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)", RFC 8511,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8511, December 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8511>.






Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [SXEZ19]   Sun, W., Xu, L., Elbaum, S., and D. Zhao, "Model-Agnostic
              and Efficient Exploration of Numerical State Space of
              Real-World TCP Congestion Control Implementations", USENIX
              NSDI 2019, February 2019,
              <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi19-sun.pdf>.

   [XHR04]    Xu, L., Harfoush, K., and I. Rhee, "Binary Increase
              Congestion Control (BIC) for Fast Long-Distance Networks",
              IEEE INFOCOM 2004, DOI 10.1109/infcom.2004.1354672, March
              2004, <https://doi.org/10.1109/infcom.2004.1354672>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Richard Scheffenegger and Alexander Zimmermann originally co-authored
   [RFC8312].

   These individuals suggested improvements to this document:

   *  Bob Briscoe

   *  Christian Huitema

   *  Gorry Fairhurst

   *  Jonathan Morton

   *  Juhamatti Kuusisaari

   *  Junho Choi

   *  Markku Kojo

   *  Martin Thomson

   *  Matt Olson

   *  Michael Welzl

   *  Mirja Kuehlewind

   *  Mohit P.  Tahiliani

   *  Neal Cardwell



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   *  Praveen Balasubramanian

   *  Richard Scheffenegger

   *  Rod Grimes

   *  Tom Henderson

   *  Tom Petch

   *  Wesley Rosenblum

   *  Yoshifumi Nishida

   *  Yuchung Cheng

Appendix B.  Evolution of CUBIC

B.1.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-04

   *  Fix incorrect math (#106 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/106))

   *  Update RFC5681 (#99 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/99))

   *  Rephrase text around algorithmic alternatives, add HyStart++ (#85
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/85), #86
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/86), #90
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/90))

   *  Clarify what we mean by "new ACK" and use it in the text in more
      places. (#101 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/101))

   *  Rewrite the Responses to Sudden or Transient Events section (#98
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/98))

   *  Remove confusing text about _cwnd_start_ in Section 4.2 (#100
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/100))

   *  Change terminology from "AIMD" to "Reno" (#108
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/108))

   *  Moved MUST NOT from app-limited section to main cubic AI section
      (#97 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/97))

   *  Clarify cwnd decrease during multiplicative decrease (#102
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/102))



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   *  Clarify text around queuing and slow adaptation of CUBIC in
      wireless environments (#94 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/94))

   *  Set lower bound of cwnd to 1 MSS and use retransmit timer
      thereafter (#83 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/83))

   *  Use FlightSize instead of cwnd to update ssthresh (#114
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/114))

B.2.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03

   *  Remove reference from abstract (#82
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/pull/82))

B.3.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02

   *  Description of packet loss rate _p_ (#65
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/65))

   *  Clarification of TCP Friendly Equation for ABC and Delayed ACK
      (#66 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/66))

   *  add applicability to QUIC and SCTP (#61
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/61))

   *  clarity on setting alpha__aimd_ to 1 (#68
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/68))

   *  introduce alpha__cubic_ (#64 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/64))

   *  clarify _cwnd_ growth in convex region (#69
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/69))

   *  add guidance for using bytes and mention that segments count is
      decimal (#67 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/67))

   *  add loss events detected by RACK and QUIC loss detection (#62
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/62))

B.4.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01

   *  address Michael Scharf's editorial suggestions. (#59
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/59))

   *  add "Note to the RFC Editor" about removing underscores




Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


B.5.  Since draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00

   *  use updated xml2rfc with better text rendering of subscripts

B.6.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03

   *  fix spelling nits

   *  rename to draft-ietf

   *  define _W_max_ more clearly

B.7.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02

   *  add definition for segments_acked and alpha__aimd_. (#47
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/47))

   *  fix a mistake in _W_max_ calculation in the fast convergence
      section. (#51 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/51))

   *  clarity on setting _ssthresh_ and _cwnd_start_ during
      multiplicative decrease. (#53 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/53))

B.8.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01

   *  rename TCP-Friendly to AIMD-Friendly and rename Standard TCP to
      AIMD TCP to avoid confusion as CUBIC has been widely used on the
      Internet. (#38 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/38))

   *  change introductory text to reflect the significant broader
      deployment of CUBIC on the Internet. (#39
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/39))

   *  rephrase introduction to avoid referring to variables that have
      not been defined yet.

B.9.  Since draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00

   *  acknowledge former co-authors (#15
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/15))

   *  prevent _cwnd_ from becoming less than two (#7
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/7))

   *  add list of variables and constants (#5
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/5), #6
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/6))



Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   *  update _K_'s definition and add bounds for CUBIC _target_ _cwnd_
      [SXEZ19] (#1 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/1), #14
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/14))

   *  update _W_est_ to use AIMD approach (#20
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/20))

   *  set alpha__aimd_ to 1 once _W_est_ reaches _W_max_ (#2
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/2))

   *  add Vidhi as co-author (#17 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/17))

   *  note for Fast Recovery during _cwnd_ decrease due to congestion
      event (#11 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/11))

   *  add section for spurious congestion events (#23
      (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/23))

   *  initialize _W_est_ after timeout and remove variable
      _W_(last_max)_ (#28 (https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
      issues/28))

B.10.  Since RFC8312

   *  converted to Markdown and xml2rfc v3

   *  updated references (as part of the conversion)

   *  updated author information

   *  various formatting changes

   *  move to Standards Track

B.11.  Since the Original Paper

   CUBIC has gone through a few changes since the initial release
   [HRX08] of its algorithm and implementation.  Below we highlight the
   differences between its original paper and [RFC8312].

   *  The original paper [HRX08] includes the pseudocode of CUBIC
      implementation using Linux's pluggable congestion control
      framework, which excludes system-specific optimizations.  The
      simplified pseudocode might be a good source to start with and
      understand CUBIC.





Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   *  [HRX08] also includes experimental results showing its performance
      and fairness.

   *  The definition of beta__cubic_ constant was changed in [RFC8312].
      For example, beta__cubic_ in the original paper was the window
      decrease constant while [RFC8312] changed it to CUBIC
      multiplication decrease factor.  With this change, the current
      congestion window size after a congestion event in [RFC8312] was
      beta__cubic_ * _W_max_ while it was (1-beta__cubic_) * _W_max_ in
      the original paper.

   *  Its pseudocode used _W_(last_max)_ while [RFC8312] used _W_max_.

   *  Its AIMD-friendly window was _W_tcp_ while [RFC8312] used _W_est_.

Authors' Addresses

   Lisong Xu
   University of Nebraska-Lincoln
   Department of Computer Science and Engineering
   Lincoln, NE 68588-0115
   United States of America

   Email: xu@unl.edu
   URI:   https://cse.unl.edu/~xu/


   Sangtae Ha
   University of Colorado at Boulder
   Department of Computer Science
   Boulder, CO 80309-0430
   United States of America

   Email: sangtae.ha@colorado.edu
   URI:   https://netstech.org/sangtaeha/


   Injong Rhee
   Bowery Farming
   151 W 26TH Street, 12TH Floor
   New York, NY 10001
   United States of America

   Email: injongrhee@gmail.com







Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    CUBIC                     October 2021


   Vidhi Goel
   Apple Inc.
   One Apple Park Way
   Cupertino, California 95014
   United States of America

   Email: vidhi_goel@apple.com


   Lars Eggert (editor)
   NetApp
   Stenbergintie 12 B
   FI-02700 Kauniainen
   Finland

   Email: lars@eggert.org
   URI:   https://eggert.org/


































Xu, et al.                Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 33]