TCP Maintenance and Minor A. Zimmermann
Extensions (TCPM) WG A. Hannemann
Internet-Draft RWTH Aachen University
Intended status: Experimental July 29, 2010
Expires: January 30, 2011
Making TCP more Robust to Long Connectivity Disruptions (TCP-LCD)
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd-02
Abstract
Disruptions in end-to-end path connectivity, which last longer than
one retransmission timeout, cause suboptimal TCP performance. The
reason for this performance degradation is that TCP interprets
segment loss induced by long connectivity disruptions as a sign of
congestion, resulting in repeated retransmission timer backoffs.
This, in turn, leads to a delayed detection of the re-establishment
of the connection since TCP waits for the next retransmission timeout
before it attempts a retransmission.
This document proposes an algorithm to make TCP more robust to long
connectivity disruptions (TCP-LCD). It describes how standard ICMP
messages can be exploited during timeout-based loss recovery to
disambiguate true congestion loss from non-congestion loss caused by
connectivity disruptions. Moreover, a reversion strategy of the
retransmission timer is specified that enables a more prompt
detection of whether or not the connectivity to a previously
disconnected peer node has been restored. TCP-LCD is a TCP sender-
only modification that effectively improves TCP performance in case
of connectivity disruptions.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2011.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Connectivity Disruption Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Connectivity Disruption Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Basic Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Algorithm Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Discussion of TCP-LCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Retransmission Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Wrapped Sequence Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Packet Duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Probing Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Reaction during Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6. Reaction in Steady-State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Dissolving Ambiguity Issues using the TCP Timestamps Option . 15
7. Interoperability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Detection of TCP Connection Failures . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Explicit Congestion Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. ICMP for IP version 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. TCP-LCD and IP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Changes from previous versions of the draft . . . . . 23
A.1. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd-01 . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd-00 . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-02 . . . . . . . . . 24
A.4. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-01 . . . . . . . . . 25
A.5. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-00 . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The reader should be familiar with the algorithm and terminology from
[RFC2988], which defines the standard algorithm Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) senders are required to use to compute and manage
their retransmission timer. In this document, the terms
"retransmission timer" and "retransmission timeout" are used as
defined in [RFC2988]. The retransmission timer ensures data delivery
in the absence of any feedback from the receiver. The duration of
this timer is referred to as retransmission timeout (RTO).
As defined in [RFC0793], the term "acceptable acknowledgment (ACK)"
refers to a TCP segment that acknowledges previously unacknowledged
data. The TCP sender state variable "SND.UNA" and the current
segment variable "SEG.SEQ" are used as defined in [RFC0793]. SND.UNA
holds the segment sequence number of earliest segment that has not
been acknowledged by the TCP receiver (the oldest outstanding
segment). SEG.SEQ is the segment sequence number of a given segment.
For the purposes of this specification, we define the term "timeout-
based loss recovery" that refers to the state that a TCP sender
enters upon the first timeout of the oldest outstanding segment
(SND.UNA) and leaves upon the arrival of the *first* acceptable ACK.
It is important to note that other documents use a different
interpretation of the term "timeout-based loss recovery". For
example, the NewReno modification to TCP's Fast Recovery algorithm
[RFC3782] extents the period a TCP sender remains in timeout-based
loss recovery compared to the one defined in this document. This is
because [RFC3782] attempts to avoid unnecessary multiple Fast
Retransmits that can occur after an RTO.
2. Introduction
Connectivity disruptions can occur in many different situations. The
frequency of connectivity disruptions depends on the properties of
the end-to-end path between the communicating hosts. While
connectivity disruptions can occur in traditional wired networks,
e.g., caused by an unplugged network cable, the likelihood of their
occurrence is significantly higher in wireless (multi-hop) networks.
Especially, end-host mobility, network topology changes, and wireless
interferences are crucial factors. In the case of the Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793], the performance of the connection
can experience a significant reduction compared to a permanently
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
connected path [SESB05]. This is because TCP, which was originally
designed to operate in fixed and wired networks, generally assumes
that the end-to-end path connectivity is relatively stable over the
connection's lifetime.
Depending on their duration, connectivity disruptions can be
classified into two groups [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci]: "short" and
"long". A connectivity disruption is "short" if connectivity returns
before the retransmission timer fires for the first time. In this
case, TCP recovers lost data segments through Fast Retransmit and
lost acknowledgments (ACK) through successfully delivered later ACKs.
Connectivity disruptions are declared as "long" for a given TCP
connection if the retransmission timer fires at least once before
connectivity is resumed. Whether or not path characteristics, like
the round trip time (RTT) or the available bandwidth, have changed
when connectivity resumes after a disruption is another important
aspect for TCP's retransmission scheme [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci].
This document improves TCP's behavior in case of "long connectivity
disruptions". In particular, it focuses on the period prior to the
re-establishment of the connectivity to a previously disconnected
peer node. The document does not describe any modifications to TCP's
behavior and its congestion control mechanisms [RFC5681] after
connectivity has been restored.
When a long connectivity disruption occurs on a TCP connection, the
TCP sender eventually does not receive any more acknowledgments.
After the retransmission timer expires, the TCP sender enters the
timeout-based loss recovery and declares the oldest outstanding
segment (SND.UNA) as lost. Since TCP tightly couples reliability and
congestion control, the retransmission of SND.UNA is triggered
together with the reduction of the transmission rate. This is based
on the assumption that segment loss is an indication of congestion
[RFC5681]. As long as the connectivity disruption persists, TCP will
repeat this procedure until the oldest outstanding segment has
successfully been acknowledged, or until the connection has timed
out. TCP implementations that follow the recommended retransmission
timeout (RTO) management of RFC 2988 [RFC2988] double the RTO after
each retransmission attempt. However, the RTO growth may be bounded
by an upper limit, the maximum RTO, which is at least 60s, but may be
longer: Linux, for example, uses 120s. If connectivity is restored
between two retransmission attempts, TCP still has to wait until the
retransmission timer expires before resuming transmission, since it
simply does not have any means to know if the connectivity has been
re-established. Therefore, depending on when connectivity becomes
available again, this can waste up to a maximum RTO of possible
transmission time.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
This retransmission behavior is not efficient, especially in
scenarios with long connectivity disruptions. In the ideal case, TCP
would attempt a retransmission as soon as connectivity to its peer
has been re-established. In this document, we specify a TCP sender-
only modification to provide robustness to long connectivity
disruptions (TCP-LCD). The memo describes how the standard Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMP) can be exploited during timeout-based
loss recovery to identify non-congestion loss caused by long
connectivity disruptions. TCP-LCD's reversion strategy of the
retransmission timer enables higher-frequency retransmissions and
thereby a prompt detection when connectivity to a previously
disconnected peer node has been restored. If no congestion is
present, TCP-LCD approaches the ideal behavior.
3. Connectivity Disruption Indication
If the queue of an intermediate router that is experiencing a link
outage can buffer all incoming packets, a connectivity disruption
will only cause a variation in delay, which is handled well by TCP
implementations using either Eifel [RFC3522], [RFC4015] or Forward
RTO-Recovery (F-RTO) [RFC5682]. However, if the link outage lasts
for too long, the router experiencing the link outage is forced to
drop packets, and finally to discard the according route. Means to
detect such link outages include reacting on failed address
resolution protocol (ARP) [RFC0826] queries, unsuccessful link
sensing, and the like. However, this is solely in the responsibility
of the respective router.
Note: The focus of this memo is on introducing a method how ICMP
messages may be exploited to improve TCP's performance; how
different physical and link layer mechanisms below the network
layer may trigger ICMP destination unreachable messages are out of
scope of this memo.
Provided that no other route to the specific destination exists, the
router will notify the corresponding sending host about the dropped
packets via ICMP destination unreachable messages of code 0 (net
unreachable) or code 1 (host unreachable) [RFC1812]. Therefore, the
sending host can use the ICMP destination unreachable messages of
these codes as an indication for a connectivity disruption, since the
reception of these messages provide evidence that packets were
dropped due to a link outage.
Note that there are also other ICMP destination unreachable messages
with different codes. Some of them are candidates for connectivity
disruption indications, too, but need further investigation. For
example, ICMP destination unreachable messages with code 5 (source
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
route failed), code 11 (net unreachable for TOS), or code 12 (host
unreachable for TOS) [RFC1812]. On the other hand, codes that flag
hard errors are of no use for this scheme, since TCP should abort the
connection when those are received [RFC1122]. In the following, the
term "ICMP unreachable message" is used as synonym for ICMP
destination unreachable messages of code 0 or code 1.
The accurate interpretation of ICMP unreachable messages as a
connectivity disruption indication is complicated by the following
two peculiarities of ICMP messages. First, they do not necessarily
operate on the same timescale as the packets, i.e., TCP segments that
elicited them. When a router drops a packet due to a missing route,
it will not necessarily send an ICMP unreachable message immediately,
but will rather queue it for later delivery. Second, ICMP messages
are subject to rate limiting, e.g., when a router drops a whole
window of data due to a link outage, it is unlikely to send as many
ICMP unreachable messages as dropped TCP segments. Depending on the
load of the router, it may not even send any ICMP unreachable
messages at all. Both peculiarities originate from [RFC1812].
Fortunately, according to [RFC0792], ICMP unreachable messages have
to contain in their body the entire Internet Protocol (IP) header
[RFC0791] of the datagram eliciting the ICMP unreachable message,
plus the first 64 bits of the payload of that datagram. This allows
the sending host to match the ICMP error message to the transport
connection that elicited it. RFC 1812 [RFC1812] augments these
requirements and states that ICMP messages should contain as much of
the original datagram as possible without the length of the ICMP
datagram exceeding 576 bytes. Therefore, in case of TCP, at least
the source port number, the destination port number, and the 32-bit
TCP sequence number are included. This allows the originating TCP to
demultiplex the received ICMP message and to identify the affected
connection. Moreover, it can identify which segment of the
respective connection triggered the ICMP unreachable message, unless
there are several segments in-flight with the same sequence number
(see Section 5.1).
A connectivity disruption indication in form of an ICMP unreachable
message associated with a presumably lost TCP segment provides strong
evidence that the segment was not dropped due to congestion, but was
successfully delivered as far as the reporting router. It therefore
did not witness any congestion at least on that part of the path that
was traversed by both the TCP segment eliciting the ICMP unreachable
message as well as the ICMP unreachable message itself.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
4. Connectivity Disruption Reaction
Section 4.1 introduces the basic idea of TCP-LCD. The complete
algorithm is specified in Section 4.2.
4.1. Basic Idea
The goal of the algorithm is to promptly detect when connectivity to
a previously disconnected peer node has been restored after a long
connectivity disruption, while retaining appropriate behavior in case
of congestion. TCP-LCD exploits standard ICMP unreachable messages
during timeout-based loss recovery. This increases TCP's
retransmission frequency by undoing one retransmission timer backoff
whenever an ICMP unreachable message is received that contains a
segment with a sequence number of a presumably lost retransmission.
This approach has the advantage of appropriately reducing the probing
rate in case of congestion. If either the retransmission itself or
the corresponding ICMP message is dropped the previously performed
retransmission timer backoff is not undone, which effectively halves
the probing rate.
4.2. Algorithm Details
A TCP sender that uses RFC 2988 [RFC2988] to compute TCP's
retransmission timer MAY employ the following scheme to avoid over-
conservative retransmission timer backoffs in case of long
connectivity disruptions. If a TCP sender does implement the
following steps, the algorithm MUST be initiated upon the first
timeout of the oldest outstanding segment (SND.UNA) and MUST be
stopped upon the arrival of the first acceptable ACK. The algorithm
MUST NOT be re-initiated upon subsequent timeouts for the same
segment. The scheme SHOULD NOT be used in SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED
states [RFC0793] (see Section 5.5).
A TCP sender that does not employ RFC 2988 [RFC2988] to compute TCP's
retransmission timer MUST NOT use TCP-LCD. We envision that the
scheme could be easily adapted to algorithms others than RFC 2988.
However, we leave this as future work.
In rule (2.5), RFC 2988 [RFC2988] provides the option to place a
maximum value on the RTO. When a TCP implements this rule to provide
an upper bound for the RTO, it MUST also be used in the following
algorithm. In particular, if the RTO is bounded by an upper limit
(maximum RTO), the "MAX_RTO" variable used in this scheme MUST be
initialized with this upper limit. Otherwise, if the RTO is
unbounded, the "MAX_RTO" variable MUST be set to infinity.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
The scheme specified in this document uses the "BACKOFF_CNT"
variable, whose initial value is zero. The variable is used to count
the number of performed retransmission timer backoffs during one
timeout-based loss recovery. Moreover, the "RTO_BASE" variable is
used to recover the previous RTO if the retransmission timer backoff
was unnecessary. The variable is initialized with the RTO upon
initiation of timeout-based loss recovery.
(1) Before TCP updates the variable "RTO" when it initiates timeout-
based loss recovery, set the variables "BACKOFF_CNT" and
"RTO_BASE" as follows:
BACKOFF_CNT := 0;
RTO_BASE := RTO.
Proceed to step (R).
(R) This is a placeholder for standard TCP's behavior in case the
retransmission timer has expired. In particular, if RFC 2988
[RFC2988] is used, steps (5.4) - (5.6) of that algorithm go
here. Proceed to step (2).
(2) To account for the expiration of the retransmission timer in the
previous step (R), increment the "BACKOFF_CNT" variable by one:
BACKOFF_CNT := BACKOFF_CNT + 1.
(3) Wait either
for the expiration of the retransmission timer. When the
retransmission timer expires, proceed to step (R);
or for the arrival of an acceptable ACK. When an acceptable
ACK arrives, proceed to step (A);
or for the arrival of an ICMP unreachable message. When the
ICMP unreachable message "ICMP_DU" arrives, proceed to step
(4).
(4) If "BACKOFF_CNT > 0", i.e., if at least one retransmission timer
backoff can be undone, then
proceed to step (5);
else
proceed to step (3).
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
(5) Extract the TCP segment header included in the ICMP unreachable
message "ICMP_DU":
SEG := Extract(ICMP_DU).
(6) If "SEG.SEQ == SND.UNA", i.e., if the TCP segment "SEG"
eliciting the ICMP unreachable message "ICMP_DU" contains the
sequence number of a retransmission, then
proceed to step (7);
else
proceed to step (3).
(7) Undo the last retransmission timer backoff:
BACKOFF_CNT := BACKOFF_CNT - 1;
RTO := min(RTO_BASE * 2^(BACKOFF_CNT), MAX_RTO).
(8) If the retransmission timer expires due to the undoing in the
previous step (7), then
proceed to step (R);
else
proceed to step (3).
(A) This is a placeholder for standard TCP's behavior in case an
acceptable ACK has arrived. No further processing.
When a TCP in steady-state detects a segment loss using the
retransmission timer, it enters the timeout-based loss recovery and
initiates the algorithm (step 1). It adjusts the slow start
threshold (ssthresh), sets the congestion window (CWND) to one
segment, backs off the retransmission timer, and retransmits the
first unacknowledged segment (step R) [RFC5681], [RFC2988]. To
account for the expiration of the retransmission timer, the TCP
sender increments the "BACKOFF_CNT" variable by one (step 2).
In case the retransmission timer expires again (step 3a), a TCP will
repeat the retransmission of the first unacknowledged segment and
back off the retransmission timer once more (step R) [RFC2988], as
well as increment the "BACKOFF_CNT" variable by one (step 2). Note
that a TCP may implement RFC 2988's [RFC2988] option to place a
maximum value on the RTO that may result in not performing the
retransmission timer backoff. However, step (2) MUST always and
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
unconditionally be applied, no matter whether or not the
retransmission timer is actually backed off. In other words, each
time the retransmission timer expires, the "BACKOFF_CNT" variable
MUST be incremented by one.
If the first received packet after the retransmission(s) is an
acceptable ACK (step 3b), a TCP will proceed as normal, i.e., slow
start the connection and terminate the algorithm (step A). Later
ICMP unreachable messages from the just terminated timeout-based loss
recovery are ignored, since the ACK clock is already restarting due
to the successful retransmission.
On the other hand, if the first received packet after the
retransmission(s) is an ICMP unreachable message (step 3c), and if
step (4) permits it, TCP SHOULD undo one backoff for each ICMP
unreachable message reporting an error on a retransmission. To
decide if an ICMP unreachable message was elicited by a
retransmission, the sequence number it contains is inspected (step 5,
step 6). The undo is performed by re-calculating the RTO with the
decremented "BACKOFF_CNT" variable (step 7). This calculation
explicitly matches the (bounded) exponential backoff specified in
rule (5.5) of [RFC2988].
Upon receipt of an ICMP unreachable message that legitimately undoes
one backoff, there is the possibility that the shortened
retransmission timer has already expired (step 8). Then, TCP SHOULD
retransmit immediately. In case the shortened retransmission timer
has not yet expired, TCP MUST wait accordingly.
5. Discussion of TCP-LCD
TCP-LCD takes caution to only react to connectivity disruption
indications in the form of ICMP unreachable messages during timeout-
based loss recovery. Therefore, TCP's behavior is not altered when
either no ICMP unreachable messages are received, or the
retransmission timer of the TCP sender did not expire since the last
received acceptable ACK. Thus, by defintion, the algorithm triggers
only in the case of long connectivity disruptions.
Only such ICMP unreachable messages that contain a TCP segment with a
the sequence number of a retransmission, i.e., contain SND.UNA, are
evaluated by TCP-LCD. All other ICMP unreachable messages are
ignored. The arrival of those ICMP unreachable messages provides
strong evidence that the retransmissions were not dropped due to
congestion, but were successfully delivered to the reporting router.
In other words, there is no evidence for any congestion at least on
that very part of the path that was traversed by both the TCP segment
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
eliciting the ICMP unreachable message as well as the ICMP
unreachable message itself.
However, there are some situations where TCP-LCD makes a false
decision and incorrectly undoes a retransmission timer backoff. This
can happen, even when the received ICMP unreachable message contains
the segment number of a retransmission (SND.UNA), because the TCP
segment that elicited the ICMP unreachable message may either not be
a retransmission (Section 5.1), or does not belong to the current
timeout-based loss recovery (Section 5.2). Finally, packet
duplication (Section 5.3) can also spuriously trigger the algorithm.
Section 5.4 discusses possible probing frequencies, while Section 5.6
describes the motivation for not reacting to ICMP unreachable
messages while TCP is in steady-state.
5.1. Retransmission Ambiguity
Historically, the retransmission ambiguity problem [Zh86], [KP87] is
the TCP sender's inability to distinguish whether the first
acceptable ACK after a retransmission refers to the original
transmission or to the retransmission. This problem occurs after
both a Fast Retransmit and a timeout-based retransmit. However,
modern TCP implementations can eliminate the retransmission ambiguity
with either the help of Eifel [RFC3522], [RFC4015] or Forward RTO-
Recovery (F-RTO) [RFC5682].
The reversion strategy of the given algorithm suffers from a form of
retransmission ambiguity, too. In contrast to the above case, TCP
suffers from ambiguity regarding ICMP unreachable messages received
during timeout-based loss recovery. With the TCP segment number
included in the ICMP unreachable message, a TCP sender is not able to
determine if the ICMP unreachable message refers to the original
transmission or to any of the timeout-based retransmissions. That
is, there is an ambiguity with regards to which TCP segment an ICMP
unreachable message reports on.
However, this ambiguity is not considered to be a problem for the
algorithm. The assumption that a received ICMP message provides
evidence that a non-congestion loss caused by the connectivity
disruption was wrongly considered a congestion loss still holds,
regardless to which TCP segment, transmission or retransmission, the
message refers.
5.2. Wrapped Sequence Numbers
Besides the ambiguity whether a received ICMP unreachable message
refers to the original transmission or to any of the retransmissions,
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
there is another source of ambiguity related to the TCP sequence
numbers contained in ICMP unreachable messages. For high bandwidth
paths, the sequence space may wrap quickly. This migth cause that
delayed ICMP unreachable messages may coincidentally fit as valid
input in the proposed scheme. As a result, the scheme may
incorrectly undo retransmission timer backoffs. Chances for this to
happen are minuscule, since a particular ICMP message would need to
contain the exact sequence number of the current oldest outstanding
segment (SND.UNA), while at the same time TCP is in timeout-based
loss recovery. However, two "worst case" scenarios for the algorithm
are possible:
For instance, consider a steady state TCP connection, which will be
disrupted at an intermediate router R due to a link outage. Upon the
expiration of the RTO, the TCP sender enters the timeout-based loss
recovery and starts to retransmit the earliest segment that has not
been acknowledged (SND.UNA). For some reason, router R delays all
corresponding ICMP unreachable messages so that the TCP sender backs
the retransmission timer off normally without any undoing. At the
end of the connectivity disruption, the TCP sender eventually detects
the re-establishment, leaves the scheme and finally the timeout-based
loss recovery, too. A sequence number wrap-around later, the
connectivity between the two peers is disrupted again, but this time
due to congestion and exactly at the time at which the current
SND.UNA matches the SND.UNA from the previous cycle. If router R
emits the delayed ICMP unreachable messages now, the TCP sender would
incorrectly undo retransmission timer backoffs. As the TCP sequence
number contains 32 bits, the probability of this scenario is at most
1/2^32. Given sufficiently many retransmissions in the first
timeout-based loss recovery, the corresponding ICMP unreachable
messages could reduce the RTO in the second recovery at most to
"RTO_BASE". However, once the ICMP unreachable messages are
depleted, the standard exponential backoff will be performed. Thus,
the congestion response will only be delayed by some false
retransmissions.
Similar to the above, consider the case where a steady state TCP
connection with n segments in flight will be disrupted at some point
due to a link outage at an intermediate router R. For each segment in
flight, router R may generate an ICMP unreachable message. However,
due to some reason it delays them. Once the link outage is over and
the connection has been re-established, the TCP sender leaves the
scheme and slow-starts the connection. Following a sequence number
wrap-around, a retransmission timeout occurs, just at the moment the
TCP sender's current window of data reaches the previous range of the
sequence number space again. In case router R emits the delayed ICMP
unreachable messages now, spurious undoing of the retransmission
timer backoff is possible once, if the TCP segment number contained
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
in ICMP unreachable messages matches the current SND.UNA, and the
timeout was a result of congestion. In the case of another
connectivity disruption, the additional undoing of the retransmission
timer backoff has no impact. The probability of this scenario is at
most n/2^32.
5.3. Packet Duplication
In case an intermediate router duplicates packets, a TCP sender may
receive more ICMP unreachable messages during timeout-based loss
recovery than sent timeout-based retransmissions. However, since
TCP-LCD keeps track of the number of performed retransmission timer
backoffs in the "BACKOFF_CNT" variable, it will not undo more
retransmission timer backoffs than were actually performed.
Nevertheless, if packet duplication and congestion coincide on the
path between the two communicating hosts, duplicated ICMP messages
could hide the congestion loss of some retransmissions or ICMP
messages, and the algorithm may incorrectly undo retransmission timer
backoffs. Considering the overall impact of a router that duplicates
packets, the additional load induced by some spurious timeout-based
retransmits can probably be neglected.
5.4. Probing Frequency
One could argue that if an ICMP unreachable message arrives for a
timeout-based retransmission, the RTO shall be reset or recalculated,
similar to what is done when an ACK arrives during timeout-based loss
recovery (see Karn's algorithm [KP87], [RFC2988]), and a new
retransmission should be sent immediately. Generally, this would
allow for a much higher probing frequency based on the round trip
time up to the router where connectivity has been disrupted.
However, we believe the current scheme provides a good trade-off
between conservative behavior and fast detection of connectivity re-
establishment.
5.5. Reaction during Connection Establishment
It is possible that a TCP sender enters timeout-based loss recovery
while the connection is in SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states [RFC0793].
The algorithm described in this document could also be used for
faster connection establishment in networks with connectivity
disruptions. However, because existing TCP implementations [RFC5461]
already interpret ICMP unreachable messages during connection
establishment and abort the corresponding connection, we refrain from
suggesting this.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
5.6. Reaction in Steady-State
Another exploitation of ICMP unreachable messages in the context of
TCP congestion control might seem appropriate in case the ICMP
unreachable message is received while TCP is in steady-state, and the
message refers to a segment from within the current window of data.
As the RTT up to the router that generated the ICMP unreachable
message is likely to be substantially shorter than the overall RTT to
the destination, the ICMP unreachable message may very well reach the
originating TCP while it is transmitting the current window of data.
In case the remaining window is large, it might seem appropriate to
refrain from transmitting the remaining window as there is timely
evidence that it will only trigger further ICMP unreachable messages
at the very router. Although this promises improvement from a
wastage perspective, it may be counterproductive from a security
perspective. An attacker could forge such ICMP messages, thereby
forcing the originating TCP to stop sending data, very similar to the
blind throughput-reduction attack mentioned in [RFC5927].
An additional consideration is the following: in the presence of
multi-path routing, even the receipt of a legitimate ICMP unreachable
message cannot be exploited accurately, because there is the
possibility that only one of the multiple paths to the destination is
suffering from a connectivity disruption, which causes ICMP
unreachable messages to be sent. Then, however, there is the
possibility that the path along which the connectivity disruption
occurred contributed considerably to the overall bandwidth, such that
a congestion response is very well reasonable. However, this is not
necessarily the case. Therefore, a TCP has no means except for its
inherent congestion control to decide on this matter. All in all, it
seems that for a connection in steady-state, i.e., not in timeout-
based loss recovery, reacting on ICMP unreachable messages in regard
to congestion control is not appropriate. For the case of timeout-
based retransmissions, however, there is a reasonable congestion
response, which is skipping further retransmission timer backoffs
because there is no congestion indication - as described above.
6. Dissolving Ambiguity Issues using the TCP Timestamps Option
If the TCP Timestamps option [RFC1323] is enabled for a connection, a
TCP sender SHOULD use the following algorithm to dissolve the
ambiguity issues mentioned in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. In
particular, both the retransmission ambiguity and the packet
duplication problems are prevented by the following TCP-LCD variant.
On the other hand, the false positives caused by wrapped sequence
numbers cannot be completely avoided, but the likelihood is further
reduced by a factor of 1/2^32 since the Timestamp Value field (TSval)
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
of the TCP Timestamps Option contains 32 bits.
Hence, implementers may choose to implement the TCP-LCD with the
following modifications.
Step (1) is replaced by step (1'):
(1') Before TCP updates the variable "RTO" when it initiates
timeout-based loss recovery, set the variables "BACKOFF_CNT"
and "RTO_BASE" and the data structure "RETRANS_TS" as follows:
BACKOFF_CNT := 0;
RTO_BASE := RTO;
RETRANS_TS := [].
Proceed to step (R).
Step (2) is extended by step (2b):
(2b) Store the value of the Timestamp Value field (TSval) of the TCP
Timestamps option included in the retransmission "RET" sent in
step (R) into the "RETRANS_TS" data structure:
RETRANS_TS.add(RET.TSval)
Step (6) is replaced by step (6'):
(6') If "SEG.SEQ == SND.UNA && RETRANS_TS.exists(SEQ.TSval)", i.e.,
if the TCP segment "SEG" eliciting the ICMP unreachable message
"ICMP_DU" contains the sequence number of a retransmission, and
the value in its Timestamp Value field (TSval) is valid, then
proceed to step (7');
else
proceed to step (3).
Step (7) is replaced by step (7'):
(7') Undo the last retransmission timer backoff:
RETRANS_TS.remove(SEQ.TSval);
BACKOFF_CNT := BACKOFF_CNT - 1;
RTO := min(RTO_BASE * 2^(BACKOFF_CNT), MAX_RTO).
The downside of the this variant is twofold. First, the
modifications come at a cost: the TCP sender is required to store the
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
timestamps of all retransmissions sent during one timeout-based loss
recovery. Second, this variant can only undo a retransmission timer
backoff if the intermediate router experiencing the link outage
implements [RFC1812] and chooses to include as many more than the
first 64 bits of the payload of the triggering datagram, as are
needed to include the TCP Timestamps option in the ICMP unreachable
message.
7. Interoperability Issues
This section discusses interoperability issues related to introducing
TCP-LCD.
7.1. Detection of TCP Connection Failures
TCP-LCD may have side-effects on TCP implementations that attempt to
detect TCP connection failures by counting timeout-based
retransmissions. [RFC1122] states in Section 4.2.3.5 that a TCP host
must handle excessive retransmissions of data segments with two
thresholds R1 and R2 that measure the number of retransmissions that
have occurred for the same segment. Both thresholds might either be
measured in time units or as a count of retransmissions.
Due to TCP-LCD's reversion strategy of the retransmission timer, the
assumption that a certain number of retransmissions corresponds to a
specific time interval no longer holds, as additional retransmissions
may be performed during timeout-based-loss recovery to detect the end
of the connectivity disruption. Therefore, a TCP employing TCP-LCD
either MUST measure the thresholds R1 and R2 in time units or, in
case R1 and R2 are counters of retransmissions, MUST convert them
into time intervals, which correspond to the time an unmodified TCP
would need to reach the specified number of retransmissions.
7.2. Explicit Congestion Notification
With Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], ECN-capable
routers are no longer limited to dropping packets to indicate
congestion. Instead, they can set the Congestion Experienced (CE)
codepoint in the IP header to indicate congestion. With TCP-LCD, it
may happen that during a connectivity disruption, a received ICMP
unreachable message has been elicited by a timeout-based
retransmission that was marked with the CE codepoint before reaching
the router experiencing the link outage. In such a case, a TCP
sender MUST, corresponding to [RFC3168] (Section 6.1.2), additionally
reset the retransmission timer in case the algorithm undoes a
retransmission timer backoff.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
7.3. ICMP for IP version 6
RFC 4443 [RFC4443] specifies the Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMPv6) to be used with the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
[RFC2460]. From TCP-LCD's point of view, it is important to notice
that for IPv6, the payload of an ICMPv6 error messages has to include
as many bytes as possible from the IPv6 datagram that elicited the
ICMPv6 error message, without making the error message exceed the
minimum IPv6 MTU (1280 bytes) [RFC4443]. Thus, more information is
available for TCP-LCD than in the case of IPv4.
The counterpart of the ICMPv4 destination unreachable message of code
0 (net unreachable) and of code 1 (host unreachable) is the ICMPv6
destination unreachable message of code 0 (no route to destination)
[RFC4443]. As with IPv4, a router should generate an ICMPv6
destination unreachable message of code 0 in response to a packet
that cannot be delivered to its destination address because it lacks
a matching entry in its routing table. As a result, TCP-LCD can
employ this ICMPv6 error messages as connectivity disruption
indication, too.
7.4. TCP-LCD and IP Tunnels
It is worth noting that IP tunnels, including IPsec [RFC4301], IP in
IP [RFC2003], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], and
others are compatible with TCP-LCD, as long as the received ICMP
unreachable messages can be demultiplexed and extracted appropriately
by the TCP sender during timeout-based loss recovery.
If, for example, end-to-end tunnels like IPsec in transport mode
[RFC4301] are employed, a TCP sender may receive ICMP unreachable
messages where additional steps, e.g., decrypting in step (5) of the
algorithm, are needed to extract the TCP header from these ICMP
messages. Provided that the received ICMP unreachable message
contains enough information, i.e., SEQ.SEG is extractable, this
information can still be used as a valid input for the proposed
algorithm.
Likewise, if IP encapsulation like [RFC2003] is used in some part of
the path between the communicating hosts, the tunnel ingress node may
receive the ICMP unreachable messages from an intermediate router
experiencing the link outage. Nevertheless, the tunnel ingress node
may replay the ICMP unreachable messages in order to inform the TCP
sender. If enough information is preserved to extract SEQ.SEG, the
replayed ICMP unreachable messages can still be used in TCP-LCD.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
8. Related Work
Several methods that address TCP's problems in the presence of
connectivity disruptions have been proposed in literature. Some of
them try to improve TCP's performance by modifying lower layers. For
example, [SM03] introduces a "smart link layer", which buffers one
segment for each active connection and replays these segments upon
connectivity re-establishment. This approach has a serious drawback:
previously stateless intermediate routers have to be modified in
order to inspect TCP headers, to track the end-to-end connection, and
to provide additional buffer space. This leads to an additional need
of memory and processing power.
On the other hand, stateless link layer schemes, as proposed in
[RFC3819], which unconditionally buffer some small number of packets
may have another problem: if a packet is buffered longer than the
maximum segment lifetime (MSL) of 2 min [RFC0793], i.e., the
disconnection lasts longer than MSL, TCP's assumption that such
segments will never be received will no longer be true, violating
TCP's semantics [I-D.eggert-tcpm-tcp-retransmit-now].
Other approaches, like TCP-F [CRVP01] or the Explicit Link Failure
Notification (ELFN) [HV02] inform a TCP sender about a disrupted path
by special messages generated and sent from intermediate routers. In
the case of a link failure, the TCP sender stops sending segments and
freezes its retransmission timers. TCP-F stays in this state and
remains silent until either a "route establishment notification" is
received or an internal timer expires. In contrast, ELFN
periodically probes the network to detect connectivity re-
establishment. Both proposals rely on changes to intermediate
routers, whereas the scheme proposed in this document is a sender-
only modification. Moreover, ELFN does not consider congestion and
may impose serious additional load on the network, depending on the
probe interval.
The authors of ATCP [LS01] propose enhancements to identify different
types of packet loss by introducing a layer between TCP and IP. They
utilize ICMP destination unreachable messages to set TCP's receiver
advertised window to zero, thus forcing the TCP sender to perform
zero window probing with an exponential backoff. ICMP destination
unreachable messages that arrive during this probing period are
ignored. This approach is nearly orthogonal to this document, which
exploits ICMP messages to undo a retransmission timer backoff when
TCP is already probing. In principle, both mechanisms could be
combined. However, due to security considerations, it does not seem
appropriate to adopt ATCP's reaction, as discussed in Section 5.6.
Schuetz et al. [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci] describe a set of TCP
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
extensions that improve TCP's behavior when transmitting over paths
whose characteristics can change rapidly. Their proposed extensions
modify the local behavior of TCP and introduce a new TCP option to
signal locally received connectivity-change indications (CCIs) to
remote peers. Upon receipt of a CCI, they re-probe the path
characteristics either by performing a speculative retransmission or
by sending a single segment of new data, depending on whether the
connection is currently stalled in exponential backoff or
transmitting in steady-state, respectively. The authors focus on
specifying TCP response mechanisms, nevertheless underlying layers
would have to be modified to explicitly send CCIs to make these
immediate responses possible.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
The algorithm proposed in this document is considered to be secure.
For example, an attacker who already guessed the correct four-tuple
(i.e., Source IP Address, Source TCP port, Destination IP Address,
and Destination TCP port), can still not make a TCP modified with
TCP-LCD flood the network just by sending forged ICMP unreachable
messages in an attempt to maliciously shorten the retransmission
timer. The attacker additionally would need to guess the correct
segment sequence number of the current timeout-based retransmission,
with a probability of at most 1/2^32. Even in the case of man-in-
the-middle attacks, i.e., attacks performed in scenarios in which the
attacker can sniff the retransmissions, the impact on network load is
considered to be low, since the retransmission frequency is limited
by the RTO that was computed before TCP had entered the timeout-based
loss recovery. Hence, the highest probing frequency is expected to
be even lower than once per minimum RTO, i.e. 1s as specified by
[RFC2988].
11. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Mark Handley, Kai Jakobs, Ilpo
Jarvinen, Pasi Sarolahti, Tim Shepard, Joe Touch and Carsten Wolff
for feedback on earlier versions of this document. We also thank
Michael Faber, Daniel Schaffrath, and Damian Lukowski for
implementing and testing the algorithm in Linux. Special thanks go
to Ilpo Jarvinen for giving valuable feedback regarding the Linux
implementation.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
This work has been supported by the German National Science
Foundation (DFG) within the research excellence cluster Ultra High-
Speed Mobile Information and Communication (UMIC), RWTH Aachen
University.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
12.2. Informative References
[CRVP01] Chandran, K., Raghunathan, S., Venkatesan, S., and R.
Prakash, "A feedback-based scheme for improving TCP
performance in ad hoc wireless networks", IEEE Personal
Communications vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 34-39, February 2001.
[HV02] Holland, G. and N. Vaidya, "Analysis of TCP performance
over mobile ad hoc networks", Wireless Networks vol. 8,
no. 2-3, pp. 275-288, March 2002.
[I-D.eggert-tcpm-tcp-retransmit-now]
Eggert, L., "TCP Extensions for Immediate
Retransmissions", draft-eggert-tcpm-tcp-retransmit-now-02
(work in progress), June 2005.
[I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci]
Schuetz, S., Koutsianas, N., Eggert, L., Eddy, W., Swami,
Y., and K. Le, "TCP Response to Lower-Layer Connectivity-
Change Indications", draft-schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci-03 (work
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
in progress), February 2008.
[KP87] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip Time
Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols", Proceedings of
the Conference on Applications, Technologies,
Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication
(SIGCOMM'87) pp. 2-7, August 1987.
[LS01] Liu, J. and S. Singh, "ATCP: TCP for mobile ad hoc
networks", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1300-1315, 2001 July.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3522] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm
for TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.
[RFC3782] Floyd, S., Henderson, T., and A. Gurtov, "The NewReno
Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 3782,
April 2004.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC4015] Ludwig, R. and A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm
for TCP", RFC 4015, February 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
February 2009.
[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,
September 2009.
[RFC5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, July 2010.
[SESB05] Schuetz, S., Eggert, L., Schmid, S., and M. Brunner,
"Protocol enhancements for intermittently connected
hosts", SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review vol. 35, no.
3, pp. 5-18, December 2005.
[SM03] Scott, J. and G. Mapp, "Link layer-based TCP optimisation
for disconnecting networks", SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 31-42,
October 2003.
[Zh86] Zhang, L., "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well", Proceedings
of the Conference on Applications, Technologies,
Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication
(SIGCOMM'86) pp. 397-405, August 1986.
Appendix A. Changes from previous versions of the draft
This appendix should be removed by the RFC Editor before publishing
this document as an RFC.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
A.1. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd-01
o Incorporated feedback submitted by Lars Eggert
A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd-00
o Editorial changes.
o Clarified TCP-LCD's behaviour during connection establishment
(Thanks to Mark Handley).
A.3. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-02
o Incorporated feedback submitted by Ilpo Jarvinen.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04841.html>
o Incorporated feedback submitted by Pasi Sarolahti.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04870.html>
o Incorporated feedback submitted by Joe Touch.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04895.html>
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04900.html>
o Extended and reorganized the discussion (Section 5):
* Every discussion item got its own title, so that we have a
better overview.
* Extended Retransmission Ambiguity section. Added also some
references to the historical retransmission ambiguity problem.
* Heavily extended discussion about wrapped sequence numbers (see
Joe's comments).
* Described the influence of packet duplication on the algorithm
(Thanks to Ilpo).
* The section "Protecting Against Misbehaving Routers" is not a
subsection anymore. Moreover, the section was renamed to
"Dissolving Ambiguity Issues" and has now real content.
o An interoperability issues section (Section 7) was added. In
particular comments to ECN, ICMPv6, and to the two thresholds R1
and R2 of [RFC1122] (Section 4.2.3.5) were added.
o Miscellaneous editorial changes. In particular, the algorithm has
a name now: TCP-LCD.
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
A.4. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-01
o The algorithm in Section 4.2 was slightly changed. Instead of
reverting the last retransmission timer backoff by halving the
RTO, the RTO is recalculated with help of the "BACKOFF_CNT"
variable. This fixes an issue that occurred when the
retransmission timer was backed off but bounded by a maximum
value. The algorithm in the previous version of the draft, would
have "reverted" to half of that maximum value, instead of using
the value, before the RTO was doubled (and then bounded).
o Miscellaneous editorial changes.
A.5. Changes from draft-zimmermann-tcp-lcd-00
o Miscellaneous editorial changes in Section 1, 2 and 3.
o The document was restructured in Section 1, 2 and 3 for easier
reading. The motivation for the algorithm is changed according
TCP's problem to disambiguate congestion from non-congestion loss.
o Added Section 4.1.
o The algorithm in Section 4.2 was restructured and simplified:
* The special case of the first received ICMP destination
unreachable message after an RTO was removed.
* The "BACKOFF_CNT" variable was introduced so it is no longer
possible to perform more reverts than backoffs.
o The discussion in Section 5 was improved and expanded according to
the algorithm changes.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Zimmermann
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstrasse 55
Aachen, 52074
Germany
Phone: +49 241 80 21422
Email: zimmermann@cs.rwth-aachen.de
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Making TCP more Robust to LCDs July 2010
Arnd Hannemann
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstrasse 55
Aachen, 52074
Germany
Phone: +49 241 80 21423
Email: hannemann@nets.rwth-aachen.de
Zimmermann & Hannemann Expires January 30, 2011 [Page 26]
