TCP Maintenance and Minor L. Eggert
Extensions (tcpm) NEC
Internet-Draft F. Gont
Expires: April 27, 2006 UTN/FRH
October 24, 2005
TCP User Timeout Option
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The TCP user timeout controls how long transmitted data may remain
unacknowledged before a connection is forcefully closed. It is a
local, per-connection parameter. The advisory TCP User Timeout
Option allows conforming TCP implementations to exchange their local
user timeouts. This is an in-protocol mechanism to allow a host to
modify its local user timeout for a connection based on knowledge of
the peer's user timeout. Increasing the user timeouts allows
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
established TCP connections to survive extended periods of
disconnection. Decreasing user timeouts allows busy servers to
explicitly notify their clients that they will maintain the
connection state only across short periods of disconnection.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Changing the Local User Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Reliability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Special Option Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Interoperability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. TCP Keep-Alives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. Document Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
1. Introduction
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) specification [RFC0793]
defines a local, per-connection "user timeout" parameter that
specifies the maximum amount of time that transmitted data may remain
unacknowledged before TCP will forcefully close the corresponding
connection. Applications can set and change this parameter with OPEN
and SEND calls. If a network disconnection lasts longer than the
user timeout, no acknowledgments will be received for any
transmission attempt, including keep-alives [TCP-ILLU], and the TCP
connection will close when the user timeout occurs. In the absence
of an application-specified user timeout, the TCP specification
[RFC0793] defines a default user timeout of 5 minutes.
The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] refines this definition by
introducing two thresholds, R1 and R2 (R2 > R1), on the number of
retransmissions of a single segment. It suggests that TCP should
notify applications when R1 is reached for a segment, and close the
connection once R2 is reached. [RFC1122] also defines the
recommended values for R1 (three retransmissions) and R2 (100
seconds), noting that R2 for SYN segments should be at least 3
minutes. Instead of a single user timeout, some TCP implementations
offer finer-grained policies. For example, Solaris supports
different timeouts depending on whether a TCP connection is in the
SYN-SENT, SYN-RECEIVED, or ESTABLISHED state [SOLARIS-MANUAL].
Although some TCP implementations allow applications to set their
local user timeout, e.g., through the SO_SNDTIMEO socket option,
there is no in-protocol mechanism to signal changes in the local user
timeout to remote peers. This causes local changes to be
ineffective, because the peer will still close the connection after
its user timeout expires, even when a host has raised its local user
timeout. The ability to modify the two user timeouts associated with
a connection can improve TCP operation in scenarios that are
currently not well supported. One example of such scenarios are
mobile hosts that change network attachment points based on current
location. Such hosts, maybe using MobileIP [RFC3344], HIP [I-D.ietf-
hip-arch] or transport-layer mobility mechanisms [I-D.eddy-tcp-
mobility], are only intermittently connected to the Internet. In
between connected periods, mobile hosts may experience periods of
disconnection during which no network service is available [SCHUETZ-
THESIS][SCHUETZ-CCR][DRIVE-THRU]. Other factors that can cause
transient periods of disconnection are high levels of congestion as
well as link or routing failures inside the network.
In scenarios similar to the ones described above, a host may not know
exactly when or for how long it will be disconnected from the
network, but it might expect such events due to past mobility
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
patterns and thus benefit from using longer user timeouts. In other
scenarios, the length and time of a network disconnection may even be
predictable. For example, an orbiting node on a satellite might
experience disconnections due to line-of-sight blocking by other
planetary bodies. The disconnection periods of such a node may be
easily computable from orbital mechanics.
This document specifies a new TCP option - the User Timeout Option
(UTO) - that allows conforming hosts to exchange their local, per-
connection user timeout information. This allows, for example,
mobile hosts to maintain TCP connections across disconnected periods
that are longer than their peer's default user timeout. A second use
of the TCP User Timeout Option is advertisement of shorter-than-
default user timeouts. This can allow busy servers to explicitly
notify their clients that they will maintain the state associated
with established connections only across short periods of
disconnection.
The same benefits can be obtained through an application-layer
mechanism, i.e., exchanging user timeout information via application
messages and having the application adjust the user timeouts through
the TCP API on both sides of a connection. This approach does not
require a new TCP option, but requires changing all application
implementations that desire to tolerate extended periods of
disconnection, and in most cases also requires a modification to the
corresponding application layer protocol. With the proposed TCP
option, application changes may not be necessary at all, or may be
restricted to sender- or receiver-side only, and there is no need to
modify the corresponding application protocol.
A different approach to tolerate longer periods of disconnection is
to simply increase the system-wide user timeout on both peers. This
approach has the benefit of not requiring a new TCP option or
application changes. However, it can also significantly increase the
amount of connection state a busy server must maintain, because a
longer global timeout value will apply to all its connections. The
proposed TCP User Timeout Option, on the other hand, allows hosts to
selectively manage the user timeouts of individual connections,
reducing the amount of state they must maintain across disconnected
periods.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
3. Operation
Sending a TCP User Timeout Option informs the remote peer of the
current local user timeout and suggests that the remote peer SHOULD
start using the indicated user timeout value for the corresponding
connection. The user timeout value included in a TCP User Timeout
Option specifies the requested user timeout during the synchronized
states of a connection (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-
WAIT, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK). Connections in other states MUST the
default timeout values defined in [RFC0793][RFC1122].[anchor3]
Note that an exchange of TCP User Timeout Options between peers is
not a binding negotiation. Transmission of a TCP User Timeout Option
is an advisory suggestion that the peer consider adapting its local
user timeout. Hosts remain free to forcefully close or abort
connections at any time for any reason, whether or not they use
custom user timeouts or have suggested the peer to use them.
A host that supports the TCP User Timeout Option SHOULD include one
in each packet that carries a SYN flag, but need not. [MEDINA] has
shown that unknown options are correctly handled by the vast majority
of modern TCP stacks. It is thus not necessary to require
negotiation of the use of the TCP User Timeout Option during the
three-way handshake of a connection.
A host that supports the TCP User Timeout Option SHOULD include it in
the next possible segment to its peer whenever it starts using a new
user timeout for the connection. This allows the peer to adapt its
local user timeout for the connection accordingly.
When a host that supports the TCP User Timeout Option receives one,
it decides whether to change its local user timeout of the connection
based on the received value. Generally, hosts should honor requests
for changes to the user timeout (see Section 3.1), unless security
concerns, resource constraints or external policies indicate
otherwise (see Section 6). If so, hosts may ignore incoming TCP User
Timeout Options and use a different user timeout for the connection.
When a host receives a TCP User Timeout Option, it first decides
whether to change its local user timeout for the connection -
Section 3.1 discusses the specifics of this choice - and then decides
whether to send a TCP User Timeout Option to its peer in response.
If a host has never sent a TCP User Timeout Option to its peer during
the lifetime of the connection, or if it has changed its local user
timeout, it SHOULD send TCP User Timeout Option with its current
local user timeout to its peer. [anchor4]
A TCP implementation that does not support the TCP User Timeout
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
Option MUST silently ignore it [RFC1122], thus ensuring
interoperability.
Hosts SHOULD impose upper and lower limits on the user timeouts they
use. Section 3.1 discusses user timeout limits, and describes a
recommended scheme to apply them. A TCP User Timeout Option with a
value of zero (i.e., "now") is nonsensical and is used for a special
purpose, see Section 3.4. Section 3.1 discusses potentially
problematic effects of other user timeout durations.
3.1. Changing the Local User Timeout
When a host receives a TCP User Timeout Option, it MUST decide
whether to change the local user timeout of the corresponding
connection. Application-requested user timeout values always take
precedence over timeout values received from the peer in a TCP User
Timeout Option. [anchor5] Consequently, unless the application on the
local host has requested a specific user timeout for the connection,
e.g., through a socket API call, hosts SHOULD adjust their local user
timeout in response to receiving a TCP User Timeout Option, as
described in the remainder of this section. If the local application
has requested a specific local user timeout, TCP implementations MUST
NOT change it in response to receiving a TCP User Timeout Option. In
this case, they SHOULD, however, notify the application about the
user timeout value received from the peer.
The User Timeout Option specifies the user timeout in terms of time
units, rather than in terms of number of retransmissions or round-
trip times (RTTs), as in most cases the periods of disconnection have
to do with operation and mobility patterns, rather than with the
current network conditions [anchor6][anchor7]. Thus, the TCP User
Timeout Option allows hosts to exchange user timeout values from 1
second to over 9 hours at a granularity of seconds, and from 1 minute
to over 22 days at a granularity of minutes. (An option value of
zero is reserved for a special purpose, see Section 3.4.)
Very short user timeout values can affect TCP transmissions over
high-delay paths. If the user timeout occurs before an
acknowledgment for an outstanding segment arrives, possibly due to
packet loss, the connection closes. Many TCP implementations default
to user timeout values of a few minutes [TCP-ILLU]. Although the TCP
User Timeout Option allows suggestion of short timeouts, applications
advertising them SHOULD consider these effects.
Long user timeout values allow hosts to tolerate extended periods of
disconnection. However, they also require hosts to maintain the TCP
state information associated with connections for long periods of
time. Section 6 discusses the security implications of long timeout
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
values.
To protect against these effects, implementations SHOULD impose
limits on the user timeout values they accept and use. The remainder
of this section describes a RECOMMENDED scheme to limit user timeouts
based on upper and lower limits. Under the RECOMMENDED scheme, each
TCP SHOULD compute the user timeout (USER_TIMEOUT) for a connection
according to this formula:
USER_TIMEOUT = min(U_LIMIT, max(LOCAL_UTO, REMOTE_UTO, L_LIMIT))
Each field is to be interpreted as follows:
USER_TIMEOUT
Resulting user timeout value to be adopted by the local TCP for a
connection.
U_LIMIT
Current upper limit imposed on the user timeout of a connection by
the local host.
L_LIMIT
Current lower limit imposed on the user timeout of a connection by
the local host.
LOCAL_UTO
Current local user timeout of this specific connection.
REMOTE_UTO
Last "user timeout" value suggested by the remote peer by means of
the TCP User Timeout Option.
This means that the maximum of the two announced values will be
adopted for the user timeout of the connection. The rationale is
that choosing the maximum of the two values will let the connection
survive longer periods of disconnection. If the TCP that announced
the lower of the two user timeout values did so in order to reduce
the amount of TCP state information that must be kept on the host, it
can, nevertheless, close or abort the connection whenever it wants.
Enforcing a lower limit (L_LIMIT) prevents connections from closing
due to transient network conditions, including temporary congestion,
mobility hand-offs and routing instabilities.
An upper limit (U_LIMIT) can reduce the effect of resource exhaustion
attacks. Section 6 discusses the details of these attacks.
Note that these limits MAY be specified as system-wide constants or
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
at other granularities, such as on per-host, per-user or even per-
connection basis. Furthermore, these limits need not be static. For
example, they MAY be a function of system resource utilization or
attack status and could be dynamically adapted.
The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] does not impose any limits on the
length of the user timeout. However, a time interval of at least 100
seconds is RECOMMENDED. Consequently, the lower limit (L_LIMIT)
SHOULD be set to at least 100 seconds when following the RECOMMENDED
scheme described in this section.
3.2. Reliability Considerations
The TCP User Timeout Option is an advisory TCP option that does not
change processing of subsequent segments. Unlike other TCP options,
it need not be exchanged reliably. Consequently, the specification
in this section does not define a reliability handshake for TCP User
Timeout Option exchanges. When a segment that carries a TCP User
Timeout Option is lost, the option may never reach the intended peer.
Implementations MAY implement local mechanisms to improve delivery
reliability, such as retransmitting the TCP User Timeout Option when
they retransmit the segment that originally carried it, or
"attaching" the option to a byte in the stream and retransmitting the
option whenever that byte or its ACK are retransmitted.
It is important to note that although these mechanisms can improve
transmission reliability for the TCP User Timeout Option, they do not
guarantee delivery (a three-way handshake would be required for
this). Consequently, implementations MUST NOT assume that a TCP User
Timeout Option is reliably transmitted.
3.3. Option Format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kind = X | Length = 4 |G| User Timeout |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(One tick mark represents one bit.)
Figure 1: Format of the TCP User Timeout Option
Figure 1 shows the format of the TCP User Timeout Option. It
contains these fields:
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
Kind (8 bits)
A TCP option number [RFC0793] to be assigned by IANA upon
publication of this document (see Section 7).
Length (8 bits)
Length of the TCP option in octets [RFC0793]; its value MUST be 4.
Granularity (1 bit)
Granularity bit, indicating the granularity of the "User Timeout"
field. When set (G = 1), the time interval in the "User Timeout"
field MUST be interpreted as minutes. Otherwise (G = 0), the time
interval in the "User Timeout" field MUST be interpreted as
seconds.
User Timeout (15 bits)
Specifies the user timeout suggestion for this connection. It
MUST be interpreted as a 15-bit unsigned integer. The granularity
of the timeout (minutes or seconds) depends on the "G" field.
3.4. Special Option Values
Whenever it is legal to do so according to the specification in the
previous sections, TCP implementations MAY send a zero-second TCP
User Timeout Option, i.e, with a "User Timeout" field of zero and a
"Granularity" of zero. This signals their peers that they support
the option, but do not suggest a specific user timeout value at that
time. Essentially, a zero-second TCP User Timeout Option acts as a
"don't care" value.
Thus, the sender SHOULD adapt its local user timeout according to the
peer's UTO, and the receiver SHOULD continue using its local user
timeout. In order to achieve this, the receiver of a zero-second TCP
User Timeout Option SHOULD perform the RECOMMENDED strategy for
calculating a new local USER_TIMEOUT described in Section 3.1, with a
numeric value of zero seconds for REMOTE_UTO. The sender SHOULD
perform the same calculation as described in Section 3.1, with a
numeric value of zero seconds for LOCAL_UTO.
A zero-minute TCP User Timeout Option, i.e., with a "User Timeout"
field of zero and a "Granularity" bit of one, is reserved for future
use. TCP implementations MUST NOT send it and MUST ignore it upon
reception.
4. Additional Considerations
Section 1 described that although [RFC0793] defines the API mechanism
to change the user timeout as an optional parameter for TCP's OPEN
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
and SEND calls, many implementations provide a different API.
Several popular TCP implementations offer the SO_SNDTIMEO socket
option, either in addition or instead of the RFC-defined OPEN and
SEND user timeout parameter.
Many implementations that offer the SO_SNDTIMEO socket option also
implement a corresponding SO_RCVTIMEO socket option. Whereas the
user timout (SO_SNDTIMEO), specifies how long data may remain
unacknowledged by the peer, i.e., how long a SEND call may take, the
SO_RCVTIMEO specifies how long a RECV call may take.
Even when two TCPs implement the TCP User Timeout Option and decide
to lengthen their local UTOs for a connection, RECV operations during
a disconnection can trigger the SO_RCVTIMEO timeout. Note that
[RFC0793] does not specify this receive timeout or how TCP reacts
when it occurs. If implementations close a connection when its
SO_RCVTIMEO times out, they SHOULD modify this parameter similarly to
how they modify SO_SNDTIMEO upon reception of a TCP User Timeout
option. [anchor10]
5. Interoperability Issues
This section discusses interoperability issues related to introducing
the TCP User Timeout Option.
5.1. Middleboxes
The large number of middleboxes (firewalls, proxies, protocol
scrubbers, etc.) currently present in the Internet pose some
difficulty for deploying new TCP options. Some firewalls may block
segments that carry unknown options, preventing connection
establishment when the SYN or SYN-ACK contains a TCP User Timeout
Option. Some recent results, however, indicate that for new TCP
options, this may not be a significant threat, with only 0.2% of web
requests failing when carrying an unknown option [MEDINA].
Stateful firewalls usually reset connections after a period of
inactivity. If such a firewall exists along the path between two
peers, it may close or abort connections regardless of the use of the
TCP User Timeout Option. In the future, such firewalls may learn to
parse the TCP User Timeout Option and modify their behavior or the
option accordingly.
5.2. TCP Keep-Alives
Some TCP implementations, such as the one in BSD systems, use a
different abort policy for TCP keep-alives than for user data. Thus,
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
the TCP keep-alive mechanism might abort a connection that would
otherwise have survived the transient period of disconnection.
Therefore, if a TCP peer enables TCP keep-alives for a connection
that is using the TCP User Timeout Option, then the keep-alive timer
MUST be set to a value larger than that of the adopted USER TIMEOUT.
6. Security Considerations
Lengthening user timeouts has obvious security implications.
Flooding attacks cause denial of service by forcing servers to commit
resources for maintaining the state of throw-away connections.
However, TCP implementations do not become more vulnerable to simple
SYN flooding by implementing the TCP User Timeout Option, because
user timeouts exchanged during the handshake only affect the
synchronized states (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT,
CLOSING, LAST-ACK), which simple SYN floods never reach.
However, when an attacker completes the three-way handshakes of its
throw-away connections it can amplify the effects of resource
exhaustion attacks, because the attacked server must maintain the
connection state associated with the throw-away connections for
longer durations. Because connection state is kept longer, lower-
frequency attack traffic, which may be more difficult to detect, can
already cause resource exhaustion.
Several approaches can help mitigate this issue. First,
implementations can require prior peer authentication, e.g., using
IPsec [I-D.ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis], before accepting long user
timeouts for the peer's connections. Similarly, a host can start to
accept long user timeouts for an established connection only after
in-band authentication has occurred, for example, after a TLS
handshake across the connection has succeeded [RFC2246]. Although
these are arguably the most complete solutions, they depend on
external mechanisms to establish a trust relationship.
A second alternative that does not depend on external mechanisms
would introduce a per-peer limit on the number of connections that
may use increased user timeouts. Several variants of this approach
are possible, such as fixed limits or shortening accepted user
timeouts with a rising number of connections. Although this
alternative does not eliminate resource exhaustion attacks from a
single peer, it can limit their effects. Reducing the number of
high-UTO connections a server supports in the face of an attack turns
that attack into a denial-of-service attack against the service of
high-UTO connections.
Per-peer limits cannot protect against distributed denial of service
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
attacks, where multiple clients coordinate a resource exhaustion
attack that uses long user timeouts. To protect against such
attacks, TCP implementations could reduce the duration of accepted
user timeouts with increasing resource utilization.
TCP implementations under attack may be forced to shed load by
resetting established connections. Some load-shedding heuristics,
such as resetting connections with long idle times first, can
negatively affect service for intermittently connected, trusted peers
that have suggested long user timeouts. On the other hand, resetting
connections to untrusted peers that use long user timeouts may be
effective. In general, using the peers' level of trust as a
parameter during the load-shedding decision process may be useful.
Note that if TCP needs to close or abort connections with a long TCP
User Timeout Option to shed load, these connections are still no
worse off than without the option.
Finally, upper and lower limits on user timeouts, discussed in
Section 3.1, can be an effective tool to limit the impact of these
sorts of attacks.
7. IANA Considerations
This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC2434].
This document does not define any new namespaces. It uses an 8-bit
TCP option number maintained by IANA at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters.
8. Acknowledgments
The following people have improved this document through thoughtful
suggestions: Mark Allmann, David Borman, Bob Braden, Marcus Brunner,
Wesley Eddy, Abolade Gbadegesin, Ted Faber, Guillermo Gont, Tom
Henderson, Joseph Ishac, Jeremy Harris, Phil Karn, Michael Kerrisk,
Dan Krejsa, Kostas Pentikousis, Juergen Quittek, Joe Touch, Stefan
Schmid, Simon Schuetz, Tim Shepard and Martin Stiemerling.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by Ambient Networks, a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Sixth Framework
Program. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of
the Ambient Networks project or the European Commission.
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
9.2. Informative References
[DRIVE-THRU]
Ott, J. and D. Kutscher, "Drive-Thru Internet: IEEE
802.11b for Automobile Users", Proc. Infocom , March 2004.
[I-D.eddy-tcp-mobility]
Eddy, W., "Mobility Support For TCP",
draft-eddy-tcp-mobility-00 (work in progress), April 2004.
[I-D.ietf-hip-arch]
Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
Architecture", draft-ietf-hip-arch-03 (work in progress),
August 2005.
[I-D.ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis]
Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-06 (work
in progress), April 2005.
[MEDINA] Medina, A., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Measuring
Interactions Between Transport Protocols and Middleboxes",
Proc. 4th ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX Conference on Internet
Measurement , October 2004.
[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
[SCHUETZ-CCR]
Schuetz, S., Eggert, L., Schmid, S., and M. Brunner,
"Protocol Enhancements for Intermittently Connected
Hosts", To appear: ACM Computer Communication Review, Vol.
35, No. 3, July 2005.
[SCHUETZ-THESIS]
Schuetz, S., "Network Support for Intermittently Connected
Mobile Nodes", Diploma Thesis, University of Mannheim,
Germany, June 2004.
[SOLARIS-MANUAL]
Sun Microsystems, "Solaris Tunable Parameters Reference
Manual", Part No. 806-7009-10, 2002.
[TCP-ILLU]
Stevens, W., "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The
Protocols", Addison-Wesley , 1994.
Editorial Comments
[anchor3] A future version of this document may extend per-
connection user timeouts to the SYN-SENT and SYN-RECEIVED
states in a way that conforms to the required minimum
timeouts.
[anchor4] Should it really always send UTO when it changes the
local timeout? I can imagine some ping-pong effect when
two hosts user different UTO adoption strategies. But
maybe that's OK? Additionally, when -01 was presented in
Paris, Joe Touch has suggested that an "UTO-ACK" should
be sent when a UTO is received. I have not seen consensus
for this on the mailing list, hence -02 does not include
this suggestion.
[anchor5] Without this, UTO would modify TCP semantics, because
application-requested UTOs could be overridden by peer
requests.
[anchor6] When -01 was presented in Paris, Bob Braden suggested to
specify the UTO in terms of multiples of the RTT. Others
disagreed, hence -02 does not include this suggestion.
One reason this may be problematic is that the RTT may
change for one direction of the connection, sort of
defeating the process of exchanging UTOs.
[anchor7] Let's suppose a host is intermittently connected to a
network, and the disconnected periods last for, say,
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
about 15 minutes each. Let's suppose the attachment
points range from low-bandwidth/high-delay/congested
networks to high-bandwidth/low-delay networks. If the UTO
specified the user timeout in terms of number of
retransmissions or round-trip times, an UTO that is
appropriate for the high-bandwith/low-delay networks
would be too small for the low-bandwidth/high-delay/
congested networks. Also, even if the host kept connected
to the same network, if the network conditions changed,
UTO opions would need to be re-sent (as n*RTO and n*RTT
would change), unnecesarily.
[anchor10] Can we even say this much about an API that's not in the
TCP spec? Or should the SO_RCVTIMEO discussion be
removed?
Appendix A. Document Revision History
To be removed upon publication
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Revision | Comments |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| 02 | Corrected terminology by replacing terms like |
| | "negotiate", "coordinate", etc. that were left from |
| | pre-WG-document times when the UTO was a more |
| | formalized exchange instead of the advisory one it is |
| | now. Application-requested UTOs take precedence over |
| | ones received from the peer (pointed out by Ted |
| | Faber). Added a brief mention of SO_SNDTIMEO and a |
| | slightly longer discussion of SO_RCVTIMEO. |
| 01 | Clarified and corrected the description of the |
| | existing user timeout in RFC793 and RFC1122. Removed |
| | distinction between operating during the 3WHS and the |
| | established states and introduced zero-second "don't |
| | care" UTOs in response to mailing list feedback. |
| | Updated references and addressed many other comments |
| | from the mailing list. |
| 00 | Resubmission of |
| | draft-eggert-gont-tcpm-tcp-uto-option-01.txt to the |
| | secretariat after WG adoption. Thus, permit |
| | derivative works. Updated Lars Eggert's funding |
| | attribution. Updated several references. No |
| | technical changes. |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Lars Eggert
NEC Network Laboratories
Kurfuerstenanlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 90511 43
Fax: +49 6221 90511 55
Email: lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de
URI: http://www.netlab.nec.de/
Fernando Gont
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fernando@gont.com.ar
URI: http://www.gont.com.ar/
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TCP User Timeout Option October 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Eggert & Gont Expires April 27, 2006 [Page 17]
