Network Working Group M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft I. Ruengeler
Updates: 4960 (if approved) Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Intended status: Standards Track R. Stewart
Expires: January 11, 2010 Researcher
July 10, 2009
SACK-IMMEDIATELY extension for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 January 11, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document defines a method for a sender of a DATA chunk to
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SACK-IMMEDIATELY July 2009
indicate that the corresponding SACK chunk should be sent back
immediately.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The I-bit in the DATA Chunk Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Sender Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Receiver Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SACK-IMMEDIATELY July 2009
1. Introduction
[RFC4960] states that an SCTP implementation should use delayed
SACKs. In combination with the Nagle algorithm, reduced congestion
windows after timeouts, the handling of the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state,
or other situations this might result in reduced performance of the
protocol.
This document describes a simple extension of the SCTP DATA chunk by
defining a new flag, the I-bit. The sender indicates by setting this
bit that the corresponding SACK chunk should be sent back without
delaying it.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. The I-bit in the DATA Chunk Header
The following Figure 1 shows the extended DATA chunk.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0 | Res |I|U|B|E| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier | Stream Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Protocol Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ User Data /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
The only difference between the DATA chunk in Figure 1 and the DATA
chunk defined in [RFC4960] is the addition of the I-bit in the flags
field of the chunk header.
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SACK-IMMEDIATELY July 2009
4. Procedures
4.1. Sender Side Considerations
Whenever the sender of a DATA chunk can benefit from the
corresponding SACK chunk being sent back without delay, the sender
MAY set the I-bit in the DATA chunk header.
Reasons for setting the I-bit include
o The sender has not enough queued user data to send the remaining
DATA chunks due to the Nagle algorithm.
o The sending of a DATA chunk fills the congestion or receiver
window.
o The sender is in the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state.
o The sender has reduced its RTO.Min such that a retransmission
timeout will occur if the receiver delays its SACK.
o The application requests to set the I-bit of the last DATA chunk
of a user message when providing the user message to the SCTP
implementation.
4.2. Receiver Side Considerations
On reception of an SCTP packet containing a DATA chunk with the I-bit
set, the receiver SHOULD NOT delay the sending of the corresponding
SACK chunk and SHOULD send it back immediately.
5. Interoperability Considerations
According to [RFC4960] a receiver of a DATA chunk with the I-bit set
should ignore this bit when it does not support the extension
described in this document. Since the sender of the DATA chunk is
able to handle this case, there is no requirement for negotiating the
feature described in this document.
6. Socket API Considerations
A socket API implementation based on [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket]
SHOULD be extended by supporting a flag called SCTP_SACK_IMMEDIATELY,
which can be set in the sinfo_flags field of the struct
sctp_sndrcvinfo structure.
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SACK-IMMEDIATELY July 2009
If the SCTP_SACK_IMMEDIATELY flag is set when sending a user message,
the I-bit of the last DATA chunk of the corresponding user message
MUST be set.
7. IANA Considerations
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
"RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this
document.
]
IANA should change the Reference in the CHUNK TYPES Registry
available at sctp-parameters [1] for the ID value '0' and Chunk Type
'Payload Data (DATA)' from RFC4960 to RFCXXXX.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not add any additional security considerations in
addition to the ones given in [RFC4960].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket]
Stewart, R., Poon, K., Tuexen, M., Yasevich, V., and P.
Lei, "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-19 (work in progress),
February 2009.
URIs
[1] <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters>
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SACK-IMMEDIATELY July 2009
Authors' Addresses
Michael Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Irene Ruengeler
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: i.ruengeler@fh-muenster.de
Randall R. Stewart
Researcher
Chapin, SC 29036
USA
Phone:
Email: randall@lakerest.net
Tuexen, et al. Expires January 11, 2010 [Page 6]