rfc8511.txt | test8511.v2v3.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at line 55 ¶ | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | |||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8511. | https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8511. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Definitions | |||
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3. Specification | |||
3.1. Choice of ABE Multiplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3.1. Choice of ABE Multiplier | |||
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. Discussion | |||
4.1. Rationale for Using ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff . . 6 | 4.1. Rationale for Using ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff | |||
4.2. An RTT-Based Response to Indicated Congestion . . . . . . 7 | 4.2. An RTT-Based Response to Indicated Congestion | |||
5. ABE Deployment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5. ABE Deployment Requirements | |||
6. ABE Experiment Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 6. ABE Experiment Goals | |||
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 8. Security Considerations | |||
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 9. References | |||
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 9.1. Normative References | |||
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 9.2. Informative References | |||
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | Acknowledgements | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | Authors' Addresses | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] makes it possible | Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] makes it possible | |||
for an Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism to signal the presence | for an Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism to signal the presence | |||
of incipient congestion without necessarily incurring packet loss. | of incipient congestion without necessarily incurring packet loss. | |||
This lets the network deliver some packets to an application that | This lets the network deliver some packets to an application that | |||
would have been dropped if the application or transport did not | would have been dropped if the application or transport did not | |||
support ECN. This packet loss reduction is the most obvious benefit | support ECN. This packet loss reduction is the most obvious benefit | |||
of ECN, but it is often relatively modest. Other benefits of | of ECN, but it is often relatively modest. Other benefits of | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at line 124 ¶ | |||
induced reduction of the congestion window (cwnd) [RFC5681]. This | induced reduction of the congestion window (cwnd) [RFC5681]. This | |||
amount of buffering effectively doubles the amount of data that can | amount of buffering effectively doubles the amount of data that can | |||
be in flight and the maximum round-trip time (RTT) experienced by the | be in flight and the maximum round-trip time (RTT) experienced by the | |||
TCP sender. | TCP sender. | |||
Modern AQM mechanisms can use ECN to signal the early signs of | Modern AQM mechanisms can use ECN to signal the early signs of | |||
impending queue buildup long before a tail-drop queue would be forced | impending queue buildup long before a tail-drop queue would be forced | |||
to resort to dropping packets. It is therefore appropriate for the | to resort to dropping packets. It is therefore appropriate for the | |||
transport protocol congestion control algorithm to have a more | transport protocol congestion control algorithm to have a more | |||
measured response when it receives an indication with an early | measured response when it receives an indication with an early | |||
warning of congestion after the remote endpoint receives an ECN | warning of congestion after the remote endpoint receives an ECN CE- | |||
CE-marked packet. Recognizing these changes in modern AQM practices, | marked packet. Recognizing these changes in modern AQM practices, | |||
the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to | the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to | |||
inferred packet loss has been relaxed [RFC8311]. This document | inferred packet loss has been relaxed [RFC8311]. This document | |||
therefore defines a new sender-side-only congestion control response | therefore defines a new sender-side-only congestion control response | |||
called "ABE" (Alternative Backoff with ECN). ABE improves TCP's | called "ABE" (Alternative Backoff with ECN). ABE improves TCP's | |||
average throughput when routers use AQM-controlled buffers that allow | average throughput when routers use AQM-controlled buffers that allow | |||
only for short queues. | only for short queues. | |||
2. Definitions | 2. Definitions | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at line 308 ¶ | |||
utilise more frequent and detailed ECN feedback (e.g., Accurate ECN | utilise more frequent and detailed ECN feedback (e.g., Accurate ECN | |||
[ACC-ECN-FEEDBACK]), which then permit a congestion control response | [ACC-ECN-FEEDBACK]), which then permit a congestion control response | |||
that adjusts the sending rate more frequently. Data Center TCP | that adjusts the sending rate more frequently. Data Center TCP | |||
(DCTCP) [RFC8257] is an example of this approach. | (DCTCP) [RFC8257] is an example of this approach. | |||
5. ABE Deployment Requirements | 5. ABE Deployment Requirements | |||
This update is a sender-side-only change. Like other changes to | This update is a sender-side-only change. Like other changes to | |||
congestion control algorithms, it does not require any change to the | congestion control algorithms, it does not require any change to the | |||
TCP receiver or to network devices. It does not require any ABE- | TCP receiver or to network devices. It does not require any ABE- | |||
specific changes in routers or the use of Accurate ECN feedback | specific changes in routers or the use of Accurate ECN feedback [ACC- | |||
[ACC-ECN-FEEDBACK] by a receiver. | ECN-FEEDBACK] by a receiver. | |||
If the method is only deployed by some senders, and not by others, | If the method is only deployed by some senders, and not by others, | |||
the senders using it can gain some advantage, possibly at the expense | the senders using it can gain some advantage, possibly at the expense | |||
of other flows that do not use this updated method. Because this | of other flows that do not use this updated method. Because this | |||
advantage applies only to ECN-marked packets and not to packet-loss | advantage applies only to ECN-marked packets and not to packet-loss | |||
indications, an ECN-Capable bottleneck will still fall back to | indications, an ECN-Capable bottleneck will still fall back to | |||
dropping packets if a TCP sender using ABE is too aggressive. The | dropping packets if a TCP sender using ABE is too aggressive. The | |||
result is no different than if the TCP sender were using traditional | result is no different than if the TCP sender were using traditional | |||
loss-based congestion control. | loss-based congestion control. | |||
skipping to change at page 10, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at line 419 ¶ | |||
9.2. Informative References | 9.2. Informative References | |||
[ABE-REVISION] | [ABE-REVISION] | |||
Stewart, L., "ABE patch review in FreeBSD", | Stewart, L., "ABE patch review in FreeBSD", | |||
Revision 331214, March 2018, <https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ | Revision 331214, March 2018, <https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ | |||
base?view=revision&revision=331214>. | base?view=revision&revision=331214>. | |||
[ABE2017] Khademi, N., Armitage, G., Welzl, M., Zander, S., | [ABE2017] Khademi, N., Armitage, G., Welzl, M., Zander, S., | |||
Fairhurst, G., and D. Ros, "Alternative backoff: Achieving | Fairhurst, G., and D. Ros, "Alternative backoff: Achieving | |||
low latency and high throughput with ECN and AQM", IFIP | low latency and high throughput with ECN and AQM", | |||
Networking Conference and Workshops Stockholm, Sweden, | DOI 10.23919/IFIPNetworking.2017.8264863, IFIP Networking | |||
DOI 10.23919/IFIPNetworking.2017.8264863, June 2017. | Conference and Workshops Stockholm, Sweden, June 2017, | |||
<https://doi.org/10.23919/IFIPNetworking.2017.8264863>. | ||||
[ACC-ECN-FEEDBACK] | [ACC-ECN-FEEDBACK] | |||
Briscoe, B., Kuehlewind, M., and R. Scheffenegger, "More | Briscoe, B., Kuehlewind, M., and R. Scheffenegger, "More | |||
Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP", Work in Progress, | Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP", Work in Progress, draft- | |||
draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07, July 2018. | ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07, 2 July 2018. | |||
[BUFFERBLOAT] | [BUFFERBLOAT] | |||
Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in | Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in | |||
the Internet", ACM Queue, Volume 9, Issue 11, | the Internet", DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893, ACM | |||
DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893, November 2011, | Queue, Volume 9, Issue 11, November 2011, | |||
<https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893>. | <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893>. | |||
[ICC2002] Kwon, M. and S. Fahmy, "TCP increase/decrease behavior | [ICC2002] Kwon, M. and S. Fahmy, "TCP increase/decrease behavior | |||
with explicit congestion notification (ECN)", 2002 IEEE | with explicit congestion notification (ECN)", | |||
International Conference on Communications Conference | DOI 10.1109/ICC.2002.997262, Cat. No.02CH37333, ICC 2002, | |||
Proceedings, ICC 2002, Cat. No.02CH37333, | 2002 IEEE International Conference on | |||
DOI 10.1109/ICC.2002.997262, May 2002, | Communications Conference Proceedings, May 2002, | |||
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2002.997262>. | <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2002.997262>. | |||
[RFC8033] Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, | [RFC8033] Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, | |||
"Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A | "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A | |||
Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat | Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat | |||
Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017, | Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>. | |||
[RFC8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using | [RFC8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using | |||
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087, | Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087, | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at line 491 ¶ | |||
Finally, the authors would like to thank everyone who provided | Finally, the authors would like to thank everyone who provided | |||
feedback on the congestion control behaviour specified in this | feedback on the congestion control behaviour specified in this | |||
document that was received from the IRTF Internet Congestion Control | document that was received from the IRTF Internet Congestion Control | |||
Research Group (ICCRG). | Research Group (ICCRG). | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Naeem Khademi | Naeem Khademi | |||
University of Oslo | University of Oslo | |||
PO Box 1080 Blindern | PO Box 1080 Blindern | |||
Oslo N-0316 | N-0316 Oslo | |||
Norway | Norway | |||
Email: naeemk@ifi.uio.no | Email: naeemk@ifi.uio.no | |||
Michael Welzl | Michael Welzl | |||
University of Oslo | University of Oslo | |||
PO Box 1080 Blindern | PO Box 1080 Blindern | |||
Oslo N-0316 | N-0316 Oslo | |||
Norway | Norway | |||
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no | Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no | |||
Grenville Armitage | ||||
Netflix Inc. | ||||
Email: garmitage@netflix.com | Email: garmitage@netflix.com | |||
Godred Fairhurst | Godred Fairhurst | |||
University of Aberdeen | University of Aberdeen | |||
School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building | School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building | |||
Aberdeen AB24 3UE | Aberdeen | |||
AB24 3UE | ||||
United Kingdom | United Kingdom | |||
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk | Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk | |||
End of changes. 12 change blocks. | ||||
38 lines changed or deleted | 37 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |