Coding and congestion control in transport
draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nwcrg RG)
Last updated 2019-12-04 (latest revision 2019-10-28)
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state Active RG Document
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NWCRG                                                       N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                      CNES
Intended status: Informational                            E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: April 29, 2020                                     ISAE-SUPAERO
                                                          F. Michel, Ed.
                                                               UCLouvain
                                                        October 27, 2019

               Coding and congestion control in transport
               draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport-00

Abstract

   There are discussions on how loss-based congestion controls consider
   lost packets that have been recovered by a coding mechanism.  This
   document analyses to what extent transport protocols could ignore
   such signals and proposes best current practices on the interaction
   between congestion control and coding mechanism at the transport
   layer.  Coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope of the document.
   Examples of interest for the proposed solution is to better deal with
   tail losses or with networks with non-congestion losses.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Kuhn, et al.             Expires April 29, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion             October 2019

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Base solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Sender-side coding solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Coded packets without considering CWND progression  . . .   3
     3.2.  Coded packets driven by CWND progression  . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Sender-side reaction to recovered packet signals  . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  The sender congestion control considers recovered packet
           signals as congestion-implied packet losses . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  The sender adapts its window reduction to recovered
           packet signals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  The sender ignores recovered packet signals . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   [RFC5681] defines TCP as a loss-based congestion control.  Coding
   mechanisms can be deployed and could hide congestion signals to the
   sender.

   Because loss-based and delay-based congestion controls are deployed
   in the current Internet, this memo discusses simple best practices on
   how coding and congestion control mechanisms could coexist.

   The proposed recommendations apply for coding at the transport layer
   (coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope of the document).  Examples
   of interest for the proposed solution is to better deal with tail
   losses or with networks with non-congestion losses.

2.  Base solution description

   The base solution can be described as follows:

Kuhn, et al.             Expires April 29, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion             October 2019

   o  The receiver MUST indicate to the sender that one or multiple
Show full document text