TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm) M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Stuttgart
Intended status: Experimental R. Scheffenegger
Expires: December 22, 2013 NetApp, Inc.
June 20, 2013
More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP
draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-02
Abstract
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an IP/TCP mechanism where
network nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to
indicate congestion to the end-points. ECN-capable receivers will
feedback this information to the sender. ECN is specified for TCP in
such a way that only one feedback signal can be transmitted per
Round-Trip Time (RTT). Recently, new TCP mechanisms like ConEx or
DCTCP need more accurate ECN feedback information in the case where
more than one marking is received in one RTT. This document
specifies a different scheme for the ECN feedback in the TCP header
to provide more than one feedback signal per RTT. Furthermore this
document specifies a re-use of the Urgent Pointer in the TCP header
if the URG flag is not set to increase the robustness of the proposed
ECN feedback scheme.
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 December 22, 2013.
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Overview ECN and ECN Nonce in IP/TCP . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Re-Use of the Urgent field in TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. More Accurate ECN Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Negotiation during the TCP handshake . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Feedback Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Codepoint Coding of the more Accurate ECN (ACE) field 7
2.2.2. Use with ECN Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Auxiliary data in the Urgent Pointer field . . . . . 8
2.3. More Accurate ECN TCP Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. More Accurate ECN TCP Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] is an IP/TCP
mechanism where network nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping
them to indicate congestion to the end-points. ECN-capable receivers
will feedback this information to the sender. ECN is specified for
TCP in such a way that only one feedback signal can be transmitted
per Round-Trip Time (RTT). Recently, proposed mechanisms like
Congestion Exposure (ConEx) or DCTCP [Ali10] need more accurate ECN
feedback information in case when more than one marking is received
in one RTT.
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
This documents specifies a different scheme for the ECN feedback in
the TCP header to provide more than one feedback signal per RTT.
This modification does not obsolete [RFC3168]. To avoid confusion we
call the ECN specification of [RFC3168] 'classic ECN' in this
document. This document provides an extension that requires
additional negotiation in the TCP handshake by using the TCP nonce
sum (NS) bit, as specified in [RFC3540], which is currently not used
when SYN is set. If the more accurate ECN extension has been
negotiated successfully, the meaning of ECN TCP bits and the ECN NS
bit is different from the specification in [RFC3168], as well as some
bits of the largely unused TCP Urgent field as long as the URG flag
is not set. This document specifies the additional negotiation as
well as the new coding of the TCP ECN/NS bits.
The proposed coding scheme maintains the given bit space in the TCP
header as the ECN feedback information is needed in a timely manner
and as such should be reported in every ACK. The reuse will avoid
additional network load as the ACK size or the number of ACKs will
not increase. Moreover, the more accurate ECN information will
replace the classic ECN feedback if negotiated. Thus those bits are
not needed otherwise. But the proposed schemes requires also the use
of the NS bit in the TCP handshake as well as for the more accurate
ECN feedback. The proposed more accurate ECN feedback extension
includes the ECN-Nonce integrity mechanism as some coding space is
left open.
1.1. Overview ECN and ECN Nonce in IP/TCP
ECN requires two bits in the IP header. The ECN capability of a
packet is indicated when either one of the two bits is set. An ECN
sender can set one or the other bit to indicate an ECN-capable
transport (ECT) which results in two signals, ECT(0) and ECT(1). A
network node can set both bits simultaneously when it experiences
congestion. When both bits are set the packet is regarded as
"Congestion Experienced" (CE).
In the TCP header the first two bits in byte 14 are defined for the
use of ECN. The TCP mechanism for signaling the reception of a
congestion mark uses the ECN-Echo (ECE) flag in the TCP header. To
enable the TCP receiver to determine when to stop setting the ECN-
Echo flag, the CWR flag is set by the sender upon reception of the
feedback signal. This leads always to a full RTT of ACKs with ECE
set. Thus any additional CE markings arriving within this RTT can
not signaled back anymore.
ECN-Nonce [RFC3540] is an optional addition to ECN that is used to
protect the TCP sender against accidental or malicious concealment of
marked or dropped packets. This addition defines the last bit of
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
byte 13 in the TCP header as the Nonce Sum (NS) bit. With ECN-Nonce
a nonce sum is maintain that counts the occurrence of ECT(1) packets.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | N | C | E | U | A | P | R | S | F |
| Header Length | Reserved | S | W | C | R | C | S | S | Y | I |
| | | | R | E | G | K | H | T | N | N |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 1: The (post-ECN Nonce) definition of the TCP header flags
1.2. Re-Use of the Urgent field in TCP
RFC0793 specified a mechanism to indicate "urgent data" to a
receiver. However, this mechanism is rarely used, and RFC6093 argues
to deprecate the use of the mechanism. Furthermore, the content of
the Urgent Pointer was always defined to be valid only, when the URG
TCP header flag is set. The position of the Urgent Pointer field as
well as the URG flag are displayed in Figure 2.
In this document the Urgent Pointer field is defined to be (re)usable
for auxiliary data if the URG flag is not set. Note that as the
contents of this field were previously undefined when the URG bit is
not set, a new mechanism using these bits SHOULD not rely on the
correct delivery. Further below in this document a new usage for
four bits of the Urgent Pointer counter is defined.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data | Res |N|C|E|U|A|P|R|S|F| |
| Offset| erv |S|W|C|R|C|S|S|Y|I| Window |
| | ed | |R|E|G|K|H|T|N|N| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | Urgent Pointer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TCP Header Format showing the 16 bit Urgent pointer
1.3. Requirements Language
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
We use the following terminology from [RFC3168] and [RFC3540]:
The ECN field in the IP header:
CE: the Congestion Experienced codepoint, and
ECT(0): the first ECN-Capable Transport codepoint, and
ECT(1): the second ECN-Capable Transport codepoint.
The ECN flags in the TCP header:
CWR: the Congestion Window Reduced flag,
ECE: the ECN-Echo flag, and
NS: ECN Nonce Sum.
In this document, we will call the ECN feedback scheme as specified
in [RFC3168] the 'classic ECN' and our new proposal the 'accurate ECN
feedback' scheme. A 'congestion mark' is defined as an IP packet
where the CE codepoint is set. A 'congestion event' refers to one or
more congestion marks belong to the same overload situation in the
network (usually during one RTT).
2. More Accurate ECN Feedback
In this section we designate the sender to be the one sending data
and the receiver as the one that will acknowledge this data. Of
course such a scenario is describing only one half connection of a
TCP connection. The proposed scheme, if negotiated, will be used for
both half connection as both, sender and receiver, need to be capable
to echo and understand the accurate ECN feedback scheme.
2.1. Negotiation during the TCP handshake
During the TCP handshake at the start of a connection, an originator
of the connection (host A) MUST indicate a request to get more
accurate ECN feedback by setting the TCP flags NS=1, CWR=1 and ECE=1
in the initial <SYN>. This coding allows to negotiate for the
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
classic ECN implicit if the receiver does not support the more
accurate ECN feedback scheme.
A responding host (host B) MUST return a <SYN,ACK> with flags CWR=1
and ECE=0. The NS flag may be either 0 or 1, as described below.
The responding host MUST NOT set this combination of flags unless the
preceding <SYN> has already requested support for accurate ECN
feedback as above.
These handshakes including the fallback when the receiver only
support the classic ECN or ECN-Nonce are summarized in Table 1 below.
X indicates that NS can be either 0 or 1 depending on whether
congestion had been experienced (see below). The handshake
indicating any of the other flavors of ECN are also shown for
comparison. To compress the width of the table, the headings of the
first four columns have been severely abbreviated, as following:
Ac: *Ac*curate ECN Feedback
N: ECN-*N*once (RFC3540)
E: *E*CN (RFC3168)
I: Not-ECN (*I*mplicit congestion notification).
+----+---+---+---+------------+----------------+------------------+
| Ac | N | E | I | <SYN> A->B | <SYN,ACK> B->A | Mode |
+----+---+---+---+------------+----------------+------------------+
| | | | | NS CWR ECE | NS CWR ECE | |
| AB | | | | 1 1 1 | X 1 0 | accurate ECN |
| A | B | | | 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 | ECN Nonce |
| A | | B | | 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 | classic ECN |
| A | | | B | 1 1 1 | 0 0 0 | Not ECN |
| A | | | B | 1 1 1 | X 1 1 | Not ECN (broken) |
+----+---+---+---+------------+----------------+------------------+
Table 1: ECN capability negotiation between Sender (A) and
Receiver (B)
The responding host (B) MAY set the NS bit to 1 to indicate a
congestion feedback for the <SYN> packet. Otherwise the receiver (B)
MUST reply to the sender with NS=0. The addition of ECN to TCP
<SYN,ACK> packets is discussed and specified as experimental in
[RFC5562] where the addition of ECN to the SYN packet is optionally
described. The security implications when using this option are not
further discussed here. Only if the initial <SYN> from client A is
marked CE, the server B SHOULD set the NS flag to 1 to indicate the
congestion immediately, instead of delaying the signal to the first
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
acknowledgment when the actual data transmission has started. So,
server B MAY set the alternative TCP header flags in its <SYN,ACK>:
NS=1, CWR=1 and ECE=0.
Recall that, if the <SYN,ACK> reflects the same flag settings as the
preceding <SYN> (because there may exist broken TCP implementations
that behave this way), [RFC3168] specifies that the whole connection
MUST revert to Not-ECT.
2.2. Feedback Coding
This section proposes the new coding to provide a more accurate ECN
feedback by use of the two ECN TCP bits (ECE/CWR) as well as the TCP
NS bit and the optional use of the Urgent Pointer if the URG flag is
not set. This coding MUST only be used if the more accurate ECN
Feedback has been negotiated successfully in the TCP handshake.
2.2.1. Codepoint Coding of the more Accurate ECN (ACE) field
The more accurate ECN feedback coding uses the ECE, CWR and NS bits
as one field to encode 8 distinct codepoints. This overloaded use of
these 3 header flags as one 3-bit more Accurate ECN (ACE) field is
shown in Figure 3. The actual definition of the TCP header,
including the addition of support for the ECN Nonce, is shown for
comparison in Figure 1. This specification does not redefine the
names of these three TCP flags, it merely overloads them with another
definition once a flow with more accurate ECN feedback is
established.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | U | A | P | R | S | F |
| Header Length | Reserved | ACE | R | C | S | S | Y | I |
| | | | G | K | H | T | N | N |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 3: Definition of the ACE field within bytes 13 and 14 of the
TCP Header (when SYN=0).
The 8 possible codepoints are shown below. Five of them are used to
encode a "congestion indication" (CI) counter. The other three
codepoints are defined in the next section to be used for an
integrity check based on ECN-Nonce. The CI counter maintains the
number of CE marks observed at the receiver (see Section 2.3).
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+
| AcE | NS | CWR | ECE | CI (base5) |
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | - |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+
Table 2: Codepoint assignment for accurate ECN feedback
Also note that, whenever the SYN flag of a TCP segment is set
(including when the ACK flag is also set), the NS, CWR and ECE flags
(i.e. the ACE field of the <SYN,ACK>) MUST NOT be interpreted as the
3-bit codepoint, which is only used in non-SYN packets.
2.2.2. Use with ECN Nonce
In ECN Nonce, by comparing the number of incoming ECT(1)
notifications with the actual number of packets that were transmitted
with an ECT(1) mark as well as the sum of the sender's two internal
counters, the sender can probabilistically detect a receiver that
sends false marks or suppresses accurate ECN feedback, or a path that
does not properly support ECN.
If an ECT(1) mark is received, an ETC(1) counter (E1) is incremented.
The receiver has to convey that updated information to the sender
with the next possible ACK using the three remaining codepoints as
shown in Table 3.
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+------------+
| ECI | NS | CWR | ECE | CI (base5) | E1 (base3) |
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+------------+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | - |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | - |
| 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | - |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | - |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 2 |
+-----+----+-----+-----+------------+------------+
Table 3: Codepoint assignment for accurate ECN feedback and ECN Nonce
2.2.3. Auxiliary data in the Urgent Pointer field
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
In order to provide improved resiliency against loss or ACK thinning,
the limited number of bits in the existing TCP flags field is
insufficient. At the same time is it not necessary to deliver higher
order bits with every returned segment, or even reliably at all.
Therefore four bits of the reused Urgent Pointer field are defined as
the "Top ACE" field of the more accurate ECN feedback, as indicated
in Figure 4. This field carries the top (binary) counter value, if
the according codepoint does signal the feedback of a counter.
Therefore, we call this field "Top ACE".
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |
| Reserved | Top ACE |
| | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 4: The (post-ECN Nonce) definition of the TCP header flags
As 5 codepoints are set aside to provide reasonable resiliency under
typical marking and loss regimes, the combination between the 4 bits
in the Top ACE field and the 5 codepoints in the ACE field allow for
up to 16*5 = 80 congestion indications to be unambiguously signaled
back to the sender, even with more extreme levels of CE marking, or
return ACK loss.
A combination with the 3 remaining codepoints (e.g. to signal a
counter for the number of observed ECT1 packets) and this field
allows for up to 16*3 = 48 distinct indications.
The reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero, and MUST NOT be interpreted
when evaluating the combination of the "Top ACE":"ACE" fields. Also,
when the URG flag is set, the entire Urgent Pointer MUST NOT be
interpreted to carry significance for the Accurate ECN feedback.
2.3. More Accurate ECN TCP Receiver
This section describes the receiver-side action to signal the
accurate ECN feedback back to the sender. To select the correct
codepoint for each ACK, the receiver will need to maintain a
congestion indication (CI) counter of how many CE marking have been
seen during a connection and an ECT(1) counter (E1) that is
incremented on the reception of a ECT(1) marked packet.
Thus for each incoming segment with a CE marking, the receiver will
increase CI by 1. With each ACK the receiver will calculate CI
modulo 5 and set the respective codepoint in the ACE field (see Table
2). In addition, the receiver calculates CI divided by 5 and may set
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
the "Top ACE" field to this value, provided the URG flag is not set
in the segment. To avoid counter wrap around in a high congestion
situation, the receiver MAY switch from a delayed ACK behavior to
send ACKs immediately after the data packet reception if needed.
By default an accurate ECN receiver SHOULD echo the current value of
the CI counter, using one of the codepoints encoding the CI counter.
Whenever a CE marked segment is received and thus the value of the CI
is changed, the receiver MUST echo the then current CI value in the
next ACK sent. The receiver MAY use the "Top ACE" field in addition
if the URG flag is not set.
The requirement to signal an updated CI value immediately with the
next ACK may conflict with a delayed ACK ratios larger than two, when
using the available number of codepoints only when "Top ACE" can not
be used. A receiver MAY change the ACK'ing rate such that a
sufficient rate of feedback signals can be sent. However, in the
combination with the redefined Urgent Pointer field, no change in the
ACK rate should be required.
Whenever a ECT(1) marked packet arrives, the receiver SHOULD signal
the current value of the E1 counter (modulo 3) in the next ACK using
the respective codepoint. If a CE mark was received before sending
the next ACK (e.g. delayed ACKs) sending the current CI value update
MUST take precedence. Further resilience against lost ACKs MAY be
provided by inserting the high order bits of the E1 counter (E1
divided by 3) into the Top ACE field.
For the implementation it is suggested to maintain two counters so to
avoid costly division operations while processing the header
information for the ACK. The first counter can be mapped directly
into the ACE field. A wrap by the count of 5 is implemented as a
single conditional check, and when that happens, a secondary, high-
order counter is increased once. This secondary counter can then be
mapped directly into the Top ACE field.
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
if (CE) {
if (CIcnt == 5) {
CIcnt = 0
CIovf += 1
} else
CIcnt += 1
}
ACE = CIcnt;
TopACE = CIovf;
Figure 5: Implemetation example
2.4. More Accurate ECN TCP Sender
This section specifies the sender-side action describing how to
exclude the number of congestion markings from the given receiver
feedback signal.
When the more accurate ECN feedback scheme is supported by the
sender, the sender will maintain a congestion indication received
(CI.r) counter. This CI.r counter will hold the number of CE marks
as signaled by the receiver, and reconstructed by the sender.
On the arrival of every ACK, the sender updates the local CI.r value
to the signaled CI value in the ACK as conveyed by the combination of
the ACE and "Top ACE" fields in the Urgent Pointer if the URG flag is
not set.
If the URG flag is set and thus the "Top ACE" field in the Urgent
Pointer field is not available, the sender calculates a value D as
the difference between value of the ACE field and the current CI.r
value modulo 5. D is assumed to be the number of CE marked packets
that arrived at the receiver since it sent the previously received
ACK. Thus the local counter CI.r must be increased by D.
As only a limited number of E1 codepoints exist and the receiver
might not acknowledge every single data packet immediately (e.g.
delayed ACKs), a sender SHOULD NOT mark more than 1/m of the packets
with ECT(1), where m is the ACK ratio (e.g. 50% when every second
data packet triggers an ACK). This constraint can be lifted when a
sender determines, that the auxiliary data is available (the Top ACE
field of an ACK with an E1 codepoint is increasing with the number of
sent ECT(1) segments). A sender SHOULD send no more than 3
consecutive packets marked with ECT(1), as long as the validity of
the auxiliary data in the Top ACE field has not been confirmed.
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
3. Acknowledgements
We want to thank Bob Briscoe and Michael Welzl for their input and
discussion. Special thanks to Bob Briscoe, who first proposed the
use of the ECN bits as one field.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes a request to IANA, to set up a new registry. This
registry redefines the use of the 16 bit "Urgent Pointer" while the
URG flag is not set. 4 of those bits ("Top ACE") are defined within
this document to be interpreted in conjunction with another field
("ACE"), overwriting three of the existing TCP flags into a single
field.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
ACK loss
This scheme sends each codepoint only once. In the worst case at
least one, and often two or more consecutive ACKs can be dropped
without losing congestion information, even when the auxiliary data
field in the former Urgent Pointer field is unavailable (i.e. the URG
flag is set, or a middlebox clears its contents).
At low congestion rates, the sending of the current value of the CI
counter by default allows higher numbers of consecutive ACKs to be
lost, without impacting the accuracy of the ECN signal.
ECN Nonce
In the proposed scheme there are three more codepoints available that
could be used for an integrity check like ECN Nonce. If ECN nonce
would be implemented as proposed in Section 2.2.2, even more
information would be provided for ECN Nonce than in the original
specification.
A delayed ACK ratio of two can be sustained indefinitely without
reverting to auxiliary information, even during heavy congestion, but
not during excessive ECT(1) marking, which is under the control of
the sender. A higher ACK ratio can be sustained when congestion is
low, and the auxiliary data is available.
6. References
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001.
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC
3540, June 2003.
6.2. Informative References
[Ali10] Alizadeh, M., Greenberg, A., Maltz, D., Padhye, J., Patel,
P., Prabhakar, B., Sengupta, S., and M. Sridharan, "DCTCP:
Efficient Packet Transport for the Commoditized Data
Center", Jan 2010.
[I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp]
Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Moncaster, T., and A. Smith,
"Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to
TCP/IP", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-09 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[RFC5562] Kuzmanovic, A., Mondal, A., Floyd, S., and K.
Ramakrishnan, "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets", RFC 5562, June
2009.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC5690] Floyd, S., Arcia, A., Ros, D., and J. Iyengar, "Adding
Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP", RFC 5690,
February 2010.
[draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-option]
Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "Accurate ECN
Feedback Option in TCP", draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-
ecn-option-01 (work in progress), Jul 2012.
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP June 2013
Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kuehlewind (editor)
University of Stuttgart
Pfaffenwaldring 47
Stuttgart 70569
Germany
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
Richard Scheffenegger
NetApp, Inc.
Am Euro Platz 2
Vienna 1120
Austria
Phone: +43 1 3676811 3146
Email: rs@netapp.com
Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires December 22, 2013 [Page 14]