Network Working Group M. Scharf
Internet-Draft University of Stuttgart
Intended status: Experimental S. Floyd
Expires: January 3, 2008 ICIR
P. Sarolahti
Nokia Research Center
July 2, 2007
Avoiding Interactions of Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control
draft-scharf-tsvwg-quick-start-flow-control-01.txt
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 January 3, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes methods to avoid interactions between the
flow control of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the
Quick-Start TCP mechanism. Quick-Start is an optional TCP congestion
control extension that allows hosts to determine an allowed sending
rate from feedback of routers along the path. With Quick-Start, data
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
transfers can start with a potentially large congestion window and
avoid the time-consuming slow-start. In order to fully utilize the
data rate determined by Quick-Start, the sending host must not be
limited by the TCP flow control, i. e., the amount of free buffer
space advertised by the receive window.
There are two potential interactions between Quick-Start and the TCP
flow control: First, receivers might not provide sufficiently large
buffer space after connection setup, or they may implement buffer
allocation strategies that implicitly assume the slow-start behavior
on the sender side. This document therefore provides guidelines for
buffer allocation in hosts supporting the Quick-Start extension.
Second, the TCP receive window scaling mechanism interferes with
Quick-Start when being used in the initial three-way handshake
connection setup. This document describes a simple solution to
overcome this problem.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Quick-Start TCP and Receive Buffer Dimensioning . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Receiver Buffer Allocation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Recommendations for Buffer Dimensioning in Presence of
Quick-Start Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Quick-Start TCP and Receive Window Scaling . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Receive Window Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Problem Within the Three-way Handshake . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Discussion and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Applicability to Other Proposals . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
1. Introduction
Quick-Start is an experimental extension for the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] that allows to speed up best effort data
transfers. The Quick-Start TCP extension is specified in [RFC4782].
With Quick-Start, TCP hosts can request permission from the routers
along a network path to send at a higher rate than allowed by the
default TCP congestion control, in particular during connection setup
or after longer idle periods. The explicit router feedback avoids
the time-consuming capacity probing by the TCP slow-start and can
significantly improve transfer times over paths with a high
bandwidth-delay product [SAF07].
The usage of Quick-Start significantly changes the TCP behavior
during connection setup. This is why special care is needed in order
to prevent interactions between Quick-Start and other TCP mechanisms.
Specifically, TCP flow control mechanisms have to be optimized for
the usage of Quick-Start, in particular when the TCP connection spans
a path with a large bandwidth-delay product (BDP). In such cases
both congestion and receive window should have large values in order
to achieve good TCP performance (see [RFC2488],[RFC3481]).
Unlike the standard slow-start mechanism, the Quick-Start TCP
extension allows the sender to use large congestion windows
immediately after connection setup. The usage of such large windows
raises two questions: First, what receiver buffer allocation
strategies should be used in combination with Quick-Start? And
second, how to appropriately signal these large windows? This
document addresses these issues and shows that Quick-Start requires
special mechanisms in both cases. The document thereby supplements
the Quick-Start TCP specification [RFC4782], where flow control
issues have not been addressed in detail.
The rest of this document is structured as follows: First, the
question of receive buffer allocation in combination with Quick-Start
is addressed and dimensioning guidelines are provided. Second, a
modification of the receive window scaling mechanism [RFC1323] is
specified, which is required to fully benefit from Quick-Start when
the Quick-Start request is used in the initial <SYN> segment.
2. Requirements Notation
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].
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
3. Quick-Start TCP and Receive Buffer Dimensioning
3.1. Receiver Buffer Allocation Strategies
A sender can transmit up to the minimum of the congestion window and
the receive window (also called receiver's advertised window)
[RFC2581]. A small receive window prevents the TCP connection from
fully utilizing paths with a larger bandwidth-delay product. As a
consequence, on the one hand, a TCP receiver should advertise a
receive window that is big enough to allow an efficient utilization
of the connection path. On the other hand, hosts with a potentially
high number of TCP connections need to optimize the buffer and memory
usage to be able to serve a maximum possible number of TCP
connections. Finding a fixed receive buffer size that is optimal
between these two goals is difficult.
This is why many modern TCP implementations use an intelligent
dynamic buffer management. There are different auto-tuning
techniques and heuristics [Dun06] designed to prevent the receive
window from limiting the data rate at the sender. An implementation
using buffer size auto-tuning is described for instance in [SB05]. A
common characteristic of most of these buffer allocation strategies
is that they initially start with a rather small receive window. The
more data arrives, the more buffer is allocated to the corresponding
connection. This behavior is reasonable if the sender uses the
standard slow-start algorithm and thus starts with a small congestion
window anyway. However, when using Quick-Start, a large receive
buffer may be required immediately after connection setup.
3.2. Recommendations for Buffer Dimensioning in Presence of Quick-Start
Requests
When a host receives and approves a Quick-Start request, in
particular during the connection setup, it SHOULD announce a receive
window that is large enough so that a potential Quick-Start data
transfer can start with a high sending window. If buffer size auto-
tuning is used, it SHOULD be ensured that a sufficiently high initial
receive window is announced. The handling of buffer space upon
arrival of a Quick-Start request SHOULD be configurable by the
corresponding application.
If the TCP host has sufficient receive buffer space, it could
estimate the required buffer space as the product of the approved
Quick-Start rate and the round-trip time, and advertise a receive
window based on this required buffer space. This receive window
should allow the other TCP host to fully use the approved Quick-Start
Request.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
If the TCP host doesn't know the round-trip time, the TCP host could
use an estimate of the round-trip time in calculating the required
buffer space. For instance, the buffer dimension could be done for a
configurable "worst-case" RTT such as 500 ms. Alternately, the TCP
host could base the advertised receive window on the available buffer
space, without calculating the buffer space required for the other
TCP host to fully use the approved Quick-Start Request.
4. Quick-Start TCP and Receive Window Scaling
4.1. Receive Window Scaling
The TCP header specified in [RFC0793] uses a 16 bit field to report
the receive window size to the sender. This effectively limits the
sending window to 64 KB. To circumvent this problem, the "Window
Scale" TCP extension [RFC1323] defines an implicit scale factor,
which is used to multiply the window size value found in a TCP header
to obtain a 32 bit window size. If enabled, the scale factor is
announced during connection setup by the "Window Scale" TCP option in
<SYN> and <SYN,ACK> segments.
In general, using receive window scaling is highly beneficial for TCP
connections over path with a large bandwidth-delay product
[RFC2488],[RFC3481]. Otherwise, the path capacity cannot fully be
utilized by TCP. Quick-Start TCP can significantly speed up data
transfers over such paths [RFC4782],[SAF07]. As a consequence, a
host supporting Quick-Start SHOULD enable receive window scaling
according to [RFC1323]. If Quick-Start is used in the initial three-
way handshake, the minimum required scaling factor MAY be obtained
from the required receive buffer space, which can be approximated as
described in the previous section.
4.2. Problem Within the Three-way Handshake
A problem arises when the Quick-Start mechanism is used within the
three-way handshake, and the Quick-Start request is added to the
initial <SYN> segment: In this scenario, if the Quick-Start request
is approved by the routers along the path, the receiver echoes back
the Quick-Start response in the <SYN,ACK> segment. This process is
illustrated in [RFC4782]. Upon reception of the <SYN,ACK> with the
Quick-Start response, the sender can set the congestion window to the
determined value so that it can immediately start to send with the
approved data rate.
However, [RFC1323] defines that the "Window field in a SYN (i.e., a
<SYN> or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled." This means that
the maximum receive window that can be signaled to the sender in the
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
<SYN,ACK> is 64 KB. As a consequence, the TCP flow control will
prevent the TCP sender from having more than 64 KB of outstanding
data, even if the receiver has much more free buffer, and the Quick-
Start feedback allows a much larger congestion window.
This effect essentially limits the maximum amount of data sent by
Quick-Start to 64 KB, when the sender sends the Quick-Start request
in the initial <SYN> segment. Also, the congestion window after
quiting the Quick-Start rate pacing phase is at most 64 KB, as the
congestion window is set to the amount of data that has actually been
sent during the rate pacing phase. This is an undesirable
restriction for the Quick-Start mechanism, even if 64 KB is still
much more than the initial congestion window in slow-start that is
allowed by [RFC3390].
This issue only occurs when Quick-Start is used in the three-way TCP
connection setup procedure, and only in the direction of the client
(connection originator) to the server. Still, this case is one of
the planned usage scenarios for the Quick-Start TCP extension.
4.3. Proposed Solution
The limitation imposed by the window scaling could be addressed in
different ways. This document proposes the following solution: If
necessary, the TCP host SHOULD send a scaled receive window in a
separate <ACK> packet following the <SYN,ACK> packet.
This means that when a host receives a <SYN> segment with a Quick-
Start option, it processes the option as described in [RFC4782].
Provided that the host has Quick-Start support enabled, the Quick-
Start response is echoed back in the <SYN,ACK> segment. As
explained, this segment cannot announce receive windows larger than
64 KB. If the receiver allocates a buffer space larger than 64 KB,
an additional empty segment (without <SYN> flag) SHOULD be sent after
the <SYN,ACK> segment, in order to announce the true receive window.
The resulting message flow is depicted in Figure 1.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
Sender Routers (approving QS request) Receiver
------ ------- --------
| |
| ------------------------------------------------>|
| QS request |
| TCP <SYN>, unscaled receive window |
| window scaling and other options |
| |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| QS response |
| TCP <SYN,ACK>, unscaled receive window |
| window scaling and other options |
| |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| Additional acknowledgment |
| TCP <ACK>, scaled receive window |
| |
| ------------------------------------------------>|
| QS report |
| TCP <ACK> |
| |
| ================================================>|
| ================================================>|
| Rate paced data transfer |
| |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| First new acknowledgment |
V V
Figure 1: Message sequence chart of the proposed mechanism
After having received this additional acknowledgment, the sender is
aware of the true available receive buffer. Provided that the Quick-
Start request is approved on the path and that the receive window is
sufficiently large, this allows the sender to send more than 64 KB
during the Quick-Start rate pacing phase.
We note that there is some degree of freedom as to when to send the
additional acknowledgment. The straightforward solution is to send
it immediately after the <SYN,ACK> segment. But this is not
required: It is sufficient if the sender receives this segment before
reaching the limit of the unscaled receive window. As a consequence,
receivers could also delay the sending of this segment for some small
amount of time.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
4.4. Discussion and Deployment Considerations
The method proposed in this document is compliant with the TCP
specifications: Sending empty segments to increase the receive window
is implicitly allowed by [RFC0793], and in [RFC2581] it is clearly
stated that sending an acknowledgment is allowed to update the
receive window. For standard-compliant TCP stacks, implementing the
method thus should require changes in the receiver TCP implementation
only.
However, sending an empty acknowledgment shortly after a <SYN,ACK>
segment is an atypical TCP communication event. The <SYN,ACK> and
the additional segment could get reordered in the network. In this
case, the sending host will typically ignore the additional segment,
as it is still awaiting the <SYN,ACK>. Furthermore, middleboxes such
as state-full firewalls might drop the additional acknowledgment.
Even worse, this segment might also be dropped if a middlebox
receives it earlier than the <ACK> segment from the sender. At this
point in time, from the viewpoint of the middlebox, the bi-
directional end-to-end TCP connection is not yet established. If the
additional segment gets dropped, the sender gets informed about the
unscaled receive window when the next new acknowledgment arrives,
which may limit the benefit of Quick-Start. Delaying the additional
acknowledgment for a short period of time could help to avoid such
problems. Further investigation is needed to analyze whether such a
delay is required.
A possible alternative to the message flow in Figure 1 would be to
piggyback the Quick-Start response on the additional acknowledgment
segment instead of the <SYN,ACK>. However, this approach has several
drawbacks and is therefore not recommended: First, the Quick-Start
response would be received later, which could cause additional
delays. Second, the <SYN,ACK> is immediately acknowledged by the
<ACK> segment. The Quick-Start rate report can thus be piggybacked
on this <ACK>. In contrast, if the Quick-Start response is included
in the additional acknowledgment, the Quick-Start report has to be
piggybacked to a data segment, i. e., it depends on the availability
of application data whether and when the Quick-Start report is sent.
The additional segment mandated by this document results in a network
overhead of one segment. In many potential usage scenarios this
overhead will be small compared to the network load caused by the
acknowledgments of a starting high-speed Quick-Start data transfer.
Instead of sending one additional acknowledgment, a host could also
send a small number of copies in order to improve robustness. This
could help to reduce the risk of reordering with the <SYN,ACK>
segment. However, given the additional overhead, it is recommended
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
to send only one acknowlegdment unless there are indications that the
path suffers from frequent packet reordering.
5. Security Considerations
Quick-Start TCP imposes a number of security challenges. Known
security threats as well as counter-measures are discussed in the
section "Security Considerations" of [RFC4782]. Since this document
describes extensions to Quick-Start TCP, the security issues and
solutions identified in [RFC4782] apply here, too.
If a host allocates large amounts of buffer space during the three-
way handshake, this could increase the vulnerability to "syn
flooding" attacks: An attacker sending many Quick-Start requests
could try to allocate much buffer space at a host, which is then not
available any more for other TCP connections. If most involved
routers support Quick-Start, this type of attack is difficult to
realize, since the routers may reject many requests before they reach
a host. However, an attack could be possible if some routers on the
path do not support Quick-Start. A simple countermeasure would be to
set an upper limit on the total amount of buffer space granted to
connections with Quick-Start, and possibly to deny requests if they
arrive at a host with too high a frequency. The main impact of this
abuse is that Quick-Start may be rendered useless for other
connections. This can result in some performance degradation,
because the default slow-start must be used instead. In general, it
is an inherent weak point of Quick-Start that one can send much more
requests than required, which temporarily can block resources for
other earnest Quick-Start requests [RFC4782].
It is an allowed behavior for a TCP connection endpoint to send an
additional acknowledgment segment in order to update the receive
window. The usage of the proposed mechanism causes some limited
network overhead, but it does not result in additional security
threats.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Haiko Strotbek, Martin Koehn, Simon Hauger,
Christian Mueller, and Gorry Fairhurst for suggestions and comments.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC4782] Floyd, S., Allman, M., Jain, A., and P. Sarolahti, "Quick-
Start for TCP and IP", RFC 4782, January 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[Dun06] Dunigan, T., "TCP auto-tuning zoo", available
at http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/net100/auto.html,
February 2006.
[FPK07] Falk, A., Pryadkin, Y., and D. Katabi, "Specification for
the Explicit Control Protocol (XCP)", Internet Draft, work
in progress, June 2007.
[LAJ+07] Liu, D., Allman, M., Jin, S., and L. Wang, "Congestion
Control Without a Startup Phase", Proc. PFLDnet2007,
February 2007.
[RFC2488] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP
Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms",
BCP 28, RFC 2488, January 1999.
[RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and
F. Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G)
Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481,
February 2003.
[SAF07] Sarolahti, P., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Determining an
Appropriate Sending Rate Over an Underutilized Network
Path", Computer Networks, vol. 51, no. 7, 2007.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
[SB05] Smith, M. and S. Bishop, "Flow Control in the Linux
Network Stack", available
at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/Netsem/linuxnet.pdf,
February 2005.
Appendix A. Applicability to Other Proposals
Besides Quick-Start, there are some other related proposals for
behavior more aggressive than the standard slow-start. A
comprehensive survey of this related work can be found in [RFC4782].
For instance, the Explicit Control Protocol (XCP) [FPK07] proposes a
new congestion control based on explicit router feedback.
Furthermore, there are discussions in the research community whether
a host could start to send with an arbitrarily high data rate,
combined with a conservative reaction in case of congestion [LAJ+07].
Basically, the effects discussed in this document are not specific to
Quick-Start. An interaction with the TCP flow control could also
occur with other congestion control mechanisms that avoid the
standard TCP slow-start. Receive buffer dimensioning will be a non-
trivial task in all these cases. The amount of information that a
receiver can gain during a connection setup procedure differs from
proposal to proposal. However, the basic guideline to use a larger
inital receive buffer allocation applies to all proposals similar to
Quick-Start.
If the TCP header semantics apply, the interaction with receive
window scaling mechanism could also be a problem for other
approaches. In this case, the workaround of sending an additional
acknowledgment can be helpful, too.
Appendix B. Alternative Solutions
The limitation imposed by the window scaling could be addressed in
several ways. This document proposes to send an additional
acknowledgment to announce the true receive window, if needed. This
method is compliant with the current TCP standards.
Alternatively, one could circumvent [RFC1323] in several ways. For
instance, one could use a scaled receive window in <SYN> and
<SYN,ACK> segments, if they include Quick-Start options. The usage
of a scaled window could also be indicated by some other means (e.
g., a new TCP option). Still, such alternative solutions would
require changes in the TCP header semantics and might cause
interworking problems with currently deployed TCP implementations.
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
Authors' Addresses
Michael Scharf
University of Stuttgart
Pfaffenwaldring 47
D-70569 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone: +49 711 685 69006
Email: michael.scharf@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
URI: http://www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de/en/~scharf
Sally Floyd
ICIR (ICSI Center for Internet Research)
Phone: +1 (510) 666-2989
Email: floyd@icir.org
URI: http://www.icir.org/floyd/
Pasi Sarolahti
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
FI-00045 NOKIA GROUP
Finland
Phone: +358 50 4876607
Email: pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Quick-Start TCP and Flow Control July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Scharf, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 14]