draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-00.txt   draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-01.txt 
TCP Maintenance & Minor Extensions (tcpm) B. Briscoe TCP Maintenance & Minor Extensions (tcpm) B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory
Intended status: Experimental M. Kuehlewind Intended status: Experimental M. Kuehlewind
Expires: June 16, 2016 ETH Zurich Expires: January 1, 2017 ETH Zurich
R. Scheffenegger R. Scheffenegger
NetApp, Inc. NetApp, Inc.
December 14, 2015 June 30, 2016
More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-00 draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-01
Abstract Abstract
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is a mechanism where network Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is a mechanism where network
nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to indicate nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to indicate
incipient congestion to the end-points. Receivers with an ECN- incipient congestion to the end-points. Receivers with an ECN-
capable transport protocol feed back this information to the sender. capable transport protocol feed back this information to the sender.
ECN is specified for TCP in such a way that only one feedback signal 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 can be transmitted per Round-Trip Time (RTT). Recently, new TCP
mechanisms like Congestion Exposure (ConEx) or Data Center TCP mechanisms like Congestion Exposure (ConEx) or Data Center TCP
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
4. Interaction with Other TCP Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Interaction with Other TCP Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1. Compatibility with SYN Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1. Compatibility with SYN Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2. Compatibility with Other TCP Options and Experiments . . 21 4.2. Compatibility with Other TCP Options and Experiments . . 21
4.3. Compatibility with Feedback Integrity Mechanisms . . . . 21 4.3. Compatibility with Feedback Integrity Mechanisms . . . . 21
5. Protocol Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Protocol Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Example Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix A. Example Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.1. Example Algorithm to Encode/Decode the AccECN Option . . 29 A.1. Example Algorithm to Encode/Decode the AccECN Option . . 29
A.2. Example Algorithm for Safety Against Long Sequences of A.2. Example Algorithm for Safety Against Long Sequences of
ACK Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ACK Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.2.1. Safety Algorithm without the AccECN Option . . . . . 30 A.2.1. Safety Algorithm without the AccECN Option . . . . . 30
A.2.2. Safety Algorithm with the AccECN Option . . . . . . . 32 A.2.2. Safety Algorithm with the AccECN Option . . . . . . . 32
A.3. Example Algorithm to Estimate Marked Bytes from Marked A.3. Example Algorithm to Estimate Marked Bytes from Marked
Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.4. Example Algorithm to Beacon AccECN Options . . . . . . . 34 A.4. Example Algorithm to Beacon AccECN Options . . . . . . . 34
skipping to change at page 26, line 35 skipping to change at page 26, line 35
three ECN-related TCP flags as one field for more accurate TCP-ECN three ECN-related TCP flags as one field for more accurate TCP-ECN
feedback was first introduced in the re-ECN protocol that was the feedback was first introduced in the re-ECN protocol that was the
ancestor of ConEx. ancestor of ConEx.
Bob Briscoe was part-funded by the European Community under its Bob Briscoe was part-funded by the European Community under its
Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet Transport Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet Transport
Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700) and through the Trilogy 2 project Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700) and through the Trilogy 2 project
(ICT-317756). The views expressed here are solely those of the (ICT-317756). The views expressed here are solely those of the
authors. authors.
This work is partly supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
This support does not imply endorsement.
9. Comments Solicited 9. Comments Solicited
Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome. They can be Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome. They can be
addressed to the IETF TCP maintenance and minor modifications working addressed to the IETF TCP maintenance and minor modifications working
group mailing list <tcpm@ietf.org>, and/or to the authors. group mailing list <tcpm@ietf.org>, and/or to the authors.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 12 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/