draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-05.txt   draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06.txt 
Network Working Group M. Duke Network Working Group M. Duke
Internet-Draft Boeing Phantom Works Internet-Draft Boeing Phantom Works
Expires: April 2, 2006 R. Braden Expires: August 7, 2006 R. Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute USC Information Sciences Institute
W. Eddy W. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems Verizon Federal Network Systems
E. Blanton E. Blanton
Purdue University Computer Science Purdue University Computer Science
September 29, 2005 February 3, 2006
A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-05 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC) This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC)
documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents (TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents
defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the
RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP
implementers and other parties who desire information contained in implementers and other parties who desire information contained in
the TCP-related RFCs. the TCP-related RFCs.
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
2. Basic Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Basic Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . 9 3.1 Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . 9
3.2 SACK-based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control . . . . . 10 3.2 SACK-based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control . . . . . 10
3.3 Dealing with Forged Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3 Dealing with Forged Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1 Foundational Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1 Foundational Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2 Difficult Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.2 Difficult Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3 Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.3 Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4 Management Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.4 Management Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5 Tools and Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.5 Tools and Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.6 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.6 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Undocumented TCP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Undocumented TCP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.1 Basic Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11.1 Basic Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.2 Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11.2 Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.3 Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 11.3 Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
11.4 Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11.4 Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11.5 Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11.5 Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11.6 Informative References Outside the RFC Series . . . . . 38 11.6 Informative References Outside the RFC Series . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 41 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet
hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents
have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time, have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time,
a large number of more experimental modifications to TCP have also a large number of more experimental modifications to TCP have also
been published in the RFC series, along with informational notes, been published in the RFC series, along with informational notes,
case studies, and other advice. case studies, and other advice.
skipping to change at page 11, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 41
This document [RFC1948] describes the TCP vulnerability that This document [RFC1948] describes the TCP vulnerability that
allows an attacker to send forged TCP packets, based upon guessing allows an attacker to send forged TCP packets, based upon guessing
the initial sequence number in the three-way handshake. Simple the initial sequence number in the three-way handshake. Simple
defenses against exploitation are then described. Some variation defenses against exploitation are then described. Some variation
is implemented in most currently-used operating systems. is implemented in most currently-used operating systems.
RFC 2385 S: "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature RFC 2385 S: "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature
Option" (August 1998) Option" (August 1998)
From document: "This document describes currrent existing practice From document: "This document describes current existing practice
for securing BGP against certain simple attacks. It is understood for securing BGP against certain simple attacks. It is understood
to have security weaknesses against concerted attacks. to have security weaknesses against concerted attacks.
This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP.
It defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 [RFC1321] digest It defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 [RFC1321] digest
in a TCP segment. This digest acts like a signature for that in a TCP segment. This digest acts like a signature for that
segment, incorporating information known only to the connection segment, incorporating information known only to the connection
end points. Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using this end points. Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using this
option in the way described in this paper significantly reduces option in the way described in this paper significantly reduces
the danger from certain security attacks on BGP." [RFC2385] the danger from certain security attacks on BGP." [RFC2385]
skipping to change at page 21, line 36 skipping to change at page 21, line 36
time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF
standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF
standards)." [RFC2488] standards)." [RFC2488]
RFC 2757 I: "Long Thin Networks" (January 2000) RFC 2757 I: "Long Thin Networks" (January 2000)
Several methods of improving TCP performance over long thin Several methods of improving TCP performance over long thin
networks, such as geosynchronous satellite links, are discussed in networks, such as geosynchronous satellite links, are discussed in
this document [RFC2757]. A particular set of TCP options is this document [RFC2757]. A particular set of TCP options is
developed that should work well in such environments, and be safe developed that should work well in such environments, and be safe
to use in the global Internet. to use in the global Internet. The implications of such
environments have been further discussed in RFC 3150 and RFC 3155,
and these documents should be preferred where there is overlap
between them and RFC 2757.
RFC 2760 I: "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites" (February RFC 2760 I: "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites" (February
2000) 2000)
This document [RFC2760] discusses the advantages and disadvantages This document [RFC2760] discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of several different experimental means of improving TCP of several different experimental means of improving TCP
performance over long-delay or error-prone paths. These include: performance over long-delay or error-prone paths. These include:
T/TCP, larger initial windows, byte counting, delayed T/TCP, larger initial windows, byte counting, delayed
acknowledgements, slow start thresholds, NewReno and SACK-based acknowledgements, slow start thresholds, NewReno and SACK-based
loss recovery, FACK [MM96], ECN, various corruption-detection loss recovery, FACK [MM96], ECN, various corruption-detection
skipping to change at page 22, line 21 skipping to change at page 22, line 24
Related Degradations" (June 2001) Related Degradations" (June 2001)
From abstract: "This document is a survey of Performance Enhancing From abstract: "This document is a survey of Performance Enhancing
Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance
caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for
example, in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN example, in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN
environments. Different types of Performance Enhancing Proxies environments. Different types of Performance Enhancing Proxies
are described as well as the mechanisms used to improve are described as well as the mechanisms used to improve
performance." [RFC3135] performance." [RFC3135]
RFC 3150 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links" (July
2001)
From abstract: "This document makes performance-related
recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low
bit-rate" links. [...] This recommendation may be useful in any
network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the
design space for this recommendation explicitly includes
connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/
second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed."
[RFC3150]
RFC 3155 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with
Errors" (August 2001)
From abstract: "This document discusses the specific TCP
mechanisms that are problematic in environments with high
uncorrected error rates, and discusses what can be done to
mitigate the problems without introducing intermediate devices
into the connection." [RFC3155]
RFC 3366 "Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest
(ARQ)" (August 2002)
From abstract: "This document provides advice to the designers of
digital communication equipment and link-layer protocols employing
link-layer Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This
document presumes that the designers wish to support Internet
protocols, but may be unfamiliar with the architecture of the
Internet and with the implications of their design choices for the
performance and efficiency of Internet traffic carried over their
links." [RFC3366]
RFC 3449 B: "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry" RFC 3449 B: "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry"
(December 2002) (December 2002)
From abstract: "This document describes TCP performance problems From abstract: "This document describes TCP performance problems
that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in
several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks
and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons. and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons.
However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both
cases: performance often degrades significantly because of cases: performance often degrades significantly because of
imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver
skipping to change at page 38, line 21 skipping to change at page 39, line 21
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, September 2000. RFC 2914, September 2000.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", [RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 2923, September 2000. RFC 2923, September 2000.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z. [RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001. Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001.
[RFC3150] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., and V. Magret,
"End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links",
BCP 48, RFC 3150, July 2001.
[RFC3155] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N.
Vaidya, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with
Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3155, August 2001.
[RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful", [RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful",
BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002. BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002.
[RFC3366] Fairhurst, G. and L. Wood, "Advice to link designers on
link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)", BCP 62, RFC 3366,
August 2002.
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M. [RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M.
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network
Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002. Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002.
[RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and [RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and
F. Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) F. Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G)
Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481, Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481,
February 2003. February 2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
skipping to change at page 41, line 41 skipping to change at page 42, line 41
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 72 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/