Internet DRAFT - draft-baker-aqm-recommendation
draft-baker-aqm-recommendation
Network Working Group F. Baker, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 2309 (if approved) G. Fairhurst, Ed.
Intended status: Best Current Practice University of Aberdeen
Expires: January 10, 2014 July 09, 2013
IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
draft-baker-aqm-recommendation-02
Abstract
This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community
concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance. It
presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and
widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network
devices, to improve the performance of today's Internet. It also
urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate
deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that
are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification.
The note largely repeats the recommendations of RFC 2309, updated
after fifteen years of experience and new research.
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 January 10, 2014.
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
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
(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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Need For Active Queue Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Managing Aggressive Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Operational deployments SHOULD use AQM procedures . . . 11
4.2. Signaling to the transport endpoints . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. AQM and ECN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational
tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not
application profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT be dependent on specific
transport protocol behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6. Interactions with congestion control algorithms ???? . . 14
4.7. The need for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
The Internet protocol architecture is based on a connectionless end-
to-end packet service using the Internet Protocol, whether IPv4
[RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC2460]. The advantages of its connectionless
design: flexibility and robustness, have been amply demonstrated.
However, these advantages are not without cost: careful design is
required to provide good service under heavy load. In fact, lack of
attention to the dynamics of packet forwarding can result in severe
service degradation or "Internet meltdown". This phenomenon was
first observed during the early growth phase of the Internet of the
mid 1980s [RFC0896][RFC0970], and is technically called "congestive
collapse".
The original fix for Internet meltdown was provided by Van Jacobsen.
Beginning in 1986, Jacobsen developed the congestion avoidance
mechanisms that are now required in TCP implementations [Jacobson88]
[RFC1122]. These mechanisms operate in Internet hosts to cause TCP
connections to "back off" during congestion. We say that TCP flows
are "responsive" to congestion signals (i.e., marked or dropped
packets) from the network. It is primarily these TCP congestion
avoidance algorithms that prevent the congestive collapse of today's
Internet.
However, that is not the end of the story. Considerable research has
been done on Internet dynamics since 1988, and the Internet has
grown. It has become clear that the TCP congestion avoidance
mechanisms [RFC5681], while necessary and powerful, are not
sufficient to provide good service in all circumstances. Basically,
there is a limit to how much control can be accomplished from the
edges of the network. Some mechanisms are needed in the network
devices to complement the endpoint congestion avoidance mechanisms.
These mechanisms may be implemented in network devices that include
routers, switches, and other network middleboxes.
It is useful to distinguish between two classes of algorithms related
to congestion control: "queue management" versus "scheduling"
algorithms. To a rough approximation, queue management algorithms
manage the length of packet queues by marking or dropping packets
when necessary or appropriate, while scheduling algorithms determine
which packet to send next and are used primarily to manage the
allocation of bandwidth among flows. While these two AQM mechanisms
are closely related, they address different performance issues.
This memo highlights two performance issues:
The first issue is the need for an advanced form of queue management
that we call "active queue management." Section 2 summarizes the
benefits that active queue management can bring. A number of Active
Queue Management (AQM) procedures are described in the literature,
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
with different characteristics. This document does not recommend any
of them in particular, but does make recommendations that ideally
would affect the choice of procedure used in a given implementation.
The second issue, discussed in Section 3 of this memo, is the
potential for future congestive collapse of the Internet due to flows
that are unresponsive, or not sufficiently responsive, to congestion
indications. Unfortunately, there is no consensus solution to
controlling congestion caused by such aggressive flows; significant
research and engineering will be required before any solution will be
available. It is imperative that this work be energetically pursued,
to ensure the future stability of the Internet.
Section 4 concludes the memo with a set of recommendations to the
Internet community concerning these topics.
The discussion in this memo applies to "best-effort" traffic, which
is to say, traffic generated by applications that accept the
occasional loss, duplication, or reordering of traffic in flight. It
also applies to other traffic, such as real-time traffic that can
adapt its sending rate to reduce loss and/or delay. It is most
effective, when the adaption occurs on time scales of a single RTT or
a small number of RTTs, for elastic traffic [RFC1633].
[RFC2309] resulted from past discussions of end-to-end performance,
Internet congestion, and RED in the End-to-End Research Group of the
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This update results from
experience with this and other algorithms, and the Active Queue
Management discussion within the IETF.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. The Need For Active Queue Management
The traditional technique for managing the queue length in a network
device is to set a maximum length (in terms of packets) for each
queue, accept packets for the queue until the maximum length is
reached, then reject (drop) subsequent incoming packets until the
queue decreases because a packet from the queue has been transmitted.
This technique is known as "tail drop", since the packet that arrived
most recently (i.e., the one on the tail of the queue) is dropped
when the queue is full. This method has served the Internet well for
years, but it has two important drawbacks.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
1. Lock-Out
In some situations tail drop allows a single connection or a few
flows to monopolize queue space, preventing other connections
from getting room in the queue. This "lock-out" phenomenon is
often the result of synchronization or other timing effects.
2. Full Queues
The tail drop discipline allows queues to maintain a full (or,
almost full) status for long periods of time, since tail drop
signals congestion (via a packet drop) only when the queue has
become full. It is important to reduce the steady-state queue
size, and this is perhaps the most important goal for queue
management.
The naive assumption might be that there is a simple tradeoff
between delay and throughput, and that the recommendation that
queues be maintained in a "non-full" state essentially translates
to a recommendation that low end-to-end delay is more important
than high throughput. However, this does not take into account
the critical role that packet bursts play in Internet
performance. Even though TCP constrains the congestion window of
a flow, packets often arrive at network devices in bursts
[Leland94]. If the queue is full or almost full, an arriving
burst will cause multiple packets to be dropped. This can result
in a global synchronization of flows throttling back, followed by
a sustained period of lowered link utilization, reducing overall
throughput.
The point of buffering in the network is to absorb data bursts
and to transmit them during the (hopefully) ensuing bursts of
silence. This is essential to permit the transmission of bursty
data. Normally we would like to have mall queues in network
devices: with sufficient queue capacity to absorb the bursts.
The counter-intuitive result is that maintaining normally-small
queues can result in higher throughput as well as lower end-to-
end delay. In short, queue limits should not reflect the steady
state queues we want to be maintained in the network; instead,
they should reflect the size of bursts that a network device
needs to absorb.
Besides tail drop, two alternative queue disciplines that can be
applied when a queue becomes full are "random drop on full" or "drop
front on full". Under the random drop on full discipline, a network
device drops a randomly selected packet from the queue (which can be
an expensive operation, since it naively requires an O(N) walk
through the packet queue) when the queue is full and a new packet
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
arrives. Under the "drop front on full" discipline [Lakshman96], the
network device drops the packet at the front of the queue when the
queue is full and a new packet arrives. Both of these solve the
lock-out problem, but neither solves the full-queues problem
described above.
We know in general how to solve the full-queues problem for
"responsive" flows, i.e., those flows that throttle back in response
to congestion notification. In the current Internet, dropped packets
provide a critical mechanism indicating congestion notification to
hosts. The solution to the full-queues problem is for network
devices to drop packets before a queue becomes full, so that hosts
can respond to congestion before buffers overflow. We call such a
proactive approach AQM. By dropping packets before buffers overflow,
AQM allows network devices to control when and how many packets to
drop.
In summary, an active queue management mechanism can provide the
following advantages for responsive flows.
1. Reduce number of packets dropped in network devices
Packet bursts are an unavoidable aspect of packet networks
[Willinger95]. If all the queue space in a network device is
already committed to "steady state" traffic or if the buffer
space is inadequate, then the network device will have no ability
to buffer bursts. By keeping the average queue size small, AQM
will provide greater capacity to absorb naturally-occurring
bursts without dropping packets.
Furthermore, without AQM, more packets will be dropped when a
queue does overflow. This is undesirable for several reasons.
First, with a shared queue and the tail drop discipline, this can
result in unnecessary global synchronization of flows, resulting
in lowered average link utilization, and hence lowered network
throughput. Second, unnecessary packet drops represent a
possible waste of network capacity on the path before the drop
point.
While AQM can manage queue lengths and reduce end-to-end latency
even in the absence of end-to-end congestion control, it will be
able to reduce packet drops only in an environment that continues
to be dominated by end-to-end congestion control.
2. Provide a lower-delay interactive service
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
By keeping a small average queue size, AQM will reduce the delays
experienced by flows. This is particularly important for
interactive applications such as short Web transfers, Telnet
traffic, or interactive audio-video sessions, whose subjective
(and objective) performance is better when the end-to-end delay
is low.
3. Avoid lock-out behavior
AQM can prevent lock-out behavior by ensuring that there will
almost always be a buffer available for an incoming packet. For
the same reason, AQM can prevent a bias against low capacity, but
highly bursty, flows.
Lock-out is undesirable because it constitutes a gross unfairness
among groups of flows. However, we stop short of calling this
benefit "increased fairness", because general fairness among
flows requires per-flow state, which is not provided by queue
management. For example, in a network device using AQM with only
FIFO scheduling, two TCP flows may receive very different share
of the network capacity simply because they have different round-
trip times [Floyd91], and a flow that does not use congestion
control may receive more capacity than a flow that does. For
example, a router may maintain per-flow state to achieve general
fairness by a per-flow scheduling algorithm such as Fair Queueing
(FQ) [Demers90], or a Class-Based Queue scheduling algorithm such
as CBQ [Floyd95].
In contrast, AQM is needed even for network devices that use per-
flow scheduling algorithms such as FQ or class-based scheduling
algorithms, such as CBQ. This is because per-flow scheduling
algorithms by themselves do not control the overall queue size or
the size of individual queues. AQM is needed to control the
overall average queue sizes, so that arriving bursts can be
accommodated without dropping packets. In addition, AQM should
be used to control the queue size for each individual flow or
class, so that they do not experience unnecessarily high delay.
Therefore, AQM should be applied across the classes or flows as
well as within each class or flow.
In short, scheduling algorithms and queue management should be
seen as complementary, not as replacements for each other.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
3. Managing Aggressive Flows
One of the keys to the success of the Internet has been the
congestion avoidance mechanisms of TCP. Because TCP "backs off"
during congestion, a large number of TCP connections can share a
single, congested link in such a way that link bandwidth is shared
reasonably equitably among similarly situated flows. The equitable
sharing of bandwidth among flows depends on all flows running
compatible congestion avoidance algorithms, i.e., methods conformant
with the current TCP specification [RFC5681].
We call a flow "TCP-friendly" when it has a congestion response that
approximates the average response expected of a TCP flow. One
example method of a TCP-friendly scheme is the TCP-Friendly Rate
Control algorithm [RFC5348]. In this document, the term is used more
generally to describe this and other algorithms that meet these
goals.
It is convenient to divide flows into three classes: (1) TCP Friendly
flows, (2) unresponsive flows, i.e., flows that do not slow down when
congestion occurs, and (3) flows that are responsive but are not TCP-
friendly. The last two classes contain more aggressive flows that
pose significant threats to Internet performance, which we will now
discuss.
1. TCP-Friendly flows
A TCP-friendly flow responds to congestion notification within a
small number of path Round Trip Times (RTT), and in steady-state
it uses no more capacity than a conformant TCP running under
comparable conditions (drop rate, RTT, MTU, etc.). This is
described in the remainder of the document.
2. Non-Responsive Flows
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] provides a minimal,
best-effort transport to applications and upper-layer protocols
(both simply called "applications" in the remainder of this
document) and does not itself provide mechanisms to prevent
congestion collapse and establish a degree of fairness [RFC5405].
There is a growing set of UDP-based applications whose congestion
avoidance algorithms are inadequate or nonexistent (i.e, a flow
that does not throttle its sending rate when it experiences
congestion). Examples include some UDP streaming applications
for packet voice and video, and some multicast bulk data
transport. If no action is taken, such unresponsive flows could
lead to a new congestive collapse [RFC2309].
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
In general, UDP-based applications need to incorporate effective
congestion avoidance mechanisms [RFC5405]. Further research and
development of ways to accomplish congestion avoidance for
presently unresponsive applications continue to be
important.Network devices need to be able to protect themselves
against unresponsive flows, and mechanisms to accomplish this
must be developed and deployed. Deployment of such mechanisms
would provide an incentive for all applications to become
responsive by either using a congestion-controlled transport
(e.g. TCP, SCTP, DCCP) or by incorporating their own congestion
control in the application. [RFC5405].
3. Non-TCP-friendly Transport Protocols
A second threat is posed by transport protocol implementations
that are responsive to congestion, but, either deliberately or
through faulty implementation, are not TCP-friendly. Such
applications may gain an unfair share of the available network
capacity.
For example, the popularity of the Internet has caused a
proliferation in the number of TCP implementations. Some of
these may fail to implement the TCP congestion avoidance
mechanisms correctly because of poor implementation. Others may
deliberately be implemented with congestion avoidance algorithms
that are more aggressive in their use of capacity than other TCP
implementations; this would allow a vendor to claim to have a
"faster TCP". The logical consequence of such implementations
would be a spiral of increasingly aggressive TCP implementations,
leading back to the point where there is effectively no
congestion avoidance and the Internet is chronically congested.
Another example could be an RTP/UDP video flow that uses an
adaptive codec, but responds incompletely to indications of
congestion or over responds over an excessively long time period.
Such flows are unlikely to be responsive to congestion signals in
a time frame comparable to a small number of end-to-end
transmission delays. However, over a longer timescale, perhaps
seconds in duration, they could moderate their speed, or increase
their speed if they determine capacity to be available.
Tunneled traffic aggregates of multiple (short) TCP flows can be
more aggressive than standard bulk TCP. Applications (e.g. web
browsers and peer-to-peer file-sharing) have exploited this by
opening multiple connections to the same endpoint.
The projected increase in the fraction of total Internet traffic for
more aggressive flows in classes 2 and 3 clearly poses a threat to
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
future Internet stability. There is an urgent need for measurements
of current conditions and for further research into the ways of
managing such flows. This raises many difficult issues in
identifying and isolating unresponsive or non-TCP-friendly flows at
an acceptable overhead cost. Finally, there is as yet little
measurement or simulation evidence available about the rate at which
these threats are likely to be realized, or about the expected
benefit of algorithms for managing such flows.
Another topic requiring consideration is the appropriate granularity
of a "flow" when considering a queue management method. There are a
few "natural" answers: 1) a transport (e.g. TCP or UDP) flow (source
address/port, destination address/port, DSCP); 2) a source/
destination host pair (IP addresses, DSCP); 3) a given source host or
a given destination host. We suggest that the source/destination
host pair gives the most appropriate granularity in many
circumstances. However, it is possible that different vendors/
providers could set different granularities for defining a flow (as a
way of "distinguishing" themselves from one another), or that
different granularities could be chosen for different places in the
network. It may be the case that the granularity is less important
than the fact that a network device needs to be able to deal with
more unresponsive flows at *some* granularity. The granularity of
flows for congestion management is, at least in part, a question of
policy that needs to be addressed in the wider IETF community.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The IRTF, in publishing [RFC2309], and the IETF in subsequent
discussion, has developed a set of specific recommendations regarding
the implementation and operational use of AQM procedures. This
document updates these to include:
1. Network devices SHOULD implement some AQM mechanism to manage
queue lengths, reduce end-to-end latency, and avoid lock-out
phenomena within the Internet.
2. Deployed AQM algorithms SHOULD support Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) as well as loss to signal congestion to
endpoints.
3. The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
4. AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not
application profiles.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
5. AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT interpret specific transport protocol
behaviours.
6. Transport protocol congestion control algorithms SHOULD maximize
their use of available capacity (when there is data to send)
without incurring undue loss or undue round trip delay.
7. Research, engineering, and measurement efforts are needed
regarding the design of mechanisms to deal with flows that are
unresponsive to congestion notification or are responsive, but
are more aggressive than present TCP.
These recommendations are expressed using the word "SHOULD". This is
in recognition that there may be use cases that have not been
envisaged in this document in which the recommendation does not
apply. However, care should be taken in concluding that one's use
case falls in that category; during the life of the Internet, such
use cases have been rarely if ever observed and reported on. To the
contrary, available research [Papagiannaki] says that even high speed
links in network cores that are normally very stable in depth and
behavior experience occasional issues that need moderation.
4.1. Operational deployments SHOULD use AQM procedures
In short, AQM procedures are designed to minimize delay induced in
the network by queues that have filled as a result of host behavior.
Marking and loss behaviors provide a signal that buffers in network
devices are becoming unnecessarily full, and that the sender would do
well to moderate its behavior.
4.2. Signaling to the transport endpoints
There are a number of ways a network device may signal to the end
point that the network is becoming congested and trigger a reduction
in rate. The signalling methods include:
o Delaying data segments in flight, such as in a queue.
o Dropping traffic in transit.
o Marking traffic, such as using Explicit Congestion
Control[RFC3168] [RFC4301] [RFC4774] [RFC6040] [RFC6679].
The use of scheduling mechanisms, such as priority queuing, classful
queuing, and fair queuing, is often effective in networks to help a
network serve the needs of a range of applications. Network
operators can use these methods to manage traffic passing a choke
point. This is discussed in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475].
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
Increased network latency can be used as an implicit signal of
congestion. E.g., in TCP additional delay can affect ACK Clocking
and has the result of reducing the rate of transmission of new data.
In RTP, this impacts the RTCP-reported RTT and can trigger a sender
to adjust its rate. For example, LEDBAT [RFC6817] assumes delay as a
primary signal of congestion.
It is essential that all Internet hosts respond to loss [RFC5681],
[RFC5405][RFC2960][RFC4340]. Packet dropping by network devices that
are under load has two effects: It protects the network, which is the
primary reason that network devices drop packets. The detection of
loss also provides a signal to a reliable transport (e.g. TCP, SCTP)
that there is potential congestion using a pragmatic heuristic; "when
the network discards a message in flight, it may imply the presence
of faulty equipment or media in a path, and it may imply the presence
of congestion. To be conservative transport must the latter."
Unreliable transports (e.g. using UDP) need to similarly react to
loss [RFC5405]
Network devices SHOULD use use an AQM algorithm to determine which
packets are effected by congestion.
Loss also has an effect on the efficiency of a flow and can
significantly impact some classes of application. In reliable
transports the dropped data must be retransmitted. While other
applications/transports may adapt to the absence of the data, this
still implies inefficient use of available capacity and the dropped
traffic can affect other flows. Hence, loss is not entirely
positive; it is a necessary evil.
4.2.1. AQM and ECN
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC4301] [RFC4774] [RFC6040]
[RFC6679]. is a network-layer function that allows a transport to
receive network congestion information from a network device without
incurring the unintended consequences of loss. ECN includes both
transport and functions implemented in network devices, the latter
rely upon using AQM.
Congestion for ECN-capable transports is instead signalled by a
network device setting the "Congestion Experienced (CE)" codepoint in
the IP header. This codepoint is noted by the remote receiving end
point and signalled back to the sender using a transport protocol
mechanism, allowing the sender to trigger timely congestion control.
The decision to set the CE codepoint requires an AQM algorithm
configured with a threshold. Non-ECN capable flows (the default) are
dropped under congestion.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
Network devices SHOULD use an AQM algorithm that marks ECN-capable
traffic when making decisions about the response to congestion.
Network devices need to implement this method by marking ECN-capable
traffic or by dropping non-ECN-capable traffic.
Safe deployment of ECN requires that network devices drop excessive
traffic, even when marked as originating from an ECN capable
transport. This is necessary because (1) A non-conformant, broken or
malicious receiver could conceal an ECN mark, and not report this to
the sender (2) A non-conformant, broken or malicious sender could
ignore a reported ECN mark, as it could ignore a loss without using
ECN (3) A malfunctioning or non-conforming network devices may
similarly "hide" and ECN mark. In normal operation such cases should
be very uncommon.
Network devices SHOULD use an algorithm to drop excessive traffic,
even when marked as originating from an ECN capable transport.
4.3. AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning
A number of algorithms have been proposed. Many require some form of
tuning or initial condition. This can make them difficult to use
operationally. Hence, self-tuning algorithms are to be preferred.
The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
4.4. AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not
application profiles.
Not all applications transmit packets of the same size. Although
applications may be characterised by particular profiles of packet
size this should not be used as the basis for AQM. Other methods
exist, e.g. Differentiated Services queueing, Pre-Congestion
Notification (PCN) [RFC5559], that can be used to differentiate and
police classes of application. Network devices may combine AQM with
these traffic classification mechanisms and perform AQM only on
specific queues within a network device.
An AQM algorithm should not deliberately try to prejudice the size of
packet that performs best (i.e. preferentially drop/mark based only
on packet size). Procedures for selecting packets to mark/drop
SHOULD observe actual or projected time a packet is in a queue (bytes
at a rate being an analog to time). When an AQM algorithm decides
whether to drop (or mark) a packet, it is RECOMMENDED that the size
of the particular packet should not be taken into account [Byte-pkt].
Applications (or transports) generally know what packet size they are
using and can hence make their judgements about whether to use small
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
or large packets based on the data they wish to send and the expected
impact on the delay or throughput, or other performance parameter.
When a transport or application responds to a dropped or marked
packet, the size of the rate reduction should be proportionate to the
size of the packet that was sent [Byte-pkt].
4.5. AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT be dependent on specific transport
protocol behaviours
In deploying AQM, network devices need to support a range of Internet
traffic and SHOULD NOT make implicit assumptions about the
characteristics desired by the set transports/applications the
network supports. That is, AQM methods should be opaque to the
choice of transport and application.
AQM algorithms are often evaluated by considering TCP [RFC0793] with
a limited number of applications. Although TCP is the predominant
transport in the Internet today. This is no longer represents a
sufficient selection of traffic for verification. There is
significant use of UDP [RFC0768] in voice and video services, and
some applications find utility in SCTP [RFC4960] and DCCP [RFC4340].
Hence, AQM algorithms should also demonstrate operation with
transports other than TCP and need to consider a variety of
applications. AQM algorithms also need to consider use of tunnel
encapsulations, which may carry traffic aggregates.
AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT target or derive implicit assumptions about
the characteristics desired by specific transports/applications.
Transports and applications need to respond to the congestion signals
provided by AQM (i.e. dropping or ECN-marking) in a timely manner
(within a few RTT at the latest).
4.6. Interactions with congestion control algorithms ????
Applications and transports need to react to received implicit or
explicit signals that indicate the presence of congestion.
When speaking of TCP performance, the terms "knee" and "cliff" area
defined by [Jain94]. They respectively refer to the minimum
congestion window that maximises throughput and the maximum
congestion window that avoids loss. An application that transmits at
the rate determined by this window has the effect of maximizing the
rate or throughput. For the sender, exceeding the cliff is
ineffective, as it (by definition) induces loss; operating at a point
close to the cliff has a negative impact on other traffic and
applications, triggering operator activities, such as those discussed
in [RFC6057]. Operating below the knee reduces the throughput, since
the sender fails to use available network capacity.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
If the objective is to deliver data from its source to its recipient
in the least possible time, as a result, the behavior of any elastic
transport congestion control algorithm should seek to use an
effective window at or above the knee and well below the cliff.
Choice of an appropriate rate can significantly impact the loss and
delay experienced not only by a flow but by other flows that share
the same queue.
Some applications may send less than permitted by the congestion
control window (or rate). Examples include multimedia codecs that
stream at some natural rate (or set of rates) or an application that
is naturally interactive (e.g. some web applications, gaming,
transaction-based protocols). Such applications may not wish to
maximise throughput, but may also desire a lower loss rate or bounded
delay.
Transport protocols and applications need timely signals of
congestion. The time taken to detect and respond to congestion is
assisted by network devices not dropping long runs of packets from
the same flow. It is difficult to detect tail losses at a higher
layer and may sometimes require timers or probes to detect and
respond to such loss.
The correct operation of an AQM-enabled network device MUST NOT rely
upon specific transport responses to congestion signals.
4.7. The need for further research
The second recommendation of [RFC2309] called for further research in
the interaction between network queues and host applications, and the
means of signaling between them. This research has occurred, and we
as a community have learned a lot. However, we are not done.
We have learned that the problems of congestion, latency and buffer-
sizing have not gone away, and are becoming more important to many
users. A number of self-tuning AQM algorithms have be found that
offer significant advantages for deployed networks. There is also
renewed interest in deploying AQM and the potential of ECN.
An obvious example of further research in 2013 is the need to
consider the use of Map/Reduce applications in data centers; do we
need to extend our taxonomy of TCP/SCTP sessions to include not only
"mice" and "elephants", but "lemmings"? "Lemmings" are flash crowds
of "mice" that the network inadvertently tries to signal to as if
they were elephant flows, resulting in head of line blocking in data
center applications.
Examples of other required research include:
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
o Research into new AQM and scheduling algorithms.
o Research into the use of and deployment of ECN alongside AQM.
o Tools for enabling AQM (and ECN) deployment and measuring the
performance.
o Methods for mitigating the impact of non-conformant and malicious
flows.
Hence, this document therefore reiterates the call of RFC 2309: we
need continuing research as applications develop.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
6. Security Considerations
While security is a very important issue, it is largely orthogonal to
the performance issues discussed in this memo. We note, however,
that denial-of-service attacks may create unresponsive traffic flows
that may be indistinguishable from other flows (e.g. tunnels carrying
aggregates of short flows, high-rate isochronous applications). This
threat exists also in network devices that do not deploy AQM, but
when AQM is deployed could be used to degrade the benefit of the new
method. The recommendations support ongoing research applicable to
such attacks.
7. Privacy Considerations
This document, by itself, presents no new privacy issues.
8. Acknowledgements
The original recommendation in [RFC2309] was written by the End-to-
End Research Group, which is to say Bob Braden, Dave Clark, Jon
Crowcroft, Bruce Davie, Steve Deering, Deborah Estrin, Sally Floyd,
Van Jacobson, Greg Minshall, Craig Partridge, Larry Peterson, KK
Ramakrishnan, Scott Shenker, John Wroclawski, and Lixia Zhang. This
is an edited version of that document, with much of its text and
arguments unchanged.
The need for an updated document was agreed to in the tsvarea meeting
at IETF 86. This document was reviewed on the aqm@ietf.org list.
Comments came from Colin Perkins, Richard Scheffenegger, and Dave
Taht.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
Gorry Fairhurst was in part supported by the European Community under
its Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet
Transport Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700).
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[Byte-pkt]
Internet Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress, "Byte
and Packet Congestion Notification (draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-
pkt-congest)", July 2013.
[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.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4774] Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
RFC 4774, November 2006.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November
2008.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.
[RFC6679] Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, August 2012.
9.2. Informative References
[Demers90]
Demers, A., Keshav, S., and S. Shenker, "Analysis and
Simulation of a Fair Queueing Algorithm, Internetworking:
Research and Experience", SIGCOMM Symposium proceedings on
Communications architectures and protocols , 1990.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
[Floyd91] Floyd, S., "Connections with Multiple Congested Gateways
in Packet-Switched Networks Part 1: One-way Traffic.",
Computer Communications Review , October 1991.
[Floyd95] Floyd, S. and V. Jacobson, "Link-sharing and Resource
Management Models for Packet Networks", IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking , August 1995.
[Jacobson88]
Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", SIGCOMM
Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and
protocols , August 1988.
[Jain94] Jain, Raj., Ramakrishnan, KK., and Chiu. Dah-Ming,
"Congestion avoidance scheme for computer networks", US
Patent Office 5377327, December 1994.
[Lakshman96]
Lakshman, TV., Neidhardt, A., and T. Ott, "The Drop From
Front Strategy in TCP Over ATM and Its Interworking with
Other Control Features", IEEE Infocomm , 1996.
[Leland94]
Leland, W., Taqqu, M., Willinger, W., and D. Wilson, "On
the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (Extended
Version)", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , February
1994.
[Papagiannaki]
Sprint ATL, KAIST, University of Minnesota, Sprint ATL,
Intel Research, "Analysis of Point-To-Point Packet Delay
In an Operational Network", IEEE Infocom 2004, March 2004,
<http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2004/Papers/37_4.PDF>.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC0970] Nagle, J., "On packet switches with infinite storage", RFC
970, December 1985.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1633] Braden, B., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC
1633, June 1994.
[RFC2309] Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering,
S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G.,
Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker,
S., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on
Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the
Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
5348, September 2008.
[RFC5559] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Active Queue Management Recommendations July 2013
[RFC6057] Bastian, C., Klieber, T., Livingood, J., Mills, J., and R.
Woundy, "Comcast's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management
System", RFC 6057, December 2010.
[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
December 2012.
[Willinger95]
Willinger, W., Taqqu, M., Sherman, R., Wilson, D., and V.
Jacobson, "Self-Similarity Through High-Variability:
Statistical Analysis of Ethernet LAN Traffic at the Source
Level", SIGCOMM Symposium proceedings on Communications
architectures and protocols , August 1995.
Appendix A. Change Log
Initial Version: March 2013
Minor uphe algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
operational (especially manual) configuration or tuningdate:
April 2013
-02; Major surgery. This draft is for discussion at IETF-87 and
expected to be further updated.
July 2013
Authors' Addresses
Fred Baker (editor)
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Email: fred@cisco.com
Godred Fairhurst (editor)
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UE
UK
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk
Baker & Fairhurst Expires January 10, 2014 [Page 20]
