Internet DRAFT - draft-bormann-core-cocoa
draft-bormann-core-cocoa
CoRE Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational A. Betzler
Expires: April 21, 2016 C. Gomez
I. Demirkol
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2CAT
October 19, 2015
CoAP Simple Congestion Control/Advanced
draft-bormann-core-cocoa-03
Abstract
The CoAP protocol needs to be implemented in such a way that it does
not cause persistent congestion on the network it uses. The CoRE
CoAP specification defines basic behavior that exhibits low risk of
congestion with minimal implementation requirements. It also leaves
room for combining the base specification with advanced congestion
control mechanisms with higher performance.
This specification defines some simple advanced CoRE Congestion
Control mechanisms, Simple CoCoA. In the present version -02, it is
making use of input from simulations and experiments in real
networks. The specification might still benefit from simplifying it
further.
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 April 21, 2016.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Area of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: RTO Estimation . . . . . . 4
4.1. Blind RTO Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Measured RTO Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Modifications to the algorithm of RFC 6298 . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Lifetime, Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: Non-Confirmables . . . . . 7
5.1. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: Aggregate Congestion
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Proposed Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
(See Abstract.)
Extended rationale for this specification can be found in
[I-D.bormann-core-congestion-control] and
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control], as well as in the minutes of
the IETF 84 CoRE WG meetings.
1.1. Terminology
This specification uses terms from [RFC7252]. In addition, it
defines the following terminology:
Initiator: The endpoint that sends the message that initiates an
exchange. E.g., the party that sends a confirmable message, or a
non-confirmable message conveying a request.
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] when they
appear in ALL CAPS. These words may also appear in this document in
lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.
(Note that this document is itself informational, but it is
discussing normative statements.)
The term "byte", abbreviated by "B", is used in its now customary
sense as a synonym for "octet".
2. Context
In the Vancouver IETF 84 CoRE meeting, a path forward was defined
that includes a very simple basic scheme (lock-step with a number of
parallel exchanges of 1) in the base specification together with
performance-enhancing advanced mechanisms.
The present specification is based on the approved text in the
[RFC7252] base specification. It is making use of the text that
permits advanced congestion control mechanisms and allows them to
change protocol parameters, including NSTART and the binary
exponential backoff mechanism. Note that Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]
limits the leeway that implementations have in changing the CoRE
protocol parameters.
The present specification also assumes that, outside of exchanges,
non-confirmable messages can only be used at a limited rate without
an advanced congestion control mechanism (this is mainly relevant for
[RFC7641]). It is also intended to address the [RFC5405] guideline
about combining congestion control state for a destination; and to
clarify its meaning for CoAP using the definition of an endpoint.
The present specification does not address multicast or dithering
beyond basic retransmission dithering.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
3. Area of Applicability
The present algorithm is intended to be generally applicable. The
objective is to be "better" than default CoAP congestion control in a
number of characteristics, including achievable goodput for a given
offered load, latency, and recovery from bursts, while providing more
predictable stress to the network and the same level of safety from
catastrophic congestion. It does require three state variables per
scope plus the state needed to do RTT measurements, so it may not be
applicable to the most constrained devices (class 1 as per
[RFC7228]).
The scope of each instance of the algorithm in the current set of
evaluations has been the five-tuple, i.e., CoAP + endpoint (transport
address) for Initiator and Responder. Potential applicability to
larger scopes needs to be examined.
4. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: RTO Estimation
For an initiator that plans to make multiple requests to one
destination endpoint, it may be worthwhile to make RTT measurements
in order to obtain a better RTO estimation than that implied by the
default initial timeout of 2 to 3 s. This is based on the usual
algorithms for RTO estimation [RFC6298], with appropriately extended
default/base values, as proposed in Section 4.2.1. Note that such a
mechanism must, during idle periods, decay RTO estimates that are
shorter or longer than the basic RTO estimate back to the basic RTO
estimate, until fresh measurements become available again, as
proposed in Section 4.3.
One important consideration not relevant for TCP is the fact that a
CoAP round-trip may include application processing time, which may be
hard to predict, and may differ between different resources available
at the same endpoint. Also, for communications with networks of
constrained devices that apply radio duty cycling, large and variable
round-trip times are likely to be observed. Servers will only
trigger their early ACKs (with a non-piggybacked response to be sent
later) based on the default timers, e.g. after 1 s. A client that
has arrived at a RTO estimate shorter than 1 s SHOULD therefore use a
larger backoff factor for retransmissions to avoid expending all of
its retransmissions in the default interval of 2 to 3 s. A proposal
for a mechanism with variable backoff factors is presented in
Section 4.2.1.
It may also be worthwhile to do RTT estimates not just based on
information measured from a single destination endpoint, but also
based on entire hosts (IP addresses) and/or complete prefixes (e.g.,
maintain an RTT estimate for a whole /64). The exact way this can be
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
used to reduce the amount of state in an initiator is for further
study.
4.1. Blind RTO Estimate
The initial RTO estimate for an endpoint is set to 2 seconds (the
initial RTO estimate is used as the initial value for both E_weak_
and E_strong_ below).
If only the initial RTO estimate is available, the RTO estimate for
each of up to NSTART exchanges started in parallel is set to 2 s
times the number of parallel exchanges, e.g. if two exchanges are
already running, the initial RTO estimate for an additional exchange
is 6 seconds.
4.2. Measured RTO Estimate
The RTO estimator runs two copies of the algorithm defined in
[RFC6298], as modified in Section 4.2.1: One copy for exchanges that
complete on initial transmissions (the "strong estimator",
E_strong_), and one copy for exchanges that have run into
retransmissions, where only the first two retransmissions are
considered (the "weak estimator", E_weak_). For the latter, there is
some ambiguity whether a response is based on the initial
transmission or the retransmissions. For the purposes of the weak
estimator, the time from the initial transmission counts. Responses
obtained after the third retransmission are not used to update an
estimator.
The overall RTO estimate is an exponentially weighted moving average
(alpha = 0.5 and 0.25, respectively) computed of the strong and the
weak estimator, which is evolved after each contribution to the weak
estimator (1) or to the strong estimator (2), from the estimator that
made the most recent contribution:
RTO := 0.25 * E_weak_ + 0.75 * RTO (1)
RTO := 0.5 * E_strong_ + 0.5 * RTO (2)
(Splitting this update into the two cases avoids making the
contribution of the weak estimator too big in naturally lossy
networks.)
4.2.1. Modifications to the algorithm of RFC 6298
This subsection presents three modifications that must be applied to
the algorithm of [RFC6298] as per this document. The first two
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
recommend new parameter settings. The third one is the variable
backoff factor mechanism.
The initial value for each of the two RTO estimators is 2 s.
For the weak estimator, the factor K (the RTT variance multiplier) is
set to 1 instead of 4. This is necessary to avoid a strong increase
of the RTO in the case that the RTTVAR value is very large, which may
be the case if a weak RTT measurement is obtained after one or more
retransmissions.
If an RTO estimation is lower than 1 s or higher than 3 s, instead of
applying a binary backoff factor in both cases, a variable backoff
factor is used. For RTO estimations below 1 s, the RTO for a
retransmission is multiplied by 3, while for estimations above 3 s,
the RTO is multiplied only by 1.5 (this updated choice of numbers to
be verified by more simulations). This helps to avoid that exchanges
with small initial RTOs use up all retransmissions in a short
interval of time and exchanges with large initial RTOs may not be
able to carry out all retransmissions within MAX_TRANSMIT_WAIT
(93 s).
The binary exponential backoff is truncated at 32 seconds. Similar
to the way retransmissions are handled in the base specification,
they are dithered between 1 x RTO and ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR x RTO.
4.2.2. Discussion
In contrast to [RFC6298], this algorithm attempts to make use of
ambiguous information from retransmissions. This is motivated by the
high non-congestion loss rates expected in constrained node networks,
and the need to update the RTO estimators even in the presence of
loss. Additional investigation is required to determine whether this
is indeed justified.
Some evaluation has been done on earlier versions of this
specification [Betzler2013]. A more recent (and more comprehensive)
reference is [Betzler2015]. Additional investigation is required.
4.3. Lifetime, Aging
The state of the RTO estimators for an endpoint SHOULD be kept as
long as possible. If other state is kept for the endpoint (such as a
DTLS connection), it is very strongly RECOMMENDED to keep the RTO
state alive at least as long as this other state. It MUST be kept
for at least 255 s.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
If an estimator has a value that is lower than 1 s, and it is left
without further update for 16 times its current value, the RTO
estimate is doubled. If an estimator has a value that is higher than
3 s, and it is left without further update for 4 times its current
value, the RTO estimate is set to be
RTO := 1 s + (0.5 * RTO)
(Note that, instead of running a timer, it is possible to implement
these RTO aging calculations cumulatively at the time the estimator
is used next.)
5. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: Non-Confirmables
(TO DO: Align this with final consensus on -observe!)
A CoAP endpoint MUST NOT send non-confirmables to another CoAP
endpoint at a rate higher than defined by this document. Independent
of any congestion control mechanisms, a CoAP endpoint can always send
non-confirmables if their rate does not exceed 1 B/s.
Non-confirmables that form part of exchanges are governed by the
rules for exchanges.
Non-confirmables outside exchanges (e.g., [RFC7641] notifications
sent as non-confirmables) are governed by the following rules:
1. Of any 16 consecutive messages towards this endpoint that aren't
responses or acknowledgments, at least 2 of the messages must be
confirmable.
2. The confirmable messages must be sent under an RTO estimator, as
specified in Section 4.
3. The packet rate of non-confirmable messages cannot exceed 1/RTO,
where RTO is the overall RTO estimator value at the time the non-
confirmable packet is sent.
5.1. Discussion
This is relatively conservative. More advanced versions of this
algorithm could run a TFRC-style Loss Event Rate calculator [RFC5348]
and apply the TCP equation to achieve a higher rate than 1/RTO.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
6. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control: Aggregate Congestion Control
(This section is still more experimental than the previous ones.)
6.1. Proposed Algorithm
To avoid possible congestion when sending many packets to different
destination endpoints in parallel, the overall number of outstanding
interactions towards different destination endpoints should be
limited. An upper limit PLIMIT determines the maximum number of
outstanding interactions towards different destinations that are
allowed in parallel. When a request is sent to a destination
endpoint, PLIMIT is determined according to Equation (3) in the case
that valid RTO information is already available for the destination
endpoint, or using Equation (4) in case that no RTO information is
available for the destination endpoint.
PLIMIT = max(LAMBDA, LAMBDA*ACK_TIMEOUT)/mean(RTO)) (3)
PLIMIT = LAMBDA (4)
where LAMBDA determines the minimum value for the maximum number of
allowed outstanding interactions and is suggested to be set to 4, and
mean(RTO) is the average value of all valid RTO estimations
maintained by the device. A new interaction may only be processed if
the current overall number of outstanding interactions is lower than
the PLIMIT calculated when the request is initiated.
6.2. Example
In the following we give an example, with LAMBDA = 4 (our proposed
default LAMBDA):
Assume that a sender has so far obtained RTO estimations for two
destination endpoints A (RTO = 0.5 s) and B (RTO = 1.5 s), and
currently pcount (a variable which accounts for the number of
outstanding interactions towards different endpoints) is equal to 0.
Now three transactions are initiated consecutively in the following
order: one for A, one for B and one for a new destination C.
When an interaction with node A is initiated, PLIMIT is calculated:
PLIMIT= max(4, (4*2 s)/mean(0.5 s, 1.5 s)) = max (4, 8 s/1 s) =
max (4, 8) = 8
This means that with the current RTO information that the sender has
obtained about the destination endpoints, up to 8 outstanding
interactions to different endpoints would be allowed. By initiating
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
an interaction with A, pcount is increased to 1, which is still below
PLIMIT. Thus, the interaction may be processed. The same applies to
B: pcount increases to 2 after obtaining the same PLIMIT value of 8.
Destination C is unknown to CoCoA, therefore the updated PLIMIT
before processing the interaction with node C is 4.
The CoAP request may be processed (pcount = 3). If two more
interactions with different unknown destination endpoints would have
been initiated, only the first one would have met the requirements to
process it (PLIMIT = 4, pcount = 4). The second interaction would
have increased pcount to 5, which is not permitted, since PLIMIT is
4. It may occur that pcount exceeds PLIMIT in particular cases, in
this case, the interaction is not permitted as well.
6.3. Discussion
The idea of the proposal is to allow more parallel transactions to
different destination endpoints if we have low RTO estimations for
them (which can be interpreted as good connections and low degree of
congestion). If the RTO estimations are large or interactions with
unknown destinations are initiated, the mechanism behaves more
conservatively by reducing the maximum number of parallel
interactions towards different destinations, but allowing at least
LAMBDA outstanding interactions. If no RTO information is available
for a destination endpoint, PLIMIT is simply set to be LAMBDA.
If at any moment pcount would exceed PLIMIT, CoAP does not
immediately perform the transaction. Further, it is important that
in parallel, NSTART for each destination endpoint applies (which, for
now, we assume to be 1). Overall, LAMBDA determines how aggressive/
conservative CoCoA behaves by default and it should be chosen
carefully.
It will be necessary to see whether this approach is effective in the
sense that it avoids congestion in use cases where transactions to a
multitude of different destination endpoints are initiated. An
important aspect of such evaluations would be how the choice of
LAMBDA affects the performance. On the other hand, a more safe
approach would use max(RTO) instead of mean(RTO). Other concerns
include the fact that the congestion degree of the paths to "known"
endpoints influence whether a new interaction is permitted to some
new endpoint which may be in very different conditions in terms of
congestion. However, it is desirable to avoid adding a lot of
complexity to the current CoCoA mechanisms.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requirements on IANA. (This section to be
removed by RFC editor.)
8. Security Considerations
(TBD. The security considerations of, e.g., [RFC5681], [RFC2914],
and [RFC5405] apply. Some issues are already discussed in the
security considerations of [RFC7252].)
9. Acknowledgements
The first document to examine CoAP congestion control issues in
detail was [I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control], to which this draft
owes a lot.
Michael Scharf did a review of CoAP congestion control issues that
asked a lot of good questions. Several Transport Area
representatives made further significant inputs this discussion
during IETF84, including Lars Eggert, Michael Scharf, and David
Black. Andrew McGregor, Eric Rescorla, Richard Kelsey, Ed Beroset,
Jari Arkko, Zach Shelby, Matthias Kovatsch and many others provided
very useful additions.
Authors from Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya have been supported
in part by the Spanish Government's Ministerio de Economia y
Competitividad through projects TEC2009-11453 and TEC2012-32531, and
FEDER.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, DOI
10.17487/RFC5405, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405>.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, DOI
10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
10.2. Informative References
[Betzler2013]
Betzler, A., Gomez, C., Demirkol, I., and J. Paradells,
"Congestion control in reliable CoAP communication",
ACM MSWIM'13 p. 365-372, DOI 10.1145/2507924.2507954,
2013.
[Betzler2015]
Betzler, A., Gomez, C., Demirkol, I., and J. Paradells,
"CoCoA+: an Advanced Congestion Control Mechanism for
CoAP", Ad Hoc Networks Vol. 33 pp. 126-139, DOI 10.1016/
j.adhoc.2015.04.007, October 2015.
[I-D.bormann-core-congestion-control]
Bormann, C. and K. Hartke, "Congestion Control Principles
for CoAP", draft-bormann-core-congestion-control-02 (work
in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control]
Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-eggert-core-
congestion-control-01 (work in progress), January 2011.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5348>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7228, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP Simple CoCoA October 2015
[RFC7641] Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7641, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.
Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
August Betzler
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2CAT
Departament d'Enginyeria Telematica
C/Jordi Girona, 1-3
Barcelona 08034
Spain
Email: august.betzler@entel.upc.edu
Carles Gomez
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2CAT
Escola d'Enginyeria de Telecomunicacio i Aeroespacial
de Castelldefels
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
Castelldefels 08860
Spain
Phone: +34-93-413-7206
Email: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu
Ilker Demirkol
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2CAT
Departament d'Enginyeria Telematica
C/Jordi Girona, 1-3
Barcelona 08034
Spain
Email: ilker.demirkol@entel.upc.edu
Bormann, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 12]
