Internet DRAFT - draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv
draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv
TCPM Working Group G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft A. Sathiaseelan
Obsoletes: 2861 (if approved) University of Aberdeen
Updates: 5681 (if approved) September 14, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 18, 2013
Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-05
Abstract
This document proposes an update to RFC 5681 to address issues that
arise when TCP is used to support traffic that exhibits periods where
the sending rate is limited by the application rather than the
congestion window. It updates TCP to allow a TCP sender to restart
quickly following either an idle or rate-limited interval. This
method is expected to benefit applications that send rate-limited
traffic using TCP, while also providing an appropriate response if
congestion is experienced.
It also evaluates TCP Congestion Window Validation, CWV, an IETF
experimental specification defined in RFC 2861, and concludes that
CWV sought to address important issues, but failed to deliver a
widely used solution. This document therefore proposes an update to
the status of RFC 2861 by recommending it is moved from Experimental
to Historic status, and that it is replaced by the current
specification.
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 March 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
Copyright (c) 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited
periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. A method for preserving cwnd during the idle and
application-limited periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. The nonvalidated phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase . . . 7
4.3.1. Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase . . . 7
4.3.2. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase . . . 8
5. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Author Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Other related work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Revision notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
1. Introduction
TCP is used to support a range of application behaviours. The TCP
congestion window (cwnd) controls the number of packets/bytes that a
TCP flow may have in the network at any time. The unacknowledged
volume of data that a TCP flow has in the network at a specific time
is known as the FlightSize [RFC5681]. A bulk application will always
have data available to transmit. The rate at which it sends is
therefore limited by the maximum permitted by the receiver and
congestion windows. In contrast, a rate-limited application will
experience periods when the sender is either idle or is unable to
send at the maximum rate permitted by the cwnd. This latter case is
called rate-limited. The focus of this document is on the operation
of TCP in such an idle or rate-limited case.
Standard TCP [RFC5681] requires the cwnd to be reset to the restart
window (RW) when an application becomes idle. [RFC2861] noted that
this TCP behaviour was not always observed in current
implementations. Recent experiments [Bis08] confirm this to still be
the case.
Standard TCP does not impose additional restrictions on the growth of
the cwnd when a TCP sender is rate-limited. A rate-limited sender
may therefore grow a cwnd far beyond that corresponding to the
current transmit rate, resulting in a value that does not reflect
current information about the state of the network path the flow is
using. Use of such an invalid cwnd may result in reduced application
performance and/or could significantly contribute to network
congestion.
[RFC2861] proposed a solution to these issues in an experimental
method known as Congestion Window Validation (CWV). CWV was intended
to help reduce cases where TCP accumulated an invalid cwnd. The use
and drawbacks of using CWV with an application are discussed in
Section 2.
Section 4 specifies an alternative to CWV that seeks to address the
same issues, but does this in a way that is expected to mitigate the
impact on an application that varies its sending rate. The method
described applies to both a rate-limited and an idle condition.
2. Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV
RFC 2861 described a simple modification to the TCP congestion
control algorithm that decayed the cwnd after the transition to a
"sufficiently-long" idle period. This used the slow-start threshold
(ssthresh) to save information about the previous value of the
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
congestion window. The approach relaxed the standard TCP behaviour
[RFC5681] for an idle session, intended to improve application
performance. CWV also modified the behaviour for a rate-limited
session where a sender transmitted at a rate less than allowed by
cwnd.
RFC 2861 has been implemented in some mainstream operating systems as
the default behaviour [Bis08]. Analysis (e.g. [Bis10]) has shown
that a TCP sender using CWV is able to use available capacity on a
shared path after an idle period. This can benefit some
applications, especially over long delay paths, when compared to the
slow-start restart specified by standard TCP. However, CWV would
only benefit an application if the idle period were less than several
Retransmission Time Out (RTO) intervals [RFC6298], since the
behaviour would otherwise be the same as for standard TCP, which
resets the cwnd to the RTCP Restart Window (RW) after this period.
Experience with CWV suggests that although CWV benefits the network
in a rate-limited scenario (reducing the probability of network
congestion), the behaviour can be too conservative for many common
rate-limited applications. This mechanism does not therefore offer
the desirable increase in application performance for rate-limited
applications and it is unclear whether applications actually use this
mechanism in the general Internet.
It is therefore concluded that CWV is often a poor solution for many
rate-limited applications. It has the correct motivation, but has
the wrong approach to solving this problem.
3. Terminology
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].
The document assumes familiarity with the terminology of TCP
congestion control [RFC5681].
The following new terminology is introduced:
Validated phase: The phase where the cwnd reflects a current estimate
of the available path capacity.
Non-validated phase: The phase where the cwnd reflects a previous
measurement of the available path capacity.
Non-validated period, NVP: The maximum period for which cwnd is
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
preserved in the non-validated phase.
Rate-limited: A TCP flow that does not consume more than one half of
cwnd, and hence operates in the non-validated phase.
pipe ACK: The measured volume of data that was acknowledged by the
network per RTT.
4. An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited periods
This section proposes an update to the TCP congestion control
behaviour during an idle or rate-limited period. The new method
permits a TCP sender to preserve the cwnd when an application becomes
idle for a period of time (to be known as the non-validated period,
NVP, see section 5). This period, where actual usage is less than
allowed by cwnd, is named as the non-validated phase. This method
allows an application to resume transmission at a previous rate
without incurring the delay of slow-start. However, if the TCP
sender experiences congestion using the preserved cwnd, it is
required to immediately reset the cwnd to an appropriate value
specified by the method. If a sender does not take advantage of the
preserved cwnd within the NVP, the value of cwnd is reduced, ensuring
the value better reflects the capacity that was recently actually
used.
The method requires that the TCP SACK option is enabled. This allows
the sender to select a cwnd following a congestion event that is
based on the measured path capacity, better reflecting the fair-
share. A similar approach was proposed by TCP Jump Start [Liu07], as
a congestion response after more rapid opening of a TCP connection.
It is expected that this update will satisfy the requirements of many
rate-limited applications and at the same time provide an appropriate
method for use in the Internet. It also reduces the incentive for an
application to send data simply to keep transport congestion state.
(This is sometimes known as "padding").
The new method does not differentiate between times when the sender
has become idle or rate-limited. This is partly a response to
recognition that some applications wish to transmit at a rate less
than allowed by the sender cwnd, and that it can be hard to make a
distinction between rate-limited and idle behaviour. This is
expected to encourage applications and TCP stacks to use standards-
based congestion control methods. It may also encourage the use of
long-lived connections where this offers benefit (such as persistent
http).
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
The method is specified in following subsections.
4.1. A method for preserving cwnd during the idle and application-
limited periods.
The method described in this document updates [RFC5681]. Use of the
method REQUIRES a TCP sender and the corresponding receiver to enable
the TCP SACK option [RFC3517].
[RFC5681] defines a variable FlightSize that indicates the amount of
outstanding data in the network. This is assumed to be equal to the
value of Pipe calculated based on the pipe algorithm [RFC3517]. In
RFC5681 this value is used during loss recovery, whereas in this
method a new variable "pipeACK" is introduced and used to determine
if the sender has validated the cwnd.
A sender is not required to continuously track the pipeACK value, but
MUST set this variable to the volume of data that was acknowledged by
the network per measured Round Trip Time (RTT), with a sampling
period of not less than one measurement for Min(RTT, 1 second).
Using the variables defined in [RFC3517]. This could be implemented
by caching the value of HighACK and after one RTT assigning pipeACK
to the difference between the cached HighACK value and the current
HighACK value. Other equivalent methods may be used.
4.2. The nonvalidated phase
The updated method creates a new TCP sender phase that captures
whether the cwnd reflects a validated or non-validated value. The
phases are defined as:
o Validated phase: pipeACK >=(1/2)*cwnd. This is the normal phase,
where cwnd is expected to be an approximate indication of the
available capacity currently available along the network path, and
the standard methods are used to increase cwnd (currently
[RFC5681]). The rule for transitioning to the non-validated phase
is specified in section 4.3.
o Non-validated phase: pipeACK <(1/2)*cwnd. This is the phase where
the cwnd has a value based on a previous measurement of the
available capacity, and the usage of this capacity has not been
validated in the previous RTT. That is, when it is not known
whether the cwnd reflects the currently available capacity along
the network path. The mechanisms to be used in this phase seek to
determine a safe value for cwnd and an appropriate reaction to
congestion. These mechanisms are specified in section 4.3.
A sender starts a TCP connection in the Validated phase.
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
The values 1/2 was selected to reduce the effects of variations in
the measured pipeACK, and to allow the sender some flexibility in
when it sends data.
4.3. TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase
A TCP sender MUST enter the non-validated phase when the measured
pipeACK is less than (1/2)*cwnd.
A TCP sender that enters the non-validated phase will preserve the
cwnd (i.e., this neither grows nor reduces while the sender remains
in this phase). The phase is concluded after a fixed period of time
(the NVP, as explained in section 4.3.2) or when the sender transmits
sufficient data so that pipeACK > (1/2)*cwnd (i.e. it is no longer
rate-limited).
The behaviour in the non-validated phase is specified as:
o The cwnd is not increased when ACK packets are received in this
phase.
o If the sender receives an indication of congestion while in the
non-validated phase (i.e. detects loss, or an Explicit Congestion
Notification, ECN, mark [RFC3168]), the sender MUST exit the non-
validated phase (reducing the cwnd as defined in section 4.3.1).
o If the Retransmission Time Out (RTO) expires while in the non-
validated phase, the sender MUST exit the non-validated phase. It
then resumes using the Standard TCP RTO mechanism [RFC5681]. (The
resulting reduction of cwnd described in section 4.3.2 is
appropriate, since any accumulated path history is considered
unreliable).
o A sender than measures a pipeACK greater than (1/2)*cwnd SHOULD
enter the validated phase. (A rate-limited sender will not
normally be impacted by whether thit is in a validated or non-
validate phase, since it will normally not consume the entire
cwnd. However a change to the validated phase will release the
sender from constraints on the growth of cwnd, and restore the use
of the standard congestion response.)
4.3.1. Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase
Reception of congestion feedback while in the non-validated phase is
interpreted as an indication that it was inappropriate for the sender
to use the preserved cwnd. The sender is therefore required to
quickly reduce the rate to avoid further congestion. Since the cwnd
does not have a validated value, a new cwnd value must be selected
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
based on the utilised rate.
A sender that detects a packet-drop or receives an ECN marked packet
MUST calculate a safe cwnd, by setting it to the value specified in
Section 3.2 of [RFC5681].
At the end of the recovery phase, the TCP sender MUST reset the cwnd
using the method below:
cwnd = ((FlightSize - R)/2).
Where, R is the volume of data that was reported as unacknowledged by
the SACK information. This follows the method proposed for Jump
Start [[Liu07].
The inclusion of the term R makes this adjustment more conservative
than standard TCP. (This is required, since the sender may have sent
more segments than a Standard TCP sender would have done. The
additional reduction is beneficial when the FlightSize significantly
overshoots the available path capacity incurring significant loss,
for instance an intense traffic burst following a non-validated
period.)
If the sender implements a method that allows it to identify the
number of ECN-marked segments within a window that were observed by
the receiver, the sender SHOULD use the method above, further
reducing R by the number of marked segments.
4.3.2. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase
During the non-validated phase, a sender can produce bursts of data
of up to the cwnd in size. While this is no different to standard
TCP, it is desirable to control the maximum burst size, e.g. by
setting a burst size limit, using a pacing algorithm, or some other
method [Hug01].
An application that remains in the non-validated phase for a period
greater than the NVP is required to adjust its congestion control
state. If the sender exits the non-validated phase after this
period, it MUST update the ssthresh:
ssthresh = max(ssthresh, 3*cwnd/4).
(This adjustment of ssthresh ensures that the sender records that it
has safely sustained the present rate. The change is beneficial to
rate-limited flows that encounter occasional congestion, and could
otherwise suffer an unwanted additional delay in recovering the
sending rate.)
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
The sender MUST then update cwnd to be not greater than:
cwnd = max(1/2*cwnd, IW).
Where IW is the TCP inital window [RFC5681].
(This adjustment ensures that sender responds conservatively at the
end of the non-validated phase by reducing the cwnd to better reflect
the current sending rate of the sender. The cwnd update does not
take into account FlightSize or pipeACK as these values only reflects
the last RTT worth of data and do not reflect the average of peak
sending rate.)
After completing this adjustment, the sender MAY re-enter the non-
validated phase, if required (see section 4.2).
5. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd
This section documents the rationale for selecting the maximum period
that cwnd may be preserved, known as the non-validated period, NVP.
Preserving cwnd avoids undesirable side effects that would result if
the cwnd were to be preserved for an arbitrary long period, which was
a part of the problem that CWV originally attempted to address. The
period a sender may safely preserve the cwnd, is a function of the
period that a network path is expected to sustain the capacity
reflected by cwnd. There is no ideal choice for this time.
A period of five minutes was chosen for this NVP. This is as a
compromise that was larger than the idle intervals of common
applications, but not sufficiently larger than the period for which
the capacity of an Internet path may commonly be regarded as stable.
The capacity of wired networks is usually relatively stable for
periods of several minutes and that load stability increases with the
capacity. This suggests that cwnd may be preserved for at least a
few minutes.
There are cases where the TCP throughput exhibits significant
variability over a time less than five minutes. Examples could
include wireless topologies, where TCP rate variations may fluctuate
on the order of a few seconds as a consequence of medium access
protocol instabilities. Mobility changes may also impact TCP
performance over short time scales. Senders that observe such rapid
changes in the path characteristic may also experience increased
congestion with the new method, however such variation would likely
also impact TCP's behaviour when supporting interactive and bulk
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
applications.
Routing algorithms may modify the network path, disrupting the RTT
measurement and changing the capacity available to a TCP connection,
however such changes do not often occur within a time frame of a few
minutes.
The value of five minutes is therefore expected to be sufficient for
most current applications. Simulation studies also suggest that for
many practical applications, the performance using this value will
not be significantly different to that observed using a non-standard
method that does not reset the cwnd after idle.
Finally, other TCP sender mechanisms have used a 5 minute timer, and
there could be simplifications in some implementations by reusing the
same interval. TCP defines a default user timeout of 5 minutes
[RFC0793] i.e. how long transmitted data may remain unacknowledged
before a connection is forcefully closed.
6. Security Considerations
General security considerations concerning TCP congestion control are
discussed in [RFC5681]. This document describes an algorithm that
updates one aspect of the congestion control procedures, and so the
considerations described in RFC 5681 also apply to this algorithm.
7. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr I Biswas and Dr R
Secchi in supporting the evaluation of CWV and for their help in
developing the mechanisms proposed in this draft. We also
acknowledge comments received from the Internet Congestion Control
Research Group, in particular Yuchung Cheng, Mirja Kuehlewind, and
Joe Touch.
9. Author Notes
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
9.1. Other related work
There are several issues to be discussed more widely:
o Should the method explicitly state a procedure for limiting
burstiness or pacing?
This is often regarded as good practice, but is not presently a
formal part of TCP. draft-hughes-restart-00.txt provides some
discussion of this topic.
o There are potential interaction with the proposal to raise the
TCP initial Window to ten segments, do these cases need to be
elaborated?
This relates to draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd.
The two methods have different functions and different response
to loss/congestion.
IW=10 proposes an experimental update to TCP that would allow
faster opening of the cwnd, and also a large (same size)
restart window. This approach is based on the assumption that
many forward paths can sustain bursts of up to ten segments
without (appreciable) loss. Such a significant increase in
cwnd must be matched with an equally large reduction of cwnd if
loss/congestion is detected, and such a congestion indication
is likely to require future use of IW=10 to be disabled for
this path for some time. This guards against the unwanted
behaviour of a series of short flows continuously flooding a
network path without network congestion feedback.
In contrast, new-CWV proposes a standards-track update with a
rationale that relies on recent previous path history to select
an appropriate cwnd after restart.
The behaviour differs in three ways:
1) For applications that send little initially, new-cwv may
constrain more than IW=10, but would not require the connection
to reset any path information when a restart incurred loss. In
contrast, new-cwv would allow the TCP connection to preserve
the cached cwnd, any loss, would impact cwnd, but not impact
other flows.
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
2) For applications that utilise more capacity than provided by
a cwnd=10, this method would permit a larger restart window
compared to a restart using IW=10. This is justified by the
recent path history.
3) new-CWV is attended to also be used for rate-limited
applications, where the application sends, but does not seek to
fully utilise the cwnd. In this case, new-cwv constrains the
cwnd to that justified by the recent path history. The
performance trade-offs are hence different, and it would be
possible to enable new-cwv when also using IW=10, and yield the
benefits of this.
o There is potential overlap with the Laminar proposal
(draft-mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar)
The current draft was intended as a standards-track update to
TCP, rather than a new transport variant. At least, it would
be good to understand how the two interact and whether there is
a possibility of a single method.
9.2. Revision notes
Draft 03 was submitted to ICCRG to receive comments and feedback.
Draft 04 contained the first set of clarifications after feedback:
o Changed name to application limited and used the term rate-limited
in all places.
o Added justification and many minor changes suggested on the list.
o Added text to tie-in with more accurate ECN marking.
o Added ref to Hug01
Draft 05 contained various updates:
o New text to redefine how to measure the acknowledged pipe,
differentiating this from the FlightSize, and hence avoiding
previous issues with infrequent large bursts of data not being
validated. A key point new feature is that pipeACK only triggers
leaving the NVP after the size of the pipe has been acknowledged.
This removed the need for hysteresis.
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
o Reduction values were changed to 1/2, following analysis of
suggestions from ICCRG. This also sets the "target" cwnd as twice
the used rate for non-validated case.
o Introduced a symbolic name (NVP) to denote the 5 minute period.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A
Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss
Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
June 2011.
10.2. Informative References
[Bis08] Biswas and Fairhurst, "A Practical Evaluation of
Congestion Window Validation Behaviour, 9th Annual
Postgraduate Symposium in the Convergence of
Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting (PGNet),
Liverpool, UK", June 2008.
[Bis10] Biswas, Sathiaseelan, Secchi, and Fairhurst, "Analysing
TCP for Bursty Traffic, Int'l J. of Communications,
Network and System Sciences, 7(3)", June 2010.
[Hug01] Hughes, Touch, and Heidemann, "Issues in TCP Slow-Start
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft new-CWV September 2012
Restart After Idle (Work-in-Progress)", December 2001.
[Liu07] Liu, Allman, Jiny, and Wang, "Congestion Control without a
Startup Phase, 5th International Workshop on Protocols for
Fast Long-Distance Networks (PFLDnet), Los Angeles,
California, USA", February 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst
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
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UE
UK
Email: arjuna@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk
Fairhurst & Sathiaseelan Expires March 18, 2013 [Page 14]
