Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tcpm-proportional-rate-reduction
draft-ietf-tcpm-proportional-rate-reduction
TCP Maintenance Working Group M. Mathis
Internet-Draft N. Dukkipati
Intended status: Experimental Y. Cheng
Expires: August 10, 2013 Google, Inc
Feb 6, 2013
Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-proportional-rate-reduction-04.txt
Abstract
This document describes an experimental algorithm, Proportional Rate
Reduction (PPR) to improve the accuracy of the amount of data sent by
TCP during loss recovery. Standard Congestion Control requires that
TCP and other protocols reduce their congestion window in response to
losses. This window reduction naturally occurs in the same round
trip as the data retransmissions to repair the losses, and is
implemented by choosing not to transmit any data in response to some
ACKs arriving from the receiver. Two widely deployed algorithms are
used to implement this window reduction: Fast Recovery and Rate
Halving. Both algorithms are needlessly fragile under a number of
conditions, particularly when there is a burst of losses such that
the number of ACKs returning to the sender is small. Proportional
Rate Reduction minimizes these excess window adjustments such that at
the end of recovery the actual window size will be as close as
possible to ssthresh, the window size determined by the congestion
control algorithm. It is patterned after Rate Halving, but using the
fraction that is appropriate for target window chosen by the
congestion control algorithm.
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 August 10, 2013.
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
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
(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. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Strong Packet Conservation Bound . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
1. Introduction
This document describes an experimental algorithm, Proportional Rate
Reduction (PPR) to improve the accuracy of the amount of data sent by
TCP during loss recovery.
Standard Congestion Control [RFC5681] requires that TCP (and other
protocols) reduce their congestion window in response to losses.
Fast Recovery, described in the same document, is the reference
algorithm for making this adjustment. Its stated goal is to recover
TCP's self clock by relying on returning ACKs during recovery to
clock more data into the network. Fast Recovery typically adjusts
the window by waiting for one half RTT of ACKs to pass before sending
any data. It is fragile because it can not compensate for the
implicit window reduction caused by the losses themselves.
RFC 6675 [RFC6675] makes Fast Recovery with SACK [RFC2018] more
accurate by computing "pipe", a sender side estimate of the number of
bytes still outstanding in the network. With RFC 6675, Fast Recovery
is implemented by sending data as necessary on each ACK to prevent
pipe from falling below ssthresh, the window size as determined by
the congestion control algorithm. This protects Fast Recovery from
timeouts in many cases where there are heavy losses, although not if
the entire second half of the window of data or ACKs are lost.
However, a single ACK carrying a SACK option that implies a large
quantity of missing data can cause a step discontinuity in the pipe
estimator, which can cause Fast Retransmit to send a burst of data.
The rate-halving algorithm sends data on alternate ACKs during
recovery, such that after one RTT the window has been halved. Rate-
halving is implemented in Linux after only being informally published
[RHweb], including an uncompleted Internet-Draft [RHID]. Rate-
halving also does not adequately compensate for the implicit window
reduction caused by the losses and assumes a net 50% window
reduction, which was completely standard at the time it was written,
but not appropriate for modern congestion control algorithms such as
Cubic [CUBIC], which reduce the window by less than 50%. As a
consequence rate-halving often allows the window to fall further than
necessary, reducing performance and increasing the risk of timeouts
if there are additional losses.
Proportional Rate Reduction (PPR) avoids these excess window
adjustments such that at the end of recovery the actual window size
will be as close as possible to ssthresh, the window size determined
by the congestion control algorithm. It is patterned after Rate
Halving, but using the fraction that is appropriate for the target
window chosen by the congestion control algorithm. During PRR one of
two additional reduction bound algorithms limits the total window
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
reduction due to all mechanisms, including transient application
stalls and the losses themselves.
We describe two slightly different reduction bound algorithms:
conservative reduction bound (CRB), which is strictly packet
conserving; and a slow start reduction bound (SSRB), which is more
aggressive than CRB by at most one segment per ACK. PRR-CRB meets
the Strong Packet Conservation Bound described in Appendix A, however
in real networks it does not perform as well as the algorithms
described in RFC 6675, which prove to be more aggressive in a
significant number of cases. SSRB offers a compromise by allowing
TCP to send one additional segment per ACK relative to CRB in some
situations. Although SSRB is less aggressive than RFC 6675
(transmitting fewer segments or taking more time to transmit them) it
outperforms it, due to the lower probability of additional losses
during recovery.
The Strong Packet Conservation Bound on which PRR and both reduction
bounds are based is patterned after Van Jacobson's packet
conservation principle: segments delivered to the receiver are used
as the clock to trigger sending the same number of segments back into
the network. As much as possible Proportional Rate Reduction and the
reduction bound algorithms rely on this self clock process, and are
only slightly affected by the accuracy of other estimators, such as
pipe [RFC6675] and cwnd. This is what gives the algorithms their
precision in the presence of events that cause uncertainty in other
estimators.
The original definition of the packet conservation principle
[Jacobson88] treated packets that are presumed to be lost (e.g.
marked as candidates for retransmission) as having left the network.
This idea is reflected in the pipe estimator defined in RFC 6675 and
used here, but it is distinct from Strong Packet Conservation Bound
described in Appendix A, which is defined solely on the basis of data
arriving at the receiver.
We evaluated these and other algorithms in a large scale measurement
study presented in a companion paper [IMC11] and summarized in
Section 5. This measurement study was based on RFC 3517 [RFC3517],
which has since been superseded by RFC 6675. Since there are slight
difference between the two specifications, and we were meticulous
about our implementation of RFC 3517 we are not comfortable
unconditionally asserting that our measurement results apply to RFC
6675, although we believe this to be the case. We have instead
chosen to be pedantic about describing measurement results relative
to RFC 3517, on which they were actually based. General discussions
algorithms and their properties have been updated to refer to RFC
6675.
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
We found that for authentic network traffic PRR+SSRB outperforms both
RFC 3517 and Linux Rate Halving even though it is less aggressive
than RFC 3517. We believe that these results apply to RFC 6675 as
well.
The algorithms are described as modifications to RFC 5681 [RFC5681],
TCP Congestion Control, using concepts drawn from the pipe algorithm
[RFC6675]. They are most accurate and more easily implemented with
SACK [RFC2018], but do not require SACK.
2. Definitions
The following terms, parameters and state variables are used as they
are defined in earlier documents:
RFC 793: snd.una
RFC 5681: duplicate ACK, FlightSize, Sender Maximum Segment Size
(SMSS)
RFC 6675: covered (as in "covered sequence numbers")
Voluntary window reductions: choosing not to send data in response to
some ACKs, for the purpose of reducing the sending window size and
data rate.
We define some additional variables:
SACKd: The total number of bytes that the scoreboard indicates have
been delivered to the receiver. This can be computed by scanning the
scoreboard and counting the total number of bytes covered by all sack
blocks. If SACK is not in use, SACKd is not defined.
DeliveredData: The total number of bytes that the current ACK
indicates have been delivered to the receiver. When not in recovery,
DeliveredData is the change in snd.una. With SACK, DeliveredData can
be computed precisely as the change in snd.una plus the (signed)
change in SACKd. In recovery without SACK, DeliveredData is
estimated to be 1 SMSS on duplicate acknowledgements, and on a
subsequent partial or full ACK, DeliveredData is estimated to be the
change in snd.una, minus one SMSS for each preceding duplicate ACK.
Note that DeliveredData is robust: for TCP using SACK, DeliveredData
can be precisely computed anywhere in the network just by inspecting
the returning ACKs. The consequence of missing ACKs is that later
ACKs will show a larger DeliveredData. Furthermore, for any TCP
(with or without SACK) the sum of DeliveredData must agree with the
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
forward progress over the same time interval.
We introduce a local variable "sndcnt", which indicates exactly how
many bytes should be sent in response to each ACK. Note that the
decision of which data to send (e.g. retransmit missing data or send
more new data) is out of scope for this document.
3. Algorithms
At the beginning of recovery initialize PRR state. This assumes a
modern congestion control algorithm, CongCtrlAlg(), that might set
ssthresh to something other than FlightSize/2:
ssthresh = CongCtrlAlg() // Target cwnd after recovery
prr_delivered = 0 // Total bytes delivered during recovery
prr_out = 0 // Total bytes sent during recovery
RecoverFS = snd.nxt-snd.una // FlightSize at the start of recovery
On every ACK during recovery compute:
DeliveredData = change_in(snd.una) + change_in(SACKd)
prr_delivered += DeliveredData
pipe = (RFC 6675 pipe algorithm)
if (pipe > ssthresh) {
// Proportional Rate Reduction
sndcnt = CEIL(prr_delivered * ssthresh / RecoverFS) - prr_out
} else {
// Two version of the reduction bound
if (conservative) { // PRR+CRB
limit = prr_delivered - prr_out
} else { // PRR+SSRB
limit = MAX(prr_delivered - prr_out, DeliveredData) + MSS
}
// Attempt to catch up, as permitted by limit
sndcnt = MIN(ssthresh - pipe, limit)
}
On any data transmission or retransmission:
prr_out += (data sent) // strictly less than or equal to sndcnt
3.1. Examples
We illustrate these algorithms by showing their different behaviors
for two scenarios: TCP experiencing either a single loss or a burst
of 15 consecutive losses. In all cases we assume bulk data (no
application pauses), standard AIMD congestion control and cwnd =
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
FlightSize = pipe = 20 segments, so ssthresh will be set to 10 at the
beginning of recovery. We also assume standard Fast Retransmit and
Limited Transmit [RFC3042], so TCP will send two new segments
followed by one retransmit in response to the first 3 duplicate ACKs
following the losses.
Each of the diagrams below shows the per ACK response to the first
round trip for the various recovery algorithms when the zeroth
segment is lost. The top line indicates the transmitted segment
number triggering the ACKs, with an X for the lost segment. "cwnd"
and "pipe" indicate the values of these algorithms after processing
each returning ACK. "Sent" indicates how much 'N'ew or
'R'etransmitted data would be sent. Note that the algorithms for
deciding which data to send are out of scope of this document.
When there is a single loss, PRR with either of the reduction bound
algorithms has the same behavior. We show "RB", a flag indicating
which reduction bound subexpression ultimately determined the value
of sndcnt. When there is minimal losses "limit" (both algorithms)
will always be larger than ssthresh - pipe, so the sndcnt will be
ssthresh - pipe indicated by "s" in the "RB" row.
RFC 6675
ack# X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
cwnd: 20 20 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
pipe: 19 19 18 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
sent: N N R N N N N N N N N
Rate Halving (Linux)
ack# X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
cwnd: 20 20 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
pipe: 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10
sent: N N R N N N N N N N N
PRR
ack# X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
pipe: 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 10
sent: N N R N N N N N N N N
RB: s s
Cwnd is not shown because PRR does not use it.
Key for RB
s: sndcnt = ssthresh - pipe // from ssthresh
b: sndcnt = prr_delivered - prr_out + SMSS // from banked
d: sndcnt = DeliveredData + SMSS // from DeliveredData
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
(Sometimes more than one applies)
Note that all three algorithms send the same total amount of data.
RFC 6675 experiences a "half-window of silence", while the Rate
Halving and PRR spread the voluntary window reduction across an
entire RTT.
Next we consider the same initial conditions when the first 15
packets (0-14) are lost. During the remainder of the lossy RTT, only
5 ACKs are returned to the sender. We examine each of these
algorithms in succession.
RFC 6675
ack# X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 16 17 18 19
cwnd: 20 20 11 11 11
pipe: 19 19 4 10 10
sent: N N 7R R R
Rate Halving (Linux)
ack# X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 16 17 18 19
cwnd: 20 20 5 5 5
pipe: 19 19 4 4 4
sent: N N R R R
PRR-CRB
ack# X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 16 17 18 19
pipe: 19 19 4 4 4
sent: N N R R R
RB: b b b
PRR-SSRB
ack# X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 16 17 18 19
pipe: 19 19 4 5 6
sent: N N 2R 2R 2R
RB: bd d d
In this specific situation, RFC 6675 is more aggressive, because once
fast retransmit is triggered (on the ACK for segment 17) TCP
immediately retransmits sufficient data to bring pipe up to cwnd.
Our measurement data (see Section 5) indicates that RFC 6675
significantly outperforms Rate Halving, PRR-CRB and some other
similarly conservative algorithms that we tested, showing that it is
significantly common for the actual losses to exceed the window
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
reduction determined by the congestion control algorithm.
The Linux implementation of Rate Halving includes an early version of
the conservative reduction bound [RHweb]. In this situation the five
ACKs trigger exactly one transmission each (2 new data, 3 old data),
and cwnd is set to 5. At a window size of 5, it takes three round
trips to retransmit all 15 lost segments. Rate Halving does not
raise the window at all during recovery, so when recovery finally
completes, TCP will slowstart cwnd from 5 up to 10. In this example,
TCP operates at half of the window chosen by the congestion control
for more than three RTTs, increasing the elapsed time and exposing it
to timeouts in the event that there are additional losses.
PRR-CRB implements a conservative reduction bound. Since the total
losses bring pipe below ssthresh, data is sent such that the total
data transmitted, prr_out, follows the total data delivered to the
receiver as reported by returning ACKs. Transmission is controlled
by the sending limit, which was set to prr_delivered - prr_out. This
is indicated by the RB:b tagging in the figure. In this case PRR-CRB
is exposed to exactly the same problems as Rate Halving, the excess
window reduction causes it to take excessively long to recover the
losses and exposes it to additional timeouts.
PRR-SSRB increases the window by exactly 1 segment per ACK until pipe
rises to ssthresh during recovery. This is accomplished by setting
limit to one greater than the data reported to have been delivered to
the receiver on this ACK, implementing slowstart during recovery, and
indicated by RB:d tagging in the figure. Although increasing the
window during recovery seems to be ill advised, it is important to
remember that this is actually less aggressive than permitted by RFC
5681, which sends the same quantity of additional data as a single
burst in response to the ACK that triggered Fast Retransmit
For less extreme events, where the total losses are smaller than the
difference between Flight Size and ssthresh, PRR-CRB and PRR-SSRB
have identical behaviours.
4. Properties
The following properties are common to both PRR-CRB and PRR-SSRB
except as noted:
Proportional Rate Reduction maintains TCPs ACK clocking across most
recovery events, including burst losses. RFC 6675 can send large
unclocked bursts following burst losses.
Normally Proportional Rate Reduction will spread voluntary window
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
reductions out evenly across a full RTT. This has the potential to
generally reduce the burstiness of Internet traffic, and could be
considered to be a type of soft pacing. Hypothetically, any pacing
increases the probability that different flows are interleaved,
reducing the opportunity for ACK compression and other phenomena that
increase traffic burstiness. However these effects have not been
quantified.
If there are minimal losses, Proportional Rate Reduction will
converge to exactly the target window chosen by the congestion
control algorithm. Note that as TCP approaches the end of recovery
prr_delivered will approach RecoverFS and sndcnt will be computed
such that prr_out approaches ssthresh.
Implicit window reductions due to multiple isolated losses during
recovery cause later voluntary reductions to be skipped. For small
numbers of losses the window size ends at exactly the window chosen
by the congestion control algorithm.
For burst losses, earlier voluntary window reductions can be undone
by sending extra segments in response to ACKs arriving later during
recovery. Note that as long as some voluntary window reductions are
not undone, the final value for pipe will be the same as ssthresh,
the target cwnd value chosen by the congestion control algorithm.
Proportional Rate Reduction with either reduction bound improves the
situation when there are application stalls (e.g. when the sending
application does not queue data for transmission quickly enough or
the receiver stops advancing rwnd). When there is an application
stall early during recovery prr_out will fall behind the sum of the
transmissions permitted by sndcnt. The missed opportunities to send
due to stalls are treated like banked voluntary window reductions:
specifically they cause prr_delivered-prr_out to be significantly
positive. If the application catches up while TCP is still in
recovery, TCP will send a partial window burst to catch up to exactly
where it would have been, had the application never stalled.
Although this burst might be viewed as being hard on the network,
this is exactly what happens every time there is a partial RTT
application stall while not in recovery. We have made the partial
RTT stall behavior uniform in all states. Changing this behavior is
out of scope for this document.
Proportional Rate Reduction with Reduction Bound is less sensitive to
errors in the pipe estimator. While in recovery, pipe is
intrinsically an estimator, using incomplete information to estimate
if un-SACKed segments are actually lost or merely out-of-order in the
network. Under some conditions pipe can have significant errors, for
example pipe is underestimated when when a burst of reordered data is
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
prematurely assumed to be lost and marked for retransmission. If the
transmissions are regulated directly by pipe as they are with RFC
6675, such as step discontinuity in the pipe estimator causes a burst
of data, which can not be retracted once the pipe estimator is
corrected a few ACKs later. For PRR, pipe merely determines which
algorithm, Proportional Rate Reduction or the reduction bound, is
used to compute sndcnt from DeliveredData. While pipe is
underestimated the algorithms are different by at most one segment
per ACK. Once pipe is updated they converge to the same final window
at the end of recovery.
Under all conditions and sequences of events during recovery, PRR-CRB
strictly bounds the data transmitted to be equal to or less than the
amount of data delivered to the receiver. We claim that this Strong
Packet Conservation Bound is the most aggressive algorithm that does
not lead to additional forced losses in some environments. It has
the property that if there is a standing queue at a bottleneck with
no cross traffic, the queue will maintain exactly constant length for
the duration of the recovery, except for +1/-1 fluctuation due to
differences in packet arrival and exit times. See Appendix A for a
detailed discussion of this property.
Although the Strong Packet Conserving Bound in very appealing for a
number of reasons, our measurements summarized in Section 5
demonstrate that it is less aggressive and does not perform as well
as RFC 6675, which permits large bursts of data when there are bursts
of losses. PRR-SSRB is a compromise that permits TCP to send one
extra segment per ACK as compared to the packet conserving bound.
From the perspective of a strict packet conserving bound, PRR-SSRB
does indeed open the window during recovery, however it is
significantly less aggressive than RFC6675 in the presence of burst
losses.
5. Measurements
In a companion IMC11 paper [IMC11] we describe some measurements
comparing the various strategies for reducing the window during
recovery. The experiments were performed on servers carrying Google
production traffic and are briefly summarized here.
The various window reduction algorithms and extensive instrumentation
were all implemented in Linux 2.6. We used the uniform set of
algorithms present in the base Linux implementation, including CUBIC
[CUBIC], limited transmit [RFC3042], threshold transmit from [FACK]
(this algorithm was not present in RFC 3517, but a similar algorithm
has been added to RFC 6675) and lost retransmission detection
algorithms. We confirmed that the behaviors of Rate Halving (the
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
Linux default), RFC 3517 and PRR were authentic to their respective
specifications and that performance and features were comparable to
the kernels in production use. All of the different window reduction
algorithms were all present in a common kernel and could be selected
with a sysctl, such that we had an absolutely uniform baseline for
comparing them.
Our experiments included an additional algorithm, PRR with an
unlimited bound (PRR-UB), which sends ssthresh-pipe bursts when pipe
falls below ssthresh. This behavior parallels RFC 3517.
An important detail of this configuration is that CUBIC only reduces
the window by 30%, as opposed to the 50% reduction used by
traditional congestion control algorithms. This accentuates the
tendency for RFC 3517 and PRR-UB to send a burst at the point when
Fast Retransmit gets triggered because pipe is likely to already be
below ssthresh. Precisely this condition was observed for 32% of the
recovery events: pipe fell below ssthresh before Fast Retransmit is
triggered, thus the various PRR algorithms start in the reduction
bound phase, and RFC 3517 sends bursts of segments with the fast
retransmit.
In the companion paper we observe that PRR-SSRB spends the least time
in recovery of all the algorithms tested, largely because it
experiences fewer timeouts once it is already in recovery.
RFC 3517 experiences 29% more detected lost retransmissions and 2.6%
more timeouts (presumably due to undetected lost retransmissions)
than PRR-SSRB. These results are representative of PRR-UB and other
algorithms that send bursts when pipe falls below ssthresh.
Rate Halving experiences 5% more timeouts and significantly smaller
final cwnd values at the end of recovery. The smaller cwnd sometimes
causes the recovery itself to take extra round trips. These results
are representative of PRR-CRB and other algorithms that implement
strict packet conservation during recovery.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
Although the Strong Packet Conserving Bound used in PRR-CRB is very
appealing for a number of reasons, our measurements show that it is
less aggressive and does not perform as well as RFC 3517, (and by
implication RFC 6675), which permit bursts of data when there are
bursts of losses. RFC 3517 and RFC 6675 are conservative in the
original sense of Van Jacobson's packet conservation principle, which
included the assumption that presumed lost segments have indeed left
the network. PRR-CRB makes no such assumption, following instead a
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
Strong Packet Conserving Bound, in which only packets that have
actually arrived at the receiver are considered to have left the
network. PRR-SSRB is a compromise that permits TCP to send one extra
segment per ACK relative to the Strong Packet Conserving Bound, to
partially compensate for excess losses.
From the perspective of the Strong Packet Conserving Bound, PRR-SSRB
does indeed open the window during recovery, however it is
significantly less aggressive than RFC 3517 (and RFC 6675) in the
presence of burst losses. Even so, it often outperforms RFC 3517,
(and presumably RFC 6675) because it avoids some of the self
inflicted losses caused by bursts.
At this time we see no reason not to test and deploy PRR-SSRB on a
large scale. Implementers worried about any potential impact of
raising the window during recovery may want to optionally support
PRR-CRB (which is actually simpler to implement) for comparison
studies. Furthermore, there is one minor detail of PRR that can be
improved by replacing pipe by total_pipe as defined by Laminar TCP
[Laminar].
One final comment about terminology: we expect that common usage will
drop "slow start reduction bound" from the algorithm name. This
document needed to be pedantic about having distinct names for
proportional rate reduction and every variant of the reduction bound.
However, we do not anticipate any future exploration of the
alternative reduction bounds.
7. Acknowledgements
This draft is based in part on previous incomplete work by Matt
Mathis, Jeff Semke and Jamshid Mahdavi [RHID] and influenced by
several discussion with John Heffner.
Monia Ghobadi and Sivasankar Radhakrishnan helped analyze the
experiments.
Ilpo Jarvinen reviewed the code.
Mark Allman improved the document through his insightful review.
8. Security Considerations
Proportional Rate Reduction does not change the risk profile for TCP.
Implementers that change PRR from counting bytes to segments have to
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
be cautious about the effects of ACK splitting attacks [Savage99],
where the receiver acknowledges partial segments for the purpose of
confusing the sender's congestion accounting.
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC6675] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,
and Y. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm
Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP",
RFC 6675, August 2012.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H., and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042,
January 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.
[IMC11] Dukkipati, N., Mathis, M., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional
Rate Reduction for TCP", ACM Internet Measurement
Conference IMC11, December 2011.
[FACK] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgment:
Refining TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM SIGCOMM96,
August 1996.
[RHID] Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., and K. Lahey, "The
Rate-Halving Algorithm for TCP Congestion Control",
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
draft-mathis-tcp-ratehalving (work in progress),
June 1999.
[RHweb] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Rate-Halving with Bounding
Parameters", Web publication , December 1997.
[CUBIC] Rhee, I. and L. Xu, "CUBIC: A new TCP-friendly high-speed
TCP variant", PFLDnet 2005, Feb 2005.
[Jacobson88]
Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", SIGCOMM
Comput. Commun. Rev. 18(4), Aug 1988.
[Savage99]
Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson,
"TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver",
SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 29(5), October 1999.
[Laminar] Mathis, M., "Laminar TCP and the case for refactoring TCP
congestion control", draft-mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar-01
(work in progress), July 2012.
Appendix A. Strong Packet Conservation Bound
PRR-CRB is based on a conservative, philosophically pure and
aesthetically appealing Strong Packet Conservation Bound, described
here. Although inspired by Van Jacobson's packet conservation
principle [Jacobson88], it differs in how it treats segments that are
missing and presumed lost. Under all conditions and sequences of
events during recovery, PRR-CRB strictly bounds the data transmitted
to be equal to or less than the amount of data delivered to the
receiver. Note that the effects of presumed losses are included in
the pipe calculation, but do not affect the outcome of PRR-CRB, once
pipe has fallen below ssthresh.
We claim that this Strong Packet Conservation Bound is the most
aggressive algorithm that does not lead to additional forced losses
in some environments. It has the property that if there is a
standing queue at a bottleneck that is carrying no other traffic, the
queue will maintain exactly constant length for the entire duration
of the recovery, except for +1/-1 fluctuation due to differences in
packet arrival and exit times. Any less aggressive algorithm will
result in a declining queue at the bottleneck. Any more aggressive
algorithm will result in an increasing queue or additional losses if
it is a full drop tail queue.
We demonstrate this property with a little thought experiment:
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
Imagine a network path that has insignificant delays in both
directions, except for the processing time and queue at a single
bottleneck in the forward path. By insignificant delay, we mean when
a packet is "served" at the head of the bottleneck queue, the
following events happen in much less than one bottleneck packet time:
the packet arrives at the receiver; the receiver sends an ACK; which
arrives at the sender; the sender processes the ACK and sends some
data; the data is queued at the bottleneck.
If sndcnt is set to DeliveredData and nothing else is inhibiting
sending data, then clearly the data arriving at the bottleneck queue
will exactly replace the data that was served at the head of the
queue, so the queue will have a constant length. If queue is drop
tail and full then the queue will stay exactly full. Losses or
reordering on the ACK path only cause wider fluctuations in the queue
size, but do not raise its peak size, independent of whether the data
is in order or out-of-order (including loss recovery from an earlier
RTT). Any more aggressive algorithm which sends additional data will
overflow the drop tail queue and cause loss. Any less aggressive
algorithm will under fill the queue. Therefore setting sndcnt to
DeliveredData is the most aggressive algorithm that does not cause
forced losses in this simple network. Relaxing the assumptions (e.g.
making delays more authentic and adding more flows, delayed ACKs,
etc) are likely to increases the fine grained fluctuations in queue
size but do not change its basic behavior.
Note that the congestion control algorithm implements a broader
notion of optimal that includes appropriately sharing the network.
Typical congestion control algorithms are likely to reduce the data
sent relative to the packet conserving bound implemented by PRR
bringing TCP's actual window down to ssthresh.
Authors' Addresses
Matt Mathis
Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheater Parkway
Mountain View, California 93117
USA
Email: mattmathis@google.com
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Proportional Rate Reduction Feb 2013
Nandita Dukkipati
Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheater Parkway
Mountain View, California 93117
USA
Email: nanditad@google.com
Yuchung Cheng
Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheater Parkway
Mountain View, California 93117
USA
Email: ycheng@google.com
Mathis, et al. Expires August 10, 2013 [Page 17]
