Internet DRAFT - draft-kuhn-quic-4-sat
draft-kuhn-quic-4-sat
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational G. Fairhurst
Expires: May 3, 2021 University of Aberdeen
J. Border
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
E. Stephan
Orange
October 30, 2020
QUIC for SATCOM
draft-kuhn-quic-4-sat-06
Abstract
QUIC has been designed for use across Internet paths. Initial
designs of QUIC focused on common deployment scenarios for web
traffic. This document focuses on the performance when using a path
with a large Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP).
A large BDP path can result from using a satellite communication
(SATCOM) system. The BDP is also high for paths where a satellite
network segment is combined with other network technologies
(Ethernet, cable modems, WiFi, cellular, radio links, etc), resulting
in more complex characteristics. These path characteristics have
implications on the efficiency of the network traffic and unless
considered in a design can impact the end-to-end quality of
experience by the transport service.
This memo identifies the characteristics of a SATCOM link that impact
the operation of the QUIC transport protocol. It proposes regression
tests to evaluate QUIC over SATCOM links. It discusses how to ensure
acceptable protocol performance.
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 https://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
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
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 May 3, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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
2. Operating over a path with a large BDP . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TCP Split Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Regression tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Small public satellite broadband access . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Medium public satellite broadband access . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Congested medium public satellite broadband access . . . 7
4.4. Variable medium public satellite broadband access . . . . 8
4.5. Loss-free large public satellite broadband access . . . . 9
4.6. Lossy large public satellite broadband access . . . . . . 9
5. Mechanisms that improve the performance of QUIC for SATCOM . 10
5.1. Getting up to speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Maximum window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. ACK ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The end-to-end performance of an application using an Internet path
can be impacted by the Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP) of the links and
network devices forming the path. For instance, the page load time
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
for a complex page can be much larger when the path includes a
satellite link. A significant contribution to this reduced
performance arises from the initialisation and design of transport
mechanisms. QUIC's default congestion control is based on TCP
NewReno [I-D.ietf-quic-recovery] and the recommended initial window
is defined by [RFC6928]. Although QUIC's Congestion Control (CC) and
recovery have been designed for use across Internet Paths, the
initial design could not optimise for the wide diversity of path
characteristics that can occur. This document therefore considers
the specific implications of paths with a significant BDP.
Satellite communications (SATCOM) systems have long been used to
support point-to-point links and specialised networks. The
predominate current use is as a link-layer for Internet Protocols.
Typical example applications include: use as an access technology for
remote locations, backup and rapid deployment of new services,
transit networks and backhaul of various types of IP networks, and
provision to mobile (maritime, aircraft, etc.). In most scenarios,
the satellite IP network segment usually only forms one part of the
end-to-end path. This means user traffic can experience a path that
includes satellite link together with a wide variety of other network
technologies (Ethernet, cable modems, WiFi, cellular, radio links,
etc). Although a user can sometimes know the presence of the
satellite service, a typical user does not deploy special software or
applications because they expect a satellite network is being used.
Often a user is unaware of the technologies underpinning the links
forming the network path.
This memo identifies the characteristics of a SATCOM link that impact
the operation of the QUIC transport protocol. It proposes regression
tests to evaluate QUIC over SATCOM links. It discusses how to ensure
acceptable protocol performance.
2. Operating over a path with a large BDP
Satellite communications systems have been deployed using many space
orbits, including low earth orbit, medium earth orbits,
geosynchronous orbits, elliptical orbits and more. This document
focuses on Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite systems.
The characteristics of systems using Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO)
satellites differ from paths only using terrestrial links in their
path characteristics:
o A large propagation delay of at least 250ms one-way delay;
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
o Employ radio resource management (often using techniques similar
to cellular mobile or DOCSIS cable networks, but differing to
accommodate the satellite propagation delay);
o Links can be highly asymmetric (in terms of capacity, one-way
delay and in their cost of operation).
Many systems use the DVB-S2 specifications, published by the European
Telecomunications Standards Institute (ETSI), where the key concept
is to ensure both a good usage of the satellite resource and a Quasi
Error Free (QEF) link. These systems typically monitor the link
quality in real-time, with the help of known symbol sequences,
included along with regular packets, which enable an estimation of
the current signal-to-noise ratio. This estimation is then feedback
allowing the transmitting link to adapt its coding rate and
modulation to the actual transmission conditions.
It is common to consider the satellite network segment composed of a
forward link and a return link. The two links can have different
capacities and employ different technologies to carry the IP packets.
On the forward link, the satellite gateway often uses all the
available bandwidth, possibly with several carriers, to communicate
with a set of remote terminals. A carrier is a single Time-Division-
Multiplexing channel that multiplexes packets addressed to specific
terminals. On the return link, satellite resource is shared among
the terminals. Two access methods can be distinguished: on-demand
access or contention access. In the former, a terminal receives
dedicated transmission resources (usually to send to the gateway).
In the latter, some resources are reserved for contention access,
where a set of terminals are allowed to compete to obtain
transmission resource. Dedicated access, which is more common in
currently deployed systems, can be through a Demand Assigned Multiple
Access (DAMA) mechanism, while contention access techniques are
usually based on Slotted Aloha (SA) and its numerous derivatives.
More information on satellite links characteristics can be found in
[RFC2488][IJSCN17].
Beyond that, even for characteristics shared with terrestrial links,
the impact on a satellite link could be more and can be amplified by
the large path RTT. For example, paths using a satellite system can
also exhibit a high loss-rate (e.g., a mobile user or a user behind a
Wi-Fi link), where additional delay can impact transport mechanisms.
o Transport initialization: the 3-way handshake takes a longer time
to complete, delaying the time to send data (several transport
protocol exchanges may be needed, such as TLS);
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
o Size of windows required: to fully exploit the bottleneck
capacity, a high BDP requires a larger number of in-flight
packets;
o Reliability: packet loss detection and correction is slow (the
performance of end-to-end retransmission is also impacted when
using a high RTT path);
o Getting up to speed: many congestion control methods employ an
exponential increase in the sending rate during slow start (for
path capacity probing), a high RTT will increase the time to reach
a specific rate;
o Asymmetry : when the links are asymmetric, for various reasons,
the the return path may modify the rate and/timing of transport
acknowledgment traffic, potentially changing behaviour (e.g.,
limiting the forward sending rate).
3. TCP Split Solution
High BDP networks commonly break the TCP end-to-end paradigm to adapt
the transport protocol. Splitting a TCP connection allows adaptation
for a specific use-case and to address the issues discussed in
section Section 2. Satellite communications commonly deploy
Performance Enhancement Proxy (PEP) for compression, caching and TCP
acceleration services [RFC3135]. Their deployment can result in
significant performance improvement (e.g., a 50% page load time
reduction in a SATCOM use-case [ICCRG100].
[NCT13] and [RFC3135] describe the main functions of a SATCOM TCP
split solution. For traffic originated at a gateway to an endpoint
connected via a satellite terminal, the TCP split proxy intercepts
TCP SYN packets, acting on behalf of the endpoint and adapts the
sending rate to the SATCOM scenario. The split solution can
specifically tune TCP parameters to the satellite link (latency,
available capacity).
When a proxy is used on each side of the satellite link, the
transport protocol can be replace by a protocol other than TCP,
optimized for the satellite link. This can be tuned using a priori
information about the satellite system and/or by measuring the
properties of the network segment that includes the satellite system.
Split connections can also recover from packet loss that is local to
the part of the connection on which the packet losses occur. This
eliminates the need for end-to-end recovery of lost packets.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
One important advantage of a TCP split solution is that it does not
require any end-to-end modification and is independent of both the
client and server sides. This comes with a drawback: TCP splitters
are often unable to track end-to-end improvements in protocol
mechanisms (e.g., RACK, ECN, TCP Fast Open support). Methods
configured in the split proxy usually continue to be used until a
split solution is finally updated. This can delay/negate the benefit
of any end-to-end improvements, contributing to ossification of the
transport system.
4. Regression tests
This section proposes a set of regression tests for QUIC that
consider high BDP scenarios. We define by:
o Download path: from Internet to the client endpoint;
o Upload path: from the client endpoint to a server (e.g., in the
Internet).
4.1. Small public satellite broadband access
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 10 Mbps
o Satellite uplink path: 2 Mbps
o No emulated packet loss
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on both download and upload paths,
the test should report the upload and download time of 2 MB, 10 MB
and 100 MB.
Initial thoughts of the performance obectives for QUIC are the
following:
o 3 s for downloading 2 MB
o 10 s for downloading 10 MB
o 85 s for downloading 100 MB
o 10 s for uploading 2 MB
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
o 50 s for uploading 10 MB
o 420 s for uploading 100 MB
4.2. Medium public satellite broadband access
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 50 Mbps
o Satellite uplink path: 10 Mbps
o No emulated packet loss
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on the download path, the test
should report the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB. Then, to
assess the performance of QUIC with the 0-RTT extension and its
variants, after 10 seconds, repeat the transmission of 100 MB on the
download path where the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB is
recorded.
Initial thoughts of the performance objectives for QUIC are the
following:
o 3 s for the first downloading 2 MB
o 5 s for the first downloading 10 MB
o 20 s for the first downloading 100 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 2 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 10 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 100 MB
4.3. Congested medium public satellite broadband access
There are cases where the uplink path is congested or where the
capacity of the uplink path is not guaranteed.
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 50 Mbps
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
o Satellite uplink path: 0.5 Mbps
o No emulated packet loss
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on the download path, the test
should report the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB.
Initial thoughts of the performance objectives for QUIC are the
following:
o 3 s for downloading 2 MB
o 5 s for downloading 10 MB
o 20 s for downloading 100 MB
4.4. Variable medium public satellite broadband access
There are cases where the downlink path is congested or where, due to
link layer adaptations to rain fading, the capacity of the downlink
path is variable.
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 50 Mbps - wait 5s - 10 Mbps
o Satellite uplink path: 10 Mbps
o No emulated packet loss
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on the download path, the test
should report the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB.
Initial thoughts of the performance objectives for QUIC are the
following:
o TBD s for downloading 2 MB
o TBD s for downloading 10 MB
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
o TBD s for downloading 100 MB
4.5. Loss-free large public satellite broadband access
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 250 Mbps
o Satellite uplink path: 3 Mbps
o No emulated packet loss
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on the download path, the test
should report the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB. Then, to
assess the performance of QUIC with the 0-RTT extension and its
variants, after 10 seconds, repeat the transmission of 100 MB on the
download path where the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB is
recorded.
Initial thoughts of the performance objectives for QUIC are the
following:
o 3 s for the first downloading 2 MB
o 5 s for the first downloading 10 MB
o 8 s for the first downloading 100 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 2 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 10 MB
o TBD s for the second downloading 100 MB
4.6. Lossy large public satellite broadband access
The tested scenario has the following path characteristics:
o Satellite downlink path: 250 Mbps
o Satellite uplink path: 3 Mbps
o Emulated packet loss on both downlink and uplink paths:
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
* Uniform random transmission link losses: 1%
o RTT: 650 ms
o Buffer size : BDP
During the transmission of 100 MB on the download path, the test
should report the download time for 2 MB, 10 MB and 100 MB.
Initial thoughts of the performance objectives for QUIC are the
following:
o 3 s for downloading 2 MB (uniform transmission link losses)
o 6 s for downloading 10 MB (uniform transmission link losses)
o 10 s for downloading 100 MB (uniform transmission link losses)
5. Mechanisms that improve the performance of QUIC for SATCOM
5.1. Getting up to speed
QUIC has an advantage that the TLS and TCP negotiations can be
completed during the transport connection handshake. This can reduce
the time to transmit the first data. Results of [IJSCN19] illustrate
that it can still take many RTTs for a CC to increase the sending
rate to fill the bottleneck capacity. The delay in getting up to
speed can dominate performance for a path with a large RTT, and
requires the congestion and flow controls to accommodate the impact
of path delay.
One relevant solution is tuning of the initial window described in
[I-D.irtf-iccrg-sallantin-initial-spreading], which has been shown to
improve performance both for high BDP and more common BDP
[CONEXT15][ICC16]. Such a solution requires using sender pacing to
avoid generating bursts of packets in a network.
5.2. Maximum window
The number of in-flight packets required to fill a bottleneck
capacity, is dependent on the BDP. Default values of maximum windows
may not be suitable for a SATCOM context.
Such as presented in [PANRG105], only increasing the initial
congestion window is not the only way that can improve QUIC
performance in a SATCOM context: increasing maximum congestion
windows can also result in much better performance. Other protocol
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
mechanisms also need to be considered, such as flow control at the
stream level in QUIC.
5.3. Reliability
Packet loss detection and loss repair will consume additional time on
paths with a larger RTT. The RTT also determines the time needed by
a server to react to a congestion event. Both can impact the user
experience. For example, when a user uses a Wi-Fi link to access the
Internet via SATCOM terminal.
End-to-end packet Forward Error Correction offers an alternative to
retransmission with different tradeoffs in terms of utilised capacity
and repair capability.
Network coding as proposed in [I-D.swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic] and
[I-D.roca-nwcrg-rlc-fec-scheme-for-quic] could help QUIC recover from
link or congestion loss. Another approach could utilise QUIC tunnels
[I-D.schinazi-masque] to apply FEC to all or a part of the end-to-end
path.
The benefits of introducing FEC need to weighed against the
additional capacity introduced by end-to-end FEC and the opportunity
to use link-local ARQ and/or link-adaptive FEC. A transport
connections can suffer link-related losses from a particular link
(e.g., Wi-Fi), but also congestion loss (e.g. router buffer overflow
in a satellite operator ground segment or along an Internet path).
Mechanisms have been proposed in
[I-D.ferrieux-hamchaoui-quic-lossbits], to identify congestion losses
in the ground segment.
5.4. ACK ratio
Asymmetry in capacity (or in the way capacity is granted to a flow)
can lead to cases where the transmission in one direction of
communication is restricted by the transmission of the acknowledgment
traffic flowing in the opposite direction. A network segment could
present limitations in the volume of acknowledgment traffic (e.g.,
limited available return path capacity) or in the number of
acknowledgment packets (e.g., when a radio-resource management system
has to track channel usage), or both.
TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry [RFC3449]
describes a range of mechanisms that have been used to mitigate the
impact of path asymmetry, primarily targeting operation of TCP.
Many mitigations have been deployed in satellite systems, often as a
mechanism within a PEP. Despite their benefits over paths with high
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
asymmetry, most mechanisms rely on being able to inspect and/or
modify the transport layer header information of TCP ACK packets.
This is not possible when the transport layer information is
encrypted (e.g., using an IP VPN).
One simple mitigation is for the remote endpoint to send compound
acknowledgments less frequently. A rate of one ACK every RTT/4 can
significantly reduce this traffic. The QUIC transport specification
may evolve to allow the ACK Ratio to be adjusted.
6. Discussion
Many of the issues identified for high BDP paths already exist when
using an encrypted transport service over a path that employs
encryption at the IP layer. This includes endpoints that utilise
IPsec at the network layer, or use VPN technology over a satellite
network segment. These uses are unable to benefit from enhancement
within the satellite network segment, and often the user is unaware
of the presence of the satellite link on their path, except through
observing the impact it has on the performance they experience.
One solution would be to provide PEP functions at the termination of
the security association (e.g., in a VPN client). Another solution
could be to fall-back to using TCP (possibly with TLS or similar
methods being used on the transport payload). A different solution
could be to deploy and maintain a bespoke protocol tailored to high
BDP environments. In the future, we anticipate that fall-back to TCP
will become less desirable, and methods that rely upon bespoke
configurations or protocols will be unattractive. In parallel, new
methods such as QUIC will become widely deployed. The opportunity
therefore exists to ensure that the new generation of protocols offer
acceptable performance over high BDP paths without requiring
operating tuning or specific updates by users.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Christian Huitema, Igor Lubashev,
Alexandre Ferrieux, Francois Michel, Emmanuel Lochin and the
participants of the IETF106 side-meeting on QUIC for high BDP for
their useful feedbacks.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not propose changes to the security functions
provided by the QUIC protocol. QUIC uses TLS encryption to protect
the transport header and its payload. Security is considered in the
"Security Considerations" of cited IETF documents.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
9. Informative References
[CONEXT15]
Li, Q., Dong, M., and P. Godfrey, "Halfback: Running Short
Flows Quickly and Safely", ACM CoNEXT , 2015.
[I-D.ferrieux-hamchaoui-quic-lossbits]
Ferrieux, A. and I. Hamchaoui, "The QUIC Loss Bits",
draft-ferrieux-hamchaoui-quic-lossbits-00 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-quic-recovery]
Iyengar, J. and I. Swett, "QUIC Loss Detection and
Congestion Control", draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32 (work in
progress), October 2020.
[I-D.irtf-iccrg-sallantin-initial-spreading]
Sallantin, R., Baudoin, C., Arnal, F., Dubois, E., Chaput,
E., and A. Beylot, "Safe increase of the TCP's Initial
Window Using Initial Spreading", draft-irtf-iccrg-
sallantin-initial-spreading-00 (work in progress), January
2014.
[I-D.roca-nwcrg-rlc-fec-scheme-for-quic]
Roca, V., Michel, F., Swett, I., and M. Montpetit,
"Sliding Window Random Linear Code (RLC) Forward Erasure
Correction (FEC) Schemes for QUIC", draft-roca-nwcrg-rlc-
fec-scheme-for-quic-03 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.schinazi-masque]
Schinazi, D., "The MASQUE Protocol", draft-schinazi-
masque-02 (work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic]
Swett, I., Montpetit, M., Roca, V., and F. Michel, "Coding
for QUIC", draft-swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic-04 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[ICC16] Sallantin, R., Baudoin, C., Chaput, E., Arnal, F., Dubois,
E., and A-L. Beylot, "Reducing web latency through TCP IW:
Be smart", IEEE ICC , 2016.
[ICCRG100]
Kuhn, N., "MPTCP and BBR performance over Internet
satellite paths", IETF ICCRG 100, 2017.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
[IJSCN17] Ahmed, T., Dubois, E., Dupe, JB., Ferrus, R., Gelard, P.,
and N. Kuhn, "Software-defined satellite cloud RAN",
International Journal of Satellite Communications and
Networking , 2017.
[IJSCN19] Thomas, L., Dubois, E., Kuhn, N., and E. Lochin, "Google
QUIC performance over a public SATCOM access",
International Journal of Satellite Communications and
Networking , 2019.
[NCT13] Pirovano, A. and F. Garcia, "A new survey on improving TCP
performances over geostationary satellite link", Network
and Communication Technologies , 2013.
[PANRG105]
Kuhn, N., Stephan, E., Border, J., and G. Fairhurst, "QUIC
Over In-sequence Paths with Different Characteristics",
IRTF PANRG 105, 2019.
[RFC2488] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP
Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms",
BCP 28, RFC 2488, DOI 10.17487/RFC2488, January 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2488>.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3135, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3135>.
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M.
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network
Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, DOI 10.17487/RFC3449,
December 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3449>.
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Kuhn
CNES
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft QUIC 4 SAT October 2020
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
John Border
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Email: border@hns.com
Emile Stephan
Orange
Email: emile.stephan@orange.com
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 15]
