Internet DRAFT - draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-lrd
draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-lrd
TCPM R. Scheffenegger
Internet-Draft NetApp
Intended status: Experimental March 12, 2021
Expires: September 13, 2021
Simple Lost Retransmission Detection with SACK TCP
draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-lrd-00
Abstract
Lost Retransmissions are a major source of latency for TCP transfers.
This note specifies how selective acknowledgment (SACK) information
can be used to timely recover from lost retransmissions. In
addition, it codifies the congestion control reaction on lost
retransmissions.
Note to Readers
Discussion of this draft takes place on the TCPM working group
mailing list [1], which is archived at
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>.
Working Group information can be found at
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm/>;
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
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 September 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
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. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Recovery Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Detection of lost retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3. Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.4. Ordering of retransmitted segments . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Lost Retransmission Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. LRD Algorithm Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Lost Retransmission Detection Example . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Lost Retransmission, Mid-Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) is widely used to identify exactly
which TCP segment was lost and only send these missing segments
during a recovery episode. This helps improve the effectiveness of
loss recovery and aligns with the principle of packet conservation.
In addition, SACK information can also be used to infer about lost
retransmissions. When this information is not used, TCP senders
revert to the retransmission timeout (RTO) scheme to recover from
lost retransmissions.
Current SACK implementations, with one widely deployed exception, do
not perform lost retransmission detection. Lost retransmission
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
detection (LRD) in the one implementation that performs it was
described as an emergent feature due to the way the sender is
handling SACK. Therefore, LRD is handled in that stack within the
current regime of loss recovery, but without any additional
congestion control reaction.
This note specifies the use of SACK to detect and recover from lost
retransmissions. Using this scheme, a RTO is only required to
recover from excessive loss of segments, or ACKs. The intention of
this note is to enhance SACK loss recovery so that most RTO events
can be mitigated. Only during episodes of pathological network
impediments, RTO are still necessary to achieve forward progress.
The mechanism described adheres strictly to the principle of packet
conservation. It also requires the use of the forward
acknowledgement (FACK) mechanism, described in more detail in [MM96a]
and [TLP].
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Overview
TCP Selective Acknowledgement [RFC2018] was designed to provide
detailed information to the sender about the segements already
received. Based on this information, a sender can reduce the number
of unnecessary retransmissions to close to zero and also recover from
a loss of multiple segments within a single round trip time (RTT),
and without reverting to a retransmission timeout (RTO).
To that end, [RFC6675] describes the necessary data structures a
sender has to maintain to keep track of incoming SACK information.
However, no explicit attempt was made to specify how to use the
information gained during the recovery episode to detect lost
retransmissions.
In addition, [RFC2018] specifically stipulated up to which point a
SACK enabled sender may promote segments to become eligible for
retransmission under the SACK scheme. This heuristic works very well
during bulk transfers, where the sender always has additional data to
send. Close to the end of a stream, when there is no more data in
the socket to send, current SACK implementations fail to promote
still outstanding and never acknowledged segments to become eligible
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
for retransmission. When this happens, the performance of a TCP SACK
implementation adhereing to [RFC3517] degrades and is lower than the
performance of TCP NewReno [RFC3782], which can recovery this
particular event without an RTO.
The introduction of a rescue retransmission, as described in
[RFC6675], addresses this particular issue.
This document is concerned with the behavior of a TCP SACK sender,
when after retransmission of all ourstanding segments, and the
transmission of new data, the recovery state persists (SND.UNA does
not advance to SND.MAX at the time of loss recovery initiation, also
known as Recovery Point).
4. Definitions
This document uses the terms SND.UNA, SND.NXT, SND.MAX as defined in
[RFC5681].
SND.FACK (forward acknowledgment) is used to describe the highest
sequence number that has been SACKed by the receiver and subsequently
seen by the sender. The full definition can be found in [MM96a] and
[MM96b]. The FACK mechanism is further described in [TLP].
5. Design Considerations
The algorithm described in this document has to adhere to the
principle of packet conservation. Detection and recovery from lost
retransmissions is plagued with the same set of problems that can
become worrysome during regular loss detection and loss recovery.
Especially heavy reordering and recovery at the end-of-stream can
make it hard to achive good efficiency during loss recovery.
5.1. Recovery Initiation
The algorithm outlined does not speak about the engagement of the
loss recovery state by the sender TCP. It is assumed, that the
methods outlined in Congestion Control [RFC5681], Early Retransmit
[RFC5827] and [SRE], now incorporated into [RFC6675] are used to
engage in loss recovery. This leaves only the case where all
segments between SND.UNA and SND.MAX are lost to be recovered from by
means of retransmission timeout.
5.2. Detection of lost retransmissions
The intuition behind the scheme is that if a retransmission succeeds,
then the cumulative ack should increase one round trip time after the
retransmission was sent. Otherwise, the retransmission must have
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
been lost. The key is to have a unambiguous signal which indicates
that at least one RTT has passed after a retransmission was sent out.
As long as the sending TCP has still unsent data available, an
unabigious signal can be deducted by using the FACK mechanism. After
the first round of sending retransmissions, the sender MAY send
previously unsent data. Once SND.FACK advances and encompasses this
newly sent data, the sender can deduct with high probability, that
any still outstanding packets have been dropped by the network. The
sender MAY start retransmitting all still outstanding packets. If
the sender chooses to do so, it MUST take an appropriate congestion
control action. This action is prudent, as the loss of retransmitted
packets can be a signal of persistent congestion in the network, that
lasts even after the initial congestion control reaction at least one
RTT before.
Note that the one popular stack performing LRD already does not react
by reducing the congestion window before starting the next cycle of
retransmissions. It is therefore more aggressive that the mechanism
described herein. Nevertheless, no network instabilities have been
reported since that stack started using LRD more than two decades
ago.
5.3. Reordering
Without making use of additional information not contained in the
SACK entries, only reordered ACKs can be discriminated.
If a single data segment is delayed, and later resent, it is not
possible by using only information available within SACK entries to
distinguish if the original or retransmitted segment was SACKed.
Thus lost retransmission detection can fall victim to reordered data
segments, if it were to use retransmitted segments as signal to
detemine lost retransmissions.
The use of an SACK acknowledging data that was not sent at the
initiation of the recovery episode prevents this issue.
On the return path, reordered ACKs may be recognized, by comparing
the SACK entries contained in the ACK. The original ACK from the in-
sequence, original transmission does not contain any SACK entries
beyond SND.FACK, while the ACK for a retransmitted segment would
likely contain SACK blocks of segments higher than the newly SACKed
segment.
Also, if an ACK does not contain any newly SACKed segments than
already known in the senders scoreboard, ACK reordering is likely to
have occured. For example, the SACK entry may contain only a part of
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
an entry already in the scoreboard. However, such a simple heuristic
is not enough to discriminate properly the ACK for a retransmitted
data segment from the ACK of the original data segment.
5.4. Ordering of retransmitted segments
There are a number of choices when it comes to deciding which packet
to transmit at what time and also in what order. With TCP SACK, the
decision of what to send has been decoupled from the decision when
(and how much) to send.
In the context of lost retransmission detection, there are at least
four broad approaches, each of which has a different figure of merit:
o Stricty enqueue all known lost segments first in the range
[SND.UNA ... SND.FACK]. Only when the last enqueued segment has
been retransmitted at least once, segments which are found to be
still missing may be enqueued for a 2nd cycle, again from the
newer [SND.UNA ... SND.FACK]. This is the most conservative
approach, and would ensure the least amount of spurious
(unnecessary) retransmissions.
o A second approach would be for the sender to re-enqueue an already
retransmitted segment as soon as it receives positive proof that
at least 3 segments have been received, which were sent after the
segment in question. This is the approach choosen by one popular
stack. However, it assumes a continous data stream so that at any
later time, there will still be enough data segments around that
the criteria can be matched for a lost retransmission. The delay
on the receiver side, before some new data can be delivered up the
stack to the application can be reduced somewhat over option 1.
This approach still maintains nearly optimal efficiency and very
few spurious retransmissions.
o Third, a slightly more relaxed criteria for detection of lost
retransmissions can be applied. As soon as any data segment is
positively acknowledged (SACKed), that was sent at least dupthresh
segments later, a retransmitted segment can be considered lost.
Note that dupthresh is not necessarily constant in this approach,
as the same guidelines as defined in Early Retransmit [RFC5827]
may be applied once the retransmitted segment closes in on
SND.FACK.
o Last, a sender could assume strictly in-sequence delivery of
retransmitted segments. During loss recovery, the transmission
rate of the sent segments is slower than just prior to the
detection of the loss, in particular when PRR [RFC6937] is in use.
This may reduce load-induced reordering to some extent. This
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
approach would allow the most timely delivery of data only blocked
by a few lost segments on the receiver side, but would also have
the least efficiency in terms of packet conversation.
Furthermore, the senders congestion window might not allow for many
re-retransmissions before a stall. Therefore, additional steps would
be necessary on the sender side, to ensure continous, paced
transmission even after the ACK clock has stopped. This limits the
usefulness of this approach, and addressing congestion control and
timing related issues are outside the scope of this note. However,
this is effectively implemented when using RACK [RFC8985].
6. Algorithm
Section 5 in [RFC2018] seems to have been interpreted as an exlusive
list of which segments may become elegible for retransmission, but
can also be interpreted as an inclusive list:
After the SACKed bit is turned on (as the result of processing a
received SACK option), the data sender will skip that segment
during any later retransmission. Any segment that has the SACKed
bit turned off and is less than the highest SACKed segment is
available for retransmission.
6.1. Lost Retransmission Detection
In order to track if a retransmitted segment might have been lost,
the sender requires additional state while in the recovery state.
Once TCP has established that genuine loss exists in the network, it
enters loss recovery. At this point, the current value of SND.MAX is
stored ("Recover" in NewReno [RFC6582]). Thus it is enough to check
if SND.FACK advances beyond "Recover". Once that becomes true, some
previously unsent data was acknowledged by the receiver. By that
time, any outstanding retransmissions should have been received as
well. Thus the sender MAY retransmit the outstanding data from the
SACK scoreboard again, after taking appropriate congestion control
action (i.e. reducing the congestion window).
The retransmission SHOULD proceed in order of ascending sequence
numbers across the unfilled holes of the SACK scoreboard, to maximize
the chance that a delayed segment closes still outstanding holes.
Note that implementations tracking sequence-number ranges in their
scoreboard only need to track a single sequence number per recovery
episode. Multiple cycles of SACK loss recover, without leaving loss
recovery in between, are possible by tracking the relevant "Recovery"
in the scoreboard data structure.
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
Implicitly, this rule will also make sure, that all the segments
which had become elegible for retransmission will have been sent at
least one time, before any additional round of retransmissions is
initiated. If the entire flight of data except a small number of
segments at the end were lost, it takes at least one RTT for the
information about successfully received segments to reach the sender.
By that time, the first round of retransmissions is already completed
(and additional data segments with sequence numbers higher than
SND.MAX at the start of the recovery episode start may have been
already been sent.)
In order to guarantee a timely delivery at end-of-stream, a TCP
sender implementing LRD SHOULD also make use of the "Rescue
Retransmission" as defined in [RFC6675].
6.2. LRD Algorithm Detail
1.: On entering Loss Recovery, store SND.MAX to Recover
2.: After retransmission of the last segment of a hole in the
scoreboard, store Recover to Hole.Rxmit
3.: Once SND.FACK advances beyond Recover, while there are holes in
the scoreboard:
3.1.: store SND.MAX to Recover
3.2.: perform adequate congestion control reaction (i.e. reduce the
congestion window)
3.3.: retransmit each hole in the scoreboard, where Hole.Rxmit <
Recover, when appropriate to do so.
7. Security Considerations
The algorithm presented in this paper shares security considerations
with [RFC2018] and [RFC6675].
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
9. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Matt Mathis for the insightful
discussions about SACK and it's intended behavior and the spirit
driving the design of SACK.
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
Dragana Damjanovic was very helpful in reviewing an earlier version
of this text and point out numerous clarifications.
Furthermore, valuable feedback was received from John Heffner, Jeff
Prem and Anumita Biswas.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2018, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2018>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC5827] Allman, M., Avrachenkov, K., Ayesta, U., Blanton, J., and
P. Hurtig, "Early Retransmit for TCP and Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 5827,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5827, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5827>.
[RFC6582] Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The
NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm",
RFC 6582, DOI 10.17487/RFC6582, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6582>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6675, August 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6675>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
10.2. Informative References
[DAC] Beomjoon Kim, . and . Jaiyong Lee, "Retransmission Loss
Recovery by Duplicate Acknowledgement Counting", IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 69-71 , January
2004.
[LRD] Beomjoon Kim, ., Dongmin Kim, ., and . Jaiyong Lee, "Lost
Retransmission Detection for TCP SACK", IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 600-602 ,
September 2004.
[LRD2] Beomjoon Kim, ., Yong-Hoon Choi, ., Jaiyong Lee, ., Min-
Seok Oh, ., and . Jin-Sung Choi, "["Lost Retransmission
Detection for TCP Part 2", "TCP using SACK option"]",
Proceedings of IFIP-TC6 Networking 2004, LNCS 3042,
Springer-Verlag, vol. 3042, pp. 88-99 , May 2004.
[LRSF] Hurtig, P, ., Garcia, J, ., and A. Brunstrom, "Loss
Recovery in Short TCP/SCTP Flows", Karlstad University
Studies 2006:71 , December 2006.
[MM96a] Mathis, M, . and J. Mahdavi, "["Forward Acknowledgment",
"Refining TCP Congestion Control"]", Proceedings of
SIGCOMM 1996 , August 1996.
[MM96b] Mathis, M, . and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Rate-Halving with
Bounding Parameters", September 2004,
<http://www.psc.edu/networking/papers/FACKnotes/current>.
[RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A
Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss
Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3517, April 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3517>.
[RFC3782] Floyd, S., Henderson, T., and A. Gurtov, "The NewReno
Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 3782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3782, April 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3782>.
[RFC6937] Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional
Rate Reduction for TCP", RFC 6937, DOI 10.17487/RFC6937,
May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6937>.
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
[RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7323>.
[RFC8312] Rhee, I., Xu, L., Ha, S., Zimmermann, A., Eggert, L., and
R. Scheffenegger, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks",
RFC 8312, DOI 10.17487/RFC8312, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8312>.
[RFC8985] Cheng, Y., Cardwell, N., Dukkipati, N., and P. Jha, "The
RACK-TLP Loss Detection Algorithm for TCP", RFC 8985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8985, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8985>.
[sack-recovery-entry]
Jarvinen, I, . and M. Kojo, "Using TCP Selective
Acknowledgement (SACK) Information to Determine Duplicate
Acknowledgements for Loss Recovery Initiation", March
2010, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-
recovery-entry-01>.
[SACKPerf]
Kodama, Y, ., Takano, R, ., Okazaki, F, ., and T. Kudoh,
"Improvement of Communication Performance of Linux TCP/IP
by Fixing a Problem in Detection of Loss of
Retransmission", March 2008,
<http://projects.itri.aist.go.jp/gnet/sack-bug.html>.
[SRE] Jarvinen, I. and M. Kojo, "Using TCP Selective
Acknowledgement (SACK) Information to Determine Duplicate
Acknowledgements for Loss Recovery Initiation", draft-
ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry-01 (work in progress), March
2010.
[TCPLat] Cardwell, N, ., Savage, S, ., and T. Anderson, "Modeling
TCP Latency", Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM , March 2000.
[TLP] Dukkipati, N., Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Tail Loss Probe (TLP): An Algorithm for Fast Recovery of
Tail Losses", draft-dukkipati-tcpm-tcp-loss-probe-01 (work
in progress), February 2013.
10.3. URIs
[1] mailto:tcpm@ietf.org
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
Appendix A. Lost Retransmission Detection Example
The following lengthy graph shows the intended behavior under
pathological packet loss, where every third segment is lost. Note
that SACK LRD will not be able to recover, if the loss ratio during
recovery is higher than about 50%, due to the congestion window
reduction.
For clarity, each segment is denoted only via a single number. Note
that the ACKs are also given with the segement they ack, not the next
sequence number.
A.1. Lost Retransmission, Mid-Stream
ACK Transmitted Received ACK Sent
Received Segment Segment (Including SACK Blocks)
1000
5000-5499 5000-5499 (delayed ACK)
5500-5999 5500-5999
6000
2000
6000-6499 (dropped)
6500-6999 (dropped)
3000
7000-7499 (dropped)
7500-7999 (dropped)
4000
8000-8499 (dropped)
8500-8999 (dropped)
5000
9000-9499 9000-9499
6000; 9000-9500
9500-9999 9500-9999
6000; 9000-10000
6000
10000-10499 10000-10499
6000; 9000-10500
10500-10999 10000-10999
6000; 9000-11000
6000; 9000-9500
(lim. tr.) 11000-11499 11000-11499
6000; 9000-11500
6000; 9000-10000
(lim. tr.) 11500-11999 11500-11999 (end-of-stream)
6000; 9000-12000
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LRD March 2021
6000; 9000-10500
(fast retr.) 6000-6499 (dropped) [^1]
6000; 9000-11000
6000; 9000-11500
6500-6999 6500-6999 [^2]
6000; 6500-7000,9000-12000
6000; 9000-12000
6000; 6500-7000,9000-12000
7000-7499 7000-7499 [^2]
6000; 6500-7500,9000-12000
6000; 6500-7500,9000-12000
7500-7999 7500-7999 \[mark 8999*\]
6000; 6500-8000,9000-12000
6000; 6500-8000,9000-12000 (trigger 6000-6499)
6000-6499 6000-6499 \[mark 8999*\]
8000; 9000-12000
8000; 9000-12000
8000-8499 8000-8499 \[mark 8999*\]
8500; 9000-12000
8500; 9000-12000
8500-8999 8500-8999 \[mark 12499**\]
12000
12000 (exit loss recovery)
Figure 1
Author's Address
Richard Scheffenegger
NetApp
Am Europlatz 2
Vienna 1120
AT
Email: rs.ietf@gmx.at
Scheffenegger Expires September 13, 2021 [Page 13]
