Internet DRAFT - draft-zimmermann-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis
draft-zimmermann-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions M. Duke
(TCPM) WG Boeing Phantom Works
Internet-Draft R. Braden
Obsoletes: 4614 (if approved) ISI
Intended status: Informational W. Eddy
Expires: November 22, 2013 MTI Systems
E. Blanton
Purdue University
A. Zimmermann
NetApp, Inc.
May 21, 2013
A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Documents
draft-zimmermann-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-02
Abstract
This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC)
documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents
defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the
RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP
implementers and other parties who desire information contained in
the TCP-related RFCs.
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 November 22, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
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. Basic Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Fundamental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . 9
3.3. SACK-Based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control . . . . . 10
3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 11
3.5. Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . 16
4.3. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 18
4.4. Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1. Foundational Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3. Difficult Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.4. Guidance for Developing, Analyzing, and Evaluating TCP . . 28
6.5. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.6. Management Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.7. Tools and Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.8. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Undocumented TCP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
1. Introduction
A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet
hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents
have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time,
a large number of more experimental modifications to TCP have also
been published in the RFC series, along with informational notes,
case studies, and other advice.
As an introduction to newcomers and an attempt to organize the
plethora of information for old hands, this document contains a
"roadmap" to the TCP-related RFCs. It provides a brief summary of
the RFC documents that define TCP. This should provide guidance to
implementers on the relevance and significance of the standards-track
extensions, informational notes, and best current practices that
relate to TCP.
This document is not an update of RFC 1122 and is not a rigorous
standard for what needs to be implemented in TCP. This document is
merely an informational roadmap that captures, organizes, and
summarizes most of the RFC documents that a TCP implementer,
experimenter, or student should be aware of. Particular comments or
broad categorizations that this document makes about individual
mechanisms and behaviors are not to be taken as definitive, nor
should the content of this document alone influence implementation
decisions.
This roadmap includes a brief description of the contents of each
TCP-related RFC. In some cases, we simply supply the abstract or a
key summary sentence from the text as a terse description. In
addition, a letter code after an RFC number indicates its category in
the RFC series (see BCP 9 [RFC2026] for explanation of these
categories):
S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or
Internet Standard)
E - Experimental
I - Informational
H - Historic
B - Best Current Practice
U - Unknown (not formally defined)
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Note that the category of an RFC does not necessarily reflect its
current relevance. For instance, RFC 5681 is nearly universally
deployed although it is only a Draft Standard. Similarly, some
Informational RFCs contain significant technical proposals for
changing TCP.
Finally, if an error in the technical content has been found after
publication of an RFC, this fact is indicated by the term "(Errata)"
in the headline of the RFC's description. The contents of the errata
can be found at the RFC editor home page [Errata].
This roadmap is divided into four main sections. Section 2 lists the
RFCs that describe absolutely required TCP behaviors for proper
functioning and interoperability. Further RFCs that describe
strongly encouraged, but non-essential, behaviors are listed in
Section 3. Experimental extensions that are not yet standard
practices, but that potentially could be in the future, are described
in Section 4.
The reader will probably notice that these three sections are broadly
equivalent to MUST/SHOULD/MAY specifications (per RFC 2119), and
although the authors support this intuition, this document is merely
descriptive; it does not represent a binding standards-track
position. Individual implementers still need to examine the
standards documents themselves to evaluate specific requirement
levels.
A small number of older experimental extensions that have not been
widely implemented, deployed, and used are noted in Section 5. Many
other supporting documents that are relevant to the development,
implementation, and deployment of TCP are described in Section 6.
A small number of fairly ubiquitous important implementation
practices that is not currently documented in the RFC series is
listed in Section 7.
Within each section, RFCs are listed in the chronological order of
their publication dates.
2. Basic Functionality
A small number of documents compose the core specification of TCP.
These define the required basic functionalities of TCP's header
parsing, state machine, congestion control, and retransmission
timeout computation. These base specifications must be correctly
followed for interoperability.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 793 S: "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7 (September 1981)
(Errata)
This is the fundamental TCP specification document [RFC0793].
Written by Jon Postel as part of the Internet protocol suite's
core, it describes the TCP packet format, the TCP state machine
and event processing, and TCP's semantics for data transmission,
reliability, flow control, multiplexing, and acknowledgment.
Section 3.6 of RFC 793, describing TCP's handling of the IP
precedence and security compartment, is mostly irrelevant today.
RFC 2873 changed the IP precedence handling, and the security
compartment portion of the API is no longer implemented or used.
In addition, RFC 793 did not describe any congestion control
mechanism. Otherwise, however, the majority of this document
still accurately describes modern TCPs. RFC 793 is the last of a
series of developmental TCP specifications, starting in the
Internet Experimental Notes (IENs) and continuing in the RFC
series.
RFC 1122 S: "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers"
(October 1989)
This document [RFC1122] updates and clarifies RFC 793, fixing some
specification bugs and oversights. It also explains some features
such as keep-alives and Karn's and Jacobson's RTO estimation
algorithms [KP87][Jac88][JK92]. ICMP interactions are mentioned,
and some tips are given for efficient implementation. RFC 1122 is
an Applicability Statement, listing the various features that
MUST, SHOULD, MAY, SHOULD NOT, and MUST NOT be present in
standards-conforming TCP implementations. Unlike a purely
informational "roadmap", this Applicability Statement is a
standards document and gives formal rules for implementation.
RFC 2460 S: "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"
(December 1998) (Errata)
This document [RFC2460] is of relevance to TCP because it defines
how the pseudo-header for TCP's checksum computation is derived
when 128-bit IPv6 addresses are used instead of 32-bit IPv4
addresses. Additionally, RFC 2675 describes TCP changes required
to support IPv6 jumbograms.
RFC 2873 S: "TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field" (June 2000)
(Errata)
This document [RFC2873] removes from the TCP specification all
processing of the precedence bits of the TOS byte of the IP
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
header. This resolves a conflict over the use of these bits
between RFC 793 and Differentiated Services [RFC2474].
RFC 3390 S: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (October 2002)
This document [RFC3390] specifies an increase in the permitted
initial window for TCP from one segment to three or four segments
during the slow start phase, depending on the segment size.
RFC 5681 S: "TCP Congestion Control" (August 2009)
Although RFC 793 did not contain any congestion control
mechanisms, today congestion control is a required component of
TCP implementations. This document [RFC5681] defines the current
versions of Van Jacobson's congestion avoidance and control
mechanisms for TCP, based on his 1988 SIGCOMM paper [Jac88].
A number of behaviors that together constitute what the community
refers to as "Reno TCP" are described in RFC 5681. The name
"Reno" comes from the Net/2 release of the 4.3 BSD operating
system. This is generally regarded as the least common
denominator among TCP flavors currently found running on Internet
hosts. Reno TCP includes the congestion control features of slow
start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery.
RFC 1122 [RFC1122] mandates the implementation of a congestion
control mechanism, and RFC 5681 [RFC5681] details the currently
accepted mechanism. RFC 5681 differs slightly from the other
documents listed in this section, as it does not affect the
ability of two TCP endpoints to communicate; however, congestion
control remains a critical component of any widely deployed TCP
implementation and is required for the avoidance of congestion
collapse and to ensure fairness among competing flows.
RFC 2001 and RFC 2581 are the conceptual precursors of RFC 5681.
The most important changes relative to RFC 2581 are:
(a) The initial window requirements were changed to allow larger
Initial Windows as standardized in [RFC3390].
(b) During slow start and congestion avoidance, the usage of
Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465] is explicitly
recommended.
(c) The use of Limited Transmit [RFC3042] is now recommended.
RFC 6093 S: "On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent Mechanism"
(January 2011)
This document [RFC6093] analyzes how current TCP stacks process
TCP urgent indications, and how the behavior of widely deployed
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
middleboxes affects the urgent indications processing. Based on
their investigation, the document updates the relevant
specifications such that they accommodate current practice in
processing TCP urgent indications. Finally, the document raises
awareness about the reliability of TCP urgent indications in the
Internet, and recommends against the use of urgent mechanism.
RFC 6298 S: "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer" (June 2011)
Abstract: "This document defines the standard algorithm that
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) senders are required to use to
compute and manage their retransmission timer. It expands on the
discussion in section 4.2.3.1 of RFC 1122 and upgrades the
requirement of supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD to a MUST."
[RFC6298]. RFC 6298 is the successor of RFC 2988, which changes
the initial RTO from 3s to 1s.
RFC 6691 I: "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" (July 2012)
This document [RFC6691] clarifies what value to use with the TCP
Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option when IP and TCP options are in
use.
3. Recommended Enhancements
This section describes recommended TCP modifications that improve
performance and security. Section 3.1 represents fundamental changes
to the protocol. Section 3.2 lists improvements in the congestion
control and loss recovery mechanisms specified in RFC 5681.
Section 3.3 describes further refinements that make use of selective
acknowledgments. Section 3.4 describes algorithms that allows a TCP
sender to detect whether it has entered loss recovery unnecessarily.
Section 3.5 compromises Path MTU Discovery mechanisms. Header
compression schemes for TCP/IP header compression are listed in
Section 3.6. Finally, Section 3.7 deals with the problem of
preventing forged segments and flooding attacks.
3.1. Fundamental Changes
RFC 1323 allows better utilization of high bandwidth-delay product
paths by providing some needed mechanisms for high-rate transfers.
RFC 2675 describes changes to TCP's semantic for using IPv6
Jumbograms. RFC 5482 specifies the TCP User Timeout Option.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 1323 S: "TCP Extensions for High Performance" (May 1992)
This document [RFC1323] defines TCP extensions for window scaling,
timestamps, and protection against wrapped sequence numbers, for
efficient and safe operation over paths with large bandwidth-delay
products. These extensions are commonly found in currently used
systems; however, they may require manual tuning and
configuration. One issue in this specification that is still
under discussion concerns a modification to the algorithm for
estimating the mean RTT when timestamps are used. RFC 1072 and
RFC 1185 are the conceptual precursors of RFC 1323.
RFC 2675 S: "IPv6 Jumbograms" (August 1999) (Errata)
IPv6 supports longer datagrams than were allowed in IPv4. These
are known as Jumbograms, and use with TCP has necessitated changes
to the handling of TCP's MSS and Urgent fields (both 16 bits).
This document [RFC2675] explains those changes. Although it
describes changes to basic header semantics, these changes should
only affect the use of very large segments, such as IPv6
jumbograms, which are currently rarely used in the general
Internet.
Supporting the behavior described in this document does not affect
interoperability with other TCP implementations when IPv4 or non-
jumbogram IPv6 is used. This document states that jumbograms are
to only be used when it can be guaranteed that all receiving
nodes, including each router in the end-to-end path, will support
jumbograms. If even a single node that does not support
jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on that
network may use jumbograms. This explains why jumbogram use has
been rare, and why this document is considered a performance
optimization and not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality.
RFC 5482 S: "TCP User Timeout Option" (June 2009)
As a local per-connection parameter the TCP user timeout controls
how long transmitted data may remain unacknowledged before a
connection is forcefully closed. This document [RFC5482]
specifies the TCP User Timeout Option that allows one end of a TCP
connection to advertise its current user timeout value. This
information provides advice to the other end of the TCP connection
to adapt its user timeout accordingly.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
3.2. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions
Two of the most important aspects of TCP are its congestion control
and loss recovery features. TCP traditionally treats lost packets as
indicating congestion-related loss, and cannot distinguish between
congestion-related loss and loss due to transmission errors. Even
when ECN is in use, there is a rather intimate coupling between
congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms. There are several
extensions to both features, and more often than not, a particular
extension applies to both. In this sub-section, we group
enhancements to either congestion control, loss recovery, or both,
which can be performed unilaterally; that is, without negotiating
support between endpoints. In the next sub-section, we group the
extensions that specify or rely on the SACK option, which must be
negotiated bilaterally. TCP implementations should include the
enhancements from both sub-sections so that TCP senders can perform
well without regard to the feature sets of other hosts they connect
to. For example, if SACK use is not successfully negotiated, a host
should use the NewReno behavior as a fall back.
RFC 3042 S: "Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit"
(January 2001)
Abstract: "This document proposes Limited Transmit, a new
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) mechanism that can be used to
more effectively recover lost segments when a connection's
congestion window is small, or when a large number of segments are
lost in a single transmission window." [RFC3042] Tests from 2004
showed that Limited Transmit was deployed in roughly one third of
the web servers tested [MAF04].
RFC 3168 S: "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IP" (September 2001)
This document [RFC3168] defines a means for end hosts to detect
congestion before congested routers are forced to discard packets.
Although congestion notification takes place at the IP level, ECN
requires support at the transport level (e.g., in TCP) to echo the
bits and adapt the sending rate. This document updates RFC 793 to
define two previously unused flag bits in the TCP header for ECN
support. RFC 3540 provides a supplementary (experimental) means
for more secure use of ECN, and RFC 2884 provides some sample
results from using ECN.
RFC 3465 E: "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting
(ABC)" (February 2003)
This document [RFC3465] suggests that congestion control use the
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
number of bytes acknowledged instead of the number of
acknowledgments received. The ABC mechanism behaves differently
than the standard method when there is not a one-to-one
relationship between data segments and acknowledgements. ABC
still operates within the accepted guidelines, but is more robust
to delayed ACKs and ACK-division [SCWA99][RFC3449].
RFC 6633 S: "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages" (May 2012)
This document [RFC6633] formally deprecates the use of ICMP Source
Quench messages by transport protocols and provides a
recommendation against the implementation of [RFC1016].
RFC 6582 S: "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery
Algorithm" (April 2012)
This document [RFC6582] specifies a modification to the standard
Reno fast recovery algorithm, whereby a TCP sender can use partial
acknowledgments to make inferences determining the next segment to
send in situations where SACK would be helpful but isn't
available. Although it is only a slight modification, the NewReno
behavior can make a significant difference in performance when
multiple segments are lost from a single window of data.
RFC 2582 and RFC 3782 are the conceptual precursors of RFC 6582.
The main change in RFC 3782 relative to RFC 2582 was to specify
the Careful variant of NewReno's Fast Retransmit and Fast Recovery
algorithms and advace those two algorithms from Experimental to
Standards Track status. The main change in RFC 6582 relative to
RFC 3782 was to solve a performance degradation that could occur
if FlightSize on Full ACK reception is zero.
3.3. SACK-Based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control
The base TCP specification in RFC 793 provided only a simple
cumulative acknowledgment mechanism. However, a selective
acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism provides performance improvement in
the presence of multiple packet losses from the same flight, more
than outweighing the modest increase in complexity. A TCP should be
expected to implement SACK; however, SACK is a negotiated option and
is only used if support is advertised by both sides of a connection.
RFC 2018 S: "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options" (October 1996)
(Errata)
When more than one packet is lost during one round trip time TCP
may experience poor performance since a TCP sender can only learn
about a single lost packet per round trip time from cumulative
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
acknowledgments. This document [RFC2018] defines the basic
selective acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism for TCP, which can help
to overcome these limitations. The receiving TCP returns SACK
blocks to inform the sender which data has been received. The
sender can then retransmit only the missing data segments.
RFC 2883 S: "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
Option for TCP" (July 2000)
This document [RFC2883] extends RFC 2018. It enables use of the
SACK option to acknowledge duplicate packets. With this
extension, called DSACK, the sender is able to infer the order of
packets received at the receiver, and therefore to infer when it
has unnecessarily retransmitted a packet.
RFC 6675 S: "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm Based on
Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP" (August 2012)
This document [RFC6675] describes a conservative loss recovery
algorithm for TCP that is based on the use of the selective
acknowledgment (SACK) TCP option [RFC2018]. The algorithm
conforms to the spirit of the congestion control specification in
RFC 5681, but allows TCP senders to recover more effectively when
multiple segments are lost from a single flight of data.
RFC 6675 is a revision of RFC 3517 to address several situations
that are not handled explicitly before. In particular
(a) it improves the loss detection in the event that the sender
has outstanding segments that are smaller than SMSS.
(b) it modifies the definition of a "duplicate acknowledgment" to
utilize the SACK information in detecting loss.
(c) it maintains the ACK clock under certain circumstances
involving loss at the end of the window.
3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions
Spurious retransmission timeouts are harmful to TCP performance and
multiple algorithms have been defined for detecting when spurious
retransmissions have occurred, and then responding differently in
order to recover performance. The IETF defined multiple algorithms
because there are tradeoffs in whether or not certain TCP options
need to be implemented, and IPR status. The Standards Track
documents in this section are closely related to the Experimental
documents in Section 4.3 also addressing this topic.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 4015 S: "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP" (February 2005)
This document [RFC4015] describes the response portion of the
Eifel algorithm, which can be used in conjunction with one of
several methods of detecting when loss recovery has been
spuriously entered, such as the Eifel detection algorithm in RFC
3522, the algorithm in RFC 3708, or F-RTO in RFC 5682.
Abstract: "Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel
response algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a
detected spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to
avoid further spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the
detection algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits
that would otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response
algorithm restores the congestion control state in such a way that
packet bursts are avoided."
RFC 5682 S: "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting
Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP" (September 2009)
The F-RTO detection algorithm [RFC5682], originally describes in
RFC 4138, provides an option for inferring spurious retransmission
timeouts. Unlike some similar detection methods (e.g. RFC 3522
and RFC 3708), F-RTO does not rely on the use of any TCP options.
The basic idea is to send previously unsent data after the first
retransmission after a RTO. If the ACKs advance the window, the
RTO may be declared spurious.
3.5. Path MTU Discovery
The MTUs supported by different links and tunnels within the Internet
can vary widely. Fragmentation of packets larger than the supported
MTU on a hop is undesirable. As TCP is the segmentation layer for
dividing an application's bytestream into IP packet payloads, TCP
implementations generally include Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
mechanisms in order to maximize the size of segments they send,
without causing fragmentation within the network. Some algorithms
may utilize signalling from routers on the path that the MTU has been
exceeded.
RFC 1191 S: "Path MTU Discovery" (November 1990)
Abstract: "This memo describes a technique for dynamically
discovering the MTU of an arbitrary Internet path. It specifies a
small change to the way routers generate one type of ICMP message.
For a path that passes through a router that has not been so
changed, this technique might not discover the correct path MTU,
but it will always choose a path MTU as accurate as, and in many
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
cases more accurate than, the path MTU that would be chosen by
current practice." [RFC1191]
RFC 1981 S: "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" (August 1996)
Abstract: "This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP
version 6. It is largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes
Path MTU Discovery for IP version 4." [RFC1981]
RFC 4821 S: "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" (March 2007)
Abstract: "This document describes a robust method for Path MTU
Discovery (PMTUD) that relies on TCP or some other Packetization
Layer to probe an Internet path with progressively larger packets.
This method is described as an extension to RFC 1191 and RFC 1981,
which specify ICMP-based Path MTU Discovery for IP versions 4 and
6, respectively." [RFC4821]
3.6. Header Compression
Especially in streaming applications, the overhead of TCP/IP headers
could correspond to more then 50% of the total amount of data sent.
Such large overheads may be tolerable in wired LANs where capacity is
often not an issue, but are excessive for WANs and wireless systems
where bandwidth is scarce. Header compressions schemes for TCP/IP
like the RObust Header Compression (ROHC) can significant compresses
these overhead. It performs well over links with significant error
rates and long round-trip times.
RFC 1144 S: "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links"
(February 1990)
This document [RFC1144] describes a method for compressing the
headers of TCP/IP datagrams to improve performance over low speed
serial links. The method described in this document is limited in
its handling of TCP options and cannot compress the headers of
SYNs and FINs.
RFC 6846 S: "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Profile for TCP/IP
(ROHC-TCP)" January 2013)
From abstract: "This document specifies a RObust Header
Compression (ROHC) profile for compression of TCP/IP packets. The
profile, called ROHC-TCP, provides efficient and robust
compression of TCP headers, including frequently used TCP options
such as selective acknowledgments (SACKs) and Timestamps."
[RFC6846] RFC 6846 is the successor of RFC 4996. It fixes a
technical issue with the SACK compression and clarifies other
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
compression methods used.
3.7. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks
By default, TCP lacks any cryptographic structures to differentiate
legitimate segments and those spoofed from malicious hosts. Spoofing
valid segments requires correctly guessing a number of fields. The
documents in this sub-section describe ways to make that guessing
harder, or to prevent it from being able to affect a connection
negatively.
RFC 4953 I: "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks" (July 2007)
This document [RFC4953] discusses the recently increased
vulnerability of long-lived TCP connections, such as BGP
connections, to resets (RSTs) spoofing attacks. The document
analyses the vulnerability, discussing proposed solutions at the
transport level and their inherent challenges, as well as existing
network level solutions and the feasibility of their deployment.
RFC 5461 I: "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors" (February 2009)
This document [RFC5461] describes a non-standard but widely
implemented modification to TCP's handling of ICMP soft error
messages that rejects pending connection-requests when such error
messages are received. This behavior reduces the likelihood of
long delays between connection-establishment attempts that may
arise in some scenarios.
RFC 4987 I: "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common Mitigations" (August
2007)
This document [RFC4987] describes the well-known TCP SYN flooding
attack. It analyses and discusses various countermeasures against
these attacks, including their use and trade-offs.
RFC 5925 S: "The TCP Authentication Option" (May 2010)
This document [RFC5925] describes the TCP Authentication Option
(TCP-AO), which is used to authenticate TCP segments. TCP-AO
obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385. It supports
the use of stronger hash functions, protects against replays for
long-lived TCP connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP),
coordinates key exchanges between endpoints, and provides a more
explicit recommendation for external key management.
Cryptographic algorithms for TCP-AO are defined in [RFC5926].
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 5926 S: "Cryptographic Algorithms for the TCP Authentication
Option (TCP-AO)" (May 2010)
This document [RFC5926] specifies the algorithms and attributes
that can be used in TCP Authentication Option's (TCP-AO) current
manual keying mechanism and provides the interface for future
message authentication codes (MACs).
RFC 5927 I: "ICMP attacks against TCP" (July 2010)
Abstract: "This document discusses the use of the Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMP) to perform a variety of attacks against
the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Additionally, this
document describes a number of widely implemented modifications to
TCP's handling of ICMP error messages that help to mitigate these
issues." [RFC5927]
RFC 5961 S: "Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks"
(August 2010)
This document [RFC5961] describes minor modifications to how TCP
handles inbound segments. This renders TCP connections,
especially long-lived connections such as H-323 or BGP, are less
vulnerable to spoofed packet injection attacks where the 4-tuple
(the source and destination IP addresses and the source and
destination ports) has been guessed.
RFC 6528 S: "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks" (February
2012)
Abstract: "This document [RFC6528] specifies an algorithm for the
generation of TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISNs), such that the
chances of an off-path attacker guessing the sequence numbers in
use by a target connection are reduced. This document revises
(and formally obsoletes) RFC 1948, and takes the ISN generation
algorithm originally proposed in that document to Standards Track,
formally updating RFC 793.
4. Experimental Extensions
The RFCs in this section are still experimental, but they may become
proposed standards in the future. At least part of the reason that
they are still experimental is to gain more wide-scale experience
with them before a standards track decision is made. By their
publication as experimental RFCs, it is hoped that the community of
TCP researchers will analyze and test the contents of these RFCs.
Although experimentation is encouraged, there is not yet formal
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
consensus that these are fully logical and safe behaviors. Wide-
scale deployment of implementations that use these features should be
well thought-out in terms of consequences.
4.1. Architectural Guidelines
As multiple flows may share the same paths, sections of paths, or
other resources, the TCP implementation may benefit from sharing
information across TCP connections or other flows. Some Experimental
proposals have been documented and some implementations have included
the concepts.
RFC 2140 I: "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (April 1997)
This document [RFC2140] suggests how TCP connections between the
same endpoints might share information, such as their congestion
control state. To some degree, this is done in practice by a few
operating systems; for example, Linux currently has a destination
cache. Although this RFC is technically informational, the
concepts it describes are in experimental use, so we include it in
this section.
RFC 3124 S: "The Congestion Manager" (June 2001)
This document [RFC3124], the Congestion Manager, is a related
proposal to RFC 2140. The idea behind the Congestion Manager,
moving congestion control outside of individual TCP connections,
represents a modification to the core of TCP, which supports
sharing information among TCP connections as well. Although a
Proposed Standard, some pieces of the Congestion Manager support
architecture have not been specified yet, and it has not achieved
use or implementation beyond experimental stacks, so it is not
listed among the standard TCP enhancements in this roadmap.
4.2. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions
TCP congestion control has been an extremely active research area for
many years, as it determines the performance of many applications
that use TCP. A number of experimental RFCs address issues with flow
startup, overshoot, and steady-state behavior in the basic RFC 5681
algorithms.
RFC 2861 E: "TCP Congestion Window Validation" (June 2000)
This document [RFC2861] suggests reducing the congestion window
over time when no packets are flowing. This behavior is more
aggressive than that specified in RFC 5681, which says that a TCP
sender SHOULD set its congestion window to the initial window
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
after an idle period of an RTO or greater.
RFC 3540 E: "Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) signaling
with Nonces" (June 2003)
This document [RFC3540] describes an optional addition to ECN that
protects against accidental or malicious concealment of marked
packets from the TCP sender.
RFC 3649 E: "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows" (December
2003)
This document [RFC3649] proposes a modification to TCP's
congestion control mechanism for use with TCP connections with
large congestion windows, to allow TCP to achieve a higher
throughput in high-bandwidth environments.
RFC 3742 E: "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion
Windows" (March 2004)
This document [RFC3742] describes a more conservative slow-start
behavior to prevent massive packet losses when a connection uses a
very large congestion window.
RFC 4782 E: "Quick-Start for TCP and IP" (January 2007) (Errata)
This document [RFC4782] specifies the optional Quick-Start
mechanism for TCP. This mechanism allows connections to use
higher sending rates at the beginning of the data transfer or
after an idle period, provided that there is significant unused
bandwidth along the path, and the sender and all of the routers
along the path approve this higher rate.
RFC 5562 E: "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Capability
to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets" (June 2009)
This document [RFC5562] describes an experimental modification to
ECN [RFC3168] for the use of ECN in TCP SYN/ACK packets. This
would allow to ECN-mark rather than drop the TCP SYN/ACK packet at
an ECN-capable router, and to avoid the severe penalty of a
retransmission timeout for a connection when the SYN/ACK packet is
dropped.
RFC 5690 I: "Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP"
(February 2010)
This document [RFC5690] describes a congestion control mechanism
for acknowledgment (ACKs) traffic in TCP. The mechanism is based
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
on the acknowledgment congestion control of the Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol's (DCCP's) [RFC4340] Congestion
Control Identifier (CCID) 2 [RFC4341].
RFC 5827 E: "Early Retransmit for TCP and SCTP" (April 2010)
This document [RFC5827] proposes the "Early Retransmit" mechanism
for TCP (and SCTP) that can be used to recover lost segments when
a connection's congestion window is small. In certain special
circumstances, Early Retransmit reduces the number of duplicate
acknowledgments required to trigger fast retransmit to recover
segment losses without waiting for a lengthy retransmission
timeout.
RFC 6069 E: "Making TCP more Robust to Long Connectivity Disruptions
(TCP-LCD)" (December 2010)
This document [RFC6069] describes how standard ICMP messages can
be used to disambiguate true congestion loss from non-congestion
loss caused by connectivity disruptions. It proposes a reversion
strategy of TCP's retransmission timer that enables a more prompt
detection of whether or not the connectivity has been restored.
RFC 6928 E: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (April 2013)
This document [RFC6928] proposes to increase the TCP initial
window from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in RFC 3390, to
10 segments with a fallback to the existing recommendation when
performance issues are detected.
RFC 6937 E: "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP" (May 2013)
This document [RFC6937] describes an experimental Proportional
Rate Reduction (PRR) algorithm as an alternative to the widely
deployed Fast Recovery algorithm, to improve the accuracy of the
amount of data sent by TCP during loss recovery.
4.3. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions
In addition to the Standards Track extensions to deal with spurious
retransmissions in Section 3.4, Experimental proposals have also been
documented.
RFC 3522 E: "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP" (April 2003)
The Eifel detection algorithm [RFC3522] allows a TCP sender to
detect a posteriori whether it has entered loss recovery
unnecessarily by using the TCP timestamp option to solve the ACK
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
ambiguity.
RFC 3708 E: "Using TCP Duplicate Selective Acknowledgement (DSACKs)
and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate
Transmission Sequence Numbers (TSNs) to Detect Spurious
Retransmissions" (February 2004)
Abstract: "TCP and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
provide notification of duplicate segment receipt through
Duplicate Selective Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Duplicate
Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) notification, respectively.
This document presents conservative methods of using this
information to identify unnecessary retransmissions for various
applications." [RFC3708]
RFC 4653 E: "Improving the Robustness of TCP to Non-Congestion
Events" (August 2008)
In the presence of non-congestion events, such as reordering an
out-of-order segment does not necessarily indicates a lost segment
and congestion. This document [RFC4653] proposes to increase the
threshold used to trigger a fast retransmission from the fixed
value of three duplicate ACKs to about one congestion window of
data in order to disambiguate true segment loss from segment
reordering.
4.4. Multipath TCP
MultiPath TCP (MPTCP) is an ongoing effort within the IETF that
allows a TCP connection to simultaneous use multiple IP-addresses/
interfaces to spread their data across several subflows, while
presenting a regular TCP interface to applications. Benefits of this
include better resource utilization, better throughput and smoother
reaction to failures. The documents listed in this section specify
the Multipath TCP scheme, while the documents in Sections 6.4, 6.2
and 6.5 provide some additinal background information.
RFC 6356 E: "Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport
Protocols" (August 2011)
This document [RFC6356] presents a congestion control algorithm
for multipath transport protocols such as Multipath TCP. It
couples the congestion control algorithms running on different
subflows by linking their increase functions, and dynamically
controls the overall aggressiveness of the multipath flow. The
result is an algorithm that is fair to TCP at bottlenecks while
moving traffic away from congested links.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 6824 E: "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses" (January 2013) (Errata)
This document [RFC6824] presents protocol changes required to add
multipath capability to TCP; specifically, those for signaling and
setting up multiple paths ("subflows"), managing these subflows,
reassembly of data, and termination of sessions.
5. Historic Extensions
The RFCs listed here define extensions that have thus far failed to
arouse substantial interest from implementers and have never seen
widespread, or were found to be defective for general use. Most of
them are reclassifies by RFC 6247 [RFC6247] to Historic status.
RFC 721 U: "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol"
(September 1976): lack of interest
RFC 721 [RFC0721] addresses the problem of implementing a reliable
out-of-band signal (interrupts) for use in a host-to-host
protocol. The proposal has not been included in the final TCP
specification.
RFC 1078 U: "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" (November 1988):
lack of interest
This document [RFC1078] propose a protocol to contact multiple
services on a single well-known TCP port using a service name
instead of a well-known number.
RFC 1106 H: "TCP Big Window and NAK Options" (June 1989): found
defective
This RFC [RFC1106] defined an alternative to the Window Scale
option for using large windows and described the "negative
acknowledgement" or NAK option. There is a comparison of NAK and
SACK methods, and early discussion of TCP over satellite issues.
RFC 1110 explains some problems with the approaches described in
RFC 1106. The options described in this document have not been
adopted by the larger community, although NAKs are used in the
SCPS-TP adaptation of TCP for satellite and spacecraft use,
developed by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
(CCSDS).
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 1110 H: "A Problem with the TCP Big Window Option" (August 1989):
deprecates RFC 1106
Abstract: "The TCP Big Window option discussed in RFC 1106 will
not work properly in an Internet environment which has both a high
bandwidth * delay product and the possibility of disordering and
duplicating packets. In such networks, the window size must not
be increased without a similar increase in the sequence number
space. Therefore, a different approach to big windows should be
taken in the Internet." [RFC1110]
RFC 1146 H: "TCP Alternate Checksum Options" (March 1990): lack of
interest
This document [RFC1146] defined more robust TCP checksums than the
16-bit ones-complement in use today. A typographical error in RFC
1145 is fixed in RFC 1146; otherwise, the documents are the same.
RFC 1263 I: "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful" (October 1991): lack
of interest
This document [RFC1263] argues against "backwards compatible" TCP
extensions. Specifically mentioned are several TCP enhancements
that have been successful, including timestamps, window scaling,
PAWS, and SACK. RFC 1263 presents an alternative approach called
"protocol evolution", whereby several evolutionary versions of TCP
would exist on hosts. These distinct TCP versions would represent
upgrades to each other and could be header-incompatible.
Interoperability would be provided by having a virtualization
layer select the right TCP version for a particular connection.
This idea did not catch on with the community, while the type of
extensions RFC 1263 specifically targeted as harmful did become
popular.
RFC 1379 H: "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts" (November
1992): found defective
See RFC 1644.
RFC 1644 H: "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
Specification" (July 1994): found defective
The inventors of TCP believed that cached connection state could
have been used to eliminate TCP's 3-way handshake, to support two-
packet request/response exchanges. RFCs 1379 [RFC1379] and 1644
[RFC1644] show that this is far from simple. Furthermore, T/TCP
floundered on the ease of denial-of-service attacks that can
result. One idea pioneered by T/TCP lives on in RFC 2140, in the
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
sharing of state across connections.
RFC 1693 H: "An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service" (November
1994): lack of interest
This document [RFC1693] defines a TCP extension for applications
that do not care about the order in which application-layer
objects are received. Examples are multimedia and database
applications. In practice, these applications either accept the
possible performance loss because of TCP's strict ordering or they
use more specialized transport protocols.
RFC 1705 I: "Six Virtual Inches to the Left: The Problem with IPng"
(October 1994): lack of interest
To overcome the exhaustion of the IP class B address space,
suggest this document [RFC1705] that a new version of TCP (TCPng)
needs to be developed and deployed. It proposes that a globally
unique address be assigned to Transport layer to uniquely identify
an internet host without specifying any routing information.
RFC 6013 I: "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" (January 2011): lack of
interest
This document [RFC6013] describes a method to exchange a cookie
(nonce) during the connection establishment to negotiates
elimination of receiver state. These cookies are later used to
inhibit premature closing of connections, and reduce retention of
state after the connection has terminated.
Since the cookie pair is too large to fit with the other TCP
options in the 40 bytes of TCP option space, the document further
describes method to extent the option space after the connection
establishment.
Although the RFC 6013 is publish in 2011, the author of this
document places it in this section of the roadmap document due to
two factors.
(a) The author is not aware of any wide deployment and use of RFC
6013.
(b) RFC 6013 uses experimental TCP option codepoints, which
prohibits a large scale deployment.
6. Support Documents
This section contains several classes of documents that do not
necessarily define current protocol behaviors, but that are
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
nevertheless of interest to TCP implementers. Section 6.1 describes
several foundational RFCs that give modern readers a better
understanding of the principles underlying TCP's behaviors and
development over the years. Section 6.2 contains architectural
guidelines and principles for TCP architects and designers. The
documents listed in Section 6.3 provide advice on using TCP in
various types of network situations that pose challenges above those
of typical wired links. Guidance for developing, analyzing, and
evaluating TCP is given in Section 6.4. Some implementation notes
and implementation advices can be found in Section 6.5. The TCP
Management Information Bases are described in Section 6.6. RFCs that
describe tools for testing and debugging TCP implementations or that
contain high-level tutorials on the protocol are listed Section 6.7,
and Section 6.8 lists a number of case studies that have explored TCP
performance.
6.1. Foundational Works
The documents listed in this section contain information that is
largely duplicated by the standards documents previously discussed.
However, some of them contain a greater depth of problem statement
explanation or other context. Particularly, RFCs 813 - 817 (known as
the "Dave Clark Five") describe some early problems and solutions
(RFC 815 only describes the reassembly of IP fragments and is not
included in this TCP roadmap).
RFC 675 U: "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program"
(December 1974)
This document [RFC0675] is a very early precursor of the infamous
RFC 793 which already contained the three-way handshake in its
final form and the concept of sliding windows for reliable data
transmission. Apart from that the segment layout is totally
different and the specified API differs from the latter RFC 793.
RFC 761 H: "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol" (Januar
1980)
This document [RFC0761] is the immediate predecessor of RFC 793.
The header format, the connection establishment including the
different connection states, and the overall API correspond mostly
the final Standard RFC 793.
RFC 813 U: "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" (July 1982)
This document [RFC0813] contains an early discussion of Silly
Window Syndrome and its avoidance and motivates and describes the
use of delayed acknowledgments.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 814 U: "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes" (July 1982)
Suggestions and guidance for the design of tables and algorithms
to keep track of various identifiers within a TCP/IP
implementation are provided by this document [RFC0814].
RFC 816 U: "Fault Isolation and Recovery" (July 1982)
In this document [RFC0816], TCP's response to indications of
network error conditions such as timeouts or received ICMP
messages is discussed.
RFC 817 U: "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation"
(July 1982)
This document [RFC0817] contains implementation suggestions that
are general and not TCP specific. However, they have been used to
develop TCP implementations and describe some performance
implications of the interactions between various layers in the
Internet stack.
RFC 872 U: "TCP-ON-A-LAN" (September 1982)
Conclusion: "The sometimes-expressed fear that using TCP on a
local net is a bad idea is unfounded." [RFC0872]
RFC 896 U: "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" (January
1984)
This document [RFC0896] contains some early experiences with
congestion collapse and some initial thoughts on how to avoid it
using congestion control in TCP.
RFC 964 U: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
Standard Transmission Control Protocol" (November 1985)
This document [RFC0964] points out several specification bugs in
the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document, which was intended as a
successor to RFC 793. This serves to remind us of the difficulty
in specification writing (even when we work from existing
documents!).
6.2. Architectural Guidelines
Some documents in this section contain architectural guidance and
concerns, while others specify TCP- and congestion-control-related
mechanisms that are broadly applicable and have impacts on TCP's
congestion control techniques. Some of these documents are direct
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
products of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), giving their
guidance on specific aspects of congestion control in the Internet.
RFC 1958 I: "Architectural Principles of the Internet" (June 1996)
This document [RFC1958] describes the underlying principles of the
Internet architecture. It provides guidelines for network systems
design that have proven useful in the evolution of the Internet.
RFC 2914 B: "Congestion Control Principles" (September 2000)
This document [RFC2914] motivates the use of end-to-end congestion
control for preventing congestion collapse and providing fairness
to TCP.
RFC 3439 I: "Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and Philosophy"
(December 2002)
This document [RFC3439] extents RFC 1958 by outlining some
philosophical guidelines for architects and designers of Internet
backbone networks. The document describes the Simplicity
Principle, which states that complexity is the primary mechanism
that impedes efficient scaling.
RFC 6182 I: "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development"
(March 2011)
Abstract: "This document outlines architectural guidelines for the
development of a Multipath Transport Protocol, with references to
how these architectural components come together in the
development of a Multipath TCP (MPTCP). This document lists
certain high-level design decisions that provide foundations for
the design of the MPTCP protocol, based upon these architectural
requirements" [RFC6182]
6.3. Difficult Network Environments
As the internetworking field has explored wireless, satellite,
cellular telephone, and other kinds of link-layer technologies, a
large body of work has built up on enhancing TCP performance for such
links. The RFCs listed in this section describe some of these more
challenging network environments and how TCP interacts with them.
RFC 2488 B: "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard
Mechanisms" (January 1999)
From abstract: "While TCP works over satellite channels there are
several IETF standardized mechanisms that enable TCP to more
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
effectively utilize the available capacity of the network path.
This document outlines some of these TCP mitigations. At this
time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF
standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF
standards)." [RFC2488]
RFC 2757 I: "Long Thin Networks" (January 2000)
Several methods of improving TCP performance over long thin
networks, such as geosynchronous satellite links, are discussed in
this document [RFC2757]. A particular set of TCP options is
developed that should work well in such environments and be safe
to use in the global Internet. The implications of such
environments have been further discussed in RFC 3150 and RFC 3155,
and these documents should be preferred where there is overlap
between them and RFC 2757.
RFC 2760 I: "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites" (February
2000)
This document [RFC2760] discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of several different experimental means of improving TCP
performance over long-delay or error-prone paths. These include
T/TCP, larger initial windows, byte counting, delayed
acknowledgments, slow start thresholds, NewReno and SACK-based
loss recovery, FACK [MM96], ECN, various corruption-detection
mechanisms, congestion avoidance changes for fairness, use of
multiple parallel flows, pacing, header compression, state
sharing, and ACK congestion control, filtering, and
reconstruction. Although RFC 2488 looks at standard extensions,
this document focuses on more experimental means of performance
enhancement.
RFC 3135 I: "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate Link-
Related Degradations" (June 2001)
From abstract: "This document is a survey of Performance Enhancing
Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance
caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for
example, in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN
environments. Different types of Performance Enhancing Proxies
are described as well as the mechanisms used to improve
performance." [RFC3135]
RFC 3150 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links" (July
2001)
From abstract: "This document makes performance-related
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low
bit-rate" links....This recommendation may be useful in any
network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the
design space for this recommendation explicitly includes
connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/
second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed."
[RFC3150]
RFC 3155 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with
Errors" (August 2001)
From abstract: "This document discusses the specific TCP
mechanisms that are problematic in environments with high
uncorrected error rates, and discusses what can be done to
mitigate the problems without introducing intermediate devices
into the connection." [RFC3155]
RFC 3366 B: "Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat
reQuest (ARQ)" (August 2002)
From abstract: "This document provides advice to the designers of
digital communication equipment and link-layer protocols employing
link-layer Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This
document presumes that the designers wish to support Internet
protocols, but may be unfamiliar with the architecture of the
Internet and with the implications of their design choices for the
performance and efficiency of Internet traffic carried over their
links." [RFC3366]
RFC 3449 B: "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry"
(December 2002)
From abstract: "This document describes TCP performance problems
that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in
several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks
and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons.
However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both
cases: performance often degrades significantly because of
imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver
to the sender.
The document details several mitigations to these effects, which
have either been proposed or evaluated in the literature, or are
currently deployed in networks." [RFC3449]
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 3481 B: "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation
Wireless Networks" (February 2003)
From abstract: "This document describes a profile for optimizing
TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and
third (3G) generation wireless networks." [RFC3481]
RFC 3819 B: "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers" (July 2004)
This document [RFC3819] describes how TCP performance can be
negatively affected by some particular lower-layer behaviors and
provides guidance in designing lower-layer networks and protocols
to be amicable to TCP.
6.4. Guidance for Developing, Analyzing, and Evaluating TCP
Documents in this section give general guidance for developing,
analyzing, and evaluating TCP. Some of the documents discuss for
example the properties of congestion control protocols that are
"safe" for Internet deployment, as well as how to measure the
properties of congestion control mechanisms and transport protocols.
RFC 4774 B: "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Field" (November 2006)
This document [RFC4774] discusses some of the issues in defining
alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements
for a safe co- existence in an Internet that may include routers
that do not understand the defined alternate semantics.
RFC 5033 B: "Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms" (August
2007)
This document [RFC5033] considers the evaluation of suggested
congestion control algorithms that differ from the principles
outlined in RFC 2914. It is useful for authors of such algorithms
as well as for IETF members reviewing the associated documents.
RFC 5166 I: "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion Control
Mechanisms" (March 2008)
This document [RFC5166] discusses metrics that needs to be
considered when evaluating new or modified congestion control
mechanisms for the Internet. Among others, the document discusses
throughput, delay, loss rates, response times, fairness and
robustness for challenging environments.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 6181 I: "Threat Analysis for TCP Extensions for Multipath
Operation with Multiple Addresses" (March 2011)
This document [RFC6181] describes a threat analysis for Multipath
TCP (MPTCP). The document discusses several types of attacks and
provides recommendations for MPTCP designers how to create an
MPTCP specification that is as secure as the current (single-path)
TCP.
RFC 6349 I: "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing" (August 2011)
From abstract: "This document describes a practical methodology
for measuring end-to-end TCP throughput in a managed IP network.
The goal is to provide a better indication in regard to user
experience. In this framework, TCP and IP parameters are
specified to optimize TCP throughput." [RFC6349]
6.5. Implementation Advice
RFC 794 U: "PRE-EMPTION" (September 1981)
This document [RFC0794] discusses on a high-level the realization
of pre-emption in TCP.
RFC 879 U: "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics"
(November 1983)
Abstract: "This memo discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option
and related topics. The purposes is to clarify some aspects of
TCP and its interaction with IP. This memo is a clarification to
the TCP specification, and contains information that may be
considered as 'advice to implementers'." [RFC0879]
RFC 1071 U: "Computing the Internet Checksum" (September 1988)
(Errata)
This document [RFC1071] lists a number of implementation
techniques for efficiently computing the Internet checksum (used
by TCP).
RFC 1624 I: "Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental
Update" (May 1994)
Incrementally updating the Internet checksum is useful to routers
in updating IP checksums. Some middleboxes that alter TCP headers
may also be able to update the TCP checksum incrementally. This
document [RFC1624] expands upon the explanation of the incremental
update procedure in RFC 1071.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 1936 I: "Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware" (April
1996)
This document [RFC1936] describes the motivation for implementing
the Internet checksum in hardware, rather than in software, and
provides an implementation example.
RFC 2525 I: "Known TCP Implementation Problems" (March 1999)
From abstract: "This memo catalogs a number of known TCP
implementation problems. The goal in doing so is to improve
conditions in the existing Internet by enhancing the quality of
current TCP/IP implementations." [RFC2525]
RFC 2923 I: "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery" (September 2000)
From abstract: "This memo catalogs several known Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) implementation problems dealing with Path
Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD), including the long-
standing black hole problem, stretch acknowlegements (ACKs) due to
confusion between Maximum Segment Size (MSS) and segment size, and
MSS advertisement based on PMTU." [RFC2923]
RFC 3360 B: "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful" (August
2002)
This document [RFC3360] is a plea that firewall vendors not send
gratuitous TCP RST (Reset) packets when unassigned TCP header bits
are used. This practice prevents desirable extension and
evolution of the protocol and thus is potentially harmful to the
future of the Internet.
RFC 3493 I: "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" (February
2003)
This document [RFC3493] describes the de facto standard sockets
API for programming with TCP. This API is implemented nearly
ubiquitously in modern operating systems and programming
languages.
RFC 6056 B: "Recommendations for Transport-Protocol Port
Randomization" (December 2010)
This document [RFC6056] describes a number of simple and efficient
methods for the selection of the client port number. It reduces
the possibility of an attacker guessing the correct five-tuple
(Protocol, Source/Destination Address, Source/Destination Port).
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 6191 B: "Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP timestamps"
(April 2011)
This document [RFC6191] describes the usage of the TCP Timestamps
option [JBB92] to perform heuristics to determine whether or not
to allow the creation of a new incarnation of a connection that is
in the TIME-WAIT state.
RFC 6429 I: "TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition"
(December 2011)
This document [RFC6429] clarifies the actions that a TCP can be
taken on connections that are experiencing the Zero Window Probe
(ZWP) condition.
RFC 6897 I: "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application Interface
Considerations (March 2013)
This document [RFC6897] characterizes the impact that Multipath
TCP (MPTCP) may have on applications. It further discusses
compatibility issues of MPTCP in combination with non-MPTCP-aware
applications. Finally, it describes a basic API that is a simple
extension of TCP's interface for MPTCP-aware applications.
6.6. Management Information Bases
The first MIB module defined for use with Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) (in RFC 1066 and its update, RFC 1156) was a single
monolithic MIB module, called MIB-I. This evolved over time to be
MIB-II (RFC 1213). It then became apparent that having a single
monolithic MIB module was not scalable, given the number and breadth
of MIB data definitions that needed to be included. Thus, additional
MIB modules were defined, and those parts of MIB-II that needed to
evolve were split off. Eventually, the remaining parts of MIB-II
were also split off, the TCP-specific part being documented in RFC
2012.
RFC 2012 was obsoleted by RFC 4022, which is the primary TCP MIB
document today. MIB-I, defined in RFC 1156, has been obsoleted by
the MIB-II specification in RFC 1213. For current TCP implementers,
RFC 4022 should be supported.
RFC 1066 H: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets" (August 1988)
This document [RFC1066] was the description of the TCP MIB. It
was obsoleted by RFC 1156.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 1156 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets" (May 1990)
This document [RFC1156] describes the required MIB fields for TCP
implementations, with minor corrections and no technical changes
from RFC 1066, which it obsoletes. This is the standards track
document for MIB-I.
RFC 1213 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets: MIB-II" (March 1991)
This document [RFC1213] describes the second version of the MIB in
a monolithic form. RFC 2012 updates this document by splitting
out the TCP-specific portions.
RFC 2012 S: "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol using SMIv2" (November 1996)
This document [RFC2012] defined the TCP MIB, in an update to RFC
1213. It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.
RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998)
This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6-
specific connection table. The rest of 2012 holds for any IP
version. RFC 2012 is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.
Although it is a standards track document, RFC 2452 is considered
a historic mistake by the MIB community, as it is based on the
idea of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 structures. Although IPv6 requires
new structures, the community has decided to define a single
generic structure for both IPv4 and IPv6. This will aid in
definition, implementation, and transition between IPv4 and IPv6.
RFC 4022 S: "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP)" (March 2005)
This document [RFC4022] obsoletes RFC 2012 and RFC 2452 and
specifies the current standard for the TCP MIB that should be
deployed.
6.7. Tools and Tutorials
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 1180 I: "TCP/IP Tutorial" (January 1991) (Errata)
This document [RFC1180] is an extremely brief overview of the
TCP/IP protocol suite as a whole. It gives some explanation as to
how and where TCP fits in.
RFC 1470 I: "FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for
Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices"
(June 1993)
A few of the tools that this document [RFC1470] describes are
still maintained and in use today; for example, ttcp and tcpdump.
However, many of the tools described do not relate specifically to
TCP and are no longer used or easily available.
RFC 2398 I: "Some Testing Tools for TCP Implementors" (August 1998)
This document [RFC2398] describes a number of TCP packet
generation and analysis tools. Although some of these tools are
no longer readily available or widely used, for the most part they
are still relevant and useable.
RFC 4614 I: "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Specification Documents" (September 2006)
RFC 4614 [RFC4614] is the precursor of this document.
RFC 5783 I: "Congestion Control in the RFC Series" (February 2010)
This document [RFC5783] provides an overview of RFCs related to
congestion control that have been published so far. The focus of
the document are on end-host-based congestion control.
RFC 6077 I: "Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control"
(January 2011)
This RFC [RFC6077] summarizes the main open problems in the domain
of Internet congestion control. As a good starting point for
newcomers, the document describes several new challenges that are
becoming important as the network grows, as well as some issues
that have been known for many years.
6.8. Case Studies
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 700 U: "A Protocol Experiment" (August 1974)
This document [RFC0700] presents a field report about the
deployment of a very early version of TCP, the so-called INWN #39
protocol, which is originally described by Cerf and Kahn in INWG
Note #39 [CK73] to use a PDP-11 line printer via the ARPANET.
RFC 889 U: "Internet Delay Experiments" (December 1983)
This document [RFC0889] is a status report about experiments
concerning the TCP retransmission timeout calculation and also
provides advices for implementers.
RFC 1337 I: "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazardsin TCP" (May 1992)
This document [RFC1337] points out a problem with acting on
received reset segments while one is in the TIME-WAIT state. The
main recommendation is that hosts in TIME-WAIT ignore resets.
This recommendation might not currently be widely implemented.
RFC 2415 I: "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP Window Size"
(September 1998)
This document [RFC2415] presents results of some simulations using
TCP initial windows greater than 1 segment. The analysis
indicates that user-perceived performance can be improved by
increasing the initial window to 3 segments.
RFC 2416 I: "When TCP Starts Up With Four Packets Into Only Three
Buffers" (September 1998)
This document [RFC2416] uses simulation results to clear up some
concerns about using an initial window of 4 segments when the
network path has less provisioning.
RFC 2884 I: "Performance Evaluation of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) in IP Networks" (July 2000)
This document [RFC2884] describes experimental results that show
some improvements to the performance of both short- and long-lived
connections due to ECN.
7. Undocumented TCP Features
There are a few important implementation tactics for the TCP that
have not yet been described in any RFC. Although this roadmap is
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
primarily concerned with mapping the TCP RFCs, this section is
included because an implementer needs to be aware of these important
issues.
Header Prediction
Header prediction is a trick to speed up the processing of
segments. Van Jacobson and Mike Karels developed the technique in
the late 1980s. The basic idea is that some processing time can
be saved when most of a segment's fields can be predicted from
previous segments. A good description of this was sent to the
TCP-IP mailing list by Van Jacobson on March 9, 1988:
"Quite a bit of the speedup comes from an algorithm that we ('we'
refers to collaborator Mike Karels and myself) are calling "header
prediction". The idea is that if you're in the middle of a bulk
data transfer and have just seen acpacket, you know what the next
packet is going to look like: It will look just like the current
packet with either the sequence number or ack number updated
(depending on whether you're the sender or receiver). Combining
this with the "Use hints" epigram from Butler Lampson's classic
"Epigrams for System Designers", you start to think of the tcp
state (rcv.nxt, snd.una, etc.) as "hints" about what the next
packet should look like.
If you arrange those "hints" so they match the layout of a tcp
packet header, it takes a single 14-byte compare to see if your
prediction is correct (3 longword compares to pick up the send &
ack sequence numbers, header length, flags and window, plus a
short compare on the length). If the prediction is correct,
there's a single test on the length to see if you're the sender or
receiver followed by the appropriate processing. E.g., if the
length is non-zero (you're the receiver), checksum and append the
data to the socket buffer then wake any process that's sleeping on
the buffer. Update rcv.nxt by the length of this packet (this
updates your "prediction" of the next packet). Check if you can
handle another packet the same size as the current one. If not,
set one of the unused flag bits in your header prediction to
guarantee that the prediction will fail on the next packet and
force you to go through full protocol processing. Otherwise,
you're done with this packet. So, the *total* tcp protocol
processing, exclusive of checksumming, is on the order of 6
compares and an add."
Forward Acknowledgement (FACK)
FACK [MM96] describes an alternate algorithm for triggering fast
retransmit, based on the extent of the SACK scoreboard. Its goal
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
is to trigger fast retransmit as soon as the receiver's reassembly
queue is larger than the DUPACK threshold, as indicated by the
difference between the forward most SACK block edge and SND.UNA.
This algorithm quickly and reliably triggers fast retransmit in
the presence of burst losses -- often on the first SACK following
such a loss. Such a threshold based algorithm also triggers fast
retransmit immediately in the presence of any reordering with
extent greater than the DUPACK threshold. FACK is implemented in
Linux and turned on per default.
Highspeed Congestion Control
In the last decade significant research effort has been put into
experimental TCP congestion control modifications for obtaining
high throughput with reduced startup and recovery times. Only few
RFCs have been published on some of these modifications, including
HighSpeed TCP [RFC3649], Limited Slow-Start [RFC3742], and Quick-
Start [RFC4782] (see Section 4.2), but high-rate congestion
control mechanisms are still considered an open issue in
congestion control research. Some other schemes have been
published as Internet-Drafts, e.g. CUBIC [I-D.rhee-tcpm-cubic]
(the standard TCP congestion control algorithm in Linux), Compound
TCP [I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp], and H-TCP [I-D.leith-tcp-htcp] or
have been discussed a little by the IETF, but much of the work in
this area has not been adopted within the IETF yet, so the
majority of this work is outside the RFC series and may be
discussed in other products of the IRTF Internet Congestion
Control Research Group (ICCRG).
8. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC
listed in this document attempts to address the security
considerations of the specification it contains.
9. IANA Considerations
This document contains no IANA considerations.
10. Acknowledgments
This document grew out of a discussion on the end2end-interest
mailing list, the public list of the End-to-End Research Group of the
IRTF, and continued development under the IETF's TCP Maintenance and
Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. We thank Joe Touch, Reiner
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Ludwig, Pekka Savola, Gorry Fairhurst, and Sally Floyd for their
contributions, in particular. The chairs of the TCPM working group,
Mark Allman and Ted Faber, have been instrumental in the development
of this document. Keith McCloghrie provided some useful notes and
clarification on the various MIB-related RFCs.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675,
December 1974.
[RFC0700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol
experiment", RFC 700, August 1974.
[RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-
Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976.
[RFC0761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",
RFC 761, January 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC0794] Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, September 1981.
[RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",
RFC 813, July 1982.
[RFC0814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814,
July 1982.
[RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816,
July 1982.
[RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
implementation", RFC 817, July 1982.
[RFC0872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, September 1982.
[RFC0879] Postel, J., "TCP maximum segment size and related topics",
RFC 879, November 1983.
[RFC0889] Mills, D., "Internet delay experiments", RFC 889,
December 1983.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC0964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the
specification of the Military Standard Transmission
Control Protocol", RFC 964, November 1985.
[RFC1066] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for network management of TCP/IP-based internets",
RFC 1066, August 1988.
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., Partridge, C., and W. Plummer,
"Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071,
September 1988.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
RFC 1078, November 1988.
[RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106,
June 1989.
[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
RFC 1110, August 1989.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1144] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed
serial links", RFC 1144, February 1990.
[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", RFC 1146, March 1990.
[RFC1156] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for network management of TCP/IP-based internets",
RFC 1156, May 1990.
[RFC1180] Socolofsky, T. and C. Kale, "TCP/IP tutorial", RFC 1180,
January 1991.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
[RFC1263] O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, "TCP Extensions Considered
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Harmful", RFC 1263, October 1991.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1337] Braden, B., "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP",
RFC 1337, May 1992.
[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts",
RFC 1379, November 1992.
[RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management
Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP
Internets and Interconnected Devices", RFC 1470,
June 1993.
[RFC1624] Rijsinghani, A., "Computation of the Internet Checksum via
Incremental Update", RFC 1624, May 1994.
[RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.
[RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to
TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.
[RFC1705] Carlson, R. and D. Ficarella, "Six Virtual Inches to the
Left: The Problem with IPng", RFC 1705, October 1994.
[RFC1936] Touch, J. and B. Parham, "Implementing the Internet
Checksum in Hardware", RFC 1936, April 1996.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2012] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012,
November 1996.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2140] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140,
April 1997.
[RFC2398] Parker, S. and C. Schmechel, "Some Testing Tools for TCP
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Implementors", RFC 2398, August 1998.
[RFC2415] Poduri, K., "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP
Window Size", RFC 2415, September 1998.
[RFC2416] Shepard, T. and C. Partridge, "When TCP Starts Up With
Four Packets Into Only Three Buffers", RFC 2416,
September 1998.
[RFC2452] Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452,
December 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2488] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP
Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms",
BCP 28, RFC 2488, January 1999.
[RFC2525] Paxson, V., Dawson, S., Fenner, W., Griner, J., Heavens,
I., Lahey, K., Semke, J., and B. Volz, "Known TCP
Implementation Problems", RFC 2525, March 1999.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC2757] Montenegro, G., Dawkins, S., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N.
Vaidya, "Long Thin Networks", RFC 2757, January 2000.
[RFC2760] Allman, M., Dawkins, S., Glover, D., Griner, J., Tran, D.,
Henderson, T., Heidemann, J., Touch, J., Kruse, H.,
Ostermann, S., Scott, K., and J. Semke, "Ongoing TCP
Research Related to Satellites", RFC 2760, February 2000.
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC2873] Xiao, X., Hannan, A., Paxson, V., and E. Crabbe, "TCP
Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field", RFC 2873,
June 2000.
[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An
Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option
for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
[RFC2884] Hadi Salim, J. and U. Ahmed, "Performance Evaluation of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks",
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
RFC 2884, July 2000.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, September 2000.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 2923, September 2000.
[RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H., and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042,
January 2001.
[RFC3124] Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager",
RFC 3124, June 2001.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001.
[RFC3150] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., and V. Magret,
"End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links",
BCP 48, RFC 3150, July 2001.
[RFC3155] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N.
Vaidya, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with
Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3155, August 2001.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful",
BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002.
[RFC3366] Fairhurst, G. and L. Wood, "Advice to link designers on
link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)", BCP 62, RFC 3366,
August 2002.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC3439] Bush, R. and D. Meyer, "Some Internet Architectural
Guidelines and Philosophy", RFC 3439, December 2002.
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M.
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network
Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
[RFC3465] Allman, M., "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte
Counting (ABC)", RFC 3465, February 2003.
[RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and
F. Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G)
Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481,
February 2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3522] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm
for TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
RFC 3540, June 2003.
[RFC3649] Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows",
RFC 3649, December 2003.
[RFC3708] Blanton, E. and M. Allman, "Using TCP Duplicate Selective
Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate Transmission Sequence Numbers
(TSNs) to Detect Spurious Retransmissions", RFC 3708,
February 2004.
[RFC3742] Floyd, S., "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large
Congestion Windows", RFC 3742, March 2004.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC4015] Ludwig, R. and A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm
for TCP", RFC 4015, February 2005.
[RFC4022] Raghunarayan, R., "Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022,
March 2005.
[RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap
for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.
[RFC4653] Bhandarkar, S., Reddy, A., Allman, M., and E. Blanton,
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
"Improving the Robustness of TCP to Non-Congestion
Events", RFC 4653, August 2006.
[RFC4774] Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
RFC 4774, November 2006.
[RFC4782] Floyd, S., Allman, M., Jain, A., and P. Sarolahti, "Quick-
Start for TCP and IP", RFC 4782, January 2007.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4953] Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks",
RFC 4953, July 2007.
[RFC4987] Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common
Mitigations", RFC 4987, August 2007.
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, August 2007.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, March 2008.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
February 2009.
[RFC5482] Eggert, L. and F. Gont, "TCP User Timeout Option",
RFC 5482, March 2009.
[RFC5562] Kuzmanovic, A., Mondal, A., Floyd, S., and K.
Ramakrishnan, "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets", RFC 5562,
June 2009.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC5682] Sarolahti, P., Kojo, M., Yamamoto, K., and M. Hata,
"Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting
Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP", RFC 5682,
September 2009.
[RFC5690] Floyd, S., Arcia, A., Ros, D., and J. Iyengar, "Adding
Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP", RFC 5690,
February 2010.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
[RFC5783] Welzl, M. and W. Eddy, "Congestion Control in the RFC
Series", RFC 5783, February 2010.
[RFC5827] Allman, M., Avrachenkov, K., Ayesta, U., Blanton, J., and
P. Hurtig, "Early Retransmit for TCP and Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 5827, May 2010.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC5926] Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
June 2010.
[RFC5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, July 2010.
[RFC5961] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's
Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961,
August 2010.
[RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013,
January 2011.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[RFC6069] Zimmermann, A. and A. Hannemann, "Making TCP More Robust
to Long Connectivity Disruptions (TCP-LCD)", RFC 6069,
December 2010.
[RFC6077] Papadimitriou, D., Welzl, M., Scharf, M., and B. Briscoe,
"Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control",
RFC 6077, February 2011.
[RFC6093] Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the
TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, January 2011.
[RFC6181] Bagnulo, M., "Threat Analysis for TCP Extensions for
Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 6181,
March 2011.
[RFC6182] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., and J.
Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
Development", RFC 6182, March 2011.
[RFC6191] Gont, F., "Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP
Timestamps", BCP 159, RFC 6191, April 2011.
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
[RFC6247] Eggert, L., "Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC
1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379,
RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status", RFC 6247,
May 2011.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
June 2011.
[RFC6349] Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage,
"Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349,
August 2011.
[RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
RFC 6356, October 2011.
[RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender
Clarification for Persist Condition", RFC 6429,
December 2011.
[RFC6528] Gont, F. and S. Bellovin, "Defending against Sequence
Number Attacks", RFC 6528, February 2012.
[RFC6582] Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The
NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm",
RFC 6582, April 2012.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, May 2012.
[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.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, July 2012.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.
[RFC6846] Pelletier, G., Sandlund, K., Jonsson, L-E., and M. West,
"RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Profile for TCP/IP
(ROHC-TCP)", RFC 6846, January 2013.
[RFC6897] Scharf, M. and A. Ford, "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Interface Considerations", RFC 6897, March 2013.
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928, April 2013.
[RFC6937] Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional
Rate Reduction for TCP", RFC 6937, May 2013.
11.2. Informative References
[CK73] Cerf, V. and R. Kahn, "Towards Protocols for Internetwork
Communication", IFIP/TC6.1, NIC 18764, INWG 39,
September 1973.
[Errata] "RFC Editor - RFC Errata",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php>.
[I-D.leith-tcp-htcp]
Leith, D., "H-TCP: TCP Congestion Control for High
Bandwidth-Delay Product Paths", draft-leith-tcp-htcp-06
(work in progress), April 2008.
[I-D.rhee-tcpm-cubic]
Rhee, I., Xu, L., and S. Ha, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance
Networks", draft-rhee-tcpm-cubic-02 (work in progress),
August 2008.
[I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp]
Sridharan, M., Tan, K., Bansal, D., and D. Thaler,
"Compound TCP: A New TCP Congestion Control for High-Speed
and Long Distance Networks", draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-02
(work in progress), November 2008.
[JK92] Jacobson, V. and M. Karels, "Congestion Avoidance and
Control", This paper is a revised version of [Jac88], that
includes an additional appendix. This paper has not been
traditionally published, but is currently available at
ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z. 1992.
[Jac88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", ACM
SIGCOMM 1988 Proceedings, in ACM Computer Communication
Review, 18 (4), pp. 314-329, August 1988.
[KP87] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Round Trip Time Estimation",
ACM SIGCOMM 1987 Proceedings, in ACM Computer
Communication Review, 17 (5), pp. 2-7, August 1987.
[MAF04] Medina, A., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Measuring the
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Evolution of Transport Protocols in the Internet", ACM
Computer Communication Review, 35 (2), April 2005.
[MM96] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgement:
Refining TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM 1996
Proceedings, in ACM Computer Communication Review 26 (4),
pp. 281-292, October 1996.
[RFC1016] Prue, W. and J. Postel, "Something a host could do with
source quench: The Source Quench Introduced Delay
(SQuID)", RFC 1016, July 1987.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
Congestion Control", RFC 4341, March 2006.
[SCWA99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson,
"TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM
Computer Communication Review, 29 (5), pp. 71-78,
October 1999.
Authors' Addresses
Martin Duke
Boeing Phantom Works
PO Box 3707, MC 7L-49
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Phone: 425-865-1182
Email: martin.duke@boeing.com
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap May 2013
Robert Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Phone: 310-448-9173
Email: braden@isi.edu
Wesley M. Eddy
MTI Systems
MS 500-ASRC; 21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Phone: 216-433-6682
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Ethan Blanton
Purdue University Computer Science
305 N. University St.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Email: elb@psg.com
Alexander Zimmermann
NetApp, Inc.
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Email: alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com
Duke, et al. Expires November 22, 2013 [Page 48]
