rfc5401
Network Working Group B. Adamson
Request for Comments: 5401 Naval Research Laboratory
Obsoletes: 3941 C. Bormann
Category: Standards Track Universitaet Bremen TZI
M. Handley
University College London
J. Macker
Naval Research Laboratory
November 2008
Multicast Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document discusses the creation of reliable multicast protocols
that utilize negative-acknowledgment (NACK) feedback. The rationale
for protocol design goals and assumptions are presented. Technical
challenges for NACK-based (and in some cases general) reliable
multicast protocol operation are identified. These goals and
challenges are resolved into a set of functional "building blocks"
that address different aspects of reliable multicast protocol
operation. It is anticipated that these building blocks will be
useful in generating different instantiations of reliable multicast
protocols. This document obsoletes RFC 3941.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Rationale .......................................................4
2.1. Delivery Service Model .....................................5
2.2. Group Membership Dynamics ..................................6
2.3. Sender/Receiver Relationships ..............................6
2.4. Group Size Scalability .....................................6
2.5. Data Delivery Performance ..................................7
2.6. Network Environments .......................................7
2.7. Intermediate System Assistance .............................8
3. Functionality ...................................................8
3.1. Multicast Sender Transmission .............................11
3.2. NACK Repair Process .......................................13
3.3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures ...........26
3.4. Node (Member) Identification ..............................26
3.5. Data Content Identification ...............................27
3.6. Forward Error Correction (FEC) ............................28
3.7. Round-Trip Timing Collection ..............................29
3.8. Group Size Determination/Estimation .......................33
3.9. Congestion Control Operation ..............................34
3.10. Intermediate System Assistance ...........................34
4. NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Applicability ....................35
5. Security Considerations ........................................36
6. Changes from RFC 3941 ..........................................38
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................38
8. References .....................................................39
8.1. Normative References ......................................39
8.2. Informative References ....................................39
1. Introduction
Reliable multicast transport is a desirable technology for efficient
and reliable distribution of data to a group on the Internet. The
complexities of group communication paradigms necessitate different
protocol types and instantiations to meet the range of performance
and scalability requirements of different potential reliable
multicast applications and users (see [RFC2357]). This document
addresses the creation of reliable multicast protocols that utilize
negative-acknowledgment (NACK) feedback. NACK-based protocols
generally entail less frequent feedback messaging than reliability
protocols based on positive acknowledgment (ACK). The less frequent
feedback messaging helps simplify the problem of feedback implosion
as group size grows larger. While different protocol instantiations
may be required to meet specific application and network architecture
demands [ArchConsiderations], there are a number of fundamental
components that may be common to these different instantiations.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
This document describes the framework and common "building block"
components relevant to multicast protocols that are based primarily
on NACK operation for reliable transport. While this document
discusses a large set of reliable multicast components and issues
relevant to NACK-based reliable multicast protocol design, it
specifically addresses in detail the following building blocks, which
are not addressed in other IETF documents:
1. NACK-based multicast sender transmission strategies,
2. NACK repair process with timer-based feedback suppression, and
3. Round-trip timing for adapting NACK and other timers.
NACK-based reliable multicast implementations SHOULD make use of
Forward Error Correction (FEC) erasure coding techniques, as
described in the FEC Building Block [RFC5052] document. Packet-level
erasure coding allows missing packets from a given FEC block to be
recovered using the parity packets instead of classical,
individualized retransmission of original source data content. For
this reason, this document refers to the protocol mechanisms for
reliability as a "repair process." Note that NACK-based protocols
can reactively provide the parity packets in response to receiver
requests for repair rather than just proactively sending added FEC
parity content as part of the original transmission. Hybrid
proactive/reactive use of FEC content is also possible with the
mechanisms described in this document. Some classes of FEC coding,
such as Maximal Separable Distance (MDS) codes, allow senders to
dynamically implement deterministic, highly efficient receiver group
repair strategies as part of a NACK-based, selective automated
repeat-request (ARQ) scheme.
The potential relationships to other reliable multicast transport
building blocks (e.g., FEC, congestion control) and general issues
with NACK-based reliable multicast protocols are also discussed.
This document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3269].
Statement of Intent
This memo contains descriptions of building blocks that can be
applied in the design of reliable multicast protocols utilizing
negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback. [RFC3941] contains a
previous description of this specification. RFC 3941 was published
in the "Experimental" category. It was the stated intent of the
Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) working group at that time to
resubmit this specification as an IETF Proposed Standard in due
course.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
This Proposed Standard specification is thus based on [RFC3941] and
has been updated according to accumulated experience and growing
protocol maturity since the publication of RFC 3941. Said experience
applies both to this specification itself and to congestion control
strategies related to the use of this specification.
The differences between [RFC3941] and this document are listed in
Section 6.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Rationale
Each potential protocol instantiation using the building blocks
presented here (and in other applicable building block documents)
will have specific criteria that may influence individual protocol
design. To support the development of applicable building blocks, it
is useful to identify and summarize driving general protocol design
goals and assumptions. These are areas that each protocol
instantiation will need to address in detail. Each building block
description in this document will include a discussion of the impact
of these design criteria. The categories of design criteria
considered here include:
1. Delivery Service Model,
2. Group Membership Dynamics,
3. Sender/Receiver Relationships,
4. Group Size Scalability,
5. Data Delivery Performance, and
6. Network Environments.
All of these areas are at least briefly discussed. Additionally,
other reliable multicast transport building block documents, such as
[RFC5052], have been created to address areas outside of the scope of
this document. NACK-based reliable multicast protocol instantiations
may depend upon these other building blocks as well as the ones
presented here. This document focuses on areas that are unique to
NACK-based reliable multicast but may be used in concert with the
other building block areas. In some cases, a building block may be
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
able to address a wide range of assumptions, while in other cases
there will be trade-offs required to meet different application needs
or operating environments. Where necessary, building block features
are designed to be parametric to meet different requirements. Of
course, an underlying goal will be to minimize design complexity and
to at least recommend default values for any such parameters that
meet a general purpose "bulk data transfer" requirement in a typical
Internet environment. The forms of "bulk data transfer" covered here
include reliable transport of bulky, fixed-length, a priori static
content and also transmission of non-predetermined, perhaps streamed,
content of indefinite length. Section 3.5 discusses these different
forms of bulk data content in further detail.
2.1. Delivery Service Model
The implicit goal of a reliable multicast transport protocol is the
reliable delivery of data among a group of members communicating
using IP multicast datagram service. However, the specific service
the application is attempting to provide can impact design decisions.
The most basic service model for reliable multicast transport is that
of "bulk transfer", which is a primary focus of this and other
related RMT working group documents. However, the same principles in
protocol design may also be applied to other service models, e.g.,
more interactive exchanges of small messages such as with white-
boarding or text chat. Within these different models there are
issues such as the sender's ability to cache transmitted data (or
state referencing it) for retransmission or repair. The needs for
ordering and/or causality in the sequence of transmissions and
receptions among members in the group may be different depending upon
data content. The group communication paradigm differs significantly
from the point-to-point model in that, depending upon the data
content type, some receivers may complete reception of a portion of
data content and be able to act upon it before other members have
received the content. This may be acceptable (or even desirable) for
some applications but not for others. These varying requirements
drive the need for a number of different protocol instantiation
designs. A significant challenge in developing generally useful
building block mechanisms is accommodating even a limited range of
these capabilities without defining specific application-level
details.
Another factor impacting the delivery service model is the potential
for different receivers in the multicast group to have significantly
differing quality of network connectivity. This may involve
receivers with very limited goodput due to connection rate or
substantial packet loss. NACK-based protocol implementations may
wish to provide policies by which extremely poor-performing receivers
are excluded from the main group or migrated to a separate delivery
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
group. Note that some application models may require that the entire
group be constrained to the performance of the "weakest member" to
satisfy operational requirements. In either case, protocol designs
should consider this aspect of the reliable multicast delivery
service model.
2.2. Group Membership Dynamics
One area where group communication can differ from point-to-point
communications is that even if the composition of the group changes,
the "thread" of communication can still exist. This contrasts with
the point-to-point communication model where, if either of the two
parties leave, the communication process (exchange of data) is
terminated (or at least paused). Depending upon application goals,
senders and receivers participating in a reliable multicast transport
"session" may be able to join late, leave, and/or potentially rejoin
while the ongoing group communication "thread" still remains
functional and useful. Also note that this can impact protocol
message content. If "late joiners" are supported, some amount of
additional information may be placed in message headers to
accommodate this functionality. Alternatively, the information may
be sent in its own message (on demand or intermittently) if the
impact to the overhead of typical message transmissions is deemed too
great. Group dynamics can also impact other protocol mechanisms such
as NACK timing, congestion control operation, etc.
2.3. Sender/Receiver Relationships
The relationship of senders and receivers among group members
requires consideration. In some applications, there may be a single
sender multicasting to a group of receivers. In other cases, there
may be more than one sender or the potential for everyone in the
group to be a sender and receiver of data may exist.
2.4. Group Size Scalability
Native IP multicast [RFC1112] may scale to extremely large group
sizes. It may be desirable for some applications to scale along with
the multicast infrastructure's ability to scale. In its simplest
form, there are limits to the group size to which a NACK-based
protocol can be applied without the potential for the volume of NACK
feedback messages to overwhelm network capacity. This is often
referred to as "feedback implosion". Research suggests that NACK-
based reliable multicast group sizes on the order of tens of
thousands of receivers may operate with acceptable levels of feedback
to the sender using probabilistic, timer-based suppression techniques
[NormFeedback]. Instead of receivers immediately transmitting
feedback messages when loss is detected, these techniques specify use
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
of purposefully-scaled, random back-off timeouts such that some
potential NACKing receivers can self-suppress their feedback upon
hearing messages from other receivers that have selected shorter
random timeout intervals. However, there may be additional NACK
suppression heuristics that can be applied to enable these protocols
to scale to even larger group sizes. In large scale cases, it may be
prohibitive for members to maintain state on all other members (in
particular, other receivers) in the group. The impact of group size
needs to be considered in the development of applicable building
blocks.
Group size scalability may also be aided by intermediate system
assistance; see section 2.7 below.
2.5. Data Delivery Performance
There is a trade-off between scalability and data delivery latency
when designing NACK-oriented protocols. If probabilistic, timer-
based NACK suppression is to be used, there will be some delays built
into the NACK process to allow suppression to occur and to allow the
sender of data to identify appropriate content for efficient repair
transmission. For example, back-off timeouts can be used to ensure
efficient NACK suppression and repair transmission, but this comes at
the cost of increased delivery latency and increased buffering
requirements for both senders and receivers. The building blocks
SHOULD allow applications to establish bounds for data delivery
performance. Note that application designers must be aware of the
scalability trade-off that is made when such bounds are applied.
2.6. Network Environments
The Internet Protocol has historically assumed a role of providing
service across heterogeneous network topologies. It is desirable
that a reliable multicast protocol be capable of effectively
operating across a wide range of the networks to which general
purpose IP service applies. The bandwidth available on the links
between the members of a single group today may vary between low
numbers of kbit/s for wireless links and multiple Gbit/s for high
speed LAN connections, with varying degrees of contention from other
flows. Recently, a number of asymmetric network services including
56K/ADSL modems, CATV Internet service, satellite, and other wireless
communication services have begun to proliferate. Many of these are
inherently broadcast media with potentially large "fan-out" to which
IP multicast service is highly applicable. Additionally, policy
and/or technical issues may result in topologies where multicast
connectivity is limited to a source-specific multicast (SSM) model
from a specific source [RFC4607]. Receivers in the group may be
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
restricted to unicast feedback for NACKs and other messages.
Consideration must be given, in building block development and
protocol design, to the nature of the underlying networks.
2.7. Intermediate System Assistance
Intermediate assistance from devices/systems with direct knowledge of
the underlying network topology may be used to increase the
performance and scalability of NACK-based reliable multicast
protocols. Feedback aggregation and filtering of sender repair data
may be possible with NACK-based protocols using FEC-based repair
strategies as described in the present and other reliable multicast
transport building block documents. However, there will continue to
be a number of instances where intermediate system assistance is not
available or practical. Any building block components for NACK-
oriented reliable multicast SHALL be capable of operating without
such assistance. However, it is RECOMMENDED that such protocols also
consider utilizing these features when available.
3. Functionality
The previous section has presented the role of protocol building
blocks and some of the criteria that may affect NACK-based reliable
multicast building block identification/design. This section
describes different building block areas applicable to NACK-based
reliable multicast protocols. Some of these areas are specific to
NACK-based protocols. Detailed descriptions of such areas are
provided. In other cases, the areas (e.g., node identifiers, forward
error correction (FEC), etc.) may be applicable to other forms of
reliable multicast. In those cases, the discussion below describes
requirements placed on those general building block areas from the
standpoint of NACK-based reliable multicast. Where applicable, other
building block documents are referenced for possible contribution to
NACK-based reliable multicast protocols.
For each building block, a notional "interface description" is
provided to illustrate any dependencies of one building block
component upon another or upon other protocol parameters. A building
block component may require some form of "input" from another
building block component or other source to perform its function.
Any "inputs" required by a building block component and/or any
resultant "output" provided will be defined and described in each
building block component's interface description. Note that the set
of building blocks presented here do not fully satisfy each other's
"input" and "output" needs. In some cases, "inputs" for the building
blocks here must come from other building blocks external to this
document (e.g., congestion control or FEC). In other cases NACK-
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
based reliable multicast building block "inputs" must be satisfied by
the specific protocol instantiation or implementation (e.g.,
application data and control).
The following building block components relevant to NACK-based
reliable multicast are identified:
NORM (NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast)-Specific
1. Multicast Sender Transmission
2. NACK Repair Process
3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures
General Purpose
1. Node (Member) Identification
2. Data Content Identification
3. Forward Error Correction (FEC)
4. Round-Trip Timing Collection
5. Group Size Determination/Estimation
6. Congestion Control Operation
7. Intermediate System Assistance
8. Ancillary Protocol Mechanisms
Figure 1 provides a pictorial overview of these building block areas
and some of their relationships. For example, the content of the
data messages that a sender initially transmits depends upon the
"Node Identification", "Data Content Identification", and "FEC"
components, while the rate of message transmission will generally
depend upon the "Congestion Control" component. Subsequently, the
receivers' response to these transmissions (e.g., NACKing for repair)
will depend upon the data message content and inputs from other
building block components. Finally, the sender's processing of
receiver responses will feed back into its transmission strategy.
The components on the left side of this figure are areas that may be
applicable beyond NACK-based reliable multicast. The more
significant of these components are discussed in other building block
documents, such as the FEC Building Block [RFC5052]. Brief
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
descriptions of these areas and their roles in NACK-based reliable
multicast protocols are given below, and "RTT Collection" is
discussed in detail in Section 3.7 of this document.
The components on the right are seen as specific to NACK-based
reliable multicast protocols, most notably the NACK repair process.
These areas are discussed in detail below (most notably, "Multicast
Sender Transmission" and "NACK Repair Process" in Sections 3.1 and
3.2). Some other components (e.g., "Security") impact many aspects
of the protocol, and others may be more transparent to the core
protocol processing. Where applicable, specific technical
recommendations are made for mechanisms that will properly satisfy
the goals of NACK-based reliable multicast transport for the
Internet.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Application Data and Control
|
v
.---------------------. .-----------------------.
| Node Identification |-------+-->| Sender Transmission |<---.
`---------------------' | `-----------------------' |
.---------------------. | | .------------------. |
| Data Identification |-------+ | | Rcvr Join Policy | |
`---------------------' | V `------------------' |
.---------------------. | .----------------------. |
.->| Congestion Control |-------+ | Receiver NACK | |
| `---------------------' | | Repair Process | |
| .---------------------. | | .------------------. | |
| | |-------' | | NACK Initiation | | |
| | FEC |-----. | `------------------' | |
| | |--. | | .------------------. | |
| `---------------------' | | | | NACK Content | | |
| .---------------------. | | | `------------------' | |
`--| RTT Collection |--|--+---->| .------------------. | |
| |--+ | | | NACK Suppression | | |
`---------------------' | | | `------------------' | |
.---------------------. | | `----------------------' |
| Group Size Est. |--|--' | .-----------------. |
| |--+ | | Intermediate | |
`---------------------' | | | System Assist | |
.---------------------. | v `-----------------' |
| Other | | .-------------------------. |
`---------------------' `------->| Sender NACK Processing |--'
| and Repair Response |
`-------------------------'
^ ^
| |
.-----------------------------.
| (Security) |
`-----------------------------'
Figure 1: NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Building Block Framework
3.1. Multicast Sender Transmission
Reliable multicast senders will transmit data content to the
multicast session. The data content will be application dependent.
The sender will transmit data content at a rate, and with message
sizes, determined by application and/or network architecture
requirements. Any FEC encoding of sender transmissions SHOULD
conform with the guidelines of the FEC Building Block [RFC5052].
When congestion control mechanisms are needed (REQUIRED for general
Internet operation), the sender transmission rate SHALL be controlled
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
by the congestion control mechanism. In any case, it is RECOMMENDED
that all data transmissions from multicast senders be subject to rate
limitations determined by the application or congestion control
algorithm. The sender's transmissions SHOULD make good utilization
of the available capacity (which may be limited by the application
and/or by congestion control). As a result, it is expected there
will be overlap and multiplexing of new data content transmission
with repair content. Other factors related to application operation
may determine sender transmission formats and methods. For example,
some consideration needs to be given to the sender's behavior during
intermittent idle periods when it has no data to transmit.
In addition to data content, other sender messages or commands may be
employed as part of protocol operation. These messages may occur
outside of the scope of application data transfer. In NACK-based
reliable multicast protocols, reliability of such protocol messages
may be attempted by redundant transmission when positive
acknowledgement is prohibitive due to group size scalability
concerns. Note that protocol design SHOULD provide mechanisms for
dealing with cases where such messages are not received by the group.
As an example, a command message might be redundantly transmitted by
a sender to indicate that it is temporarily (or permanently) halting
transmission. At this time, it may be appropriate for receivers to
respond with NACKs for any outstanding repairs they require,
following the rules of the NACK procedure. For efficiency, the
sender should allow sufficient time between the redundant
transmissions to receive any NACK responses from the receivers to
this command.
In general, when there is any resultant NACK or other feedback
operation, the timing of redundant transmission of control messages
issued by a sender and other NACK-based reliable multicast protocol
timeouts should be dependent upon the group greatest round-trip
timing (GRTT) estimate and any expected resultant NACK or other
feedback operation. The sender GRTT is an estimate of the worst-case
round-trip timing from a given sender to any receivers in the group.
It is assumed that the GRTT interval is a conservative estimate of
the maximum span (with respect to delay) of the multicast group
across a network topology with respect to a given sender. NACK-based
reliable multicast instantiations SHOULD be able to dynamically adapt
to a wide range of multicast network topologies.
Inputs:
1. Application data and control.
2. Sender node identifier.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
3. Data identifiers.
4. Segmentation and FEC parameters.
5. Transmission rate.
6. Application controls.
7. Receiver feedback messages (e.g., NACKs).
Outputs:
1. Controlled transmission of messages with headers uniquely
identifying data or repair content within the context of the
reliable multicast session.
2. Commands indicating sender's status or other transport control
actions to be taken.
3.2. NACK Repair Process
A critical component of NACK-based reliable multicast protocols is
the NACK repair process. This includes both the receiver's role in
detecting and requesting repair needs and the sender's response to
such requests. There are four primary elements of the NACK repair
process:
1. Receiver NACK process initiation,
2. NACK suppression,
3. NACK message content,
4. Sender NACK processing and repair response.
3.2.1. Receiver NACK Process Initiation
The NACK process (cycle) will be initiated by receivers that detect a
need for repair transmissions from a specific sender to achieve
reliable reception. When FEC is applied, a receiver should initiate
the NACK process only when it is known its repair requirements exceed
the amount of pending FEC transmission for a given coding block of
data content. This can be determined at the end of the current
transmission block (if it is indicated) or upon the start of
reception of a subsequent coding block or transmission object. This
implies the sender data content is marked to identify its FEC block
number and that ordinal relationship is preserved in order of
transmission.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Alternatively, if the sender's transmission advertises the quantity
of repair packets it is already planning to send for a block, the
receiver may be able to initiate the NACK process earlier. Allowing
receivers to initiate NACK cycles at any time they detect their
repair needs have exceeded pending repair transmissions may result in
slightly quicker repair cycles. However, it may be useful to limit
NACK process initiation to specific events, such as at the end-of-
transmission of an FEC coding block or upon detection of subsequent
coding blocks. This can allow receivers to aggregate NACK content
into a smaller number of NACK messages and provide some implicit
loose synchronization among the receiver set to help facilitate
effective probabilistic suppression of NACK feedback. The receiver
MUST maintain a history of data content received from the sender to
determine its current repair needs. When FEC is employed, it is
expected that the history will correspond to a record of pending or
partially-received coding blocks.
For probabilistic, timer-based suppression of feedback, the NACK
cycle should begin with receivers observing backoff timeouts. In
conjunction with initiating this backoff timeout, it is important
that the receivers record the position in the sender's transmission
sequence at which they initiate the NACK cycle. When the suppression
backoff timeout expires, the receivers should only consider their
repair needs up to this recorded transmission position in making the
decision to transmit or suppress a NACK. Without this restriction,
suppression is greatly reduced as additional content is received from
the sender during the time a NACK message propagates across the
network to the sender and other receivers.
Inputs:
1. Sender data content with sequencing identifiers from sender
transmissions.
2. History of content received from sender.
Outputs:
1. NACK process initiation decision.
2. Recorded sender transmission sequence position.
3.2.2. NACK Suppression
An effective feedback suppression mechanism is the use of random
backoff timeouts prior to NACK transmission by receivers requiring
repairs [SrmFramework]. Upon expiration of the backoff timeout, a
receiver will request repairs unless its pending repair needs have
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
been completely superseded by NACK messages heard from other
receivers (when receivers are multicasting NACKs) or from some
indicator from the sender. When receivers are unicasting NACK
messages, the sender may facilitate NACK suppression by forwarding a
representation of NACK content it has received to the group at large
or by providing some other indicator of the repair information it
will be subsequently transmitting.
For effective and scalable suppression performance, the backoff
timeout periods used by receivers should be independently, randomly
picked by receivers with a truncated exponential distribution
[McastFeedback]. This results in the majority of the receiver set
holding off transmission of NACK messages under the assumption that
the smaller number of "early NACKers" will supersede the repair needs
of the remainder of the group. The mean of the distribution should
be determined as a function of the current estimate of the sender's
GRTT assessment and a group size estimate that is either determined
by other mechanisms within the protocol or is preset by the multicast
application.
A simple algorithm can be constructed to generate random backoff
timeouts with the appropriate distribution. Additionally, the
algorithm may be designed to optimize the backoff distribution given
the number of receivers ("R") potentially generating feedback. This
"optimization" minimizes the number of feedback messages (e.g., NACK)
in the worst-case situation where all receivers generate a NACK. The
maximum backoff timeout ("T_maxBackoff") can be set to control
reliable delivery latency versus volume of feedback traffic. A
larger value of "T_maxBackoff" will result in a lower density of
feedback traffic for a given repair cycle. A smaller value of
"T_maxBackoff" results in shorter latency, which also reduces the
buffering requirements of senders and receivers for reliable
transport.
In the functions below, the "log()" function specified refers to the
"natural logarithm" and the "exp()" function is similarly based upon
the mathematical constant 'e' (a.k.a. Euler's number) where "exp(x)"
corresponds to '"e"' raised to the power of '"x"'. Given the
receiver group size ("groupSize") and maximum allowed backoff timeout
("T_maxBackoff"), random backoff timeouts ("t'") with a truncated
exponential distribution can be picked with the following algorithm:
1. Establish an optimal mean ("L") for the exponential backoff based
on the "groupSize":
L = log(groupSize) + 1
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
2. Pick a random number ("x") from a uniform distribution over a
range of:
L L L
-------------------- to -------------------- + ----------
T_maxBackoff*(exp(L)-1) T_maxBackoff*(exp(L)-1) T_maxBackoff
3. Transform this random variate to generate the desired random
backoff time ("t'") with the following equation:
t' = T_maxBackoff/L * log(x * (exp(L) - 1) * (T_maxBackoff/L))
This "C" language function can be used to generate an appropriate
random backoff time interval:
double RandomBackoff(double T_maxBackoff, double groupSize)
{
double lambda = log(groupSize) + 1;
double x = UniformRand(lambda/T_maxBackoff) +
lambda / (T_maxBackoff*(exp(lambda)-1));
return ((T_maxBackoff/lambda) *
log(x*(exp(lambda)-1)*(T_maxBackoff/lambda)));
} // end RandomBackoff()
where "UniformRand(double max)" returns random numbers with a uniform
distribution from the range of "0..max". For example, based on the
POSIX "rand()" function, the following "C" code can be used:
double UniformRand(double max)
{
return (max * ((double)rand()/(double)RAND_MAX));
}
The number of expected NACK messages generated ("N") within the first
round-trip time for a single feedback event is approximately:
N = exp(1.2 * L / (2*T_maxBackoff/GRTT))
Thus, the maximum backoff time can be adjusted to trade off worst-
case NACK feedback volume versus latency. This is derived from the
equations given in [McastFeedback] and assumes "T_maxBackoff >=
GRTT", and "L" is the mean of the distribution optimized for the
given group size as shown in the algorithm above. Note that other
mechanisms within the protocol may work to reduce redundant NACK
generation further. It is suggested that "T_maxBackoff" be selected
as an integer multiple of the sender's current advertised GRTT
estimate such that:
T_maxBackoff = K * GRTT; where K >= 1
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
For general Internet operation, a default value of "K=4" is
RECOMMENDED for operation with multicast (to the group at large) NACK
delivery; a value of "K=6" is the RECOMMENDED default for unicast
NACK delivery. Alternate values may be used to achieve desired
buffer utilization, reliable delivery latency, and group size
scalability trade-offs.
Given that ("K*GRTT") is the maximum backoff time used by the
receivers to initiate NACK transmission, other timeout periods
related to the NACK repair process can be scaled accordingly. One of
those timeouts is the amount of time a receiver should wait after
generating a NACK message before allowing itself to initiate another
NACK backoff/transmission cycle ("T_rcvrHoldoff"). This delay should
be sufficient for the sender to respond to the received NACK with
repair messages. An appropriate value depends upon the amount of
time for the NACK to reach the sender and the sender to provide a
repair response. This MUST include any amount of sender NACK
aggregation period during which possible multiple NACKs are
accumulated to determine an efficient repair response. These
timeouts are further discussed in Section 3.2.4.
There are also secondary measures that can be applied to improve the
performance of feedback suppression. For example, the sender's data
content transmissions can follow an ordinal sequence of transmission.
When repairs for data content occur, the receiver can note that the
sender has "rewound" its data content transmission position by
observing the data object, FEC block number, and FEC symbol
identifiers. Receivers SHOULD limit transmission of NACKs to only
when the sender's current transmission position exceeds the point to
which the receiver has incomplete reception. This reduces premature
requests for repair of data the sender may be planning to provide in
response to other receiver requests. This mechanism can be very
effective for protocol convergence in high loss conditions when
transmissions of NACKs from other receivers (or indicators from the
sender) are lost. Another mechanism (particularly applicable when
FEC is used) is for the sender to embed an indication of impending
repair transmissions in current packets sent. For example, the
indication may be as simple as an advertisement of the number of FEC
packets to be sent for the current applicable coding block.
Finally, some consideration might be given to using the NACKing
history of receivers to bias their selection of NACK backoff timeout
intervals. For example, if a receiver has historically been
experiencing the greatest degree of loss, it may promote itself to
statistically NACK sooner than other receivers. Note this requires
correlation over successive intervals of time in the loss experienced
by a receiver. Such correlation MAY not always be present in
multicast networks. This adjustment of backoff timeout selection may
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
require the creation of an "early NACK" slot for these historical
NACKers. This additional slot in the NACK backoff window will result
in a longer repair cycle process that may not be desirable for some
applications. The resolution of these trade-offs may be dependent
upon the protocol's target application set or network.
After the random backoff timeout has expired, the receiver will make
a decision on whether to generate a NACK repair request or not (i.e.,
it has been suppressed). The NACK will be suppressed when any of the
following conditions has occurred:
1. The accumulated state of NACKs heard from other receivers (or
forwarding of this state by the sender) is equal to or supersedes
the repair needs of the local receiver. Note that the local
receiver should consider its repair needs only up to the sender
transmission position recorded at the NACK cycle initiation (when
the backoff timer was activated).
2. The sender's data content transmission position "rewinds" to a
point ordinally less than that of the lowest sequence position of
the local receiver's repair needs. (This detection of sender
"rewind" indicates the sender has already responded to other
receiver repair needs of which the local receiver may not have
been aware). This "rewind" event can occur any time between 1)
when the NACK cycle was initiated with the backoff timeout
activation and 2) the current moment when the backoff timeout has
expired to suppress the NACK. Another NACK cycle must be
initiated by the receiver when the sender's transmission sequence
position exceeds the receiver's lowest ordinal repair point.
Note it is possible that the local receiver may have had its
repair needs satisfied as a result of the sender's response to
the repair needs of other receivers and no further NACKing is
required.
If these conditions have not occurred and the receiver still has
pending repair needs, a NACK message is generated and transmitted.
The NACK should consist of an accumulation of repair needs from the
receiver's lowest ordinal repair point up to the current sender
transmission sequence position. A single NACK message should be
generated and the NACK message content should be truncated if it
exceeds the payload size of single protocol message. When such NACK
payload limits occur, the NACK content SHOULD contain requests for
the ordinally lowest repair content needed from the sender.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Inputs:
1. NACK process initiation decision.
2. Recorded sender transmission sequence position.
3. Sender GRTT.
4. Sender group size estimate.
5. Application-defined bound on backoff timeout period.
6. NACKs from other receivers.
7. Pending repair indication from sender (may be forwarded NACKs).
8. Current sender transmission sequence position.
Outputs:
1. Yes/no decision to generate NACK message upon backoff timer
expiration.
3.2.3. NACK Message Content
The content of NACK messages generated by reliable multicast
receivers will include information detailing their current repair
needs. The specific information depends on the use and type of FEC
in the NACK repair process. The identification of repair needs is
dependent upon the data content identification (see Section 3.5
below). At the highest level, the NACK content will identify the
sender to which the NACK is addressed and the data transport object
(or stream) within the sender's transmission that needs repair. For
the indicated transport entity, the NACK content will then identify
the specific FEC coding blocks and/or symbols it requires to
reconstruct the complete transmitted data. This content may consist
of FEC block erasure counts and/or explicit indication of missing
blocks or symbols (segments) of data and FEC content. It should also
be noted that NACK-based reliable multicast can be effectively
instantiated without a requirement for reliable NACK delivery using
the techniques discussed here.
3.2.3.1. NACK and FEC Repair Strategies
Where FEC-based repair is used, the NACK message content will
minimally need to identify the coding block(s) for which repair is
needed and a count of erasures (missing packets) for the coding
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
block. An exact count of erasures implies the FEC algorithm is
capable of repairing any loss combination within the coding block.
This count may need to be adjusted for some FEC algorithms.
Considering that multiple repair rounds may be required to
successfully complete repair, an erasure count also implies that the
quantity of unique FEC parity packets the server has available to
transmit is essentially unlimited (i.e., the server will always be
able to provide new, unique, previously unsent parity packets in
response to any subsequent repair requests for the same coding
block). Alternatively, the sender may "round-robin" transmit through
its available set of FEC symbols for a given coding block, and
eventually effect repair. For the most efficient repair strategy,
the NACK content will need to also explicitly identify which symbols
(information and/or parity) the receiver requires to successfully
reconstruct the content of the coding block. This will be
particularly true of small- to medium-size block FEC codes (e.g.,
Reed Solomon [FecSchemes]) that are capable of providing a limited
number of parity symbols per FEC coding block.
When FEC is not used as part of the repair process, or the protocol
instantiation is required to provide reliability even when the sender
has transmitted all available parity for a given coding block (or the
sender's ability to buffer transmission history is exceeded by the
"(delay*bandwidth*loss)" characteristics of the network topology),
the NACK content will need to contain explicit coding block and/or
segment loss information so that the sender can provide appropriate
repair packets and/or data retransmissions. Explicit loss
information in NACK content may also potentially serve other
purposes. For example, it may be useful for decorrelating loss
characteristics among a group of receivers to help differentiate
candidate congestion control bottlenecks among the receiver set.
When FEC is used and NACK content is designed to contain explicit
repair requests, there is a strategy where the receivers can NACK for
specific content that will help facilitate NACK suppression and
repair efficiency. The assumptions for this strategy are that the
sender may potentially exhaust its supply of new, unique parity
packets available for a given coding block and be required to
explicitly retransmit some data or parity symbols to complete
reliable transfer. Another assumption is that an FEC algorithm where
any parity packet can fill any erasure within the coding block (e.g.,
Reed Solomon) is used. The goal of this strategy is to make maximum
use of the available parity and provide the minimal amount of data
and repair transmissions during reliable transfer of data content to
the group.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
When systematic FEC codes are used, the sender transmits the data
content of the coding block (and optionally some quantity of parity
packets) in its initial transmission. Note that a systematic FEC
coding block is considered to be logically made up of the contiguous
set of source data vectors plus parity vectors for the given FEC
algorithm used. For example, a systematic coding scheme that
provides for 64 data symbols and 32 parity symbols per coding block
would contain FEC symbol identifiers in the range of 0 to 95.
Receivers then can construct NACK messages requesting sufficient
content to satisfy their repair needs. For example, if the receiver
has three erasures in a given received coding block, it will request
transmission of the three lowest ordinal parity vectors in the coding
block. In our example coding scheme from the previous paragraph, the
receiver would explicitly request parity symbols 64 to 66 to fill its
three erasures for the coding block. Note that if the receiver's
loss for the coding block exceeds the available parity quantity
(i.e., greater than 32 missing symbols in our example), the receiver
will be required to construct a NACK requesting all (32) of the
available parity symbols plus some additional portions of its missing
data symbols in order to reconstruct the block. If this is done
consistently across the receiver group, the resulting NACKs will
comprise a minimal set of sender transmissions to satisfy their
repair needs.
In summary, the rule is to request the lower ordinal portion of the
parity content for the FEC coding block to satisfy the erasure repair
needs on the first NACK cycle. If the available number of parity
symbols is insufficient, the receiver will also request the subset of
ordinally highest missing data symbols to cover what the parity
symbols will not fill. Note this strategy assumes FEC codes such as
Reed-Solomon for which a single parity symbol can repair any erased
symbol. This strategy would need minor modification to take into
account the possibly limited repair capability of other FEC types.
On subsequent NACK repair cycles where the receiver may receive some
portion of its previously requested repair content, the receiver will
use the same strategy, but only NACK for the set of parity and/or
data symbols it has not yet received. Optionally, the receivers
could also provide a count of erasures as a convenience to the
sender.
Other types of FEC schemes may require alteration to the NACK and
repair strategy described here. For example, some of the large block
or expandable FEC codes described in [RFC3453] may be less
deterministic with respect to defining optimal repair requests by
receivers or repair transmission strategies by senders. For these
types of codes, it may be sufficient for receivers to NACK with an
estimate of the quantity of additional FEC symbols required to
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
complete reliable reception and for the sender to respond
accordingly. This apparent disadvantage, as compared to codes such
as Reed Solomon, may be offset by the reduced computational
requirements and/or ability to support large coding blocks for
increased repair efficiency that these codes can offer.
After receipt and accumulation of NACK messages during the
aggregation period, the sender can begin transmission of fresh
(previously untransmitted) parity symbols for the coding block based
on the highest receiver erasure count if it has a sufficient quantity
of parity symbols that were not previously transmitted. Otherwise,
the sender MUST resort to transmitting the explicit set of repair
vectors requested. With this approach, the sender needs to maintain
very little state on requests it has received from the group without
need for synchronization of repair requests from the group. Since
all receivers use the same consistent algorithm to express their
explicit repair needs, NACK suppression among receivers is simplified
over the course of multiple repair cycles. The receivers can simply
compare NACKs heard from other receivers against their own calculated
repair needs to determine whether they should transmit or suppress
their pending NACK messages.
3.2.3.2. NACK Content Format
The format of NACK content will depend on the protocol's data service
model and the format of data content identification the protocol
uses. This NACK format also depends upon the type of FEC encoding
(if any) used. Figure 2 illustrates a logical, hierarchical
transmission content identification scheme, denoting that the notion
of objects (or streams) and/or FEC blocking is optional at the
protocol instantiation's discretion. Note that the identification of
objects is with respect to a given sender. It is recommended that
transport data content identification is done within the context of a
sender in a given session. Since the notion of session "streams" and
"blocks" is optional, the framework degenerates to that of typical
transport data segmentation and reassembly in its simplest form.
Session_
\_
Sender_
\_
[Object/Stream(s)]_
\_
[FEC Blocks]_
\_
Symbols
Figure 2: Reliable Multicast Data Content Identification Hierarchy
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
The format of NACK messages should enable the following:
1. Identification of transport data units required to repair the
received content, whether this is an entire missing object/stream
(or range), entire FEC coding block(s), or sets of symbols,
2. Simple processing for NACK aggregation and suppression,
3. Inclusion of NACKs for multiple objects, FEC coding blocks,
and/or symbols in a single message, and
4. A reasonably compact format.
If the reliable multicast transport object/stream is identified with
an <objectId> and the FEC symbol being transmitted is identified with
an <fecPayloadId>, the concatenation of <objectId::fecPayloadId>
comprises a basic transport protocol data unit (TPDU) identifier for
symbols from a given source. NACK content can be composed of lists
and/or ranges of these TPDU identifiers to build up NACK messages to
describe the receiver's repair needs. If no hierarchical object
delineation or FEC blocking is used, the TPDU is a simple linear
representation of the data symbols transmitted by the sender. When
the TPDU represents a hierarchy for purposes of object/stream
delineation and/or FEC blocking, the NACK content unit may require
flags to indicate which portion of the TPDU is applicable. For
example, if an entire "object" (or range of objects) is missing in
the received data, the receiver will not necessarily know the
appropriate range of <sourceBlockNumbers> or <encodingSymbolIds> for
which to request repair and thus requires some mechanism to request
repair (or retransmission) of the entire unit represented by an
<objectId>. The same is true if entire FEC coding blocks represented
by one or a range of <sourceBlockNumbers> have been lost.
Inputs:
1. Sender identification.
2. Sender data identification.
3. Sender FEC object transmission information.
4. Recorded sender transmission sequence position.
5. Current sender transmission sequence position. History of repair
needs for this sender.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Outputs:
1. NACK message with repair requests.
3.2.4. Sender NACK Processing and Repair Response
Upon reception of a repair request from a receiver in the group, the
sender will initiate a repair response procedure. The sender may
wish to delay transmission of repair content until it has had
sufficient time to accumulate potentially multiple NACKs from the
receiver set. This allows the sender to determine the most efficient
repair strategy for a given transport stream/object or FEC coding
block. Depending upon the approach used, some protocols may find it
beneficial for the sender to provide an indicator of pending repair
transmissions as part of its current transmitted message content.
This can aid some NACK suppression mechanisms. The amount of time to
perform this NACK aggregation should be sufficient to allow for the
maximum receiver NACK backoff window (""T_maxBackoff"" from Section
3.2.2) and propagation of NACK messages from the receivers to the
sender. Note the maximum transmission delay of a message from a
receiver to the sender may be approximately "(1*GRTT)" in the case of
very asymmetric network topology with respect to transmission delay.
Thus, if the maximum receiver NACK backoff time is "T_maxBackoff =
K*GRTT", the sender NACK aggregation period should be equal to at
least:
T_sndrAggregate = T_maxBackoff + 1*GRTT = (K+1)*GRTT
Immediately after the sender NACK aggregation period, the sender will
begin transmitting repair content determined from the aggregate NACK
state and continue with any new transmission. Also, at this time,
the sender should observe a "hold-off" period where it constrains
itself from initiating a new NACK aggregation period to allow
propagation of the new transmission sequence position due to the
repair response to the receiver group. To allow for worst case
asymmetry, this "hold-off" time should be:
T_sndrHoldoff = 1*GRTT
Recall that the receivers will also employ a "hold-off" timeout after
generating a NACK message to allow time for the sender's response.
Given a sender "<T_sndrAggregate>" plus "<T_sndrHoldoff>" time of
"(K+1)*GRTT", the receivers should use hold-off timeouts of:
T_rcvrHoldoff = T_sndrAggregate + T_sndrHoldoff = (K+2)*GRTT
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
This allows for a worst-case propagation time of the receiver's NACK
to the sender, the sender's aggregation time, and propagation of the
sender's response back to the receiver. Additionally, in the case of
unicast feedback from the receiver set, it may be useful for the
sender to forward (via multicast) a representation of its aggregated
NACK content to the group to allow for NACK suppression when there is
not multicast connectivity among the receiver set.
At the expiration of the "<T_sndrAggregate>" timeout, the sender will
begin transmitting repair messages according to the accumulated
content of NACKs received. There are some guidelines with regards to
FEC-based repair and the ordering of the repair response from the
sender that can improve reliable multicast efficiency:
When FEC is used, it is beneficial that the sender transmit
previously untransmitted parity content as repair messages whenever
possible. This maximizes the receiving nodes' ability to reconstruct
the entire transmitted content from their individual subsets of
received messages.
The transmitted object and/or stream data and repair content should
be indexed with monotonically increasing sequence numbers (within a
reasonably large ordinal space). If the sender observes the
discipline of transmitting repair for the earliest content (e.g.,
ordinally lowest FEC blocks) first, the receivers can use a strategy
of withholding repair requests for later content until the sender
once again returns to that point in the object/stream transmission
sequence. This can increase overall message efficiency among the
group and help keep repair cycles relatively synchronized without
dependence upon strict time synchronization among the sender and
receivers. This also helps minimize the buffering requirements of
receivers and senders and reduces redundant transmission of data to
the group at large.
Inputs:
1. Receiver NACK messages.
2. Group timing information.
Outputs:
1. Repair messages (FEC and/or Data content retransmission).
2. Advertisement of current pending repair transmissions when
unicast receiver feedback is detected.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
3.3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures
Consideration should be given to the policies and procedures by which
new receivers join a group (perhaps where reliable transmission is
already in progress) and begin requesting repair. If receiver joins
are unconstrained, the dynamics of group membership may impede the
application's ability to meet its goals for forward progression of
data transmission. Policies that limit the opportunities for
receivers to begin participating in the NACK process may be used to
achieve the desired behavior. For example, it may be beneficial for
receivers to attempt reliable reception from a newly-heard sender
only upon non-repair transmissions of data in the first FEC block of
an object or logical portion of a stream. The sender may also
implement policies limiting the receivers from which it will accept
NACK requests, but this may be prohibitive for scalability reasons in
some situations. Alternatively, it may be desirable to have a looser
transport synchronization policy and rely upon session management
mechanisms to limit group dynamics that can cause poor performance in
some types of bulk transfer applications (or for potential
interactive reliable multicast applications).
Inputs:
1. Current object/stream data/repair content and sequencing
identifiers from sender transmissions.
Outputs:
1. Receiver yes/no decision to begin receiving and NACKing for
reliable reception of data.
3.4. Node (Member) Identification
In a NACK-based reliable multicast protocol (or other multicast
protocols) where there is the potential for multiple sources of data,
it is necessary to provide some mechanism to uniquely identify the
sources (and possibly some or all receivers) within the group.
Receivers that send NACK messages to the group will need to identify
the sender to which the NACK is intended. Identity based on arriving
packet source addresses is insufficient for several reasons. These
reasons include routing changes for hosts with multiple interfaces
that result in different packet source addresses for a given host
over time, network address translation (NAT) or firewall devices, or
other transport/network bridging approaches. As a result, some type
of unique source identifier <sourceId> field SHOULD be present in
packets transmitted by reliable multicast session members.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
3.5. Data Content Identification
The data and repair content transmitted by a NACK-based reliable
multicast sender requires some form of identification in the protocol
header fields. This identification is required to facilitate the
reliable NACK-oriented repair process. These identifiers will also
be used in NACK messages generated. This building block document
assumes two very general types of data that may comprise bulk
transfer session content. One type is static, discrete objects of
finite size and the other is continuous non-finite streams. A given
application may wish to reliably multicast data content using either
one or both of these paradigms. While it may be possible for some
applications to further generalize this model and provide mechanisms
to encapsulate static objects as content embedded within a stream,
there are advantages in many applications to provide distinct support
for static bulk objects and messages with the context of a reliable
multicast session. These applications may include content caching
servers, file transfer, or collaborative tools with bulk content.
Applications with requirements for these static object types can then
take advantage of transport layer mechanisms (i.e., segmentation/
reassembly, caching, integrated forward error correction coding,
etc.) rather than being required to provide their own mechanisms for
these functions at the application layer.
As noted, some applications may alternatively desire to transmit bulk
content in the form of one or more streams of non-finite size.
Example streams include continuous quasi-real-time message broadcasts
(e.g., stock ticker) or some content types that are part of
collaborative tools or other applications. And, as indicated above,
some applications may wish to encapsulate other bulk content (e.g.,
files) into one or more streams within a multicast session.
The components described within this building block document are
envisioned to be applicable to both of these models with the
potential for a mix of both types within a single multicast session.
To support this requirement, the normal data content identification
should include a field to uniquely identify the object or stream
(e.g., <objectId>) within some reasonable temporal or ordinal
interval. Note that it is not expected that this data content
identification will be globally unique. It is expected that the
object/stream identifier will be unique with respect to a given
sender within the reliable multicast session and during the time that
sender is supporting a specific transport instance of that object or
stream.
Since "bulk" object/stream content usually requires segmentation,
some form of segment identification must also be provided. This
segment identifier will be relative to any object or stream
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
identifier that has been provided. Thus, in some cases, NACK-based
reliable multicast protocol instantiations may be able to receive
transmissions and request repair for multiple streams and one or more
sets of static objects in parallel. For protocol instantiations
employing FEC, the segment identification portion of the data content
identifier may consist of a logical concatenation of a coding block
identifier <sourceBlockNumber> and an identifier for the specific
data or parity symbol <encodingSymbolId> of the code block. The FEC
Basic Schemes building block [FECSchemes] and descriptions of
additional FEC schemes that may be documented later provide a
standard message format for identifying FEC transmission content.
NACK-based reliable multicast protocol instantiations using FEC
SHOULD follow such guidelines.
Additionally, flags to determine the usage of the content identifier
fields (e.g., stream vs. object) may be applicable. Flags may also
serve other purposes in data content identification. It is expected
that any flags defined will be dependent upon individual protocol
instantiations.
In summary, the following data content identification fields may be
required for NACK-based reliable multicast protocol data content
messages:
1. Source node identifier (<sourceId>).
2. Object/Stream identifier (<objectId>), if applicable.
3. FEC Block identifier (<sourceBlockNumber>), if applicable.
4. FEC Symbol identifier (<encodingSymbolId>).
5. Flags to differentiate interpretation of identifier fields or
identifier structure that implicitly indicates usage.
6. Additional FEC transmission content fields per FEC Building
Block.
These fields have been identified because any generated NACK messages
will use these identifiers in requesting repair or retransmission of
data.
3.6. Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Multiple forward error correction (FEC) approaches using erasure
coding techniques have been identified that can provide great
performance enhancements to the repair process of NACK-oriented and
other reliable multicast protocols [FecBroadcast], [RmFec],
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
[RFC3453]. NACK-based reliable multicast protocols can reap
additional benefits since FEC-based repair does not generally require
explicit knowledge of repair content within the bounds of its coding
block size (in symbols). In NACK-based reliable multicast, parity
repair packets generated will generally be transmitted only in
response to NACK repair requests from receiving nodes. However,
there are benefits in some network environments for transmitting some
predetermined quantity of FEC repair packets multiplexed with the
regular data symbol transmissions [FecHybrid]. This can reduce the
amount of NACK traffic generated with relatively little overhead cost
when group sizes are very large or the network connectivity has a
large "delay*bandwidth" product with some nominal level of expected
packet loss. While the application of FEC is not unique to NACK-
based reliable multicast, these sorts of requirements may dictate the
types of algorithms and protocol approaches that are applicable.
A specific issue related to the use of FEC with NACK-based reliable
multicast is the mechanism used to identify the portion(s) of
transmitted data content to which specific FEC packets are
applicable. It is expected that FEC algorithms will be based on
generating a set of parity repair packets for a corresponding block
of transmitted data packets. Since data content packets are uniquely
identified by the concatenation of <sourceId::objectId::
sourceBlockNumber::encodingSymbolId> during transport, it is expected
that FEC packets will be identified in a similar manner. The FEC
Building Block document [RFC5052] provides detailed recommendations
concerning application of FEC and standard formats for related
reliable multicast protocol messages.
3.7. Round-Trip Timing Collection
The measurement of packet propagation round-trip time (RTT) among
members of the group is required to support timer-based NACK
suppression algorithms, timing of sender commands or certain repair
functions, and congestion control operation. The nature of the
round-trip information collected is dependent upon the type of
interaction among the members of the group. In the case of "one-to-
many" transmission, it may be that only the sender requires RTT
knowledge of the GRTT and/or RTT knowledge of only a portion of the
group. Here, the GRTT information might be collected in a reasonably
scalable manner. For congestion control operation, it is possible
that each receiver in the group may need knowledge of its individual
RTT. In this case, an alternative RTT collection scheme may be
utilized where receivers collect individual RTT measurements with
respect to the sender(s) and advertise them to the group or
sender(s). Where it is likely that exchange of reliable multicast
data will occur among the group on a "many-to-many" basis, there are
alternative measurement techniques that might be employed for
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
increased efficiency [DelayEstimation]. In some cases, there might
be absolute time synchronization available among the participating
hosts that may simplify RTT measurement. There are trade-offs in
multicast congestion control design that require further
consideration before a universal recommendation on RTT (or GRTT)
measurement can be specified. Regardless of how the RTT information
is collected (and more specifically GRTT) with respect to congestion
control or other requirements, the sender will need to advertise its
current GRTT estimate to the group for various NACK timeouts used by
receivers.
3.7.1. One-to-Many Sender GRTT Measurement
The goal of this form of RTT measurement is for the sender to
estimate the GRTT among the receivers who are actively participating
in NACK-based reliable multicast operation. The set of receivers
participating in this process may be the entire group or some subset
of the group determined from another mechanism within the protocol
instantiation. An approach to collect this GRTT information follows.
The sender periodically polls the group with a message (independent
or "piggy-backed" with other transmissions) containing a "<sendTime>"
timestamp relative to an internal clock at the sender. Upon
reception of this message, the receivers will record this
"<sendTime>" timestamp and the time (referenced to their own clocks)
at which it was received "<recvTime>". When the receiver provides
feedback to the sender (either explicitly or as part of other
feedback messages depending upon protocol instantiation
specification), it will construct a "response" using the formula:
grttResponse = sendTime + (currentTime - recvTime)
where the "<sendTime>" is the timestamp from the last probe message
received from the source and the ("<currentTime> - <recvTime>") is
the amount of time differential since that request was received until
the receiver generated the response.
The sender processes each receiver response by calculating a current
RTT measurement for the receiver from whom the response was received
using the following formula:
RTT_rcvr = currentTime - grttResponse
During each periodic "GRTT" probing interval, the source keeps the
peak round-trip timing measurement ("RTT_peak") from the set of
responses it has received. A conservative estimate of "GRTT" is kept
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
to maximize the efficiency of redundant NACK suppression and repair
aggregation. The update to the source's ongoing estimate of "GRTT"
is done observing the following rules:
1. If a receiver's response round-trip time ("RTT_rcvr") is greater
than the current "GRTT" estimate, the "GRTT" is immediately
updated to this new peak value:
GRTT = RTT_rcvr
2. At the end of the response collection period (i.e., the GRTT
probe interval), if the recorded "peak" response ("RTT_peak") is
less than the current GRTT estimate, the GRTT is updated to:
GRTT = MAX(0.9*GRTT, RTT_peak)
3. If no feedback is received, the sender "GRTT" estimate remains
unchanged.
4. At the end of the response collection period, the peak tracking
value ("RTT_peak") is reset to ZERO for subsequent peak
detection.
The GRTT collection period (i.e., period of probe transmission) could
be fixed at a value on the order of that expected for group
membership and/or network topology dynamics. For robustness, more
rapid probing could be used at protocol startup before settling to a
less frequent, steady-state interval. Optionally, an algorithm may
be developed to adjust the GRTT collection period dynamically in
response to the current estimate of GRTT (or variations in it) and to
an estimation of packet loss. The overhead of probing messages could
then be reduced when the GRTT estimate is stable and unchanging, but
be adjusted to track more dynamically during periods of variation
with correspondingly shorter GRTT collection periods. GRTT
collection MAY also be coupled with collection of other information
for congestion control purposes.
In summary, although NACK repair cycle timeouts are based on GRTT, it
should be noted that convergent operation of the protocol does not
depend upon highly accurate GRTT estimation. The current mechanism
has proved sufficient in simulations and in the environments where
NACK-based reliable multicast protocols have been deployed to date.
The estimate provided by the given algorithm tracks the peak envelope
of actual GRTT (including operating system effect as well as network
delays) even in relatively high loss connectivity. The steady-state
probing/update interval may potentially be varied to accommodate
different levels of expected network dynamics in different
environments.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
3.7.2. One-to-Many Receiver RTT Measurement
In this approach, receivers send messages with timestamps to the
sender. To control the volume of these receiver-generated messages,
a suppression mechanism similar to that described for NACK
suppression my be used. The "age" of receivers' RTT measurement
should be kept by receivers and used as a metric in competing for
feedback opportunities in the suppression scheme. For example,
receiver who have not made any RTT measurement or whose RTT
measurement has aged most should have precedence over other
receivers. In turn, the sender may have limited capacity to provide
an "echo" of the receiver timestamps back to the group, and it could
use this RTT "age" metric to determine which receivers get
precedence. The sender can determine the "GRTT" as described in
3.7.1 if it provides sender timestamps to the group. Alternatively,
receivers who note their RTT is greater than the sender GRTT can
compete in the feedback opportunity/suppression scheme to provide the
sender and group with this information.
3.7.3. Many-to-Many RTT Measurement
For reliable multicast sessions that involve multiple senders, it may
be useful to have RTT measurements occur on a true "many-to-many"
basis rather than have each sender independently tracking RTT. Some
protocol efficiency can be gained when receivers can infer an
approximation of their RTT with respect to a sender based on RTT
information they have on another sender and that other sender's RTT
with respect to the new sender of interest. For example, for
receiver "a" and senders "b" and "c", it is likely that:
RTT(a<->b) <= RTT(a<->c)) + RTT(b<->c)
Further refinement of this estimate can be conducted if RTT
information is available to a node concerning its own RTT with
respect to a small subset of other group members and if information
concerning RTT among those other group members is learned by the node
during protocol operation.
3.7.4. Sender GRTT Advertisement
To facilitate deterministic protocol operation, the sender should
robustly advertise its current estimation of "GRTT" to the receiver
set. Common, robust knowledge of the sender's current operating GRTT
estimate among the group will allow the protocol to progress in its
most efficient manner. The sender's GRTT estimate can be robustly
advertised to the group by simply embedding the estimate into all
pertinent messages transmitted by the sender. The overhead of this
can be made quite small by quantizing (compressing) the GRTT estimate
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
to a single byte of information. The following C-language functions
allow this to be done over a wide range ("RTT_MIN" through "RTT_MAX")
of GRTT values while maintaining a greater range of precision for
small values and less precision for large values. Values of 1.0e-06
seconds and 1000 seconds are RECOMMENDED for "RTT_MIN" and "RTT_MAX"
respectively. NACK-based reliable multicast applications may wish to
place an additional, smaller upper limit on the GRTT advertised by
senders to meet application data delivery latency constraints at the
expense of greater feedback volume in some network environments.
unsigned char QuantizeGrtt(double grtt)
{
if (grtt > RTT_MAX)
grtt = RTT_MAX;
else if (grtt < RTT_MIN)
grtt = RTT_MIN;
if (grtt < (33*RTT_MIN))
return ((unsigned char)(grtt / RTT_MIN) - 1);
else
return ((unsigned char)(ceil(255.0 -
(13.0 * log(RTT_MAX/grtt)))));
}
double UnquantizeRtt(unsigned char qrtt)
{
return ((qrtt <= 31) ?
(((double)(qrtt+1))*(double)RTT_MIN) :
(RTT_MAX/exp(((double)(255-qrtt))/(double)13.0)));
}
Note that this function is useful for quantizing GRTT times in the
range of 1 microsecond to 1000 seconds. Of course, NACK-based
reliable multicast protocol implementations may wish to further
constrain advertised GRTT estimates (e.g., limit the maximum value)
for practical reasons.
3.8. Group Size Determination/Estimation
When NACK-based reliable multicast protocol operation includes
mechanisms that excite feedback from the group at large (e.g.,
congestion control), it may be possible to roughly estimate the group
size based on the number of feedback messages received with respect
to the distribution of the probabilistic suppression mechanism used.
Note the timer-based suppression mechanism described in this document
does not require a very accurate estimate of group size to perform
adequately. Thus, a rough estimate, particularly if conservatively
managed, may suffice. Group size may also be determined
administratively. In absence of any group size determination
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
mechanism, a default group size value of 10,000 is RECOMMENDED for
reasonable management of feedback given the scalability of expected
NACK-based reliable multicast usage. This conservative estimate
(over-estimate) of group size in the algorithms described above will
result in some added latency to the NACK repair process if the actual
group size is smaller but with a guarantee of feedback implosion
protection. The study of the timer-based feedback suppression
mechanism described in [McastFeedback] and [NormFeedback] showed that
the group size estimate need only be with an order-of-magnitude to
provide effective suppression performance.
3.9. Congestion Control Operation
Congestion control that fairly shares available network capacity with
other reliable multicast and TCP instantiations is REQUIRED for
general Internet operation. The TCP-Friendly Multicast Congestion
Control (TFMCC) [TfmccPaper] or Pragmatic General Multicast
Congestion Control (PGMCC) [PgmccPaper] techniques can be applied to
NACK-based reliable multicast operation to meet this requirement.
The former technique has been further documented in [RFC4654] and has
been successfully applied in the NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast
Protocol (NORM) [RFC3940].
3.10. Intermediate System Assistance
NACK-based multicast protocols may benefit from general purpose
intermediate system assistance. In particular, additional NACK
suppression where intermediate systems can aggregate NACK content (or
filter duplicate NACK content) from receivers as it is relayed toward
the sender could enhance NORM group size scalability. For NACK-based
reliable multicast protocols using FEC, it is possible that
intermediate systems may be able to filter FEC repair messages to
provide an intelligent "subcast" of repair content to different legs
of the multicast topology depending on the repair needs learned from
previous receiver NACKs. Similarly, intermediate systems could
monitor receiver NACKs and provide repair transmissions on-demand in
response if sufficient state on the content being transmitted was
being maintained. This can reduce the latency and volume of repair
transmissions when the intermediate system is associated with a
network link that is particularly problematic with respect to packet
loss. These types of assist functions would require intermediate
system interpretation of transport data unit content identifiers and
flags. NACK-based protocol designs should consider the potential for
intermediate system assistance in the specification of protocol
messages and operations. It is likely that intermediate systems
assistance will be more pragmatic if message parsing requirements are
modest and if the amount of state an intermediate system is required
to maintain is relatively small.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
4. NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Applicability
The Multicast NACK building block applies to protocols wishing to
employ negative acknowledgement to achieve reliable data transfer.
Properly designed NACK-based reliable multicast protocols offer
scalability advantages for applications and/or network topologies
where, for various reasons, it is prohibitive to construct a higher
order delivery infrastructure above the basic Layer 3 IP multicast
service (e.g., unicast or hybrid unicast/multicast data distribution
trees). Additionally, the multicast scalability property of NACK-
based protocols [RmComparison], [RmClasses] is applicable where broad
"fan-out" is expected for a single network hop (e.g., cable-TV data
delivery, satellite, or other broadcast communication services).
Furthermore, the simplicity of a protocol based on "flat" group-wide
multicast distribution may offer advantages for a broad range of
distributed services or dynamic networks and applications. NACK-
based reliable multicast protocols can make use of reciprocal (among
senders and receivers) multicast communication under the any-source
multicast (ASM) model defined in RFC 1112 [RFC1112], and are capable
of scalable operation in asymmetric topologies, such as source-
specific multicast (SSM) [RFC4607], where there may only be unicast
routing service from the receivers to the sender(s).
NACK-based reliable multicast protocol operation is compatible with
transport layer forward error correction coding techniques as
described in [RFC3453] and congestion control mechanisms such as
those described in [TfmccPaper] and [PgmccPaper]. A principal
limitation of NACK-based reliable multicast operation involves group
size scalability when network capacity for receiver feedback is very
limited. It is possible that, with proper protocol design, the
intermediate system assistance techniques mentioned in Section 2.4
and described further in Section 3.10 can allow NACK-based approaches
to scale to larger group sizes. NACK-based reliable multicast
operation is also governed by implementation buffering constraints.
Buffering greater than that required for typical point-to-point
reliable transport (e.g., TCP) is recommended to allow for disparity
in the receiver group connectivity and to allow for the feedback
delays required to attain group size scalability.
Prior experimental work included various protocol instantiations that
implemented some of the concepts described in this building block
document. This includes the Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM)
protocol described in [RFC3208] as well as others that were
documented or deployed outside of IETF activities. While the PGM
protocol specification and some other approaches encompassed many of
the goals of bulk data delivery as described here, this NACK-based
building block provides a more generalized framework so that
different application needs can be met by different protocol
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
instantiation variants. The NACK-based building block approach
described here includes compatibility with the other protocol
mechanisms including FEC and congestion control that are described in
other IETF reliable multicast building block documents. The NACK
repair process described in this document can provide performance
advantages compared to PGM when both are deployed on a pure end-to-
end basis without intermediate system assistance. The round-trip
timing estimation described here and its use in the NACK repair
process allow protocol operation to more automatically adapt to
different network environments or operate within environments where
connectivity is dynamic. Use of the FEC payload identification
techniques described in the FEC building block [RFC5052] and specific
FEC instantiations allow protocol instantiations more flexibility as
FEC techniques evolve than the specific sequence number data
identification scheme described in the PGM specification. Similar
flexibility is expected if protocol instantiations are designed to
modularly invoke (at design time, if not run-time) the appropriate
congestion control building block for different application or
deployment purposes.
5. Security Considerations
NACK-based reliable multicast protocols are expected to be subject to
the same security vulnerabilities as other IP and IP multicast
protocols. However, unlike point-to-point (unicast) transport
protocols, it is possible that one badly behaving participant can
impact the transport service experience of others in the group. For
example, a malicious receiver node could intentionally transmit NACK
messages to cause the sender(s) to unnecessarily transmit repairs
instead of making forward progress with reliable transfer. Also,
group-wise messaging to support congestion control or other aspects
of protocol operation may be subject to similar vulnerabilities.
Thus, it is highly RECOMMENDED that security techniques such as
authentication and data integrity checks be applied for NACK-based
reliable multicast deployments. Protocol instantiations using this
building block MUST identify approaches to security that can be used
to address these and other security considerations.
NACK-based reliable multicast is compatible with IP security (IPsec)
authentication mechanisms [RFC4301] that are RECOMMENDED for
protection against session intrusion and denial of service attacks.
A particular threat for NACK-based protocols is that of NACK replay
attacks, which could prevent a multicast sender from making forward
progress in transmission. Any standard IPsec mechanisms that can
provide protection against such replay attacks are RECOMMENDED for
use. The IETF Multicast Security (MSEC) Working Group has developed
a set of recommendations in its "Multicast Extensions to the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [IpsecExtensions] that can be
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
applied to appropriately extend IPsec mechanisms to multicast
operation. An appendix of this document specifically addresses the
NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast protocol service model. As complete
support for IPsec multicast operation may potentially follow reliable
multicast deployment, NACK-based reliable multicast protocol
instantiations SHOULD consider providing support for their own NACK
replay attack protection when network layer mechanisms are not
available. This MAY be necessary when IPsec implementations are used
that do not provide multicast replay attack protection when multiple
sources are present.
For NACK-based multicast deployments with large receiver groups using
IPsec, approaches might be developed that use shared, common keys for
receiver-originated protocol messages to maintain a practical number
of IPsec Security Associations (SAs). However, such group-based
authentication may not be sufficient unless the receiver population
can be completely trusted. Additionally, this can make
identification of badly behaving (although authenticated) receiver
nodes problematic as such nodes could potentially masquerade as other
receivers in the group. In deployments such as this, one SHOULD
consider use of source-specific multicast (SSM) instead of any-source
multicast (ASM) models of multicast operation. SSM operation can
simplify security challenges in a couple of ways:
1. A NACK-based protocol supporting SSM operation can eliminate
direct receiver-to-receiver signaling. This dramatically reduces
the number of security associations that need to be established.
2. The SSM sender(s) can provide a centralized management point for
secure group operation for its respective data flow as the sender
alone is required to conduct individual host authentication for
each receiver when group-based authentication does not suffice or
is not pragmatic to deploy.
When individual host authentication is required, then it is possible
receivers could use a digital signature on the IPsec Encapsulating
Security Protocol (ESP) payload as described in [RFC4359]. Either an
identity-based signature system or a group-specific public key
infrastructure could avoid per-receiver state at the sender(s).
Additionally, implementations MUST also support policies to limit the
impact of extremely or exceptionally poor-performing (due to bad
behavior or otherwise) receivers upon overall group operation if this
is acceptable for the relevant application.
As described in Section 3.4, deployment of NACK-based reliable
multicast in some network environments may require identification of
group members beyond that of IP addressing. If protocol-specific
security mechanisms are developed, then it is RECOMMENDED that
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
protocol group member identifiers are used as selectors (as defined
in [RFC4301]) for the applicable security associations. When IPsec
is used, it is RECOMMENDED that the protocol implementation verify
that the source IP addresses of received packets are valid for the
given protocol source identifier in addition to usual IPsec
authentication. This would prevent a badly behaving (although
authorized) member from spoofing messages from other legitimate
members, provided that individual host authentication is supported.
The MSEC Working Group has also developed automated group keying
solutions that are applicable to NACK-based reliable multicast
security. For example, to support IPsec or other security
mechanisms, the Group Secure Association Key Management Protocol
[RFC4535] MAY be used for automated group key management. The
technique it identifies for "Group Establishment for Receive-Only
Members" may be application NACK-based reliable multicast SSM
operation.
6. Changes from RFC 3941
This section lists the changes between the Experimental version of
this specification, [RFC3941], and this version:
1. Change of title to avoid confusion with NORM Protocol
specification,
2. Updated references to related, updated RMT Building Block
documents, and
3. More detailed security considerations.
7. Acknowledgements
(and these are not Negative)
The authors would like to thank George Gross, Rick Jones, and Joerg
Widmer for their valuable comments on this document. The authors
would also like to thank the RMT working group chairs, Roger Kermode
and Lorenzo Vicisano, for their support in development of this
specification, and Sally Floyd for her early inputs into this
document.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP
multicasting", STD 5, RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific
Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[ArchConsiderations] Clark, D. and D. Tennenhouse, "Architectural
Considerations for a New Generation of
Protocols", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 201-208,
September 1990.
[DelayEstimation] Ozdemir, V., Muthukrishnan, S., and I. Rhee,
"Scalable, Low-Overhead Network Delay
Estimation", NCSU/AT&T White Paper,
February 1999.
[FECSchemes] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction
(FEC) Schemes", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[FecBroadcast] Metzner, J., "An Improved Broadcast
Retransmission Protocol", IEEE Transactions on
Communications Vol. Com-32, No. 6, June 1984.
[FecHybrid] Gossink, D. and J. Macker, "Reliable Multicast
and Integrated Parity Retransmission with
Channel Estimation", IEEE Globecomm 1998, 1998.
[FecSchemes] Lacan, J., Roca, V., Peltotalo, J., and S.
Peltotalo, "Reed-Solomon Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Schemes", Work in Progress,
November 2007.
[IpsecExtensions] Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic,
"Multicast Extensions to the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol", Work
in Progress, June 2008.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
[McastFeedback] Nonnenmacher, J. and E. Biersack, "Optimal
Multicast Feedback", IEEE Infocom p. 964,
March/April 1998.
[NormFeedback] Adamson, B. and J. Macker, "Quantitative
Prediction of NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast
(NORM) Feedback", IEEE MILCOM 2002,
October 2002.
[PgmccPaper] Rizzo, L., "pgmcc: A TCP-Friendly Single-Rate
Multicast Congestion Control Scheme", ACM
SIGCOMM 2000, August 2000.
[RFC2357] Mankin, A., Romanov, A., Bradner, S., and V.
Paxson, "IETF Criteria for Evaluating Reliable
Multicast Transport and Application Protocols",
RFC 2357, June 1998.
[RFC3208] Speakman, T., Crowcroft, J., Gemmell, J.,
Farinacci, D., Lin, S., Leshchiner, D., Luby,
M., Montgomery, T., Rizzo, L., Tweedly, A.,
Bhaskar, N., Edmonstone, R., Sumanasekera, R.,
and L. Vicisano, "PGM Reliable Transport
Protocol Specification", RFC 3208,
December 2001.
[RFC3269] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines
for Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Building
Blocks and Protocol Instantiation documents",
RFC 3269, April 2002.
[RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L.,
Handley, M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of
Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable
Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002.
[RFC3940] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J.
Macker, "Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-
Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol",
RFC 3940, November 2004.
[RFC3941] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J.
Macker, "Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK)-
Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Building
Blocks", RFC 3941, November 2004.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301,
December 2005.
[RFC4359] Weis, B., "The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures
within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4359,
January 2006.
[RFC4535] Harney, H., Meth, U., Colegrove, A., and G.
Gross, "GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Key
Management Protocol", RFC 4535, June 2006.
[RFC4654] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "TCP-Friendly
Multicast Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol
Specification", RFC 4654, August 2006.
[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward
Error Correction (FEC) Building Block",
RFC 5052, August 2007.
[RmClasses] Levine, B. and J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "A
Comparison of Known Classes of Reliable
Multicast Protocols", Proc. International
Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP-
96) Columbus, OH, October 1996.
[RmComparison] Pingali, S., Towsley, D., and J. Kurose, "A
Comparison of Sender-Initiated and Receiver-
Initiated Reliable Multicast Protocols", Proc.
INFOCOMM San Francisco, CA, October 1993.
[RmFec] Macker, J., "Reliable Multicast Transport and
Integrated Erasure-based Forward Error
Correction", IEEE MILCOM 1997, October 1997.
[SrmFramework] Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., McCanne, S., Liu, C.,
and L. Zhang, "A Reliable Multicast Framework
for Light-weight Sessions and Application Level
Framing", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, August 1995.
[TfmccPaper] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "Extending Equation-
Based Congestion Control to Multicast
Applications", ACM SIGCOMM 2001, August 2001.
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Brian Adamson
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375
EMail: adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28334 Bremen, Germany
EMail: cabo@tzi.org
Mark Handley
University College London
Gower Street
London, WC1E 6BT
UK
EMail: M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Joe Macker
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375
EMail: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
ERRATA
