Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3517

A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP

Pages: 13
Obsoleted by:  6675

ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                         E. Blanton
Request for Comments: 3517                             Purdue University
Category: Standards Track                                      M. Allman
                                                            BBN/NASA GRC
                                                                 K. Fall
                                                          Intel Research
                                                                 L. Wang
                                                  University of Kentucky
                                                              April 2003


         A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based
                    Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP

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) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document presents a conservative loss recovery algorithm for TCP that is based on the use of the selective acknowledgment (SACK) TCP option. The algorithm presented in this document conforms to the spirit of the current congestion control specification (RFC 2581), but allows TCP senders to recover more effectively when multiple segments are lost from a single flight of data. Terminology 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 2

1 Introduction

This document presents a conservative loss recovery algorithm for TCP that is based on the use of the selective acknowledgment (SACK) TCP option. While the TCP SACK [RFC2018] is being steadily deployed in the Internet [All00], there is evidence that hosts are not using the SACK information when making retransmission and congestion control decisions [PF01]. The goal of this document is to outline one straightforward method for TCP implementations to use SACK information to increase performance. [RFC2581] allows advanced loss recovery algorithms to be used by TCP [RFC793] provided that they follow the spirit of TCP's congestion control algorithms [RFC2581, RFC2914]. [RFC2582] outlines one such advanced recovery algorithm called NewReno. This document outlines a loss recovery algorithm that uses the SACK [RFC2018] TCP option to enhance TCP's loss recovery. The algorithm outlined in this document, heavily based on the algorithm detailed in [FF96], is a conservative replacement of the fast recovery algorithm [Jac90, RFC2581]. The algorithm specified in this document is a straightforward SACK-based loss recovery strategy that follows the guidelines set in [RFC2581] and can safely be used in TCP implementations. Alternate SACK-based loss recovery methods can be used in TCP as implementers see fit (as long as the alternate algorithms follow the guidelines provided in [RFC2581]). Please note, however, that the SACK-based decisions in this document (such as what segments are to be sent at what time) are largely decoupled from the congestion control algorithms, and as such can be treated as separate issues if so desired.

2 Definitions

The reader is expected to be familiar with the definitions given in [RFC2581]. The reader is assumed to be familiar with selective acknowledgments as specified in [RFC2018]. For the purposes of explaining the SACK-based loss recovery algorithm we define four variables that a TCP sender stores: "HighACK" is the sequence number of the highest byte of data that has been cumulatively ACKed at a given point. "HighData" is the highest sequence number transmitted at a given point.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 3
      "HighRxt" is the highest sequence number which has been
      retransmitted during the current loss recovery phase.

      "Pipe" is a sender's estimate of the number of bytes outstanding
      in the network.  This is used during recovery for limiting the
      sender's sending rate.  The pipe variable allows TCP to use a
      fundamentally different congestion control than specified in
      [RFC2581].  The algorithm is often referred to as the "pipe
      algorithm".

   For the purposes of this specification we define a "duplicate
   acknowledgment" as a segment that arrives with no data and an
   acknowledgment (ACK) number that is equal to the current value of
   HighACK, as described in [RFC2581].

   We define a variable "DupThresh" that holds the number of duplicate
   acknowledgments required to trigger a retransmission.  Per [RFC2581]
   this threshold is defined to be 3 duplicate acknowledgments.
   However, implementers should consult any updates to [RFC2581] to
   determine the current value for DupThresh (or method for determining
   its value).

   Finally, a range of sequence numbers [A,B] is said to "cover"
   sequence number S if A <= S <= B.

3 Keeping Track of SACK Information

For a TCP sender to implement the algorithm defined in the next section it must keep a data structure to store incoming selective acknowledgment information on a per connection basis. Such a data structure is commonly called the "scoreboard". The specifics of the scoreboard data structure are out of scope for this document (as long as the implementation can perform all functions required by this specification). Note that this document refers to keeping account of (marking) individual octets of data transferred across a TCP connection. A real-world implementation of the scoreboard would likely prefer to manage this data as sequence number ranges. The algorithms presented here allow this, but require arbitrary sequence number ranges to be marked as having been selectively acknowledged.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 4

4 Processing and Acting Upon SACK Information

For the purposes of the algorithm defined in this document the scoreboard SHOULD implement the following functions: Update (): Given the information provided in an ACK, each octet that is cumulatively ACKed or SACKed should be marked accordingly in the scoreboard data structure, and the total number of octets SACKed should be recorded. Note: SACK information is advisory and therefore SACKed data MUST NOT be removed from TCP's retransmission buffer until the data is cumulatively acknowledged [RFC2018]. IsLost (SeqNum): This routine returns whether the given sequence number is considered to be lost. The routine returns true when either DupThresh discontiguous SACKed sequences have arrived above 'SeqNum' or (DupThresh * SMSS) bytes with sequence numbers greater than 'SeqNum' have been SACKed. Otherwise, the routine returns false. SetPipe (): This routine traverses the sequence space from HighACK to HighData and MUST set the "pipe" variable to an estimate of the number of octets that are currently in transit between the TCP sender and the TCP receiver. After initializing pipe to zero the following steps are taken for each octet 'S1' in the sequence space between HighACK and HighData that has not been SACKed: (a) If IsLost (S1) returns false: Pipe is incremented by 1 octet. The effect of this condition is that pipe is incremented for packets that have not been SACKed and have not been determined to have been lost (i.e., those segments that are still assumed to be in the network). (b) If S1 <= HighRxt: Pipe is incremented by 1 octet.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 5
         The effect of this condition is that pipe is incremented for
         the retransmission of the octet.

      Note that octets retransmitted without being considered lost are
      counted twice by the above mechanism.

   NextSeg ():

      This routine uses the scoreboard data structure maintained by the
      Update() function to determine what to transmit based on the SACK
      information that has arrived from the data receiver (and hence
      been marked in the scoreboard).  NextSeg () MUST return the
      sequence number range of the next segment that is to be
      transmitted, per the following rules:

      (1) If there exists a smallest unSACKed sequence number 'S2' that
          meets the following three criteria for determining loss, the
          sequence range of one segment of up to SMSS octets starting
          with S2 MUST be returned.

          (1.a) S2 is greater than HighRxt.

          (1.b) S2 is less than the highest octet covered by any
                received SACK.

          (1.c) IsLost (S2) returns true.

      (2) If no sequence number 'S2' per rule (1) exists but there
          exists available unsent data and the receiver's advertised
          window allows, the sequence range of one segment of up to SMSS
          octets of previously unsent data starting with sequence number
          HighData+1 MUST be returned.

      (3) If the conditions for rules (1) and (2) fail, but there exists
          an unSACKed sequence number 'S3' that meets the criteria for
          detecting loss given in steps (1.a) and (1.b) above
          (specifically excluding step (1.c)) then one segment of up to
          SMSS octets starting with S3 MAY be returned.

          Note that rule (3) is a sort of retransmission "last resort".
          It allows for retransmission of sequence numbers even when the
          sender has less certainty a segment has been lost than as with
          rule (1).  Retransmitting segments via rule (3) will help
          sustain TCP's ACK clock and therefore can potentially help
          avoid retransmission timeouts.  However, in sending these
          segments the sender has two copies of the same data considered
          to be in the network (and also in the Pipe estimate).  When an
          ACK or SACK arrives covering this retransmitted segment, the
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 6
          sender cannot be sure exactly how much data left the network
          (one of the two transmissions of the packet or both
          transmissions of the packet).  Therefore the sender may
          underestimate Pipe by considering both segments to have left
          the network when it is possible that only one of the two has.

          We believe that the triggering of rule (3) will be rare and
          that the implications are likely limited to corner cases
          relative to the entire recovery algorithm.  Therefore we leave
          the decision of whether or not to use rule (3) to
          implementors.

      (4) If the conditions for each of (1), (2), and (3) are not met,
          then NextSeg () MUST indicate failure, and no segment is
          returned.

   Note: The SACK-based loss recovery algorithm outlined in this
   document requires more computational resources than previous TCP loss
   recovery strategies.  However, we believe the scoreboard data
   structure can be implemented in a reasonably efficient manner (both
   in terms of computation complexity and memory usage) in most TCP
   implementations.

5 Algorithm Details

Upon the receipt of any ACK containing SACK information, the scoreboard MUST be updated via the Update () routine. Upon the receipt of the first (DupThresh - 1) duplicate ACKs, the scoreboard is to be updated as normal. Note: The first and second duplicate ACKs can also be used to trigger the transmission of previously unsent segments using the Limited Transmit algorithm [RFC3042]. When a TCP sender receives the duplicate ACK corresponding to DupThresh ACKs, the scoreboard MUST be updated with the new SACK information (via Update ()). If no previous loss event has occurred on the connection or the cumulative acknowledgment point is beyond the last value of RecoveryPoint, a loss recovery phase SHOULD be initiated, per the fast retransmit algorithm outlined in [RFC2581]. The following steps MUST be taken: (1) RecoveryPoint = HighData When the TCP sender receives a cumulative ACK for this data octet the loss recovery phase is terminated.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 7
   (2) ssthresh = cwnd = (FlightSize / 2)

       The congestion window (cwnd) and slow start threshold (ssthresh)
       are reduced to half of FlightSize per [RFC2581].

   (3) Retransmit the first data segment presumed dropped -- the segment
       starting with sequence number HighACK + 1.  To prevent repeated
       retransmission of the same data, set HighRxt to the highest
       sequence number in the retransmitted segment.

   (4) Run SetPipe ()

       Set a "pipe" variable  to the number of outstanding octets
       currently "in the pipe"; this is the data which has been sent by
       the TCP sender but for which no cumulative or selective
       acknowledgment has been received and the data has not been
       determined to have been dropped in the network.  It is assumed
       that the data is still traversing the network path.

   (5) In order to take advantage of potential additional available
       cwnd, proceed to step (C) below.

   Once a TCP is in the loss recovery phase the following procedure MUST
   be used for each arriving ACK:

   (A) An incoming cumulative ACK for a sequence number greater than
       RecoveryPoint signals the end of loss recovery and the loss
       recovery phase MUST be terminated.  Any information contained in
       the scoreboard for sequence numbers greater than the new value of
       HighACK SHOULD NOT be cleared when leaving the loss recovery
       phase.

   (B) Upon receipt of an ACK that does not cover RecoveryPoint the
       following actions MUST be taken:

       (B.1) Use Update () to record the new SACK information conveyed
       by the incoming ACK.

       (B.2) Use SetPipe () to re-calculate the number of octets still
       in the network.

   (C) If cwnd - pipe >= 1 SMSS the sender SHOULD transmit one or more
       segments as follows:

       (C.1) The scoreboard MUST be queried via NextSeg () for the
       sequence number range of the next segment to transmit (if any),
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 8
       and the given segment sent.  If NextSeg () returns failure (no
       data to send) return without sending anything (i.e., terminate
       steps C.1 -- C.5).

       (C.2) If any of the data octets sent in (C.1) are below HighData,
       HighRxt MUST be set to the highest sequence number of the
       retransmitted segment.

       (C.3) If any of the data octets sent in (C.1) are above HighData,
       HighData must be updated to reflect the transmission of
       previously unsent data.

       (C.4) The estimate of the amount of data outstanding in the
       network must be updated by incrementing pipe by the number of
       octets transmitted in (C.1).

       (C.5) If cwnd - pipe >= 1 SMSS, return to (C.1)

5.1 Retransmission Timeouts

In order to avoid memory deadlocks, the TCP receiver is allowed to discard data that has already been selectively acknowledged. As a result, [RFC2018] suggests that a TCP sender SHOULD expunge the SACK information gathered from a receiver upon a retransmission timeout "since the timeout might indicate that the data receiver has reneged." Additionally, a TCP sender MUST "ignore prior SACK information in determining which data to retransmit." However, a SACK TCP sender SHOULD still use all SACK information made available during the slow start phase of loss recovery following an RTO. If an RTO occurs during loss recovery as specified in this document, RecoveryPoint MUST be set to HighData. Further, the new value of RecoveryPoint MUST be preserved and the loss recovery algorithm outlined in this document MUST be terminated. In addition, a new recovery phase (as described in section 5) MUST NOT be initiated until HighACK is greater than or equal to the new value of RecoveryPoint. As described in Sections 4 and 5, Update () SHOULD continue to be used appropriately upon receipt of ACKs. This will allow the slow start recovery period to benefit from all available information provided by the receiver, despite the fact that SACK information was expunged due to the RTO. If there are segments missing from the receiver's buffer following processing of the retransmitted segment, the corresponding ACK will contain SACK information. In this case, a TCP sender SHOULD use this SACK information when determining what data should be sent in each
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 9
   segment of the slow start.  The exact algorithm for this selection is
   not specified in this document (specifically NextSeg () is
   inappropriate during slow start after an RTO).  A relatively
   straightforward approach to "filling in" the sequence space reported
   as missing should be a reasonable approach.

6 Managing the RTO Timer

The standard TCP RTO estimator is defined in [RFC2988]. Due to the fact that the SACK algorithm in this document can have an impact on the behavior of the estimator, implementers may wish to consider how the timer is managed. [RFC2988] calls for the RTO timer to be re-armed each time an ACK arrives that advances the cumulative ACK point. Because the algorithm presented in this document can keep the ACK clock going through a fairly significant loss event, (comparatively longer than the algorithm described in [RFC2581]), on some networks the loss event could last longer than the RTO. In this case the RTO timer would expire prematurely and a segment that need not be retransmitted would be resent. Therefore we give implementers the latitude to use the standard [RFC2988] style RTO management or, optionally, a more careful variant that re-arms the RTO timer on each retransmission that is sent during recovery MAY be used. This provides a more conservative timer than specified in [RFC2988], and so may not always be an attractive alternative. However, in some cases it may prevent needless retransmissions, go-back-N transmission and further reduction of the congestion window.

7 Research

The algorithm specified in this document is analyzed in [FF96], which shows that the above algorithm is effective in reducing transfer time over standard TCP Reno [RFC2581] when multiple segments are dropped from a window of data (especially as the number of drops increases). [AHKO97] shows that the algorithm defined in this document can greatly improve throughput in connections traversing satellite channels.

8 Security Considerations

The algorithm presented in this paper shares security considerations with [RFC2581]. A key difference is that an algorithm based on SACKs is more robust against attackers forging duplicate ACKs to force the TCP sender to reduce cwnd. With SACKs, TCP senders have an additional check on whether or not a particular ACK is legitimate. While not fool-proof, SACK does provide some amount of protection in this area.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 10

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Sally Floyd for encouraging this document and commenting on early drafts. The algorithm described in this document is loosely based on an algorithm outlined by Kevin Fall and Sally Floyd in [FF96], although the authors of this document assume responsibility for any mistakes in the above text. Murali Bashyam, Ken Calvert, Tom Henderson, Reiner Ludwig, Jamshid Mahdavi, Matt Mathis, Shawn Ostermann, Vern Paxson and Venkat Venkatsubra provided valuable feedback on earlier versions of this document. We thank Matt Mathis and Jamshid Mahdavi for implementing the scoreboard in ns and hence guiding our thinking in keeping track of SACK state. The first author would like to thank Ohio University and the Ohio University Internetworking Research Group for supporting the bulk of his work on this project.

Normative References

[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and R. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.

Informative References

[AHKO97] Mark Allman, Chris Hayes, Hans Kruse, Shawn Ostermann. TCP Performance Over Satellite Links. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Telecommunications Systems, Nashville, TN, March, 1997. [All00] Mark Allman. A Web Server's View of the Transport Layer. ACM Computer Communication Review, 30(5), October 2000. [FF96] Kevin Fall and Sally Floyd. Simulation-based Comparisons of Tahoe, Reno and SACK TCP. Computer Communication Review, July 1996.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 11
   [Jac90]   Van Jacobson.  Modified TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm.
             Technical Report, LBL, April 1990.

   [PF01]    Jitendra Padhye, Sally Floyd.  Identifying the TCP Behavior
             of Web Servers, ACM SIGCOMM, August 2001.

   [RFC2582] Floyd, S. and T. Henderson, "The NewReno Modification to
             TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 2582, April 1999.

   [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
             2914, September 2000.

   [RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
             Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.

   [RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H, and S. Floyd, "Enhancing TCP's
             Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042, January
             2001.

Intellectual Property Rights Notice

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 12

Authors' Addresses

Ethan Blanton Purdue University Computer Sciences 1398 Computer Science Building West Lafayette, IN 47907 EMail: eblanton@cs.purdue.edu Mark Allman BBN Technologies/NASA Glenn Research Center Lewis Field 21000 Brookpark Rd. MS 54-5 Cleveland, OH 44135 Phone: 216-433-6586 Fax: 216-433-8705 EMail: mallman@bbn.com http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman Kevin Fall Intel Research 2150 Shattuck Ave., PH Suite Berkeley, CA 94704 EMail: kfall@intel-research.net Lili Wang Laboratory for Advanced Networking 210 Hardymon Building University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506-0495 EMail: lwang0@uky.edu
ToP   noToC   RFC3517 - Page 13
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.