TCP User Timeout Option Lars Eggert (NEC) Fernando Gont (UTN/FRH) IETF-64, Vancouver, Canada November 10, 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction 1 Lecture 13 Transport Layer (Transmission Control Protocol) slides are modified from J. Kurose & K. Ross University of Nevada – Reno Computer.
Advertisements

Simulation-based Comparison of Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP Kevin Fall & Sally Floyd Presented: Heather Heiman September 10, 2002.
1 Transport Protocols & TCP CSE 3213 Fall April 2015.
Transport Layer3-1 TCP. Transport Layer3-2 TCP: Overview RFCs: 793, 1122, 1323, 2018, 2581 r full duplex data: m bi-directional data flow in same connection.
On the implementation of TCP urgent data (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data) Fernando Gont & A. Yourtchenko 73rd IETF meeting, November 16-21, 2008 Minneapolis,
Options or payload? Costin Raiciu UCL IETF 78, Maastricht.
Port randomization (draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization) Michael Larsen & Fernando Gont 73rd IETF Meeting, November 16-21, 2008 Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Transport Layer 3-1 Fast Retransmit r time-out period often relatively long: m long delay before resending lost packet r detect lost segments via duplicate.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit (RFC 3042)
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168)
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #8 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit.
TURN draft-ietf-behave-turn-07 Philip Matthews, Avaya Jonathan Rosenberg, Cisco Rohan Mahy, Plantronics.
Data Transfer Case Study: TCP  Go-back N ARQ  32-bit sequence # indicates byte number in stream  transfers a byte stream, not fixed size user blocks.
Framework & Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks ANCP WG IETF 70 – Vancouver draft-ietf-ancp-framework-04.txt.
ICMP attacks against TCP draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-01.txt Fernando Gont (UTN/FRH) 67 th IETF Meeting, San Diego, California, USA November 5-10, 2006.
Changes in CCID 2 and CCID 3 Sally Floyd August 2004 IETF.
CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab
Transport Layer3-1 TCP sender (simplified) NextSeqNum = InitialSeqNum SendBase = InitialSeqNum loop (forever) { switch(event) event: data received from.
Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security-02.txt) Fernando Gont project carried out on behalf of UK.
Adding Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets A. Kuzmanovic, A. Mondal, S. Floyd, and K.K. Ramakrishnan draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-03.txt.
1 TCP III - Error Control TCP Error Control. 2 ARQ Error Control Two types of errors: –Lost packets –Damaged packets Most Error Control techniques are.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Inter-domain SLA Exchange
NFD Permanent Face Junxiao Shi, Outline what is a permanent face necessity and benefit of having permanent faces guarantees provided by.
1 Miscellaneous Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure IETF 64 Vancouver, BC, Canada November 2005.
Managing the Use of Privacy Extensions for SLAAC in IPv6 (draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy- extensions-01.txt) Fernando Gont (UTN/FRH) Ron Broersma (DREN)
Transport Layer 3-1 Chapter 3 Transport Layer Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach 6 th edition Jim Kurose, Keith Ross Addison-Wesley March
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol Part II : Protocol Mechanisms Computer Network System Sirak Kaewjamnong Semester 1st, 2004.
Transport Layer3-1 Transport Layer Our lives begin to end, the day we become silent about things that matter.
Congestion Avoidance and Control Van Jacobson and Michael Karels Presented by Sui-Yu Wang.
Advance Computer Networks Lecture#09 & 10 Instructor: Engr. Muhammad Mateen Yaqoob.
Medium Access Control in Wireless networks
Transport Layer: Sliding Window Reliability
IP Configuration API. Network Interface Configuration NAIfconfigIsDeviceUp() NAIfconfigDeviceFromInterface() NAIfconfigBringDeviceUp() NAIfconfigSetIpAddress()
Richard Scheffenegger (Editor) David Borman Bob Braden Van Jacobson RFC1323bis – TCP Extensions for High Performance 1 84 th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
Reactions to Signaling from ECN Support for RTP/RTCP draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions-00.txt 14 November 2011 Piers O’Hanlon Ken Carlberg.
TFRC for Voice: the VoIP Variant Sally Floyd, Eddie Kohler. November 2006 draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-06.txt DCCP Working Group, IETF Slides:
Limited Transmit & Early Retransmit for TCP Bryan Youse CISC TCP/IP & Upper Layer Protocols October 23, 2008 See Also: RFC 3042 Hari Balakrishnan's.
Networking (Cont’d). Congestion Control l Is achieved by informing nodes along a route that congestion has occurred and asking them to reduce their packet.
SPEERMINT Architecture - Reinaldo Penno Juniper Networks SPEERMINT, IETF 70 Vancouver, Canada 2 December 2007.
David B. Johnson Rice University Department of Computer Science DSR Draft Status Monarch Project 57th IETF.
Media Access Methods MAC Functionality CSMA/CA with ACK
The Transport Layer Implementation Services Functions Protocols
09-Transport Layer: TCP Transport Layer.
TCP - Part II.
TCP - Part II Relates to Lab 5. This is an extended module that covers TCP flow control, congestion control, and error control in TCP.
Exposing Link-Change Events to Applications
CS450 – Introduction to Networking Lecture 19 – Congestion Control (2)
Internet Networking recitation #9
Chapter 6 TCP Congestion Control
Introduction to Networks
Reddy Mainampati Udit Parikh Alex Kardomateas
IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Limited Transmit for TCP
Current Issues with DNS Configuration Options for SLAAC
76th IETF meeting, November 8-13, 2009
draft-bagnulo-tcpm-generalized-ecn-00 M. Bagnulo & B. Briscoe IETF97
DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting Against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers
M3UA (MTP3-User Adaptation Layer)
(bandwidth control) Jeff Boote Internet2
TCP for DNS security considerations
Chapter 6 TCP Congestion Control
TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification RFC3448bis
Internet Networking recitation #10
IPP Reprint Password Use Cases
Sally Floyd and Eddie Kohler draft-floyd-ccid4-01.txt July 2007
TCP flow and congestion control
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol Part II : Protocol Mechanisms
ECN in QUIC - Questions Surfaced
Working Group Draft for TCPCLv4
Presentation transcript:

TCP User Timeout Option Lars Eggert (NEC) Fernando Gont (UTN/FRH) IETF-64, Vancouver, Canada November 10, 2005

Problem TCP closes a connection if transmitted data has not been ACK’ed after a specific period of time (“user timeout”) default duration (RFC793 & 1122) is minutes behavior makes it difficult for connections to survive extended connectivity disruptions if they are transmitting when a disruption occurs or begin to transmit during one

User Timeout per-connection, app-controlled setting that specifies how long TCP will retransmit & wait for ACKs of un-ACK’ed data parameter to RFC793 SEND call often implemented differently, e.g., BSD SO_SNDTIMEO sockopt

Issue apps need to coordinate setting their local UTOs for a connection even if app on one peer lengthens the UTO of a connection, it can still close if the peer doesn’t and attempts to transmit during a connectivity disruption modifying all apps for disruption tolerance is possible but tedious

UTO Option advisory TCP option that signals local initial UTO & app-initiated changes to it to the peer’s TCP stack if the peer app has not explicitly set its UTO, peer stack SHOULD adapt its local UTO based on received UTO eliminates the need for app changes at both ends of a connection

Changes Since -01 app-specified UTO takes precedence over received UTO option (T. Faber) discuss SO_SNDTIMEO & SO_RCVTIMEO wording & terminology (J. Touch) some shuffling of sections

Are We Done? no other (technical) changes pending have received no comments on -02 can this version move forward?