2. 3: Transport Layer3a-1 Transport Layer Overview: r transport layer services r multiplexing/demultiplexing r connectionless transport: UDP r principles of reliable data transfer r connection-oriented transport: TCP m reliable transfer m flow control m connection management m congestion control r Instantiation and implementation in the Internet

3. 3: Transport Layer3a-2 Transport services and protocols r provide logical communication between app’ processes running on different hosts r transport protocols run in end systems r transport vs network layer services: r network layer: data transfer between end systems r transport layer: data transfer between processes m relies on, enhances, network layer services application transport network data link physical application transport network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical logical end-end transport

4. 3: Transport Layer3a-3 Transport-layer protocols Internet transport services: r reliable, in-order unicast delivery (TCP) m Connection oriented m flow control m congestion control r unreliable (“best-effort”), unordered unicast or multicast delivery: UDP r services not available: m real-time m bandwidth guarantee m reliable multicast m If IP layer can’t provide no way to simulate on top application transport network data link physical application transport network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical logical end-end transport

5. 3: Transport Layer3a-4 Example r Nice example in Kurose and Ross of two houses full of cousins r Hosts = houses r Processes = cousins r Application messages = letters in envelopes r Network layer protocol = postal service r Transport layer protocol = Ann and Bill; Susan and Harvey

6. 3: Transport Layer3a-5 UDP: User Datagram Protocol [RFC 768] r “no frills,” “bare bones” Internet transport protocol r “best effort” service, UDP segments may be: m lost m delivered out of order to app r connectionless: m no handshaking between UDP sender, receiver m each UDP segment handled independently of others Why is there a UDP? r no connection establishment (which can add delay) r simple: no connection state at sender, receiver r small segment header r no congestion control: UDP can blast away as fast as desired

7. 3: Transport Layer3a-6 UDP: more r often used for streaming multimedia apps m loss tolerant m rate sensitive r other UDP uses (why?): m DNS: small, retransmit if necessary m SNMP r reliable transfer over UDP: add reliability at application layer m application-specific error recover! source port #dest port # 32 bits Application data (message) UDP segment format length checksum Length, in bytes of UDP segment, including header

8. 3: Transport Layer3a-7 application transport network M P2 application transport network Process-to-Process Message Delivery Goal : Deliver application data to correct process (and more particularly to the right socket) Segment - unit of data exchanged between transport layer entities; transport protocol data unit (TPDU) receiver H t H n segment M application transport network P1 MMM P3 P4 segment header application-layer data

9. 3: Transport Layer3a-8 Multiplexing/demultiplexing Demultiplexing based on IP addresses of sender and and port numbers of both sender and receiver m Can distinguish traffic coming to same port but part of separate conversations (like multiple client connections to a web server) gathering data from multiple app processes, enveloping data with header (later used for demultiplexing) source port #dest port # 32 bits application data (message) other header fields TCP/UDP segment format Multiplexing: Stream of incoming data into one machine separated into smaller streams destined for individual processes Demultiplexing:

10. 3: Transport Layer3a-9 Port Implementation r Message queue m Append incoming message to the end m Much like a mailbox file r If queue full,,message can be discarded m why is that ok? Best effort delivery m The network doesn’t guarantee not to drop, so the OS needn’t guarantee that either r When application, reads from socket, operating system removes some bytes from the head of the queue r If queue empty, application blocks waiting

11. 3: Transport Layer3a-10 Demultiplexing r Packets arrive on network interface, copied up into system memory r Placed in message queue by transport protocol, dest, port number, src port number and src IP address r Copied to user level when app reads socket Drop? Process A 2 ports Process B 1 port User level Kernel level Incoming messages

12. 3: Transport Layer3a-11 Demultiplexing (cont) r Receiving process may specify combinations of it will receive or ANY r Demultiplexing by port numbers and IP address: other choices? m Ip address and process id? high overhead of coordination and couldn’t have multiple streams per process m Additional level of addressing by port number provides level of indirection and finer granularity addressing

13. 3: Transport Layer3a-12 Multiplexing/demultiplexing example Two Web browsers on host A each open 1 socket Web server B One Web browser on host C opens 2 sockets Source IP: C Dest IP: B source port: y dest. port: 80 Source IP: C Dest IP: B source port: x dest. port: 80 Source IP: A Dest IP: B source port: x dest. port: 80 to Source IP: A Dest IP: B source port: t dest. port: 80 to

14. 3: Transport Layer3a-13 UDP Headers r Source and destination ports for demultiplexing r Port field is 16 bits; so 2 16 or 64K possible ports -not enough for whole Internet, why ok? Just for the single host! r Length and data pretty self explanatory r Checksum? source port #dest port # 32 bits Application data (message) UDP segment format length checksum Length, in bytes of UDP segment, including header

15. 3: Transport Layer3a-14 UDP header field: checksum Sender: r treat segment contents as sequence of 16-bit integers (add 0 pad to get even 16 bit chunks if necessary) r checksum: addition (1’s complement sum) of segment contents r sender puts checksum value into UDP checksum field r Checksum optional but should always be used Receiver: r compute checksum of received segment r check if computed checksum equals checksum field value: m NO - error detected m YES - no error detected. But maybe errors nonethless? More later …. m Errors could be anywhere – in data, in headers, even in checksum Goal: detect “errors” (e.g., flipped bits) in transmitted segment

16. 3: Transport Layer3a-15 UDP checksum r Checksum over UDP header and the “pseudo header” – not just the data r 12 byte Pseudo header precedes UDP header m duplicates source and destination IP addresses and the 8 bit protocol ID from IP header m also duplicates 16 bit UDP length from UDP header r Why?Double-check message correctly delivered between endpoints. m Ex.Detect if IP address modified in transit

17. 3: Transport Layer3a-16 UDP checksum r Actually optional m If sender does not compute set checksum field to 0 m If calculated checksum is 0? Store it as all one bits (65535) which is equivalent in ones- complement arthimetic r If checksum is non-zero and receiver computes a different value, silently drop packet; no error msg generated r Note: We will talk about more about error detection and correction at the link layer….

18. 3: Transport Layer3a-17 UDP Header: length r Length of data and header (min value 8 bytes = 0 bytes data) r 16 bit length field => max length of 65535 bytes r Can you really send that much? m May be limited by kernel send buffer (often <= 8192 bytes) m May be limited by kernel’s IP implementation (possibly <= 512 bytes) ; Hosts required to receive 576 bytes of UDP data so senders may limit themselves to that as well

19. 3: Transport Layer3a-18 Experimenting with UDP r Programs like sock, ttcp or pcattcp allow you to generate streams of TCP or UDP data according to your specifications (total amount of data to send, size of each segment sent, etc.) r Normally, procedure is as follows m Start tracer like Ethereal m Start server machine (ex. pcattcp –r –u) m Start client machine sending traffic (ex. pcattcp –u <ip address of server)

20. 3: Transport Layer3a-19 Roadmap r UDP is a very thin layer over IP m multiplexing /demultiplexing m error detection r TCP does these things also and then adds some other significant features r TCP is quite a bit more complicated and subtle r We are not going to jump right into TCP r Start gently thinking about principles of reliable message transfer in general

21. 3: Transport Layer3a-20 Principles of Reliable data transfer r top-10 list of important networking topics! r important in application, transport, link layers r characteristics of unreliable channel will determine complexity of reliable data transfer protocol (rdt) – what is worst underlying channel can do?

22. 3: Transport Layer3a-21 Brainstorm r Problem: send message (broken into pieces) over unreliable channel such that it arrives on other side in its entirety and in the right order r No out of band communication! All communication sent along with the pieces of the message r Receiver allowed to send information back but only over the same unreliable channel!

23. 3: Transport Layer3a-22 Faxing a document With Flaky Machine r Can’t talk to person on the other side any other way r Number the pages – so sender can put back together r Keep sending copy after copy until receiver begs up to stop (waste resources) r Let receiver send you a fax back saying what pages they have and what they still need (include your fax number on the document!) r Put some info on cover sheet that lets person verify fax info (summarize info like checksum) r What if it is a really big document? Receiver might like to be able to tell you send first 10 pages then 10 more…

24. 3: Transport Layer3a-23 Reliable data transfer: getting started send side receive side rdt_send(): called from above, (e.g., by app.). Passed data to deliver to receiver upper layer udt_send(): called by rdt, to transfer packet over unreliable channel to receiver rdt_rcv(): called when packet arrives on rcv-side of channel deliver_data(): called by rdt to deliver data to upper

25. 3: Transport Layer3a-24 Reliable data transfer: getting started We’ll: r incrementally develop sender, receiver sides of reliable data transfer protocol (rdt) r consider only unidirectional data transfer m but control info will flow on both directions! r use finite state machines (FSM) to specify sender, receiver state 1 state 2 event causing state transition actions taken on state transition state: when in this “state” next state uniquely determined by next event event actions

26. 3: Transport Layer3a-25 Rdt1.0: reliable transfer over a reliable channel r underlying channel perfectly reliable m no bit erros m no loss of packets r separate FSMs for sender, receiver: m sender sends data into underlying channel m receiver read data from underlying channel

27. 3: Transport Layer3a-26 Rdt2.0: channel with bit errors r underlying channel may flip bits in packet (can’t drop or reorder packets) m recall: UDP checksum to detect bit errors r the question: how to recover from errors: m acknowledgements (ACKs): receiver explicitly tells sender that pkt received OK m negative acknowledgements (NAKs): receiver explicitly tells sender that pkt had errors m sender retransmits pkt on receipt of NAK m human scenarios using ACKs, NAKs?  new mechanisms in rdt2.0 (beyond rdt1.0 ): m error detection (summarize fax info?) m receiver feedback: control msgs (ACK,NAK) rcvr->sender (let receiver fax you back info?) m Possible retransmission – detection of duplicates (number fax pages?)

28. 3: Transport Layer3a-27 Stop and Wait r Now that receiver will be sending feedback not just passively receiving, how should we coordinate sending data and receiving and responding to feedback? r Lots of things we could do…simplest? Stop and wait  Sender sends one pcket, then waits for receiver response r What is wrong with stop and wait?

29. 3: Transport Layer3a-28 rdt2.0: FSM specification sender FSMreceiver FSM

30. 3: Transport Layer3a-29 rdt2.0: in action (no errors) sender FSMreceiver FSM

31. 3: Transport Layer3a-30 rdt2.0: in action (error scenario) sender FSMreceiver FSM

32. 3: Transport Layer3a-31 rdt2.0 has a fatal flaw! What happens if ACK/NAK corrupted? r sender doesn’t know what happened at receiver! r Was it an ACK or a NACK? What to do? r Assume it was an ACK and transmit next? What if it was a NACK? Missing data r Assume it was a NACK and retransmit; What if it was an ACK? Duplicate data Handling duplicates: r To detect duplicate, sender adds sequence number to each pkt r sender retransmits current pkt if ACK/NAK garbled r If receiver has pkt with that number already it will discards (I.e. not deliver up duplicate pkt)

33. 3: Transport Layer3a-32 rdt2.1: sender, handles garbled ACK/NAKs

34. 3: Transport Layer3a-33 rdt2.1: receiver, handles garbled ACK/NAKs

35. 3: Transport Layer3a-34 rdt2.1: discussion Sender: r seq # added to pkt r two seq. #’s (0,1) will suffice. Why? r must check if received ACK/NAK corrupted r twice as many states m state must “remember” whether “current” pkt has 0 or 1 seq. # Receiver: r must check if received packet is duplicate m state indicates whether 0 or 1 is expected pkt seq # r note: when can sender and receiver safely exit? receiver can not know if its last ACK/NAK received OK at sender

36. 3: Transport Layer3a-35 rdt2.2: a NAK-free protocol r Less intuitive but getting us closer to TCP r same functionality as rdt2.1, using NAKs only r instead of NAK, receiver sends ACK for last pkt received OK m receiver must explicitly include seq # of pkt being ACKed r duplicate ACK at sender results in same action as NAK: retransmit current pkt sender FSM !

37. 3: Transport Layer3a-36 rdt3.0: channels with errors and loss New assumption: underlying channel can also lose packets (data or ACKs) m How to deal with loss? Retransmission plus seq # to detect duplicates m but not enough Q: how to detect loss? Approach: sender waits “reasonable” amount of time for ACK r retransmits if no ACK received in this time r if pkt (or ACK) just delayed (not lost): m retransmission will be duplicate, but use of seq. #’s already handles this m receiver must specify seq # of pkt being ACKed r requires countdown timer

38. 3: Transport Layer3a-37 rdt3.0 sender

39. 3: Transport Layer3a-38 rdt3.0 in action

40. 3: Transport Layer3a-39 rdt3.0 in action

41. 3: Transport Layer3a-40 Analysis of rdt3.0 r We’ve put in bit errors and loss and rdt3.0 works fine (reordering?) r But performance stinks (remember what is wrong with stop and wait?) r example: 1 Gbps link, 15 ms end-to-end prop. delay, 1KB packet: T transmit = 8kb/pkt 10**9 b/sec = 8 microsec Utilization = U = = 8 microsec 30.016 msec fraction of time sender busy sending = 0.00015 m 1KB pkt every 30 msec -> 33kB/sec thruput over 1 Gbps link m network protocol limits use of physical resources!

42. 3: Transport Layer3a-41 Obvious Fix to Stop and Wait r Stop and Wait really means send one, stop and wait r Instead send lots, stop and wait r Call this a pipelined protocol because many packets in the pipeline at the same time

43. 3: Transport Layer3a-42 Pipelined protocols Pipelining: sender allows multiple, “in-flight” yet-to- be-acknowledges packets m range of sequence numbers must be increased to be able to distinguish them all m buffering at sender and/or receiver r Two generic forms of pipelined protocols: go-Back-N, selective repeat

44. 3: Transport Layer3a-43 Go-Back-N r Sender keeps track of beginning of a window of up to N packets r Each time get an ACK for the beginning of the window can advance the window r If get a timeout for the first packet in the window, retransmit all packets in the window r Some of those retransmitted packets may have been correctly received

45. 3: Transport Layer3a-44 Go-Back-N Sender: r k-bit seq # in pkt header r “window” of up to N, consecutive unack’ed pkts allowed (want N large enough to fill the pipeline, based on link characterisitcs) r ACK(n): ACKs all pkts up to, including seq # n - “cumulative ACK” m may deceive duplicate ACKs (see receiver) r timer for each in-flight pkt r timeout(n): retransmit pkt n and all higher seq # pkts in window

46. 3: Transport Layer3a-45 GBN: sender extended FSM

47. 3: Transport Layer3a-46 GBN: receiver extended FSM receiver simple: r ACK-only: always send ACK for correctly-received pkt with highest in-order seq # m may generate duplicate ACKs  need only remember expectedseqnum r out-of-order pkt: m discard (don’t buffer) -> no receiver buffering! m ACK pkt with highest in-order seq #

48. 3: Transport Layer3a-47 Loss of one packets (pkt2) causes retransmissi on of 4 packets (2-5) GBN in action

49. 3: Transport Layer3a-48 Selective Repeat r GBN forces sender to retransmit all packets in window even if some have been correctly received r To fix that we need a finer granularity of acknowledgement: individual acknowledgements vs cummulative acknowledgements

50. 3: Transport Layer3a-49 Selective Repeat r receiver individually acknowledges all correctly received pkts m Must buffer any packet acknowledged for eventual in- order delivery to upper layer (even if cannot deliver right now) r sender only resends pkts for which ACK not received m sender timer for each unACKed pkt r sender window m N consecutive seq #’s m again limits seq #s of sent, unACKed pkts

51. 3: Transport Layer3a-50 Selective repeat data from above : r if next available seq # in window, send pkt timeout(n): r resend pkt n, restart timer ACK(n) in [sendbase,sendbase+N]: r mark pkt n as received r if n smallest unACKed pkt, advance window base to next unACKed seq # sender pkt n in [rcvbase, rcvbase+N-1] r send ACK(n) r out-of-order: buffer r in-order: deliver (also deliver buffered, in-order pkts), advance window to next not-yet-received pkt pkt n in [rcvbase-N,rcvbase-1] r Duplicate r ACK(n) otherwise: r ignore receiver

52. 3: Transport Layer3a-51 Selective repeat: sender, receiver windows

53. 3: Transport Layer3a-52 Selective repeat in action Loss of one pkt causes retransmission of just that pkt

54. 3: Transport Layer3a-53 Selective repeat: dilemma Example: r seq #’s: 0, 1, 2, 3 r window size=3 r receiver sees no difference in two scenarios! r incorrectly passes duplicate data as new in (a) Q: what relationship between seq # size and window size? A: window size <= ½ sequence number space

55. 3: Transport Layer3a-54 Selective Repeat vs GBN r Selective Repeat requires more buffering and complexity on receiver r GBN results in unnecessary retransmission of data correctly received r Based on requirements in Internet, which which do you think is closest to TCP? Actually a little of both, TCP is a sliding window protocol like GBN but many TCP implementations will buffer correctly received but out of order segments and senders use duplicate acknowledgments to infer which segment dropped

56. 3: Transport Layer3a-55 Roadmap r Discussed general principles of reliable message delivery over unreliable channel m Lots of it is common sense (like with our flaky fax machine) m But there is a significant degree of subtlety in getting it right! r We are going to move on to talking specifically about TCP m Flow control? Congestion control? r We have most of the tools we need now: sequence numbers, cummulative acknowledgments, retransmisson timers….