💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4774.txt captured on 2024-06-16 at 17:14:46.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group S. Floyd
Request for Comments: 4774 ICIR
BCP: 124 November 2006
Category: Best Current Practice
Specifying Alternate Semantics for
the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
Abstract
There have been a number of proposals for alternate semantics for the
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field in the IP header RFC
3168. This document discusses some of the issues in defining
alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements for
a safe coexistence in an Internet that could include routers that do
not understand the defined alternate semantics. This document
evolved as a result of discussions with the authors of one recent
proposal for such alternate semantics.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. An Overview of the Issues .......................................3
3. Signalling the Use of Alternate ECN Semantics ...................4
3.1. Using the Diffserv Field for Signalling ....................5
4. Issues of Incremental Deployment ................................6
4.1. Option 1: Unsafe for Deployment in the Internet ...........7
4.2. Option 2: Verification that Routers Understand the
Alternate ..................................................8
4.3. Option 3: Friendly Coexistence with Competing Traffic .....8
5. Evaluation of the Alternate ECN Semantics ......................10
5.1. Verification of Feedback from the Router ..................10
5.2. Coexistence with Competing Traffic ........................11
5.3. Proposals for Alternate ECN with Edge-to-Edge Semantics ...12
5.4. Encapsulated Packets ......................................12
5.5. A General Evaluation of the Alternate ECN Semantics .......12
6. Security Considerations ........................................12
7. Conclusions ....................................................13
8. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
9. Normative References ...........................................13
10. Informative References ........................................13
1. Introduction
[RFC3168], a Proposed Standard document, defines the ECN field in the
IP header, and specifies the semantics for the codepoints for the ECN
field. However, end nodes could specify the use of alternate
semantics for the ECN field, e.g., using codepoints in the diffserv
field of the IP header.
There have been a number of proposals in the IETF and in the research
community for alternate semantics for the ECN codepoint. One such
proposal, [BCF05], proposes alternate ECN semantics for real-time
inelastic traffic such as voice, video conferencing, and multimedia
streaming in DiffServ networks. In this proposal, the alternate ECN
semantics would provide information about two levels of congestion
experienced along the path [BCF05]. Another research proposal,
[XSSK05], proposes a low-complexity protocol, Variable-structure
congestion Control Protocol (VCP), that uses the two bits in the ECN
field to indicate low-load, high-load, and overload (congestion),
where transport protocols can increase more rapidly during the low-
load regime. Some of the proposals for alternate ECN semantics are
for when ECN is used in an edge-to-edge context between gateways at
the edge of a network region, e.g., for pre-congestion notification
for admissions control [BESFC06]. Other proposals for alternate ECN
semantics are listed on the ECN Web Page [ECN].
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
The definition of multiple semantics for the ECN field could have
significant implications on both host and router implementations.
There is a huge base of installed hosts and routers in the Internet,
and in other IP networks, and updating these is an enormous and
potentially expensive undertaking. Some existing devices might be
able to support the new ECN semantics with only a software upgrade
and without significant degradation in performance. Some other
equipment might be able to support the new semantics, but with a
degradation in performance -- which could range from trivial to
catastrophic. Some other deployed equipment might be able to support
the new ECN semantics only with a hardware upgrade, which, in some
cases, could be prohibitively expensive to deploy on a very wide
scale. For these reasons, it would be difficult and would take a
significant amount of time to universally deploy any new ECN
semantics. In particular, routers can be difficult to upgrade, since
small routers sometimes are not updated frequently, and large routers
commonly have specialized forwarding paths to facilitate high
performance.
This document describes some of the technical issues that arise in
specifying alternate semantics for the ECN field, and gives
requirements for a safe coexistence in a world using the default ECN
semantics (or using no ECN at all).
2. An Overview of the Issues
In this section, we discuss some of the issues that arise if some of
the traffic in a network consists of alternate-ECN traffic (i.e.,
traffic using alternate semantics for the ECN field). The issues
include the following: (1) how routers know which ECN semantics to
use with which packets; (2) incremental deployment in a network where
some routers use only the default ECN semantics or do not use ECN at
all; (3) coexistence of alternate-ECN traffic with competing traffic
on the path; and (4) a general evaluation of the alternate ECN
semantics.
(1) The first issue concerns how routers know which ECN semantics to
use with which packets in the network:
How does the connection indicate to the router that its packets
are using alternate ECN semantics? Is the specification of
alternate-ECN semantics robust and unambiguous? If not, is this
a problem?
As an example, in most of the proposals for alternate ECN
semantics, a diffserv field is used to specify the use of
alternate ECN semantics. Do all routers that understand this
diffserv codepoint understand that it uses alternate ECN
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
semantics, or not? Diffserv allows routers to re-mark DiffServ
Code Point (DSCP) values within the network; what is the effect
of this on the alternate ECN semantics?
This is discussed in more detail in Section 3 below.
(2) A second issue is that of incremental deployment in a network
where some routers only use the default ECN semantics, and other
routers might not use ECN at all. In this document, we use the
phrase "new routers" to refer to the routers that understand the
alternate ECN semantics, and "old routers" to refer to routers
that don't understand or aren't willing to use the alternate ECN
semantics.
The possible existence of old routers raises the following
question: How does the possible presence of old routers affect
the performance of the alternate-ECN connections?
(3) The possible existence of old routers also raises the question of
how the presence of old routers affects the coexistence of the
alternate-ECN traffic with competing traffic on the path.
Issues (2) and (3) are discussed in Section 4 below.
(4) A final issue is that of the general evaluation of the alternate
ECN semantics:
How well does the alternate-ECN traffic perform, and how well
does it coexist with competing traffic on the path, in a "clean"
environment with new routers and with the unambiguous
specification of the use of alternate ECN semantics?
These issues are discussed in Section 5.
3. Signalling the Use of Alternate ECN Semantics
This section discusses question (1) from Section 2:
(1) How does the connection indicate to the router that its packets
are using alternate ECN semantics? Is the specification of
alternate ECN semantics robust and unambiguous? If not, is this
a problem?
The assumption of this document is that when alternate semantics are
defined for the ECN field, a codepoint in the diffserv field is used
to signal the use of these alternate ECN semantics to the router.
That is, the end host sets the codepoint in the diffserv field to
indicate to routers that alternate semantics to the ECN field are
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
being used. Routers that understand this diffserv codepoint would
know to use the alternate semantics for interpreting and setting the
ECN field. Old ECN-capable routers that do not understand this
diffserv codepoint would use the default ECN semantics in
interpreting and setting the ECN field.
In general, the diffserv codepoints are used to signal the per-hop
behavior at router queues. One possibility would be to use one
diffserv codepoint to signal a per-hop behavior with the default ECN
semantics, and a separate diffserv codepoint to signal a similar
per-hop behavior with the alternate ECN semantics. Another
possibility would be to use a diffserv codepoint to signal the use of
best-effort per-hop queueing and scheduling behavior, but with
alternate ECN semantics. A detailed discussion of these issues is
beyond the scope of this document.
We note that this discussion does not exclude the possibility of
using other methods, including out-of-band mechanisms, for signalling
the use of alternate semantics for the ECN field. The considerations
in the rest of this document apply regardless of the method used to
signal the use of alternate semantics for the ECN field.
3.1. Using the Diffserv Field for Signalling
We note that the default ECN semantics defined in RFC 3168 are the
current default semantics for the ECN field, regardless of the
contents of any other fields in the IP header. In particular, the
default ECN semantics apply for more than best-effort traffic with a
codepoint of '000000' for the diffserv field - the default ECN
semantics currently apply regardless of the contents of the diffserv
field.
There are two ways to use the diffserv field to signal the use of
alternate ECN semantics. One way is to use an existing diffserv
codepoint, and to modify the current definition of that codepoint,
through approved IETF processes, to specify the use of alternate ECN
semantics with that codepoint. A second way is to define a new
diffserv codepoint, and to specify the use of alternate ECN semantics
with that codepoint. We note that the first of these two mechanisms
raises the possibility that some routers along the path will
understand the diffserv codepoint but will use the default ECN
semantics with this diffserv codepoint, or won't use ECN at all, and
that other routers will use the alternate ECN semantics with this
diffserv codepoint.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
4. Issues of Incremental Deployment
This section discusses questions (2) and (3) posed in Section 2:
(2) How does the possible presence of old routers affect the
performance of the alternate-ECN connections?
(3) How does the possible presence of old routers affect the
coexistence of the alternate-ECN traffic with competing traffic
on the path?
When alternate semantics are defined for the ECN field, it is
necessary to ensure that there are no problems caused by old routers
along the path that don't understand the alternate ECN semantics.
One possible problem is that of poor performance for the alternate-
ECN traffic. Is it essential to the performance of the alternate-ECN
traffic that all routers along the path understand the alternate ECN
semantics? If not, what are the possible consequences, for the
alternate-ECN traffic itself, when some old routers along the path
don't understand the alternate ECN semantics? These issues have to
be answered in the context of each specific proposal for alternate
ECN semantics.
A second specific problem is that of possible unfair competition with
other traffic along the path. If there is an old router along the
path that doesn't use ECN, that old router could drop packets from
the alternate-ECN traffic, and expect the alternate-ECN traffic to
reduce its sending rate as a result. Does the alternate-ECN traffic
respond to packet drops as an indication of congestion?
|--------|
Alternate-ECN traffic ----> | | ---> CE-marked packet
| Old |
Non-ECN traffic ----------> | Router | ---> dropped packet
| |
RFC-3168 ECN traffic -----> | | ---> CE-marked packet
|--------|
Figure 1: Alternate-ECN traffic, an old router, using RFC-3168 ECN,
that is congested and ready to drop or mark the arriving packet.
Similarly, what if there is an old router along the path that
understands only the default ECN semantics from RFC 3168, as in
Figure 1 above? In times of congestion, the old default-ECN router
could see an alternate-ECN packet with one of the ECN-Capable
Transport (ECT) codepoints set in the ECN field in the IP header, as
defined in RFC 3168, and set the Congestion Experienced (CE)
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
codepoint in the ECN field as an alternative to dropping the packet.
The router in this case would expect the alternate-ECN connection to
respond, in terms of congestion control, as it would if the packet
has been dropped. If the alternate-ECN traffic fails to respond
appropriately to the CE codepoint being set by an old router, this
could increase the aggregate traffic arriving at the old router,
resulting in an increase in the packet-marking and packet-dropping
rates at that router, further resulting in the alternate-ECN traffic
crowding out the other traffic competing for bandwidth on that link.
Basically, there are three possibilities for avoiding scenarios where
the presence of old routers along the path results in the alternate-
ECN traffic competing unfairly with other traffic along the path:
Option 1: Alternate-ECN traffic is clearly understood as unsafe for
deployment in the global Internet; or
Option 2: All alternate-ECN traffic deploys some mechanism for
verifying that all routers on the path understand and agree to use
the alternate ECN semantics for this traffic; or
Option 3: The alternate ECN semantics are defined in such a way as
to ensure the fair and peaceful coexistence of the alternate-ECN
traffic with best-effort and other traffic, even in environments that
include old routers that do not understand the alternate ECN
semantics.
Each of these alternatives is explored in more detail below.
4.1. Option 1: Unsafe for Deployment in the Internet
The first option specified above is for the alternate-ECN traffic to
be clearly understood as only suitable for enclosed environments, and
as unsafe for deployment in the global Internet. Specifically, this
would mean that it would be unsafe for packets using the alternate
ECN semantics to be unleashed in the global Internet. This
restriction would prevent the alternate-ECN traffic from traversing
an old router outside of the enclosed environment that didn't
understand the alternate semantics. This document doesn't comment on
whether a mechanism would be required to ensure that the alternate
ECN semantics would not be let loose on the global Internet. This
document also doesn't comment on the chances that this scenario would
be considered acceptable for standardization by the IETF community.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
4.2. Option 2: Verification that Routers Understand the Alternate
Semantics
The second option specified above is for the alternate-ECN traffic to
include a mechanism for ensuring that all routers along the path
understand and agree to the use of the alternate ECN semantics for
this traffic. As an example, such a mechanism could consist of a
field in an IP option that all routers along the path decrement if
they agree to use the alternate ECN semantics with this traffic. (A
similar mechanism is proposed for Quick-Start, for verifying that all
of the routers along the path understand the Quick-Start IP Option
[QuickStart].) Using such a mechanism, a sender could have
reasonable assurance that the packets that are sent specifying the
use of alternate ECN semantics only traverse routers that, in fact,
understand and agree to use these alternate semantics for these
packets. Note, however, that most existing routers are optimized for
IP packets with no options, or with only some very well-known and
simple IP options. Thus, the definition and use of any new IP option
may have a serious detrimental effect on the performance of many
existing IP routers.
Such a mechanism should be robust in the presence of paths with
multi-path routing, and in the presence of routing or configuration
changes along the path while the connection is in use. In
particular, if this option is used, connections could include some
form of monitoring for changes in path behavior and/or periodic
monitoring that all routers along the path continue to understand the
alternate ECN semantics.
4.3. Option 3: Friendly Coexistence with Competing Traffic
The third option specified above is for the alternate ECN semantics
to be defined so that traffic using the alternate semantics would
coexist safely in the Internet on a path with one or more old routers
that use only the default ECN semantics. In this scenario, a
connection sending alternate-ECN traffic would have to respond
appropriately to a CE packet (a packet with the ECN codepoint "11")
received at the receiver, using a conformant congestion control
response. Hopefully, the connection sending alternate-ECN traffic
would also respond appropriately to a dropped packet, which could be
a congestion indication from a router that doesn't use ECN.
RFC 3168 defines the default ECN semantics as follows:
"Upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE packet,
the congestion control algorithms followed at the end-systems MUST be
essentially the same as the congestion control response to a *single*
dropped packet. For example, for ECN-Capable TCP the source TCP is
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
required to halve its congestion window for any window of data
containing either a packet drop or an ECN indication."
The only conformant congestion control mechanisms currently
standardized in the IETF are TCP [RFC2581] and protocols using TCP-
like congestion control (e.g., SCTP [RFC2960], DCCP with CCID-2
([RFC4340], [RFC4341])), and TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)
[RFC3448], and protocols with TFRC-like congestion control (e.g.,
DCCP using CCID-3 [RFC4342]). TCP uses Additive-Increase
Multiplicative-Decrease congestion control, and responds to the loss
or ECN-marking of a single packet by halving its congestion window.
In contrast, the equation-based congestion control mechanism in TFRC
estimates the loss event rate over some period of time, and uses a
sending rate that would be comparable, in packets per round-trip-
time, to that of a TCP connection experiencing the same loss event
rate.
So what are the requirements for alternate-ECN traffic to compete
appropriately with other traffic on a path through an old router that
doesn't understand the alternate ECN semantics (and therefore might
be using the default ECN semantics)? The first and second
requirements below concern compatibility between traffic using
alternate ECN semantics and routers using default ECN semantics.
The first requirement for compatibility with routers using default
ECN is that if a packet is marked with the ECN codepoint "11" in the
network, this marking is not changed on the packet's way to the
receiver (unless the packet is dropped before it reaches the
receiver). This requirement is necessary to ensure that congestion
indications from a default-ECN router make it to the transport
receiver.
A second requirement for compatibility with routers using default ECN
is that the end-nodes respond to packets that are marked with the ECN
codepoint "11" in a way that is friendly to flows using IETF-
conformant congestion control. This requirement is needed because
the "11"-marked packets might have come from a congested router that
understands only the default ECN semantics, and that expects that
end-nodes will respond appropriately to CE packets. This requirement
would ensure that the traffic using the alternate semantics does not
`bully' competing traffic that it might encounter along the path, and
that it does not drive up congestion on the shared link
inappropriately.
Additional requirements concern compatibility between traffic using
default ECN semantics and routers using alternate ECN semantics.
This situation could occur if a diffserv codepoint using default ECN
semantics is redefined to use alternate ECN semantics, and traffic
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
from an "old" source traverses a "new" router. If the router "knows"
that a packet is from a sender using alternate semantics (e.g.,
because the packet is using a certain diffserv codepoint, and all
packets with that diffserv codepoint use alternate semantics for the
ECN field), then the requirements below are not necessary, and the
rules for the alternate semantics apply.
A requirement for compatibility with end-nodes using default ECN is
that if a packet that *could* be using default semantics is marked
with the ECN codepoint "00", this marking must not be changed to
"01", "10", or "11" in the network. This prevents the packet from
being represented incorrectly to a default-ECN router downstream as
ECN-Capable. Similarly, if a packet that *could* be using default
semantics is marked with the ECN codepoint "01", then this codepoint
should not be changed to "10" in the network (and a "10" codepoint
should not be changed to "01"). This requirement is necessary to
avoid interference with the transport protocol's use of the ECN nonce
[RFC3540].
As discussed earlier, the current conformant congestion control
responses to a dropped or default-ECN-marked packet consist of TCP
and TCP-like congestion control, and of TFRC (TCP-Friendly Rate
Control). Another possible response considered in RFC 3714, but not
standardized in a standards-track document, is that of simply
terminating an alternate-ECN connection for a period of time if the
long-term sending rate is higher than would be that of a TCP
connection experiencing the same packet dropping or marking rates
[RFC3714]. We note that the use of such a congestion control
response to CE-marked packets would require specification of time
constants for measuring the loss rates and for stopping transmission,
and would require a consideration of issues of packet size.
5. Evaluation of the Alternate ECN Semantics
This section discusses question (4) posed in Section 2:
(4) How well does the alternate-ECN traffic perform, and how well
does it coexist with competing traffic on the path, in a "clean"
environment with new routers and with the unambiguous
specification of the use of alternate ECN semantics?
5.1. Verification of Feedback from the Router
One issue in evaluating the alternate ECN semantics concerns
mechanisms to discourage lying from the transport receiver to the
transport sender. In many cases, the sender is a server that has an
interest in using the alternate ECN semantics correctly, while the
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
receiver has more incentive to lie about the congestion experienced
along the path.
In the default ECN semantics, two of the four ECN codepoints are used
for ECN-Capable(0) and ECN-Capable(1). The use of two codepoints for
ECN-Capable, instead of one, permits the data sender to verify the
receiver's reports that packets were actually received unmarked at
the receiver. In particular, the sender can specify that the
receiver report to the sender whether each unmarked packet was
received ECN-Capable(0) or ECN-Capable(1), as discussed in RFC 3540
[RFC3540]. This use of ECN-Capable(0) and ECN-Capable(1) is
independent of the semantics of the other ECN codepoints, and could
be used, if desired, with alternate semantics for the other
codepoints.
If alternate semantics for the ECN codepoint don't include the use of
two separate codepoints to indicate ECN-Capable, then the connections
using those semantics have lost the ability to verify that the data
receiver is accurately reporting the received ECN codepoint to the
data sender. In this case, it might be necessary for the alternate-
ECN framework to include alternate mechanisms for ensuring that the
data receiver is reporting feedback appropriately to the sender. As
one possibility, policers could be used in routers to ensure that end
nodes are responding appropriately to marked packets.
5.2. Coexistence with Competing Traffic
A second general issue concerns the coexistence of alternate-ECN
traffic with competing traffic along the path, in a clean environment
where all routers understand and are willing to use the alternate ECN
semantics for the traffic that specifies its use.
If the traffic using the alternate ECN semantics is best-effort
traffic, then it is subject to the general requirement of fair
competition with TCP and other traffic along the path [RFC2914].
If the traffic using the alternate ECN semantics is diffserv traffic,
then the requirements are governed by the overall guidelines for that
class of diffserv traffic. It is beyond the scope of this document
to specify the requirements, if any, for the coexistence of diffserv
traffic with other traffic on the link; this should be addressed in
the specification of the diffserv codepoint itself.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
5.3. Proposals for Alternate ECN with Edge-to-Edge Semantics
RFC 3168 specifies the use of the default ECN semantics by an end-
to-end transport protocol, with the requirement that "upon the
receipt by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE packet, the
congestion control algorithms followed at the end-systems MUST be
essentially the same as the congestion control response to a *single*
dropped packet" ([RFC3168], Section 5). In contrast, some of the
proposals for alternate ECN semantics are for ECN used in an edge-
to-edge context between gateways at the edge of a network region,
e.g., [BESFC06].
When alternate ECN is defined with edge-to-edge semantics, this
definition needs to ensure that the edge-to-edge semantics do not
conflict with a connection using other ECN semantics end-to-end. One
way to avoid conflict would be for the edge-to-edge ECN proposal to
include some mechanism to ensure that the edge-to-edge ECN is not
used for connections that are using other ECN semantics (standard or
otherwise) end-to-end. Alternately, the edge-to-edge semantics could
be defined so that they do not conflict with a connection using other
ECN semantics end-to-end.
5.4. Encapsulated Packets
RFC 3168 has an extensive discussion of the interactions between ECN
and IP tunnels, including IPsec and IP in IP. Proposals for
alternate ECN semantics might interact with IP tunnels differently
than default ECN. As a result, proposals for alternate ECN semantics
must explicitly consider the issue of interactions with IP tunnels.
5.5. A General Evaluation of the Alternate ECN Semantics
A third general issue concerns the evaluation of the general merits
of the proposed alternate ECN semantics. Again, it would be beyond
the scope of this document to specify requirements for the general
evaluation of alternate ECN semantics.
6. Security Considerations
This document doesn't propose any new mechanisms for the Internet
protocol, and therefore doesn't introduce any new security
considerations.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
7. Conclusions
This document has discussed some of the issues to be considered in
the specification of alternate semantics for the ECN field in the IP
header.
Specifications of alternate ECN semantics must clearly state how they
address the issues raised in this document, particularly the issues
discussed in Section 2. In addition, specifications for alternate
ECN semantics must meet the requirements in Section 5.2 for
coexistence with competing traffic.
8. Acknowledgements
This document is based in part on conversations with Jozef Babiarz,
Kwok Ho Chan, and Victor Firoiu on their proposal for an alternate
use of the ECN field in DiffServ environments. Many thanks to
Francois Le Faucheur for feedback recommending that the document
include a section at the beginning discussing the potential issues
that need to be addressed. Thanks also to Mark Allman, Fred Baker,
David Black, Gorry Fairhurst, and to members of the TSVWG working
group for feedback on these issues.
9. Normative References
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001.
10. Informative References
[BCF05] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and V. Firoiu, "Congestion
Notification Process for Real-Time Traffic", Work in
Progress, July 2005.
[BESFC06] Briscoe, B., et al., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model
for Pre-Congestion Notification: Admission Control over
a DiffServ Region", Work in Progress, June 2006.
[ECN] ECN Web Page, URL <www.icir.org/floyd/ecn.html>.
[QuickStart] S. Floyd, M. Allman, A. Jain, and P. Sarolahti, "Quick-
Start for TCP and IP", Work in Progress, October 2006.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
2914, September 2000.
[RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[RFC3448] Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
RFC 3448, January 2003.
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
RFC 3540, June 2003.
[RFC3714] Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding
Congestion Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet",
RFC 3714, March 2004.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March
2006.
[RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID
2: TCP-like Congestion Control", RFC 4341, March 2006.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC
4342, March 2006.
[XSSK05] Y. Xia, L. Subramanian, I. Stoica, and S. Kalyanaraman,
One More Bit Is Enough, SIGCOMM 2005, September 2005.
Author's Address
Sally Floyd
ICIR (ICSI Center for Internet Research)
Phone: +1 (510) 666-2989
EMail: floyd@icir.org
URL: http://www.icir.org/floyd/
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 4774 Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field November 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Floyd Best Current Practice [Page 15]