TCP Maintenance Working Group M. Mathis Internet-Draft Google, Inc Intended status: Experimental July 15, 2012 Expires: January 16, 2013 Laminar TCP and the case for refactoring TCP congestion control draft-mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar-01.txt Abstract The primary state variables used by all TCP congestion control algorithms, cwnd and ssthresh, are heavily overloaded, carrying different semantics in different states. This leads to excess implementation complexity and poorly defined behaviors under some combinations of events, such as application stalls during loss recovery. We propose a new framework for TCP congestion control, and to recast current standard algorithms to use new state variables. This new framework will not generally change the behavior of any of the primary congestion control algorithms when they are invoked in isolation. It will permit new algorithms with better behaviors in many corner cases, such as when two distinct primary algorithms are invoked concurrently. It will also foster the creation of new algorithms to address some events that are poorly treated by today's standards. For the vast majority of traditional algorithms the transformation to the new state variables is completely straightforward. However, the resulting implementation is likely to technically be in violation of existing TCP standards, even if it is fully compliant with their principles and intent. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013. Copyright Notice Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Overview of the new algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Standards Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Meta Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. State variables and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Updated Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Congestion avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Proportional Rate Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.3. Restart after idle, Congestion Window Validation and Pacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. RTO and F-RTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.5. Undo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.6. Control Block Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.7. New Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Example Pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Compatibility with existing implementations . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 1. Introduction The primary state variables used by all TCP congestion control algorithms, cwnd and ssthresh, are heavily overloaded, carrying different semantics in different states. Multiple algorithms sharing the same state variables lead to excess complexity, conflicting correctness constraints, and makes it unreasonably difficult to implement, test and evaluate new algorithms. We are proposing a new framework for TCP congestion control that separate transmission scheduling, which determines precisely when data is sent, from pure congestion control, which determines the amount of data to be sent in each RTT. This separation is implemented with new state variables and greatly simplifies the interactions between the two subsystems. It permits vast range of new algorithms that are not feasible with the current parameterization. This note describes the new framework and presents a preliminary mapping between current standards and new algorithms based on the new state variables. At this point the new algorithms are not fully specified, and many have still unconstrained design choices. In most cases, our goal is to precisely mimic today's standard TCP, at least as far as well defined primary behaviors. In general, it is a non- goal to mimic behaviors in poorly defined corner cases, or other cases where standard behaviors are viewed as being problematic. It is called Laminar because one of its design goals is to eliminate unnecessary turbulence introduced by TCP itself. 2. Overview of the new algorithm The new framework separates transmission scheduling, which determines precisely when data is sent, from pure Congestion Control, which determines the total amount of data sent in any given RTT. The default algorithm for transmission scheduling is a strict implementation of Van Jacobsons' packet conservation principle [Jacobson88]. Data arriving at the receiver cause ACKs which in turn cause the sender to transmit an equivalent quantity of data back into the network. The primary state variable is implicit in the quantity of data and ACKs circulating in the network. This state observed through an improved "total_pipe" estimator, which is based on "pipe" as described in RFC 3517 [RFC3517] but also includes the quantity of data reported by the current ACK and pending transmissions that have passed congestion control but are waiting for other events such as TSO. Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 A new state variable, CCwin, is the primary congestion control state variable. It is updated only by the congestion control algorithms, which are concerned with detecting and regulating the overall level of congestion along the path. CCwin is TCP's best estimate for an appropriate average window size. In general, it rises when the network seem to be underfilled and is reduced in the presence of congestion signals, such as loss, ECN marks or increased delay. Although CCwin resembles cwnd, cwnd is overloaded and used by multiple algorithms (such as burst suppression) with different and sometimes conflicting goals. Any time total_pipe is different from CCwin the transmission scheduling algorithm slightly adjusts the number of segments sent in response to each ACK. Slow start and Proportional Rate Reduction [PRRid] are both embedded in the transmission scheduling algorithm. If CCwin is larger than total_pipe, the default algorithm to grow total_pipe is for each ACK to trigger one segment of additional data. This is essentially an implicit slowstart, but it is gated by the difference between CCwin and total_pipe, rather than the difference between cwnd and ssthresh. In the future, additional algorithms such as pacing, might be used to raise total_pipe. During Fast Retransmit, the congestion control algorithm, such as CUBIC, generally reduces CCwin in a single step. Proportional Rate Reduction [PRRid] is used to gradually reduce total_pipe to agree with CCwin. PRR was based on Laminar principles, so its specification has many parallels to this document. Connection startup is accomplished as follows: CCwin is set to MAX_WIN (akin to ssthresh), and IW segments are transmitted. The ACKs from these segments trigger additional data transmissions, and slowstart proceeds as it does today. The very first congestion event is a special case because there is not a prior value for CCwin. By default and on the first congestion event only, CCwin would be set from total_pipe, and then standard congestion control is invoked. The primary advantage of the Laminar framework is that by partitioning congestion control and transmission scheduling into separate subsystems, each is subject to simpler design constraints, making it far easier to develop many new algorithms that are not feasible with the current organization of the code. 3. Standards Impact Since we are proposing to refactor existing standards into new state variables, all of the current congestion control standards documents Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 will potentially need to be reviewed. Although there are roughly 60 RFCs that mention cwnd or ssthresh, most only need self evident reinterpretation. Others, such as MIBs, warrant a sentence or two clarifying how to map CCwin and total_pipe onto existing specifications that use cwnd and ssthresh. There are however several RFCs that explicitly address the interplay between cwnd and ssthresh in today's TCP, including RFC 5681 [RFC5681], RFC 5682 [RFC5682], RFC 4015 [RFC4015], and RFC 6582 [RFC6582]. These need to be reviewed more carefully. In most cases the algorithms can easily be restated under the Laminar framework. Others, such as Congestion Window Validation [RFC2861], potentially require redesign. This document does not propose to change the TCP friendly paradigm [RFC2914]. By default all updated algorithms using these new state variables would have behaviors similar to the current TCP implementations, however over the longer term the intent is to permit new algorithms that are not feasible today. For example, since CCwin does not directly affect transmissions during recovery, it is straightforward to permit recovery ACKs to raise CCwin even while PRR is reducing total_pipe. This facilitates so called "fluid model" algorithms which further decouple congestion control from the details of the TCP the protocol. But even without these advanced algorithms, we do anticipate some second order effects. For example while testing PRR it was observed that suppressing bursts by slightly delaying transmissions can improve average performance, even though in a strict sense the new algorithm is less aggressive than the old [IMC11PRR]. 4. Meta Language We use the following terms when describing algorithms and their alternatives: Standard - The current state of the art, including both formal standards and widely deployed algorithms that have come into standard use, even though they may not be formally specified. [Although PRR does not yet technically meet these criteria, we include it here]. default - The simplest or most straightforward algorithm that fits within the Laminar framework. For example implicit slowstart whenever total_pipe is less than CCwin. This term does not make a statment about the relative aggressiveness or any other properties of the algorithm except that it is a reasonable choice and straightforward to implement. conformant - An algorithm that can produce the same packet trace as a Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 TCP implementation that strictly conforms to the current standards. mimic - An algorithm constructed to be conformant to standards. opportunity - An algorithm that can do something better than the standard algorithm, typically better behavior in a corner cases that is either not well specified or where the standard behavior is viewed as being less than ideal. more/less aggressive - Any algorithm that sends segments earlier/ later than another (typically conformant) algorithm under identical sequences of events. Note that this is an evaluation of the packet level behavior, and does not reflect any higher order effects. Observed performance - A statement about algorithm performance based on a measurement study or other observations based on a significant sample of authentic Internet paths. e.g. an algorithm might have observed data rate that is different than another (typically conformant) algorithm. application stall - The application is failing to keep up with TCP: either the sender is running out of data to send, or the receiver is not reading it fast enough. When there is an application stall, congestion control does not regulate data transmission and some of the protocol events are triggered by application reads or writes, as appropriate. 5. State variables and definitions CCwin - The primary congestion control state variable. DeliveredData - The total number of bytes that the current ACK indicates have been delivered to the receiver. (See [PRRid] for more details). total_pipe - The total quantity of circulating data and ACKs. In addition to RFC 3517 pipe, it includes DeliveredData for the current ack, plus any data held for delayed transmission, for example to permit a later TSO transmission. sendcnt - The quantity of data to be sent in response to the current ACK or other event. 6. Updated Algorithms A survey of standard, common and proposed algorithms, and how they Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 might be reimplemented under the Laminar framework. 6.1. Congestion avoidance Under the Laminar framework the loss recovery mechanism does not, by default, interfere with the primary congestion control algorithms. The CCwin state variable is updated only by the algorithms that decide how much data to send on successive round trips. For example standard Reno AIMD congestion control [RFC5681] can be implemented by raising CCwin by one segment every CCwin worth of ACKs (once per RTT) and halving it on every loss or ECN signal (e.g. CCwin = CCwin/2). During recovery the transmission scheduling part of the Laminar framework makes the necessary adjustments to bring total_pipe to agree with CCwin, without tampering with CCwin. This separation between computing CCwin and transmission scheduling will enable new classes of congestion control algorithms, such as fluid models that adjust CCwin on every ACK, even during recovery. This is safe because raising CCwin does not directly trigger any transmissions, it just steers the transmission scheduling closer to the end of recovery. Fluid models have a number of advantages, such as simpler closed form mathematical representations, and are intrinsically more tolerant to reordering since non-recovery disordered states don't inhibit window growth. Investigating alternative algorithms and their impact is out of scope for this document. It is important to note that while our goal here is not to alter the TCP friendly paradigm, Laminar does not include any implicit or explicit mechanism to prevent a Tragedy of the Commons. However, see the comments in Section 9. The initial slowstart does not use CCwin, except that CCwin starts at the largest possible value. It is the transmission scheduling algorithms that are responsible for performing the slowstart. On the first loss it is necessary to compute a reasonable CCwin from total_pipe. Ideally, we might save total_pipe at the time each segment is scheduled for transmission, and use the saved value associated with the lost segment to prime CCwin. However, this approach requires extra state attached to every segment in the retransmit queue. A simpler approach is to have a mathematical model the slowstart, and to prime CCwin from total_pipe at the time the loss is detected, but scaled down by the effective slowstart multiplier (e.g. 1.5 or 2). In either case, once CCwin is primed from total_pipe, it is typically appropriate to invoke the reduction on loss function, to reduce it again per the congestion control algorithm. Nearly all congestion control algorithms need to have some mechanism Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 to prevent CCwin from growing while it is not regulating transmissions e.g. during prolonged application stalls. 6.2. Proportional Rate Reduction Since PRR [PRRid] was designed with Laminar principles in mind, updating it is a straightforward variable substitution. CCwin replaces ssthresh, and RecoverFS is initialized from total_pipe at the beginning of recovery. Thus PRR provides a gradual window reduction from the prior total_pipe down to the new CCwin. There is one important difference from the current standards: CCwin is computed solely on the basis of the prior value of CCwin. Compare this to RFC 5681 which specifies that the congestion control function is computed on the basis of the FlightSize (e.g. ssthresh=FlightSize/2 ) This change from prior standard completely alters how application stalls interact with congestion control. Consider what happens if there is an application stall for most of the RTT just before a Fast Retransmit: Under Laminar it is likely that CCwin will be set to a value that is larger than total_pipe, and subject to available application data PRR will go directly to slowstart mode, to raise total_pipe up to CCwin. Note that the final CCwin value does not depend on the duration of the application stall. With standard TCP, any application stall reduces the final value of cwnd at the end of recovery. In some sense application stalls during recovery are treated as though they are additional losses, and have a detrimental effect on the connection data rate that lasts far longer than the stall itself. If there are no application stalls, the standard and Laminar variants of the PRR algorithm should have identical behaviors. Although it is tempting to characterize Laminar as being more aggressive than the standards, it would be more apropos to characterize the standard as being excessively timid under certain combinations of overlapping events that are not well represented by benchmarks or models. 6.3. Restart after idle, Congestion Window Validation and Pacing Decoupling congestion control from transmission scheduling permits us to develop new algorithms to raise total_pipe to CCwin after an application stall or other events. Although it was stated earlier that the default transmission scheduling algorithm for raising total_pipe is an implicit slowstart, there is opportunity for better algorithms. We imagine a class of hybrid transmission scheduling algorithms that Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 use a combination of pacing and slowstart to reestablish TCP's self clock. (See [Visweswaraiah99].) For example, whenever total_pipe is significantly below CCwin, RTT and CCwin can be used to directly compute a pacing rate. We suspect that pacing at the previous full rate will prove to be somewhat brittle, sometimes causing excessive loss and yielding erratic results. It is more likely that a hybrid strategy will work better and be better for the network, for example by pacing at some fraction (1/2 or 1/4) of the prior rate until total_pipe reaches some fraction of CCwin (e.g. CCwin/2) and then using conventional slowstart to bring total_pipe the rest of the way up to CCwin. This is far less aggressive than standard TCP without cwnd validation [RFC2861] or when the application stall was less than one RTO, since standards permit TCP to send a full cwnd size burst in these situations. It is potentially more aggressive than conventional slowstart invoked by cwnd validation when the application stall is longer than several RTOs. Both standard behaviors in these situations have always been viewed as problematic, because interface rate bursts are clearly too aggressive and a full slowstart is clearly too conservative. Mimicking either is a non-goal, when there is ample opportunity to find a better compromise. Although strictly speaking any new transmission scheduling algorithms are independent of the Laminar framework, they are expected to have substantially better behavior in many common environments and as such strongly motivate the effort required to refactor TCP implementations and standards. 6.4. RTO and F-RTO We are not proposing any changes to the RTO timer or the F-RTO [RFC5682] algorithm used to detect spurious retransmissions. Once it is determined that segments were lost, CCwin is updated to a new value as determined by the congestion control function, and Laminar implicit slowstart is used to clock out (re)transmissions. Once all holes are filled, a hybrid paced transmissions can be used to reestablish TCPs self clock at the new data rate. This can be the same hybrid pacing algorithm as is used to recover the self clock after application stalls. Note that as long as there is non-contiguous data at the receiver the retransmission algorithms require timely SACK information to make proper decisions about which segments to send. Pacing during loss recovery is not recommended without further investigation. Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 6.5. Undo Since CCwin is not used to implement transmission scheduling, undo is trivial. CCwin can just be set back to its prior value and the transmission scheduling algorithm will transmit more (or less) data as needed. It is useful to note that the discussion about ssthresh in [RFC4015] also applies to CCwin in TCP Laminar. Some people might find it useful to think of CCwin as being equivalent to MAX(ssthresh,cwnd). There is an opportunity to do substantially better than current algorithms. Undo can be implemented by saving the arithmetic difference between the current and prior value of CCwin, and then adding this delta back into CCwin when all retransmissions are deemed to be spurious. If the congestion avoidance algorithm is linear (or can be linearized), and is mathematically transportable across undo, it is possible to design a congestion control algorithm that is completely immune to reordering in the sense that the overall evolution of CCwin is not affected by low level reordering, even if it is pervasive. This is an area for future research. 6.6. Control Block Interdependence Under the Laminar framework, congestion control state can be easily shared between connections [RFC2140]. An ensemble of connections can each maintain their own total_pipe (partial_pipe?) which in aggregate tracks a single common CCwin. A master transmission scheduler allocates permission to send (sndcnt) to each of the constituent connection on the basis of the difference between the CCwin and the aggregate total_pipe, and a fairness or capacity allocation policy that balances the flows. Note that ACKs on one connection in an ensemble might be used to clock transmissions on another connection, and that following a loss, the window reductions can be allocated to flows other than the one experiencing the loss. 6.7. New Reno The key to making Laminar function well without SACK is having good estimators for DeliveredData and total_pipe. By definition every duplicate ACK indicates that one segment has arrived at the receiver and total_pipe has fallen by one. On any ACK that advances snd.una, total pipe can be updated from snd.nxt-snd.una, and DeliveredData is the change in snd.una, minus the sum of the estimated DeliveredData of the preceding duplicate ACKs. As with SACK the total DeliveredData must agree with the overall forward progress over time. Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 7. Example Pseudocode On startup: CCwin = MAX_WIN sndBank = IW On every ACK: DeliveredData = delta(snd.una) + delta(SACKd) pipe = (RFC 3517 pipe algorithm) total_pipe = pipe+DeliveredData+sndBank sndcnt = DeliveredData // Default # transmissions if new_recovery(): if CCwin == MAX_WIN: CCwin = total_pipe/2 // First time only CCwin = CCwin/2 // Reno congestion control prr_delivered = 0 // Total bytes delivered during recov prr_out = 0 // Total bytes sent during recovery RecoverFS = total_pipe // if !in_recovery() && !application_limited(): CCwin += (MSS/CCwin) prr_delivered += DeliveredData // noop if not in recovery Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 if total_pipe > CCwin: // Proportional Rate Reduction sndcnt = CEIL(prr_delivered * CCwin / RecoverFS) - prr_out else if total_pipe < CCwin: if in_recovery(): // PRR Slow Start Reduction Bound limit = MAX(prr_delivered - prr_out, DeliveredData) + SMSS sndcnt = MIN(CCwin - total_pipe, limit) else: // slow start with appropriate byte counting inc = MIN(DeliveredData, 2*MSS) sndcnt = DeliveredData + inc // cue the transmission machinery sndBank += sndcnt limit = maxBank() if sndBank > limit: sndBank = limit tcp_output() For any data transmission or retransmission: tcp_output(): while sndBank && tso_ok(): len = sendsomething() sndBank -= len prr_out += len // noop if not in recovery 8. Compatibility with existing implementations On a segment by segment basis, the above algorithm is [believed to be] fully conformant with or less aggressive than standards under all conditions. However this condition is not sufficient to guarantee that observed performance can't be better than standards. Consider an application that keeps TCP in bulk mode nearly all of the time, but has occasional pauses that last some fraction of one RTT. A fully conforment TCP would be permitted to "catch up" by sending a partial window burst at full interface rate. On some networks, such bursts might be very disruptive, causing otherwise unnecessary packet losses and corresponding cwnd reductions. Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 In Laminar the default algorithm would be slowstart. Other algorithms that might cause the same bursts would be permitted, although are not described here. A better algorithm would be to pace the data at (some fraction of) the prior rate. Neither pacing nor slowstart is likely to cause unnecessary losses, and as was observed while testing PRR, being less aggressive at the segment level has the potential to increase the observed performance[IMC11PRR]. In this scenario Laminar with pacing has the potential to outperform both of the behaviors described by standards. 9. Security Considerations The Laminar framework does not change the risk profile for TCP (or other transport protocols) themselves. However, the complexity of current algorithms as embodied in today's code present a substantial barrier to people wishing to cheat "TCP friendliness". It is a fairly well known and easily rediscovered result that custom tweaks to make TCP more aggressive in one environment generally make it fragile and perform less well across the extreme diversity of the Internet. This negative outcome is a substantial intrinsic barrier to wide deployment of rogue congestion control algorithms. A direct consequence of the changes proposed in this note, decoupling congestion control from other algorithms, is likely to reduce the barrier to rogue algorithms. However this separation and the ability to introduce new congestion control algorithms is a key part of the motivation for this work. It is also important to note that web browsers have already largely defeated TCP's ability to regulate congestion by opening many concurrent connections. When a Web page contains content served from multiple domains (the norm these days) all modern browsers open between 35 and 60 connections (see: http://www.browserscope.org/?category=network ). This is the Web community's deliberate workaround for TCP's perceived poor performance and inability make full use of certain types of consumer grade networks. As a consequence the transport layer has already lost a substantial portion of its ability to regulate congestion. It was not anticipated that the tragedy of the commons in Internet congestion would be driven by competition between applications and not between TCP implementations. In the short term, we can continue to try to use standards and peer pressure to moderate the rise in overall congestion levels, however the only real solution is to develop mechanisms in the Internet Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 itself to apply some sort of backpressure to overly aggressive applications and transport protocols. We need to redouble efforts by the ConEx WG and others to develop mechanisms to inform policy with information about congestion and it's causes. Otherwise we have a looming tragedy of the commons, in which TCP has only a minor role. Implementers that change Laminar from counting bytes to segments have to be cautious about the effects of ACK splitting attacks[Savage99], where the receiver acknowledges partial segments for the purpose of confusing the sender's congestion accounting. 10. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. 11. References [Jacobson88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", SIGCOMM 18(4), August 1988. [RFC2140] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140, April 1997. [RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000. [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC 2914, September 2000. [RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003. [RFC4015] Ludwig, R. and A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP", RFC 4015, February 2005. [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. [RFC5682] Sarolahti, P., Kojo, M., Yamamoto, K., and M. Hata, "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP", RFC 5682, Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Laminar TCP July 2012 September 2009. [RFC6582] Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 6582, April 2012. [PRRid] Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP", draft-mathis-tcpm-proportional-rate-reduction-01 (work in progress), July 2011. [IMC11PRR] Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Ghobadi, "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP", Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference , 2011. [Savage99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson, "TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver", SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 29(5), October 1999. [Visweswaraiah99] Visweswaraiah, V., "Improving Restart of Idle TCP Connections", Tech Report USC TR 97-661, November 1997. Author's Address Matt Mathis Google, Inc 1600 Amphitheater Parkway Mountain View, California 93117 USA Email: mattmathis@google.com Mathis Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 15]