Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Working M. Mathis Group Google, Inc Internet-Draft B. Briscoe Intended status: Informational BT Expires: September 13, 2012 March 12, 2012 Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Abstract Mechanism draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04 Abstract This document describes an abstract mechanism by which senders inform the network about the congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. Today, network elements at any layer may signal congestion to the receiver by dropping packets or by ECN markings, and the receiver passes this information back to the sender in transport-layer feedback. The mechanism described here enables the sender to also relay this congestion information back into the network in-band at the IP layer, such that the total amount of congestion from all elements on the path is revealed to all IP elements along the path, where it could, for example, be used to provide input to traffic management. This mechanism is called congestion exposure or ConEx. The companion document "ConEx Concepts and Use Cases" provides the entry-point to the set of ConEx documentation. 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 September 13, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 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 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Requirements for the ConEx Abstract Mechanism . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Requirements for ConEx Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Requirements for the Audit Function . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Requirements for non-abstract ConEx specifications . . . . 9 3. Encoding Congestion Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Naive Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Null Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. ECN Based Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Independent Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Codepoint Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.6. Units Implied by an Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Congestion Exposure Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. Network Devices (Not modified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2. Modified Senders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Receivers (Optionally Modified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Policy Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.1. Congestion Monitoring Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.2. Rest-of-Path Congestion Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.3. Congestion Policers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5. Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5.1. Using Credit to Simplify Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Support for Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 1. Introduction This document describes an abstract mechanism by which, to a first approximation, senders inform the network about the congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. It is not a complete protocol specification, because it is known that designing an encoding (e.g. packet formats, codepoint allocations, etc) is likely to entail compromises that preclude some uses of the protocol. The goal of this document is to provide a framework for developing and testing algorithms to evaluate the benefits of the ConEx protocol and to evaluate the consequences of the compromises in various different encoding designs. A companion document [I-D.ietf-conex-concepts-uses] provides the entry point to the set of ConEx documentation. It outlines concepts that are pre-requisites to understanding why ConEx is useful, and it outlines various ways that ConEx might be used. As transport protocols continually seek out more network capacity, network elements signal whenever congestion results, and the transports are responsible for controlling this network congestion.The more a transport tries to use capacity that others want to use, the more congestion signals will be attributable to that transport. Likewise, the more transport sessions sustained by a user and the longer the user sustains them, the more congestion signals will be attributable to that user. ConEx ensures that the resulting congestion signals are sufficiently visible and robust, because they are an ideal metric for networks to use as the basis of traffic management or other related functions. Networks indicate congestion by three possible signals: packet loss, ECN marking or queueing delay. ECN marking and some packet loss may be the outcome of Active Queue Management (AQM), which the network uses to warn senders to reduce their rates. Packet loss is also the natural consequence of complete exhaustion of a buffer or other network resource. Some experimental transport protocols and TCP variants infer impending congestion from increasing queuing delay. However, delay is too amorphous to use as a congestion metric. Therefore ConEx is only concerned with ECN markings and packet losses, because they are unambiguous signals of congestion. In both cases the congestion signals follow the route indicated in Figure 1. A congested network device sends a signal in the data stream on the forward path to the transport receiver, the receiver passes it back to the sender through transport level feedback, and the sender makes some congestion control adjustment. This document extends the capabilities of the Internet protocol suite Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 with the addition of a new Congestion Exposure signal. To a first approximation this signal, also shown in Figure 1, relays the congestion information from the transport sender back through the internetwork layer where it is visible to all internetwork layer devices along the forward path. This document frames the engineering problem of designing the ConEx signal. The requirements are described in Section 2 and some example encoding are presented in Section 3. This new signal is expressly designed to support a variety of new policy mechanisms that might be used to instrument, monitor or manage traffic. The policy devices are not shown in Figure 1 but might be placed anywhere along the forward data path. They are described in Section 4.4 ,---------. ,---------. |Transport| |Transport| | Sender | . |Receiver | | | /|___________________________________________| | | ,-<---------------Congestion-Feedback-Signals--<--------. | | | |/ | | | | | |\ Transport Layer Feedback Flow | | | | | | \ ___________________________________________| | | | | | \| | | | | | | ' ,-----------. . | | | | | |_____________| |_______________|\ | | | | | | IP Layer | | Data Flow \ | | | | | | |(Congested)| \ | | | | | | | Network |--Congestion-Signals--->-' | | | | | Device | \| | | | | | | /| | | `----------->--(new)-IP-Layer-ConEx-Signals-------->| | | | | | / | | | |_____________| |_______________ / | | | | | | |/ | | `---------' `-----------' ' `---------' Not shown are policy devices that use the ConEx Signal to monitor or manage traffic and audit devices to monitor the accuracy of ConEx signals. These devices might be anywhere along the forward path. The are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 and Section 4.5, respectively. Figure 1 Since the policy devices can affect how traffic is treated it is assumed that there is an intrinsic motivation for users, applications or operating systems to understate the congestion that they are Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 causing. It is important to be able to audit ConEx signals, and to be able apply sufficient sanction to discourage cheating of congestion policies. The general approach to auditing is to count and compare congestion signals and ConEx signals on the forward path. Many ConEx design constraints come from the need to assure that the audit function is sufficiently robust. The audit function is described in Section 4.5, however significant portions of this document (and prior research[Refb-dis]) is motivated by issues relating to the audit function and making it robust. The congestion and ConEx signals shown in Figure 1 represent a series of discrete events: ECN marks or lost packets, carried by the forward data stream and fed back into the Internetwork layer. The policy and audit functions are most likely to act on the accumulated values of these signals, for which we use the term "volume". For example traffic volume is the total number of bytes delivered, optionally over a specified time interval and over some aggregate of traffic (e.g. all traffic from a site). While loss-volume is the total amount of bytes discarded from some aggregate over an interval. The term congestion-volume is defined precisely in [I-D.ietf-conex-concepts-uses]. Note that volume per unit time is a rate. One of the design goals of the ConEx protocol is that none of the important policy mechanisms requires per flow state, and that policy mechanisms can be implemented for heavily aggregated traffic in the core of the Internet with complexity akin to accumulating marking volumes per logical link. Ideally it would also be possible to audit ConEx signals without per flow state, however this is not always possible. Since auditing can be done near the edges of the network where traffic is less aggregated, per flow state is more easily tolerated. Also, the flow-state required for audit creates itself as it detects new flows. Therefore a flow will not fail if it is re- routed away from the audit box currently holding its flow-state. [g]Flow-state for auditing is discussed further in Section 4.5. In summary: i) flow state for auditing does not require route pinning; ii) auditing at the edges, with limited per flow state, enables policy in the core, without any per flow state. There is a long standing argument over units of congestion: bytes vs packets (see [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest] and its references). This document does not take a strong position on this issue. However, we make the following observations: the most expensive links in the Internet, in terms of cost per bit, are all at lower data rates, where transmission times are large and packet sizes are important. In order for a policy to consider wire time, it needs to know the number of congested bytes. However, high speed networking equipment and the transport protocols themselves typically gauge Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 resource consumption and congestion in terms of packets. This may prove to be problematic for application protocols that have irregular packet sizes, such as BGP, SPDY and some variable rate video encoding schemes. The units of congestion must be an explicitly stated property of any proposed encoding, and the consequences of that design decision must be evaluated along with other aspects of the design. To be successful the ConEx protocol must have the property that the relevant stakeholders each have the incentive to unilaterally start on each stage of partial deployment, which in turn creates incentives for further deployment. Furthermore, legacy systems that will never be upgraded do not become a barrier to deploying ConEx. Issues relating to partial deployment are described in Section 5. Note that ConEx signals are not intended to be used for fine-grained congestion control. They are anticipated to be most useful at longer time scales, for example the total congestion caused by a user might be serve as an input to higher level policy or accountability functions, designed to create incentives for improving user behavior, such as choosing to send large quantities of data at off peak times, at lower data rates or with less aggressive protocols such as LEDBAT[I-D.ietf-ledbat-congestion] (see [I-D.ietf-conex-concepts-uses]). Ultimately ConEx signals have the potential to provide a mechanism to regulate global Internet congestion. From the earliest days of congestion control research there has been a concern that there is no mechanism to prevent transport designers from incrementally making protocols more aggressive without bound and spiraling to a "tragedy of the commons" Internet congestion collapse. The "TCP friendly" paradigm was created in part to forestall this failure. However, it no longer commands any authority because it has little to say about the Internet of today, which has moved beyond the scaling range of standard TCP. Therefore most transports and applications are opening arbitrarily large numbers of connections or using arbitrary levels of aggressiveness. ConEx represents a recognition that the IETF cannot regulate this space directly because it concerns the behaviour of users and applications, not individual transport protocols. Instead the IETF can give network operators the protocol tools to arbitrate the space themselves, with better bulk traffic management. This in turn should create incentives for users, and designers of application and of transport protocols to be more mindful about contributing to congesting. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 1.1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. ConEx signals in IP packet headers from the sender to the network: Not-ConEx: The transport is not ConEx-capable. ConEx-Capable: The transport is ConEx-Capable. This is the opposite of Not-ConEx. ConEx Signal: A packet sent by a ConEx Capable transport. It carries at least one of the following signals: Re-Echo-Loss: The transport has experienced a loss. Re-Echo-ECN: The transport has experienced an ECN mark. Credit: The transport is building up credit to allow for any future delay in expected ConEx signals (see Section 4.5.1) ConEx-Not-Marked: The transport is ConEx-capable but is signaling none of Re-Echo-Loss, Re-Echo-ECN or Credit. ConEx-Marked: At least one of Re-Echo-Loss, Re-Echo-ECN or Credit. 2. Requirements for the ConEx Abstract Mechanism First time readers may wish to skim this section, since it is more understandable having read the entire document. 2.1. Requirements for ConEx Signals Ideally, all the following requirements would be met by a Congestion Exposure Signal. However it is already known that some compromises will be necessary, and therefore all the requirements are expressed with the keyword 'SHOULD' rather than 'MUST'. The only mandatory requirement is that a concrete protocol description MUST give sound reasoning if it chooses not to meet a requirement: a. The ConEx Signal SHOULD be visible to internetwork layer devices along the entire path from the transport sender to the transport receiver. Equivalently, it SHOULD be present in the IPv4 or IPv6 header, and in the outermost IP header if using IP in IP tunneling. The ConEx Signal SHOULD be immutable once set by the transport sender. A corollary of these requirements is that the chosen ConEx encoding SHOULD pass silently without modification through pre-existing networking gear. b. The ConEx Signal SHOULD be useful under only partial deployment. A minimal deployment SHOULD only require changes to transport senders. Furthermore, partial deployment SHOULD create incentives for additional deployment, both in terms of enabling ConEx on more devices and adding richer features to existing devices. Nonetheless, ConEx deployment need never be universal, and it is anticipated that some hosts and some transports may Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 never support the ConEx Protocol and some networks may never use the ConEx Signals. c. The ConEx signal SHOULD be timely. There will be a minimum delay of one RTT, and often longer if the transport protocol sends infrequent feedback (consider RTCP [RFC3550] for example). This delay complicates auditing, and SHOULD be minimized. d. The ConEx signal SHOULD be accurate and auditable. The general approach is to observe the volume of congestion signals and ConEx signals on the forward data path and verify that the ConEx signals do not under-represent the congestion signals (see Section 4.5). The simplest mechanism to compensate for the round trip delay between the signals is to include a "credit" signal to cover the yet to be observed congestion that might occur during this delay. (see Section 4.5.1 for details). Furthermore, the ConEx signals for packet loss and ECN marking SHOULD have distinct encodings because they are likely to require different auditing techniques or vantage points. 2.2. Requirements for the Audit Function The role and constraints on the audit function are described in Section 4.5. There is no intention to standardise the audit function. However, it is necessary to lay down the following normative constraints on audit behaviour so that transport designers will know what to design against and implementers of audit devices will know what pitfalls to avoid: Minimal False Hits: Audit SHOULD introduce minimal false hits for honest flows; Minimal False Misses: Audit SHOULD quickly detect and sanction dishonest flows, ideally on the first dishonest packet; Transport Oblivious: Audit SHOULD NOT be designed around one particular rate response, such as any particular TCP congestion control algorithm or one particular resource sharing regime such as TCP-friendliness [RFC3448]. An important goal is to give ingress networks the freedom to unilaterally allow different rate responses to congestion and different resource sharing regimes [Evol_cc], without having to coordinate with other networks over details of individual flow behaviour; Sufficient Sanction: Audit SHOULD introduce sufficient sanction (e.g. loss in goodput) so that senders cannot gain from understating congestion. Audit sanctions SHOULD remove any gain from playing off losses at the audit function against higher allowed throughput at a congestion policer; Proportionate Sanction: To the extent that the audit might be subject to false hits, the sanction SHOULD be proportionate to the degree to which congestion is understated. If audit over- punishes, attackers will find ways to harness it into amplifying attacks on others. Ideally audit should, in the long-run, cause Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 the user to get no better performance than they would get by being accurate. Manage Memory Exhaustion: Audit SHOULD be able to counter state exhaustion attacks. For instance, if the audit function uses flow-state, it should not be possible for senders to exhaust its memory capacity by gratuitously sending numerous packets, each with a different flow ID. Identifier Accountability: Audit SHOULD NOT be vulnerable to `identity whitewashing', where a transport can label a flow with a new ID more cheaply than paying the cost of continuing to use its current ID [CheapPseud]; 2.3. Requirements for non-abstract ConEx specifications An experimental ConEx specification SHOULD describe the following protocol details: Network Layer: A. The specific ConEx signal encodings with packet formats, bit fields and/or code points; B. An inventory of any conflated signals or any other effects that are known to compromise signal integrity; C. A specification for signal units (bytes vs packets, etc), any approximations allowed and algorithms to do any implied conversions or accounting; D. If the units are bytes a definition of which headers are included in the size of the packet; E. How tunnels should propagate the ConEx encoding; F. Whether the encoding fields are mutable or not, to ensure that header authentication, checksum calculation, etc. process them correctly. G. Definition of any extensibility; H. Backward and forward compatibility and potential migration strategies; I. Any (hopefully optional) modification to data-plane forwarding dependent on the encoding (e.g. preferential discard, interaction with Diffserv, ECN etc.); J. Any warning or error messages relevant to the encoding. Transport Layer: A. A specification of any required changes to congestion feedback in particular transport protocols. B. A specification (or minimally a recommendation) for how a transport should estimate credits at the beginning of a new connection. C. @@@More TBA, incl ops & management@@@ Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 Security: A. An example of a strong audit algorithm suitable for detecting if a single flow is misstating congestion. This algorithm should present minimal false results, but need not have optimal scaling properties (e.g. may need per flow state). B. An example of an audit algorithm suitable for detecting misstated congestion in a large aggregate (e.g. no per-flow state). The possibility exists that these specifications over constrain the ConEx design, and can not be fully satisfied. An important part of the evaluation of any particular design will be a thorough inventory of all ways in which it might fail to satisfy these specifications. 3. Encoding Congestion Exposure Most protocol specifications start with a description of packet formats and codepoints with their associated meanings. This document does not: It is already known that choosing the encoding for ConEx is likely to entail some engineering compromises that have the potential to reduce the protocol's usefulness in some settings. For instance the experimental ConEx encoding chosen for IPv6 [I-D.ietf-conex-destopt] had to make compromises on tunnelling. Rather than making these engineering choices prematurely, this document side steps the encoding problem by making it abstract. It describes several different representations of ConEx Signals, none of which are specified to the level of specific bits or code points. The goal of this approach is to be as complete as possible for discovering the potential usage and capabilities of the ConEx protocol, so we have some hope of making optimal design decisions when choosing the encoding. Even if experiments reveal particular problems due to the encoding, then this document will still serve as a reference model. 3.1. Naive Encoding For tutorial purposes, it is helpful to describe a naive encoding of the ConEx protocol for TCP and similar protocols: set a bit (not specified here) in the IP header on each retransmission and on each ECN signaled window reduction. Network devices along the forward path can see this bit and act on it. For example any device along the path might limit the rate of all traffic if the rate of marked (congested) packets exceeds a threshold. This simple encoding is sufficient to illustrate many of the benefits envisioned for ConEx. At first glance it looks like it might motivate people to deploy and use it. It is a one line code change Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 that a small number of OS developers and content providers could unilaterally deploy across a significant fraction of all Internet traffic. However, this encoding does not support auditing so it would also motivate users and/or applications to misrepresent the congestion that they are causing [RFC3514]. As a consequence the naive encoding is not likely to be trusted and thus creates its own disincentives for deployment. Nonetheless, this Naive encoding does present a clear mental model of how the ConEx protocol might function under various uses. It is useful for thought experiments where it can be stipulated that all participants are honest and it does illustrate some of the incentives that might be introduced by ConEx. 3.2. Null Encoding In limited contexts is possible to implement ConEx like functions without any signals at all by measuring rest-of-path congestion directly from TCP headers. The algorithm is to keep at least one RTT of past TCP headers and matching each new header against the history to count duplicate data. This could implement many ConEx policies, without any explicit protocol. It is fairly easy to implement, at least at low rate (e.g. in a software based edge router). However, it would only be useful in cases where the network operator can see the TCP headers. This is currently (2012) the vast majority of traffic because UDP, IPSEC and VPN tunnels are used far less than SSL or TLS over TCP/IP, which do not hide TCP sequence numbers from network devices. However, anyone specifically intending to avoid the attention of a congestion policy device would only have to hide their TCP headers from the network operator (e.g. by using a VPN tunnel). 3.3. ECN Based Encoding The re-ECN specification [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp] presents an IPv4 implementation of ConEx that was tightly integrated with ECN encoding in order to fit into the IPv4 header. ConEx and ECN are orthogonal signals in the sense that any individual packet may need to represent any one of the 4 possible combinations of signal values. Ideally their encoding should be entirely independent. However, given the limited number of header bit and/or code points, these signals had to partially share code points. The central theme of the re-ECN work was an audit mechanism that provides sufficient disincentives against misrepresenting congestion [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-motiv]. It is analyzed extensively in Briscoe's PhD dissertation [Refb-dis]. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 Re-ECN is an example of one chosen set of compromises attempting to meet the requirements of Section 2. The present document takes a step back, aiming to state the ideal requirements in order to allow the Internet community to assess whether different compromises might be better. The problem with Re-ECN is that it requires that receivers be ECN enabled in addition to sender changes. Newer encodings overcome this problem by being able to represent both loss and ECN based congestion, and assuming that both signals must be supported indefinitely. For a tutorial background on re-ECN motivation and techniques, see [Re-fb, FairerFaster]. 3.4. Independent Bits This encoding involves flag bits, each of which the sender can set independently to indicate to the network one of the following four signals: ConEx (Not-ConEx) The transport is (or is not) using ConEx with this packet (the protocol MUST be arranged so that legacy transport senders implicitly send Not-ConEx) Re-Echo-Loss (Not-Re-Echo-Loss) The transport has (or has not) experienced a loss Re-Echo-ECN (Not-Re-Echo-ECN) The transport has (or has not) experienced ECN-signaled congestion Credit (Not-Credit) The transport is (or is not) building up congestion credit (see Section 4.5 on the audit function) This encoding does not imply any exclusion property among the signals. Multiple types of congestion (ECN, loss) can be signalled on the same ACK. As long as the packets in a flow have uniform sizes, it does not matter whether the units of congestion are packets or bytes. However, if an application sends very irregular packet sizes, it may be necessary for the sender to mark multiple packets to avoid being in technical violation of the audit function. 3.5. Codepoint Encoding This encoding involves signaling one of the following five codepoints: ENUM {Not-ConEx, ConEx-Not-Marked, Re-Echo-Loss, Re-Echo-ECN, Credit} Each named codepoint has the same meaning as in the encoding using independent bits in the previous section. The use of any one codepoint implies the negative of all the others. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 Inherently, the semantics of most of the enumerated codepoints are mutually exclusive. 'Credit' is the only one that might need to be used in combination with either Re-Echo-Loss or Re-Echo-ECN, but even that requirement is questionable. It must not be forgotten that the enumerated encoding loses the flexibility to signal these two combinations, whereas the encoding with four independent bits is not so limited. Alternatively two extra codepoints could be assigned to these two combinations of semantics. The comment in the previous section about units also applies. 3.6. Units Implied by an Encoding The following comments apply generally to all the other encodings. Congestion can be due to exhaustion of bit-carry capacity, or exhaustion of packet processing power. When a packet is discarded or marked to indicate congestion, there is no easy way to know whether the lost or marked packet signifies bit-congestion or packet- congestion. The above ConEx encodings that rely on marking packets suffer from the same ambiguity. This problem is most acute when audit needs to check that one count of markings matches another. For example if there are ConEx markings on three large (1500B) packets, is that sufficient to match the loss of 5 small (60B) packets? If a packet-marking is defined to mean all the bytes in the packet are marked, then we have 4500B of Conex marked data against 300B of lost data, which is easily sufficient. If instead we are counting packets, then we have 3 ConEx packets against 5 lost packets, which is not sufficient. This problem will not arise when all the packets in a flow are the same size, but a choice needs to be made for flows in which packet sizes vary. We could require that a ConEx encoding specifies whether ConEx markings are in units of bytes or packets. But the problem is deeper than that: we do not even know whether congestion signals themselves (loss & ECN) are in units of bytes or packets. Therefore a ConEx encoding SHOULD specify whether it assumes units of bytes or packets for both ConEx markings and for congestion indications. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest] advises that congestion indications SHOULD be interpreted in units of bytes when responding to congestion, at least on today's Internet. In any TCP implementation this is simple to achieve for varying size packets, given TCP SACK tracks losses in bytes. For example, to implement ConEx in bytes, the sender maintains a Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 counter of outstanding bytes to be ConEx-marked. When the SACK options report the size of a loss, this is added to the counter, and whenever the counter is positive the next data packet is ConEx-marked and its size subtracted from the counter. Then, if one 1500B packet is lost, even if subsequent packets to be sent are all 600B, the sender will compensate by Conex-marking enough small packets. In this case, the sender will ConEx-mark the next three 600B packets before the counter goes negative (1500 - 3*600 = -300), which indicates that it has sent sufficient ConEx marked small packets to compensate for the lost large packet. It will hold over the negative remainder towards the next loss. As long as the remainder is kept negative, the ConEx markings will be on the safe side for audit purposes. With TCP-ECN the sender knows the size in bytes of packets going out, but ECN feedback is in units of packets not bytes. In some TCP implementations, ECN markings are easy to convert to marked bytes, while in others it requires significant work. Therefore even if a ConEx encoding specifies that markings should be interpreted in bytes, it SHOULD allow implementers some leeway to approximate. Experiments with these approximations will determine whether they are sufficient for different patterns of packet size variations. If an encoding is specified in units of bytes, the encoding SHOULD also specify which headers to include in the size of a packet. Bit- congestion is caused by all the bits transmitted with packets, including lower layer frame headers, trailers etc. However, a transport endpoint cannot know the size of the frame header on a packet when it caused congestion at some other link in the Internet, or what size frame header will be used at the audit function. Therefore, it will be practical to define the size of a packet as including the layer 3 header that encapsulates the transport header associated with the ConEx transport sender, but not any more lower layer headers, nor any tunnel headers (which a transport is unlikely to be aware of anyway, because they will already have been stripped before the transport sees the segment). It is appropriate to defer the definition of units to the (non- abstract) encoding specification, because this choice will need to be made in normative language, and the present document is only informative. It may seem that this could lead to interoperability problems if more than one encoding is specified. However, one encoding is unlikely to have to interact with another: the interactions between ConEx implementations in senders, policy devices and audit devices can only happen in the context of one encoding on the wire. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 4. Congestion Exposure Components The components shown in Figure 1 are described in more detail. 4.1. Network Devices (Not modified) Congestion signals originate from network devices as they do today. A congested router, switch or other network device can discard or ECN mark packets when it is congested. 4.2. Modified Senders The sending transport needs to be modified to send Congestion Exposure Signals in response to congestion feedback signals (For example see [I-D.conex-tcp-mods]). We want to permit ConEx without ECN (e.g. if the receiver does not support ECN). However, we want to encourage a ConEx sender to at least attempt to negotiate ECN, because it is believed that ConEx without ECN is harder to audit, and thus potentially exposed to fraud. Since honest users have the potential to benefit from stronger mechanisms to manage traffic they have an incentive to deploy ConEx and ECN together. This incentive is not sufficient to prevent a dishonest user from constructing (or configuring) a sender that enables ConEx after choosing not to negotiate ECN, but is should be sufficient to prevent this from being the sustained default case for any significant pool of users. Permitting ConEx without ECN is necessary to facilitate bootstrapping other parts of ConEx deployment. 4.3. Receivers (Optionally Modified) Any receiving transport may already feedback sufficiently useful signals to the sender so that it does not need to be altered. If the transport receiver does not support ECN, then it's native loss signaling mechanism (required for compliance with existing congestion control standards) will be sufficient for the Sender to generate ConEx signals. A traditional ECN implementation (RFC 3168 for TCP) signals congestion no more than once per round trip. The sender may require more precise feedback from the receiver otherwise it is at risk of appearing to be understating its ConEx Signals. Ideally, ConEx should be added to a transport like TCP without mandatory modifications to the receiver. But an optional modification to the receiver could be recommended for precision (see [I-D.conex-accurate-ecn]). This was the approach taken when adding Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 re-ECN to TCP [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp]. 4.4. Policy Devices Policy devices are characterised by a need to be configured with a policy related to the users or neighboring networks being served. In contrast, the auditing devices referred to in the previous section primarily enforce compliance with the ConEx protocol and do not need to be configured with any client-specific policy. 4.4.1. Congestion Monitoring Devices Policy devices can typically be decomposed into two functions i) monitoring the ConEx signal to compare it with a policy then ii) acting in some way on the result. Various actions might be invoked against 'out of contract' traffic, such as policing (see Section 4.4.3), re-routing, or downgrading the class of service. Alternatively a policy device might not act directly on the traffic, but instead report to management systems that are designed to control congestion indirectly. For instance the reports might trigger capacity upgrades, penalty clauses in contracts, levy charges between networks based on congestion, or merely send warnings to clients who are causing excessive congestion. Nonetheless, whatever action is invoked, the congestion monitoring function will always be a necessary part of any policy device. 4.4.2. Rest-of-Path Congestion Monitoring ConEx signals indicate the level of congestion along a whole path from source to destination. In contrast when ECN signals are monitored in the middle of a network, they indicate the level of congestion experienced so far on the path. If a monitor in the middle of a network (e.g. at a network border) measures both of these signals, it can subtract the level of ECN (path so far) from the level of ConEx (whole path) to derive a measure of the congestion that packets are likely to experience between the monitoring point and their destination (rest-of-path congestion). It will often be preferable for policy devices to monitor rest-of- path congestion if they can, because it is a measure of the downstream congestion that the policy device can directly influence by controlling the traffic passing through it. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 4.4.3. Congestion Policers A congestion policer can be implemented in a very similar way to a bit-rate policer, but its effect can be focused solely on traffic causing congestion downstream, which ConEx signals make visible. Without ConEx signals, the only way to mitigate congestion is to blindly limit traffic bit-rate, on the assumption that high bit-rate is more likely to cause congestion. A congestion policer monitors all ConEx traffic entering a network, or some identifiable subset. Using ConEx signals (and preferably subtracting ECN signals to yield rest-of-path congestion), it measures the amount of congestion that this traffic is contributing somewhere downstream. If this exceeds a policy-configured 'congestion-bit-rate' the congestion policer can limit all the monitored ConEx traffic. A congestion policer can be implemented by a simple token bucket. But unlike a bit-rate policer, it removes a token only when it forwards a packet that is ConEx-Marked, effectively treating Not- ConEx-Marked packets as invisible. Consequently, because tokens give the right to send congested bits, the fill-rate of the token bucket will represent the allowed congestion-bit-rate. This should provide sufficient traffic management without having to additionally constrain the straight bit-rate at all. See [CongPol] for details. Note that the policing action is to introduce a throttle (delay through traffic) immediately upstream of the congestion policer. This throttle is likely to include a queue with its own AQM, which potentially increases the whole path congestion, to reduce the rest of path congestion. 4.5. Audit The most critical aspect of ConEx is the capability to support robust auditing. It can be assumed that there will be an intrinsic motivation for users to understate the congestion that they are causing. Without strong audit functions the ConEx signal is likely to become inaccurate to the point being useless. The most important feature of an encoding design is likely to be robustness of the auditing it supports. The general approach is to compare the volume of ConEx signals to direct measures of actual congestion volume. The technique described in Section 4.5.1 can be used to guarantee that this is a strict bound: if the actual congestion exceeds the ConEx signal, then some congestion was understated and some sanction should be applied to the traffic. Although sanctions are beyond the scope of this document, Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 an example sanction might be to throttle the traffic immediately upstream of the auditor to prevent the user from getting any advantage by understating congestion. Such a throttle would likely include some combination of delaying, ECN marking or dropping traffic. This document does not preclude "statistical auditing", where the audit function indicates some sort of probability that a particular flow is under reporting congestion, however this design choice greatly complicates designing an appropriate sanction, because of the possibility of a false hit. To facilitate ConEx deployment, not-ConEx traffic might be treated as a special case of understating congestion, but with a different sanction. For example an ISP might apply a data rate cap to not- ConEx traffic, while applying a congestion volume cap to ConEx marked traffic. With suitable parameters this is likely to give ConEx marked traffic a much larger share of the network during off peak hours. (Note that in this example the ConEx auditor is also acting as a ConEx policy device.) Another option to facilitate deployment is for the auditor to act as a ConEx proxy, and insert ConEx signals in packets in behalf of the sender. Such a device is outside of the scope of this document, but nonetheless potentially useful for supporting ConEx for legacy systems. Auditing can be distributed and redundant. One flow may be audited in multiple places, using multiple techniques. Some audit techniques do not require any per flow state and can be applied to aggregate traffic. These might be able to detect the presence of understated congestion at large scale and support recursively hunting for individual flows that are understating their congestion. Even at large scales, flows can be randomly selected for individual auditing. The auditing function should be able to trigger sufficient sanction to discourage understating congestion[Salvatori05]. This potentially requires designing the sanction in consort with the policy functions, even though they might be implemented in different parts of the network. Note that in the future it might prove to be desirable to provide advise on uniformly implementing sanctions, because insufficient sanctions impairs the ability to implement policy elsewhere in the network. Some of the audit algorithms require per flow state. This cost is expected to be tolerable, because these techniques are most apropos near the edges of the network, where traffic is generally much less aggregated, so the state need not overwhelm any one device. Sampling techniques can also be used to bound the total auditing memory footprint, although the implementer must be wary of "identifier white Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 washing" attacks to hide cheating connection among chaff. At some point in the future, when ConEx is built into all transport protocol implementations, it may not be necessary to audit all traffic all the time. Auditing might be needed only to identify rogue actors and prevent them from gaining any long term advantage by cheating. A ConEx auditor might use one of the following techniques: ECN Auditing: Since the volume of ECN marks rises monotonically along a path, ECN auditing is most accurate when located near the transport receiver. For this reason ECN should be monitored downstream of the predominant bottleneck. Note that this technique requires no per flow state. TCP-specific loss auditing: For non-encrypted standard TCP traffic on a single path, an auditor could measure losses by detecting retransmissions, which appear as duplicate sequence numbers upstream of the loss and out of order data down stream of the loss. Since some reordering is present in the Internet, such a loss estimator would be most accurate near the sender. Predominant bottleneck loss auditing: For networks designed so that losses predominantly occur due to Active Queue Management under the control of one IP-aware node on the path, the auditor could be located at this bottleneck. It could simply compare ConEx Signals with actual local packet discards. This is a good model for most consumer access networks where audit accuracy could well be sufficient even if losses occasionally occur at other nodes in the network, such as border gateways. Although the auditor at the predominant bottleneck would not be able to count losses at other nodes, transports would not know where losses were occurring either. Therefore a transport would not know which losses it could cheat and which ones it couldn't without getting caught. Note that this technique requires no per flow state. Generic loss auditing: For congestion signaled by loss, totally accurate auditing is not believed to be possible in the general case, because it involves a network node detecting the absence of some packets, when it cannot necessarily identify retransmissions or missing packets. Furthermore the missing packet might simply be taking a different route. It is for this reason that it is desirable to motivate the deploying of ECN, even though ECN is not strictly required for ConEx. In addition, other audit techniques may be identified in the future. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 4.5.1. Using Credit to Simplify Audit At the audit function, there will be an inherent delay of at least one round trip between a congestion signal and the subsequent ConEx signal it triggers, as shown in Figure 1. However, the audit function cannot be expected to wait for a round trip to check that one signal balances the other, because that requires excessive state and the auditor can't easily determine the RTT of each transport. The simplest mechanism to compensate for the round trip delay between the signals is to include a "credit" signal to cover the yet to be observed congestion that might occur during this delay. The transport signals sufficient credit in advance to cover congestion expected during its feedback delay. Then, the audit function does not need to make allowance for round trip delays that it cannot quantify. This design choice correctly makes the transport responsible for both minimizing feedback delay and for the risk that packets in flight will cause congestion to others before the source can react. For example, imagine the audit function keeps a running account of the balance between actual congestion signals (loss or ECN), which it counts as negative, and ConEx signals, which it counts as positive. Having made the transport responsible for round trip delays, it will be expected to have pre-loaded the audit function with some credit at the start. Therefore, if ever the balance does go negative, the audit function can immediately start punishing a flow, without any grace period. Note that although per flow state might be required to count losses, this balance requirement applies both to individual flows and to flow aggregates. For example with the "predominant bottleneck" approach in the previous section (which does not require per flow state), an auditor can detect understated congestion merely by comparing the total volume of ConEx signals (Re-Echo-Loss, Re-Echo-ECN and Credit) to the sum of the total volumes of AQM drops and ECN marks. A specific encoding SHOULD describe the tradeoffs of three interrelated design decisions: whether the audit is strict or statistical; how to recommend estimating the initial credit per flow; and to what extent the sanction needs to avoid over penalizing flows which a false audit failures. 5. Support for Incremental Deployment The ConEx abstract protocol described so far is intended to support incremental deployment in every possible respect. For convenience, the following list collects together all the features of ConEx that Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 support incremental deployment, and points to further information on each: Packets: The wire protocol encoding allows each packet to indicate whether it is using ConEx or not (see Section 3 on Encoding Congestion Exposure). senders: ConEx requires a modification to the source in order to send ConEx packet markings (see Section 4.2). Although ConEx support can be indicated on a packet-by-packet basis, it is likely that all the packets in a flow will either consistently support ConEx or consistently not. It is also likely that, if the implementation of a transport protocol supports ConEx, all the packets sent from that host using that protocol will be ConEx packets. The implementations of some of the transport protocols on a host might not support ConEx (e.g. the implementation of DNS over UDP might not support ConEx, while perhaps RTP over UDP and TCP will). Any non-upgraded transports and non-upgraded hosts will simply continue to send regular Not-ConEx packets as always. A network operator can create incentives for senders to voluntarily reveal ConEx information. Without ConEx information, a network operator tends to have to limit the bit-rate or volume from a site more than is necessary, just in case it might congest others. With ConEx information, the operator can solely limit congestion-causing traffic, and otherwise allow complete freedom. This greater freedom acts as an inducement for the source to volunteer ConEx information. Receivers: A ConEx source should be able to work without a modified receiver. However, without sufficiently precise congestion feedback from the receiver, the source may have to conservatively send extra Re-Echo markings in order to avoid understating congestion. The need for more precise receiver feedback is not exclusive to ConEx, for instance Data Centre TCP (DCTCP [DCTCP]) uses precise feedback to good effect. Nonetheless, if a receiver offers precise feedback, it will be best if ConEx uses it (see Section 4.3). Proxies: Although it was stated above that ConEx requires a modification to the source, ConEx signals could theoretically be introduced by a proxy for the source, as long as it can intercept feedback from the receiver. Similarly, more precise feedback could thoretically be provided by a proxy for the receiver rather than modifying the receiver itself. Queues: No modification to queues is needed for ConEx. However, once ConEx is deployed, it is possible that a queue implementation could take advantage of the ConEx information in packets. For instance, it has been suggested Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp] that a queue would be more robust against flooding if it preferentially discarded Not-ConEx packets then Not-Marked ConEx packets. A ConEx sender re-echoes congestion whether the queues signaling congestion are ECN-enabled or not. Nonetheless, auditing works best if most congestion is indicated by ECN rather than loss (see Section 2). Also, monitoring rest-of-path congestion is not accurate if there are congested non-ECN queues upstream of the monitoring point (Section 4.4.2). Networks: If a subset of traffic sources (or proxies) use ConEx signals to reveal congestion in the internetwork layer, a network operator can choose (or not) to use this information for traffic management. As long as the end-to-end ConEx signals are present, each network can unilaterally choose to use them--independently of whether other networks do. ConEx packets may safely traverse a network that ignores them. Networks MUST NOT change ConEx packets to Not-ConEx. If necessary, endpoints SHOULD be able to detect if a network is removing ConEx signals. An operator can deploy policy devices (Section 4.4) wherever traffic enters its network, in order to monitor the downstream congestion that incoming traffic contributes to, and control it if necessary. See [I-D.ietf-conex-concepts-uses] for further discussion of deployment incentives for networks and scenarios where some networks use ConEx-based policy devices and other don't. An operator can deploy audit devices Section 4.5 unilaterally within its own network to verify that traffic sources are not understating ConEx information. From the viewpoint of one network operator (say N_a), it only cares that the level of ConEx signaling is sufficient to cover congestion in its own network. If traffic continues into a congested downstream network (say N_b), it is of no concern to the first network (N_a) if the end- to-end ConEx signaling is insufficient to cover the congestion in N_b as well. This is N-b's concern, and N_b can both detect such anomalous traffic and deal with it using ConEx-based policy devices (Section 4.4). 6. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 7. Security Considerations Significant parts of this whole document are about auditability of ConEx Signals, in particular Section 4.5. 8. Acknowledgements This document was improved by review comments from Toby Moncaster, Nandita Dukkipati, Mirja Kuehlewind, Caitlin Bestler and John Leslie. 9. Comments Solicited Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome. They can be addressed to the IETF Congestion Exposure (ConEx) working group mailing list , and/or to the authors. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 10.2. Informative References [CheapPseud] Friedman, E. and P. Resnick, "The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms", Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10(2)173--199, 1998. [CongPol] Jacquet, A., Briscoe, B., and T. Moncaster, "Policing Freedom to Use the Internet Resource Pool", Proc ACM Workshop on Re- Architecting the Internet (ReArch'08) , December 2008, . [DCTCP] Alizadeh, M., Greenberg, A., Maltz, D., Padhye, J., Patel, P., Prabhakar, B., Sengupta, S., and M. Sridharan, "Data Center TCP (DCTCP)", ACM SIGCOMM CCR 40(4)63--74, October 2010, . [Evol_cc] Gibbens, R. and F. Kelly, "Resource pricing and the evolution of congestion control", Automatica 35(12)1969--1985, December 1999, . [FairerFaster] Briscoe, B., "A Fairer, Faster Internet Protocol", IEEE Spectrum Dec 2008:38--43, December 2008, . [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-motiv] Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Moncaster, T., and A. Smith, "Re- ECN: A Framework for adding Congestion Accountability to TCP/IP", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re- ecn-tcp-motivation-02 (work in progress), October 2010. [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp] Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Moncaster, T., and A. Smith, "Re- ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to TCP/IP", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-09 (work in progress), October 2010. [I-D.conex-accurate-ecn] Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP", draft- kuehlewind-conex-accurate-ecn-01 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.conex-tcp-mods] Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "TCP modifications for Congestion Exposure", draft- kuehlewind-conex-tcp- modifications-00 (work in progress), July 2011. [I-D.ietf-conex-concepts-uses] Briscoe, B., Woundy, R., and A. Cooper, "ConEx Concepts and Use Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 Cases", draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.ietf-conex-destopt] Krishnan, S., Kuehlewind, M., and C. Ucendo, "IPv6 Destination Option for Conex", draft-ietf-conex-destopt-01 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.ietf-ledbat-congestion] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., and J. Iyengar, "Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-03 (work in progress), October 2010. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest] Briscoe, B. and J. Manner, "Byte and Packet Congestion Notification", draft-ietf-tsvwg- byte-pkt-congest-03 (work in progress), October 2010. [I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp] Sridharan, M., Tan, K., Bansal, D., and D. Thaler, "Compound TCP: A New TCP Congestion Control for High-Speed and Long Distance Networks", draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-02 (work in progress), November 2008. [IntDesPrinciples] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM CCR 18(4)106--114, August 1988, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC2309] Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering, S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G., Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 Avoidance in the Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998. [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001. [RFC3448] Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC 3448, January 2003. [RFC3514] Bellovin, S., "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header", RFC 3514, April 1 2003. [RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC 3540, June 2003. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. [RFC5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes", RFC 5670, November 2009. [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. [Re-fb] Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Di Cairano-Gilfedder, C., Salvatori, A., Soppera, A., and M. Koyabe, "Policing Congestion Response in an Internetwork Using Re- Feedback", ACM SIGCOMM CCR 35(4)277--288, August 2005, . Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism March 2012 [Refb-dis] Briscoe, B., "Re-feedback: Freedom with Accountability for Causing Congestion in a Connectionless Internetwork", UCL PhD Dissertation , 2009, . [Salvatori05] Salvatori, A., "Closed Loop Traffic Policing", Politecnico Torino and Institut Eurecom Masters Thesis , September 2005. [Vegas] Brakmo, L. and L. Peterson, "TCP Vegas: End-to-End Congestion Avoidance on a Global Internet", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 13(8)1465--80, October 1995, . Authors' Addresses Matt Mathis Google, Inc 1600 Amphitheater Parkway Mountain View, California 93117 USA EMail: mattmathis at google.com Bob Briscoe BT B54/77, Adastral Park Martlesham Heath Ipswich IP5 3RE UK Phone: +44 1473 645196 EMail: bob.briscoe@bt.com URI: http://bobbriscoe.net/ Mathis & Briscoe Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 27]