Porting PicoTCP WIP

kernel/picotcp/RFC/rfc1110.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        A. McKenzie
+Request for Comments: 1110                                       BBN STC
+                                                             August 1989
+
+
+                A Problem with the TCP Big Window Option
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo comments on the TCP Big Window option described in RFC
+   1106.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   The TCP Big Window option discussed in RFC 1106 will not work
+   properly in an Internet environment which has both a high bandwidth *
+   delay product and the possibility of disordering and duplicating
+   packets.  In such networks, the window size must not be increased
+   without a similar increase in the sequence number space.  Therefore,
+   a different approach to big windows should be taken in the Internet.
+
+Discussion
+
+   TCP was designed to work in a packet store-and-forward environment
+   characterized by the possibility of packet loss, packet disordering,
+   and packet duplication.  Packet loss can occur, for example, by a
+   congested network element discarding a packet.  Packet disordering
+   can occur, for example, by packets of a TCP connection being
+   arbitrarily transmitted partially over a low bandwidth terrestrial
+   path and partially over a high bandwidth satellite path.  Packet
+   duplication can occur, for example, when two directly-connected
+   network elements use a reliable link protocol and the link goes down
+   after the receiver correctly receives a packet but before the
+   transmitter receives an acknowledgement for the packet; the
+   transmitter and receiver now each take responsibility for attempting
+   to deliver the same packet to its ultimate destination.
+
+   TCP has the task of recreating at the destination an exact copy of
+   the data stream generated at the source, in the same order and with
+   no gaps or duplicates.  The mechanism used to accomplish this task is
+   to assign a "unique" sequence number to each byte of data at its
+   source, and to sort the bytes at the destination according to the
+   sequence number.  The sorting operation corrects any disordering.  An
+   acknowledgement, timeout, and retransmission scheme corrects for data
+   loss.  The uniqueness of the sequence number corrects for data
+   duplication.
+
+   As a practical matter, however, the sequence number is not unique; it
+
+
+
+McKenzie                                                        [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1110           Comments on TCP Big Window Option         August 1989
+
+
+   is contained in a 32-bit field and therefore "wraps around" after the
+   transmission of 2**32 bytes of data.  Two additional mechanisms are
+   used to insure the effective uniqueness of sequence numbers; these
+   are the TCP transmission window and bounds on packet lifetime within
+   the Internet, including the IP Time-to-Live (TTL).  The transmission
+   window specifies the maximum number of bytes which may be sent by the
+   source in one source-destination roundtrip time.  Since the TCP
+   transmission window is specified by 16 bits, which is 1/65536 of the
+   sequence number space, a sequence number will not be reused (used to
+   number another byte) for 65,536 roundtrip times.  So long as the
+   combination of gateway action on the IP TTL and holding times within
+   the individual networks which interconnect the gateways do not allow
+   a packet's lifetime to exceed 65,536 roundtrip times, each sequence
+   number is effectively unique.  It was believed by the TCP designers
+   that the networks and gateways forming the internet would meet this
+   constraint, and such has been the case.
+
+   The proposed TCP Big Window option, as described in RFC 1106, expands
+   the size of the window specification to 30 bits, while leaving the
+   sequence number space unchanged.  Thus, a sequence number can be
+   reused after 4 roundtrip times.  Further, the Nak option allows a
+   packet to be retransmitted (i.e., potentially duplicated) by the
+   source after only one roundtrip time.  Thus, if a packet becomes
+   "lost" in the Internet for only about 5 roundtrip times it may be
+   delivered when its sequence number again lies within the window,
+   albeit a later cycle of the window.  In this case, TCP will not
+   necessarily recreate at the destination an exact copy of the data
+   stream generated at the source; it may replace some data with earlier
+   data.
+
+   Of course, the problem described above results from the storage of
+   the "lost" packet within the net, and its subsequent out-of-order
+   delivery.  RFC 1106 seems to describe use of the proposed options in
+   an isolated satellite network.  We may hypothesize that this network
+   is memoryless, and thus cannot deliver packets out of order; it
+   either delivers a packet in order or loses it.  If this is the case,
+   then there is no problem with the proposed options.  The Internet,
+   however, can deliver packets out of order, and this will likely
+   continue to be true even if gigabit links become part of the
+   Internet.  Therefore, the approach described in RFC 1106 cannot be
+   adopted for general Internet use.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+McKenzie                                                        [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1110           Comments on TCP Big Window Option         August 1989
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Alex McKenzie
+   Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
+   10 Moulton Street
+   Cambridge, MA 02238
+
+   Phone: (617) 873-2962
+
+   EMail: MCKENZIE@BBN.COM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+McKenzie                                                        [Page 3]
+