On the State of ECN and TCP Options on the Internet

  • Mirja Kühlewind
  • Sebastian Neuner
  • Brian Trammell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7799)

Abstract

Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is a TCP/IP extension that can avoid packet loss and thus improve network performance. Though standardized in 2001, it is barely used in today’s Internet. This study, following on previous active measurement studies over the past decade, shows marked and continued increase in the deployment of ECN-capable servers, and usability of ECN on the majority of paths to such servers. We additionally present new measurements of ECN on IPv6, passive observation of actual ECN usage from flow data, and observations on other congestion-relevant TCP options (SACK, Timestamps and Window Scaling). We further present initial work on burst loss metrics for loss-based congestion control following from our findings.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Salim, J.H., Ahmed, U.: Performance Evaluation of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks. RFC 2884, IETF (July 2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., Black, D.: The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168, IETF (September 2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuzmanovic, A.: The power of explicit congestion notification. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35(4), 61–72 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floyd, S.: Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful. RFC 3360 (Best Current Practice) (August 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., Romanow, A.: TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options. RFC 2018, IETF (October 1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobson, V., Braden, R., Borman, D.: TCP Extensions for High Performance. RFC 1323, IETF (May 1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Medina, A., Allman, M., Floyd, S.: Measuring the evolution of transport protocols in the Internet. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35(2), 37–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langley, A.: Probing the viability of TCP extensions (2008), http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/ecntest.pdf
  9. 9.
    Bauer, S., Beverly, R., Berger, A.: Measuring the state of ECN readiness in servers, clients and routers. In: Proc. of Internet Measurement Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honda, M., Nishida, Y., Raiciu, C., Greenhalgh, A., Handley, M., Tokuda, H.: Is it still possible to extend TCP? In: Proc. of IMC 2011, pp. 181–194. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allman, M., Eddy, W.M., Ostermann, S.: Estimating loss rates with TCP. ACM Performance Evaluation Review 31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mellia, M., Meo, M., Muscariello, L., Rossi, D.: Passive analysis of TCP anomalies. Comput. Netw. 52(14), 2663–2676 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padhye, J., FLoyd, S.: On Inferring TCP Behavior. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 287–298 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang, P., Luo, W., Xu, L., Deogun, J., Lu, Y.: TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm Identification. In: 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 310–321 (June 2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benko, P., Veres, A.: A passive method for estimating end-to-end TCP packet loss. In: Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM 2002, vol. 3, pp. 2609–2613. IEEE (November 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghobadi, M., Cheng, Y., Jain, A., Mathis, M.: Trickle: Rate limiting YouTube video streaming. In: Proc. of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirja Kühlewind
    • 1
  • Sebastian Neuner
    • 1
  • Brian Trammell
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)University of StuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Communication Systems GroupETH ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations