Chapter 3: Transport Layer Our goals: understand principles behind transport layer services: Multiplexing and demultiplexing reliable data transfer flow control congestion control learn about transport layer protocols in the Internet: 1. 2. 3. UDP: connectionless transport TCP: connection-oriented transport TCP congestion control Multiplexing is to support multiple flows Network can damage pkt, lose pkt, duplicate pkt One of my favorite layer!! 3-1 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-2 Transport services and protocols provide logical communication between app processes running on different hosts transport protocols run in end systems send side: breaks app messages into segments, passes to network layer rcv side: reassembles segments into messages, passes to app layer more than one transport protocol available to apps Internet: TCP and UDP application transport network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical application transport network data link physical 3-3 Transport vs. network layer network layer: logical communication between hosts transport layer: logical communication between processes relies on, enhances, network layer services Another analogy: 1. Post office -> network layer 2. My wife -> transport layer Household analogy: 12 kids sending letters to 12 kids processes = kids app messages = letters in envelopes hosts = houses transport protocol = Ann and Bill network-layer protocol = postal service 3-4 Internet transport-layer protocols reliable, in-order delivery (TCP) congestion control (distributed control) flow control connection setup application transport network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical network data link physical unreliable, unordered network data link physical delivery: UDP no-frills extension of “best-effort” IP services not available: delay guarantees bandwidth guarantees network data link physical application transport network data link physical Research issues 3-5 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-6 Multiplexing/demultiplexing Multiplexing at send host: gathering data from multiple sockets, enveloping data with header (later used for demultiplexing) Demultiplexing at rcv host: delivering received segments to correct socket = socket application = process P1 P1 P3 transport application P4 P2 transport transport network network network link application link link physical host 1 physical physical FTP host 2 telnet host 3 3-7 How demultiplexing works host receives IP datagrams each datagram has source IP address, destination IP address each datagram carries 1 transport-layer segment each segment has source, destination port number (recall: well-known port numbers for specific applications) host uses IP addresses & port numbers to direct segment to appropriate socket 32 bits source port # dest port # other header fields application data (message) TCP/UDP segment format 3-8 Connectionless demultiplexing Create sockets with port numbers: DatagramSocket mySocket1 = new DatagramSocket(99111); DatagramSocket mySocket2 = new DatagramSocket(99222); UDP socket identified by two-tuple: (dest IP address, dest port number) When host receives UDP segment: checks destination port number in segment directs UDP segment to socket with that port number IP datagrams with different source IP addresses and/or source port numbers directed to same socket (this is how a system can serve multiple requests!!) 3-9 Connectionless demux (cont) DatagramSocket serverSocket = new DatagramSocket(6428); P3 P3 Based on destination IP and port # SP: 6428 SP: 6428 DP: 9157 DP: 5775 SP: 9157 client IP: A DP: 6428 P1 P1 SP: 5775 server IP: C DP: 6428 Client IP:B SP provides “return address” Source IP and port # can be spoofed !!!! 3-10 Connection-oriented demux TCP socket identified by 4-tuple: source IP address source port number dest IP address dest port number recv host uses all four values to direct segment to appropriate socket Server host may support many simultaneous TCP sockets: each socket identified by its own 4-tuple Web servers have different sockets for each connecting client non-persistent HTTP will have different socket for each request 3-11 Connection-oriented demux (cont) (S-IP,SP#, D-IP, DP#) P3 P3 SP: 80 SP: 80 DP: 9157 DP: 5775 SP: 9157 client IP: A DP: 80 P1 P1 P4 SP: 5775 server IP: C DP: 80 Client IP:B 3-12 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-13 UDP: User Datagram Protocol “no frills,” “bare bones” Internet transport protocol “best effort” service, UDP segments may be: lost delivered out of order to app connectionless: no handshaking between UDP sender, receiver each UDP segment handled independently of others [RFC 768] Why is there a UDP? no connection establishment (which can add delay) simple: no connection state at sender, receiver small segment header no congestion control: UDP can blast away as fast as desired 3-14 UDP: more often used for streaming multimedia apps loss tolerant rate sensitive Length, in bytes of UDP segment, including other UDP uses DNS When the network is stressed, you PRAY! header SNMP reliable transfer over UDP: add reliability at application layer application-specific error recovery! (e.g, FTP based on UDP but with recovery) 32 bits source port # dest port # length checksum Application data (message) UDP segment format 3-15 UDP checksum Goal: detect “errors” (e.g., flipped bits) in transmitted segment Receiver: Sender: treat segment contents as sequence of 16-bit integers checksum: addition (1’s complement sum) of segment contents sender puts checksum value into UDP checksum field compute checksum of received segment check if computed checksum equals checksum field value: NO - error detected YES - no error detected. But maybe errors nonetheless? More later …. e.g: 1+2+3 = 6. So is 0+3+3=6 3-16 Internet Checksum Example Note When adding numbers, a carryout from the most significant bit needs to be added to the result Example: add two 16-bit integers 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 wraparound 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 sum 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 checksum 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3-17 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-18 Principles of Reliable data transfer important in app., transport, link layers top-10 list of important networking topics! abstraction This picture sets the scenario characteristics of unreliable channel will determine complexity of reliable data transfer protocol (rdt)!!!!!!!! 3-19 Reliable data transfer: getting started rdt_send(): called from above, (e.g., by app.). Passed data to deliver to receiver upper layer deliver_data(): called by rdt to deliver data to upper send side udt_send(): called by rdt, to transfer packet over unreliable channel to receiver receive side rdt_rcv(): called when packet arrives on rcv-side of channel ** Let us now look at the gut of these modules. Any question? 3-20 (DON’T FALL ASLEEP!!!) Reliable data transfer: getting started We’ll: incrementally develop sender, receiver sides of reliable data transfer protocol (rdt) consider only unidirectional data transfer but control info will flow on both directions! use finite state machines (FSM) sender, receiver state: when in this “state” next state uniquely determined by next event state 1 to specify event causing state transition actions taken on state transition event actions state 2 Event: timer, receives message, …etc. Action: executes a program, send message, …etc. 3-21 Rdt1.0: reliable transfer over a reliable channel underlying channel perfectly reliable no bit errors In reality, this is an unrealistic assumption, but.. no loss of packets separate FSMs for sender, receiver: sender sends data into underlying channel receiver reads data from underlying channel Wait for call from above rdt_send(data) packet = make_pkt(data) udt_send(packet) sender Wait for call from below rdt_rcv(packet) extract (packet,data) deliver_data(data) receiver 3-22 Rdt2.0: channel with bit errors underlying channel may flip bits in packet recall: UDP checksum to detect bit errors the question: how to recover from errors: acknowledgements (ACKs): receiver explicitly tells sender that pkt received OK negative acknowledgements (NAKs): receiver explicitly tells sender that pkt had errors sender retransmits pkt on receipt of NAK Ack: I love u, I love u 2. human scenarios using ACKs, NAKs? Nak: I love u, I don’t love u new mechanisms in rdt2.0 (beyond rdt1.0): error detection receiver feedback: control msgs (ACK,NAK) rcvr>sender 3-23 rdt2.0: FSM specification rdt_send(data) snkpkt = make_pkt(data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isNAK(rcvpkt) Wait for Wait for call from ACK or udt_send(sndpkt) above NAK Buffer is needed to store data from rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt) application layer or L to block call. sender receiver rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && corrupt(rcvpkt) udt_send(NAK) Wait for call from below rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) udt_send(ACK) 3-24 rdt2.0: operation with no errors rdt_send(data) snkpkt = make_pkt(data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isNAK(rcvpkt) Wait for Wait for call from ACK or udt_send(sndpkt) above NAK rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt) L rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && corrupt(rcvpkt) udt_send(NAK) Wait for call from below rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) udt_send(ACK) 3-25 rdt2.0: error scenario rdt_send(data) snkpkt = make_pkt(data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isNAK(rcvpkt) Wait for Wait for call from ACK or udt_send(sndpkt) above NAK rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt) L GOT IT ? rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && corrupt(rcvpkt) udt_send(NAK) Wait for call from below rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) udt_send(ACK) 3-26 rdt2.0 has a fatal flaw! What happens if ACK/NAK corrupted? sender doesn’t know what happened at receiver! can’t just retransmit: possible duplicate What to do? sender ACKs/NAKs receiver’s ACK/NAK? What if sender ACK/NAK lost? retransmit, but this might cause retransmission of correctly received pkt! Handling duplicates: sender adds sequence number to each pkt sender retransmits current pkt if ACK/NAK garbled receiver discards (doesn’t deliver up) duplicate pkt stop and wait protocol Sender sends one packet, then waits for receiver response 3-27 rdt2.1: sender, handles garbled ACK/NAKs rdt_send(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(0, data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && ( corrupt(rcvpkt) || Wait for Wait for isNAK(rcvpkt) ) ACK or call 0 from udt_send(sndpkt) NAK 0 above rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt) L L rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && ( corrupt(rcvpkt) || isNAK(rcvpkt) ) udt_send(sndpkt) Wait for ACK or NAK 1 Wait for call 1 from above rdt_send(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(1, data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) THE FSM GETS MESSY!!! 3-28 rdt2.1: receiver, handles garbled ACK/NAKs rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && has_seq0(rcvpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && (corrupt(rcvpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(ACK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && (corrupt(rcvpkt) sndpkt = make_pkt(NAK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && not corrupt(rcvpkt) && has_seq1(rcvpkt) sndpkt = make_pkt(ACK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) sndpkt = make_pkt(NAK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) Wait for 0 from below Wait for 1 from below rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && has_seq1(rcvpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && not corrupt(rcvpkt) && has_seq0(rcvpkt) sndpkt = make_pkt(ACK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(ACK, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) 3-29 rdt2.1: discussion Sender: seq # added to pkt two seq. #’s (0,1) will suffice. Why? must check if received ACK/NAK corrupted twice as many states state must “remember” whether “current” pkt has 0 or 1 seq. # Receiver: must check if received packet is duplicate state indicates whether 0 or 1 is expected pkt seq # note: receiver can not know if its last ACK/NAK received OK at sender 3-30 rdt2.2: a NAK-free protocol same functionality as rdt2.1, using ACKs only instead of NAK, receiver sends ACK for last pkt received OK receiver must explicitly include seq # of pkt being ACKed duplicate ACK at sender results in same action as NAK: retransmit current pkt This is important because TCP uses this approach (NO NAC). 3-31 rdt2.2: sender, receiver fragments rdt_send(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(0, data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && ( corrupt(rcvpkt) || Wait for Wait for isACK(rcvpkt,1) ) ACK call 0 from 0 udt_send(sndpkt) above sender FSM fragment rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && (corrupt(rcvpkt) || has_seq1(rcvpkt)) udt_send(sndpkt) Wait for 0 from below rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt,0) receiver FSM fragment L rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && has_seq1(rcvpkt) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(ACK1, chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) 3-32 rdt3.0: channels with errors and loss New assumption: underlying channel can also lose packets (data or ACKs) checksum, seq. #, ACKs, retransmissions will be of help, but not enough Q: how to deal with loss? sender waits until certain data or ACK lost, then retransmits yuck: drawbacks? Approach: sender waits “reasonable” amount of time for ACK retransmits if no ACK received in this time if pkt (or ACK) just delayed (not lost): retransmission will be duplicate, but use of seq. #’s already handles this receiver must specify seq # of pkt being ACKed requires countdown timer What is the “right value” for timer? It depends on the flow and network condition! 3-33 rdt3.0 sender rdt_send(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(0, data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) start_timer rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) L rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt,1) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && ( corrupt(rcvpkt) || isACK(rcvpkt,0) ) timeout udt_send(sndpkt) start_timer rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) && isACK(rcvpkt,0) stop_timer stop_timer timeout udt_send(sndpkt) start_timer L Wait for ACK0 Wait for call 0from above L rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && ( corrupt(rcvpkt) || isACK(rcvpkt,1) ) Wait for ACK1 Wait for call 1 from above rdt_send(data) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) L sndpkt = make_pkt(1, data, checksum) udt_send(sndpkt) start_timer 3-34 rdt3.0 in action Timer: tick,tick,… 3-35 rdt3.0 in action Is it necessary to send Ack1 again? 3-36 Performance of rdt3.0 rdt3.0 works, but performance stinks example: 1 Gbps link, 15 ms e-e prop. delay, 1KB packet: = L (packet length in bits) = 8kb/pkt = 8 microsec transmit R (transmission rate, bps) 10**9 b/sec T U sender = L/R RTT + L / R = .008 30.008 = 0.00027 microsec onds U sender: utilization – fraction of time sender busy sending 1KB pkt every 30 msec -> 33kB/sec thruput over 1 Gbps link network protocol limits use of physical resources! 3-37 rdt3.0: stop-and-wait operation sender receiver first packet bit transmitted, t = 0 last packet bit transmitted, t = L / R first packet bit arrives last packet bit arrives, send ACK RTT ACK arrives, send next packet, t = RTT + L / R U sender = L/R RTT + L / R = .008 30.008 = 0.00027 microsec onds 3-38 Pipelined protocols Pipelining: sender allows multiple, “in-flight”, yet-to-be-acknowledged pkts range of sequence numbers must be increased buffering at sender and/or receiver Two generic forms of pipelined protocols: go-Back- N, selective repeat 3-39 Pipelining: increased utilization sender receiver first packet bit transmitted, t = 0 last bit transmitted, t = L / R first packet bit arrives last packet bit arrives, send ACK last bit of 2nd packet arrives, send ACK last bit of 3rd packet arrives, send ACK RTT ACK arrives, send next packet, t = RTT + L / R Increase utilization by a factor of 3! U sender = 3*L/R RTT + L / R = .024 30.008 = 0.0008 microsecon ds 3-40 DON’T FALL ASLEEP !!!!! Go-Back-N (sliding window protocol) Sender: k-bit seq # in pkt header (For now, treat seq # as unlimited) “window” of up to N, consecutive unack’ed pkts allowed ACK(n): ACKs all pkts up to, including seq # n - “cumulative ACK” Sender may receive duplicate ACKs (see receiver) timer for each in-flight pkt timeout(n): retransmit pkt n and all higher seq # pkts in window Q: what happen when a receiver is totally disconnected? MAX RETRY 3-41 GBN: sender extended FSM rdt_send(data) L base=1 nextseqnum=1 if (nextseqnum < base+N) { sndpkt[nextseqnum] = make_pkt(nextseqnum,data,chksum) udt_send(sndpkt[nextseqnum]) if (base == nextseqnum) start_timer nextseqnum++ } Buffer data or block higher app. else refuse_data(data) Wait rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && corrupt(rcvpkt) timeout start_timer udt_send(sndpkt[base]) udt_send(sndpkt[base+1]) … udt_send(sndpkt[nextseqnum-1]) rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcorrupt(rcvpkt) No pkt in pipe base = getacknum(rcvpkt)+1 If (base == nextseqnum) stop_timer else Reset timer start_timer 3-42 GBN: receiver extended FSM default udt_send(sndpkt) L Wait expectedseqnum=1 sndpkt = make_pkt(expectedseqnum,ACK,chksum) If in order pkt is received, deliver to app and ack! Else, just drop it! rdt_rcv(rcvpkt) && notcurrupt(rcvpkt) && hasseqnum(rcvpkt,expectedseqnum) extract(rcvpkt,data) deliver_data(data) sndpkt = make_pkt(expectedseqnum,ACK,chksum) udt_send(sndpkt) expectedseqnum++ ACK-only: always send ACK for correctly-received pkt with highest in-order seq # may generate duplicate ACKs need only remember expectedseqnum out-of-order pkt: discard (don’t buffer) -> no receiver buffering! Re-ACK pkt with highest in-order seq # 3-43 GBN in action Window size=N=4 What determine the size of window? 1. RTT 2. Buffer at the receiver(flow control) 3. Network congestion Q: GBN has poor performance. How? Sender sends pkt 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.. pkt 1 got lost, receiver got pkt 2,3,4,5,… but will discard them! 3-44 Selective Repeat (improvement of the GBN Protocol) receiver individually acknowledges all correctly received pkts buffers pkts, as needed, for eventual in-order delivery to upper layer E.g., sender: pkt 1,2,3,4,….,10; receiver got 2,4,6,8,10. Sender resends 1,3,5,7,9. sender only resends pkts for which ACK not received sender timer for EACH unACKed pkt sender window N consecutive seq #’s again limits seq #s of sent, unACKed pkts 3-45 Selective repeat: sender, receiver windows Q: why we have this? Ack is lost or ack is on its way 3-46 Selective repeat sender data from above : receiver pkt n in [rcvbase, if next available seq # in send ACK(n) window, send pkt timeout(n) for pkt n: resend pkt n, restart timer ACK(n) in [sendbase,sendbase+N]: mark pkt n as received if n smallest unACKed pkt, advance window base to next unACKed seq # (slide the window) rcvbase+N-1] out-of-order: buffer in-order: deliver (also deliver buffered, in-order pkts), advance window to next not-yet-received pkt pkt n in [rcvbase-N,rcvbase-1] ACK(n) otherwise: ignore Q: why we need this? The ack got lost. Sender may timeout, resend pkt, we need to ack 3-47 Selective repeat in action (N=4) Under GBN, this pkt will be dropped. 3-48 Selective repeat: dilemma In real life, we use k-bits to implement seq #. Practical issue: Example: seq #’s: 0, 1, 2, 3 window size (N)=3 receiver sees no difference in two scenarios! incorrectly passes duplicate data as new in (a) Q: what relationship between seq # size and window size? N <= 2^k/2 3-49 Why bother study reliable data transfer? We know it is provided by TCP, so why bother to study? Sometimes, we may need to implement “some form” of reliable transfer without the heavy duty TCP. A good example is multimedia streaming. Even though the application is loss tolerant, but if too many packets got lost, it affects the visual quality. So we may want to implement some for of reliable transfer. At the very least, appreciate the “good services” provided by some Internet gurus. 3-50 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-51 TCP: Overview 2018, 2581 (The 800 lbs gorilla in the transport stack! PAY ATTENTION!!) point-to-point: RFCs: 793, 1122, 1323, full duplex data: one sender, one receiver (not multicast) bi-directional data flow in same connection reliable, in-order byte steam: no “message boundaries” In App layer, we need delimiters. connection-oriented: pipelined: TCP congestion and flow control set window size send & receive buffers socket door application reads data TCP send buffer TCP receive buffer handshaking (exchange of control msgs) init’s sender, receiver state (e.g., buffer size) before data exchange flow controlled: application writes data MSS: maximum segment size sender will not overwhelm receiver socket door segment 3-52 TCP segment structure URG: urgent data (generally not used) ACK: ACK # valid PSH: push data now (generally not used) RST, SYN, FIN: connection estab (setup, teardown commands) Internet checksum (as in UDP) 32 bits source port # dest port # sequence number acknowledgement number head not UA P R S F len used checksum Receive window Urg data pnter Options (variable length) application data (variable length) counting by “bytes” of data (not segments!) # bytes rcvr willing to accept Due to this field we have a variable length header 3-53 TCP seq. #’s and ACKs Seq. #’s: byte stream “number” of first byte in segment’s data ACKs: seq # of next byte expected from other side cumulative ACK Q: how receiver handles out-of-order segments A: TCP spec doesn’t say, - up to implementor Host A User types ‘C’ Negotiate during 3-way handshake Host B host ACKs receipt of ‘C’, echoes back ‘C’ host ACKs receipt of echoed ‘C’ simple telnet scenario time 3-54 TCP Round Trip Time and Timeout Q: how to estimate RTT? Q: how to set TCP timeout value? SampleRTT: measured time from longer than RTT but RTT varies too short: premature timeout unnecessary retransmissions too long: slow reaction to segment loss, poor performance. segment transmission until ACK receipt ignore retransmissions SampleRTT will vary, want estimated RTT “smoother” average several recent measurements, not just current SampleRTT tx Estimated RTT Too long tx retx ack Estimated RTT retx Too short ack 3-55 TCP Round Trip Time and Timeout EstimatedRTT = (1- )*EstimatedRTT + *SampleRTT Exponential weighted moving average influence of past sample decreases exponentially fast typical value: = 0.125 ERTT(0) = 0 ERTT(1) = (1- )ERTT(0) + SRTT(1)= SRTT(1) ERTT(2) =(1- ) SRTT(1) + SRTT(2) ERTT(3) = (1- )(1- ) SRTT(1) + (1- ) SRTT(2) + SRTT(3) 3-56 Example RTT estimation: RTT: gaia.cs.umass.edu to fantasia.eurecom.fr 350 RTT (milliseconds) 300 250 200 150 100 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 time (seconnds) SampleRTT Estimated RTT 3-57 TCP Round Trip Time and Timeout Setting the timeout (by Jacobson/Karel) EstimtedRTT plus “safety margin” large variation in EstimatedRTT -> larger safety margin first estimate of how much SampleRTT deviates from EstimatedRTT: DevRTT = (1-)*DevRTT + *|SampleRTT-EstimatedRTT| (typically, = 0.25) Then set timeout interval: TimeoutInterval = EstimatedRTT + 4*DevRTT 3-58 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-59 TCP reliable data transfer TCP creates rdt service on top of IP’s unreliable service Pipelined segments (for performance) Cumulative acks TCP uses single retransmission timer Retransmissions are triggered by: timeout events duplicate ack ( for performance reason) Initially consider simplified TCP sender: ignore duplicate acks ignore flow control, congestion control 3-60 TCP sender events: data rcvd from app: Create segment with seq # seq # is byte-stream number of first data byte in segment start timer if not already running (think of timer as for oldest unacked segment) expiration interval: TimeOutInterval timeout: retransmit segment that caused timeout restart timer Ack rcvd: If acknowledges previously unacked segments update what is known to be acked start timer if there are outstanding segments 3-61 NextSeqNum = InitialSeqNum SendBase = InitialSeqNum loop (forever) { switch(event) event: data received from application above create TCP segment with sequence number NextSeqNum if (timer currently not running) start timer pass segment to IP NextSeqNum = NextSeqNum + length(data) TCP sender (simplified) Comment: • SendBase-1: last cumulatively event: timer timeout ack’ed byte retransmit not-yet-acknowledged segment with Example: smallest sequence number • SendBase-1 = 71; start timer y= 73, so the rcvr event: ACK received, with ACK field value of y wants 73+ ; if (y > SendBase) { y > SendBase, so SendBase = y that new data is if (there are currently not-yet-acknowledged segments) acked start timer } } /* end of loop forever */ 3-62 TCP: retransmission scenarios Host A X loss Sendbase = 100 SendBase = 120 SendBase = 100 time SendBase = 120 lost ACK scenario Host B Seq=92 timeout Host B Seq=92 timeout timeout Host A time premature timeout 3-63 TCP retransmission scenarios (more) timeout Host A Host B X loss Room for improvement SendBase = 120 time Cumulative ACK scenario 3-64 TCP ACK generation Event at Receiver [RFC 1122, RFC 2581] TCP Receiver action Arrival of in-order segment with expected seq #. All data up to expected seq # already ACKed Delayed ACK. Wait up to 500ms for next segment. If no next segment, send ACK Arrival of in-order segment with expected seq #. One other segment has ACK pending Immediately send single cumulative ACK, ACKing both in-order segments Ack the “largest in-order byte” seq # Arrival of out-of-order segment higher-than-expect seq. # . Gap detected Immediately send duplicate ACK, indicating seq. # of next expected byte Arrival of segment that partially or completely fills gap Immediate send ACK, provided that segment startsat lower end of gap 3-65 Fast Retransmit If sender receives 3 Time-out period often relatively long: long delay before resending lost packet ACKs for the same data, it supposes that segment after ACKed data was lost: Detect lost segments via duplicate ACKs. Sender often sends many segments backto-back If segment is lost, there will likely be many duplicate ACKs. fast retransmit: resend segment before timer expires timeout 3-66 Fast retransmit algorithm: event: ACK received, with ACK field value of y if (y > SendBase) { SendBase = y if (there are currently not-yet-acknowledged segments) start timer } else { increment count of dup ACKs received for y if (count of dup ACKs received for y = 3) { resend segment with sequence number y } a duplicate ACK for already ACKed segment fast retransmit Q: why resend pkt with seq # y? A: That is what the receiver expect! 3-67 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-68 TCP Flow Control receive side of TCP connection has a receive buffer: flow control sender won’t overflow receiver’s buffer by transmitting too much, too fast speed-matching app process may be service: matching the send rate to the receiving app’s drain rate slow at reading from buffer 3-69 TCP Flow control: how it works Rcvr advertises spare (Suppose TCP receiver discards out-of-order segments) spare room in buffer = RcvWindow = RcvBuffer-[LastByteRcvd LastByteRead] room by including value of RcvWindow in segments Sender limits unACKed data to RcvWindow guarantees receive buffer doesn’t overflow This goes to show that the design process of header is important!! 3-70 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-71 TCP Connection Management Recall: TCP sender, receiver establish “connection” before exchanging data segments initialize TCP variables: seq. #s buffers, flow control info (e.g. RcvWindow) client: connection initiator Socket clientSocket = new Socket("hostname","port number"); server: contacted by client Three way handshake: Step 1: client host sends TCP SYN segment to server specifies initial seq # no data Step 2: server host receives SYN, replies with SYN-ACK segment server allocates buffers specifies server initial seq. # Step 3: client receives SYN-ACK, replies with ACK segment, which may contain data Socket connectionSocket = welcomeSocket.accept(); 3-72 TCP three-way handshake Connection request Connection granted ACK 3-73 TCP Connection Management (cont.) Closing a connection: client closes socket: clientSocket.close(); client close Step 1: client end system close FIN, replies with ACK. Closes connection, sends FIN. timed wait sends TCP FIN control segment to server Step 2: server receives server closed Q: why don’t we combine ACK and FIN? Sender may have some data in the pipeline! 3-74 TCP Connection Management (cont.) Step 3: client receives FIN, replies with ACK. client server closing Enters “timed wait” will respond with ACK to received FINs closing Step 4: server, receives Note: with small modification, can handle simultaneous FINs. timed wait ACK. Connection closed. closed closed 3-75 TCP Connection Management (cont) TCP server lifecycle TCP client lifecycle 3-76 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-77 Principles of Congestion Control TCP provides one of the MANY WAYS to perform CC. Congestion: informally: “too many sources sending too much data too fast for network to handle” different from flow control! manifestations: lost packets (buffer overflow at routers) long delays (queueing in router buffers) another top-10 problem! 3-78 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 1 From application Host A two senders, two receivers (homogeneous) one router, infinite buffers, capacity C no retransmission Host B lin : original data To lout application unlimited shared output link buffers large delays when congested maximum achievable throughput 3-79 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 one router, finite buffers sender retransmission of lost packet Host A Host B lin : original data l'in : original data, plus retransmitted data Due to transport layer lout finite shared output link buffers Pkt got dropped 3-80 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 = l (goodput) out in “perfect” retransmission only when loss: always: l l > lout in retransmission of delayed (not lost) packet makes l in l (than perfect case) for same out larger “costs” of congestion: more work (retrans) for given “goodput” unneeded retransmissions: link carries multiple copies of pkt 3-81 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3 four senders Q: what happens as l in and l increase ? multihop paths timeout/retransmit in Host A lin : original data lout l'in : original data, plus retransmitted data finite shared output link buffers Host B 3-82 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3 H o s t A l o u t H o s t B System collapses (e.g., students) Another “cost” of congestion: when packet dropped, any “upstream transmission capacity used for that packet was wasted! 3-83 Approaches towards congestion control Two broad approaches towards congestion control: Network-assisted End-end congestion congestion control: control: no explicit feedback from network congestion inferred from end-system observed loss, delay approach taken by TCP routers provide feedback to end systems single bit indicating congestion (SNA, DECbit, TCP/IP ECN, ATM) explicit rate sender should send at 3-84 Case study: ATM ABR congestion control ABR: available bit rate: “elastic service” RM (resource management) cells: if sender’s path sent by sender, interspersed “underloaded”: sender should use available bandwidth if sender’s path congested: sender throttled to minimum guaranteed rate with data cells bits in RM cell set by switches (“network-assisted”) NI bit: no increase in rate (mild congestion) CI bit: congestion indication RM cells returned to sender by receiver, with bits intact 3-85 Case study: ATM ABR congestion control two-byte ER (explicit rate) field in RM cell congested switch may lower ER value in cell sender’ send rate thus minimum supportable rate on path EFCI (explicit forward congestion indication) bit in cells: set to 1 in congested switch if data cell preceding RM cell has EFCI set, receiver sets CI bit in returned RM cell 3-86 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4 Principles of reliable data transfer 3.5 Connection- oriented transport: TCP segment structure reliable data transfer flow control connection management 3.6 Principles of congestion control 3.7 TCP congestion control 3-87 TCP Congestion Control end-end control (no network assistance!!!) sender limits transmission: LastByteSent-LastByteAcked CongWin Roughly, rate = CongWin Bytes/sec RTT CongWin is dynamic, function of perceived network congestion How does sender perceive congestion? loss event = timeout or 3 duplicate acks TCP sender reduces rate (CongWin) after loss event three mechanisms: AIMD slow start conservative after timeout events Note: CC must be efficient to make use of available BW !!!! 3-88 TCP AIMD additive increase: increase CongWin by 1 MSS every RTT in the absence of loss events: probing Human analogy: HK government or CUHK !! multiplicative decrease: cut CongWin in half after loss event congestion window Role of ACK: 1. An indication of loss 2. Ack is self clocking: if delay is large, the rate of congestion window will be reduced. 24 Kbytes 16 Kbytes 8 Kbytes time Long-lived TCP connection 3-89 TCP Slow Start When connection begins, CongWin = 1 MSS Example: MSS = 500 bytes & RTT = 200 msec initial rate = 20 kbps When connection begins, increase rate exponentially fast until first loss event available bandwidth may be >> MSS/RTT desirable to quickly ramp up to respectable rate 3-90 TCP Slow Start (more) When connection Host B RTT begins, increase rate exponentially until first loss event: Host A double CongWin every RTT done by incrementing CongWin for every ACK received Summary: initial rate is slow but ramps up exponentially fast time 3-91 Refinement After 3 dup ACKs: CongWin is cut in half window then grows linearly This is known as “fastrecovery” phase. Implemented in new TCPReno. But after timeout event: CongWin instead set to 1 MSS; window then grows exponentially threshold, then grows linearly Philosophy: • 3 dup ACKs indicates network capable of delivering some segments • timeout before 3 dup ACKs is “more alarming” 3-92 Refinement (more) Implementation: 14 congestion window size (segments) Q: When should the exponential increase switch to linear? A: When CongWin gets to 1/2 of its value before timeout. Variable Threshold At loss event, Threshold is set to 1/2 of CongWin just before loss event 12 threshold 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 TCP Tahoe TCP Reno 2 3 6 7 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Transmission round Series1 Series2 3-93 Summary: TCP Congestion Control When CongWin is below Threshold, sender in slow-start phase, window grows exponentially. When CongWin is above Threshold, sender is in congestion-avoidance phase, window grows linearly. When a triple duplicate ACK occurs, Threshold set to CongWin/2 and CongWin set to Threshold. When timeout occurs, Threshold set to CongWin/2 and CongWin is set to 1 MSS. READ THE BOOK on TCP-Vegas: instead of react to a loss, anticipate & prepare for a loss! 3-94 TCP sender congestion control Event State TCP Sender Action Commentary ACK receipt for previously unacked data Slow Start (SS) CongWin = CongWin + MSS, If (CongWin > Threshold) set state to “Congestion Avoidance” Resulting in a doubling of CongWin every RTT ACK receipt for previously unacked data Congestion Avoidance (CA) CongWin = CongWin+MSS * (MSS/CongWin) Additive increase, resulting in increase of CongWin by 1 MSS every RTT Loss event detected by triple duplicate ACK SS or CA Threshold = CongWin/2, CongWin = Threshold, Set state to “Congestion Avoidance” Fast recovery, implementing multiplicative decrease. CongWin will not drop below 1 MSS. Timeout SS or CA Threshold = CongWin/2, CongWin = 1 MSS, Set state to “Slow Start” Enter slow start Duplicate ACK SS or CA Increment duplicate ACK count for segment being acked CongWin and Threshold not changed 3-95 TCP throughput What’s the average throughout ot TCP as a function of window size and RTT? Ignore slow start Let W be the window size when loss occurs. When window is W, throughput is W/RTT Just after loss, window drops to W/2, throughput to W/2RTT. Average throughout: .75 W/RTT 3-96 TCP Futures Example: 1500 byte segments, 100ms RTT, want 10 Gbps throughput Requires window size W = 83,333 in-flight segments Throughput in terms of loss rate: 1.22 MSS RTT L ➜ L = 2·10-10 Wow New versions of TCP for high-speed needed! 3-97 TCP Fairness Fairness goal: if K TCP sessions share same bottleneck link of bandwidth R, each should have average rate of R/K TCP connection 1 TCP connection 2 bottleneck router capacity R 3-98 Why is TCP fair? Two competing, homogeneous sessions (e.g., similar propagation delay,..etc) : Additive increase gives slope of 1, as throughout increases multiplicative decrease decreases throughput proportionally R equal bandwidth share loss: decrease window by factor of 2 congestion avoidance: additive increase loss: decrease window by factor of 2 congestion avoidance: additive increase Connection 1 throughput R 3-99 Fairness (more) Fairness and parallel TCP Fairness and UDP connections Multimedia apps often nothing prevents app do not use TCP from opening parallel do not want rate cnctions between 2 throttled by congestion control hosts. Instead use UDP: Web browsers do this pump audio/video at Example: link of rate R constant rate, tolerate supporting 9 connections; packet loss Research area: TCP friendly new app asks for 1 TCP, gets rate R/10 new app asks for 11 TCPs, gets around R/2 ! 3-100 Delay modeling Q: How long does it take to receive an object from a Web server after sending a request? Delay is influenced by: TCP connection establishment data transmission delay slow start Sender’s congestion window Notation, assumptions: Assume one link between client and server of rate R S: MSS (bits) O: object size (bits) no retransmissions (no loss, no corruption) Protocol’s overhead is negligible. Window size: First assume: fixed congestion window, W segments Then dynamic window, modeling slow start 3-101 Fixed congestion window (1): assume no congestion window constratint Object request Let W denote a ‘fixed’ congestion window size (a positive integer). is piggybacked. First case: WS/R > RTT + S/R: ACK for first segment in window returns before window’s worth of data sent delay = 2RTT + O/R This is the “lower bound” of latency! 3-102 Fixed (or static) congestion window (2) Second case: WS/R < RTT + S/R: wait for ACK after sending window’s worth of data sent delay = 2RTT + O/R + (K-1)[S/R + RTT - WS/R] Where K be the # of windows of data that cover the object. If O is the “size” of the object, we have K = O/WS (round to an integer). 3-103 TCP Delay Modeling: Slow Start (1) Now suppose window grows according to slow start Will show that the delay for one object is: Latency 2 RTT O S S P RTT ( 2 P 1) R R R where P is the number of times TCP idles at server: P min {Q, K 1} - where Q is the number of times the server idles if the object were of infinite size. - and K is the number of windows that cover the object. 3-104 TCP Delay Modeling: Slow Start (2) Delay components: • 2 RTT for connection establishment and request • O/R to transmit object • time server idles due to slow start initiate TCP connection request object first window = S/R RTT Server idles: P = min{K-1,Q} times second window = 2S/R third window = 4S/R Example: • O/S = 15 segments • K = 4 windows • Q = 2 • P = min{K-1,Q} = 2 Server idles P=2 times fourth window = 8S/R complete transmission object delivered time at client time at server 3-105 TCP Delay Modeling (3) S RTT time from when server starts to send segment R until server receives acknowledg ement S 2k 1 time to transmit the kth window R Where k=1,2,….,K initiate TCP connection request object S k 1 S RTT 2 idle time after the kth window R R first window = S/R RTT third window = 4S/R P O delay 2 RTT idleTime p R p 1 P O S S 2 RTT [ RTT 2 k 1 ] R R k 1 R O S S 2 RTT P[ RTT ] (2 P 1) R R R second window = 2S/R fourth window = 8S/R complete transmission object delivered time at client time at server 3-106 TCP Delay Modeling (4) Recall K = number of windows that cover object How do we calculate K ? K min {k : 20 S 21 S 2 k 1 S O} min {k : 20 21 2 k 1 O / S } O min {k : 2 1 } S O min {k : k log 2 ( 1)} S O log 2 ( 1) S k Calculation of Q, number of idles for infinite-size object, is similar (see HW). 3-107 Experiment A S= 536 bytes, RTT=100 msec, O=100 kbytes (relatively large) R 1. O/R P Min latency O/R+2 RTT 28 kbps 28.6 sec 1 28.8 sec 28.9 sec 100 kbps 8.0 sec 2 8.2 sec 8.4 sec 1 Mbps 800 msec 5 1.0 sec 1.5 sec 10 Mbps 80 msec 7 0.28 sec Latency with Slow start 0.98 sec Slow start adds appreciable delay only when R is high. If R is low, ACK comes back quickly and TCP quickly ramps up to its maximum rate. 3-108 Experiment B S= 536 bytes, RTT=100 msec, O = 5 kbytes (relatively small) R O/R P Min latency O/R+2 RTT 28 kbps 1.43 sec 1 1.63 sec 1.73 sec 100 kbps 0.4 sec 2 0.6 sec 0.76 sec 1 Mbps 40 msec 3 0.24 sec 0.52 sec 4 msec 3 0.20 sec 0.50 sec 10 Mbps 1. Latency with Slow start Slow start adds appreciable delay when R is high and for a relatively small object. 3-109 Experiment C S= 536 bytes, RTT=1 sec, O = 5 kbytes (relatively small) R O/R P 28 kbps 1.43 sec 3 3.4 sec 5.8 sec 100 kbps 0.4 sec 3 2.4 sec 5.2 sec 1 Mbps 40 msec 3 2.0 sec 5.0 sec 10 Mbps 4 msec 3 2.0 sec 5.0 sec Min latency O/R+2 RTT Latency with Slow start 1. Slow start can significantly increase the latency when the object size is relatively small and the RTT is relatively large. 3-110 HTTP Modeling Assume Web page consists of: 1 base HTML page (of size O bits) M images (each of size O bits) Non-persistent HTTP: M+1 TCP connections in series Response time = (M+1)O/R + (M+1)2RTT + sum of idle times Persistent HTTP: 2 RTT to request and receive base HTML file 1 RTT to request and receive M images Response time = (M+1)O/R + 3RTT + sum of idle times Non-persistent HTTP with X parallel connections Suppose M/X integer. 1 TCP connection for base file M/X sets of parallel connections for images. Response time = (M+1)O/R + (M/X + 1)2RTT + sum of idle times 3-111 HTTP Response time (in seconds) RTT = 100 msec, O = 5 Kbytes, M=10 and X=5 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 non-persistent persistent parallel nonpersistent 28 100 1 10 Kbps Kbps Mbps Mbps For low bandwidth, connection & response time dominated by transmission time. Persistent connections only give minor improvement over parallel connections. 3-112 HTTP Response time (in seconds) RTT =1 sec, O = 5 Kbytes, M=10 and X=5 70 60 50 non-persistent 40 persistent 30 20 parallel nonpersistent 10 0 28 100 1 10 Kbps Kbps Mbps Mbps For larger RTT, response time dominated by TCP establishment & slow start delays. Persistent connections now give important improvement: particularly in high delaybandwidth networks. 3-113 Chapter 3: Summary principles behind transport layer services: multiplexing, demultiplexing reliable data transfer flow control congestion control instantiation and implementation in the Internet UDP TCP Next: leaving the network “edge” (application, transport layers) into the network “core” 3-114