Re: [6lowapp] Where does TCP not work

"Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net> Sun, 01 November 2009 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9305B3A6862 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.609, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZ73fTSUeC6X for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 67C0F3A6809 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 69707 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2009 00:02:31 -0000
Received: from adsl-69-105-139-197.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net (d.sturek@69.105.139.197 with login) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2009 17:02:31 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: Nj5u9rUVM1mQuT6t4WEYlJsLrk_SwcCG8g1shbaG5ZxRZX1mrzEs2oirhuMwberbdc.j1gpK4AFGKRVZe53io9LspHw_Ug45oMVKG5Zy8NmhUYgzQCVbbiCvNRG08cAm41m3kQmisjc9II1MYTvcT1iVRIZ0GNAxQ2jOsKV8yk2JmE2hORoxnrVtSGRvO57WdJkVFSiAIzltIDIYzSGMA3ZPHnFzYwtdHwwEYBrwUZRfHfveW8prJwwZDyYe.pPpGVp50JIW0YqaftnmEWQQnNdc9PCMbDUhFBC8UOnt9Qy3d7xucbN9gxVTD3vgQi5ThdvbrY8VQEaSURwjQ31nY4EswdBiDyA61HCFt11Miv5OzYm7h.KamF1UuiBHFffwDTkQ71omGdSxlnoSkB3tiK5_8hao8FIrC0vd1MmjutLQp1ydEdTeW0MmZtw.L.pBzU.VpuY4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: "Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net>
To: "'Cullen Jennings'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, <6lowapp@ietf.org>
References: <5A85AE5A-4C5D-4A0F-8CDF-BEB4C69FF002@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A85AE5A-4C5D-4A0F-8CDF-BEB4C69FF002@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:02:28 -0700
Message-ID: <005c01ca5a86$9a3f2ef0$cebd8cd0$@sturek@att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcpaUESz2K/hens9QeGn81/d5X4V+QAMuZvQ
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Where does TCP not work
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: d.sturek@att.net
List-Id: Application protocols for constrained nodes and networks <6lowapp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowapp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:02:17 -0000

Hi Cullen,

Sorry, I meant to provide some references on this issue.  Basically, here is
the problem:
1)  TCP was written back in the day when Ethernet was the primary transport.
One key assumption made in TCP was that packet timeout was related to
congestion.  TCP reacts to packet timeouts by adjusting the transmit timing
and using back off.
2)  Wireless networks (especially mesh topologies) experience packet loss as
a result of failure of the RF link.  Note that IEEE 802.11 does not
typically exhibit this type of loss.  The reason is that for IEEE 802.11
(actually WiFi) the last hop wireless link from the AP can be guaranteed via
MAC level acknowledges and retries.  The trouble with mesh links is that
link errors are not propagated and, even if they are, result in route
re-establishment which violates the TCP timeout on the far end and starts
the "congestion management" procedure in TCP (which actually makes the
problem worse as some of the links below indicate).

I am not saying categorically that TCP does not work for wireless links.  I
am saying that for many wireless links, TCP does not work well (and in some
extreme cases, at all).  Here are some examples from the IETF archives and
other industry trials......

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4653.txt
http://www.sics.se/~adam/ewsn2004.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=686057

I used to have a more exhaustive reference list but I think if you do a
search you will see this is a long standing problem....

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: 6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:33 AM
To: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: [6lowapp] Where does TCP not work


Multiple people have told me that TCP won't work on some of the types  
of networks we want to run on. Anyway I'd like to understand a bit  
more on why this is.

I could go dig a 9600 baud modem out of my closet, set the MTU at 100,  
and emulate 10% packet loss on server side and go try some things. I'm  
relatively confidently TCP, HTTP, pop, imap, SSH, and TLS will all  
work just fine.

So, what are the network conditions that we think are going to cause a  
problem for TCP? and, what might one do to make something that worked  
better than TCP in these cases.

Thanks, Cullen

_______________________________________________
6lowapp mailing list
6lowapp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp