Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option
David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com> Wed, 30 May 2007 20:56 UTC
Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVDX-0002gP-95; Wed, 30 May 2007 16:56:27 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVDV-0002gK-R8 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 16:56:25 -0400
Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVDU-0003QL-Aa for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 16:56:25 -0400
Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.wrs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4UKuMQO011422; Wed, 30 May 2007 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 May 2007 13:56:22 -0700
Received: from [192.168.117.80] ([192.168.117.80]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 May 2007 13:56:21 -0700
In-Reply-To: <465DB752.80900@isi.edu>
References: <018977E8-C9F4-42E2-A877-95330F65E7D3@windriver.com> <F8F82A2D-A73F-49C1-A1AA-B385214D60DF@windriver.com> <465D54A8.9000100@isi.edu> <811BD121-1A79-45F4-B4E2-173729655CA9@windriver.com> <465DB752.80900@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <C6485867-9175-42C3-9658-235DF1D40C3F@windriver.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:19 -0500
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2007 20:56:21.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA601E50:01C7A2FC]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Joe, On May 30, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > David Borman wrote: > ... >>> I'm wondering whether there's a case where you could have started >>> sending new TSvals, and you get a new data ACK (and start >>> calculating >>> RTTs), and then a packet comes in out of order (e.g., duplicated or >>> SACK). Could this corrupt the RTT? Could this ever happen? >> >> Besides being an ACK for new data, it also has to have a TSecr beyond >> the initial timestamp you sent. By the time both of those things are >> true, you should be into normal RFC-1323 processing. > > So two checks for every incoming packet, not just during 'sync', > right? > (just checking; that's not obvious to me from the description) Good question. That'll be part of coming up with a good description. The blind way of doing this is to just believe the TSecr value whenever it arrives in a packet that ACKs new data. You'll get some bad samples during the transition when Timestamps are being enabled, but they should be averaged out after a little bit. That might work ok most of the time, but that's not a good way to design a protocol; I'm looking for a deterministic way to enable timestamps mid-stream, and not get erroneous RTT measurements. One way to simplify things is to restrict enabling timestamp mid- stream to data packets only, and go ahead and always put in the correct TSval value. That means that the receiver in a one-way data transfer can't start sending timestamps. This solves the problem of having to validate the TSecr values for RTT measurement for one-way transfers, but it still leaves ambiguity in the case of a bi- directional transfer, if both sides decide to enable Timestamps at the same time. In that case, you can still construct scenarios where you get ACK only packets that acknowledge new data, and don't have a valid TSecr value. So, you have the same problem, how to identify whether or not the TSecr is valid for RTT measurement. Hence, I didn't propose restricting starting timestamps to data-only packets, and came up with an alternate way to identify invalid TSecr values. But even with the TSecr validation, I'm sure there are clever ways of doing implementations to avoid doing extra checks once Timestamps are started. I can some up with a few ideas myself. :-) If anyone has a better idea of how to identify the invalid TSecr values, I'm open to all suggestions. -David _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Sally Floyd
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Malone
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Richard Wendland
- [tcpm] RE: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Mahdavi, Jamshid
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option Gavin McCullagh
- [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] Re: RFC 1323: Timestamps option Joe Touch