tcp: 2018: implementing TCP SACK option
|Reported by:||a-star||Owned by:||axeld|
|Component:||Network & Internet/TCP||Version:||R1/Development|
Problem: Multiple packet losses from a window of data can have a catastrophic effect on TCP throughput/ generally cause TCP to lose its ACK clock.
Solution: Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) - the data receiver can inform the sender about all the segments that have arrived successfully, so the sender need restransmit only the segments that have actually been lost.
Two TCP options are used:
1) SACK-permitted option at the time of handshake (sent with the SYN segment) to indicate SACK option can be used. (Kind = 4; Length = 2)
2) SACK option - can be used once permission has been given by SACK-permitted. (Kind = 5; Length = 8*n + 2 where n in the number of sack blocks)
Total bytes available in TCP header for options = 40 bytes. Therefore max value of n is 4. In presence of the timestamp option it reduces to 3.
If it has received permission, the data receiver MAY choose to generate SACK options. Remember if the receiver generates SACK under any circumstance, it SHOULD generate them under all circumstances. Also if sent at all, SACK option SHOULD be included in all ACKs which do not ACK the highest seq number in receiver's queue.
The SACK option SHOULD be filled out by repeating the most recently reported SACK blocks (based on first SACK blocks in previous SACK options) that are not subsets of a SACK block already included in the SACK option being constructed. For examples, checkout rfc 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2018.txt) section 7.
Note: The SACK option is advisory. While it notifies the data sender extended ack information, the data receiver is permitted to later discard data which has been reported in the SACK option. This is known as "Data reneging".
The use of time-outs as a fall-back mechanism for detecting dropped packets is unchanged by the SACK option. Because the data receiver is allowed to discard SACKed data, when a retransmit timeout occurs the data sender SHOULD ignore prior SACK information in determining which data to retransmit. Linux doesn't follow this rule as mentioned in the errata for the rfc.
Change History (16)
comment:10 by , 15 months ago
|Milestone:||Unscheduled → R1/beta3|
|Status:||reopened → closed|