diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5401.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc5401.txt | 2355 |
1 files changed, 2355 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5401.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5401.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..183f541 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5401.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2355 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group B. Adamson +Request for Comments: 5401 Naval Research Laboratory +Obsoletes: 3941 C. Bormann +Category: Standards Track Universitaet Bremen TZI + M. Handley + University College London + J. Macker + Naval Research Laboratory + November 2008 + + + Multicast Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks + +Status of This Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ + license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. + Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights + and restrictions with respect to this document. + +Abstract + + This document discusses the creation of reliable multicast protocols + that utilize negative-acknowledgment (NACK) feedback. The rationale + for protocol design goals and assumptions are presented. Technical + challenges for NACK-based (and in some cases general) reliable + multicast protocol operation are identified. These goals and + challenges are resolved into a set of functional "building blocks" + that address different aspects of reliable multicast protocol + operation. It is anticipated that these building blocks will be + useful in generating different instantiations of reliable multicast + protocols. This document obsoletes RFC 3941. + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................2 + 1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4 + 2. Rationale .......................................................4 + 2.1. Delivery Service Model .....................................5 + 2.2. Group Membership Dynamics ..................................6 + 2.3. Sender/Receiver Relationships ..............................6 + 2.4. Group Size Scalability .....................................6 + 2.5. Data Delivery Performance ..................................7 + 2.6. Network Environments .......................................7 + 2.7. Intermediate System Assistance .............................8 + 3. Functionality ...................................................8 + 3.1. Multicast Sender Transmission .............................11 + 3.2. NACK Repair Process .......................................13 + 3.3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures ...........26 + 3.4. Node (Member) Identification ..............................26 + 3.5. Data Content Identification ...............................27 + 3.6. Forward Error Correction (FEC) ............................28 + 3.7. Round-Trip Timing Collection ..............................29 + 3.8. Group Size Determination/Estimation .......................33 + 3.9. Congestion Control Operation ..............................34 + 3.10. Intermediate System Assistance ...........................34 + 4. NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Applicability ....................35 + 5. Security Considerations ........................................36 + 6. Changes from RFC 3941 ..........................................38 + 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................38 + 8. References .....................................................39 + 8.1. Normative References ......................................39 + 8.2. Informative References ....................................39 + +1. Introduction + + Reliable multicast transport is a desirable technology for efficient + and reliable distribution of data to a group on the Internet. The + complexities of group communication paradigms necessitate different + protocol types and instantiations to meet the range of performance + and scalability requirements of different potential reliable + multicast applications and users (see [RFC2357]). This document + addresses the creation of reliable multicast protocols that utilize + negative-acknowledgment (NACK) feedback. NACK-based protocols + generally entail less frequent feedback messaging than reliability + protocols based on positive acknowledgment (ACK). The less frequent + feedback messaging helps simplify the problem of feedback implosion + as group size grows larger. While different protocol instantiations + may be required to meet specific application and network architecture + demands [ArchConsiderations], there are a number of fundamental + components that may be common to these different instantiations. + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + This document describes the framework and common "building block" + components relevant to multicast protocols that are based primarily + on NACK operation for reliable transport. While this document + discusses a large set of reliable multicast components and issues + relevant to NACK-based reliable multicast protocol design, it + specifically addresses in detail the following building blocks, which + are not addressed in other IETF documents: + + 1. NACK-based multicast sender transmission strategies, + + 2. NACK repair process with timer-based feedback suppression, and + + 3. Round-trip timing for adapting NACK and other timers. + + NACK-based reliable multicast implementations SHOULD make use of + Forward Error Correction (FEC) erasure coding techniques, as + described in the FEC Building Block [RFC5052] document. Packet-level + erasure coding allows missing packets from a given FEC block to be + recovered using the parity packets instead of classical, + individualized retransmission of original source data content. For + this reason, this document refers to the protocol mechanisms for + reliability as a "repair process." Note that NACK-based protocols + can reactively provide the parity packets in response to receiver + requests for repair rather than just proactively sending added FEC + parity content as part of the original transmission. Hybrid + proactive/reactive use of FEC content is also possible with the + mechanisms described in this document. Some classes of FEC coding, + such as Maximal Separable Distance (MDS) codes, allow senders to + dynamically implement deterministic, highly efficient receiver group + repair strategies as part of a NACK-based, selective automated + repeat-request (ARQ) scheme. + + The potential relationships to other reliable multicast transport + building blocks (e.g., FEC, congestion control) and general issues + with NACK-based reliable multicast protocols are also discussed. + This document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3269]. + + Statement of Intent + + This memo contains descriptions of building blocks that can be + applied in the design of reliable multicast protocols utilizing + negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback. [RFC3941] contains a + previous description of this specification. RFC 3941 was published + in the "Experimental" category. It was the stated intent of the + Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) working group at that time to + resubmit this specification as an IETF Proposed Standard in due + course. + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + This Proposed Standard specification is thus based on [RFC3941] and + has been updated according to accumulated experience and growing + protocol maturity since the publication of RFC 3941. Said experience + applies both to this specification itself and to congestion control + strategies related to the use of this specification. + + The differences between [RFC3941] and this document are listed in + Section 6. + +1.1. Requirements Language + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. + +2. Rationale + + Each potential protocol instantiation using the building blocks + presented here (and in other applicable building block documents) + will have specific criteria that may influence individual protocol + design. To support the development of applicable building blocks, it + is useful to identify and summarize driving general protocol design + goals and assumptions. These are areas that each protocol + instantiation will need to address in detail. Each building block + description in this document will include a discussion of the impact + of these design criteria. The categories of design criteria + considered here include: + + 1. Delivery Service Model, + + 2. Group Membership Dynamics, + + 3. Sender/Receiver Relationships, + + 4. Group Size Scalability, + + 5. Data Delivery Performance, and + + 6. Network Environments. + + All of these areas are at least briefly discussed. Additionally, + other reliable multicast transport building block documents, such as + [RFC5052], have been created to address areas outside of the scope of + this document. NACK-based reliable multicast protocol instantiations + may depend upon these other building blocks as well as the ones + presented here. This document focuses on areas that are unique to + NACK-based reliable multicast but may be used in concert with the + other building block areas. In some cases, a building block may be + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + able to address a wide range of assumptions, while in other cases + there will be trade-offs required to meet different application needs + or operating environments. Where necessary, building block features + are designed to be parametric to meet different requirements. Of + course, an underlying goal will be to minimize design complexity and + to at least recommend default values for any such parameters that + meet a general purpose "bulk data transfer" requirement in a typical + Internet environment. The forms of "bulk data transfer" covered here + include reliable transport of bulky, fixed-length, a priori static + content and also transmission of non-predetermined, perhaps streamed, + content of indefinite length. Section 3.5 discusses these different + forms of bulk data content in further detail. + +2.1. Delivery Service Model + + The implicit goal of a reliable multicast transport protocol is the + reliable delivery of data among a group of members communicating + using IP multicast datagram service. However, the specific service + the application is attempting to provide can impact design decisions. + The most basic service model for reliable multicast transport is that + of "bulk transfer", which is a primary focus of this and other + related RMT working group documents. However, the same principles in + protocol design may also be applied to other service models, e.g., + more interactive exchanges of small messages such as with white- + boarding or text chat. Within these different models there are + issues such as the sender's ability to cache transmitted data (or + state referencing it) for retransmission or repair. The needs for + ordering and/or causality in the sequence of transmissions and + receptions among members in the group may be different depending upon + data content. The group communication paradigm differs significantly + from the point-to-point model in that, depending upon the data + content type, some receivers may complete reception of a portion of + data content and be able to act upon it before other members have + received the content. This may be acceptable (or even desirable) for + some applications but not for others. These varying requirements + drive the need for a number of different protocol instantiation + designs. A significant challenge in developing generally useful + building block mechanisms is accommodating even a limited range of + these capabilities without defining specific application-level + details. + + Another factor impacting the delivery service model is the potential + for different receivers in the multicast group to have significantly + differing quality of network connectivity. This may involve + receivers with very limited goodput due to connection rate or + substantial packet loss. NACK-based protocol implementations may + wish to provide policies by which extremely poor-performing receivers + are excluded from the main group or migrated to a separate delivery + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + group. Note that some application models may require that the entire + group be constrained to the performance of the "weakest member" to + satisfy operational requirements. In either case, protocol designs + should consider this aspect of the reliable multicast delivery + service model. + +2.2. Group Membership Dynamics + + One area where group communication can differ from point-to-point + communications is that even if the composition of the group changes, + the "thread" of communication can still exist. This contrasts with + the point-to-point communication model where, if either of the two + parties leave, the communication process (exchange of data) is + terminated (or at least paused). Depending upon application goals, + senders and receivers participating in a reliable multicast transport + "session" may be able to join late, leave, and/or potentially rejoin + while the ongoing group communication "thread" still remains + functional and useful. Also note that this can impact protocol + message content. If "late joiners" are supported, some amount of + additional information may be placed in message headers to + accommodate this functionality. Alternatively, the information may + be sent in its own message (on demand or intermittently) if the + impact to the overhead of typical message transmissions is deemed too + great. Group dynamics can also impact other protocol mechanisms such + as NACK timing, congestion control operation, etc. + +2.3. Sender/Receiver Relationships + + The relationship of senders and receivers among group members + requires consideration. In some applications, there may be a single + sender multicasting to a group of receivers. In other cases, there + may be more than one sender or the potential for everyone in the + group to be a sender and receiver of data may exist. + +2.4. Group Size Scalability + + Native IP multicast [RFC1112] may scale to extremely large group + sizes. It may be desirable for some applications to scale along with + the multicast infrastructure's ability to scale. In its simplest + form, there are limits to the group size to which a NACK-based + protocol can be applied without the potential for the volume of NACK + feedback messages to overwhelm network capacity. This is often + referred to as "feedback implosion". Research suggests that NACK- + based reliable multicast group sizes on the order of tens of + thousands of receivers may operate with acceptable levels of feedback + to the sender using probabilistic, timer-based suppression techniques + [NormFeedback]. Instead of receivers immediately transmitting + feedback messages when loss is detected, these techniques specify use + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + of purposefully-scaled, random back-off timeouts such that some + potential NACKing receivers can self-suppress their feedback upon + hearing messages from other receivers that have selected shorter + random timeout intervals. However, there may be additional NACK + suppression heuristics that can be applied to enable these protocols + to scale to even larger group sizes. In large scale cases, it may be + prohibitive for members to maintain state on all other members (in + particular, other receivers) in the group. The impact of group size + needs to be considered in the development of applicable building + blocks. + + Group size scalability may also be aided by intermediate system + assistance; see section 2.7 below. + +2.5. Data Delivery Performance + + There is a trade-off between scalability and data delivery latency + when designing NACK-oriented protocols. If probabilistic, timer- + based NACK suppression is to be used, there will be some delays built + into the NACK process to allow suppression to occur and to allow the + sender of data to identify appropriate content for efficient repair + transmission. For example, back-off timeouts can be used to ensure + efficient NACK suppression and repair transmission, but this comes at + the cost of increased delivery latency and increased buffering + requirements for both senders and receivers. The building blocks + SHOULD allow applications to establish bounds for data delivery + performance. Note that application designers must be aware of the + scalability trade-off that is made when such bounds are applied. + +2.6. Network Environments + + The Internet Protocol has historically assumed a role of providing + service across heterogeneous network topologies. It is desirable + that a reliable multicast protocol be capable of effectively + operating across a wide range of the networks to which general + purpose IP service applies. The bandwidth available on the links + between the members of a single group today may vary between low + numbers of kbit/s for wireless links and multiple Gbit/s for high + speed LAN connections, with varying degrees of contention from other + flows. Recently, a number of asymmetric network services including + 56K/ADSL modems, CATV Internet service, satellite, and other wireless + communication services have begun to proliferate. Many of these are + inherently broadcast media with potentially large "fan-out" to which + IP multicast service is highly applicable. Additionally, policy + and/or technical issues may result in topologies where multicast + connectivity is limited to a source-specific multicast (SSM) model + from a specific source [RFC4607]. Receivers in the group may be + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + restricted to unicast feedback for NACKs and other messages. + Consideration must be given, in building block development and + protocol design, to the nature of the underlying networks. + +2.7. Intermediate System Assistance + + Intermediate assistance from devices/systems with direct knowledge of + the underlying network topology may be used to increase the + performance and scalability of NACK-based reliable multicast + protocols. Feedback aggregation and filtering of sender repair data + may be possible with NACK-based protocols using FEC-based repair + strategies as described in the present and other reliable multicast + transport building block documents. However, there will continue to + be a number of instances where intermediate system assistance is not + available or practical. Any building block components for NACK- + oriented reliable multicast SHALL be capable of operating without + such assistance. However, it is RECOMMENDED that such protocols also + consider utilizing these features when available. + +3. Functionality + + The previous section has presented the role of protocol building + blocks and some of the criteria that may affect NACK-based reliable + multicast building block identification/design. This section + describes different building block areas applicable to NACK-based + reliable multicast protocols. Some of these areas are specific to + NACK-based protocols. Detailed descriptions of such areas are + provided. In other cases, the areas (e.g., node identifiers, forward + error correction (FEC), etc.) may be applicable to other forms of + reliable multicast. In those cases, the discussion below describes + requirements placed on those general building block areas from the + standpoint of NACK-based reliable multicast. Where applicable, other + building block documents are referenced for possible contribution to + NACK-based reliable multicast protocols. + + For each building block, a notional "interface description" is + provided to illustrate any dependencies of one building block + component upon another or upon other protocol parameters. A building + block component may require some form of "input" from another + building block component or other source to perform its function. + Any "inputs" required by a building block component and/or any + resultant "output" provided will be defined and described in each + building block component's interface description. Note that the set + of building blocks presented here do not fully satisfy each other's + "input" and "output" needs. In some cases, "inputs" for the building + blocks here must come from other building blocks external to this + document (e.g., congestion control or FEC). In other cases NACK- + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + based reliable multicast building block "inputs" must be satisfied by + the specific protocol instantiation or implementation (e.g., + application data and control). + + The following building block components relevant to NACK-based + reliable multicast are identified: + + NORM (NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast)-Specific + + 1. Multicast Sender Transmission + + 2. NACK Repair Process + + 3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures + + General Purpose + + 1. Node (Member) Identification + + 2. Data Content Identification + + 3. Forward Error Correction (FEC) + + 4. Round-Trip Timing Collection + + 5. Group Size Determination/Estimation + + 6. Congestion Control Operation + + 7. Intermediate System Assistance + + 8. Ancillary Protocol Mechanisms + + Figure 1 provides a pictorial overview of these building block areas + and some of their relationships. For example, the content of the + data messages that a sender initially transmits depends upon the + "Node Identification", "Data Content Identification", and "FEC" + components, while the rate of message transmission will generally + depend upon the "Congestion Control" component. Subsequently, the + receivers' response to these transmissions (e.g., NACKing for repair) + will depend upon the data message content and inputs from other + building block components. Finally, the sender's processing of + receiver responses will feed back into its transmission strategy. + + The components on the left side of this figure are areas that may be + applicable beyond NACK-based reliable multicast. The more + significant of these components are discussed in other building block + documents, such as the FEC Building Block [RFC5052]. Brief + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + descriptions of these areas and their roles in NACK-based reliable + multicast protocols are given below, and "RTT Collection" is + discussed in detail in Section 3.7 of this document. + + The components on the right are seen as specific to NACK-based + reliable multicast protocols, most notably the NACK repair process. + These areas are discussed in detail below (most notably, "Multicast + Sender Transmission" and "NACK Repair Process" in Sections 3.1 and + 3.2). Some other components (e.g., "Security") impact many aspects + of the protocol, and others may be more transparent to the core + protocol processing. Where applicable, specific technical + recommendations are made for mechanisms that will properly satisfy + the goals of NACK-based reliable multicast transport for the + Internet. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + Application Data and Control + | + v + .---------------------. .-----------------------. + | Node Identification |-------+-->| Sender Transmission |<---. + `---------------------' | `-----------------------' | + .---------------------. | | .------------------. | + | Data Identification |-------+ | | Rcvr Join Policy | | + `---------------------' | V `------------------' | + .---------------------. | .----------------------. | + .->| Congestion Control |-------+ | Receiver NACK | | + | `---------------------' | | Repair Process | | + | .---------------------. | | .------------------. | | + | | |-------' | | NACK Initiation | | | + | | FEC |-----. | `------------------' | | + | | |--. | | .------------------. | | + | `---------------------' | | | | NACK Content | | | + | .---------------------. | | | `------------------' | | + `--| RTT Collection |--|--+---->| .------------------. | | + | |--+ | | | NACK Suppression | | | + `---------------------' | | | `------------------' | | + .---------------------. | | `----------------------' | + | Group Size Est. |--|--' | .-----------------. | + | |--+ | | Intermediate | | + `---------------------' | | | System Assist | | + .---------------------. | v `-----------------' | + | Other | | .-------------------------. | + `---------------------' `------->| Sender NACK Processing |--' + | and Repair Response | + `-------------------------' + ^ ^ + | | + .-----------------------------. + | (Security) | + `-----------------------------' + + Figure 1: NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Building Block Framework + +3.1. Multicast Sender Transmission + + Reliable multicast senders will transmit data content to the + multicast session. The data content will be application dependent. + The sender will transmit data content at a rate, and with message + sizes, determined by application and/or network architecture + requirements. Any FEC encoding of sender transmissions SHOULD + conform with the guidelines of the FEC Building Block [RFC5052]. + When congestion control mechanisms are needed (REQUIRED for general + Internet operation), the sender transmission rate SHALL be controlled + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + by the congestion control mechanism. In any case, it is RECOMMENDED + that all data transmissions from multicast senders be subject to rate + limitations determined by the application or congestion control + algorithm. The sender's transmissions SHOULD make good utilization + of the available capacity (which may be limited by the application + and/or by congestion control). As a result, it is expected there + will be overlap and multiplexing of new data content transmission + with repair content. Other factors related to application operation + may determine sender transmission formats and methods. For example, + some consideration needs to be given to the sender's behavior during + intermittent idle periods when it has no data to transmit. + + In addition to data content, other sender messages or commands may be + employed as part of protocol operation. These messages may occur + outside of the scope of application data transfer. In NACK-based + reliable multicast protocols, reliability of such protocol messages + may be attempted by redundant transmission when positive + acknowledgement is prohibitive due to group size scalability + concerns. Note that protocol design SHOULD provide mechanisms for + dealing with cases where such messages are not received by the group. + As an example, a command message might be redundantly transmitted by + a sender to indicate that it is temporarily (or permanently) halting + transmission. At this time, it may be appropriate for receivers to + respond with NACKs for any outstanding repairs they require, + following the rules of the NACK procedure. For efficiency, the + sender should allow sufficient time between the redundant + transmissions to receive any NACK responses from the receivers to + this command. + + In general, when there is any resultant NACK or other feedback + operation, the timing of redundant transmission of control messages + issued by a sender and other NACK-based reliable multicast protocol + timeouts should be dependent upon the group greatest round-trip + timing (GRTT) estimate and any expected resultant NACK or other + feedback operation. The sender GRTT is an estimate of the worst-case + round-trip timing from a given sender to any receivers in the group. + It is assumed that the GRTT interval is a conservative estimate of + the maximum span (with respect to delay) of the multicast group + across a network topology with respect to a given sender. NACK-based + reliable multicast instantiations SHOULD be able to dynamically adapt + to a wide range of multicast network topologies. + + Inputs: + + 1. Application data and control. + + 2. Sender node identifier. + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + 3. Data identifiers. + + 4. Segmentation and FEC parameters. + + 5. Transmission rate. + + 6. Application controls. + + 7. Receiver feedback messages (e.g., NACKs). + + Outputs: + + 1. Controlled transmission of messages with headers uniquely + identifying data or repair content within the context of the + reliable multicast session. + + 2. Commands indicating sender's status or other transport control + actions to be taken. + +3.2. NACK Repair Process + + A critical component of NACK-based reliable multicast protocols is + the NACK repair process. This includes both the receiver's role in + detecting and requesting repair needs and the sender's response to + such requests. There are four primary elements of the NACK repair + process: + + 1. Receiver NACK process initiation, + + 2. NACK suppression, + + 3. NACK message content, + + 4. Sender NACK processing and repair response. + +3.2.1. Receiver NACK Process Initiation + + The NACK process (cycle) will be initiated by receivers that detect a + need for repair transmissions from a specific sender to achieve + reliable reception. When FEC is applied, a receiver should initiate + the NACK process only when it is known its repair requirements exceed + the amount of pending FEC transmission for a given coding block of + data content. This can be determined at the end of the current + transmission block (if it is indicated) or upon the start of + reception of a subsequent coding block or transmission object. This + implies the sender data content is marked to identify its FEC block + number and that ordinal relationship is preserved in order of + transmission. + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + Alternatively, if the sender's transmission advertises the quantity + of repair packets it is already planning to send for a block, the + receiver may be able to initiate the NACK process earlier. Allowing + receivers to initiate NACK cycles at any time they detect their + repair needs have exceeded pending repair transmissions may result in + slightly quicker repair cycles. However, it may be useful to limit + NACK process initiation to specific events, such as at the end-of- + transmission of an FEC coding block or upon detection of subsequent + coding blocks. This can allow receivers to aggregate NACK content + into a smaller number of NACK messages and provide some implicit + loose synchronization among the receiver set to help facilitate + effective probabilistic suppression of NACK feedback. The receiver + MUST maintain a history of data content received from the sender to + determine its current repair needs. When FEC is employed, it is + expected that the history will correspond to a record of pending or + partially-received coding blocks. + + For probabilistic, timer-based suppression of feedback, the NACK + cycle should begin with receivers observing backoff timeouts. In + conjunction with initiating this backoff timeout, it is important + that the receivers record the position in the sender's transmission + sequence at which they initiate the NACK cycle. When the suppression + backoff timeout expires, the receivers should only consider their + repair needs up to this recorded transmission position in making the + decision to transmit or suppress a NACK. Without this restriction, + suppression is greatly reduced as additional content is received from + the sender during the time a NACK message propagates across the + network to the sender and other receivers. + + Inputs: + + 1. Sender data content with sequencing identifiers from sender + transmissions. + + 2. History of content received from sender. + + Outputs: + + 1. NACK process initiation decision. + + 2. Recorded sender transmission sequence position. + +3.2.2. NACK Suppression + + An effective feedback suppression mechanism is the use of random + backoff timeouts prior to NACK transmission by receivers requiring + repairs [SrmFramework]. Upon expiration of the backoff timeout, a + receiver will request repairs unless its pending repair needs have + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + been completely superseded by NACK messages heard from other + receivers (when receivers are multicasting NACKs) or from some + indicator from the sender. When receivers are unicasting NACK + messages, the sender may facilitate NACK suppression by forwarding a + representation of NACK content it has received to the group at large + or by providing some other indicator of the repair information it + will be subsequently transmitting. + + For effective and scalable suppression performance, the backoff + timeout periods used by receivers should be independently, randomly + picked by receivers with a truncated exponential distribution + [McastFeedback]. This results in the majority of the receiver set + holding off transmission of NACK messages under the assumption that + the smaller number of "early NACKers" will supersede the repair needs + of the remainder of the group. The mean of the distribution should + be determined as a function of the current estimate of the sender's + GRTT assessment and a group size estimate that is either determined + by other mechanisms within the protocol or is preset by the multicast + application. + + A simple algorithm can be constructed to generate random backoff + timeouts with the appropriate distribution. Additionally, the + algorithm may be designed to optimize the backoff distribution given + the number of receivers ("R") potentially generating feedback. This + "optimization" minimizes the number of feedback messages (e.g., NACK) + in the worst-case situation where all receivers generate a NACK. The + maximum backoff timeout ("T_maxBackoff") can be set to control + reliable delivery latency versus volume of feedback traffic. A + larger value of "T_maxBackoff" will result in a lower density of + feedback traffic for a given repair cycle. A smaller value of + "T_maxBackoff" results in shorter latency, which also reduces the + buffering requirements of senders and receivers for reliable + transport. + + In the functions below, the "log()" function specified refers to the + "natural logarithm" and the "exp()" function is similarly based upon + the mathematical constant 'e' (a.k.a. Euler's number) where "exp(x)" + corresponds to '"e"' raised to the power of '"x"'. Given the + receiver group size ("groupSize") and maximum allowed backoff timeout + ("T_maxBackoff"), random backoff timeouts ("t'") with a truncated + exponential distribution can be picked with the following algorithm: + + 1. Establish an optimal mean ("L") for the exponential backoff based + on the "groupSize": + + L = log(groupSize) + 1 + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + 2. Pick a random number ("x") from a uniform distribution over a + range of: + + L L L + -------------------- to -------------------- + ---------- + T_maxBackoff*(exp(L)-1) T_maxBackoff*(exp(L)-1) T_maxBackoff + + 3. Transform this random variate to generate the desired random + backoff time ("t'") with the following equation: + + t' = T_maxBackoff/L * log(x * (exp(L) - 1) * (T_maxBackoff/L)) + + This "C" language function can be used to generate an appropriate + random backoff time interval: + + double RandomBackoff(double T_maxBackoff, double groupSize) + { + double lambda = log(groupSize) + 1; + double x = UniformRand(lambda/T_maxBackoff) + + lambda / (T_maxBackoff*(exp(lambda)-1)); + return ((T_maxBackoff/lambda) * + log(x*(exp(lambda)-1)*(T_maxBackoff/lambda))); + } // end RandomBackoff() + + where "UniformRand(double max)" returns random numbers with a uniform + distribution from the range of "0..max". For example, based on the + POSIX "rand()" function, the following "C" code can be used: + + double UniformRand(double max) + { + return (max * ((double)rand()/(double)RAND_MAX)); + } + + The number of expected NACK messages generated ("N") within the first + round-trip time for a single feedback event is approximately: + + N = exp(1.2 * L / (2*T_maxBackoff/GRTT)) + + Thus, the maximum backoff time can be adjusted to trade off worst- + case NACK feedback volume versus latency. This is derived from the + equations given in [McastFeedback] and assumes "T_maxBackoff >= + GRTT", and "L" is the mean of the distribution optimized for the + given group size as shown in the algorithm above. Note that other + mechanisms within the protocol may work to reduce redundant NACK + generation further. It is suggested that "T_maxBackoff" be selected + as an integer multiple of the sender's current advertised GRTT + estimate such that: + T_maxBackoff = K * GRTT; where K >= 1 + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + For general Internet operation, a default value of "K=4" is + RECOMMENDED for operation with multicast (to the group at large) NACK + delivery; a value of "K=6" is the RECOMMENDED default for unicast + NACK delivery. Alternate values may be used to achieve desired + buffer utilization, reliable delivery latency, and group size + scalability trade-offs. + + Given that ("K*GRTT") is the maximum backoff time used by the + receivers to initiate NACK transmission, other timeout periods + related to the NACK repair process can be scaled accordingly. One of + those timeouts is the amount of time a receiver should wait after + generating a NACK message before allowing itself to initiate another + NACK backoff/transmission cycle ("T_rcvrHoldoff"). This delay should + be sufficient for the sender to respond to the received NACK with + repair messages. An appropriate value depends upon the amount of + time for the NACK to reach the sender and the sender to provide a + repair response. This MUST include any amount of sender NACK + aggregation period during which possible multiple NACKs are + accumulated to determine an efficient repair response. These + timeouts are further discussed in Section 3.2.4. + + There are also secondary measures that can be applied to improve the + performance of feedback suppression. For example, the sender's data + content transmissions can follow an ordinal sequence of transmission. + When repairs for data content occur, the receiver can note that the + sender has "rewound" its data content transmission position by + observing the data object, FEC block number, and FEC symbol + identifiers. Receivers SHOULD limit transmission of NACKs to only + when the sender's current transmission position exceeds the point to + which the receiver has incomplete reception. This reduces premature + requests for repair of data the sender may be planning to provide in + response to other receiver requests. This mechanism can be very + effective for protocol convergence in high loss conditions when + transmissions of NACKs from other receivers (or indicators from the + sender) are lost. Another mechanism (particularly applicable when + FEC is used) is for the sender to embed an indication of impending + repair transmissions in current packets sent. For example, the + indication may be as simple as an advertisement of the number of FEC + packets to be sent for the current applicable coding block. + + Finally, some consideration might be given to using the NACKing + history of receivers to bias their selection of NACK backoff timeout + intervals. For example, if a receiver has historically been + experiencing the greatest degree of loss, it may promote itself to + statistically NACK sooner than other receivers. Note this requires + correlation over successive intervals of time in the loss experienced + by a receiver. Such correlation MAY not always be present in + multicast networks. This adjustment of backoff timeout selection may + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + require the creation of an "early NACK" slot for these historical + NACKers. This additional slot in the NACK backoff window will result + in a longer repair cycle process that may not be desirable for some + applications. The resolution of these trade-offs may be dependent + upon the protocol's target application set or network. + + After the random backoff timeout has expired, the receiver will make + a decision on whether to generate a NACK repair request or not (i.e., + it has been suppressed). The NACK will be suppressed when any of the + following conditions has occurred: + + 1. The accumulated state of NACKs heard from other receivers (or + forwarding of this state by the sender) is equal to or supersedes + the repair needs of the local receiver. Note that the local + receiver should consider its repair needs only up to the sender + transmission position recorded at the NACK cycle initiation (when + the backoff timer was activated). + + 2. The sender's data content transmission position "rewinds" to a + point ordinally less than that of the lowest sequence position of + the local receiver's repair needs. (This detection of sender + "rewind" indicates the sender has already responded to other + receiver repair needs of which the local receiver may not have + been aware). This "rewind" event can occur any time between 1) + when the NACK cycle was initiated with the backoff timeout + activation and 2) the current moment when the backoff timeout has + expired to suppress the NACK. Another NACK cycle must be + initiated by the receiver when the sender's transmission sequence + position exceeds the receiver's lowest ordinal repair point. + Note it is possible that the local receiver may have had its + repair needs satisfied as a result of the sender's response to + the repair needs of other receivers and no further NACKing is + required. + + If these conditions have not occurred and the receiver still has + pending repair needs, a NACK message is generated and transmitted. + The NACK should consist of an accumulation of repair needs from the + receiver's lowest ordinal repair point up to the current sender + transmission sequence position. A single NACK message should be + generated and the NACK message content should be truncated if it + exceeds the payload size of single protocol message. When such NACK + payload limits occur, the NACK content SHOULD contain requests for + the ordinally lowest repair content needed from the sender. + + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + Inputs: + + 1. NACK process initiation decision. + + 2. Recorded sender transmission sequence position. + + 3. Sender GRTT. + + 4. Sender group size estimate. + + 5. Application-defined bound on backoff timeout period. + + 6. NACKs from other receivers. + + 7. Pending repair indication from sender (may be forwarded NACKs). + + 8. Current sender transmission sequence position. + + Outputs: + + 1. Yes/no decision to generate NACK message upon backoff timer + expiration. + +3.2.3. NACK Message Content + + The content of NACK messages generated by reliable multicast + receivers will include information detailing their current repair + needs. The specific information depends on the use and type of FEC + in the NACK repair process. The identification of repair needs is + dependent upon the data content identification (see Section 3.5 + below). At the highest level, the NACK content will identify the + sender to which the NACK is addressed and the data transport object + (or stream) within the sender's transmission that needs repair. For + the indicated transport entity, the NACK content will then identify + the specific FEC coding blocks and/or symbols it requires to + reconstruct the complete transmitted data. This content may consist + of FEC block erasure counts and/or explicit indication of missing + blocks or symbols (segments) of data and FEC content. It should also + be noted that NACK-based reliable multicast can be effectively + instantiated without a requirement for reliable NACK delivery using + the techniques discussed here. + +3.2.3.1. NACK and FEC Repair Strategies + + Where FEC-based repair is used, the NACK message content will + minimally need to identify the coding block(s) for which repair is + needed and a count of erasures (missing packets) for the coding + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + block. An exact count of erasures implies the FEC algorithm is + capable of repairing any loss combination within the coding block. + This count may need to be adjusted for some FEC algorithms. + + Considering that multiple repair rounds may be required to + successfully complete repair, an erasure count also implies that the + quantity of unique FEC parity packets the server has available to + transmit is essentially unlimited (i.e., the server will always be + able to provide new, unique, previously unsent parity packets in + response to any subsequent repair requests for the same coding + block). Alternatively, the sender may "round-robin" transmit through + its available set of FEC symbols for a given coding block, and + eventually effect repair. For the most efficient repair strategy, + the NACK content will need to also explicitly identify which symbols + (information and/or parity) the receiver requires to successfully + reconstruct the content of the coding block. This will be + particularly true of small- to medium-size block FEC codes (e.g., + Reed Solomon [FecSchemes]) that are capable of providing a limited + number of parity symbols per FEC coding block. + + When FEC is not used as part of the repair process, or the protocol + instantiation is required to provide reliability even when the sender + has transmitted all available parity for a given coding block (or the + sender's ability to buffer transmission history is exceeded by the + "(delay*bandwidth*loss)" characteristics of the network topology), + the NACK content will need to contain explicit coding block and/or + segment loss information so that the sender can provide appropriate + repair packets and/or data retransmissions. Explicit loss + information in NACK content may also potentially serve other + purposes. For example, it may be useful for decorrelating loss + characteristics among a group of receivers to help differentiate + candidate congestion control bottlenecks among the receiver set. + + When FEC is used and NACK content is designed to contain explicit + repair requests, there is a strategy where the receivers can NACK for + specific content that will help facilitate NACK suppression and + repair efficiency. The assumptions for this strategy are that the + sender may potentially exhaust its supply of new, unique parity + packets available for a given coding block and be required to + explicitly retransmit some data or parity symbols to complete + reliable transfer. Another assumption is that an FEC algorithm where + any parity packet can fill any erasure within the coding block (e.g., + Reed Solomon) is used. The goal of this strategy is to make maximum + use of the available parity and provide the minimal amount of data + and repair transmissions during reliable transfer of data content to + the group. + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + When systematic FEC codes are used, the sender transmits the data + content of the coding block (and optionally some quantity of parity + packets) in its initial transmission. Note that a systematic FEC + coding block is considered to be logically made up of the contiguous + set of source data vectors plus parity vectors for the given FEC + algorithm used. For example, a systematic coding scheme that + provides for 64 data symbols and 32 parity symbols per coding block + would contain FEC symbol identifiers in the range of 0 to 95. + + Receivers then can construct NACK messages requesting sufficient + content to satisfy their repair needs. For example, if the receiver + has three erasures in a given received coding block, it will request + transmission of the three lowest ordinal parity vectors in the coding + block. In our example coding scheme from the previous paragraph, the + receiver would explicitly request parity symbols 64 to 66 to fill its + three erasures for the coding block. Note that if the receiver's + loss for the coding block exceeds the available parity quantity + (i.e., greater than 32 missing symbols in our example), the receiver + will be required to construct a NACK requesting all (32) of the + available parity symbols plus some additional portions of its missing + data symbols in order to reconstruct the block. If this is done + consistently across the receiver group, the resulting NACKs will + comprise a minimal set of sender transmissions to satisfy their + repair needs. + + In summary, the rule is to request the lower ordinal portion of the + parity content for the FEC coding block to satisfy the erasure repair + needs on the first NACK cycle. If the available number of parity + symbols is insufficient, the receiver will also request the subset of + ordinally highest missing data symbols to cover what the parity + symbols will not fill. Note this strategy assumes FEC codes such as + Reed-Solomon for which a single parity symbol can repair any erased + symbol. This strategy would need minor modification to take into + account the possibly limited repair capability of other FEC types. + On subsequent NACK repair cycles where the receiver may receive some + portion of its previously requested repair content, the receiver will + use the same strategy, but only NACK for the set of parity and/or + data symbols it has not yet received. Optionally, the receivers + could also provide a count of erasures as a convenience to the + sender. + + Other types of FEC schemes may require alteration to the NACK and + repair strategy described here. For example, some of the large block + or expandable FEC codes described in [RFC3453] may be less + deterministic with respect to defining optimal repair requests by + receivers or repair transmission strategies by senders. For these + types of codes, it may be sufficient for receivers to NACK with an + estimate of the quantity of additional FEC symbols required to + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + complete reliable reception and for the sender to respond + accordingly. This apparent disadvantage, as compared to codes such + as Reed Solomon, may be offset by the reduced computational + requirements and/or ability to support large coding blocks for + increased repair efficiency that these codes can offer. + + After receipt and accumulation of NACK messages during the + aggregation period, the sender can begin transmission of fresh + (previously untransmitted) parity symbols for the coding block based + on the highest receiver erasure count if it has a sufficient quantity + of parity symbols that were not previously transmitted. Otherwise, + the sender MUST resort to transmitting the explicit set of repair + vectors requested. With this approach, the sender needs to maintain + very little state on requests it has received from the group without + need for synchronization of repair requests from the group. Since + all receivers use the same consistent algorithm to express their + explicit repair needs, NACK suppression among receivers is simplified + over the course of multiple repair cycles. The receivers can simply + compare NACKs heard from other receivers against their own calculated + repair needs to determine whether they should transmit or suppress + their pending NACK messages. + +3.2.3.2. NACK Content Format + + The format of NACK content will depend on the protocol's data service + model and the format of data content identification the protocol + uses. This NACK format also depends upon the type of FEC encoding + (if any) used. Figure 2 illustrates a logical, hierarchical + transmission content identification scheme, denoting that the notion + of objects (or streams) and/or FEC blocking is optional at the + protocol instantiation's discretion. Note that the identification of + objects is with respect to a given sender. It is recommended that + transport data content identification is done within the context of a + sender in a given session. Since the notion of session "streams" and + "blocks" is optional, the framework degenerates to that of typical + transport data segmentation and reassembly in its simplest form. + + Session_ + \_ + Sender_ + \_ + [Object/Stream(s)]_ + \_ + [FEC Blocks]_ + \_ + Symbols + + Figure 2: Reliable Multicast Data Content Identification Hierarchy + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + The format of NACK messages should enable the following: + + 1. Identification of transport data units required to repair the + received content, whether this is an entire missing object/stream + (or range), entire FEC coding block(s), or sets of symbols, + + 2. Simple processing for NACK aggregation and suppression, + + 3. Inclusion of NACKs for multiple objects, FEC coding blocks, + and/or symbols in a single message, and + + 4. A reasonably compact format. + + If the reliable multicast transport object/stream is identified with + an <objectId> and the FEC symbol being transmitted is identified with + an <fecPayloadId>, the concatenation of <objectId::fecPayloadId> + comprises a basic transport protocol data unit (TPDU) identifier for + symbols from a given source. NACK content can be composed of lists + and/or ranges of these TPDU identifiers to build up NACK messages to + describe the receiver's repair needs. If no hierarchical object + delineation or FEC blocking is used, the TPDU is a simple linear + representation of the data symbols transmitted by the sender. When + the TPDU represents a hierarchy for purposes of object/stream + delineation and/or FEC blocking, the NACK content unit may require + flags to indicate which portion of the TPDU is applicable. For + example, if an entire "object" (or range of objects) is missing in + the received data, the receiver will not necessarily know the + appropriate range of <sourceBlockNumbers> or <encodingSymbolIds> for + which to request repair and thus requires some mechanism to request + repair (or retransmission) of the entire unit represented by an + <objectId>. The same is true if entire FEC coding blocks represented + by one or a range of <sourceBlockNumbers> have been lost. + + Inputs: + + 1. Sender identification. + + 2. Sender data identification. + + 3. Sender FEC object transmission information. + + 4. Recorded sender transmission sequence position. + + 5. Current sender transmission sequence position. History of repair + needs for this sender. + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + Outputs: + + 1. NACK message with repair requests. + +3.2.4. Sender NACK Processing and Repair Response + + Upon reception of a repair request from a receiver in the group, the + sender will initiate a repair response procedure. The sender may + wish to delay transmission of repair content until it has had + sufficient time to accumulate potentially multiple NACKs from the + receiver set. This allows the sender to determine the most efficient + repair strategy for a given transport stream/object or FEC coding + block. Depending upon the approach used, some protocols may find it + beneficial for the sender to provide an indicator of pending repair + transmissions as part of its current transmitted message content. + This can aid some NACK suppression mechanisms. The amount of time to + perform this NACK aggregation should be sufficient to allow for the + maximum receiver NACK backoff window (""T_maxBackoff"" from Section + 3.2.2) and propagation of NACK messages from the receivers to the + sender. Note the maximum transmission delay of a message from a + receiver to the sender may be approximately "(1*GRTT)" in the case of + very asymmetric network topology with respect to transmission delay. + Thus, if the maximum receiver NACK backoff time is "T_maxBackoff = + K*GRTT", the sender NACK aggregation period should be equal to at + least: + + T_sndrAggregate = T_maxBackoff + 1*GRTT = (K+1)*GRTT + + Immediately after the sender NACK aggregation period, the sender will + begin transmitting repair content determined from the aggregate NACK + state and continue with any new transmission. Also, at this time, + the sender should observe a "hold-off" period where it constrains + itself from initiating a new NACK aggregation period to allow + propagation of the new transmission sequence position due to the + repair response to the receiver group. To allow for worst case + asymmetry, this "hold-off" time should be: + + T_sndrHoldoff = 1*GRTT + + Recall that the receivers will also employ a "hold-off" timeout after + generating a NACK message to allow time for the sender's response. + Given a sender "<T_sndrAggregate>" plus "<T_sndrHoldoff>" time of + "(K+1)*GRTT", the receivers should use hold-off timeouts of: + + T_rcvrHoldoff = T_sndrAggregate + T_sndrHoldoff = (K+2)*GRTT + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + This allows for a worst-case propagation time of the receiver's NACK + to the sender, the sender's aggregation time, and propagation of the + sender's response back to the receiver. Additionally, in the case of + unicast feedback from the receiver set, it may be useful for the + sender to forward (via multicast) a representation of its aggregated + NACK content to the group to allow for NACK suppression when there is + not multicast connectivity among the receiver set. + + At the expiration of the "<T_sndrAggregate>" timeout, the sender will + begin transmitting repair messages according to the accumulated + content of NACKs received. There are some guidelines with regards to + FEC-based repair and the ordering of the repair response from the + sender that can improve reliable multicast efficiency: + + When FEC is used, it is beneficial that the sender transmit + previously untransmitted parity content as repair messages whenever + possible. This maximizes the receiving nodes' ability to reconstruct + the entire transmitted content from their individual subsets of + received messages. + + The transmitted object and/or stream data and repair content should + be indexed with monotonically increasing sequence numbers (within a + reasonably large ordinal space). If the sender observes the + discipline of transmitting repair for the earliest content (e.g., + ordinally lowest FEC blocks) first, the receivers can use a strategy + of withholding repair requests for later content until the sender + once again returns to that point in the object/stream transmission + sequence. This can increase overall message efficiency among the + group and help keep repair cycles relatively synchronized without + dependence upon strict time synchronization among the sender and + receivers. This also helps minimize the buffering requirements of + receivers and senders and reduces redundant transmission of data to + the group at large. + + Inputs: + + 1. Receiver NACK messages. + + 2. Group timing information. + + Outputs: + + 1. Repair messages (FEC and/or Data content retransmission). + + 2. Advertisement of current pending repair transmissions when + unicast receiver feedback is detected. + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +3.3. Multicast Receiver Join Policies and Procedures + + Consideration should be given to the policies and procedures by which + new receivers join a group (perhaps where reliable transmission is + already in progress) and begin requesting repair. If receiver joins + are unconstrained, the dynamics of group membership may impede the + application's ability to meet its goals for forward progression of + data transmission. Policies that limit the opportunities for + receivers to begin participating in the NACK process may be used to + achieve the desired behavior. For example, it may be beneficial for + receivers to attempt reliable reception from a newly-heard sender + only upon non-repair transmissions of data in the first FEC block of + an object or logical portion of a stream. The sender may also + implement policies limiting the receivers from which it will accept + NACK requests, but this may be prohibitive for scalability reasons in + some situations. Alternatively, it may be desirable to have a looser + transport synchronization policy and rely upon session management + mechanisms to limit group dynamics that can cause poor performance in + some types of bulk transfer applications (or for potential + interactive reliable multicast applications). + + Inputs: + + 1. Current object/stream data/repair content and sequencing + identifiers from sender transmissions. + + Outputs: + + 1. Receiver yes/no decision to begin receiving and NACKing for + reliable reception of data. + +3.4. Node (Member) Identification + + In a NACK-based reliable multicast protocol (or other multicast + protocols) where there is the potential for multiple sources of data, + it is necessary to provide some mechanism to uniquely identify the + sources (and possibly some or all receivers) within the group. + Receivers that send NACK messages to the group will need to identify + the sender to which the NACK is intended. Identity based on arriving + packet source addresses is insufficient for several reasons. These + reasons include routing changes for hosts with multiple interfaces + that result in different packet source addresses for a given host + over time, network address translation (NAT) or firewall devices, or + other transport/network bridging approaches. As a result, some type + of unique source identifier <sourceId> field SHOULD be present in + packets transmitted by reliable multicast session members. + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +3.5. Data Content Identification + + The data and repair content transmitted by a NACK-based reliable + multicast sender requires some form of identification in the protocol + header fields. This identification is required to facilitate the + reliable NACK-oriented repair process. These identifiers will also + be used in NACK messages generated. This building block document + assumes two very general types of data that may comprise bulk + transfer session content. One type is static, discrete objects of + finite size and the other is continuous non-finite streams. A given + application may wish to reliably multicast data content using either + one or both of these paradigms. While it may be possible for some + applications to further generalize this model and provide mechanisms + to encapsulate static objects as content embedded within a stream, + there are advantages in many applications to provide distinct support + for static bulk objects and messages with the context of a reliable + multicast session. These applications may include content caching + servers, file transfer, or collaborative tools with bulk content. + Applications with requirements for these static object types can then + take advantage of transport layer mechanisms (i.e., segmentation/ + reassembly, caching, integrated forward error correction coding, + etc.) rather than being required to provide their own mechanisms for + these functions at the application layer. + + As noted, some applications may alternatively desire to transmit bulk + content in the form of one or more streams of non-finite size. + Example streams include continuous quasi-real-time message broadcasts + (e.g., stock ticker) or some content types that are part of + collaborative tools or other applications. And, as indicated above, + some applications may wish to encapsulate other bulk content (e.g., + files) into one or more streams within a multicast session. + + The components described within this building block document are + envisioned to be applicable to both of these models with the + potential for a mix of both types within a single multicast session. + To support this requirement, the normal data content identification + should include a field to uniquely identify the object or stream + (e.g., <objectId>) within some reasonable temporal or ordinal + interval. Note that it is not expected that this data content + identification will be globally unique. It is expected that the + object/stream identifier will be unique with respect to a given + sender within the reliable multicast session and during the time that + sender is supporting a specific transport instance of that object or + stream. + + Since "bulk" object/stream content usually requires segmentation, + some form of segment identification must also be provided. This + segment identifier will be relative to any object or stream + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + identifier that has been provided. Thus, in some cases, NACK-based + reliable multicast protocol instantiations may be able to receive + transmissions and request repair for multiple streams and one or more + sets of static objects in parallel. For protocol instantiations + employing FEC, the segment identification portion of the data content + identifier may consist of a logical concatenation of a coding block + identifier <sourceBlockNumber> and an identifier for the specific + data or parity symbol <encodingSymbolId> of the code block. The FEC + Basic Schemes building block [FECSchemes] and descriptions of + additional FEC schemes that may be documented later provide a + standard message format for identifying FEC transmission content. + NACK-based reliable multicast protocol instantiations using FEC + SHOULD follow such guidelines. + + Additionally, flags to determine the usage of the content identifier + fields (e.g., stream vs. object) may be applicable. Flags may also + serve other purposes in data content identification. It is expected + that any flags defined will be dependent upon individual protocol + instantiations. + + In summary, the following data content identification fields may be + required for NACK-based reliable multicast protocol data content + messages: + + 1. Source node identifier (<sourceId>). + + 2. Object/Stream identifier (<objectId>), if applicable. + + 3. FEC Block identifier (<sourceBlockNumber>), if applicable. + + 4. FEC Symbol identifier (<encodingSymbolId>). + + 5. Flags to differentiate interpretation of identifier fields or + identifier structure that implicitly indicates usage. + + 6. Additional FEC transmission content fields per FEC Building + Block. + + These fields have been identified because any generated NACK messages + will use these identifiers in requesting repair or retransmission of + data. + +3.6. Forward Error Correction (FEC) + + Multiple forward error correction (FEC) approaches using erasure + coding techniques have been identified that can provide great + performance enhancements to the repair process of NACK-oriented and + other reliable multicast protocols [FecBroadcast], [RmFec], + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + [RFC3453]. NACK-based reliable multicast protocols can reap + additional benefits since FEC-based repair does not generally require + explicit knowledge of repair content within the bounds of its coding + block size (in symbols). In NACK-based reliable multicast, parity + repair packets generated will generally be transmitted only in + response to NACK repair requests from receiving nodes. However, + there are benefits in some network environments for transmitting some + predetermined quantity of FEC repair packets multiplexed with the + regular data symbol transmissions [FecHybrid]. This can reduce the + amount of NACK traffic generated with relatively little overhead cost + when group sizes are very large or the network connectivity has a + large "delay*bandwidth" product with some nominal level of expected + packet loss. While the application of FEC is not unique to NACK- + based reliable multicast, these sorts of requirements may dictate the + types of algorithms and protocol approaches that are applicable. + + A specific issue related to the use of FEC with NACK-based reliable + multicast is the mechanism used to identify the portion(s) of + transmitted data content to which specific FEC packets are + applicable. It is expected that FEC algorithms will be based on + generating a set of parity repair packets for a corresponding block + of transmitted data packets. Since data content packets are uniquely + identified by the concatenation of <sourceId::objectId:: + sourceBlockNumber::encodingSymbolId> during transport, it is expected + that FEC packets will be identified in a similar manner. The FEC + Building Block document [RFC5052] provides detailed recommendations + concerning application of FEC and standard formats for related + reliable multicast protocol messages. + +3.7. Round-Trip Timing Collection + + The measurement of packet propagation round-trip time (RTT) among + members of the group is required to support timer-based NACK + suppression algorithms, timing of sender commands or certain repair + functions, and congestion control operation. The nature of the + round-trip information collected is dependent upon the type of + interaction among the members of the group. In the case of "one-to- + many" transmission, it may be that only the sender requires RTT + knowledge of the GRTT and/or RTT knowledge of only a portion of the + group. Here, the GRTT information might be collected in a reasonably + scalable manner. For congestion control operation, it is possible + that each receiver in the group may need knowledge of its individual + RTT. In this case, an alternative RTT collection scheme may be + utilized where receivers collect individual RTT measurements with + respect to the sender(s) and advertise them to the group or + sender(s). Where it is likely that exchange of reliable multicast + data will occur among the group on a "many-to-many" basis, there are + alternative measurement techniques that might be employed for + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + increased efficiency [DelayEstimation]. In some cases, there might + be absolute time synchronization available among the participating + hosts that may simplify RTT measurement. There are trade-offs in + multicast congestion control design that require further + consideration before a universal recommendation on RTT (or GRTT) + measurement can be specified. Regardless of how the RTT information + is collected (and more specifically GRTT) with respect to congestion + control or other requirements, the sender will need to advertise its + current GRTT estimate to the group for various NACK timeouts used by + receivers. + +3.7.1. One-to-Many Sender GRTT Measurement + + The goal of this form of RTT measurement is for the sender to + estimate the GRTT among the receivers who are actively participating + in NACK-based reliable multicast operation. The set of receivers + participating in this process may be the entire group or some subset + of the group determined from another mechanism within the protocol + instantiation. An approach to collect this GRTT information follows. + + The sender periodically polls the group with a message (independent + or "piggy-backed" with other transmissions) containing a "<sendTime>" + timestamp relative to an internal clock at the sender. Upon + reception of this message, the receivers will record this + "<sendTime>" timestamp and the time (referenced to their own clocks) + at which it was received "<recvTime>". When the receiver provides + feedback to the sender (either explicitly or as part of other + feedback messages depending upon protocol instantiation + specification), it will construct a "response" using the formula: + + grttResponse = sendTime + (currentTime - recvTime) + + where the "<sendTime>" is the timestamp from the last probe message + received from the source and the ("<currentTime> - <recvTime>") is + the amount of time differential since that request was received until + the receiver generated the response. + + The sender processes each receiver response by calculating a current + RTT measurement for the receiver from whom the response was received + using the following formula: + + RTT_rcvr = currentTime - grttResponse + + During each periodic "GRTT" probing interval, the source keeps the + peak round-trip timing measurement ("RTT_peak") from the set of + responses it has received. A conservative estimate of "GRTT" is kept + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + to maximize the efficiency of redundant NACK suppression and repair + aggregation. The update to the source's ongoing estimate of "GRTT" + is done observing the following rules: + + 1. If a receiver's response round-trip time ("RTT_rcvr") is greater + than the current "GRTT" estimate, the "GRTT" is immediately + updated to this new peak value: + + GRTT = RTT_rcvr + + 2. At the end of the response collection period (i.e., the GRTT + probe interval), if the recorded "peak" response ("RTT_peak") is + less than the current GRTT estimate, the GRTT is updated to: + + GRTT = MAX(0.9*GRTT, RTT_peak) + + 3. If no feedback is received, the sender "GRTT" estimate remains + unchanged. + + 4. At the end of the response collection period, the peak tracking + value ("RTT_peak") is reset to ZERO for subsequent peak + detection. + + The GRTT collection period (i.e., period of probe transmission) could + be fixed at a value on the order of that expected for group + membership and/or network topology dynamics. For robustness, more + rapid probing could be used at protocol startup before settling to a + less frequent, steady-state interval. Optionally, an algorithm may + be developed to adjust the GRTT collection period dynamically in + response to the current estimate of GRTT (or variations in it) and to + an estimation of packet loss. The overhead of probing messages could + then be reduced when the GRTT estimate is stable and unchanging, but + be adjusted to track more dynamically during periods of variation + with correspondingly shorter GRTT collection periods. GRTT + collection MAY also be coupled with collection of other information + for congestion control purposes. + + In summary, although NACK repair cycle timeouts are based on GRTT, it + should be noted that convergent operation of the protocol does not + depend upon highly accurate GRTT estimation. The current mechanism + has proved sufficient in simulations and in the environments where + NACK-based reliable multicast protocols have been deployed to date. + The estimate provided by the given algorithm tracks the peak envelope + of actual GRTT (including operating system effect as well as network + delays) even in relatively high loss connectivity. The steady-state + probing/update interval may potentially be varied to accommodate + different levels of expected network dynamics in different + environments. + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +3.7.2. One-to-Many Receiver RTT Measurement + + In this approach, receivers send messages with timestamps to the + sender. To control the volume of these receiver-generated messages, + a suppression mechanism similar to that described for NACK + suppression my be used. The "age" of receivers' RTT measurement + should be kept by receivers and used as a metric in competing for + feedback opportunities in the suppression scheme. For example, + receiver who have not made any RTT measurement or whose RTT + measurement has aged most should have precedence over other + receivers. In turn, the sender may have limited capacity to provide + an "echo" of the receiver timestamps back to the group, and it could + use this RTT "age" metric to determine which receivers get + precedence. The sender can determine the "GRTT" as described in + 3.7.1 if it provides sender timestamps to the group. Alternatively, + receivers who note their RTT is greater than the sender GRTT can + compete in the feedback opportunity/suppression scheme to provide the + sender and group with this information. + +3.7.3. Many-to-Many RTT Measurement + + For reliable multicast sessions that involve multiple senders, it may + be useful to have RTT measurements occur on a true "many-to-many" + basis rather than have each sender independently tracking RTT. Some + protocol efficiency can be gained when receivers can infer an + approximation of their RTT with respect to a sender based on RTT + information they have on another sender and that other sender's RTT + with respect to the new sender of interest. For example, for + receiver "a" and senders "b" and "c", it is likely that: + + RTT(a<->b) <= RTT(a<->c)) + RTT(b<->c) + + Further refinement of this estimate can be conducted if RTT + information is available to a node concerning its own RTT with + respect to a small subset of other group members and if information + concerning RTT among those other group members is learned by the node + during protocol operation. + +3.7.4. Sender GRTT Advertisement + + To facilitate deterministic protocol operation, the sender should + robustly advertise its current estimation of "GRTT" to the receiver + set. Common, robust knowledge of the sender's current operating GRTT + estimate among the group will allow the protocol to progress in its + most efficient manner. The sender's GRTT estimate can be robustly + advertised to the group by simply embedding the estimate into all + pertinent messages transmitted by the sender. The overhead of this + can be made quite small by quantizing (compressing) the GRTT estimate + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + to a single byte of information. The following C-language functions + allow this to be done over a wide range ("RTT_MIN" through "RTT_MAX") + of GRTT values while maintaining a greater range of precision for + small values and less precision for large values. Values of 1.0e-06 + seconds and 1000 seconds are RECOMMENDED for "RTT_MIN" and "RTT_MAX" + respectively. NACK-based reliable multicast applications may wish to + place an additional, smaller upper limit on the GRTT advertised by + senders to meet application data delivery latency constraints at the + expense of greater feedback volume in some network environments. + + unsigned char QuantizeGrtt(double grtt) + { + if (grtt > RTT_MAX) + grtt = RTT_MAX; + else if (grtt < RTT_MIN) + grtt = RTT_MIN; + if (grtt < (33*RTT_MIN)) + return ((unsigned char)(grtt / RTT_MIN) - 1); + else + return ((unsigned char)(ceil(255.0 - + (13.0 * log(RTT_MAX/grtt))))); + } + + double UnquantizeRtt(unsigned char qrtt) + { + return ((qrtt <= 31) ? + (((double)(qrtt+1))*(double)RTT_MIN) : + (RTT_MAX/exp(((double)(255-qrtt))/(double)13.0))); + } + + Note that this function is useful for quantizing GRTT times in the + range of 1 microsecond to 1000 seconds. Of course, NACK-based + reliable multicast protocol implementations may wish to further + constrain advertised GRTT estimates (e.g., limit the maximum value) + for practical reasons. + +3.8. Group Size Determination/Estimation + + When NACK-based reliable multicast protocol operation includes + mechanisms that excite feedback from the group at large (e.g., + congestion control), it may be possible to roughly estimate the group + size based on the number of feedback messages received with respect + to the distribution of the probabilistic suppression mechanism used. + Note the timer-based suppression mechanism described in this document + does not require a very accurate estimate of group size to perform + adequately. Thus, a rough estimate, particularly if conservatively + managed, may suffice. Group size may also be determined + administratively. In absence of any group size determination + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + mechanism, a default group size value of 10,000 is RECOMMENDED for + reasonable management of feedback given the scalability of expected + NACK-based reliable multicast usage. This conservative estimate + (over-estimate) of group size in the algorithms described above will + result in some added latency to the NACK repair process if the actual + group size is smaller but with a guarantee of feedback implosion + protection. The study of the timer-based feedback suppression + mechanism described in [McastFeedback] and [NormFeedback] showed that + the group size estimate need only be with an order-of-magnitude to + provide effective suppression performance. + +3.9. Congestion Control Operation + + Congestion control that fairly shares available network capacity with + other reliable multicast and TCP instantiations is REQUIRED for + general Internet operation. The TCP-Friendly Multicast Congestion + Control (TFMCC) [TfmccPaper] or Pragmatic General Multicast + Congestion Control (PGMCC) [PgmccPaper] techniques can be applied to + NACK-based reliable multicast operation to meet this requirement. + The former technique has been further documented in [RFC4654] and has + been successfully applied in the NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast + Protocol (NORM) [RFC3940]. + +3.10. Intermediate System Assistance + + NACK-based multicast protocols may benefit from general purpose + intermediate system assistance. In particular, additional NACK + suppression where intermediate systems can aggregate NACK content (or + filter duplicate NACK content) from receivers as it is relayed toward + the sender could enhance NORM group size scalability. For NACK-based + reliable multicast protocols using FEC, it is possible that + intermediate systems may be able to filter FEC repair messages to + provide an intelligent "subcast" of repair content to different legs + of the multicast topology depending on the repair needs learned from + previous receiver NACKs. Similarly, intermediate systems could + monitor receiver NACKs and provide repair transmissions on-demand in + response if sufficient state on the content being transmitted was + being maintained. This can reduce the latency and volume of repair + transmissions when the intermediate system is associated with a + network link that is particularly problematic with respect to packet + loss. These types of assist functions would require intermediate + system interpretation of transport data unit content identifiers and + flags. NACK-based protocol designs should consider the potential for + intermediate system assistance in the specification of protocol + messages and operations. It is likely that intermediate systems + assistance will be more pragmatic if message parsing requirements are + modest and if the amount of state an intermediate system is required + to maintain is relatively small. + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +4. NACK-Based Reliable Multicast Applicability + + The Multicast NACK building block applies to protocols wishing to + employ negative acknowledgement to achieve reliable data transfer. + Properly designed NACK-based reliable multicast protocols offer + scalability advantages for applications and/or network topologies + where, for various reasons, it is prohibitive to construct a higher + order delivery infrastructure above the basic Layer 3 IP multicast + service (e.g., unicast or hybrid unicast/multicast data distribution + trees). Additionally, the multicast scalability property of NACK- + based protocols [RmComparison], [RmClasses] is applicable where broad + "fan-out" is expected for a single network hop (e.g., cable-TV data + delivery, satellite, or other broadcast communication services). + Furthermore, the simplicity of a protocol based on "flat" group-wide + multicast distribution may offer advantages for a broad range of + distributed services or dynamic networks and applications. NACK- + based reliable multicast protocols can make use of reciprocal (among + senders and receivers) multicast communication under the any-source + multicast (ASM) model defined in RFC 1112 [RFC1112], and are capable + of scalable operation in asymmetric topologies, such as source- + specific multicast (SSM) [RFC4607], where there may only be unicast + routing service from the receivers to the sender(s). + + NACK-based reliable multicast protocol operation is compatible with + transport layer forward error correction coding techniques as + described in [RFC3453] and congestion control mechanisms such as + those described in [TfmccPaper] and [PgmccPaper]. A principal + limitation of NACK-based reliable multicast operation involves group + size scalability when network capacity for receiver feedback is very + limited. It is possible that, with proper protocol design, the + intermediate system assistance techniques mentioned in Section 2.4 + and described further in Section 3.10 can allow NACK-based approaches + to scale to larger group sizes. NACK-based reliable multicast + operation is also governed by implementation buffering constraints. + Buffering greater than that required for typical point-to-point + reliable transport (e.g., TCP) is recommended to allow for disparity + in the receiver group connectivity and to allow for the feedback + delays required to attain group size scalability. + + Prior experimental work included various protocol instantiations that + implemented some of the concepts described in this building block + document. This includes the Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) + protocol described in [RFC3208] as well as others that were + documented or deployed outside of IETF activities. While the PGM + protocol specification and some other approaches encompassed many of + the goals of bulk data delivery as described here, this NACK-based + building block provides a more generalized framework so that + different application needs can be met by different protocol + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + instantiation variants. The NACK-based building block approach + described here includes compatibility with the other protocol + mechanisms including FEC and congestion control that are described in + other IETF reliable multicast building block documents. The NACK + repair process described in this document can provide performance + advantages compared to PGM when both are deployed on a pure end-to- + end basis without intermediate system assistance. The round-trip + timing estimation described here and its use in the NACK repair + process allow protocol operation to more automatically adapt to + different network environments or operate within environments where + connectivity is dynamic. Use of the FEC payload identification + techniques described in the FEC building block [RFC5052] and specific + FEC instantiations allow protocol instantiations more flexibility as + FEC techniques evolve than the specific sequence number data + identification scheme described in the PGM specification. Similar + flexibility is expected if protocol instantiations are designed to + modularly invoke (at design time, if not run-time) the appropriate + congestion control building block for different application or + deployment purposes. + +5. Security Considerations + + NACK-based reliable multicast protocols are expected to be subject to + the same security vulnerabilities as other IP and IP multicast + protocols. However, unlike point-to-point (unicast) transport + protocols, it is possible that one badly behaving participant can + impact the transport service experience of others in the group. For + example, a malicious receiver node could intentionally transmit NACK + messages to cause the sender(s) to unnecessarily transmit repairs + instead of making forward progress with reliable transfer. Also, + group-wise messaging to support congestion control or other aspects + of protocol operation may be subject to similar vulnerabilities. + Thus, it is highly RECOMMENDED that security techniques such as + authentication and data integrity checks be applied for NACK-based + reliable multicast deployments. Protocol instantiations using this + building block MUST identify approaches to security that can be used + to address these and other security considerations. + + NACK-based reliable multicast is compatible with IP security (IPsec) + authentication mechanisms [RFC4301] that are RECOMMENDED for + protection against session intrusion and denial of service attacks. + A particular threat for NACK-based protocols is that of NACK replay + attacks, which could prevent a multicast sender from making forward + progress in transmission. Any standard IPsec mechanisms that can + provide protection against such replay attacks are RECOMMENDED for + use. The IETF Multicast Security (MSEC) Working Group has developed + a set of recommendations in its "Multicast Extensions to the Security + Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [IpsecExtensions] that can be + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + applied to appropriately extend IPsec mechanisms to multicast + operation. An appendix of this document specifically addresses the + NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast protocol service model. As complete + support for IPsec multicast operation may potentially follow reliable + multicast deployment, NACK-based reliable multicast protocol + instantiations SHOULD consider providing support for their own NACK + replay attack protection when network layer mechanisms are not + available. This MAY be necessary when IPsec implementations are used + that do not provide multicast replay attack protection when multiple + sources are present. + + For NACK-based multicast deployments with large receiver groups using + IPsec, approaches might be developed that use shared, common keys for + receiver-originated protocol messages to maintain a practical number + of IPsec Security Associations (SAs). However, such group-based + authentication may not be sufficient unless the receiver population + can be completely trusted. Additionally, this can make + identification of badly behaving (although authenticated) receiver + nodes problematic as such nodes could potentially masquerade as other + receivers in the group. In deployments such as this, one SHOULD + consider use of source-specific multicast (SSM) instead of any-source + multicast (ASM) models of multicast operation. SSM operation can + simplify security challenges in a couple of ways: + + 1. A NACK-based protocol supporting SSM operation can eliminate + direct receiver-to-receiver signaling. This dramatically reduces + the number of security associations that need to be established. + + 2. The SSM sender(s) can provide a centralized management point for + secure group operation for its respective data flow as the sender + alone is required to conduct individual host authentication for + each receiver when group-based authentication does not suffice or + is not pragmatic to deploy. + + When individual host authentication is required, then it is possible + receivers could use a digital signature on the IPsec Encapsulating + Security Protocol (ESP) payload as described in [RFC4359]. Either an + identity-based signature system or a group-specific public key + infrastructure could avoid per-receiver state at the sender(s). + Additionally, implementations MUST also support policies to limit the + impact of extremely or exceptionally poor-performing (due to bad + behavior or otherwise) receivers upon overall group operation if this + is acceptable for the relevant application. + + As described in Section 3.4, deployment of NACK-based reliable + multicast in some network environments may require identification of + group members beyond that of IP addressing. If protocol-specific + security mechanisms are developed, then it is RECOMMENDED that + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + protocol group member identifiers are used as selectors (as defined + in [RFC4301]) for the applicable security associations. When IPsec + is used, it is RECOMMENDED that the protocol implementation verify + that the source IP addresses of received packets are valid for the + given protocol source identifier in addition to usual IPsec + authentication. This would prevent a badly behaving (although + authorized) member from spoofing messages from other legitimate + members, provided that individual host authentication is supported. + + The MSEC Working Group has also developed automated group keying + solutions that are applicable to NACK-based reliable multicast + security. For example, to support IPsec or other security + mechanisms, the Group Secure Association Key Management Protocol + [RFC4535] MAY be used for automated group key management. The + technique it identifies for "Group Establishment for Receive-Only + Members" may be application NACK-based reliable multicast SSM + operation. + +6. Changes from RFC 3941 + + This section lists the changes between the Experimental version of + this specification, [RFC3941], and this version: + + 1. Change of title to avoid confusion with NORM Protocol + specification, + + 2. Updated references to related, updated RMT Building Block + documents, and + + 3. More detailed security considerations. + +7. Acknowledgements + + (and these are not Negative) + + The authors would like to thank George Gross, Rick Jones, and Joerg + Widmer for their valuable comments on this document. The authors + would also like to thank the RMT working group chairs, Roger Kermode + and Lorenzo Vicisano, for their support in development of this + specification, and Sally Floyd for her early inputs into this + document. + + + + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP + multicasting", STD 5, RFC 1112, August 1989. + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to + Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + March 1997. + + [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific + Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. + +8.2. Informative References + + [ArchConsiderations] Clark, D. and D. Tennenhouse, "Architectural + Considerations for a New Generation of + Protocols", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 201-208, + September 1990. + + [DelayEstimation] Ozdemir, V., Muthukrishnan, S., and I. Rhee, + "Scalable, Low-Overhead Network Delay + Estimation", NCSU/AT&T White Paper, + February 1999. + + [FECSchemes] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction + (FEC) Schemes", Work in Progress, July 2008. + + [FecBroadcast] Metzner, J., "An Improved Broadcast + Retransmission Protocol", IEEE Transactions on + Communications Vol. Com-32, No. 6, June 1984. + + [FecHybrid] Gossink, D. and J. Macker, "Reliable Multicast + and Integrated Parity Retransmission with + Channel Estimation", IEEE Globecomm 1998, 1998. + + [FecSchemes] Lacan, J., Roca, V., Peltotalo, J., and S. + Peltotalo, "Reed-Solomon Forward Error + Correction (FEC) Schemes", Work in Progress, + November 2007. + + [IpsecExtensions] Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic, + "Multicast Extensions to the Security + Architecture for the Internet Protocol", Work + in Progress, June 2008. + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + [McastFeedback] Nonnenmacher, J. and E. Biersack, "Optimal + Multicast Feedback", IEEE Infocom p. 964, + March/April 1998. + + [NormFeedback] Adamson, B. and J. Macker, "Quantitative + Prediction of NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast + (NORM) Feedback", IEEE MILCOM 2002, + October 2002. + + [PgmccPaper] Rizzo, L., "pgmcc: A TCP-Friendly Single-Rate + Multicast Congestion Control Scheme", ACM + SIGCOMM 2000, August 2000. + + [RFC2357] Mankin, A., Romanov, A., Bradner, S., and V. + Paxson, "IETF Criteria for Evaluating Reliable + Multicast Transport and Application Protocols", + RFC 2357, June 1998. + + [RFC3208] Speakman, T., Crowcroft, J., Gemmell, J., + Farinacci, D., Lin, S., Leshchiner, D., Luby, + M., Montgomery, T., Rizzo, L., Tweedly, A., + Bhaskar, N., Edmonstone, R., Sumanasekera, R., + and L. Vicisano, "PGM Reliable Transport + Protocol Specification", RFC 3208, + December 2001. + + [RFC3269] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines + for Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Building + Blocks and Protocol Instantiation documents", + RFC 3269, April 2002. + + [RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., + Handley, M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of + Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable + Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002. + + [RFC3940] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. + Macker, "Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)- + Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol", + RFC 3940, November 2004. + + [RFC3941] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. + Macker, "Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK)- + Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Building + Blocks", RFC 3941, November 2004. + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + + [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for + the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, + December 2005. + + [RFC4359] Weis, B., "The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures + within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and + Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4359, + January 2006. + + [RFC4535] Harney, H., Meth, U., Colegrove, A., and G. + Gross, "GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Key + Management Protocol", RFC 4535, June 2006. + + [RFC4654] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "TCP-Friendly + Multicast Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol + Specification", RFC 4654, August 2006. + + [RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward + Error Correction (FEC) Building Block", + RFC 5052, August 2007. + + [RmClasses] Levine, B. and J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "A + Comparison of Known Classes of Reliable + Multicast Protocols", Proc. International + Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP- + 96) Columbus, OH, October 1996. + + [RmComparison] Pingali, S., Towsley, D., and J. Kurose, "A + Comparison of Sender-Initiated and Receiver- + Initiated Reliable Multicast Protocols", Proc. + INFOCOMM San Francisco, CA, October 1993. + + [RmFec] Macker, J., "Reliable Multicast Transport and + Integrated Erasure-based Forward Error + Correction", IEEE MILCOM 1997, October 1997. + + [SrmFramework] Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., McCanne, S., Liu, C., + and L. Zhang, "A Reliable Multicast Framework + for Light-weight Sessions and Application Level + Framing", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, August 1995. + + [TfmccPaper] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "Extending Equation- + Based Congestion Control to Multicast + Applications", ACM SIGCOMM 2001, August 2001. + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 5401 Multicast NACK BB November 2008 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Brian Adamson + Naval Research Laboratory + Washington, DC 20375 + + EMail: adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil + + + Carsten Bormann + Universitaet Bremen TZI + Postfach 330440 + D-28334 Bremen, Germany + + EMail: cabo@tzi.org + + + Mark Handley + University College London + Gower Street + London, WC1E 6BT + UK + + EMail: M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk + + + Joe Macker + Naval Research Laboratory + Washington, DC 20375 + + EMail: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Adamson, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + |