Transcript Part I: Introduction - Tel Aviv University

Transport Layer
goals:
Overview:
 understand principles behind
 transport layer services
transport layer services:
 multiplexing/demultiplexing
multiplexing/demultiplexing  connectionless transport: UDP
 reliable data transfer
 principles of reliable data transfer
 flow control
 connection-oriented transport: TCP
 congestion control
 reliable transfer
 instantiation and
 connection management
implementation in the
 flow control

Internet
 principles of congestion control
 TCP congestion control
1
Transport services and protocols
 provide logical communication
between app’ processes running on
different hosts
 transport protocols run in end
systems (primarily)
transport vs network layer services:
 network layer: data transfer
between end systems
 transport layer: data transfer
between processes

relies on, enhances, network layer
services
application
transport
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
application
transport
network
data link
physical
similar issues at data link layer.
2
Transport-layer protocols
Internet transport services:
 reliable, in-order unicast delivery
(TCP)



congestion
flow control
connection setup
 unreliable (“best-effort”),
unordered unicast or multicast
delivery: UDP
 services not available:



real-time
bandwidth guarantees
reliable multicast
application
transport
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
network
data link
physical
application
transport
network
data link
physical
3
Principles of Reliable data transfer
 important in app., transport, link layers
 an important networking topic!
 characteristics of unreliable channel will determine complexity of
reliable data transfer protocol (rdt)
4
Reliable data transfer: getting started
rdt_send(): called from above,
(e.g., by app.). Passed data to
deliver to receiver upper layer
send
side
udt_send(): called by rdt,
to transfer packet over
unreliable channel to receiver
deliver_data(): called by
rdt to deliver data to upper
receive
side
rdt_rcv(): called when packet
arrives on rcv-side of channel
5
Reliable data transfer: getting started
We’ll:
 incrementally develop sender, receiver sides of reliable
data transfer protocol (rdt)
 consider only unidirectional data transfer

but control info will flow on both directions!
 use finite state machines (FSM) to specify sender,
receiver
state: when in this
“state” next state
uniquely determined
by next event
event causing state transition
actions taken on state transition
state
1
event
actions
state
2
6
Rdt1.0: reliable transfer over a reliable channel
 underlying channel perfectly reliable
 no bit errors
 no loss of packets
 separate FSMs for sender, receiver:
 sender sends data into underlying channel
 receiver read data from underlying channel
7
Rdt2.0: channel with bit errors
 underlying channel may flip bits in packet
 use checksum to detect bit errors
 the question: how to recover from errors:
 acknowledgements (ACKs): receiver explicitly tells sender that pkt
received OK.
 negative acknowledgements (NACKs): receiver explicitly tells
sender that pkt had errors.
 sender retransmits pkt on receipt of NAK.
 new mechanisms in rdt2.0 (beyond rdt1.0):
 error detection.
 receiver feedback: control msgs (ACK,NACK) rcvr->sender.
8
rdt2.0: FSM specification
sender FSM
receiver FSM
9
rdt2.0: in action (no errors)
sender FSM
receiver FSM
10
rdt2.0: in action (error scenario)
sender FSM
receiver FSM
11
rdt 2.0 (correctness)
Assumptions for unreliable channel (uc 2.0):
• Packets (data, ACK and NACK) are delivered in order.
• Data packets might get corrupt (and the corruption is detectable).
• If we continue sending data packets, eventually,
an uncorrupted data packet arrives.
• ACK and NACK do not get corrupt.
Theorem : rdt 2.0 delivers packets reliably over channel uc 2.0.
Claim 1: There is at most one packet in transit.
12
Rdt 2.0 (correctness)
Typical sequence in the system:
“wait for call”
rdt_send(data)
“wait for Ack/Nack”
udt_send(data) udt_snd(NACK)
...
udt_send(data) udt_snd(ACK)
“wait for call”
13
rdt 2.0 (correctness)
Claim I: In state “wait for call” all data received at sender was
delivered (once and in order) to the receiver.
Claim II: In state “wait ACK/NACK” (1) all data received (except
current packet) was delivered, and (2) eventually move to state
“wait for call”.
Sketch of Proof:
Proof is by induction on the events.
The base of the induction is trivial.
14
Rdt 2.0 (correctness)
Initially the sender is in “wait for call” (Claim I holds).
Assume rdt_snd(data) occurs.
The sender changes state “wait for Ack”.
Part 1 of Claim B holds from Claim I.
In “wait for Ack/ Nack” sender performs udt_send(sndpkt).
If sndpkt is corrupt, the receiver sends NACK, and the sender resends.
Eventually sndpkt is delivered un-corrupted.
The receiver delivers the data (all data delivered) and sends Ack.
The sender moves to “wait for call” (Part 2 Claim II holds).
When sender is in “wait for call” all data was delivered (Claim I holds).
15
rdt2.0 - garbled ACK/NACK
What happens if ACK/NACK
corrupted?
What to do?
 sender doesn’t know what
retransmit, but this might cause
retransmission of correctly
received pkt! Duplicate.
 Assume it was an ACK continue to next data, but this
might cause the data to never
reach the receiver! Missing.
 sender ACKs/NACKs receiver’s
ACK/NACK.
What if sender ACK/NACK
corrupted?
happened at receiver!
 If ACK was lost:


Data was delivered
Needs to return to “wait for call”
 If NACK was lost:


Data was not delivered.
Needs to re-send data.
 Assume it was a NACK -
16
rdt2.0 - garbled ACK/NACK
Handling duplicates:
 sender adds sequence number to
each packet
 sender retransmits current packet
if ACK/NACK garbled receiver
discards (doesn’t deliver up)
duplicate packet
stop and wait
Sender sends one packet,
then waits for receiver
response
17
rdt2.1: sender, handles garbled ACK/NAKs
&& has_seq1(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq0(rcvpkt)
18
rdt2.1: receiver, handles garbled ACK/NAKs
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq0(rcvpkt)
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& corrupt(rcvpkt)
Extract(rcvpkt,data)
deliver_data(data)
udt_send(ACK[0])
udt_send(NACK[1])
udt_send(NACK[0])
Wait for 0
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq1(rcvpkt)
udt_send(ACK[1])
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& corrupt(rcvpkt)
Wait for 1
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq1(rcvpkt)
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq0(rcvpkt)
udt_send(ACK[0])
Extract(rcvpkt,data)
deliver_data(data)
udt_send(ACK[1])
19
rdt2.1: discussion
Sender:
 seq # added to pkt
 two seq. #’s (0,1) will
suffice. Why?
 must check if received
ACK/NACK corrupted
 twice as many states

state must “remember”
whether “current” pkt has 0
or 1 seq. #
Receiver:
 must check if received
packet is duplicate

state indicates whether 0 or 1
is expected pkt seq #
 note: receiver can not know
if its last ACK/NACK
received OK at sender
20
rdt2.2: a NAK-free protocol
sender
FSM
 same functionality as
rdt2.1, using ACKs only
 instead of NAK, receiver
sends ACK for last pkt
received OK

receiver must explicitly
include seq # of pkt being
ACKed
 duplicate ACK at sender
!
results in same action as
NAK: retransmit current
pkt
21
rdt3.0: channels with errors and loss
New assumption: underlying
channel can also lose
packets (data or ACKs)

checksum, seq. #, ACKs,
retransmissions will be of
help, but not enough
Q: how to deal with loss?
Approach: sender waits
“reasonable” amount of time
for ACK
 retransmits if no ACK received in
this time
 if pkt (or ACK) just delayed (not
lost):
 retransmission will be
duplicate, but use of seq. #’s
already handles this
 receiver must specify seq # of
pkt being ACKed
 requires countdown timer
22
rdt3.0 sender
0
1
23
rdt 3.0 receiver
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq0(rcvpkt)
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& corrupt(rcvpkt)
Extract(rcvpkt,data)
deliver_data(data)
udt_send(ACK[0])
udt_send(ACK[0])
udt_send(ACK[1])
Wait for 0
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq1(rcvpkt)
udt_send(ACK[1])
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& corrupt(rcvpkt)
Wait for 1
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq1(rcvpkt)
rdt_rcv(rcvpkt)
&& notcorrupt(rcvpkt)
&& has_seq0(rcvpkt)
udt_send(ACK[0])
Extract(rcvpkt,data)
deliver_data(data)
udt_send(ACK[1])
24
rdt3.0 in action
25
rdt3.0 in action
26
Performance of rdt3.0
 rdt3.0 works, but performance stinks
 example: 1 Gbps link, 15 ms e-e prop. delay, 8Kb packet:
Ttransmit =
8kb/pkt
= 8 microsec
10**9 b/sec
8 microsec
fraction of time
=
= 0.00015
Utilization = U = sender busy sending
30.016 msec


8Kb pkt every 30 msec -> 266kb/sec throughput over 1 Gbps link
network protocol limits use of physical resources!
27
rdt 3.0 - correctness
Assumptions for unreliable channel (uc 3.0):
• Data packets and Ack packets are delivered in order.
• Data and ACK packets might get corrupt or lost
• If we continue sending data/ACK packets, eventually,
an uncorrupted data packet arrives.
Two main issues:
Safety - the data that the receiver outputs are correct.
Liveness - the receiver eventually outputs more data
28
rdt 3.0 - correctness
rdt_rcv(ACK1)
rdt_send(data,seq0)
Wait call 0 wait for 0
Wait Ack0 wait for 0
rdt_rcv(data,seq1)
rdt_rcv(data, seq0)
Wait Ack0 wait for 1
rdt_rcv(ACK0)
Wait Ack1 wait for 0
Wait Ack1 wait for 1
Wait call 1 wait for 1
rdt_send(data,seq1)
29
rdt 3.0 - correctness
Wait Ack0 wait for 0
rdt_rcv(data, seq0)
All packets in transit
have seq. Num. 0
Wait Ack0 wait for 1
Wait Ack0 wait for 1
rdt_rcv(ACK0)
All ACK in transit
are ACK0
Wait call 1 wait for 1
30