TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we explore the operation of TCP congestion control when the receiver can misbehave, as might occur with a greedy Web client. We first demonstrate that there are simple attacks that allow a misbehaving receiver to drive a standard TCP sender arbitrarily fast, without losing end-to-end reliability. These attacks are widely applicable because they stem from the sender behavior specified in RFC 2581 rather than implementation bugs. We then show that it is possible to modify TCP to eliminate this undesirable behavior entirely, without requiring assumptions of any kind about receiver behavior. This is a strong result: with our solution a receiver can only reduce the data transfer rate by misbehaving, thereby eliminating the incentive to do so.

REFERENCES

• 1: Mark Allman, On the generation and use of TCP acknowledgments, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.28 n.5, p.4-21, Oct. 1998 [doi>10.1145/303297.303301]
• 2: Mark Allman, TCP byte counting refinements, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.29 n.3, July 1999 [doi>10.1145/505724.505727]
• 3: Martín Abadi , Roger Needham, Prudent Engineering Practice for Cryptographic Protocols, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.22 n.1, p.6-15, January 1996 [doi>10.1109/32.481513]
• 4: {APS99} M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens. TCP congestion control. RFC 2581, April 1999.
• 5: Sally Floyd , Kevin Fall, Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), v.7 n.4, p.458-472, Aug. 1999 [doi>10.1109/90.793002]
• 6: {FGM+99} R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, and T. Berners-Lee. Hypertext Transfer Protocol --- HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616, June 1999.
• 7: {Flo95} Sally Floyd. TCP and successive fast retransmits, http://www.aciri.org/floyd/papers/fastretrans.ps, May1995.
• 8: {FMM+99} Sally Floyd, Jamshid Mahdavi, Matt Mathis, Matthew Podolsky, and Allyn Romanow. An extension to the selective acknowledgment (SACK) option for TCP. Internet Draft, August 1999.
• 9: V. Jacobson, Congestion avoidance and control, Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and protocols, p.314-329, August 16-18, 1988, Stanford, California, United States
• 10: {JBB92} V. Jacobson, R. Braden, and D. Borman. TCP extensions for high performance. RFC 1323, May 1992.
• 11: {KA98} S. Kent and R. Atkinson. Security architecture for the internet protocol. RFC 2401, November 1998.
• 12: {MMFR96} Matt Mathis, Jamshid Mahdavi, Sally Floyd, and Allyn Romanow. TCP Selective Acknowledgement options. RFC 2018, April 1996.
• 13: {PAD+99} V. Paxson, M. Allman, S. Dawson, W. Fenner, J. Griner, I. Heavens, K. Lahey, J. Semke, and B. Volz. Known TCP implementation problems. RFC 2525, March 1999.
• 14: {RHE99} Reza Rejaie, Mark Handley, and Deborah Estrin. RAP: An end-to-end rate-based congestion control mechanism for realtime streams in the Internet, In INFOCOM '99, March 1999.
• 15: {Sch96} Bruce Schneier. Applied Cryptography. John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition, 1996.
• 16: Scott Shenker, Making greed work in networks: a game-theoretic analysis of switch service disciplines, Proceedings of the conference on Communications architectures, protocols and applications, p.47-57, August 31-September 02, 1994, London, United Kingdom
• 17: {Ste94} W. Richard Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated, volume 1. Addison Wesley, 1994.
• 18: {Vas} Fyodor Vaskovich. nmap. http://www.insecure.org/nmap/.
• 19: {VRC98} L. Vivisano, L. Rizzo, and J. Crowcroft. TCP-like congestion control for layered multicast data transfer. In INFOCOM '98, April 1998.
• 20: {ZDE+93} L. Zhang, S. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Shenker, and D. Zappala. RSVP: A New Resource ReSerVation Protocol. IEEE Network, pages 8-18, September 1993.