GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing www.rfc-editor.org — RFC 8684: TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses | RFC Editor View as: RFC 8684: TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
Proposed Standard
AbstractTCP/IP communication is currently restricted to a single path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers. The simultaneous use of these multiple paths for a TCP/IP session would improve resource usage within the network and thus improve user experience through higher throughput and improved resilience to network failure.¶ Multipath TCP provides the ability to simultaneously use multiple paths between peers. This document presents a set of extensions to traditional TCP to support multipath operation. The protocol offers the same type of service to applications as TCP (i.e., a reliable bytestream), and it provides the components necessary to establish and use multiple TCP flows across potentially disjoint paths.¶ This document specifies v1 of Multipath TCP, obsoleting v0 as specified in RFC 6824, through clarifications and modifications primarily driven by deployment experience.¶ Status of This MemoThis is an Internet Standards Track document.¶ This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https:// Copyright NoticeCopyright (c) 2020 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
(https:// 1. Introduction Skip to TOCMultipath TCP (MPTCP) is a set of extensions to regular TCP [RFC0793] to provide a Multipath TCP service [RFC6182], which enables a transport connection to operate across multiple paths simultaneously. This document presents the protocol changes required to add multipath capability to TCP -- specifically, those for signaling and setting up multiple paths ("subflows"), managing these subflows, reassembly of data, and termination of sessions. This is not the only information required to create a Multipath TCP implementation, however. This document is complemented by three others:¶
This document obsoletes the v0 specification of Multipath TCP [RFC6824]. This document specifies MPTCP v1, which is not backward compatible with MPTCP v0. This document additionally defines version negotiation procedures for implementations that support both versions.¶ 1.1. Design Assumptions Skip to TOCIn order to limit the potentially huge design space, the MPTCP Working Group imposed two key constraints on the Multipath TCP design presented in this document:¶
To simplify the design, we assume that the presence of multiple addresses at a host is sufficient to indicate the existence of multiple paths. These paths need not be entirely disjoint: they may share one or many routers between them. Even in such a situation, making use of multiple paths is beneficial, improving resource utilization and resilience to a subset of node failures. The congestion control algorithm defined in [RFC6356] ensures that the use of multiple paths does not act detrimentally. Furthermore, there may be some scenarios where different TCP ports on a single host can provide disjoint paths (such as through certain Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) implementations [RFC2992]), and so the MPTCP design also supports the use of ports in path identifiers.¶ There are three aspects to the backward compatibility listed above (discussed in more detail in [RFC6182]):¶
The complementary application considerations document [RFC6897] discusses the necessary features of an API to provide backward compatibility, as well as API extensions to convey the behavior of MPTCP at a level of control and information equivalent to that available with regular, single-path TCP.¶ Further discussion of the design constraints and associated design decisions is given in the MPTCP architecture document [RFC6182] and in [howhard].¶ 1.2. Multipath TCP in the Networking Stack Skip to TOCMPTCP operates at the transport layer and aims to be transparent to both higher and lower layers. It is a set of additional features on top of standard TCP; Figure 1 illustrates this layering. MPTCP is designed to be usable by legacy applications with no changes; detailed discussion of its interactions with applications is given in [RFC6897].¶ +-------------------------------+
| Application |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+
| Application | | MPTCP |
+---------------+ + - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - +
| TCP | | Subflow (TCP) | Subflow (TCP) |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+
| IP | | IP | IP |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+1.3. Terminology Skip to TOCThis document makes use of a number of terms that are either MPTCP specific or have defined meaning in the context of MPTCP, as follows:¶
In addition to these terms, note that MPTCP's interpretation of, and effect on, regular single-path TCP semantics are discussed in Section 4.¶ 1.4. MPTCP Concept Skip to TOCThis section provides a high-level summary of normal operation of MPTCP; this type of scenario is illustrated in Figure 2. A detailed description of how MPTCP operates is given in Section 3.¶ Host A Host B
------------------------ ------------------------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1 Address B2
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| | | |
| (initial connection setup) | |
|----------------------------------->| |
|<-----------------------------------| |
| | | |
| (additional subflow setup) |
| |--------------------->| |
| |<---------------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
1.5. Requirements Language Skip to TOCThe key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶ 2. Operation Overview Skip to TOCThis section presents a single description of common MPTCP operation, with reference to the protocol operation. This is a high-level overview of the key functions; the full specification follows in Section 3. Extensibility and negotiated features are not discussed here. Considerable reference is made to symbolic names of MPTCP options throughout this section -- these are subtypes of the IANA‑assigned MPTCP option (see Section 7), and their formats are defined in the detailed protocol specification provided in Section 3.¶ A Multipath TCP connection provides a bidirectional bytestream between two hosts communicating like normal TCP and thus does not require any change to the applications. However, Multipath TCP enables the hosts to use different paths with different IP addresses to exchange packets belonging to the MPTCP connection. A Multipath TCP connection appears like a normal TCP connection to an application. However, to the network layer, each MPTCP subflow looks like a regular TCP flow whose segments carry a new TCP option type. Multipath TCP manages the creation, removal, and utilization of these subflows to send data. The number of subflows that are managed within a Multipath TCP connection is not fixed, and it can fluctuate during the lifetime of the Multipath TCP connection.¶ All MPTCP operations are signaled with a TCP option -- a single numerical type for MPTCP, with "subtypes" for each MPTCP message. What follows is a summary of the purpose and rationale of these messages.¶ 2.1. Initiating an MPTCP Connection Skip to TOCThis is the same signaling as for initiating a normal TCP connection, but the SYN, SYN/ACK, and initial ACK (and data) packets also carry the MP_ Host A Host B
------ ------
MP_CAPABLE ->
[flags]
<- MP_CAPABLE
[B's key, flags]
ACK + MP_CAPABLE (+ data) ->
[A's key, B's key, flags, (data-level details)]Retransmission of the ACK + MP_ Host A (with data to send immediately) Host B
------ ------
MP_CAPABLE ->
[flags]
<- MP_CAPABLE
[B's key, flags]
ACK + MP_CAPABLE + data ->
[A's key, B's key, flags, data-level details]
Host A (with data to send later) Host B
------ ------
MP_CAPABLE ->
[flags]
<- MP_CAPABLE
[B's key, flags]
ACK + MP_CAPABLE ->
[A's key, B's key, flags]
ACK + MP_CAPABLE + data ->
[A's key, B's key, flags, data-level details]
Host A Host B (sending first)
------ ------
MP_CAPABLE ->
[flags]
<- MP_CAPABLE
[B's key, flags]
ACK + MP_CAPABLE ->
[A's key, B's key, flags]
<- ACK + DSS + data
[data-level details]2.2. Associating a New Subflow with an Existing MPTCP Connection Skip to TOCThe exchange of keys in the MP_ Host A initiates a new subflow between one of its addresses and one
of Host B's addresses. The token -- generated from the key -- is used
to identify which MPTCP connection it is joining, and the Hash‑based
Message Authentication Code (HMAC) is used for authentication. The HMAC uses the keys exchanged in the MP_ Host A Host B
------ ------
MP_JOIN ->
[B's token, A's nonce,
A's Address ID, flags]
<- MP_JOIN
[B's HMAC, B's nonce,
B's Address ID, flags]
ACK + MP_JOIN ->
[A's HMAC]
<- ACK2.3. Informing the Other Host about Another Potential Address Skip to TOCThe set of IP addresses associated to a multihomed host may change during the lifetime of an MPTCP connection. MPTCP supports the addition and removal of addresses on a host both implicitly and explicitly. If Host A has established a subflow starting at address/port pair IP#-A1 and wants to open a second subflow starting at address/port pair IP#-A2, it simply initiates the establishment of the subflow as explained above. The remote host will then be implicitly informed about the new address.¶ In some circumstances, a host may want to advertise to the remote
host the availability of an address without establishing a new subflow
-- for example, when a NAT prevents setup in one direction. In the example below, Host A informs Host B about its alternative IP address/port pair (IP#-A2). Host B may later send an MP_ Host A Host B
------ ------
ADD_ADDR ->
[Echo-flag=0,
IP#-A2,
IP#-A2's Address ID,
HMAC of IP#-A2]
<- ADD_ADDR
[Echo-flag=1,
IP#-A2,
IP#-A2's Address ID,
HMAC of IP#-A2]There is a corresponding signal for address removal, making use of
the Address ID that is signaled in the ADD_ Host A Host B ------ ------ REMOVE_ADDR -> [IP#-A2's Address ID] 2.4. Data Transfer Using MPTCP Skip to TOCTo ensure reliable, in-order delivery of data over subflows that may appear and disappear at any time, MPTCP uses a 64-bit Data Sequence Number (DSN) to number all data sent over the MPTCP connection. Each subflow has its own 32-bit sequence number space, utilizing the regular TCP sequence number header, and an MPTCP option maps the subflow sequence space to the data sequence space. In this way, data can be retransmitted on different subflows (mapped to the same DSN) in the event of failure.¶ The Data Sequence Signal (DSS) carries the Data Sequence Mapping. The Data Sequence Mapping consists of the subflow sequence number, data sequence number, and length for which this mapping is valid. This option can also carry a connection- With MPTCP, all subflows share the same receive buffer and advertise the same receive window. There are two levels of acknowledgment in MPTCP. Regular TCP acknowledgments are used on each subflow to acknowledge the reception of the segments sent over the subflow independently of their DSN. In addition, there are connection- Further details are given in Section 3.3.¶ Host A Host B ------ ------ DSS -> [Data Sequence Mapping] [Data ACK] [Checksum] 2.5. Requesting a Change in a Path's Priority Skip to TOCHosts can indicate at initial subflow setup whether they wish the subflow to be used as a regular or backup path -- a backup path only being used if there are no regular paths available. During a connection, Host A can request a change in the priority of a subflow through the MP_ Host A Host B ------ ------ MP_PRIO -> 2.6. Closing an MPTCP Connection Skip to TOCWhen a host wants to close an existing subflow but not the whole connection, it can initiate a regular TCP FIN/ACK exchange.¶ When Host A wants to inform Host B that it has no more data to send, it signals this "Data FIN" as part of the DSS (see above). It has the same semantics and behavior as a regular TCP FIN, but at the connection level. Once all the data on the MPTCP connection has been successfully received, this message is acknowledged at the connection level with a Data ACK. Further details are given in Section 3.3.3.¶ Host A Host B
------ ------
DSS ->
[Data FIN]
<- DSS
[Data ACK]There is an additional method of connection closure, referred to as
"Fast Close", which is analogous to closing a single-path TCP
connection with a RST signal. The MP_ Host A Host B
------ ------
ACK + MP_FASTCLOSE ->
[B's key]
[RST on all other subflows] ->
<- [RST on all subflows]
Host A Host B
------ ------
RST + MP_FASTCLOSE ->
[B's key] [on all subflows]
<- [RST on all subflows]2.7. Notable Features Skip to TOCIt is worth highlighting that MPTCP's signaling has been designed with several key requirements in mind:¶
3. MPTCP Operations: An Overview Skip to TOCThis section describes the operation of MPTCP. The subsections below discuss each key part of the protocol operation.¶ All MPTCP operations are signaled using optional TCP header fields. A single TCP option number ("Kind") has been assigned by IANA for MPTCP (see Section 7), and then individual messages will be determined by a "subtype", the values of which are also stored in an IANA registry (and are also listed in Section 7). As with all TCP options, the Length field is specified in bytes and includes the 2 bytes of Kind and Length.¶ Throughout this document, when reference is made to an MPTCP option by symbolic name, such as "MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype| | +---------------+---------------+-------+ | | Subtype-specific data | | (variable length) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Those MPTCP options associated with subflow initiation are used on packets with the SYN flag set. Additionally, there is one MPTCP option for signaling metadata to ensure that segmented data can be recombined for delivery to the application.¶ The remaining options, however, are signals that do not need to be on a specific packet, such as those for signaling additional addresses. While an implementation may desire to send MPTCP options as soon as possible, it may not be possible to combine all desired options (both those for MPTCP and for regular TCP, such as SACK (selective acknowledgment) [RFC2018]) on a single packet. Therefore, an implementation may choose to send duplicate ACKs containing the additional signaling information. This changes the semantics of a duplicate ACK; these are usually only sent as a signal of a lost segment [RFC5681] in regular TCP. Therefore, an MPTCP implementation receiving a duplicate ACK that contains an MPTCP option MUST NOT treat it as a signal of congestion. Additionally, an MPTCP implementation SHOULD NOT send more than two duplicate ACKs in a row for the purposes of sending MPTCP options alone, in order to ensure that no middleboxes misinterpret this as a sign of congestion.¶ Furthermore, standard TCP validity checks (such as ensuring that the sequence number and acknowledgment number are within the window) MUST be undertaken before processing any MPTCP signals, as described in [RFC5961], and initial subflow sequence numbers SHOULD be generated according to the recommendations in [RFC6528].¶ 3.1. Connection Initiation Skip to TOCConnection initiation begins with a SYN, SYN/ACK, ACK exchange
on a single path. Each packet
contains the Multipath Capable (MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype|Version|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H| +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+ | Option Sender's Key (64 bits) | | (if option Length > 4) | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Option Receiver's Key (64 bits) | | (if option Length > 12) | | | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Data-Level Length (16 bits) | Checksum (16 bits, optional) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ The MP_ The MP_ The MP_
The contents of the option are determined by the SYN and ACK flags of the packet, along with the option's Length field. In Figure 4, "Sender" and "Receiver" refer to the sender or receiver of the TCP packet (which can be either host).¶ The initial SYN, containing just the MP_ This option is used to declare the 64-bit keys that the end hosts have generated for this MPTCP connection. These keys are used to authenticate the addition of future subflows to this connection. This is the only time the key will be sent in the clear on the wire (unless "Fast Close" (Section 3.5) is used); all future subflows will identify the connection using a 32-bit "token". This token is a cryptographic hash of this key. The algorithm for this process is dependent on the authentication algorithm selected; the method of selection is defined later in this section.¶ Upon reception of the initial SYN segment, a stateful server generates a random key and replies with a SYN/ACK. The key's method of generation is implementation specific. The key MUST be hard to guess, and it MUST be unique for the sending host across all its current MPTCP connections. Recommendations for generating random numbers for use in keys are given in [RFC4086]. Connections will be indexed at each host by the token (a one-way hash of the key). Therefore, an implementation will require a mapping from each token to the corresponding connection, and in turn to the keys for the connection.¶ There is a risk that two different keys will hash to the same token. The risk of hash collisions is usually small, unless the host is handling many tens of thousands of connections. Therefore, an implementation SHOULD check its list of connection tokens to ensure that there is no collision before sending its key, and if there is, then it should generate a new key. This would, however, be costly for a server with thousands of connections. The subflow handshake mechanism (Section 3.2) will ensure that new subflows only join the correct connection, however, through the cryptographic handshake, as well as checking the connection tokens in both directions, and ensuring that sequence numbers are in-window. So, in the worst case, if there was a token collision, the new subflow would not succeed, but the MPTCP connection would continue to provide a regular TCP service.¶ Since key generation is implementation specific, there is no requirement that they simply be random numbers. An implementation is free to exchange cryptographic material out of band and generate these keys from this material, in order to provide additional mechanisms by which to verify the identity of the communicating entities. For example, an implementation could choose to link its MPTCP keys to those used in higher-layer TLS or SSH connections.¶ If the server behaves in a
stateless manner, it has to generate its own key in a verifiable
fashion. This verifiable way of generating the key can be done by
using a hash of the 4-tuple, sequence number, and a local secret
(similar to what is done for the TCP sequence number [RFC4987]).
It will thus be able to verify whether it is indeed the originator of
the key echoed back in the subsequent MP_ The ACK carries both A's key and B's key. This is the first time that A's key is seen on the wire, although it is expected that A will have generated a key locally before the initial SYN. The echoing of B's key allows B to operate statelessly, as described above. Therefore, A's key must be delivered reliably to B, and in order to do this, the transmission of this packet must be made reliable.¶ If B has data to send first, then the reliable delivery of the
ACK + MP_ There could be situations where both A and B attempt to transmit
initial data at the same time. For example, if A did not initially
have data to send but then needed to transmit data before it had
received anything from B, it would use an MP_ Additionally, the MP_ Like all MPTCP options, the MP_ The second octet is reserved for flags, allocated as follows:¶
A crypto algorithm MUST be specified. If flag bits "D" through "H" are all 0, the MP_ The selection of the authentication algorithm also impacts the algorithm used to generate the token and the IDSN. In this specification, with only the SHA-256 algorithm (bit "H") specified and selected, the token MUST be a truncated (most significant 32 bits) SHA-256 hash [RFC6234] of the key. A different, 64-bit truncation (the least significant 64 bits) of the SHA-256 hash of the key MUST be used as the IDSN. Note that the key MUST be hashed in network byte order. Also note that the "least significant" bits MUST be the rightmost bits of the SHA-256 digest, as per [RFC6234]. Future specifications of the use of the crypto bits may choose to specify different algorithms for token and IDSN generation.¶ Both the crypto and checksum bits negotiate capabilities in similar
ways. For the "Checksum required" bit (labeled "A"), if either host
requires the use of checksums, checksums MUST be
used. In other words, the only way for checksums not to be used is if
both hosts in their SYNs set A=0. This decision is confirmed by the
setting of the "A" bit in the third packet (the ACK) of the
handshake. For example, if the initiator sets A=0 in the SYN but the
responder sets A=1 in the SYN/ACK, checksums MUST be
used in both directions, and the initiator will set A=1 in the
ACK. The decision regarding whether to use checksums will be stored by an implementation in a per-connection binary state variable. If A=1 is received by a host that does not want to use checksums, it MUST fall back to regular TCP by ignoring the MP_ For crypto negotiation, the responder has the choice. The initiator
creates a proposal setting a bit for each algorithm it supports to 1
(in this version of the specification, there is only one proposal, so
bit "H" will always be set to 1). The responder responds with only 1 bit set -- this is the chosen algorithm. The rationale for this behavior is that the responder will typically be a server with potentially many thousands of connections, so it may wish to choose an algorithm with minimal computational complexity, depending on the load. If a responder does not support (or does not want to support) any of the initiator's proposals, it MUST respond without an MP_ The MP_ If a SYN contains an MP_ If the SYN packets are unacknowledged, it is up to local
policy to decide how to respond. It is expected that a sender
will eventually fall back to single-path TCP (i.e., without the
MP_ The IDSN on an MPTCP connection
is generated from the key. The algorithm for IDSN generation is
also determined from the negotiated authentication algorithm.
In this specification, with only the SHA-256 algorithm specified and
selected, the IDSN of a host MUST be the least significant 64 bits of the
SHA-256 hash of its key, i.e., IDSN-A = Hash(Key-A) and IDSN-B = Hash(Key-B).
This deterministic generation of the IDSN allows a receiver to ensure
that there are no gaps in sequence space at the start of the connection.
The SYN with MP_ 3.2. Starting a New Subflow Skip to TOCOnce an MPTCP connection has begun with the MP_ A new subflow is started as a normal TCP SYN/ACK
exchange. The Join Connection (MP_ This section specifies the behavior of MP_ In the first MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+---------------+ | Kind | Length = 12 |Subtype|(rsv)|B| Address ID | +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+---------------+ | Receiver's Token (32 bits) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Sender's Random Number (32 bits) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ The token is used to identify the MPTCP connection and is a
cryptographic hash of the receiver's key, as exchanged
in the initial MP_ The MP_ The MP_ The Address IDs of the subflow used in the initial SYN exchange of the first subflow in the connection are implicit and have the value zero. A host MUST store the mappings between Address IDs and addresses both for itself and the remote host. An implementation will also need to know which local and remote Address IDs are associated with which established subflows, for when addresses are removed from a local or remote host.¶ The MP_ When receiving a SYN with an MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+---------------+ | Kind | Length = 16 |Subtype|(rsv)|B| Address ID | +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+---------------+ | | | Sender's Truncated HMAC (64 bits) | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Sender's Random Number (32 bits) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ An HMAC is sent by both hosts -- by the initiator (Host A)
in the third packet (the ACK) and by the responder (Host B) in
the second packet (the SYN/ACK). Doing the HMAC exchange at this
stage allows both hosts to have first exchanged random data (in the
first two SYN packets) that is used as the "message". This
specification defines that HMAC as defined in [RFC2104]
is used, along with the SHA-256 hash algorithm [RFC6234],
and that the output is truncated to the leftmost 160 bits (20 octets).
Due to option space limitations, the HMAC included in
the SYN/ACK is truncated to the leftmost 64 bits, but this is
acceptable, since random numbers are used; thus, an attacker
only has one chance to correctly guess the HMAC that matches the random
number previously sent by the peer (if the HMAC is
incorrect, the TCP connection is closed, so a new MP_ The initiator's authentication information is sent in its
first ACK (the third packet of the handshake), as shown in
Figure 7. This data needs to be sent reliably,
since it is the only time this HMAC is sent;
therefore, receipt of this packet MUST trigger a regular TCP ACK
in response, and the packet MUST be retransmitted if this
ACK is not received. In other words, sending the ACK 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | Kind | Length = 24 |Subtype| (reserved) | +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | | | | | Sender's Truncated HMAC (160 bits) | | | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ The key for the HMAC algorithm, in the case of the message
transmitted by Host A, will be Key-A followed by Key-B; and in the
case of Host B, Key-B followed by Key-A. These are the keys that were
exchanged in the original MP_ These various MPTCP options fit together to enable authenticated subflow setup as illustrated in Figure 8.¶ Host A Host B
------------------------ ----------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1
---------- ---------- ----------
| | |
| | SYN + MP_CAPABLE |
|--------------------------------------------->|
|<---------------------------------------------|
| SYN/ACK + MP_CAPABLE(Key-B) |
| | |
| ACK + MP_CAPABLE(Key-A, Key-B) |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| | |
| | SYN + MP_JOIN(Token-B, R-A) |
| |------------------------------->|
| |<-------------------------------|
| | SYN/ACK + MP_JOIN(HMAC-B, R-B) |
| | |
| | ACK + MP_JOIN(HMAC-A) |
| |------------------------------->|
| |<-------------------------------|
| | ACK |
HMAC-A = HMAC(Key=(Key-A + Key-B), Msg=(R-A + R-B))
HMAC-B = HMAC(Key=(Key-B + Key-A), Msg=(R-B + R-A))If the token received at Host B is unknown or local policy
prohibits the acceptance of the new subflow, the recipient MUST
respond with a TCP RST for the subflow. If appropriate, an MP_ If the token is accepted at Host B but the HMAC returned to
Host A does not match the one expected, Host A MUST close the
subflow with a TCP RST. In this and all subsequent cases of sending
a RST as described in this section, the sender SHOULD send an MP_ If Host B does not receive the expected HMAC or the MP_ If the HMACs are verified as correct, then both hosts have verified each other as being the same peers as those that existed at the start of the connection, and they have agreed of which connection this subflow will become a part.¶ If the SYN/ACK as received at Host A does not have an MP_ This covers all cases of the loss of an MP_ Note that additional subflows can be created
between any pair of ports (but see Section 3.9 for
heuristics); no explicit application- Demultiplexing subflow SYNs MUST be done using the token; this is unlike traditional TCP, where the destination port is used for demultiplexing SYN packets. Once a subflow is set up, demultiplexing packets is done using the 5-tuple, as in traditional TCP. The 5-tuples will be mapped to the local connection identifier (token). Note that Host A will know its local token for the subflow even though it is not sent on the wire -- only the responder's token is sent.¶ 3.3. MPTCP Operation and Data Transfer Skip to TOCThis section discusses the operation of MPTCP for data transfer. At a high level, an MPTCP implementation will take one input data stream from an application and split it into one or more subflows, with sufficient control information to allow it to be reassembled and delivered reliably and in order to the recipient application. The following subsections define this behavior in detail.¶ The Data Sequence Mapping and the Data ACK are signaled in the DSS option (Figure 9). Either or both can be signaled in one DSS, depending on the flags set. The Data Sequence Mapping defines how the sequence space on the subflow maps to the connection level, and the Data ACK acknowledges receipt of data at the connection level. These functions are described in more detail in the following two subsections.¶ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+----------------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype| (reserved) |F|m|M|a|A| +---------------+---------------+-------+----------------------+ | Data ACK (4 or 8 octets, depending on flags) | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Data Sequence Number (4 or 8 octets, depending on flags) | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Subflow Sequence Number (4 octets) | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Data-Level Length (2 octets) | Checksum (2 octets) | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ The flags, when set, define the contents of this option, as follows:¶
The flags "a" and "m" only have meaning if the corresponding "A" or "M" flags are set; otherwise, they will be ignored. The maximum length of this option, with all flags set, is 28 octets.¶ The "F" flag indicates "Data FIN". If present, this means that this
mapping covers the final data from the sender. This is the
connection- Note that the checksum is only present in this option if the use of
MPTCP checksumming has been negotiated at the MP_ 3.3.1. Data Sequence Mapping Skip to TOCThe data stream as a whole can be reassembled through the use of the Data Sequence Mapping components of the DSS option (Figure 9), which define the mapping from the subflow sequence number to the data sequence number. This is used by the receiver to ensure in-order delivery to the application layer. Meanwhile, the subflow-level sequence numbers (i.e., the regular sequence numbers in the TCP header) are only relevant to the subflow. It is expected (but not mandated) that SACK [RFC2018] will be used at the subflow level to improve efficiency.¶ The Data Sequence Mapping specifies a mapping from the subflow sequence space to the data sequence space. This is expressed in terms of starting sequence numbers for the subflow and the data level, and a length of bytes for which this mapping is valid. This explicit mapping for a range of data, rather than per‑packet signaling, was chosen to assist with compatibility with situations where TCP/IP segmentation or coalescing is undertaken separately from the stack that is generating the data flow (e.g., through the use of TCP segmentation offloading on network interface cards, or by middleboxes such as Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs) [RFC3135]). It also allows a single mapping to cover many packets; this may be useful in bulk‑transfer situations.¶ A mapping is fixed, in that the subflow sequence number is bound to the data sequence number after the mapping has been processed. A sender MUST NOT change this mapping after it has been declared; however, the same data sequence number can be mapped to by different subflows for retransmission purposes (see Section 3.3.6). This would also permit the same data to be sent simultaneously on multiple subflows for resilience or efficiency purposes, especially in the case of lossy links. Although the detailed specification of such operation is outside the scope of this document, an implementation SHOULD treat the first data that is received at a subflow for the data sequence space as the data that should be delivered to the application, and any subsequent data for that sequence space SHOULD be ignored.¶ The data sequence number is specified as an absolute value, whereas the subflow sequence numbering is relative (the SYN at the start of the subflow has a relative subflow sequence number of 0). This is done to allow middleboxes to change the Initial Sequence Number (ISN) of a subflow, such as firewalls that undertake ISN randomization.¶ The Data Sequence Mapping also contains a checksum of the data
that this mapping covers, if the use of checksums has been negotiated at
the MP_ The checksum algorithm used is the standard TCP checksum [RFC0793], operating over the data covered by this mapping, along with a pseudo‑header as shown in Figure 10.¶ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Sequence Number (8 octets) | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Subflow Sequence Number (4 octets) | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Data-Level Length (2 octets) | Zeros (2 octets) | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ Note that the data sequence number used in the pseudo-header is always the 64-bit value, irrespective of what length is used in the DSS option itself. The standard TCP checksum algorithm has been chosen, since it will be calculated anyway for the TCP subflow, and if calculated first over the data before adding the pseudo- Note that checksumming relies on the TCP subflow containing contiguous data; therefore, a TCP subflow MUST NOT use the Urgent Pointer to interrupt an existing mapping. Further note, however, that if Urgent data is received on a subflow, it SHOULD be mapped to the data sequence space and delivered to the application, analogous to Urgent data in regular TCP.¶ To avoid possible deadlock scenarios, subflow-level
processing should be undertaken separately from processing at the
connection level. Therefore, even if a mapping does not exist
from the subflow space to the data‑level space, the data
SHOULD still be ACKed at the subflow (if it is in-window).
This data cannot, however, be acknowledged at the data level
(Section 3.3.2) because its data sequence
numbers are unknown. Implementations MAY hold onto such
unmapped data for a short while, in the expectation that a
mapping will arrive shortly. Such unmapped data cannot be
counted as being within the connection- Data sequence numbers are always 64-bit quantities and MUST be maintained as such in implementations. If a connection is progressing at a slow rate, so protection against wrapped sequence numbers is not required, then an implementation MAY include just the lower 32 bits of the data sequence number in the Data Sequence Mapping and/or Data ACK as an optimization, and an implementation can make this choice independently for each packet. An implementation MUST be able to receive and process both 64-bit and 32-bit sequence number values, but it is not required that an implementation be able to send both.¶ An implementation MUST send the full 64-bit data sequence number if it is transmitting at a sufficiently high rate that the 32-bit value could wrap within the Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) [RFC7323]. The lengths of the DSNs used in these values (which may be different) are declared with flags in the DSS option. Implementations MUST accept a 32-bit DSN and implicitly promote it to a 64-bit quantity by incrementing the upper 32 bits of the sequence number each time the lower 32 bits wrap. A sanity check MUST be implemented to ensure that a wrap occurs at an expected time (e.g., the sequence number jumps from a very high number to a very low number) and is not triggered by out‑of-order packets.¶ As with the standard TCP sequence number, the data sequence
number should not start at zero, but at a random value to make
blind session hijacking harder. This specification requires
setting the IDSN of each host to the
least significant 64 bits of the SHA-256 hash of the host's key, as
described in Section 3.1. This is also required in
order for the receiver to know what the expected IDSN is and thus
determine if any initial connection- The mapping provided by a Data Sequence Mapping MUST apply to
some or all of the subflow sequence space in the TCP segment that
carries the option. It does not need to be included in
every MPTCP packet, as long as the subflow sequence space in
that packet is covered by a mapping known at the receiver. This
can be used to reduce overhead in cases where the mapping is
known in advance. One such case is when there is a single
subflow between the hosts, and another is when segments of
data are scheduled in larger- An "infinite" mapping can be used to fall back to regular TCP by
mapping the subflow-level data to the connection- 3.3.2. Data Acknowledgments Skip to TOCTo provide full end-to-end resilience, MPTCP provides a
connection- The Data ACK, as for the DSN, can be sent as the full 64-bit value or as the lower 32 bits. If data is received with a 64-bit DSN, it MUST be acknowledged with a 64-bit Data ACK. If the DSN received is 32 bits, an implementation can choose whether to send a 32-bit or 64-bit Data ACK, and an implementation MUST accept either in this situation.¶ The Data ACK proves that the data, and all required MPTCP
signaling, have been received and accepted by the remote end.
One key use of the Data ACK signal is that it is used to indicate
the left edge of the advertised receive window. As explained in
Section 3.3.4, the receive window is shared by all
subflows and is relative to the Data ACK. Because of this, an
implementation MUST NOT use the RCV An MPTCP sender MUST NOT free data from the send buffer until
it has been acknowledged by both a Data ACK received on any subflow
and at the subflow level by all subflows on which the data was sent.
The former condition ensures liveness of the
connection, and the latter condition ensures liveness and
self- The Data ACK MAY be included in all segments; however, optimizations SHOULD be considered in more advanced implementations, where the Data ACK is present in segments only when the Data ACK value advances, and this behavior MUST be treated as valid. This behavior ensures that the send buffer is freed, while reducing overhead when the data transfer is unidirectional.¶ 3.3.3. Closing a Connection Skip to TOCIn regular TCP, a FIN announces to the receiver that the sender has no more data to send. In order to allow subflows to operate independently and to keep the appearance of TCP over the wire, a FIN in MPTCP only affects the subflow on which it is sent. This allows nodes to exercise considerable freedom over which paths are in use at any one time. The semantics of a FIN remain as for regular TCP; i.e., it is not until both sides have ACKed each other's FINs that the subflow is fully closed.¶ When an application calls close() on a socket, this indicates that it has no more
data to send; for regular TCP, this would result in a FIN on the connection. For MPTCP, an
equivalent mechanism is needed; this is referred to as the DATA_ A DATA_ The DATA_ Note that when the DATA_ A DATA_ Once a DATA_ A connection is considered closed once both hosts' DATA_ As specified above, a standard TCP FIN on an individual subflow
only shuts down the subflow on which it was sent. If all subflows
have been closed with a FIN exchange but no DATA_ 3.3.4. Receiver Considerations Skip to TOCRegular TCP advertises a receive window in each packet, telling the sender how much data the receiver is willing to accept past the cumulative ACK. The receive window is used to implement flow control, throttling down fast senders when receivers cannot keep up.¶ MPTCP also uses a unique receive window, shared between the subflows. The idea is to allow any subflow to send data as long as the receiver is willing to accept it. The alternative -- maintaining per-subflow receive windows -- could end up stalling some subflows while others would not use up their window.¶ The receive window is relative to the DATA_ When deciding to accept packets at the subflow level, regular TCP checks
the sequence number in the packet against the allowed receive window.
With MPTCP, such a check is done using only the connection- In regular TCP, once a segment is deemed in-window, it is put in either
the in-order receive queue or the out-of-order queue.
In Multipath TCP, the same thing happens, but at the connection level: a segment
is placed in the connection- It is important for implementers to understand how large
a receive buffer is appropriate. The lower bound for full
network utilization is the maximum bandwidth- 3.3.5. Sender Considerations Skip to TOCThe sender remembers receive window advertisements from the
receiver. It should only update its local receive window values when
the largest sequence number allowed (i.e., DATA_ MPTCP uses a single receive window across all subflows, and if the receive window was guaranteed to be unchanged end to end, a host could always read the most recent receive window value. However, some classes of middleboxes may alter the TCP-level receive window. Typically, these will shrink the offered window, although for short periods of time it may be possible for the window to be larger (however, note that this would not continue for long periods, since ultimately the middlebox must keep up with delivering data to the receiver). Therefore, if receive window sizes differ on multiple subflows, when sending data MPTCP SHOULD take the largest of the most recent window sizes as the one to use in calculations. This rule is implicit in the requirement not to reduce the right edge of the window.¶ The sender MUST also remember the receive windows advertised by each subflow.
The allowed window for subflow i is (ack_ Putting the two rules together, we get the following: a sender is allowed to send
data segments with data-level sequence numbers between (DATA_ The send buffer MUST, at a minimum, be as big as the receive buffer, to enable the sender to reach maximum throughput.¶ 3.3.6. Reliability and Retransmissions Skip to TOCThe Data Sequence Mapping allows senders to resend data with the same data sequence number on a different subflow. When doing this, a host MUST still retransmit the original data on the original subflow, in order to preserve the subflow's integrity (middleboxes could replay old data and/or could reject holes in subflows), and a receiver will ignore these retransmissions. While this is clearly suboptimal, for compatibility reasons this is sensible behavior. Optimizations could be negotiated in future versions of this protocol. Note also that this property would also permit a sender to always send the same data, with the same data sequence number, on multiple subflows, if desired for reliability reasons.¶ This protocol specification does not mandate any mechanisms for handling retransmissions, and much will be dependent upon local policy
(as discussed in Section 3.3.8). One can imagine aggressive connection- It is envisaged that a standard connection- The sender MUST keep data in its send buffer as long as the data has not been acknowledged both (1) at the connection level and (2) on all subflows on which it has been sent. In this way, the sender can always retransmit the data if needed, on the same subflow or on a different one. A special case is when a subflow fails: the sender will typically resend the data on other working subflows after a timeout and will keep trying to retransmit the data on the failed subflow too. The sender will declare the subflow failed after a predefined upper bound on retransmissions is reached (which MAY be lower than the usual TCP limits of the MSL) or on the receipt of an ICMP error, and only then delete the outstanding data segments.¶ If multiple retransmissions that indicate that a
subflow is performing badly are triggered, this MAY lead to a host resetting the subflow with a RST. However, additional research is required to understand the heuristics of how and when to reset underperforming subflows. For example, a highly asymmetric path may be misdiagnosed as underperforming. A RST for this purpose SHOULD be accompanied by an "Unacceptable performance" MP_ 3.3.7. Congestion Control Considerations Skip to TOCDifferent subflows in an MPTCP connection have different congestion windows. To achieve fairness at bottlenecks and resource pooling, it is necessary to couple the congestion windows in use on each subflow, in order to push most traffic to uncongested links. One algorithm for achieving this is presented in [RFC6356]; the algorithm does not achieve perfect resource pooling but is "safe" in that it is readily deployable in the current Internet. By this we mean that it does not take up more capacity on any one path than if it was a single path flow using only that route, so this ensures fair coexistence with single-path TCP at shared bottlenecks.¶ It is foreseeable that different congestion controllers will be implemented for MPTCP, each aiming to achieve different properties in the resource pooling / fairness / stability design space, as well as those for achieving different properties in quality of service, reliability, and resilience.¶ Regardless of the algorithm used, the design of MPTCP aims to provide the congestion control implementations with sufficient information to make the right decisions; this information includes, for each subflow, which packets were lost and when.¶ 3.3.8. Subflow Policy Skip to TOCWithin a local MPTCP implementation, a host may use any local policy it wishes to decide how to share the traffic to be sent over the available paths.¶ In the typical use case, where the goal is to maximize throughput, all available paths will be used simultaneously for data transfer, using coupled congestion control as described in [RFC6356]. It is expected, however, that other use cases will appear.¶ For instance, one possibility is an "all- The ability to make effective choices at the sender requires full knowledge of the path "cost", which is unlikely to be the case. It would be desirable for a receiver to be able to signal their own preferences for paths, since they will often be the multihomed party and may have to pay for metered incoming bandwidth.¶ To enable this behavior, the MP_ In the event that the available set of paths changes, a host may
wish to signal a change in priority of subflows to the peer (e.g., a
subflow that was previously set as a backup should now take priority
over all remaining subflows). Therefore, the MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+ | Kind | Length |Subtype|(rsv)|B| +---------------+---------------+-------+-----+-+ Another use of the MP_ It should be noted that the backup flag is a request from a data receiver to a data sender only, and the data sender SHOULD adhere to these requests. A host cannot assume that the data sender will do so, however, since local policies -- or technical difficulties -- may override MP_ 3.4. Address Knowledge Exchange (Path Management) Skip to TOCWe use the term "path management" to refer to the exchange of information about additional paths between hosts, which in this design is managed by multiple addresses at hosts. For more details regarding the architectural thinking behind this design, see the MPTCP architecture document [RFC6182].¶ This design makes use of two methods of sharing such information, and both can be used on a connection. The first is the direct setup of new subflows (described in Section 3.2), where the initiator has an additional address. The second method (described in the following subsections) signals addresses explicitly to the other host to allow it to initiate new subflows. The two mechanisms are complementary: the first is implicit and simple, while the second (explicit) is more complex but is more robust. Together, these mechanisms allow addresses to change in flight (and thus support operation through NATs, since the source address need not be known); they also allow the signaling of previously unknown addresses and of addresses belonging to other address families (e.g., both IPv4 and IPv6).¶ Here is an example of typical operation of the protocol:¶
Other ways of using the two signaling mechanisms are possible; for instance,
signaling addresses in other address families can only be done explicitly
using the Add Address (ADD_ 3.4.1. Address Advertisement Skip to TOCThe ADD_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype|(rsv)|E| Address ID | +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+ | Address (IPv4: 4 octets / IPv6: 16 octets) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Port (2 octets, optional) | | +-------------------------------+ | | Truncated HMAC (8 octets, if E=0) | | +-------------------------------+ | | +-------------------------------+ Every address has an Address ID that can be used for uniquely identifying the address within a connection for address removal. The Address ID is also
used to identify MP_ All Address IDs learned via either MP_ This option is shown in Figure 12. The illustration is sized for IPv4 addresses. For IPv6, the length of the address will be 16 octets (instead of 4).¶ The 2 octets that specify the TCP port number to use are optional, and their presence
can be inferred from the length of the option. Although it is expected that the majority of
use cases will use the same port pairs as those used for the initial subflow (e.g., port
80 remains port 80 on all subflows, as does the ephemeral port at the client), there
may be cases (such as port-based load balancing) where the explicit specification of
a different port is required. If no port is specified, MPTCP SHOULD attempt to
connect to the specified address on the same port as the port that is already in use by the subflow
on which the ADD_ The Truncated HMAC parameter present in this option is the rightmost 64 bits of an HMAC, negotiated and
calculated in the same way as for MP_ A set of four flags is present after the subtype and before the Address ID. Only the rightmost bit -- labeled "E" -- is assigned in this specification. The other bits are currently unassigned; they MUST be set to 0 by a sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.¶ The "E" flag exists to provide reliability for this option. Because this option will often be sent
on pure ACKs, there is no guarantee of reliability. Therefore, a receiver receiving a fresh ADD_ Due to the proliferation of NATs, it is reasonably likely that
one host may attempt to advertise private addresses [RFC1918]. It is not desirable to prohibit
this behavior, since there may be cases where both hosts have additional
interfaces on the same private network, and a host
MAY advertise such addresses. The MP_ A host that receives an ADD_ A host can therefore send an ADD_ A host wishing to replace an existing Address ID MUST first remove the existing one (Section 3.4.2).¶ During normal MPTCP operation, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient TCP option space for ADD_ 3.4.2. Remove Address Skip to TOCIf, during the lifetime of an MPTCP connection, a previously
announced address becomes invalid (e.g., if the interface
disappears or an IPv6 address is no longer preferred), the affected
host SHOULD announce this situation so that the peer can remove
subflows related to this address. Even if an address is not in use
by an MPTCP connection, if it has been previously announced, an
implementation SHOULD announce its removal. A host
MAY also choose to announce that a valid IP address
should not be used any longer -- for example, for make‑b This is achieved through the Remove Address (REMOVE_ 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Kind |Length = 3 + n |Subtype|(resvd)| Address ID | ...
+---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+
(followed by n-1 Address IDs, if required)For security purposes, if a host receives a REMOVE_ The sending and receipt (if no keepalive response was received) of this message SHOULD trigger the sending of RSTs by both hosts on the affected subflow(s) (if possible), as a courtesy, to allow the cleanup of middlebox state before cleaning up any local state.¶ Address removal is undertaken according to the Address ID, so as to permit the use of NATs and other middleboxes that rewrite source addresses. If an Address ID is not known, the receiver will silently ignore the request.¶ A subflow that is still functioning MUST be closed with a FIN exchange as in regular TCP, rather than using this option. For more information, see Section 3.3.3.¶ 3.5. Fast Close Skip to TOCRegular TCP has the means of sending a RST signal to abruptly
close a connection. With MPTCP, a regular RST only has the scope of
the subflow; it
will only close the applicable subflow and will not affect the remaining
subflows. MPTCP's connection will stay alive at the data level, in order
to permit break- MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype| (reserved) | +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | Option Receiver's Key | | (64 bits) | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ If Host A wants to force the closure of an MPTCP connection, it can do so via two options:¶
If Host A decides to force the closure by using Option A and sending
an ACK with the MP_
If, however, Host A decides to force the closure by using Option R and
sending a RST with the MP_ 3.6. Subflow Reset Skip to TOCAn implementation of MPTCP may also need to send a regular TCP RST to force
the closure of a subflow. A host sends a TCP RST in order to close a subflow
or reject an attempt to open a subflow (MP_ 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ | Kind | Length |Subtype|U|V|W|T| Reason | +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ The MP_ The "T" flag is used by the sender to indicate whether the error condition that is reported is Transient ("T" bit set to 1) or Permanent ("T" bit set to 0). If the error condition is considered to be Transient by the sender of the RST segment, the recipient of this segment MAY try to re-establish a subflow for this connection over the failed path. The time at which a receiver may try to re‑establish this subflow is implementation specific but SHOULD take into account the properties of the failure as defined by the provided reason code. If the error condition is considered to be Permanent, the receiver of the RST segment SHOULD NOT try to re‑establish a subflow for this connection over this path. The "U", "V", and "W" flags are not defined by this specification and are reserved for future use. An implementation of this specification MUST set these flags to 0, and a receiver MUST ignore them.¶ "Reason" is an 8-bit field that indicates the reason code for the termination of the subflow. The following codes are defined in this document:¶
3.7. Fallback Skip to TOCSometimes, middleboxes will exist on a path that could prevent the operation of MPTCP. MPTCP has been designed to cope with many middlebox modifications (see Section 6), but there are still some cases where a subflow could fail to operate within the MPTCP requirements. Notably, these cases are the following: the loss of MPTCP options on a path and the modification of payload data. If such an event occurs, it is necessary to "fall back" to the previous, safe operation. This may be either falling back to regular TCP or removing a problematic subflow.¶ At the start of an MPTCP connection (i.e., the first subflow), it is important to ensure that the path is fully MPTCP capable and the necessary MPTCP options can reach each host. The handshake as described in Section 3.1 SHOULD fall back to regular TCP if either of the SYN messages does not have the MPTCP options: this is the same, and desired, behavior in the case where a host is not MPTCP capable or the path does not support the MPTCP options. When attempting to join an existing MPTCP connection (Section 3.2), if a path is not MPTCP capable and the MPTCP options do not get through on the SYNs, the subflow will be closed according to the MP_ There is, however, another corner case that should be addressed: the case where MPTCP options get through on the SYN but not on regular packets. If the subflow is the first subflow and thus all data in flight is contiguous, this situation can be resolved by using the following rules:¶
These rules should cover all cases where such a failure could happen -- whether it's on the forward or reverse path and whether the server or the client first sends data.¶ So far, this section has discussed the loss of MPTCP options, either initially or during the course of the connection. As described in Section 3.3, each portion of data for which there is a mapping is protected by a checksum, if checksums have been negotiated. This mechanism is used to detect if middleboxes have made any adjustments to the payload (added, removed, or changed data). A checksum will fail if the data has been changed in any way. The use of a checksum will also detect whether the length of data on the subflow is increased or decreased, and this means the Data Sequence Mapping is no longer valid. The sender no longer knows what subflow-level sequence number the receiver is genuinely operating at (the middlebox will be faking ACKs in return), and it cannot signal any further mappings. Furthermore, in addition to the possibility of payload modifications that are valid at the application layer, it is possible that such modifications could be triggered across MPTCP segment boundaries, corrupting the data. Therefore, all data from the start of the segment that failed the checksum onward is not trustworthy.¶ Note that if checksum usage has not been negotiated, this fallback mechanism cannot be used unless there is some higher-layer or lower‑layer signal to inform the MPTCP implementation that the payload has been tampered with.¶ When multiple subflows are in use, the data in flight on a subflow
will likely involve data that is not contiguously part of the
connection- 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +---------------+---------------+-------+----------------------+ | Kind | Length=12 |Subtype| (reserved) | +---------------+---------------+-------+----------------------+ | | | Data Sequence Number (8 octets) | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ The receiver of this option MUST discard all data following the data sequence number specified.
Failed data MUST NOT be DATA_ A special case is when there is a single subflow and it fails with a checksum error. If it is known that all unacknowledged data in
flight is contiguous (which will usually be the case with a single
subflow), an infinite mapping can be applied to the subflow without
the need to close it first, essentially turning off all further
MPTCP signaling.
In this case, if a receiver identifies a checksum failure
when there is only one path, it will send back an MP_ In the rare case that the data is not contiguous (which could happen when there is only one subflow but it is retransmitting data from a subflow
that has recently been uncleanly closed), the receiver MUST close the subflow with a RST with MP_ After a sender signals an infinite mapping, it MUST only use subflow ACKs to clear its send buffer. This is because Data ACKs may become misaligned with the subflow ACKs when middleboxes insert or delete data. The receiver SHOULD stop generating Data ACKs after it receives an infinite mapping.¶ When a connection has fallen back with an infinite mapping, only one subflow can send data; otherwise, the receiver would not know how to reorder the data. In practice, this means that all MPTCP subflows will have to be terminated except one. Once MPTCP falls back to regular TCP, it MUST NOT revert to MPTCP later in the connection.¶ It should be emphasized that MPTCP is not attempting to prevent the use of middleboxes that want to adjust the payload. An MPTCP-aware middlebox could provide such functionality by also rewriting checksums.¶ 3.8. Error Handling Skip to TOCIn addition to the fallback mechanism described above, the standard classes of TCP errors may need to be handled in an MPTCP‑specific way. Note that changing semantics -- such as the relevance of a RST -- are covered in Section 4. Where possible, we do not want to deviate from regular TCP behavior.¶ The following list covers possible errors and the appropriate MPTCP behavior:¶ 3.9. Heuristics Skip to TOCThere are a number of heuristics that are needed for performance or deployment but that are not required for protocol correctness. In this section, we detail such heuristics. Note that discussions of buffering and certain sender and receiver window behaviors are presented in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, and retransmission is discussed in Section 3.3.6.¶ 3.9.1. Port Usage Skip to TOCUnder typical operation, an MPTCP implementation SHOULD use
the same ports as the ports that are already in use. In other words, the
destination port of a SYN containing an MP_ There may also be cases, however, where a host wishes to
signal that a specific port should be used; this facility
is provided in the ADD_ 3.9.2. Delayed Subflow Start and Subflow Symmetry Skip to TOCMany TCP connections are short-lived and consist only of a few segments, and so the overhead of using MPTCP outweighs any benefits. A heuristic is required, therefore, to decide when to start using additional subflows in an MPTCP connection. Experimental deployments have shown that MPTCP can be applied in a range of scenarios, so an implementation will likely need to take into account such factors as the type of traffic being sent and the duration of the session; this information MAY be signaled by the application layer.¶ However, for standard TCP traffic, a suggested general- If a host has data buffered for its peer (which implies that the application has received a request for data), the host opens one subflow for each initial window's worth of data that is buffered.¶ Consideration should also be given to limiting the rate of adding new subflows, as well as limiting the total number of subflows open for a particular connection. A host may choose to vary these values based on its load or knowledge of traffic and path characteristics.¶ Note that this heuristic alone is probably insufficient. Traffic for many common applications, such as downloads, is highly asymmetric, and the host that is multihomed may well be the client that will never fill its buffers and thus never use MPTCP according to this heuristic. Advanced APIs that allow an application to signal its traffic requirements would aid in these decisions.¶ An additional time-based heuristic could be applied, opening additional subflows after a given period of time has passed. This would alleviate the above issue and also provide resilience for low‑bandwidth but long-lived applications.¶ Another issue is that both communicating hosts may simultaneously try to set up a subflow between the same pair of addresses. This leads to an inefficient use of resources.¶ If the same ports are used on all subflows, as recommended above,
then standard TCP simultaneous- This section has shown some of the factors that an implementer should consider when developing MPTCP heuristics, but it is not intended to be prescriptive.¶ 3.9.3. Failure Handling Skip to TOCRequirements for MPTCP's handling of unexpected signals are given in Section 3.8. There are other failure cases, however, where hosts can choose appropriate behavior.¶ For example, Section 3.1 suggests that a host SHOULD fall back to trying regular TCP SYNs after one or more failures of MPTCP SYNs for a connection. A host may keep a system-wide cache of such information, so that it can back off from using MPTCP, firstly for that particular destination host and, eventually, on a whole interface, if MPTCP connections continue to fail. The duration of such a cache would be implementation specific.¶ Another failure could occur when the MP_ In addition, an implementation may learn, over a number of connections, that certain interfaces or destination addresses consistently fail and may default to not trying to use MPTCP for such interfaces or addresses. The behavior of subflows that perform particularly badly or subflows that regularly fail during use could also be learned, so that an implementation can temporarily choose not to use these paths.¶ 4. Semantic Issues Skip to TOCIn order to support multipath operation, the semantics of some TCP components have changed. To help clarify, this section lists these semantic changes as a point of reference.¶
5. Security Considerations Skip to TOCAs identified in [RFC6181], the addition of multipath capability to TCP will bring with it a number of new classes of threats. In order to prevent these threats, [RFC6182] presents a set of requirements for a security solution for MPTCP. The fundamental goal is for the security of MPTCP to be "no worse" than regular TCP today. The key security requirements are as follows:¶
In order to achieve these goals, MPTCP includes a hash-based handshake algorithm, as documented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.¶ The security of the MPTCP connection hangs on the use of keys that
are shared once at the start of the first subflow and are never sent
again over the network (unless used in the Fast Close mechanism (Section 3.5)). To ease demultiplexing
while not giving away any cryptographic material, future subflows use a
truncated cryptographic hash of this key as the connection
identification "token". The keys are concatenated and used as keys for
creating Hash-based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs) used on subflow
setup, in order to verify that the parties in the handshake are the same
as the parties in the original connection setup. It also provides verification that
the peer can receive traffic at this new address. Replay attacks would
still be possible when only keys are used; therefore, the handshakes use
single-use random numbers (nonces) at both ends -- this ensures that the HMAC will never be the same on two handshakes. Guidance on generating random numbers suitable for use as keys is given in [RFC4086] and discussed in Section 3.1. The nonces are valid for the lifetime of the TCP connection attempt. HMAC is also used to secure the ADD_ The use of crypto capability bits in the initial connection handshake to negotiate the use of a particular algorithm allows the deployment of additional crypto mechanisms in the future. This negotiation would nevertheless be susceptible to a bid-down attack by an on-path active attacker who could modify the crypto capability bits in the response from the receiver to use a less secure crypto mechanism. The security mechanism presented in this document should therefore protect against all forms of flooding and hijacking attacks discussed in [RFC6181].¶ The version negotiation specified in Section 3.1, if differing MPTCP versions shared a common
negotiation format, would allow an on-path attacker to apply a
theoretical bid-down attack. Since the v1 and v0 protocols have a
different handshake, such an attack would require that the client
re-establish the connection using v0 and that the server support v0.
Note that an on-path attacker would have access to the raw data, negating any other TCP-level security mechanisms. As also noted in Appendix E, this document specifies the removal of the AddrID field [RFC6824] in the MP_ During normal operation, regular TCP protection mechanisms (such as
ensuring that sequence numbers are in-window) will provide the same
level of protection against attacks on individual TCP subflows as the
level of protection that exists for regular TCP today. Implementations will introduce additional buffers compared to regular TCP, to reassemble data at the connection level. The application of window sizing will minimize the risk of denial- As discussed in Section 3.4.1, a host may advertise its private addresses, but these might point to different hosts in the receiver's network. The MP_ To further protect against malicious ADD_ A small security risk could theoretically exist with key reuse, but in order to accomplish a replay attack, both the sender and receiver keys, and the sender and receiver random numbers, in the MP_ While this specification defines a "medium" security solution, meeting the criteria specified at the start of this section and in the threat analysis document [RFC6181], since attacks only ever get worse, it is likely that a future version of MPTCP would need to be able to support stronger security. There are several ways the security of MPTCP could potentially be improved; some of these would be compatible with MPTCP as defined in this document, while others may not be. For now, the best approach is to gain experience with the current approach, establish what might work, and check that the threat analysis is still accurate.¶ Possible ways of improving MPTCP security could include:¶
MPTCP has been designed with several methods available to indicate a new security mechanism, including:¶ 6. Interactions with Middleboxes Skip to TOCMultipath TCP was designed to be deployable in the present world. Its design takes into account "reasonable"
existing middlebox behavior. In this section, we outline a few representative middlebox- A primary concern is our use of a new TCP option. Middleboxes should forward packets with unknown options unchanged, yet there are some that don't. We expect these middleboxes to strip options and pass the data, drop packets with new options, copy the same option into multiple segments (e.g., when doing segmentation), or drop options during segment coalescing.¶ MPTCP uses a single new TCP option called "Kind", and all message types are defined by "subtype" values (see Section 7). This should reduce the chances of only some types of MPTCP options being passed; instead, the key differing characteristics are different paths and the presence of the SYN flag.¶ MPTCP SYN packets on the first subflow of a connection contain the MP_ If a middlebox strips options but otherwise passes the packets
unchanged, MPTCP will behave safely. If an MP_ Host A Host B
| Middlebox M |
| | |
| SYN (MP_CAPABLE) | SYN |
|-------------------|---------------->|
| SYN/ACK |
|<------------------------------------|
a) MP_CAPABLE option stripped on outgoing path
Host A Host B
| SYN (MP_CAPABLE) |
|-------------------------------------->|
| Middlebox M |
| | |
| SYN/ACK |SYN/ACK (MP_CAPABLE)|
|<-----------------|--------------------|
b) MP_CAPABLE option stripped on return pathSubflow SYNs contain the MP_ We now examine data flow with MPTCP, assuming that the flow is correctly set up, which implies that the options in the SYN packets were allowed through by the relevant middleboxes. If options are allowed through and there is no resegmentation or coalescing to TCP segments, Multipath TCP flows can proceed without problems.¶ The case when options get stripped on data packets is discussed in Section 3.7. If only some MPTCP options are stripped, behavior is not deterministic. If some Data Sequence Mappings are lost, the connection can continue so long as mappings exist for the subflow-level data (e.g., if multiple maps have been sent that reinforce each other). If some subflow-level space is left unmapped, however, the subflow is treated as broken and is closed, using the process described in Section 3.7. MPTCP should survive with a loss of some Data ACKs, but performance will degrade as the fraction of stripped options increases. We do not expect such cases to appear in practice, though: most middleboxes will either strip all options or let them all through.¶ We end this section with a list of middlebox classes, their behavior, and the elements in the MPTCP design that allow operation through such middleboxes. Issues surrounding dropping packets with options or stripping options were discussed above and are not included here:¶
In addition, all classes of middleboxes may affect TCP traffic in the following ways:¶
7. IANA Considerations Skip to TOCThis document obsoletes [RFC6824]. As such, IANA has updated several registries to point to this document. In addition, this document creates one new registry. These topics are described in the following subsections.¶ 7.1. TCP Option Kind Numbers Skip to TOCIANA has updated the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry to point to this document for Multipath TCP, as shown in Table 1:¶
7.2. MPTCP Option Subtypes Skip to TOCThe 4-bit MPTCP subtype in the "MPTCP Option Subtypes" subregistry under the "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters" registry was defined in [RFC6824]. Since [RFC6824] is an Experimental RFC and not a Standards Track RFC, and since no further entries have occurred beyond those pointing to [RFC6824], IANA has replaced the existing registry with the contents of Table 2 and with the following explanatory note.¶ Note: This registry specifies the MPTCP Option Subtypes for MPTCP v1, which obsoletes the Experimental MPTCP v0. For the MPTCP v0 subtypes, please refer to [RFC6824].¶
Values 0x9 through 0xe are currently unassigned. Option 0xf is reserved for use by private experiments. Its use may be formalized in a future specification. Future assignments in this registry are to be defined by Standards Action as defined by [RFC8126]. Assignments consist of the MPTCP subtype's symbolic name, its associated value, and a reference to its specification.¶ 7.3. MPTCP Handshake Algorithms Skip to TOCThe "MPTCP Handshake Algorithms" subregistry under the "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters" registry was defined in [RFC6824]. Since [RFC6824] is an Experimental RFC and not a Standards Track RFC, and since no further entries have occurred beyond those pointing to [RFC6824], IANA has replaced the existing registry with the contents of Table 3 and with the following explanatory note.¶ Note: This registry specifies the MPTCP Handshake Algorithms for MPTCP v1, which obsoletes the Experimental MPTCP v0. For the MPTCP v0 subtypes, please refer to [RFC6824].¶
Note that the meanings of bits "D" through "H" can be dependent upon bit "B", depending on how the Extensibility parameter is defined in future specifications; see Section 3.1 for more information.¶ Future assignments in this registry are also to be defined by Standards Action as defined by [RFC8126]. Assignments consist of the value of the flags, a symbolic name for the algorithm, and a reference to its specification.¶
7.4. MP_
|
| Code | Meaning | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0x00 | Unspecified error | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x01 | MPTCP-specific error | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x02 | Lack of resources | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x03 | Administratively prohibited | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x04 | Too much outstanding data | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x05 | Unacceptable performance | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
| 0x06 | Middlebox interference | RFC 8684, Section 3.6 |
As guidance to the designated expert [RFC8126], assignments should not normally be refused unless
codepoint space is becoming scarce, provided that there is a clear
distinction from other, already-
The TCP option space is limited due to the length of the Data Offset field in the TCP header (4 bits), which defines the TCP header length in 32-bit words. With the standard TCP header being 20 bytes, this leaves a maximum of 40 bytes for options, and many of these may already be used by options such as timestamp and SACK.¶
We performed a brief study on the commonly used TCP options in SYN, data, and pure ACK packets and found that there is enough room to fit all the options discussed in this document.¶
SYN packets typically include the following options: Maximum Segment Size (MSS) (4 bytes),
window scale (3 bytes), SACK permitted (2 bytes), and timestamp
(10 bytes). The sum of these options is 19 bytes. Some operating
systems appear to pad each option up to a word boundary, thus using 24
bytes (a brief survey suggests that Windows XP and Mac OS X do this, whereas Linux does not).
Optimistically, therefore, we have 21 bytes available, or 16 if options have to be
word-aligned. In either case, however, the SYN versions of
MP_
Note that due to the use of a 64-bit data-level sequence space, it is feasible that MPTCP will not require the timestamp option for protection against wrapped sequence numbers (per the Protection Against Wrapped Sequences (PAWS) mechanism, as described in [RFC7323]), since the data-level sequence space has far less chance of wrapping. Confirmation of the validity of this optimization is left for further study.¶
TCP data packets typically carry timestamp options in every packet,
taking 10 bytes (or 12, with padding). That leaves 30 bytes (or 28, if
word-aligned). The DSS option varies in length, depending on (1) whether the
Data Sequence Mapping, DATA_
Within the DSS option, it is not necessary to include the Data Sequence Mapping and DATA_
On subflow and connection setup, an MPTCP option is also set on the third packet (an ACK). These are 20 bytes (for MP_
Pure ACKs in TCP typically contain only timestamps (10 bytes). Here, Multipath TCP typically
needs to encode only the DATA_
The ADD_
TCP Fast Open (TFO) is an experimental TCP extension, described in [RFC7413], which has been introduced to allow the sending of data one RTT earlier than with regular TCP. This is considered a valuable gain, as very short connections are very common, especially for HTTP request/response schemes. It achieves this by sending the SYN segment together with the application's data and allowing the listener to reply immediately with data after the SYN/ACK. [RFC7413] secures this mechanism by using a new TCP option that includes a cookie that is negotiated in a preceding connection.¶
When using TFO in conjunction with MPTCP, there are two key points to take into account, as detailed below.¶
When a TFO initiator first connects to a listener, it cannot immediately include data in the SYN for security reasons [RFC7413]. Instead, it requests a cookie that will be used in subsequent connections. This is done with the TCP cookie request/response options, of 2 bytes and 6-18 bytes, respectively (depending on the chosen cookie length).¶
TFO and MPTCP can be combined, provided that the total length of all the options does not exceed the maximum 40 bytes possible in TCP:¶
In the TCP establishment phase, MPTCP uses a key exchange that is
used to generate the Initial Data Sequence Numbers (IDSNs). In particular,
the SYN with MP_
To solve this issue, the TFO data must not be considered part of the
data sequence number space: the SYN with MP_
A few examples of possible "TFO + MPTCP" establishment scenarios are shown below.¶
Before an initiator can send data together with the SYN, it must request a cookie from the listener, as shown in Figure 18. (Note: The sequence number and length are annotated in Figure 18 as Seq(Length) (e.g., "S. 0(0)") and used as such in the subsequent figures (e.g., "S 0(20)" in Figure 19).) This is done by simply combining the TFO and MPTCP options.¶
initiator listener
| |
| S Seq=0(Length=0) <MP_CAPABLE>, <TFO cookie request> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| S. 0(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE>, <TFO cookie> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| . 0(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |Once this is done, the received cookie can be used for TFO, as shown in Figure 19. In this example, the initiator first sends 20 bytes in the SYN. The listener immediately replies with 100 bytes following the SYN-ACK, to which the initiator replies with 20 more bytes. Note that the last segment in the figure has a TCP sequence number of 21, while the DSS subflow sequence number is 1 (because the TFO data is not part of the data sequence number space, as explained in Appendix B.2.¶
initiator listener
| |
| S 0(20) <MP_CAPABLE>, <TFO cookie> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| S. 0(0) ack 21 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| . 1(100) ack 21 <DSS ack=1 seq=1 ssn=1 dlen=100> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| . 21(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| . 21(20) ack 101 <DSS ack=101 seq=1 ssn=1 dlen=20> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |In Figure 20, the listener does not support TFO. The initiator detects
that no state is created in the listener (as no data is ACKed) and now
sends the MP_
initiator listener
| |
| S 0(20) <MP_CAPABLE>, <TFO cookie> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| S. 0(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| . 1(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| . 1(20) ack 1 <DSS ack=1 seq=1 ssn=1 dlen=20> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| . 0(0) ack 21 <DSS ack=21 seq=1 ssn=1 dlen=0> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |It is also possible that the listener acknowledges only part of the TFO data, as illustrated in Figure 21. The initiator will simply retransmit the missing data together with a DSS mapping.¶
initiator listener
| |
| S 0(1000) <MP_CAPABLE>, <TFO cookie> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| S. 0(0) ack 501 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| <-------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| . 501(0) ack 1 <MP_CAPABLE> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| . 501(500) ack 1 <DSS ack=1 seq=1 ssn=1 dlen=500> |
| --------------------------------------------------------> |
| |Conceptually, an MPTCP connection can be represented as an MPTCP protocol control block (PCB) that contains several variables that track the progress and the state of the MPTCP connection and a set of linked TCP control blocks that correspond to the subflows that have been established.¶
RFC 793 [RFC0793] specifies several state variables. Whenever possible, we reuse the same terminology as RFC 793 to describe the state variables that are maintained by MPTCP.¶
The MPTCP control block contains the following variables per connection.¶
The MPTCP control block also contains a list of the TCP control blocks that are associated with the MPTCP connection.¶
Note that the TCP control block on the TCP subflows does not contain the
RCV
Inside each TCP control block, the following state variables are defined.¶
The diagram in Figure 22 shows the
Finite State Machine for connection-
+---------+
| M_ESTAB |
+---------+
M_CLOSE | | rcv DATA_FIN
------- | | -------
+---------+ snd DATA_FIN / \ snd DATA_ACK[DFIN] +-------+
| M_FIN |<----------------- ------------------->|M_CLOSE|
| WAIT-1 |--------------------------- | WAIT |
+---------+ rcv DATA_FIN \ +-------+
| rcv DATA_ACK[DFIN] ------- | M_CLOSE |
| -------------- snd DATA_ACK | ------- |
| CLOSE all subflows | snd DATA_FIN |
V V V
+-----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
|M_FINWAIT-2| | M_CLOSING | |M_LAST-ACK|
+-----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
| rcv DATA_ACK[DFIN] | rcv DATA_ACK[DFIN] |
| rcv DATA_FIN -------------- | -------------- |
| ------- CLOSE all subflows | CLOSE all subflows |
| snd DATA_ACK[DFIN] V delete MPTCP PCB V
\ +-----------+ +--------+
------------------------>|M_TIME WAIT|---------------->|M_CLOSED|
+-----------+ +--------+
All subflows in CLOSED
------------
delete MPTCP PCBThis appendix lists the key technical changes between [RFC6824], which specifies MPTCP v0; and this document, which obsoletes [RFC6824] and specifies MPTCP v1. Note that this specification is not backward compatible with [RFC6824].¶
The authors gratefully acknowledge significant input into this document from Sebastien Barre and Andrew McDonald.¶
The authors also wish to acknowledge reviews and contributions from Iljitsch van Beijnum, Lars Eggert, Marcelo Bagnulo, Robert Hancock, Pasi Sarolahti, Toby Moncaster, Philip Eardley, Sergio Lembo, Lawrence Conroy, Yoshifumi Nishida, Bob Briscoe, Stein Gjessing, Andrew McGregor, Georg Hampel, Anumita Biswas, Wes Eddy, Alexey Melnikov, Francis Dupont, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, Robert Sparks, Sean Turner, Stephen Farrell, Martin Stiemerling, Gregory Detal, Fabien Duchene, Xavier de Foy, Rahul Jadhav, Klemens Schragel, Mirja Kühlewind, Sheng Jiang, Alissa Cooper, Ines Robles, Roman Danyliw, Adam Roach, Eric Vyncke, and Ben Kaduk.¶