Network Working Group R. Stewart | |
Request for Comments: 2960 Q. Xie | |
Category: Standards Track Motorola | |
K. Morneault | |
C. Sharp | |
Cisco | |
H. Schwarzbauer | |
Siemens | |
T. Taylor | |
Nortel Networks | |
I. Rytina | |
Ericsson | |
M. Kalla | |
Telcordia | |
L. Zhang | |
UCLA | |
V. Paxson | |
ACIRI | |
October 2000 | |
Stream Control Transmission Protocol | |
Status of this Memo | |
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the | |
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for | |
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet | |
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state | |
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. | |
Copyright Notice | |
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | |
Abstract | |
This document describes the Stream Control Transmission Protocol | |
(SCTP). SCTP is designed to transport PSTN signaling messages over | |
IP networks, but is capable of broader applications. | |
SCTP is a reliable transport protocol operating on top of a | |
connectionless packet network such as IP. It offers the following | |
services to its users: | |
-- acknowledged error-free non-duplicated transfer of user data, | |
-- data fragmentation to conform to discovered path MTU size, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
-- sequenced delivery of user messages within multiple streams, | |
with an option for order-of-arrival delivery of individual user | |
messages, | |
-- optional bundling of multiple user messages into a single SCTP | |
packet, and | |
-- network-level fault tolerance through supporting of multi- | |
homing at either or both ends of an association. | |
The design of SCTP includes appropriate congestion avoidance behavior | |
and resistance to flooding and masquerade attacks. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Table of Contents | |
1. Introduction.................................................. 5 | |
1.1 Motivation.................................................. 6 | |
1.2 Architectural View of SCTP.................................. 6 | |
1.3 Functional View of SCTP..................................... 7 | |
1.3.1 Association Startup and Takedown........................ 8 | |
1.3.2 Sequenced Delivery within Streams....................... 9 | |
1.3.3 User Data Fragmentation................................. 9 | |
1.3.4 Acknowledgement and Congestion Avoidance................ 9 | |
1.3.5 Chunk Bundling ......................................... 10 | |
1.3.6 Packet Validation....................................... 10 | |
1.3.7 Path Management......................................... 11 | |
1.4 Key Terms................................................... 11 | |
1.5 Abbreviations............................................... 15 | |
1.6 Serial Number Arithmetic.................................... 15 | |
2. Conventions.................................................... 16 | |
3. SCTP packet Format............................................ 16 | |
3.1 SCTP Common Header Field Descriptions....................... 17 | |
3.2 Chunk Field Descriptions.................................... 18 | |
3.2.1 Optional/Variable-length Parameter Format............... 20 | |
3.3 SCTP Chunk Definitions...................................... 21 | |
3.3.1 Payload Data (DATA)..................................... 22 | |
3.3.2 Initiation (INIT)....................................... 24 | |
3.3.2.1 Optional or Variable Length Parameters.............. 26 | |
3.3.3 Initiation Acknowledgement (INIT ACK)................... 30 | |
3.3.3.1 Optional or Variable Length Parameters.............. 33 | |
3.3.4 Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)........................ 33 | |
3.3.5 Heartbeat Request (HEARTBEAT)........................... 37 | |
3.3.6 Heartbeat Acknowledgement (HEARTBEAT ACK)............... 38 | |
3.3.7 Abort Association (ABORT)............................... 39 | |
3.3.8 Shutdown Association (SHUTDOWN)......................... 40 | |
3.3.9 Shutdown Acknowledgement (SHUTDOWN ACK)................. 40 | |
3.3.10 Operation Error (ERROR)................................ 41 | |
3.3.10.1 Invalid Stream Identifier.......................... 42 | |
3.3.10.2 Missing Mandatory Parameter........................ 43 | |
3.3.10.3 Stale Cookie Error................................. 43 | |
3.3.10.4 Out of Resource.................................... 44 | |
3.3.10.5 Unresolvable Address............................... 44 | |
3.3.10.6 Unrecognized Chunk Type............................ 44 | |
3.3.10.7 Invalid Mandatory Parameter........................ 45 | |
3.3.10.8 Unrecognized Parameters............................ 45 | |
3.3.10.9 No User Data....................................... 46 | |
3.3.10.10 Cookie Received While Shutting Down............... 46 | |
3.3.11 Cookie Echo (COOKIE ECHO).............................. 46 | |
3.3.12 Cookie Acknowledgement (COOKIE ACK).................... 47 | |
3.3.13 Shutdown Complete (SHUTDOWN COMPLETE).................. 48 | |
4. SCTP Association State Diagram................................. 48 | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5. Association Initialization..................................... 52 | |
5.1 Normal Establishment of an Association...................... 52 | |
5.1.1 Handle Stream Parameters................................ 54 | |
5.1.2 Handle Address Parameters............................... 54 | |
5.1.3 Generating State Cookie................................. 56 | |
5.1.4 State Cookie Processing................................. 57 | |
5.1.5 State Cookie Authentication............................. 57 | |
5.1.6 An Example of Normal Association Establishment.......... 58 | |
5.2 Handle Duplicate or unexpected INIT, INIT ACK, COOKIE ECHO, | |
and COOKIE ACK.............................................. 60 | |
5.2.1 Handle Duplicate INIT in COOKIE-WAIT | |
or COOKIE-ECHOED States................................. 60 | |
5.2.2 Unexpected INIT in States Other than CLOSED, | |
COOKIE-ECHOED, COOKIE-WAIT and SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT........ 61 | |
5.2.3 Unexpected INIT ACK..................................... 61 | |
5.2.4 Handle a COOKIE ECHO when a TCB exists.................. 62 | |
5.2.4.1 An Example of a Association Restart................. 64 | |
5.2.5 Handle Duplicate COOKIE ACK............................. 66 | |
5.2.6 Handle Stale COOKIE Error............................... 66 | |
5.3 Other Initialization Issues................................. 67 | |
5.3.1 Selection of Tag Value.................................. 67 | |
6. User Data Transfer............................................. 67 | |
6.1 Transmission of DATA Chunks................................. 69 | |
6.2 Acknowledgement on Reception of DATA Chunks................. 70 | |
6.2.1 Tracking Peer's Receive Buffer Space.................... 73 | |
6.3 Management Retransmission Timer............................. 75 | |
6.3.1 RTO Calculation......................................... 75 | |
6.3.2 Retransmission Timer Rules.............................. 76 | |
6.3.3 Handle T3-rtx Expiration................................ 77 | |
6.4 Multi-homed SCTP Endpoints.................................. 78 | |
6.4.1 Failover from Inactive Destination Address.............. 79 | |
6.5 Stream Identifier and Stream Sequence Number................ 80 | |
6.6 Ordered and Unordered Delivery.............................. 80 | |
6.7 Report Gaps in Received DATA TSNs........................... 81 | |
6.8 Adler-32 Checksum Calculation............................... 82 | |
6.9 Fragmentation............................................... 83 | |
6.10 Bundling .................................................. 84 | |
7. Congestion Control .......................................... 85 | |
7.1 SCTP Differences from TCP Congestion Control................ 85 | |
7.2 SCTP Slow-Start and Congestion Avoidance.................... 87 | |
7.2.1 Slow-Start.............................................. 87 | |
7.2.2 Congestion Avoidance.................................... 89 | |
7.2.3 Congestion Control...................................... 89 | |
7.2.4 Fast Retransmit on Gap Reports.......................... 90 | |
7.3 Path MTU Discovery.......................................... 91 | |
8. Fault Management.............................................. 92 | |
8.1 Endpoint Failure Detection.................................. 92 | |
8.2 Path Failure Detection...................................... 92 | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
8.3 Path Heartbeat.............................................. 93 | |
8.4 Handle "Out of the blue" Packets............................ 95 | |
8.5 Verification Tag............................................ 96 | |
8.5.1 Exceptions in Verification Tag Rules.................... 97 | |
9. Termination of Association..................................... 98 | |
9.1 Abort of an Association..................................... 98 | |
9.2 Shutdown of an Association.................................. 98 | |
10. Interface with Upper Layer....................................101 | |
10.1 ULP-to-SCTP................................................101 | |
10.2 SCTP-to-ULP................................................111 | |
11. Security Considerations.......................................114 | |
11.1 Security Objectives........................................114 | |
11.2 SCTP Responses To Potential Threats........................115 | |
11.2.1 Countering Insider Attacks.............................115 | |
11.2.2 Protecting against Data Corruption in the Network......115 | |
11.2.3 Protecting Confidentiality.............................115 | |
11.2.4 Protecting against Blind Denial of Service Attacks.....116 | |
11.2.4.1 Flooding...........................................116 | |
11.2.4.2 Blind Masquerade...................................118 | |
11.2.4.3 Improper Monopolization of Services................118 | |
11.3 Protection against Fraud and Repudiation...................119 | |
12. Recommended Transmission Control Block (TCB) Parameters.......120 | |
12.1 Parameters necessary for the SCTP instance.................120 | |
12.2 Parameters necessary per association (i.e. the TCB)........120 | |
12.3 Per Transport Address Data.................................122 | |
12.4 General Parameters Needed..................................123 | |
13. IANA Considerations...........................................123 | |
13.1 IETF-defined Chunk Extension...............................123 | |
13.2 IETF-defined Chunk Parameter Extension.....................124 | |
13.3 IETF-defined Additional Error Causes.......................124 | |
13.4 Payload Protocol Identifiers...............................125 | |
14. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values......................125 | |
15. Acknowledgements..............................................126 | |
16. Authors' Addresses............................................126 | |
17. References....................................................128 | |
18. Bibliography..................................................129 | |
Appendix A .......................................................131 | |
Appendix B .......................................................132 | |
Full Copyright Statement .........................................134 | |
1. Introduction | |
This section explains the reasoning behind the development of the | |
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), the services it offers, | |
and the basic concepts needed to understand the detailed description | |
of the protocol. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
1.1 Motivation | |
TCP [RFC793] has performed immense service as the primary means of | |
reliable data transfer in IP networks. However, an increasing number | |
of recent applications have found TCP too limiting, and have | |
incorporated their own reliable data transfer protocol on top of UDP | |
[RFC768]. The limitations which users have wished to bypass include | |
the following: | |
-- TCP provides both reliable data transfer and strict order-of- | |
transmission delivery of data. Some applications need reliable | |
transfer without sequence maintenance, while others would be | |
satisfied with partial ordering of the data. In both of these | |
cases the head-of-line blocking offered by TCP causes unnecessary | |
delay. | |
-- The stream-oriented nature of TCP is often an inconvenience. | |
Applications must add their own record marking to delineate their | |
messages, and must make explicit use of the push facility to | |
ensure that a complete message is transferred in a reasonable | |
time. | |
-- The limited scope of TCP sockets complicates the task of | |
providing highly-available data transfer capability using multi- | |
homed hosts. | |
-- TCP is relatively vulnerable to denial of service attacks, such | |
as SYN attacks. | |
Transport of PSTN signaling across the IP network is an application | |
for which all of these limitations of TCP are relevant. While this | |
application directly motivated the development of SCTP, other | |
applications may find SCTP a good match to their requirements. | |
1.2 Architectural View of SCTP | |
SCTP is viewed as a layer between the SCTP user application ("SCTP | |
user" for short) and a connectionless packet network service such as | |
IP. The remainder of this document assumes SCTP runs on top of IP. | |
The basic service offered by SCTP is the reliable transfer of user | |
messages between peer SCTP users. It performs this service within | |
the context of an association between two SCTP endpoints. Section 10 | |
of this document sketches the API which should exist at the boundary | |
between the SCTP and the SCTP user layers. | |
SCTP is connection-oriented in nature, but the SCTP association is a | |
broader concept than the TCP connection. SCTP provides the means for | |
each SCTP endpoint (Section 1.4) to provide the other endpoint | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
(during association startup) with a list of transport addresses | |
(i.e., multiple IP addresses in combination with an SCTP port) | |
through which that endpoint can be reached and from which it will | |
originate SCTP packets. The association spans transfers over all of | |
the possible source/destination combinations which may be generated | |
from each endpoint's lists. | |
_____________ _____________ | |
| SCTP User | | SCTP User | | |
| Application | | Application | | |
|-------------| |-------------| | |
| SCTP | | SCTP | | |
| Transport | | Transport | | |
| Service | | Service | | |
|-------------| |-------------| | |
| |One or more ---- One or more| | | |
| IP Network |IP address \/ IP address| IP Network | | |
| Service |appearances /\ appearances| Service | | |
|_____________| ---- |_____________| | |
SCTP Node A |<-------- Network transport ------->| SCTP Node B | |
Figure 1: An SCTP Association | |
1.3 Functional View of SCTP | |
The SCTP transport service can be decomposed into a number of | |
functions. These are depicted in Figure 2 and explained in the | |
remainder of this section. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
SCTP User Application | |
----------------------------------------------------- | |
_____________ ____________________ | |
| | | Sequenced delivery | | |
| Association | | within streams | | |
| | |____________________| | |
| startup | | |
| | ____________________________ | |
| and | | User Data Fragmentation | | |
| | |____________________________| | |
| takedown | | |
| | ____________________________ | |
| | | Acknowledgement | | |
| | | and | | |
| | | Congestion Avoidance | | |
| | |____________________________| | |
| | | |
| | ____________________________ | |
| | | Chunk Bundling | | |
| | |____________________________| | |
| | | |
| | ________________________________ | |
| | | Packet Validation | | |
| | |________________________________| | |
| | | |
| | ________________________________ | |
| | | Path Management | | |
|_____________| |________________________________| | |
Figure 2: Functional View of the SCTP Transport Service | |
1.3.1 Association Startup and Takedown | |
An association is initiated by a request from the SCTP user (see the | |
description of the ASSOCIATE (or SEND) primitive in Section 10). | |
A cookie mechanism, similar to one described by Karn and Simpson in | |
[RFC2522], is employed during the initialization to provide | |
protection against security attacks. The cookie mechanism uses a | |
four-way handshake, the last two legs of which are allowed to carry | |
user data for fast setup. The startup sequence is described in | |
Section 5 of this document. | |
SCTP provides for graceful close (i.e., shutdown) of an active | |
association on request from the SCTP user. See the description of | |
the SHUTDOWN primitive in Section 10. SCTP also allows ungraceful | |
close (i.e., abort), either on request from the user (ABORT | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
primitive) or as a result of an error condition detected within the | |
SCTP layer. Section 9 describes both the graceful and the ungraceful | |
close procedures. | |
SCTP does not support a half-open state (like TCP) wherein one side | |
may continue sending data while the other end is closed. When either | |
endpoint performs a shutdown, the association on each peer will stop | |
accepting new data from its user and only deliver data in queue at | |
the time of the graceful close (see Section 9). | |
1.3.2 Sequenced Delivery within Streams | |
The term "stream" is used in SCTP to refer to a sequence of user | |
messages that are to be delivered to the upper-layer protocol in | |
order with respect to other messages within the same stream. This is | |
in contrast to its usage in TCP, where it refers to a sequence of | |
bytes (in this document a byte is assumed to be eight bits). | |
The SCTP user can specify at association startup time the number of | |
streams to be supported by the association. This number is | |
negotiated with the remote end (see Section 5.1.1). User messages | |
are associated with stream numbers (SEND, RECEIVE primitives, Section | |
10). Internally, SCTP assigns a stream sequence number to each | |
message passed to it by the SCTP user. On the receiving side, SCTP | |
ensures that messages are delivered to the SCTP user in sequence | |
within a given stream. However, while one stream may be blocked | |
waiting for the next in-sequence user message, delivery from other | |
streams may proceed. | |
SCTP provides a mechanism for bypassing the sequenced delivery | |
service. User messages sent using this mechanism are delivered to | |
the SCTP user as soon as they are received. | |
1.3.3 User Data Fragmentation | |
When needed, SCTP fragments user messages to ensure that the SCTP | |
packet passed to the lower layer conforms to the path MTU. On | |
receipt, fragments are reassembled into complete messages before | |
being passed to the SCTP user. | |
1.3.4 Acknowledgement and Congestion Avoidance | |
SCTP assigns a Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) to each user data | |
fragment or unfragmented message. The TSN is independent of any | |
stream sequence number assigned at the stream level. The receiving | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
end acknowledges all TSNs received, even if there are gaps in the | |
sequence. In this way, reliable delivery is kept functionally | |
separate from sequenced stream delivery. | |
The acknowledgement and congestion avoidance function is responsible | |
for packet retransmission when timely acknowledgement has not been | |
received. Packet retransmission is conditioned by congestion | |
avoidance procedures similar to those used for TCP. See Sections 6 | |
and 7 for a detailed description of the protocol procedures | |
associated with this function. | |
1.3.5 Chunk Bundling | |
As described in Section 3, the SCTP packet as delivered to the lower | |
layer consists of a common header followed by one or more chunks. | |
Each chunk may contain either user data or SCTP control information. | |
The SCTP user has the option to request bundling of more than one | |
user messages into a single SCTP packet. The chunk bundling function | |
of SCTP is responsible for assembly of the complete SCTP packet and | |
its disassembly at the receiving end. | |
During times of congestion an SCTP implementation MAY still perform | |
bundling even if the user has requested that SCTP not bundle. The | |
user's disabling of bundling only affects SCTP implementations that | |
may delay a small period of time before transmission (to attempt to | |
encourage bundling). When the user layer disables bundling, this | |
small delay is prohibited but not bundling that is performed during | |
congestion or retransmission. | |
1.3.6 Packet Validation | |
A mandatory Verification Tag field and a 32 bit checksum field (see | |
Appendix B for a description of the Adler-32 checksum) are included | |
in the SCTP common header. The Verification Tag value is chosen by | |
each end of the association during association startup. Packets | |
received without the expected Verification Tag value are discarded, | |
as a protection against blind masquerade attacks and against stale | |
SCTP packets from a previous association. The Adler-32 checksum | |
should be set by the sender of each SCTP packet to provide additional | |
protection against data corruption in the network. The receiver of | |
an SCTP packet with an invalid Adler-32 checksum silently discards | |
the packet. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
1.3.7 Path Management | |
The sending SCTP user is able to manipulate the set of transport | |
addresses used as destinations for SCTP packets through the | |
primitives described in Section 10. The SCTP path management | |
function chooses the destination transport address for each outgoing | |
SCTP packet based on the SCTP user's instructions and the currently | |
perceived reachability status of the eligible destination set. The | |
path management function monitors reachability through heartbeats | |
when other packet traffic is inadequate to provide this information | |
and advises the SCTP user when reachability of any far-end transport | |
address changes. The path management function is also responsible | |
for reporting the eligible set of local transport addresses to the | |
far end during association startup, and for reporting the transport | |
addresses returned from the far end to the SCTP user. | |
At association start-up, a primary path is defined for each SCTP | |
endpoint, and is used for normal sending of SCTP packets. | |
On the receiving end, the path management is responsible for | |
verifying the existence of a valid SCTP association to which the | |
inbound SCTP packet belongs before passing it for further processing. | |
Note: Path Management and Packet Validation are done at the same | |
time, so although described separately above, in reality they cannot | |
be performed as separate items. | |
1.4 Key Terms | |
Some of the language used to describe SCTP has been introduced in the | |
previous sections. This section provides a consolidated list of the | |
key terms and their definitions. | |
o Active destination transport address: A transport address on a | |
peer endpoint which a transmitting endpoint considers available | |
for receiving user messages. | |
o Bundling: An optional multiplexing operation, whereby more than | |
one user message may be carried in the same SCTP packet. Each | |
user message occupies its own DATA chunk. | |
o Chunk: A unit of information within an SCTP packet, consisting of | |
a chunk header and chunk-specific content. | |
o Congestion Window (cwnd): An SCTP variable that limits the data, | |
in number of bytes, a sender can send to a particular destination | |
transport address before receiving an acknowledgement. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o Cumulative TSN Ack Point: The TSN of the last DATA chunk | |
acknowledged via the Cumulative TSN Ack field of a SACK. | |
o Idle destination address: An address that has not had user | |
messages sent to it within some length of time, normally the | |
HEARTBEAT interval or greater. | |
o Inactive destination transport address: An address which is | |
considered inactive due to errors and unavailable to transport | |
user messages. | |
o Message = user message: Data submitted to SCTP by the Upper Layer | |
Protocol (ULP). | |
o Message Authentication Code (MAC): An integrity check mechanism | |
based on cryptographic hash functions using a secret key. | |
Typically, message authentication codes are used between two | |
parties that share a secret key in order to validate information | |
transmitted between these parties. In SCTP it is used by an | |
endpoint to validate the State Cookie information that is returned | |
from the peer in the COOKIE ECHO chunk. The term "MAC" has | |
different meanings in different contexts. SCTP uses this term | |
with the same meaning as in [RFC2104]. | |
o Network Byte Order: Most significant byte first, a.k.a., Big | |
Endian. | |
o Ordered Message: A user message that is delivered in order with | |
respect to all previous user messages sent within the stream the | |
message was sent on. | |
o Outstanding TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated | |
DATA chunk) that has been sent by the endpoint but for which it | |
has not yet received an acknowledgement. | |
o Path: The route taken by the SCTP packets sent by one SCTP | |
endpoint to a specific destination transport address of its peer | |
SCTP endpoint. Sending to different destination transport | |
addresses does not necessarily guarantee getting separate paths. | |
o Primary Path: The primary path is the destination and source | |
address that will be put into a packet outbound to the peer | |
endpoint by default. The definition includes the source address | |
since an implementation MAY wish to specify both destination and | |
source address to better control the return path taken by reply | |
chunks and on which interface the packet is transmitted when the | |
data sender is multi-homed. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o Receiver Window (rwnd): An SCTP variable a data sender uses to | |
store the most recently calculated receiver window of its peer, in | |
number of bytes. This gives the sender an indication of the space | |
available in the receiver's inbound buffer. | |
o SCTP association: A protocol relationship between SCTP endpoints, | |
composed of the two SCTP endpoints and protocol state information | |
including Verification Tags and the currently active set of | |
Transmission Sequence Numbers (TSNs), etc. An association can be | |
uniquely identified by the transport addresses used by the | |
endpoints in the association. Two SCTP endpoints MUST NOT have | |
more than one SCTP association between them at any given time. | |
o SCTP endpoint: The logical sender/receiver of SCTP packets. On a | |
multi-homed host, an SCTP endpoint is represented to its peers as | |
a combination of a set of eligible destination transport addresses | |
to which SCTP packets can be sent and a set of eligible source | |
transport addresses from which SCTP packets can be received. All | |
transport addresses used by an SCTP endpoint must use the same | |
port number, but can use multiple IP addresses. A transport | |
address used by an SCTP endpoint must not be used by another SCTP | |
endpoint. In other words, a transport address is unique to an | |
SCTP endpoint. | |
o SCTP packet (or packet): The unit of data delivery across the | |
interface between SCTP and the connectionless packet network | |
(e.g., IP). An SCTP packet includes the common SCTP header, | |
possible SCTP control chunks, and user data encapsulated within | |
SCTP DATA chunks. | |
o SCTP user application (SCTP user): The logical higher-layer | |
application entity which uses the services of SCTP, also called | |
the Upper-layer Protocol (ULP). | |
o Slow Start Threshold (ssthresh): An SCTP variable. This is the | |
threshold which the endpoint will use to determine whether to | |
perform slow start or congestion avoidance on a particular | |
destination transport address. Ssthresh is in number of bytes. | |
o Stream: A uni-directional logical channel established from one to | |
another associated SCTP endpoint, within which all user messages | |
are delivered in sequence except for those submitted to the | |
unordered delivery service. | |
Note: The relationship between stream numbers in opposite directions | |
is strictly a matter of how the applications use them. It is the | |
responsibility of the SCTP user to create and manage these | |
correlations if they are so desired. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o Stream Sequence Number: A 16-bit sequence number used internally | |
by SCTP to assure sequenced delivery of the user messages within a | |
given stream. One stream sequence number is attached to each user | |
message. | |
o Tie-Tags: Verification Tags from a previous association. These | |
Tags are used within a State Cookie so that the newly restarting | |
association can be linked to the original association within the | |
endpoint that did not restart. | |
o Transmission Control Block (TCB): An internal data structure | |
created by an SCTP endpoint for each of its existing SCTP | |
associations to other SCTP endpoints. TCB contains all the status | |
and operational information for the endpoint to maintain and | |
manage the corresponding association. | |
o Transmission Sequence Number (TSN): A 32-bit sequence number used | |
internally by SCTP. One TSN is attached to each chunk containing | |
user data to permit the receiving SCTP endpoint to acknowledge its | |
receipt and detect duplicate deliveries. | |
o Transport address: A Transport Address is traditionally defined | |
by Network Layer address, Transport Layer protocol and Transport | |
Layer port number. In the case of SCTP running over IP, a | |
transport address is defined by the combination of an IP address | |
and an SCTP port number (where SCTP is the Transport protocol). | |
o Unacknowledged TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated | |
DATA chunk) which has been received by the endpoint but for which | |
an acknowledgement has not yet been sent. Or in the opposite case, | |
for a packet that has been sent but no acknowledgement has been | |
received. | |
o Unordered Message: Unordered messages are "unordered" with respect | |
to any other message, this includes both other unordered messages | |
as well as other ordered messages. Unordered message might be | |
delivered prior to or later than ordered messages sent on the same | |
stream. | |
o User message: The unit of data delivery across the interface | |
between SCTP and its user. | |
o Verification Tag: A 32 bit unsigned integer that is randomly | |
generated. The Verification Tag provides a key that allows a | |
receiver to verify that the SCTP packet belongs to the current | |
association and is not an old or stale packet from a previous | |
association. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
1.5. Abbreviations | |
MAC - Message Authentication Code [RFC2104] | |
RTO - Retransmission Time-out | |
RTT - Round-trip Time | |
RTTVAR - Round-trip Time Variation | |
SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol | |
SRTT - Smoothed RTT | |
TCB - Transmission Control Block | |
TLV - Type-Length-Value Coding Format | |
TSN - Transmission Sequence Number | |
ULP - Upper-layer Protocol | |
1.6 Serial Number Arithmetic | |
It is essential to remember that the actual Transmission Sequence | |
Number space is finite, though very large. This space ranges from 0 | |
to 2**32 - 1. Since the space is finite, all arithmetic dealing with | |
Transmission Sequence Numbers must be performed modulo 2**32. This | |
unsigned arithmetic preserves the relationship of sequence numbers as | |
they cycle from 2**32 - 1 to 0 again. There are some subtleties to | |
computer modulo arithmetic, so great care should be taken in | |
programming the comparison of such values. When referring to TSNs, | |
the symbol "=<" means "less than or equal"(modulo 2**32). | |
Comparisons and arithmetic on TSNs in this document SHOULD use Serial | |
Number Arithmetic as defined in [RFC1982] where SERIAL_BITS = 32. | |
An endpoint SHOULD NOT transmit a DATA chunk with a TSN that is more | |
than 2**31 - 1 above the beginning TSN of its current send window. | |
Doing so will cause problems in comparing TSNs. | |
Transmission Sequence Numbers wrap around when they reach 2**32 - 1. | |
That is, the next TSN a DATA chunk MUST use after transmitting TSN = | |
2*32 - 1 is TSN = 0. | |
Any arithmetic done on Stream Sequence Numbers SHOULD use Serial | |
Number Arithmetic as defined in [RFC1982] where SERIAL_BITS = 16. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
All other arithmetic and comparisons in this document uses normal | |
arithmetic. | |
2. Conventions | |
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, | |
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when | |
they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in | |
[RFC2119]. | |
3. SCTP packet Format | |
An SCTP packet is composed of a common header and chunks. A chunk | |
contains either control information or user data. | |
The SCTP packet format is shown below: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Common Header | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Chunk #1 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| ... | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Chunk #n | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Multiple chunks can be bundled into one SCTP packet up to the MTU | |
size, except for the INIT, INIT ACK, and SHUTDOWN COMPLETE chunks. | |
These chunks MUST NOT be bundled with any other chunk in a packet. | |
See Section 6.10 for more details on chunk bundling. | |
If a user data message doesn't fit into one SCTP packet it can be | |
fragmented into multiple chunks using the procedure defined in | |
Section 6.9. | |
All integer fields in an SCTP packet MUST be transmitted in network | |
byte order, unless otherwise stated. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.1 SCTP Common Header Field Descriptions | |
SCTP Common Header Format | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Source Port Number | Destination Port Number | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Verification Tag | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Checksum | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Source Port Number: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This is the SCTP sender's port number. It can be used by the | |
receiver in combination with the source IP address, the SCTP | |
destination port and possibly the destination IP address to | |
identify the association to which this packet belongs. | |
Destination Port Number: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This is the SCTP port number to which this packet is destined. | |
The receiving host will use this port number to de-multiplex the | |
SCTP packet to the correct receiving endpoint/application. | |
Verification Tag: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
The receiver of this packet uses the Verification Tag to validate | |
the sender of this SCTP packet. On transmit, the value of this | |
Verification Tag MUST be set to the value of the Initiate Tag | |
received from the peer endpoint during the association | |
initialization, with the following exceptions: | |
- A packet containing an INIT chunk MUST have a zero Verification | |
Tag. | |
- A packet containing a SHUTDOWN-COMPLETE chunk with the T-bit | |
set MUST have the Verification Tag copied from the packet with | |
the SHUTDOWN-ACK chunk. | |
- A packet containing an ABORT chunk may have the verification | |
tag copied from the packet which caused the ABORT to be sent. | |
For details see Section 8.4 and 8.5. | |
An INIT chunk MUST be the only chunk in the SCTP packet carrying it. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Checksum: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This field contains the checksum of this SCTP packet. Its | |
calculation is discussed in Section 6.8. SCTP uses the Adler- | |
32 algorithm as described in Appendix B for calculating the | |
checksum | |
3.2 Chunk Field Descriptions | |
The figure below illustrates the field format for the chunks to be | |
transmitted in the SCTP packet. Each chunk is formatted with a Chunk | |
Type field, a chunk-specific Flag field, a Chunk Length field, and a | |
Value field. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Chunk Type | Chunk Flags | Chunk Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Chunk Value / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Type: 8 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This field identifies the type of information contained in the | |
Chunk Value field. It takes a value from 0 to 254. The value of | |
255 is reserved for future use as an extension field. | |
The values of Chunk Types are defined as follows: | |
ID Value Chunk Type | |
----- ---------- | |
0 - Payload Data (DATA) | |
1 - Initiation (INIT) | |
2 - Initiation Acknowledgement (INIT ACK) | |
3 - Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) | |
4 - Heartbeat Request (HEARTBEAT) | |
5 - Heartbeat Acknowledgement (HEARTBEAT ACK) | |
6 - Abort (ABORT) | |
7 - Shutdown (SHUTDOWN) | |
8 - Shutdown Acknowledgement (SHUTDOWN ACK) | |
9 - Operation Error (ERROR) | |
10 - State Cookie (COOKIE ECHO) | |
11 - Cookie Acknowledgement (COOKIE ACK) | |
12 - Reserved for Explicit Congestion Notification Echo (ECNE) | |
13 - Reserved for Congestion Window Reduced (CWR) | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
14 - Shutdown Complete (SHUTDOWN COMPLETE) | |
15 to 62 - reserved by IETF | |
63 - IETF-defined Chunk Extensions | |
64 to 126 - reserved by IETF | |
127 - IETF-defined Chunk Extensions | |
128 to 190 - reserved by IETF | |
191 - IETF-defined Chunk Extensions | |
192 to 254 - reserved by IETF | |
255 - IETF-defined Chunk Extensions | |
Chunk Types are encoded such that the highest-order two bits specify | |
the action that must be taken if the processing endpoint does not | |
recognize the Chunk Type. | |
00 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process | |
any further chunks within it. | |
01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process | |
any further chunks within it, and report the unrecognized | |
parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in either an | |
ERROR or in the INIT ACK). | |
10 - Skip this chunk and continue processing. | |
11 - Skip this chunk and continue processing, but report in an ERROR | |
Chunk using the 'Unrecognized Chunk Type' cause of error. | |
Note: The ECNE and CWR chunk types are reserved for future use of | |
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN). | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
The usage of these bits depends on the chunk type as given by the | |
Chunk Type. Unless otherwise specified, they are set to zero on | |
transmit and are ignored on receipt. | |
Chunk Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This value represents the size of the chunk in bytes including the | |
Chunk Type, Chunk Flags, Chunk Length, and Chunk Value fields. | |
Therefore, if the Chunk Value field is zero-length, the Length | |
field will be set to 4. The Chunk Length field does not count any | |
padding. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Chunk Value: variable length | |
The Chunk Value field contains the actual information to be | |
transferred in the chunk. The usage and format of this field is | |
dependent on the Chunk Type. | |
The total length of a chunk (including Type, Length and Value fields) | |
MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes. If the length of the chunk is not a | |
multiple of 4 bytes, the sender MUST pad the chunk with all zero | |
bytes and this padding is not included in the chunk length field. | |
The sender should never pad with more than 3 bytes. The receiver | |
MUST ignore the padding bytes. | |
SCTP defined chunks are described in detail in Section 3.3. The | |
guidelines for IETF-defined chunk extensions can be found in Section | |
13.1 of this document. | |
3.2.1 Optional/Variable-length Parameter Format | |
Chunk values of SCTP control chunks consist of a chunk-type-specific | |
header of required fields, followed by zero or more parameters. The | |
optional and variable-length parameters contained in a chunk are | |
defined in a Type-Length-Value format as shown below. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Parameter Type | Parameter Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Parameter Value / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Parameter Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
The Type field is a 16 bit identifier of the type of parameter. | |
It takes a value of 0 to 65534. | |
The value of 65535 is reserved for IETF-defined extensions. Values | |
other than those defined in specific SCTP chunk description are | |
reserved for use by IETF. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Chunk Parameter Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
The Parameter Length field contains the size of the parameter in | |
bytes, including the Parameter Type, Parameter Length, and | |
Parameter Value fields. Thus, a parameter with a zero-length | |
Parameter Value field would have a Length field of 4. The | |
Parameter Length does not include any padding bytes. | |
Chunk Parameter Value: variable-length. | |
The Parameter Value field contains the actual information to be | |
transferred in the parameter. | |
The total length of a parameter (including Type, Parameter Length and | |
Value fields) MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes. If the length of the | |
parameter is not a multiple of 4 bytes, the sender pads the Parameter | |
at the end (i.e., after the Parameter Value field) with all zero | |
bytes. The length of the padding is not included in the parameter | |
length field. A sender SHOULD NOT pad with more than 3 bytes. The | |
receiver MUST ignore the padding bytes. | |
The Parameter Types are encoded such that the highest-order two bits | |
specify the action that must be taken if the processing endpoint does | |
not recognize the Parameter Type. | |
00 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process | |
any further chunks within it. | |
01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process | |
any further chunks within it, and report the unrecognized | |
parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in either an | |
ERROR or in the INIT ACK). | |
10 - Skip this parameter and continue processing. | |
11 - Skip this parameter and continue processing but report the | |
unrecognized parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in | |
either an ERROR or in the INIT ACK). | |
The actual SCTP parameters are defined in the specific SCTP chunk | |
sections. The rules for IETF-defined parameter extensions are | |
defined in Section 13.2. | |
3.3 SCTP Chunk Definitions | |
This section defines the format of the different SCTP chunk types. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.1 Payload Data (DATA) (0) | |
The following format MUST be used for the DATA chunk: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 0 | Reserved|U|B|E| Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| TSN | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Stream Identifier S | Stream Sequence Number n | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Payload Protocol Identifier | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ User Data (seq n of Stream S) / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Reserved: 5 bits | |
Should be set to all '0's and ignored by the receiver. | |
U bit: 1 bit | |
The (U)nordered bit, if set to '1', indicates that this is an | |
unordered DATA chunk, and there is no Stream Sequence Number | |
assigned to this DATA chunk. Therefore, the receiver MUST ignore | |
the Stream Sequence Number field. | |
After re-assembly (if necessary), unordered DATA chunks MUST be | |
dispatched to the upper layer by the receiver without any attempt | |
to re-order. | |
If an unordered user message is fragmented, each fragment of the | |
message MUST have its U bit set to '1'. | |
B bit: 1 bit | |
The (B)eginning fragment bit, if set, indicates the first fragment | |
of a user message. | |
E bit: 1 bit | |
The (E)nding fragment bit, if set, indicates the last fragment of | |
a user message. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
An unfragmented user message shall have both the B and E bits set to | |
'1'. Setting both B and E bits to '0' indicates a middle fragment of | |
a multi-fragment user message, as summarized in the following table: | |
B E Description | |
============================================================ | |
| 1 0 | First piece of a fragmented user message | | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | |
| 0 0 | Middle piece of a fragmented user message | | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | |
| 0 1 | Last piece of a fragmented user message | | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | |
| 1 1 | Unfragmented Message | | |
============================================================ | |
| Table 1: Fragment Description Flags | | |
============================================================ | |
When a user message is fragmented into multiple chunks, the TSNs are | |
used by the receiver to reassemble the message. This means that the | |
TSNs for each fragment of a fragmented user message MUST be strictly | |
sequential. | |
Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This field indicates the length of the DATA chunk in bytes from | |
the beginning of the type field to the end of the user data field | |
excluding any padding. A DATA chunk with no user data field will | |
have Length set to 16 (indicating 16 bytes). | |
TSN : 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This value represents the TSN for this DATA chunk. The valid | |
range of TSN is from 0 to 4294967295 (2**32 - 1). TSN wraps back | |
to 0 after reaching 4294967295. | |
Stream Identifier S: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Identifies the stream to which the following user data belongs. | |
Stream Sequence Number n: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This value represents the stream sequence number of the following | |
user data within the stream S. Valid range is 0 to 65535. | |
When a user message is fragmented by SCTP for transport, the same | |
stream sequence number MUST be carried in each of the fragments of | |
the message. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Payload Protocol Identifier: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This value represents an application (or upper layer) specified | |
protocol identifier. This value is passed to SCTP by its upper | |
layer and sent to its peer. This identifier is not used by SCTP | |
but can be used by certain network entities as well as the peer | |
application to identify the type of information being carried in | |
this DATA chunk. This field must be sent even in fragmented DATA | |
chunks (to make sure it is available for agents in the middle of | |
the network). | |
The value 0 indicates no application identifier is specified by | |
the upper layer for this payload data. | |
User Data: variable length | |
This is the payload user data. The implementation MUST pad the | |
end of the data to a 4 byte boundary with all-zero bytes. Any | |
padding MUST NOT be included in the length field. A sender MUST | |
never add more than 3 bytes of padding. | |
3.3.2 Initiation (INIT) (1) | |
This chunk is used to initiate a SCTP association between two | |
endpoints. The format of the INIT chunk is shown below: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 1 | Chunk Flags | Chunk Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Initiate Tag | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd) | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Number of Outbound Streams | Number of Inbound Streams | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Initial TSN | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Optional/Variable-Length Parameters / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
The INIT chunk contains the following parameters. Unless otherwise | |
noted, each parameter MUST only be included once in the INIT chunk. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Fixed Parameters Status | |
---------------------------------------------- | |
Initiate Tag Mandatory | |
Advertised Receiver Window Credit Mandatory | |
Number of Outbound Streams Mandatory | |
Number of Inbound Streams Mandatory | |
Initial TSN Mandatory | |
Variable Parameters Status Type Value | |
------------------------------------------------------------- | |
IPv4 Address (Note 1) Optional 5 | |
IPv6 Address (Note 1) Optional 6 | |
Cookie Preservative Optional 9 | |
Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2) Optional 32768 (0x8000) | |
Host Name Address (Note 3) Optional 11 | |
Supported Address Types (Note 4) Optional 12 | |
Note 1: The INIT chunks can contain multiple addresses that can be | |
IPv4 and/or IPv6 in any combination. | |
Note 2: The ECN capable field is reserved for future use of Explicit | |
Congestion Notification. | |
Note 3: An INIT chunk MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name | |
address parameter. Moreover, the sender of the INIT MUST NOT combine | |
any other address types with the Host Name address in the INIT. The | |
receiver of INIT MUST ignore any other address types if the Host Name | |
address parameter is present in the received INIT chunk. | |
Note 4: This parameter, when present, specifies all the address types | |
the sending endpoint can support. The absence of this parameter | |
indicates that the sending endpoint can support any address type. | |
The Chunk Flags field in INIT is reserved and all bits in it should | |
be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver. The sequence | |
of parameters within an INIT can be processed in any order. | |
Initiate Tag: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
The receiver of the INIT (the responding end) records the value of | |
the Initiate Tag parameter. This value MUST be placed into the | |
Verification Tag field of every SCTP packet that the receiver of | |
the INIT transmits within this association. | |
The Initiate Tag is allowed to have any value except 0. See | |
Section 5.3.1 for more on the selection of the tag value. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
If the value of the Initiate Tag in a received INIT chunk is found | |
to be 0, the receiver MUST treat it as an error and close the | |
association by transmitting an ABORT. | |
Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd): 32 bits (unsigned | |
integer) | |
This value represents the dedicated buffer space, in number of | |
bytes, the sender of the INIT has reserved in association with | |
this window. During the life of the association this buffer space | |
SHOULD not be lessened (i.e. dedicated buffers taken away from | |
this association); however, an endpoint MAY change the value of | |
a_rwnd it sends in SACK chunks. | |
Number of Outbound Streams (OS): 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the number of outbound streams the sender of this INIT | |
chunk wishes to create in this association. The value of 0 MUST | |
NOT be used. | |
Note: A receiver of an INIT with the OS value set to 0 SHOULD | |
abort the association. | |
Number of Inbound Streams (MIS) : 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the maximum number of streams the sender of this INIT | |
chunk allows the peer end to create in this association. The | |
value 0 MUST NOT be used. | |
Note: There is no negotiation of the actual number of streams but | |
instead the two endpoints will use the min(requested, offered). | |
See Section 5.1.1 for details. | |
Note: A receiver of an INIT with the MIS value of 0 SHOULD abort | |
the association. | |
Initial TSN (I-TSN) : 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the initial TSN that the sender will use. The valid range | |
is from 0 to 4294967295. This field MAY be set to the value of | |
the Initiate Tag field. | |
3.3.2.1 Optional/Variable Length Parameters in INIT | |
The following parameters follow the Type-Length-Value format as | |
defined in Section 3.2.1. Any Type-Length-Value fields MUST come | |
after the fixed-length fields defined in the previous section. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
IPv4 Address Parameter (5) | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 5 | Length = 8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| IPv4 Address | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
IPv4 Address: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Contains an IPv4 address of the sending endpoint. It is binary | |
encoded. | |
IPv6 Address Parameter (6) | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 6 | Length = 20 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| | | |
| IPv6 Address | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
IPv6 Address: 128 bit (unsigned integer) | |
Contains an IPv6 address of the sending endpoint. It is binary | |
encoded. | |
Note: A sender MUST NOT use an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address [RFC2373] | |
but should instead use an IPv4 Address Parameter for an IPv4 | |
address. | |
Combined with the Source Port Number in the SCTP common header, | |
the value passed in an IPv4 or IPv6 Address parameter indicates a | |
transport address the sender of the INIT will support for the | |
association being initiated. That is, during the lifetime of this | |
association, this IP address can appear in the source address | |
field of an IP datagram sent from the sender of the INIT, and can | |
be used as a destination address of an IP datagram sent from the | |
receiver of the INIT. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
More than one IP Address parameter can be included in an INIT | |
chunk when the INIT sender is multi-homed. Moreover, a multi- | |
homed endpoint may have access to different types of network, thus | |
more than one address type can be present in one INIT chunk, i.e., | |
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are allowed in the same INIT chunk. | |
If the INIT contains at least one IP Address parameter, then the | |
source address of the IP datagram containing the INIT chunk and | |
any additional address(es) provided within the INIT can be used as | |
destinations by the endpoint receiving the INIT. If the INIT does | |
not contain any IP Address parameters, the endpoint receiving the | |
INIT MUST use the source address associated with the received IP | |
datagram as its sole destination address for the association. | |
Note that not using any IP address parameters in the INIT and | |
INIT-ACK is an alternative to make an association more likely to | |
work across a NAT box. | |
Cookie Preservative (9) | |
The sender of the INIT shall use this parameter to suggest to the | |
receiver of the INIT for a longer life-span of the State Cookie. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 9 | Length = 8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Suggested Cookie Life-span Increment (msec.) | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Suggested Cookie Life-span Increment: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This parameter indicates to the receiver how much increment in | |
milliseconds the sender wishes the receiver to add to its default | |
cookie life-span. | |
This optional parameter should be added to the INIT chunk by the | |
sender when it re-attempts establishing an association with a peer | |
to which its previous attempt of establishing the association failed | |
due to a stale cookie operation error. The receiver MAY choose to | |
ignore the suggested cookie life-span increase for its own security | |
reasons. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Host Name Address (11) | |
The sender of INIT uses this parameter to pass its Host Name (in | |
place of its IP addresses) to its peer. The peer is responsible | |
for resolving the name. Using this parameter might make it more | |
likely for the association to work across a NAT box. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 11 | Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Host Name / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Host Name: variable length | |
This field contains a host name in "host name syntax" per RFC1123 | |
Section 2.1 [RFC1123]. The method for resolving the host name is | |
out of scope of SCTP. | |
Note: At least one null terminator is included in the Host Name | |
string and must be included in the length. | |
Supported Address Types (12) | |
The sender of INIT uses this parameter to list all the address | |
types it can support. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 12 | Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Address Type #1 | Address Type #2 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| ...... | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Address Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This is filled with the type value of the corresponding address | |
TLV (e.g., IPv4 = 5, IPv6 = 6, Hostname = 11). | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.3 Initiation Acknowledgement (INIT ACK) (2): | |
The INIT ACK chunk is used to acknowledge the initiation of an SCTP | |
association. | |
The parameter part of INIT ACK is formatted similarly to the INIT | |
chunk. It uses two extra variable parameters: The State Cookie and | |
the Unrecognized Parameter: | |
The format of the INIT ACK chunk is shown below: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 2 | Chunk Flags | Chunk Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Initiate Tag | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Advertised Receiver Window Credit | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Number of Outbound Streams | Number of Inbound Streams | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Initial TSN | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Optional/Variable-Length Parameters / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Initiate Tag: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
The receiver of the INIT ACK records the value of the Initiate Tag | |
parameter. This value MUST be placed into the Verification Tag | |
field of every SCTP packet that the INIT ACK receiver transmits | |
within this association. | |
The Initiate Tag MUST NOT take the value 0. See Section 5.3.1 for | |
more on the selection of the Initiate Tag value. | |
If the value of the Initiate Tag in a received INIT ACK chunk is | |
found to be 0, the receiver MUST treat it as an error and close | |
the association by transmitting an ABORT. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd): 32 bits (unsigned | |
integer) | |
This value represents the dedicated buffer space, in number of | |
bytes, the sender of the INIT ACK has reserved in association with | |
this window. During the life of the association this buffer space | |
SHOULD not be lessened (i.e. dedicated buffers taken away from | |
this association). | |
Number of Outbound Streams (OS): 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the number of outbound streams the sender of this INIT ACK | |
chunk wishes to create in this association. The value of 0 MUST | |
NOT be used. | |
Note: A receiver of an INIT ACK with the OS value set to 0 SHOULD | |
destroy the association discarding its TCB. | |
Number of Inbound Streams (MIS) : 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the maximum number of streams the sender of this INIT ACK | |
chunk allows the peer end to create in this association. The | |
value 0 MUST NOT be used. | |
Note: There is no negotiation of the actual number of streams but | |
instead the two endpoints will use the min(requested, offered). | |
See Section 5.1.1 for details. | |
Note: A receiver of an INIT ACK with the MIS value set to 0 | |
SHOULD destroy the association discarding its TCB. | |
Initial TSN (I-TSN) : 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the initial TSN that the INIT-ACK sender will use. The | |
valid range is from 0 to 4294967295. This field MAY be set to the | |
value of the Initiate Tag field. | |
Fixed Parameters Status | |
---------------------------------------------- | |
Initiate Tag Mandatory | |
Advertised Receiver Window Credit Mandatory | |
Number of Outbound Streams Mandatory | |
Number of Inbound Streams Mandatory | |
Initial TSN Mandatory | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Variable Parameters Status Type Value | |
------------------------------------------------------------- | |
State Cookie Mandatory 7 | |
IPv4 Address (Note 1) Optional 5 | |
IPv6 Address (Note 1) Optional 6 | |
Unrecognized Parameters Optional 8 | |
Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2) Optional 32768 (0x8000) | |
Host Name Address (Note 3) Optional 11 | |
Note 1: The INIT ACK chunks can contain any number of IP address | |
parameters that can be IPv4 and/or IPv6 in any combination. | |
Note 2: The ECN capable field is reserved for future use of Explicit | |
Congestion Notification. | |
Note 3: The INIT ACK chunks MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name | |
address parameter. Moreover, the sender of the INIT ACK MUST NOT | |
combine any other address types with the Host Name address in the | |
INIT ACK. The receiver of the INIT ACK MUST ignore any other address | |
types if the Host Name address parameter is present. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: An implementation MUST be prepared to receive a | |
INIT ACK that is quite large (more than 1500 bytes) due to the | |
variable size of the state cookie AND the variable address list. For | |
example if a responder to the INIT has 1000 IPv4 addresses it wishes | |
to send, it would need at least 8,000 bytes to encode this in the | |
INIT ACK. | |
In combination with the Source Port carried in the SCTP common | |
header, each IP Address parameter in the INIT ACK indicates to the | |
receiver of the INIT ACK a valid transport address supported by the | |
sender of the INIT ACK for the lifetime of the association being | |
initiated. | |
If the INIT ACK contains at least one IP Address parameter, then the | |
source address of the IP datagram containing the INIT ACK and any | |
additional address(es) provided within the INIT ACK may be used as | |
destinations by the receiver of the INIT-ACK. If the INIT ACK does | |
not contain any IP Address parameters, the receiver of the INIT-ACK | |
MUST use the source address associated with the received IP datagram | |
as its sole destination address for the association. | |
The State Cookie and Unrecognized Parameters use the Type-Length- | |
Value format as defined in Section 3.2.1 and are described below. | |
The other fields are defined the same as their counterparts in the | |
INIT chunk. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.3.1 Optional or Variable Length Parameters | |
State Cookie | |
Parameter Type Value: 7 | |
Parameter Length: variable size, depending on Size of Cookie | |
Parameter Value: | |
This parameter value MUST contain all the necessary state and | |
parameter information required for the sender of this INIT ACK | |
to create the association, along with a Message Authentication | |
Code (MAC). See Section 5.1.3 for details on State Cookie | |
definition. | |
Unrecognized Parameters: | |
Parameter Type Value: 8 | |
Parameter Length: Variable Size. | |
Parameter Value: | |
This parameter is returned to the originator of the INIT chunk | |
when the INIT contains an unrecognized parameter which has a | |
value that indicates that it should be reported to the sender. | |
This parameter value field will contain unrecognized parameters | |
copied from the INIT chunk complete with Parameter Type, Length | |
and Value fields. | |
3.3.4 Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) (3): | |
This chunk is sent to the peer endpoint to acknowledge received DATA | |
chunks and to inform the peer endpoint of gaps in the received | |
subsequences of DATA chunks as represented by their TSNs. | |
The SACK MUST contain the Cumulative TSN Ack and Advertised Receiver | |
Window Credit (a_rwnd) parameters. | |
By definition, the value of the Cumulative TSN Ack parameter is the | |
last TSN received before a break in the sequence of received TSNs | |
occurs; the next TSN value following this one has not yet been | |
received at the endpoint sending the SACK. This parameter therefore | |
acknowledges receipt of all TSNs less than or equal to its value. | |
The handling of a_rwnd by the receiver of the SACK is discussed in | |
detail in Section 6.2.1. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The SACK also contains zero or more Gap Ack Blocks. Each Gap Ack | |
Block acknowledges a subsequence of TSNs received following a break | |
in the sequence of received TSNs. By definition, all TSNs | |
acknowledged by Gap Ack Blocks are greater than the value of the | |
Cumulative TSN Ack. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 3 |Chunk Flags | Chunk Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cumulative TSN Ack | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd) | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Number of Gap Ack Blocks = N | Number of Duplicate TSNs = X | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Gap Ack Block #1 Start | Gap Ack Block #1 End | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ / | |
\ ... \ | |
/ / | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Gap Ack Block #N Start | Gap Ack Block #N End | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Duplicate TSN 1 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ / | |
\ ... \ | |
/ / | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Duplicate TSN X | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to all zeros on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Cumulative TSN Ack: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This parameter contains the TSN of the last DATA chunk received in | |
sequence before a gap. | |
Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd): 32 bits (unsigned | |
integer) | |
This field indicates the updated receive buffer space in bytes of | |
the sender of this SACK, see Section 6.2.1 for details. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Number of Gap Ack Blocks: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Indicates the number of Gap Ack Blocks included in this SACK. | |
Number of Duplicate TSNs: 16 bit | |
This field contains the number of duplicate TSNs the endpoint has | |
received. Each duplicate TSN is listed following the Gap Ack | |
Block list. | |
Gap Ack Blocks: | |
These fields contain the Gap Ack Blocks. They are repeated for | |
each Gap Ack Block up to the number of Gap Ack Blocks defined in | |
the Number of Gap Ack Blocks field. All DATA chunks with TSNs | |
greater than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block | |
Start) and less than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack | |
Block End) of each Gap Ack Block are assumed to have been received | |
correctly. | |
Gap Ack Block Start: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Indicates the Start offset TSN for this Gap Ack Block. To | |
calculate the actual TSN number the Cumulative TSN Ack is added to | |
this offset number. This calculated TSN identifies the first TSN | |
in this Gap Ack Block that has been received. | |
Gap Ack Block End: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Indicates the End offset TSN for this Gap Ack Block. To calculate | |
the actual TSN number the Cumulative TSN Ack is added to this | |
offset number. This calculated TSN identifies the TSN of the last | |
DATA chunk received in this Gap Ack Block. | |
For example, assume the receiver has the following DATA chunks newly | |
arrived at the time when it decides to send a Selective ACK, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
---------- | |
| TSN=17 | | |
---------- | |
| | <- still missing | |
---------- | |
| TSN=15 | | |
---------- | |
| TSN=14 | | |
---------- | |
| | <- still missing | |
---------- | |
| TSN=12 | | |
---------- | |
| TSN=11 | | |
---------- | |
| TSN=10 | | |
---------- | |
then, the parameter part of the SACK MUST be constructed as follows | |
(assuming the new a_rwnd is set to 4660 by the sender): | |
+--------------------------------+ | |
| Cumulative TSN Ack = 12 | | |
+--------------------------------+ | |
| a_rwnd = 4660 | | |
+----------------+---------------+ | |
| num of block=2 | num of dup=0 | | |
+----------------+---------------+ | |
|block #1 strt=2 |block #1 end=3 | | |
+----------------+---------------+ | |
|block #2 strt=5 |block #2 end=5 | | |
+----------------+---------------+ | |
Duplicate TSN: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Indicates the number of times a TSN was received in duplicate | |
since the last SACK was sent. Every time a receiver gets a | |
duplicate TSN (before sending the SACK) it adds it to the list of | |
duplicates. The duplicate count is re-initialized to zero after | |
sending each SACK. | |
For example, if a receiver were to get the TSN 19 three times it | |
would list 19 twice in the outbound SACK. After sending the SACK | |
if it received yet one more TSN 19 it would list 19 as a duplicate | |
once in the next outgoing SACK. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.5 Heartbeat Request (HEARTBEAT) (4): | |
An endpoint should send this chunk to its peer endpoint to probe the | |
reachability of a particular destination transport address defined in | |
the present association. | |
The parameter field contains the Heartbeat Information which is a | |
variable length opaque data structure understood only by the sender. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 4 | Chunk Flags | Heartbeat Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Heartbeat Information TLV (Variable-Length) / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Heartbeat Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the chunk in bytes, including the chunk header | |
and the Heartbeat Information field. | |
Heartbeat Information: variable length | |
Defined as a variable-length parameter using the format described | |
in Section 3.2.1, i.e.: | |
Variable Parameters Status Type Value | |
------------------------------------------------------------- | |
Heartbeat Info Mandatory 1 | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Heartbeat Info Type=1 | HB Info Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Sender-specific Heartbeat Info / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The Sender-specific Heartbeat Info field should normally include | |
information about the sender's current time when this HEARTBEAT | |
chunk is sent and the destination transport address to which this | |
HEARTBEAT is sent (see Section 8.3). | |
3.3.6 Heartbeat Acknowledgement (HEARTBEAT ACK) (5): | |
An endpoint should send this chunk to its peer endpoint as a response | |
to a HEARTBEAT chunk (see Section 8.3). A HEARTBEAT ACK is always | |
sent to the source IP address of the IP datagram containing the | |
HEARTBEAT chunk to which this ack is responding. | |
The parameter field contains a variable length opaque data structure. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 5 | Chunk Flags | Heartbeat Ack Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ Heartbeat Information TLV (Variable-Length) / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Heartbeat Ack Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the chunk in bytes, including the chunk header | |
and the Heartbeat Information field. | |
Heartbeat Information: variable length | |
This field MUST contain the Heartbeat Information parameter of | |
the Heartbeat Request to which this Heartbeat Acknowledgement is | |
responding. | |
Variable Parameters Status Type Value | |
------------------------------------------------------------- | |
Heartbeat Info Mandatory 1 | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.7 Abort Association (ABORT) (6): | |
The ABORT chunk is sent to the peer of an association to close the | |
association. The ABORT chunk may contain Cause Parameters to inform | |
the receiver the reason of the abort. DATA chunks MUST NOT be | |
bundled with ABORT. Control chunks (except for INIT, INIT ACK and | |
SHUTDOWN COMPLETE) MAY be bundled with an ABORT but they MUST be | |
placed before the ABORT in the SCTP packet, or they will be ignored | |
by the receiver. | |
If an endpoint receives an ABORT with a format error or for an | |
association that doesn't exist, it MUST silently discard it. | |
Moreover, under any circumstances, an endpoint that receives an ABORT | |
MUST NOT respond to that ABORT by sending an ABORT of its own. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 6 |Reserved |T| Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ zero or more Error Causes / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Reserved: 7 bits | |
Set to 0 on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
T bit: 1 bit | |
The T bit is set to 0 if the sender had a TCB that it destroyed. | |
If the sender did not have a TCB it should set this bit to 1. | |
Note: Special rules apply to this chunk for verification, please see | |
Section 8.5.1 for details. | |
Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the chunk in bytes, including the chunk header | |
and all the Error Cause fields present. | |
See Section 3.3.10 for Error Cause definitions. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.8 Shutdown Association (SHUTDOWN) (7): | |
An endpoint in an association MUST use this chunk to initiate a | |
graceful close of the association with its peer. This chunk has the | |
following format. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 7 | Chunk Flags | Length = 8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cumulative TSN Ack | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Indicates the length of the parameter. Set to 8. | |
Cumulative TSN Ack: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This parameter contains the TSN of the last chunk received in | |
sequence before any gaps. | |
Note: Since the SHUTDOWN message does not contain Gap Ack Blocks, | |
it cannot be used to acknowledge TSNs received out of order. In a | |
SACK, lack of Gap Ack Blocks that were previously included | |
indicates that the data receiver reneged on the associated DATA | |
chunks. Since SHUTDOWN does not contain Gap Ack Blocks, the | |
receiver of the SHUTDOWN shouldn't interpret the lack of a Gap Ack | |
Block as a renege. (see Section 6.2 for information on reneging) | |
3.3.9 Shutdown Acknowledgement (SHUTDOWN ACK) (8): | |
This chunk MUST be used to acknowledge the receipt of the SHUTDOWN | |
chunk at the completion of the shutdown process, see Section 9.2 for | |
details. | |
The SHUTDOWN ACK chunk has no parameters. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 8 |Chunk Flags | Length = 4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
3.3.10 Operation Error (ERROR) (9): | |
An endpoint sends this chunk to its peer endpoint to notify it of | |
certain error conditions. It contains one or more error causes. An | |
Operation Error is not considered fatal in and of itself, but may be | |
used with an ABORT chunk to report a fatal condition. It has the | |
following parameters: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 9 | Chunk Flags | Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
\ \ | |
/ one or more Error Causes / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the chunk in bytes, including the chunk header | |
and all the Error Cause fields present. | |
Error causes are defined as variable-length parameters using the | |
format described in 3.2.1, i.e.: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code | Cause Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Cause-specific Information / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Cause Code: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Defines the type of error conditions being reported. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Cause Code | |
Value Cause Code | |
--------- ---------------- | |
1 Invalid Stream Identifier | |
2 Missing Mandatory Parameter | |
3 Stale Cookie Error | |
4 Out of Resource | |
5 Unresolvable Address | |
6 Unrecognized Chunk Type | |
7 Invalid Mandatory Parameter | |
8 Unrecognized Parameters | |
9 No User Data | |
10 Cookie Received While Shutting Down | |
Cause Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the parameter in bytes, including the Cause | |
Code, Cause Length, and Cause-Specific Information fields | |
Cause-specific Information: variable length | |
This field carries the details of the error condition. | |
Sections 3.3.10.1 - 3.3.10.10 define error causes for SCTP. | |
Guidelines for the IETF to define new error cause values are | |
discussed in Section 13.3. | |
3.3.10.1 Invalid Stream Identifier (1) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Invalid Stream Identifier: Indicates endpoint received a DATA chunk | |
sent to a nonexistent stream. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=1 | Cause Length=8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Stream Identifier | (Reserved) | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Stream Identifier: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Contains the Stream Identifier of the DATA chunk received in | |
error. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Reserved: 16 bits | |
This field is reserved. It is set to all 0's on transmit and | |
Ignored on receipt. | |
3.3.10.2 Missing Mandatory Parameter (2) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Missing Mandatory Parameter: Indicates that one or more mandatory | |
TLV parameters are missing in a received INIT or INIT ACK. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=2 | Cause Length=8+N*2 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Number of missing params=N | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Missing Param Type #1 | Missing Param Type #2 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Missing Param Type #N-1 | Missing Param Type #N | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Number of Missing params: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This field contains the number of parameters contained in the | |
Cause-specific Information field. | |
Missing Param Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Each field will contain the missing mandatory parameter number. | |
3.3.10.3 Stale Cookie Error (3) | |
Cause of error | |
-------------- | |
Stale Cookie Error: Indicates the receipt of a valid State Cookie | |
that has expired. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=3 | Cause Length=8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Measure of Staleness (usec.) | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Measure of Staleness: 32 bits (unsigned integer) | |
This field contains the difference, in microseconds, between the | |
current time and the time the State Cookie expired. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The sender of this error cause MAY choose to report how long past | |
expiration the State Cookie is by including a non-zero value in | |
the Measure of Staleness field. If the sender does not wish to | |
provide this information it should set the Measure of Staleness | |
field to the value of zero. | |
3.3.10.4 Out of Resource (4) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Out of Resource: Indicates that the sender is out of resource. This | |
is usually sent in combination with or within an ABORT. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=4 | Cause Length=4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
3.3.10.5 Unresolvable Address (5) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Unresolvable Address: Indicates that the sender is not able to | |
resolve the specified address parameter (e.g., type of address is not | |
supported by the sender). This is usually sent in combination with | |
or within an ABORT. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=5 | Cause Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Unresolvable Address / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Unresolvable Address: variable length | |
The unresolvable address field contains the complete Type, Length | |
and Value of the address parameter (or Host Name parameter) that | |
contains the unresolvable address or host name. | |
3.3.10.6 Unrecognized Chunk Type (6) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Unrecognized Chunk Type: This error cause is returned to the | |
originator of the chunk if the receiver does not understand the chunk | |
and the upper bits of the 'Chunk Type' are set to 01 or 11. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=6 | Cause Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Unrecognized Chunk / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Unrecognized Chunk: variable length | |
The Unrecognized Chunk field contains the unrecognized Chunk from | |
the SCTP packet complete with Chunk Type, Chunk Flags and Chunk | |
Length. | |
3.3.10.7 Invalid Mandatory Parameter (7) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Invalid Mandatory Parameter: This error cause is returned to the | |
originator of an INIT or INIT ACK chunk when one of the mandatory | |
parameters is set to a invalid value. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=7 | Cause Length=4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
3.3.10.8 Unrecognized Parameters (8) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Unrecognized Parameters: This error cause is returned to the | |
originator of the INIT ACK chunk if the receiver does not recognize | |
one or more Optional TLV parameters in the INIT ACK chunk. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=8 | Cause Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Unrecognized Parameters / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Unrecognized Parameters: variable length | |
The Unrecognized Parameters field contains the unrecognized | |
parameters copied from the INIT ACK chunk complete with TLV. This | |
error cause is normally contained in an ERROR chunk bundled with | |
the COOKIE ECHO chunk when responding to the INIT ACK, when the | |
sender of the COOKIE ECHO chunk wishes to report unrecognized | |
parameters. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.10.9 No User Data (9) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
No User Data: This error cause is returned to the originator of a | |
DATA chunk if a received DATA chunk has no user data. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=9 | Cause Length=8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ TSN value / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
TSN value: 32 bits (+unsigned integer) | |
The TSN value field contains the TSN of the DATA chunk received | |
with no user data field. | |
This cause code is normally returned in an ABORT chunk (see | |
Section 6.2) | |
3.3.10.10 Cookie Received While Shutting Down (10) | |
Cause of error | |
--------------- | |
Cookie Received While Shutting Down: A COOKIE ECHO was received | |
While the endpoint was in SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state. This error is | |
usually returned in an ERROR chunk bundled with the retransmitted | |
SHUTDOWN ACK. | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Cause Code=10 | Cause Length=4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
3.3.11 Cookie Echo (COOKIE ECHO) (10): | |
This chunk is used only during the initialization of an association. | |
It is sent by the initiator of an association to its peer to complete | |
the initialization process. This chunk MUST precede any DATA chunk | |
sent within the association, but MAY be bundled with one or more DATA | |
chunks in the same packet. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 10 |Chunk Flags | Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
/ Cookie / | |
\ \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bit | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) | |
Set to the size of the chunk in bytes, including the 4 bytes of | |
the chunk header and the size of the Cookie. | |
Cookie: variable size | |
This field must contain the exact cookie received in the State | |
Cookie parameter from the previous INIT ACK. | |
An implementation SHOULD make the cookie as small as possible to | |
insure interoperability. | |
3.3.12 Cookie Acknowledgement (COOKIE ACK) (11): | |
This chunk is used only during the initialization of an association. | |
It is used to acknowledge the receipt of a COOKIE ECHO chunk. This | |
chunk MUST precede any DATA or SACK chunk sent within the | |
association, but MAY be bundled with one or more DATA chunks or SACK | |
chunk in the same SCTP packet. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 11 |Chunk Flags | Length = 4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3.3.13 Shutdown Complete (SHUTDOWN COMPLETE) (14): | |
This chunk MUST be used to acknowledge the receipt of the SHUTDOWN | |
ACK chunk at the completion of the shutdown process, see Section 9.2 | |
for details. | |
The SHUTDOWN COMPLETE chunk has no parameters. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Type = 14 |Reserved |T| Length = 4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Chunk Flags: 8 bits | |
Reserved: 7 bits | |
Set to 0 on transmit and ignored on receipt. | |
T bit: 1 bit | |
The T bit is set to 0 if the sender had a TCB that it destroyed. | |
If the sender did not have a TCB it should set this bit to 1. | |
Note: Special rules apply to this chunk for verification, please see | |
Section 8.5.1 for details. | |
4. SCTP Association State Diagram | |
During the lifetime of an SCTP association, the SCTP endpoint's | |
association progress from one state to another in response to various | |
events. The events that may potentially advance an association's | |
state include: | |
o SCTP user primitive calls, e.g., [ASSOCIATE], [SHUTDOWN], [ABORT], | |
o Reception of INIT, COOKIE ECHO, ABORT, SHUTDOWN, etc., control | |
chunks, or | |
o Some timeout events. | |
The state diagram in the figures below illustrates state changes, | |
together with the causing events and resulting actions. Note that | |
some of the error conditions are not shown in the state diagram. | |
Full description of all special cases should be found in the text. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Note: Chunk names are given in all capital letters, while parameter | |
names have the first letter capitalized, e.g., COOKIE ECHO chunk type | |
vs. State Cookie parameter. If more than one event/message can occur | |
which causes a state transition it is labeled (A), (B) etc. | |
----- -------- (frm any state) | |
/ \ / rcv ABORT [ABORT] | |
rcv INIT | | | ---------- or ---------- | |
--------------- | v v delete TCB snd ABORT | |
generate Cookie \ +---------+ delete TCB | |
snd INIT ACK ---| CLOSED | | |
+---------+ | |
/ \ [ASSOCIATE] | |
/ \ --------------- | |
| | create TCB | |
| | snd INIT | |
| | strt init timer | |
rcv valid | | | |
COOKIE ECHO | v | |
(1) ---------------- | +------------+ | |
create TCB | | COOKIE-WAIT| (2) | |
snd COOKIE ACK | +------------+ | |
| | | |
| | rcv INIT ACK | |
| | ----------------- | |
| | snd COOKIE ECHO | |
| | stop init timer | |
| | strt cookie timer | |
| v | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | COOKIE-ECHOED| (3) | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | | |
| | rcv COOKIE ACK | |
| | ----------------- | |
| | stop cookie timer | |
v v | |
+---------------+ | |
| ESTABLISHED | | |
+---------------+ | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
(from the ESTABLISHED state only) | |
| | |
| | |
/--------+--------\ | |
[SHUTDOWN] / \ | |
-------------------| | | |
check outstanding | | | |
DATA chunks | | | |
v | | |
+---------+ | | |
|SHUTDOWN-| | rcv SHUTDOWN/check | |
|PENDING | | outstanding DATA | |
+---------+ | chunks | |
| |------------------ | |
No more outstanding | | | |
---------------------| | | |
snd SHUTDOWN | | | |
strt shutdown timer | | | |
v v | |
+---------+ +-----------+ | |
(4) |SHUTDOWN-| | SHUTDOWN- | (5,6) | |
|SENT | | RECEIVED | | |
+---------+ +-----------+ | |
| \ | | |
(A) rcv SHUTDOWN ACK | \ | | |
----------------------| \ | | |
stop shutdown timer | \rcv:SHUTDOWN | | |
send SHUTDOWN COMPLETE| \ (B) | | |
delete TCB | \ | | |
| \ | No more outstanding | |
| \ |----------------- | |
| \ | send SHUTDOWN ACK | |
(B)rcv SHUTDOWN | \ | strt shutdown timer | |
----------------------| \ | | |
send SHUTDOWN ACK | \ | | |
start shutdown timer | \ | | |
move to SHUTDOWN- | \ | | |
ACK-SENT | | | | |
| v | | |
| +-----------+ | |
| | SHUTDOWN- | (7) | |
| | ACK-SENT | | |
| +----------+- | |
| | (C)rcv SHUTDOWN COMPLETE | |
| |----------------- | |
| | stop shutdown timer | |
| | delete TCB | |
| | | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
| | (D)rcv SHUTDOWN ACK | |
| |-------------- | |
| | stop shutdown timer | |
| | send SHUTDOWN COMPLETE | |
| | delete TCB | |
| | | |
\ +---------+ / | |
\-->| CLOSED |<--/ | |
+---------+ | |
Figure 3: State Transition Diagram of SCTP | |
Notes: | |
1) If the State Cookie in the received COOKIE ECHO is invalid (i.e., | |
failed to pass the integrity check), the receiver MUST silently | |
discard the packet. Or, if the received State Cookie is expired | |
(see Section 5.1.5), the receiver MUST send back an ERROR chunk. | |
In either case, the receiver stays in the CLOSED state. | |
2) If the T1-init timer expires, the endpoint MUST retransmit INIT | |
and re-start the T1-init timer without changing state. This MUST | |
be repeated up to 'Max.Init.Retransmits' times. After that, the | |
endpoint MUST abort the initialization process and report the | |
error to SCTP user. | |
3) If the T1-cookie timer expires, the endpoint MUST retransmit | |
COOKIE ECHO and re-start the T1-cookie timer without changing | |
state. This MUST be repeated up to 'Max.Init.Retransmits' times. | |
After that, the endpoint MUST abort the initialization process and | |
report the error to SCTP user. | |
4) In SHUTDOWN-SENT state the endpoint MUST acknowledge any received | |
DATA chunks without delay. | |
5) In SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, the endpoint MUST NOT accept any new | |
send request from its SCTP user. | |
6) In SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, the endpoint MUST transmit or | |
retransmit data and leave this state when all data in queue is | |
transmitted. | |
7) In SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state, the endpoint MUST NOT accept any new | |
send request from its SCTP user. | |
The CLOSED state is used to indicate that an association is not | |
created (i.e., doesn't exist). | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5. Association Initialization | |
Before the first data transmission can take place from one SCTP | |
endpoint ("A") to another SCTP endpoint ("Z"), the two endpoints must | |
complete an initialization process in order to set up an SCTP | |
association between them. | |
The SCTP user at an endpoint should use the ASSOCIATE primitive to | |
initialize an SCTP association to another SCTP endpoint. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: From an SCTP-user's point of view, an | |
association may be implicitly opened, without an ASSOCIATE primitive | |
(see 10.1 B) being invoked, by the initiating endpoint's sending of | |
the first user data to the destination endpoint. The initiating SCTP | |
will assume default values for all mandatory and optional parameters | |
for the INIT/INIT ACK. | |
Once the association is established, unidirectional streams are open | |
for data transfer on both ends (see Section 5.1.1). | |
5.1 Normal Establishment of an Association | |
The initialization process consists of the following steps (assuming | |
that SCTP endpoint "A" tries to set up an association with SCTP | |
endpoint "Z" and "Z" accepts the new association): | |
A) "A" first sends an INIT chunk to "Z". In the INIT, "A" must | |
provide its Verification Tag (Tag_A) in the Initiate Tag field. | |
Tag_A SHOULD be a random number in the range of 1 to 4294967295 | |
(see 5.3.1 for Tag value selection). After sending the INIT, "A" | |
starts the T1-init timer and enters the COOKIE-WAIT state. | |
B) "Z" shall respond immediately with an INIT ACK chunk. The | |
destination IP address of the INIT ACK MUST be set to the source | |
IP address of the INIT to which this INIT ACK is responding. In | |
the response, besides filling in other parameters, "Z" must set | |
the Verification Tag field to Tag_A, and also provide its own | |
Verification Tag (Tag_Z) in the Initiate Tag field. | |
Moreover, "Z" MUST generate and send along with the INIT ACK a | |
State Cookie. See Section 5.1.3 for State Cookie generation. | |
Note: After sending out INIT ACK with the State Cookie parameter, | |
"Z" MUST NOT allocate any resources, nor keep any states for the | |
new association. Otherwise, "Z" will be vulnerable to resource | |
attacks. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
C) Upon reception of the INIT ACK from "Z", "A" shall stop the T1- | |
init timer and leave COOKIE-WAIT state. "A" shall then send the | |
State Cookie received in the INIT ACK chunk in a COOKIE ECHO | |
chunk, start the T1-cookie timer, and enter the COOKIE-ECHOED | |
state. | |
Note: The COOKIE ECHO chunk can be bundled with any pending | |
outbound DATA chunks, but it MUST be the first chunk in the packet | |
and until the COOKIE ACK is returned the sender MUST NOT send any | |
other packets to the peer. | |
D) Upon reception of the COOKIE ECHO chunk, Endpoint "Z" will reply | |
with a COOKIE ACK chunk after building a TCB and moving to the | |
ESTABLISHED state. A COOKIE ACK chunk may be bundled with any | |
pending DATA chunks (and/or SACK chunks), but the COOKIE ACK chunk | |
MUST be the first chunk in the packet. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: An implementation may choose to send the | |
Communication Up notification to the SCTP user upon reception of a | |
valid COOKIE ECHO chunk. | |
E) Upon reception of the COOKIE ACK, endpoint "A" will move from the | |
COOKIE-ECHOED state to the ESTABLISHED state, stopping the T1- | |
cookie timer. It may also notify its ULP about the successful | |
establishment of the association with a Communication Up | |
notification (see Section 10). | |
An INIT or INIT ACK chunk MUST NOT be bundled with any other chunk. | |
They MUST be the only chunks present in the SCTP packets that carry | |
them. | |
An endpoint MUST send the INIT ACK to the IP address from which it | |
received the INIT. | |
Note: T1-init timer and T1-cookie timer shall follow the same rules | |
given in Section 6.3. | |
If an endpoint receives an INIT, INIT ACK, or COOKIE ECHO chunk but | |
decides not to establish the new association due to missing mandatory | |
parameters in the received INIT or INIT ACK, invalid parameter | |
values, or lack of local resources, it MUST respond with an ABORT | |
chunk. It SHOULD also specify the cause of abort, such as the type | |
of the missing mandatory parameters, etc., by including the error | |
cause parameters with the ABORT chunk. The Verification Tag field in | |
the common header of the outbound SCTP packet containing the ABORT | |
chunk MUST be set to the Initiate Tag value of the peer. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
After the reception of the first DATA chunk in an association the | |
endpoint MUST immediately respond with a SACK to acknowledge the DATA | |
chunk. Subsequent acknowledgements should be done as described in | |
Section 6.2. | |
When the TCB is created, each endpoint MUST set its internal | |
Cumulative TSN Ack Point to the value of its transmitted Initial TSN | |
minus one. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The IP addresses and SCTP port are generally | |
used as the key to find the TCB within an SCTP instance. | |
5.1.1 Handle Stream Parameters | |
In the INIT and INIT ACK chunks, the sender of the chunk shall | |
indicate the number of outbound streams (OS) it wishes to have in the | |
association, as well as the maximum inbound streams (MIS) it will | |
accept from the other endpoint. | |
After receiving the stream configuration information from the other | |
side, each endpoint shall perform the following check: If the peer's | |
MIS is less than the endpoint's OS, meaning that the peer is | |
incapable of supporting all the outbound streams the endpoint wants | |
to configure, the endpoint MUST either use MIS outbound streams, or | |
abort the association and report to its upper layer the resources | |
shortage at its peer. | |
After the association is initialized, the valid outbound stream | |
identifier range for either endpoint shall be 0 to min(local OS, | |
remote MIS)-1. | |
5.1.2 Handle Address Parameters | |
During the association initialization, an endpoint shall use the | |
following rules to discover and collect the destination transport | |
address(es) of its peer. | |
A) If there are no address parameters present in the received INIT or | |
INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint shall take the source IP address from | |
which the chunk arrives and record it, in combination with the | |
SCTP source port number, as the only destination transport address | |
for this peer. | |
B) If there is a Host Name parameter present in the received INIT or | |
INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint shall resolve that host name to a | |
list of IP address(es) and derive the transport address(es) of | |
this peer by combining the resolved IP address(es) with the SCTP | |
source port. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The endpoint MUST ignore any other IP address parameters if they | |
are also present in the received INIT or INIT ACK chunk. | |
The time at which the receiver of an INIT resolves the host name | |
has potential security implications to SCTP. If the receiver of | |
an INIT resolves the host name upon the reception of the chunk, | |
and the mechanism the receiver uses to resolve the host name | |
involves potential long delay (e.g. DNS query), the receiver may | |
open itself up to resource attacks for the period of time while it | |
is waiting for the name resolution results before it can build the | |
State Cookie and release local resources. | |
Therefore, in cases where the name translation involves potential | |
long delay, the receiver of the INIT MUST postpone the name | |
resolution till the reception of the COOKIE ECHO chunk from the | |
peer. In such a case, the receiver of the INIT SHOULD build the | |
State Cookie using the received Host Name (instead of destination | |
transport addresses) and send the INIT ACK to the source IP | |
address from which the INIT was received. | |
The receiver of an INIT ACK shall always immediately attempt to | |
resolve the name upon the reception of the chunk. | |
The receiver of the INIT or INIT ACK MUST NOT send user data | |
(piggy-backed or stand-alone) to its peer until the host name is | |
successfully resolved. | |
If the name resolution is not successful, the endpoint MUST | |
immediately send an ABORT with "Unresolvable Address" error cause | |
to its peer. The ABORT shall be sent to the source IP address | |
from which the last peer packet was received. | |
C) If there are only IPv4/IPv6 addresses present in the received INIT | |
or INIT ACK chunk, the receiver shall derive and record all the | |
transport address(es) from the received chunk AND the source IP | |
address that sent the INIT or INIT ACK. The transport address(es) | |
are derived by the combination of SCTP source port (from the | |
common header) and the IP address parameter(s) carried in the INIT | |
or INIT ACK chunk and the source IP address of the IP datagram. | |
The receiver should use only these transport addresses as | |
destination transport addresses when sending subsequent packets to | |
its peer. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: In some cases (e.g., when the implementation | |
doesn't control the source IP address that is used for | |
transmitting), an endpoint might need to include in its INIT or | |
INIT ACK all possible IP addresses from which packets to the peer | |
could be transmitted. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
After all transport addresses are derived from the INIT or INIT ACK | |
chunk using the above rules, the endpoint shall select one of the | |
transport addresses as the initial primary path. | |
Note: The INIT-ACK MUST be sent to the source address of the INIT. | |
The sender of INIT may include a 'Supported Address Types' parameter | |
in the INIT to indicate what types of address are acceptable. When | |
this parameter is present, the receiver of INIT (initiatee) MUST | |
either use one of the address types indicated in the Supported | |
Address Types parameter when responding to the INIT, or abort the | |
association with an "Unresolvable Address" error cause if it is | |
unwilling or incapable of using any of the address types indicated by | |
its peer. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: In the case that the receiver of an INIT ACK | |
fails to resolve the address parameter due to an unsupported type, it | |
can abort the initiation process and then attempt a re-initiation by | |
using a 'Supported Address Types' parameter in the new INIT to | |
indicate what types of address it prefers. | |
5.1.3 Generating State Cookie | |
When sending an INIT ACK as a response to an INIT chunk, the sender | |
of INIT ACK creates a State Cookie and sends it in the State Cookie | |
parameter of the INIT ACK. Inside this State Cookie, the sender | |
should include a MAC (see [RFC2104] for an example), a time stamp on | |
when the State Cookie is created, and the lifespan of the State | |
Cookie, along with all the information necessary for it to establish | |
the association. | |
The following steps SHOULD be taken to generate the State Cookie: | |
1) Create an association TCB using information from both the received | |
INIT and the outgoing INIT ACK chunk, | |
2) In the TCB, set the creation time to the current time of day, and | |
the lifespan to the protocol parameter 'Valid.Cookie.Life', | |
3) From the TCB, identify and collect the minimal subset of | |
information needed to re-create the TCB, and generate a MAC using | |
this subset of information and a secret key (see [RFC2104] for an | |
example of generating a MAC), and | |
4) Generate the State Cookie by combining this subset of information | |
and the resultant MAC. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
After sending the INIT ACK with the State Cookie parameter, the | |
sender SHOULD delete the TCB and any other local resource related to | |
the new association, so as to prevent resource attacks. | |
The hashing method used to generate the MAC is strictly a private | |
matter for the receiver of the INIT chunk. The use of a MAC is | |
mandatory to prevent denial of service attacks. The secret key | |
SHOULD be random ([RFC1750] provides some information on randomness | |
guidelines); it SHOULD be changed reasonably frequently, and the | |
timestamp in the State Cookie MAY be used to determine which key | |
should be used to verify the MAC. | |
An implementation SHOULD make the cookie as small as possible to | |
insure interoperability. | |
5.1.4 State Cookie Processing | |
When an endpoint (in the COOKIE WAIT state) receives an INIT ACK | |
chunk with a State Cookie parameter, it MUST immediately send a | |
COOKIE ECHO chunk to its peer with the received State Cookie. The | |
sender MAY also add any pending DATA chunks to the packet after the | |
COOKIE ECHO chunk. | |
The endpoint shall also start the T1-cookie timer after sending out | |
the COOKIE ECHO chunk. If the timer expires, the endpoint shall | |
retransmit the COOKIE ECHO chunk and restart the T1-cookie timer. | |
This is repeated until either a COOKIE ACK is received or ' | |
Max.Init.Retransmits' is reached causing the peer endpoint to be | |
marked unreachable (and thus the association enters the CLOSED | |
state). | |
5.1.5 State Cookie Authentication | |
When an endpoint receives a COOKIE ECHO chunk from another endpoint | |
with which it has no association, it shall take the following | |
actions: | |
1) Compute a MAC using the TCB data carried in the State Cookie and | |
the secret key (note the timestamp in the State Cookie MAY be used | |
to determine which secret key to use). Reference [RFC2104] can be | |
used as a guideline for generating the MAC, | |
2) Authenticate the State Cookie as one that it previously generated | |
by comparing the computed MAC against the one carried in the State | |
Cookie. If this comparison fails, the SCTP packet, including the | |
COOKIE ECHO and any DATA chunks, should be silently discarded, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
3) Compare the creation timestamp in the State Cookie to the current | |
local time. If the elapsed time is longer than the lifespan | |
carried in the State Cookie, then the packet, including the COOKIE | |
ECHO and any attached DATA chunks, SHOULD be discarded and the | |
endpoint MUST transmit an ERROR chunk with a "Stale Cookie" error | |
cause to the peer endpoint, | |
4) If the State Cookie is valid, create an association to the sender | |
of the COOKIE ECHO chunk with the information in the TCB data | |
carried in the COOKIE ECHO, and enter the ESTABLISHED state, | |
5) Send a COOKIE ACK chunk to the peer acknowledging reception of the | |
COOKIE ECHO. The COOKIE ACK MAY be bundled with an outbound DATA | |
chunk or SACK chunk; however, the COOKIE ACK MUST be the first | |
chunk in the SCTP packet. | |
6) Immediately acknowledge any DATA chunk bundled with the COOKIE | |
ECHO with a SACK (subsequent DATA chunk acknowledgement should | |
follow the rules defined in Section 6.2). As mentioned in step | |
5), if the SACK is bundled with the COOKIE ACK, the COOKIE ACK | |
MUST appear first in the SCTP packet. | |
If a COOKIE ECHO is received from an endpoint with which the receiver | |
of the COOKIE ECHO has an existing association, the procedures in | |
Section 5.2 should be followed. | |
5.1.6 An Example of Normal Association Establishment | |
In the following example, "A" initiates the association and then | |
sends a user message to "Z", then "Z" sends two user messages to "A" | |
later (assuming no bundling or fragmentation occurs): | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Endpoint A Endpoint Z | |
{app sets association with Z} | |
(build TCB) | |
INIT [I-Tag=Tag_A | |
& other info] --------\ | |
(Start T1-init timer) \ | |
(Enter COOKIE-WAIT state) \---> (compose temp TCB and Cookie_Z) | |
/--- INIT ACK [Veri Tag=Tag_A, | |
/ I-Tag=Tag_Z, | |
(Cancel T1-init timer) <------/ Cookie_Z, & other info] | |
(destroy temp TCB) | |
COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\ | |
(Start T1-init timer) \ | |
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED | |
state) | |
/---- COOKIE-ACK | |
/ | |
(Cancel T1-init timer, <-----/ | |
Enter ESTABLISHED state) | |
{app sends 1st user data; strm 0} | |
DATA [TSN=initial TSN_A | |
Strm=0,Seq=1 & user data]--\ | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) \ | |
\-> | |
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=init | |
TSN_A,Block=0] | |
(Cancel T3-rtx timer) <------/ | |
... | |
{app sends 2 messages;strm 0} | |
/---- DATA | |
/ [TSN=init TSN_Z | |
<--/ Strm=0,Seq=1 & user data 1] | |
SACK [TSN Ack=init TSN_Z, /---- DATA | |
Block=0] --------\ / [TSN=init TSN_Z +1, | |
\/ Strm=0,Seq=2 & user data 2] | |
<------/\ | |
\ | |
\------> | |
Figure 4: INITiation Example | |
If the T1-init timer expires at "A" after the INIT or COOKIE ECHO | |
chunks are sent, the same INIT or COOKIE ECHO chunk with the same | |
Initiate Tag (i.e., Tag_A) or State Cookie shall be retransmitted and | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
the timer restarted. This shall be repeated Max.Init.Retransmits | |
times before "A" considers "Z" unreachable and reports the failure to | |
its upper layer (and thus the association enters the CLOSED state). | |
When retransmitting the INIT, the endpoint MUST follow the rules | |
defined in 6.3 to determine the proper timer value. | |
5.2 Handle Duplicate or Unexpected INIT, INIT ACK, COOKIE ECHO, and | |
COOKIE ACK | |
During the lifetime of an association (in one of the possible | |
states), an endpoint may receive from its peer endpoint one of the | |
setup chunks (INIT, INIT ACK, COOKIE ECHO, and COOKIE ACK). The | |
receiver shall treat such a setup chunk as a duplicate and process it | |
as described in this section. | |
Note: An endpoint will not receive the chunk unless the chunk was | |
sent to a SCTP transport address and is from a SCTP transport address | |
associated with this endpoint. Therefore, the endpoint processes | |
such a chunk as part of its current association. | |
The following scenarios can cause duplicated or unexpected chunks: | |
A) The peer has crashed without being detected, re-started itself and | |
sent out a new INIT chunk trying to restore the association, | |
B) Both sides are trying to initialize the association at about the | |
same time, | |
C) The chunk is from a stale packet that was used to establish the | |
present association or a past association that is no longer in | |
existence, | |
D) The chunk is a false packet generated by an attacker, or | |
E) The peer never received the COOKIE ACK and is retransmitting its | |
COOKIE ECHO. | |
The rules in the following sections shall be applied in order to | |
identify and correctly handle these cases. | |
5.2.1 INIT received in COOKIE-WAIT or COOKIE-ECHOED State (Item B) | |
This usually indicates an initialization collision, i.e., each | |
endpoint is attempting, at about the same time, to establish an | |
association with the other endpoint. | |
Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-WAIT or COOKIE-ECHOED state, an | |
endpoint MUST respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
sent in its original INIT chunk (including its Initiation Tag, | |
unchanged). These original parameters are combined with those from | |
the newly received INIT chunk. The endpoint shall also generate a | |
State Cookie with the INIT ACK. The endpoint uses the parameters | |
sent in its INIT to calculate the State Cookie. | |
After that, the endpoint MUST NOT change its state, the T1-init timer | |
shall be left running and the corresponding TCB MUST NOT be | |
destroyed. The normal procedures for handling State Cookies when a | |
TCB exists will resolve the duplicate INITs to a single association. | |
For an endpoint that is in the COOKIE-ECHOED state it MUST populate | |
its Tie-Tags with the Tag information of itself and its peer (see | |
section 5.2.2 for a description of the Tie-Tags). | |
5.2.2 Unexpected INIT in States Other than CLOSED, COOKIE-ECHOED, | |
COOKIE-WAIT and SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT | |
Unless otherwise stated, upon reception of an unexpected INIT for | |
this association, the endpoint shall generate an INIT ACK with a | |
State Cookie. In the outbound INIT ACK the endpoint MUST copy its | |
current Verification Tag and peer's Verification Tag into a reserved | |
place within the state cookie. We shall refer to these locations as | |
the Peer's-Tie-Tag and the Local-Tie-Tag. The outbound SCTP packet | |
containing this INIT ACK MUST carry a Verification Tag value equal to | |
the Initiation Tag found in the unexpected INIT. And the INIT ACK | |
MUST contain a new Initiation Tag (randomly generated see Section | |
5.3.1). Other parameters for the endpoint SHOULD be copied from the | |
existing parameters of the association (e.g. number of outbound | |
streams) into the INIT ACK and cookie. | |
After sending out the INIT ACK, the endpoint shall take no further | |
actions, i.e., the existing association, including its current state, | |
and the corresponding TCB MUST NOT be changed. | |
Note: Only when a TCB exists and the association is not in a COOKIE- | |
WAIT state are the Tie-Tags populated. For a normal association INIT | |
(i.e. the endpoint is in a COOKIE-WAIT state), the Tie-Tags MUST be | |
set to 0 (indicating that no previous TCB existed). The INIT ACK and | |
State Cookie are populated as specified in section 5.2.1. | |
5.2.3 Unexpected INIT ACK | |
If an INIT ACK is received by an endpoint in any state other than the | |
COOKIE-WAIT state, the endpoint should discard the INIT ACK chunk. | |
An unexpected INIT ACK usually indicates the processing of an old or | |
duplicated INIT chunk. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5.2.4 Handle a COOKIE ECHO when a TCB exists | |
When a COOKIE ECHO chunk is received by an endpoint in any state for | |
an existing association (i.e., not in the CLOSED state) the following | |
rules shall be applied: | |
1) Compute a MAC as described in Step 1 of Section 5.1.5, | |
2) Authenticate the State Cookie as described in Step 2 of Section | |
5.1.5 (this is case C or D above). | |
3) Compare the timestamp in the State Cookie to the current time. If | |
the State Cookie is older than the lifespan carried in the State | |
Cookie and the Verification Tags contained in the State Cookie do | |
not match the current association's Verification Tags, the packet, | |
including the COOKIE ECHO and any DATA chunks, should be | |
discarded. The endpoint also MUST transmit an ERROR chunk with a | |
"Stale Cookie" error cause to the peer endpoint (this is case C or | |
D in section 5.2). | |
If both Verification Tags in the State Cookie match the | |
Verification Tags of the current association, consider the State | |
Cookie valid (this is case E of section 5.2) even if the lifespan | |
is exceeded. | |
4) If the State Cookie proves to be valid, unpack the TCB into a | |
temporary TCB. | |
5) Refer to Table 2 to determine the correct action to be taken. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 62] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| Local Tag | Peer's Tag | Local-Tie-Tag |Peer's-Tie-Tag| Action/ | | |
| | | | | Description | | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| X | X | M | M | (A) | | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| M | X | A | A | (B) | | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| M | 0 | A | A | (B) | | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| X | M | 0 | 0 | (C) | | |
+------------+------------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | |
| M | M | A | A | (D) | | |
+======================================================================+ | |
| Table 2: Handling of a COOKIE ECHO when a TCB exists | | |
+======================================================================+ | |
Legend: | |
X - Tag does not match the existing TCB | |
M - Tag matches the existing TCB. | |
0 - No Tie-Tag in Cookie (unknown). | |
A - All cases, i.e. M, X or 0. | |
Note: For any case not shown in Table 2, the cookie should be | |
silently discarded. | |
Action | |
A) In this case, the peer may have restarted. When the endpoint | |
recognizes this potential 'restart', the existing session is | |
treated the same as if it received an ABORT followed by a new | |
COOKIE ECHO with the following exceptions: | |
- Any SCTP DATA Chunks MAY be retained (this is an implementation | |
specific option). | |
- A notification of RESTART SHOULD be sent to the ULP instead of | |
a "COMMUNICATION LOST" notification. | |
All the congestion control parameters (e.g., cwnd, ssthresh) | |
related to this peer MUST be reset to their initial values (see | |
Section 6.2.1). | |
After this the endpoint shall enter the ESTABLISHED state. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 63] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
If the endpoint is in the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state and recognizes | |
the peer has restarted (Action A), it MUST NOT setup a new | |
association but instead resend the SHUTDOWN ACK and send an ERROR | |
chunk with a "Cookie Received while Shutting Down" error cause to | |
its peer. | |
B) In this case, both sides may be attempting to start an association | |
at about the same time but the peer endpoint started its INIT | |
after responding to the local endpoint's INIT. Thus it may have | |
picked a new Verification Tag not being aware of the previous Tag | |
it had sent this endpoint. The endpoint should stay in or enter | |
the ESTABLISHED state but it MUST update its peer's Verification | |
Tag from the State Cookie, stop any init or cookie timers that may | |
running and send a COOKIE ACK. | |
C) In this case, the local endpoint's cookie has arrived late. | |
Before it arrived, the local endpoint sent an INIT and received an | |
INIT-ACK and finally sent a COOKIE ECHO with the peer's same tag | |
but a new tag of its own. The cookie should be silently | |
discarded. The endpoint SHOULD NOT change states and should leave | |
any timers running. | |
D) When both local and remote tags match the endpoint should always | |
enter the ESTABLISHED state, if it has not already done so. It | |
should stop any init or cookie timers that may be running and send | |
a COOKIE ACK. | |
Note: The "peer's Verification Tag" is the tag received in the | |
Initiate Tag field of the INIT or INIT ACK chunk. | |
5.2.4.1 An Example of a Association Restart | |
In the following example, "A" initiates the association after a | |
restart has occurred. Endpoint "Z" had no knowledge of the restart | |
until the exchange (i.e. Heartbeats had not yet detected the failure | |
of "A"). (assuming no bundling or fragmentation occurs): | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 64] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Endpoint A Endpoint Z | |
<-------------- Association is established----------------------> | |
Tag=Tag_A Tag=Tag_Z | |
<---------------------------------------------------------------> | |
{A crashes and restarts} | |
{app sets up a association with Z} | |
(build TCB) | |
INIT [I-Tag=Tag_A' | |
& other info] --------\ | |
(Start T1-init timer) \ | |
(Enter COOKIE-WAIT state) \---> (find a existing TCB | |
compose temp TCB and Cookie_Z | |
with Tie-Tags to previous | |
association) | |
/--- INIT ACK [Veri Tag=Tag_A', | |
/ I-Tag=Tag_Z', | |
(Cancel T1-init timer) <------/ Cookie_Z[TieTags= | |
Tag_A,Tag_Z | |
& other info] | |
(destroy temp TCB,leave original | |
in place) | |
COOKIE ECHO [Veri=Tag_Z', | |
Cookie_Z | |
Tie=Tag_A, | |
Tag_Z]----------\ | |
(Start T1-init timer) \ | |
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (Find existing association, | |
Tie-Tags match old tags, | |
Tags do not match i.e. | |
case X X M M above, | |
Announce Restart to ULP | |
and reset association). | |
/---- COOKIE-ACK | |
/ | |
(Cancel T1-init timer, <-----/ | |
Enter ESTABLISHED state) | |
{app sends 1st user data; strm 0} | |
DATA [TSN=initial TSN_A | |
Strm=0,Seq=1 & user data]--\ | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) \ | |
\-> | |
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=init TSN_A,Block=0] | |
(Cancel T3-rtx timer) <------/ | |
Figure 5: A Restart Example | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 65] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5.2.5 Handle Duplicate COOKIE-ACK. | |
At any state other than COOKIE-ECHOED, an endpoint should silently | |
discard a received COOKIE ACK chunk. | |
5.2.6 Handle Stale COOKIE Error | |
Receipt of an ERROR chunk with a "Stale Cookie" error cause indicates | |
one of a number of possible events: | |
A) That the association failed to completely setup before the State | |
Cookie issued by the sender was processed. | |
B) An old State Cookie was processed after setup completed. | |
C) An old State Cookie is received from someone that the receiver is | |
not interested in having an association with and the ABORT chunk | |
was lost. | |
When processing an ERROR chunk with a "Stale Cookie" error cause an | |
endpoint should first examine if an association is in the process of | |
being setup, i.e. the association is in the COOKIE-ECHOED state. In | |
all cases if the association is not in the COOKIE-ECHOED state, the | |
ERROR chunk should be silently discarded. | |
If the association is in the COOKIE-ECHOED state, the endpoint may | |
elect one of the following three alternatives. | |
1) Send a new INIT chunk to the endpoint to generate a new State | |
Cookie and re-attempt the setup procedure. | |
2) Discard the TCB and report to the upper layer the inability to | |
setup the association. | |
3) Send a new INIT chunk to the endpoint, adding a Cookie | |
Preservative parameter requesting an extension to the lifetime of | |
the State Cookie. When calculating the time extension, an | |
implementation SHOULD use the RTT information measured based on | |
the previous COOKIE ECHO / ERROR exchange, and should add no more | |
than 1 second beyond the measured RTT, due to long State Cookie | |
lifetimes making the endpoint more subject to a replay attack. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 66] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5.3 Other Initialization Issues | |
5.3.1 Selection of Tag Value | |
Initiate Tag values should be selected from the range of 1 to 2**32 - | |
1. It is very important that the Initiate Tag value be randomized to | |
help protect against "man in the middle" and "sequence number" | |
attacks. The methods described in [RFC1750] can be used for the | |
Initiate Tag randomization. Careful selection of Initiate Tags is | |
also necessary to prevent old duplicate packets from previous | |
associations being mistakenly processed as belonging to the current | |
association. | |
Moreover, the Verification Tag value used by either endpoint in a | |
given association MUST NOT change during the lifetime of an | |
association. A new Verification Tag value MUST be used each time the | |
endpoint tears-down and then re-establishes an association to the | |
same peer. | |
6. User Data Transfer | |
Data transmission MUST only happen in the ESTABLISHED, SHUTDOWN- | |
PENDING, and SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED states. The only exception to this is | |
that DATA chunks are allowed to be bundled with an outbound COOKIE | |
ECHO chunk when in COOKIE-WAIT state. | |
DATA chunks MUST only be received according to the rules below in | |
ESTABLISHED, SHUTDOWN-PENDING, SHUTDOWN-SENT. A DATA chunk received | |
in CLOSED is out of the blue and SHOULD be handled per 8.4. A DATA | |
chunk received in any other state SHOULD be discarded. | |
A SACK MUST be processed in ESTABLISHED, SHUTDOWN-PENDING, and | |
SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED. An incoming SACK MAY be processed in COOKIE- | |
ECHOED. A SACK in the CLOSED state is out of the blue and SHOULD be | |
processed according to the rules in 8.4. A SACK chunk received in | |
any other state SHOULD be discarded. | |
A SCTP receiver MUST be able to receive a minimum of 1500 bytes in | |
one SCTP packet. This means that a SCTP endpoint MUST NOT indicate | |
less than 1500 bytes in its Initial a_rwnd sent in the INIT or INIT | |
ACK. | |
For transmission efficiency, SCTP defines mechanisms for bundling of | |
small user messages and fragmentation of large user messages. The | |
following diagram depicts the flow of user messages through SCTP. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 67] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
In this section the term "data sender" refers to the endpoint that | |
transmits a DATA chunk and the term "data receiver" refers to the | |
endpoint that receives a DATA chunk. A data receiver will transmit | |
SACK chunks. | |
+--------------------------+ | |
| User Messages | | |
+--------------------------+ | |
SCTP user ^ | | |
==================|==|======================================= | |
| v (1) | |
+------------------+ +--------------------+ | |
| SCTP DATA Chunks | |SCTP Control Chunks | | |
+------------------+ +--------------------+ | |
^ | ^ | | |
| v (2) | v (2) | |
+--------------------------+ | |
| SCTP packets | | |
+--------------------------+ | |
SCTP ^ | | |
===========================|==|=========================== | |
| v | |
Connectionless Packet Transfer Service (e.g., IP) | |
Notes: | |
1) When converting user messages into DATA chunks, an endpoint | |
will fragment user messages larger than the current association | |
path MTU into multiple DATA chunks. The data receiver will | |
normally reassemble the fragmented message from DATA chunks | |
before delivery to the user (see Section 6.9 for details). | |
2) Multiple DATA and control chunks may be bundled by the sender | |
into a single SCTP packet for transmission, as long as the | |
final size of the packet does not exceed the current path MTU. | |
The receiver will unbundle the packet back into the original | |
chunks. Control chunks MUST come before DATA chunks in the | |
packet. | |
Figure 6: Illustration of User Data Transfer | |
The fragmentation and bundling mechanisms, as detailed in Sections | |
6.9 and 6.10, are OPTIONAL to implement by the data sender, but they | |
MUST be implemented by the data receiver, i.e., an endpoint MUST | |
properly receive and process bundled or fragmented data. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 68] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
6.1 Transmission of DATA Chunks | |
This document is specified as if there is a single retransmission | |
timer per destination transport address, but implementations MAY have | |
a retransmission timer for each DATA chunk. | |
The following general rules MUST be applied by the data sender for | |
transmission and/or retransmission of outbound DATA chunks: | |
A) At any given time, the data sender MUST NOT transmit new data to | |
any destination transport address if its peer's rwnd indicates | |
that the peer has no buffer space (i.e. rwnd is 0, see Section | |
6.2.1). However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it | |
is 0), the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to | |
the receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B below). This rule | |
allows the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender | |
missed due to the SACK having been lost in transit from the data | |
receiver to the data sender. | |
B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a | |
given transport address if it has cwnd or more bytes of data | |
outstanding to that transport address. | |
C) When the time comes for the sender to transmit, before sending new | |
DATA chunks, the sender MUST first transmit any outstanding DATA | |
chunks which are marked for retransmission (limited by the current | |
cwnd). | |
D) Then, the sender can send out as many new DATA chunks as Rule A | |
and Rule B above allow. | |
Multiple DATA chunks committed for transmission MAY be bundled in a | |
single packet. Furthermore, DATA chunks being retransmitted MAY be | |
bundled with new DATA chunks, as long as the resulting packet size | |
does not exceed the path MTU. A ULP may request that no bundling is | |
performed but this should only turn off any delays that a SCTP | |
implementation may be using to increase bundling efficiency. It does | |
not in itself stop all bundling from occurring (i.e. in case of | |
congestion or retransmission). | |
Before an endpoint transmits a DATA chunk, if any received DATA | |
chunks have not been acknowledged (e.g., due to delayed ack), the | |
sender should create a SACK and bundle it with the outbound DATA | |
chunk, as long as the size of the final SCTP packet does not exceed | |
the current MTU. See Section 6.2. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 69] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: When the window is full (i.e., transmission is | |
disallowed by Rule A and/or Rule B), the sender MAY still accept send | |
requests from its upper layer, but MUST transmit no more DATA chunks | |
until some or all of the outstanding DATA chunks are acknowledged and | |
transmission is allowed by Rule A and Rule B again. | |
Whenever a transmission or retransmission is made to any address, if | |
the T3-rtx timer of that address is not currently running, the sender | |
MUST start that timer. If the timer for that address is already | |
running, the sender MUST restart the timer if the earliest (i.e., | |
lowest TSN) outstanding DATA chunk sent to that address is being | |
retransmitted. Otherwise, the data sender MUST NOT restart the | |
timer. | |
When starting or restarting the T3-rtx timer, the timer value must be | |
adjusted according to the timer rules defined in Sections 6.3.2, and | |
6.3.3. | |
Note: The data sender SHOULD NOT use a TSN that is more than 2**31 - | |
1 above the beginning TSN of the current send window. | |
6.2 Acknowledgement on Reception of DATA Chunks | |
The SCTP endpoint MUST always acknowledge the reception of each valid | |
DATA chunk. | |
The guidelines on delayed acknowledgement algorithm specified in | |
Section 4.2 of [RFC2581] SHOULD be followed. Specifically, an | |
acknowledgement SHOULD be generated for at least every second packet | |
(not every second DATA chunk) received, and SHOULD be generated | |
within 200 ms of the arrival of any unacknowledged DATA chunk. In | |
some situations it may be beneficial for an SCTP transmitter to be | |
more conservative than the algorithms detailed in this document | |
allow. However, an SCTP transmitter MUST NOT be more aggressive than | |
the following algorithms allow. | |
A SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every | |
incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the | |
receiving application consumes new data. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The maximum delay for generating an | |
acknowledgement may be configured by the SCTP administrator, either | |
statically or dynamically, in order to meet the specific timing | |
requirement of the protocol being carried. | |
An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay to be configured | |
to be more than 500 ms. In other words an implementation MAY lower | |
this value below 500ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500ms. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 70] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Acknowledgements MUST be sent in SACK chunks unless shutdown was | |
requested by the ULP in which case an endpoint MAY send an | |
acknowledgement in the SHUTDOWN chunk. A SACK chunk can acknowledge | |
the reception of multiple DATA chunks. See Section 3.3.4 for SACK | |
chunk format. In particular, the SCTP endpoint MUST fill in the | |
Cumulative TSN Ack field to indicate the latest sequential TSN (of a | |
valid DATA chunk) it has received. Any received DATA chunks with TSN | |
greater than the value in the Cumulative TSN Ack field SHOULD also be | |
reported in the Gap Ack Block fields. | |
Note: The SHUTDOWN chunk does not contain Gap Ack Block fields. | |
Therefore, the endpoint should use a SACK instead of the SHUTDOWN | |
chunk to acknowledge DATA chunks received out of order . | |
When a packet arrives with duplicate DATA chunk(s) and with no new | |
DATA chunk(s), the endpoint MUST immediately send a SACK with no | |
delay. If a packet arrives with duplicate DATA chunk(s) bundled with | |
new DATA chunks, the endpoint MAY immediately send a SACK. Normally | |
receipt of duplicate DATA chunks will occur when the original SACK | |
chunk was lost and the peer's RTO has expired. The duplicate TSN | |
number(s) SHOULD be reported in the SACK as duplicate. | |
When an endpoint receives a SACK, it MAY use the Duplicate TSN | |
information to determine if SACK loss is occurring. Further use of | |
this data is for future study. | |
The data receiver is responsible for maintaining its receive buffers. | |
The data receiver SHOULD notify the data sender in a timely manner of | |
changes in its ability to receive data. How an implementation | |
manages its receive buffers is dependent on many factors (e.g., | |
Operating System, memory management system, amount of memory, etc.). | |
However, the data sender strategy defined in Section 6.2.1 is based | |
on the assumption of receiver operation similar to the following: | |
A) At initialization of the association, the endpoint tells the | |
peer how much receive buffer space it has allocated to the | |
association in the INIT or INIT ACK. The endpoint sets a_rwnd | |
to this value. | |
B) As DATA chunks are received and buffered, decrement a_rwnd by | |
the number of bytes received and buffered. This is, in effect, | |
closing rwnd at the data sender and restricting the amount of | |
data it can transmit. | |
C) As DATA chunks are delivered to the ULP and released from the | |
receive buffers, increment a_rwnd by the number of bytes | |
delivered to the upper layer. This is, in effect, opening up | |
rwnd on the data sender and allowing it to send more data. The | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 71] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
data receiver SHOULD NOT increment a_rwnd unless it has | |
released bytes from its receive buffer. For example, if the | |
receiver is holding fragmented DATA chunks in a reassembly | |
queue, it should not increment a_rwnd. | |
D) When sending a SACK, the data receiver SHOULD place the current | |
value of a_rwnd into the a_rwnd field. The data receiver | |
SHOULD take into account that the data sender will not | |
retransmit DATA chunks that are acked via the Cumulative TSN | |
Ack (i.e., will drop from its retransmit queue). | |
Under certain circumstances, the data receiver may need to drop DATA | |
chunks that it has received but hasn't released from its receive | |
buffers (i.e., delivered to the ULP). These DATA chunks may have | |
been acked in Gap Ack Blocks. For example, the data receiver may be | |
holding data in its receive buffers while reassembling a fragmented | |
user message from its peer when it runs out of receive buffer space. | |
It may drop these DATA chunks even though it has acknowledged them in | |
Gap Ack Blocks. If a data receiver drops DATA chunks, it MUST NOT | |
include them in Gap Ack Blocks in subsequent SACKs until they are | |
received again via retransmission. In addition, the endpoint should | |
take into account the dropped data when calculating its a_rwnd. | |
An endpoint SHOULD NOT revoke a SACK and discard data. Only in | |
extreme circumstance should an endpoint use this procedure (such as | |
out of buffer space). The data receiver should take into account | |
that dropping data that has been acked in Gap Ack Blocks can result | |
in suboptimal retransmission strategies in the data sender and thus | |
in suboptimal performance. | |
The following example illustrates the use of delayed | |
acknowledgements: | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 72] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Endpoint A Endpoint Z | |
{App sends 3 messages; strm 0} | |
DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] ------------> (ack delayed) | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) | |
DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ------------> (send ack) | |
/------- SACK [TSN Ack=8,block=0] | |
(cancel T3-rtx timer) <-----/ | |
DATA [TSN=9,Strm=0,Seq=5] ------------> (ack delayed) | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) | |
... | |
{App sends 1 message; strm 1} | |
(bundle SACK with DATA) | |
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=9,block=0] \ | |
/ DATA [TSN=6,Strm=1,Seq=2] | |
(cancel T3-rtx timer) <------/ (Start T3-rtx timer) | |
(ack delayed) | |
(send ack) | |
SACK [TSN Ack=6,block=0] -------------> (cancel T3-rtx timer) | |
Figure 7: Delayed Acknowledgment Example | |
If an endpoint receives a DATA chunk with no user data (i.e., the | |
Length field is set to 16) it MUST send an ABORT with error cause set | |
to "No User Data". | |
An endpoint SHOULD NOT send a DATA chunk with no user data part. | |
6.2.1 Processing a Received SACK | |
Each SACK an endpoint receives contains an a_rwnd value. This value | |
represents the amount of buffer space the data receiver, at the time | |
of transmitting the SACK, has left of its total receive buffer space | |
(as specified in the INIT/INIT ACK). Using a_rwnd, Cumulative TSN | |
Ack and Gap Ack Blocks, the data sender can develop a representation | |
of the peer's receive buffer space. | |
One of the problems the data sender must take into account when | |
processing a SACK is that a SACK can be received out of order. That | |
is, a SACK sent by the data receiver can pass an earlier SACK and be | |
received first by the data sender. If a SACK is received out of | |
order, the data sender can develop an incorrect view of the peer's | |
receive buffer space. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 73] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Since there is no explicit identifier that can be used to detect | |
out-of-order SACKs, the data sender must use heuristics to determine | |
if a SACK is new. | |
An endpoint SHOULD use the following rules to calculate the rwnd, | |
using the a_rwnd value, the Cumulative TSN Ack and Gap Ack Blocks in | |
a received SACK. | |
A) At the establishment of the association, the endpoint initializes | |
the rwnd to the Advertised Receiver Window Credit (a_rwnd) the | |
peer specified in the INIT or INIT ACK. | |
B) Any time a DATA chunk is transmitted (or retransmitted) to a peer, | |
the endpoint subtracts the data size of the chunk from the rwnd of | |
that peer. | |
C) Any time a DATA chunk is marked for retransmission (via either | |
T3-rtx timer expiration (Section 6.3.3)or via fast retransmit | |
(Section 7.2.4)), add the data size of those chunks to the rwnd. | |
Note: If the implementation is maintaining a timer on each DATA | |
chunk then only DATA chunks whose timer expired would be marked | |
for retransmission. | |
D) Any time a SACK arrives, the endpoint performs the following: | |
i) If Cumulative TSN Ack is less than the Cumulative TSN Ack | |
Point, then drop the SACK. Since Cumulative TSN Ack is | |
monotonically increasing, a SACK whose Cumulative TSN Ack is | |
less than the Cumulative TSN Ack Point indicates an out-of- | |
order SACK. | |
ii) Set rwnd equal to the newly received a_rwnd minus the | |
number of bytes still outstanding after processing the | |
Cumulative TSN Ack and the Gap Ack Blocks. | |
iii) If the SACK is missing a TSN that was previously | |
acknowledged via a Gap Ack Block (e.g., the data receiver | |
reneged on the data), then mark the corresponding DATA chunk as | |
available for retransmit: Mark it as missing for fast | |
retransmit as described in Section 7.2.4 and if no retransmit | |
timer is running for the destination address to which the DATA | |
chunk was originally transmitted, then T3-rtx is started for | |
that destination address. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 74] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
6.3 Management of Retransmission Timer | |
An SCTP endpoint uses a retransmission timer T3-rtx to ensure data | |
delivery in the absence of any feedback from its peer. The duration | |
of this timer is referred to as RTO (retransmission timeout). | |
When an endpoint's peer is multi-homed, the endpoint will calculate a | |
separate RTO for each different destination transport address of its | |
peer endpoint. | |
The computation and management of RTO in SCTP follows closely how TCP | |
manages its retransmission timer. To compute the current RTO, an | |
endpoint maintains two state variables per destination transport | |
address: SRTT (smoothed round-trip time) and RTTVAR (round-trip time | |
variation). | |
6.3.1 RTO Calculation | |
The rules governing the computation of SRTT, RTTVAR, and RTO are as | |
follows: | |
C1) Until an RTT measurement has been made for a packet sent to the | |
given destination transport address, set RTO to the protocol | |
parameter 'RTO.Initial'. | |
C2) When the first RTT measurement R is made, set SRTT <- R, RTTVAR | |
<- R/2, and RTO <- SRTT + 4 * RTTVAR. | |
C3) When a new RTT measurement R' is made, set | |
RTTVAR <- (1 - RTO.Beta) * RTTVAR + RTO.Beta * |SRTT - R'| SRTT | |
<- (1 - RTO.Alpha) * SRTT + RTO.Alpha * R' | |
Note: The value of SRTT used in the update to RTTVAR is its value | |
before updating SRTT itself using the second assignment. | |
After the computation, update RTO <- SRTT + 4 * RTTVAR. | |
C4) When data is in flight and when allowed by rule C5 below, a new | |
RTT measurement MUST be made each round trip. Furthermore, new | |
RTT measurements SHOULD be made no more than once per round-trip | |
for a given destination transport address. There are two reasons | |
for this recommendation: First, it appears that measuring more | |
frequently often does not in practice yield any significant | |
benefit [ALLMAN99]; second, if measurements are made more often, | |
then the values of RTO.Alpha and RTO.Beta in rule C3 above should | |
be adjusted so that SRTT and RTTVAR still adjust to changes at | |
roughly the same rate (in terms of how many round trips it takes | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 75] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
them to reflect new values) as they would if making only one | |
measurement per round-trip and using RTO.Alpha and RTO.Beta as | |
given in rule C3. However, the exact nature of these adjustments | |
remains a research issue. | |
C5) Karn's algorithm: RTT measurements MUST NOT be made using packets | |
that were retransmitted (and thus for which it is ambiguous | |
whether the reply was for the first instance of the packet or a | |
later instance). | |
C6) Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than RTO.Min seconds then | |
it is rounded up to RTO.Min seconds. The reason for this rule is | |
that RTOs that do not have a high minimum value are susceptible | |
to unnecessary timeouts [ALLMAN99]. | |
C7) A maximum value may be placed on RTO provided it is at least | |
RTO.max seconds. | |
There is no requirement for the clock granularity G used for | |
computing RTT measurements and the different state variables, other | |
than: | |
G1) Whenever RTTVAR is computed, if RTTVAR = 0, then adjust RTTVAR <- | |
G. | |
Experience [ALLMAN99] has shown that finer clock granularities (<= | |
100 msec) perform somewhat better than more coarse granularities. | |
6.3.2 Retransmission Timer Rules | |
The rules for managing the retransmission timer are as follows: | |
R1) Every time a DATA chunk is sent to any address (including a | |
retransmission), if the T3-rtx timer of that address is not | |
running, start it running so that it will expire after the RTO of | |
that address. The RTO used here is that obtained after any | |
doubling due to previous T3-rtx timer expirations on the | |
corresponding destination address as discussed in rule E2 below. | |
R2) Whenever all outstanding data sent to an address have been | |
acknowledged, turn off the T3-rtx timer of that address. | |
R3) Whenever a SACK is received that acknowledges the DATA chunk with | |
the earliest outstanding TSN for that address, restart T3-rtx | |
timer for that address with its current RTO (if there is still | |
outstanding data on that address). | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 76] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
R4) Whenever a SACK is received missing a TSN that was previously | |
acknowledged via a Gap Ack Block, start T3-rtx for the | |
destination address to which the DATA chunk was originally | |
transmitted if it is not already running. | |
The following example shows the use of various timer rules (assuming | |
the receiver uses delayed acks). | |
Endpoint A Endpoint Z | |
{App begins to send} | |
Data [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] ------------> (ack delayed) | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) | |
{App sends 1 message; strm 1} | |
(bundle ack with data) | |
DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ----\ /-- SACK [TSN Ack=7,Block=0] | |
\ / DATA [TSN=6,Strm=1,Seq=2] | |
\ / (Start T3-rtx timer) | |
\ | |
/ \ | |
(Re-start T3-rtx timer) <------/ \--> (ack delayed) | |
(ack delayed) | |
{send ack} | |
SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=0] --------------> (Cancel T3-rtx timer) | |
.. | |
(send ack) | |
(Cancel T3-rtx timer) <-------------- SACK [TSN Ack=8,Block=0] | |
Figure 8 - Timer Rule Examples | |
6.3.3 Handle T3-rtx Expiration | |
Whenever the retransmission timer T3-rtx expires for a destination | |
address, do the following: | |
E1) For the destination address for which the timer expires, adjust | |
its ssthresh with rules defined in Section 7.2.3 and set the cwnd | |
<- MTU. | |
E2) For the destination address for which the timer expires, set RTO | |
<- RTO * 2 ("back off the timer"). The maximum value discussed | |
in rule C7 above (RTO.max) may be used to provide an upper bound | |
to this doubling operation. | |
E3) Determine how many of the earliest (i.e., lowest TSN) outstanding | |
DATA chunks for the address for which the T3-rtx has expired will | |
fit into a single packet, subject to the MTU constraint for the | |
path corresponding to the destination transport address to which | |
the retransmission is being sent (this may be different from the | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 77] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
address for which the timer expires [see Section 6.4]). Call | |
this value K. Bundle and retransmit those K DATA chunks in a | |
single packet to the destination endpoint. | |
E4) Start the retransmission timer T3-rtx on the destination address | |
to which the retransmission is sent, if rule R1 above indicates | |
to do so. The RTO to be used for starting T3-rtx should be the | |
one for the destination address to which the retransmission is | |
sent, which, when the receiver is multi-homed, may be different | |
from the destination address for which the timer expired (see | |
Section 6.4 below). | |
After retransmitting, once a new RTT measurement is obtained (which | |
can happen only when new data has been sent and acknowledged, per | |
rule C5, or for a measurement made from a HEARTBEAT [see Section | |
8.3]), the computation in rule C3 is performed, including the | |
computation of RTO, which may result in "collapsing" RTO back down | |
after it has been subject to doubling (rule E2). | |
Note: Any DATA chunks that were sent to the address for which the | |
T3-rtx timer expired but did not fit in one MTU (rule E3 above), | |
should be marked for retransmission and sent as soon as cwnd allows | |
(normally when a SACK arrives). | |
The final rule for managing the retransmission timer concerns | |
failover (see Section 6.4.1): | |
F1) Whenever an endpoint switches from the current destination | |
transport address to a different one, the current retransmission | |
timers are left running. As soon as the endpoint transmits a | |
packet containing DATA chunk(s) to the new transport address, | |
start the timer on that transport address, using the RTO value of | |
the destination address to which the data is being sent, if rule | |
R1 indicates to do so. | |
6.4 Multi-homed SCTP Endpoints | |
An SCTP endpoint is considered multi-homed if there are more than one | |
transport address that can be used as a destination address to reach | |
that endpoint. | |
Moreover, the ULP of an endpoint shall select one of the multiple | |
destination addresses of a multi-homed peer endpoint as the primary | |
path (see Sections 5.1.2 and 10.1 for details). | |
By default, an endpoint SHOULD always transmit to the primary path, | |
unless the SCTP user explicitly specifies the destination transport | |
address (and possibly source transport address) to use. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 78] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., SACK, HEARTBEAT ACK, | |
etc.) to the same destination transport address from which it | |
received the DATA or control chunk to which it is replying. This | |
rule should also be followed if the endpoint is bundling DATA chunks | |
together with the reply chunk. | |
However, when acknowledging multiple DATA chunks received in packets | |
from different source addresses in a single SACK, the SACK chunk may | |
be transmitted to one of the destination transport addresses from | |
which the DATA or control chunks being acknowledged were received. | |
When a receiver of a duplicate DATA chunk sends a SACK to a multi- | |
homed endpoint it MAY be beneficial to vary the destination address | |
and not use the source address of the DATA chunk. The reason being | |
that receiving a duplicate from a multi-homed endpoint might indicate | |
that the return path (as specified in the source address of the DATA | |
chunk) for the SACK is broken. | |
Furthermore, when its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD try to | |
retransmit a chunk to an active destination transport address that is | |
different from the last destination address to which the DATA chunk | |
was sent. | |
Retransmissions do not affect the total outstanding data count. | |
However, if the DATA chunk is retransmitted onto a different | |
destination address, both the outstanding data counts on the new | |
destination address and the old destination address to which the data | |
chunk was last sent shall be adjusted accordingly. | |
6.4.1 Failover from Inactive Destination Address | |
Some of the transport addresses of a multi-homed SCTP endpoint may | |
become inactive due to either the occurrence of certain error | |
conditions (see Section 8.2) or adjustments from SCTP user. | |
When there is outbound data to send and the primary path becomes | |
inactive (e.g., due to failures), or where the SCTP user explicitly | |
requests to send data to an inactive destination transport address, | |
before reporting an error to its ULP, the SCTP endpoint should try to | |
send the data to an alternate active destination transport address if | |
one exists. | |
When retransmitting data, if the endpoint is multi-homed, it should | |
consider each source-destination address pair in its retransmission | |
selection policy. When retransmitting the endpoint should attempt to | |
pick the most divergent source-destination pair from the original | |
source-destination pair to which the packet was transmitted. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 79] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Note: Rules for picking the most divergent source-destination pair | |
are an implementation decision and is not specified within this | |
document. | |
6.5 Stream Identifier and Stream Sequence Number | |
Every DATA chunk MUST carry a valid stream identifier. If an | |
endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream identifier, it | |
shall acknowledge the reception of the DATA chunk following the | |
normal procedure, immediately send an ERROR chunk with cause set to | |
"Invalid Stream Identifier" (see Section 3.3.10) and discard the DATA | |
chunk. The endpoint may bundle the ERROR chunk in the same packet as | |
the SACK as long as the ERROR follows the SACK. | |
The stream sequence number in all the streams shall start from 0 when | |
the association is established. Also, when the stream sequence | |
number reaches the value 65535 the next stream sequence number shall | |
be set to 0. | |
6.6 Ordered and Unordered Delivery | |
Within a stream, an endpoint MUST deliver DATA chunks received with | |
the U flag set to 0 to the upper layer according to the order of | |
their stream sequence number. If DATA chunks arrive out of order of | |
their stream sequence number, the endpoint MUST hold the received | |
DATA chunks from delivery to the ULP until they are re-ordered. | |
However, an SCTP endpoint can indicate that no ordered delivery is | |
required for a particular DATA chunk transmitted within the stream by | |
setting the U flag of the DATA chunk to 1. | |
When an endpoint receives a DATA chunk with the U flag set to 1, it | |
must bypass the ordering mechanism and immediately deliver the data | |
to the upper layer (after re-assembly if the user data is fragmented | |
by the data sender). | |
This provides an effective way of transmitting "out-of-band" data in | |
a given stream. Also, a stream can be used as an "unordered" stream | |
by simply setting the U flag to 1 in all DATA chunks sent through | |
that stream. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: When sending an unordered DATA chunk, an | |
implementation may choose to place the DATA chunk in an outbound | |
packet that is at the head of the outbound transmission queue if | |
possible. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 80] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The 'Stream Sequence Number' field in a DATA chunk with U flag set to | |
1 has no significance. The sender can fill it with arbitrary value, | |
but the receiver MUST ignore the field. | |
Note: When transmitting ordered and unordered data, an endpoint does | |
not increment its Stream Sequence Number when transmitting a DATA | |
chunk with U flag set to 1. | |
6.7 Report Gaps in Received DATA TSNs | |
Upon the reception of a new DATA chunk, an endpoint shall examine the | |
continuity of the TSNs received. If the endpoint detects a gap in | |
the received DATA chunk sequence, it SHOULD send a SACK with Gap Ack | |
Blocks immediately. The data receiver continues sending a SACK after | |
receipt of each SCTP packet that doesn't fill the gap. | |
Based on the Gap Ack Block from the received SACK, the endpoint can | |
calculate the missing DATA chunks and make decisions on whether to | |
retransmit them (see Section 6.2.1 for details). | |
Multiple gaps can be reported in one single SACK (see Section 3.3.4). | |
When its peer is multi-homed, the SCTP endpoint SHOULD always try to | |
send the SACK to the same destination address from which the last | |
DATA chunk was received. | |
Upon the reception of a SACK, the endpoint MUST remove all DATA | |
chunks which have been acknowledged by the SACK's Cumulative TSN Ack | |
from its transmit queue. The endpoint MUST also treat all the DATA | |
chunks with TSNs not included in the Gap Ack Blocks reported by the | |
SACK as "missing". The number of "missing" reports for each | |
outstanding DATA chunk MUST be recorded by the data sender in order | |
to make retransmission decisions. See Section 7.2.4 for details. | |
The following example shows the use of SACK to report a gap. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 81] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Endpoint A Endpoint Z | |
{App sends 3 messages; strm 0} | |
DATA [TSN=6,Strm=0,Seq=2] ---------------> (ack delayed) | |
(Start T3-rtx timer) | |
DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] --------> X (lost) | |
DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ---------------> (gap detected, | |
immediately send ack) | |
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=1, | |
/ Strt=2,End=2] | |
<-----/ | |
(remove 6 from out-queue, | |
and mark 7 as "1" missing report) | |
Figure 9 - Reporting a Gap using SACK | |
The maximum number of Gap Ack Blocks that can be reported within a | |
single SACK chunk is limited by the current path MTU. When a single | |
SACK can not cover all the Gap Ack Blocks needed to be reported due | |
to the MTU limitation, the endpoint MUST send only one SACK, | |
reporting the Gap Ack Blocks from the lowest to highest TSNs, within | |
the size limit set by the MTU, and leave the remaining highest TSN | |
numbers unacknowledged. | |
6.8 Adler-32 Checksum Calculation | |
When sending an SCTP packet, the endpoint MUST strengthen the data | |
integrity of the transmission by including the Adler-32 checksum | |
value calculated on the packet, as described below. | |
After the packet is constructed (containing the SCTP common header | |
and one or more control or DATA chunks), the transmitter shall: | |
1) Fill in the proper Verification Tag in the SCTP common header and | |
initialize the checksum field to 0's. | |
2) Calculate the Adler-32 checksum of the whole packet, including the | |
SCTP common header and all the chunks. Refer to appendix B for | |
details of the Adler-32 algorithm. And, | |
3) Put the resultant value into the checksum field in the common | |
header, and leave the rest of the bits unchanged. | |
When an SCTP packet is received, the receiver MUST first check the | |
Adler-32 checksum: | |
1) Store the received Adler-32 checksum value aside, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 82] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
2) Replace the 32 bits of the checksum field in the received SCTP | |
packet with all '0's and calculate an Adler-32 checksum value of | |
the whole received packet. And, | |
3) Verify that the calculated Adler-32 checksum is the same as the | |
received Adler-32 checksum. If not, the receiver MUST treat the | |
packet as an invalid SCTP packet. | |
The default procedure for handling invalid SCTP packets is to | |
silently discard them. | |
6.9 Fragmentation and Reassembly | |
An endpoint MAY support fragmentation when sending DATA chunks, but | |
MUST support reassembly when receiving DATA chunks. If an endpoint | |
supports fragmentation, it MUST fragment a user message if the size | |
of the user message to be sent causes the outbound SCTP packet size | |
to exceed the current MTU. If an implementation does not support | |
fragmentation of outbound user messages, the endpoint must return an | |
error to its upper layer and not attempt to send the user message. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: In this error case, the Send primitive | |
discussed in Section 10.1 would need to return an error to the upper | |
layer. | |
If its peer is multi-homed, the endpoint shall choose a size no | |
larger than the association Path MTU. The association Path MTU is | |
the smallest Path MTU of all destination addresses. | |
Note: Once a message is fragmented it cannot be re-fragmented. | |
Instead if the PMTU has been reduced, then IP fragmentation must be | |
used. Please see Section 7.3 for details of PMTU discovery. | |
When determining when to fragment, the SCTP implementation MUST take | |
into account the SCTP packet header as well as the DATA chunk | |
header(s). The implementation MUST also take into account the space | |
required for a SACK chunk if bundling a SACK chunk with the DATA | |
chunk. | |
Fragmentation takes the following steps: | |
1) The data sender MUST break the user message into a series of DATA | |
chunks such that each chunk plus SCTP overhead fits into an IP | |
datagram smaller than or equal to the association Path MTU. | |
2) The transmitter MUST then assign, in sequence, a separate TSN to | |
each of the DATA chunks in the series. The transmitter assigns | |
the same SSN to each of the DATA chunks. If the user indicates | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 83] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
that the user message is to be delivered using unordered delivery, | |
then the U flag of each DATA chunk of the user message MUST be set | |
to 1. | |
3) The transmitter MUST also set the B/E bits of the first DATA chunk | |
in the series to '10', the B/E bits of the last DATA chunk in the | |
series to '01', and the B/E bits of all other DATA chunks in the | |
series to '00'. | |
An endpoint MUST recognize fragmented DATA chunks by examining the | |
B/E bits in each of the received DATA chunks, and queue the | |
fragmented DATA chunks for re-assembly. Once the user message is | |
reassembled, SCTP shall pass the re-assembled user message to the | |
specific stream for possible re-ordering and final dispatching. | |
Note: If the data receiver runs out of buffer space while still | |
waiting for more fragments to complete the re-assembly of the | |
message, it should dispatch part of its inbound message through a | |
partial delivery API (see Section 10), freeing some of its receive | |
buffer space so that the rest of the message may be received. | |
6.10 Bundling | |
An endpoint bundles chunks by simply including multiple chunks in one | |
outbound SCTP packet. The total size of the resultant IP datagram, | |
including the SCTP packet and IP headers, MUST be less or equal to | |
the current Path MTU. | |
If its peer endpoint is multi-homed, the sending endpoint shall | |
choose a size no larger than the latest MTU of the current primary | |
path. | |
When bundling control chunks with DATA chunks, an endpoint MUST place | |
control chunks first in the outbound SCTP packet. The transmitter | |
MUST transmit DATA chunks within a SCTP packet in increasing order of | |
TSN. | |
Note: Since control chunks must be placed first in a packet and | |
since DATA chunks must be transmitted before SHUTDOWN or SHUTDOWN ACK | |
chunks, DATA chunks cannot be bundled with SHUTDOWN or SHUTDOWN ACK | |
chunks. | |
Partial chunks MUST NOT be placed in an SCTP packet. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 84] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
An endpoint MUST process received chunks in their order in the | |
packet. The receiver uses the chunk length field to determine the end | |
of a chunk and beginning of the next chunk taking account of the fact | |
that all chunks end on a 4 byte boundary. If the receiver detects a | |
partial chunk, it MUST drop the chunk. | |
An endpoint MUST NOT bundle INIT, INIT ACK or SHUTDOWN COMPLETE with | |
any other chunks. | |
7. Congestion control | |
Congestion control is one of the basic functions in SCTP. For some | |
applications, it may be likely that adequate resources will be | |
allocated to SCTP traffic to assure prompt delivery of time-critical | |
data - thus it would appear to be unlikely, during normal operations, | |
that transmissions encounter severe congestion conditions. However | |
SCTP must operate under adverse operational conditions, which can | |
develop upon partial network failures or unexpected traffic surges. | |
In such situations SCTP must follow correct congestion control steps | |
to recover from congestion quickly in order to get data delivered as | |
soon as possible. In the absence of network congestion, these | |
preventive congestion control algorithms should show no impact on the | |
protocol performance. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: As far as its specific performance requirements | |
are met, an implementation is always allowed to adopt a more | |
conservative congestion control algorithm than the one defined below. | |
The congestion control algorithms used by SCTP are based on | |
[RFC2581]. This section describes how the algorithms defined in | |
RFC2581 are adapted for use in SCTP. We first list differences in | |
protocol designs between TCP and SCTP, and then describe SCTP's | |
congestion control scheme. The description will use the same | |
terminology as in TCP congestion control whenever appropriate. | |
SCTP congestion control is always applied to the entire association, | |
and not to individual streams. | |
7.1 SCTP Differences from TCP Congestion control | |
Gap Ack Blocks in the SCTP SACK carry the same semantic meaning as | |
the TCP SACK. TCP considers the information carried in the SACK as | |
advisory information only. SCTP considers the information carried in | |
the Gap Ack Blocks in the SACK chunk as advisory. In SCTP, any DATA | |
chunk that has been acknowledged by SACK, including DATA that arrived | |
at the receiving end out of order, are not considered fully delivered | |
until the Cumulative TSN Ack Point passes the TSN of the DATA chunk | |
(i.e., the DATA chunk has been acknowledged by the Cumulative TSN Ack | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 85] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
field in the SACK). Consequently, the value of cwnd controls the | |
amount of outstanding data, rather than (as in the case of non-SACK | |
TCP) the upper bound between the highest acknowledged sequence number | |
and the latest DATA chunk that can be sent within the congestion | |
window. SCTP SACK leads to different implementations of fast- | |
retransmit and fast-recovery than non-SACK TCP. As an example see | |
[FALL96]. | |
The biggest difference between SCTP and TCP, however, is multi- | |
homing. SCTP is designed to establish robust communication | |
associations between two endpoints each of which may be reachable by | |
more than one transport address. Potentially different addresses may | |
lead to different data paths between the two endpoints, thus ideally | |
one may need a separate set of congestion control parameters for each | |
of the paths. The treatment here of congestion control for multi- | |
homed receivers is new with SCTP and may require refinement in the | |
future. The current algorithms make the following assumptions: | |
o The sender usually uses the same destination address until being | |
instructed by the upper layer otherwise; however, SCTP may change | |
to an alternate destination in the event an address is marked | |
inactive (see Section 8.2). Also, SCTP may retransmit to a | |
different transport address than the original transmission. | |
o The sender keeps a separate congestion control parameter set for | |
each of the destination addresses it can send to (not each | |
source-destination pair but for each destination). The parameters | |
should decay if the address is not used for a long enough time | |
period. | |
o For each of the destination addresses, an endpoint does slow-start | |
upon the first transmission to that address. | |
Note: TCP guarantees in-sequence delivery of data to its upper-layer | |
protocol within a single TCP session. This means that when TCP | |
notices a gap in the received sequence number, it waits until the gap | |
is filled before delivering the data that was received with sequence | |
numbers higher than that of the missing data. On the other hand, | |
SCTP can deliver data to its upper-layer protocol even if there is a | |
gap in TSN if the Stream Sequence Numbers are in sequence for a | |
particular stream (i.e., the missing DATA chunks are for a different | |
stream) or if unordered delivery is indicated. Although this does | |
not affect cwnd, it might affect rwnd calculation. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 86] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
7.2 SCTP Slow-Start and Congestion Avoidance | |
The slow start and congestion avoidance algorithms MUST be used by an | |
endpoint to control the amount of data being injected into the | |
network. The congestion control in SCTP is employed in regard to the | |
association, not to an individual stream. In some situations it may | |
be beneficial for an SCTP sender to be more conservative than the | |
algorithms allow; however, an SCTP sender MUST NOT be more aggressive | |
than the following algorithms allow. | |
Like TCP, an SCTP endpoint uses the following three control variables | |
to regulate its transmission rate. | |
o Receiver advertised window size (rwnd, in bytes), which is set by | |
the receiver based on its available buffer space for incoming | |
packets. | |
Note: This variable is kept on the entire association. | |
o Congestion control window (cwnd, in bytes), which is adjusted by | |
the sender based on observed network conditions. | |
Note: This variable is maintained on a per-destination address | |
basis. | |
o Slow-start threshold (ssthresh, in bytes), which is used by the | |
sender to distinguish slow start and congestion avoidance phases. | |
Note: This variable is maintained on a per-destination address | |
basis. | |
SCTP also requires one additional control variable, | |
partial_bytes_acked, which is used during congestion avoidance phase | |
to facilitate cwnd adjustment. | |
Unlike TCP, an SCTP sender MUST keep a set of these control variables | |
cwnd, ssthresh and partial_bytes_acked for EACH destination address | |
of its peer (when its peer is multi-homed). Only one rwnd is kept | |
for the whole association (no matter if the peer is multi-homed or | |
has a single address). | |
7.2.1 Slow-Start | |
Beginning data transmission into a network with unknown conditions or | |
after a sufficiently long idle period requires SCTP to probe the | |
network to determine the available capacity. The slow start | |
algorithm is used for this purpose at the beginning of a transfer, or | |
after repairing loss detected by the retransmission timer. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 87] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o The initial cwnd before DATA transmission or after a sufficiently | |
long idle period MUST be <= 2*MTU. | |
o The initial cwnd after a retransmission timeout MUST be no more | |
than 1*MTU. | |
o The initial value of ssthresh MAY be arbitrarily high (for | |
example, implementations MAY use the size of the receiver | |
advertised window). | |
o Whenever cwnd is greater than zero, the endpoint is allowed to | |
have cwnd bytes of data outstanding on that transport address. | |
o When cwnd is less than or equal to ssthresh an SCTP endpoint MUST | |
use the slow start algorithm to increase cwnd (assuming the | |
current congestion window is being fully utilized). If an | |
incoming SACK advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, cwnd MUST be | |
increased by at most the lesser of 1) the total size of the | |
previously outstanding DATA chunk(s) acknowledged, and 2) the | |
destination's path MTU. This protects against the ACK-Splitting | |
attack outlined in [SAVAGE99]. | |
In instances where its peer endpoint is multi-homed, if an endpoint | |
receives a SACK that advances its Cumulative TSN Ack Point, then it | |
should update its cwnd (or cwnds) apportioned to the destination | |
addresses to which it transmitted the acknowledged data. However if | |
the received SACK does not advance the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, the | |
endpoint MUST NOT adjust the cwnd of any of the destination | |
addresses. | |
Because an endpoint's cwnd is not tied to its Cumulative TSN Ack | |
Point, as duplicate SACKs come in, even though they may not advance | |
the Cumulative TSN Ack Point an endpoint can still use them to clock | |
out new data. That is, the data newly acknowledged by the SACK | |
diminishes the amount of data now in flight to less than cwnd; and so | |
the current, unchanged value of cwnd now allows new data to be sent. | |
On the other hand, the increase of cwnd must be tied to the | |
Cumulative TSN Ack Point advancement as specified above. Otherwise | |
the duplicate SACKs will not only clock out new data, but also will | |
adversely clock out more new data than what has just left the | |
network, during a time of possible congestion. | |
o When the endpoint does not transmit data on a given transport | |
address, the cwnd of the transport address should be adjusted to | |
max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU) per RTO. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 88] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
7.2.2 Congestion Avoidance | |
When cwnd is greater than ssthresh, cwnd should be incremented by | |
1*MTU per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data | |
outstanding for the corresponding transport address. | |
In practice an implementation can achieve this goal in the following | |
way: | |
o partial_bytes_acked is initialized to 0. | |
o Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival | |
that advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, increase | |
partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all new chunks | |
acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged by the new | |
Cumulative TSN Ack and by Gap Ack Blocks. | |
o When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and | |
before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes | |
of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize | |
was greater than or equal to cwnd), increase cwnd by MTU, and | |
reset partial_bytes_acked to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd). | |
o Same as in the slow start, when the sender does not transmit DATA | |
on a given transport address, the cwnd of the transport address | |
should be adjusted to max(cwnd / 2, 2*MTU) per RTO. | |
o When all of the data transmitted by the sender has been | |
acknowledged by the receiver, partial_bytes_acked is initialized | |
to 0. | |
7.2.3 Congestion Control | |
Upon detection of packet losses from SACK (see Section 7.2.4), An | |
endpoint should do the following: | |
ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU) | |
cwnd = ssthresh | |
Basically, a packet loss causes cwnd to be cut in half. | |
When the T3-rtx timer expires on an address, SCTP should perform slow | |
start by: | |
ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU) | |
cwnd = 1*MTU | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 89] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
and assure that no more than one SCTP packet will be in flight for | |
that address until the endpoint receives acknowledgement for | |
successful delivery of data to that address. | |
7.2.4 Fast Retransmit on Gap Reports | |
In the absence of data loss, an endpoint performs delayed | |
acknowledgement. However, whenever an endpoint notices a hole in the | |
arriving TSN sequence, it SHOULD start sending a SACK back every time | |
a packet arrives carrying data until the hole is filled. | |
Whenever an endpoint receives a SACK that indicates some TSN(s) | |
missing, it SHOULD wait for 3 further miss indications (via | |
subsequent SACK's) on the same TSN(s) before taking action with | |
regard to Fast Retransmit. | |
When the TSN(s) is reported as missing in the fourth consecutive | |
SACK, the data sender shall: | |
1) Mark the missing DATA chunk(s) for retransmission, | |
2) Adjust the ssthresh and cwnd of the destination address(es) to | |
which the missing DATA chunks were last sent, according to the | |
formula described in Section 7.2.3. | |
3) Determine how many of the earliest (i.e., lowest TSN) DATA chunks | |
marked for retransmission will fit into a single packet, subject | |
to constraint of the path MTU of the destination transport address | |
to which the packet is being sent. Call this value K. Retransmit | |
those K DATA chunks in a single packet. | |
4) Restart T3-rtx timer only if the last SACK acknowledged the lowest | |
outstanding TSN number sent to that address, or the endpoint is | |
retransmitting the first outstanding DATA chunk sent to that | |
address. | |
Note: Before the above adjustments, if the received SACK also | |
acknowledges new DATA chunks and advances the Cumulative TSN Ack | |
Point, the cwnd adjustment rules defined in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 | |
must be applied first. | |
A straightforward implementation of the above keeps a counter for | |
each TSN hole reported by a SACK. The counter increments for each | |
consecutive SACK reporting the TSN hole. After reaching 4 and | |
starting the fast retransmit procedure, the counter resets to 0. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 90] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Because cwnd in SCTP indirectly bounds the number of outstanding | |
TSN's, the effect of TCP fast-recovery is achieved automatically with | |
no adjustment to the congestion control window size. | |
7.3 Path MTU Discovery | |
[RFC1191] specifies "Path MTU Discovery", whereby an endpoint | |
maintains an estimate of the maximum transmission unit (MTU) along a | |
given Internet path and refrains from sending packets along that path | |
which exceed the MTU, other than occasional attempts to probe for a | |
change in the Path MTU (PMTU). RFC 1191 is thorough in its | |
discussion of the MTU discovery mechanism and strategies for | |
determining the current end-to-end MTU setting as well as detecting | |
changes in this value. [RFC1981] specifies the same mechanisms for | |
IPv6. An SCTP sender using IPv6 MUST use Path MTU Discovery unless | |
all packets are less than the minimum IPv6 MTU [RFC2460]. | |
An endpoint SHOULD apply these techniques, and SHOULD do so on a | |
per-destination-address basis. | |
There are 4 ways in which SCTP differs from the description in RFC | |
1191 of applying MTU discovery to TCP: | |
1) SCTP associations can span multiple addresses. An endpoint MUST | |
maintain separate MTU estimates for each destination address of | |
its peer. | |
2) Elsewhere in this document, when the term "MTU" is discussed, it | |
refers to the MTU associated with the destination address | |
corresponding to the context of the discussion. | |
3) Unlike TCP, SCTP does not have a notion of "Maximum Segment Size". | |
Accordingly, the MTU for each destination address SHOULD be | |
initialized to a value no larger than the link MTU for the local | |
interface to which packets for that remote destination address | |
will be routed. | |
4) Since data transmission in SCTP is naturally structured in terms | |
of TSNs rather than bytes (as is the case for TCP), the discussion | |
in Section 6.5 of RFC 1191 applies: When retransmitting an IP | |
datagram to a remote address for which the IP datagram appears too | |
large for the path MTU to that address, the IP datagram SHOULD be | |
retransmitted without the DF bit set, allowing it to possibly be | |
fragmented. Transmissions of new IP datagrams MUST have DF set. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 91] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5) The sender should track an association PMTU which will be the | |
smallest PMTU discovered for all of the peer's destination | |
addresses. When fragmenting messages into multiple parts this | |
association PMTU should be used to calculate the size of each | |
fragment. This will allow retransmissions to be seamlessly sent | |
to an alternate address without encountering IP fragmentation. | |
Other than these differences, the discussion of TCP's use of MTU | |
discovery in RFCs 1191 and 1981 applies to SCTP on a per- | |
destination-address basis. | |
Note: For IPv6 destination addresses the DF bit does not exist, | |
instead the IP datagram must be fragmented as described in [RFC2460]. | |
8. Fault Management | |
8.1 Endpoint Failure Detection | |
An endpoint shall keep a counter on the total number of consecutive | |
retransmissions to its peer (including retransmissions to all the | |
destination transport addresses of the peer if it is multi-homed). | |
If the value of this counter exceeds the limit indicated in the | |
protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans', the endpoint shall | |
consider the peer endpoint unreachable and shall stop transmitting | |
any more data to it (and thus the association enters the CLOSED | |
state). In addition, the endpoint shall report the failure to the | |
upper layer, and optionally report back all outstanding user data | |
remaining in its outbound queue. The association is automatically | |
closed when the peer endpoint becomes unreachable. | |
The counter shall be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer | |
endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK), or a | |
HEARTBEAT-ACK is received from the peer endpoint. | |
8.2 Path Failure Detection | |
When its peer endpoint is multi-homed, an endpoint should keep a | |
error counter for each of the destination transport addresses of the | |
peer endpoint. | |
Each time the T3-rtx timer expires on any address, or when a | |
HEARTBEAT sent to an idle address is not acknowledged within a RTO, | |
the error counter of that destination address will be incremented. | |
When the value in the error counter exceeds the protocol parameter | |
'Path.Max.Retrans' of that destination address, the endpoint should | |
mark the destination transport address as inactive, and a | |
notification SHOULD be sent to the upper layer. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 92] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
When an outstanding TSN is acknowledged or a HEARTBEAT sent to that | |
address is acknowledged with a HEARTBEAT ACK, the endpoint shall | |
clear the error counter of the destination transport address to which | |
the DATA chunk was last sent (or HEARTBEAT was sent). When the peer | |
endpoint is multi-homed and the last chunk sent to it was a | |
retransmission to an alternate address, there exists an ambiguity as | |
to whether or not the acknowledgement should be credited to the | |
address of the last chunk sent. However, this ambiguity does not | |
seem to bear any significant consequence to SCTP behavior. If this | |
ambiguity is undesirable, the transmitter may choose not to clear the | |
error counter if the last chunk sent was a retransmission. | |
Note: When configuring the SCTP endpoint, the user should avoid | |
having the value of 'Association.Max.Retrans' larger than the | |
summation of the 'Path.Max.Retrans' of all the destination addresses | |
for the remote endpoint. Otherwise, all the destination addresses | |
may become inactive while the endpoint still considers the peer | |
endpoint reachable. When this condition occurs, how the SCTP chooses | |
to function is implementation specific. | |
When the primary path is marked inactive (due to excessive | |
retransmissions, for instance), the sender MAY automatically transmit | |
new packets to an alternate destination address if one exists and is | |
active. If more than one alternate address is active when the | |
primary path is marked inactive only ONE transport address SHOULD be | |
chosen and used as the new destination transport address. | |
8.3 Path Heartbeat | |
By default, an SCTP endpoint shall monitor the reachability of the | |
idle destination transport address(es) of its peer by sending a | |
HEARTBEAT chunk periodically to the destination transport | |
address(es). | |
A destination transport address is considered "idle" if no new chunk | |
which can be used for updating path RTT (usually including first | |
transmission DATA, INIT, COOKIE ECHO, HEARTBEAT etc.) and no | |
HEARTBEAT has been sent to it within the current heartbeat period of | |
that address. This applies to both active and inactive destination | |
addresses. | |
The upper layer can optionally initiate the following functions: | |
A) Disable heartbeat on a specific destination transport address of a | |
given association, | |
B) Change the HB.interval, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 93] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
C) Re-enable heartbeat on a specific destination transport address of | |
a given association, and, | |
D) Request an on-demand HEARTBEAT on a specific destination transport | |
address of a given association. | |
The endpoint should increment the respective error counter of the | |
destination transport address each time a HEARTBEAT is sent to that | |
address and not acknowledged within one RTO. | |
When the value of this counter reaches the protocol parameter ' | |
Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding | |
destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may also | |
optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of | |
this destination address. After this, the endpoint should continue | |
HEARTBEAT on this destination address but should stop increasing the | |
counter. | |
The sender of the HEARTBEAT chunk should include in the Heartbeat | |
Information field of the chunk the current time when the packet is | |
sent out and the destination address to which the packet is sent. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: An alternative implementation of the heartbeat | |
mechanism that can be used is to increment the error counter variable | |
every time a HEARTBEAT is sent to a destination. Whenever a | |
HEARTBEAT ACK arrives, the sender SHOULD clear the error counter of | |
the destination that the HEARTBEAT was sent to. This in effect would | |
clear the previously stroked error (and any other error counts as | |
well). | |
The receiver of the HEARTBEAT should immediately respond with a | |
HEARTBEAT ACK that contains the Heartbeat Information field copied | |
from the received HEARTBEAT chunk. | |
Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT | |
should clear the error counter of the destination transport address | |
to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport | |
address as active if it is not so marked. The endpoint may | |
optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination | |
address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest | |
HEARTBEAT ACK. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK must also clear the | |
association overall error count as well (as defined in section 8.1). | |
The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK should also perform an RTT | |
measurement for that destination transport address using the time | |
value carried in the HEARTBEAT ACK chunk. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 94] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
On an idle destination address that is allowed to heartbeat, a | |
HEARTBEAT chunk is RECOMMENDED to be sent once per RTO of that | |
destination address plus the protocol parameter 'HB.interval' , with | |
jittering of +/- 50%, and exponential back-off of the RTO if the | |
previous HEARTBEAT is unanswered. | |
A primitive is provided for the SCTP user to change the HB.interval | |
and turn on or off the heartbeat on a given destination address. The | |
heartbeat interval set by the SCTP user is added to the RTO of that | |
destination (including any exponential backoff). Only one heartbeat | |
should be sent each time the heartbeat timer expires (if multiple | |
destinations are idle). It is a implementation decision on how to | |
choose which of the candidate idle destinations to heartbeat to (if | |
more than one destination is idle). | |
Note: When tuning the heartbeat interval, there is a side effect that | |
SHOULD be taken into account. When this value is increased, i.e. | |
the HEARTBEAT takes longer, the detection of lost ABORT messages | |
takes longer as well. If a peer endpoint ABORTs the association for | |
any reason and the ABORT chunk is lost, the local endpoint will only | |
discover the lost ABORT by sending a DATA chunk or HEARTBEAT chunk | |
(thus causing the peer to send another ABORT). This must be | |
considered when tuning the HEARTBEAT timer. If the HEARTBEAT is | |
disabled only sending DATA to the association will discover a lost | |
ABORT from the peer. | |
8.4 Handle "Out of the blue" Packets | |
An SCTP packet is called an "out of the blue" (OOTB) packet if it is | |
correctly formed, i.e., passed the receiver's Adler-32 check (see | |
Section 6.8), but the receiver is not able to identify the | |
association to which this packet belongs. | |
The receiver of an OOTB packet MUST do the following: | |
1) If the OOTB packet is to or from a non-unicast address, silently | |
discard the packet. Otherwise, | |
2) If the OOTB packet contains an ABORT chunk, the receiver MUST | |
silently discard the OOTB packet and take no further action. | |
Otherwise, | |
3) If the packet contains an INIT chunk with a Verification Tag set | |
to '0', process it as described in Section 5.1. Otherwise, | |
4) If the packet contains a COOKIE ECHO in the first chunk, process | |
it as described in Section 5.1. Otherwise, | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 95] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
5) If the packet contains a SHUTDOWN ACK chunk, the receiver should | |
respond to the sender of the OOTB packet with a SHUTDOWN COMPLETE. | |
When sending the SHUTDOWN COMPLETE, the receiver of the OOTB | |
packet must fill in the Verification Tag field of the outbound | |
packet with the Verification Tag received in the SHUTDOWN ACK and | |
set the T-bit in the Chunk Flags to indicate that no TCB was | |
found. Otherwise, | |
6) If the packet contains a SHUTDOWN COMPLETE chunk, the receiver | |
should silently discard the packet and take no further action. | |
Otherwise, | |
7) If the packet contains a "Stale cookie" ERROR or a COOKIE ACK the | |
SCTP Packet should be silently discarded. Otherwise, | |
8) The receiver should respond to the sender of the OOTB packet with | |
an ABORT. When sending the ABORT, the receiver of the OOTB packet | |
MUST fill in the Verification Tag field of the outbound packet | |
with the value found in the Verification Tag field of the OOTB | |
packet and set the T-bit in the Chunk Flags to indicate that no | |
TCB was found. After sending this ABORT, the receiver of the OOTB | |
packet shall discard the OOTB packet and take no further action. | |
8.5 Verification Tag | |
The Verification Tag rules defined in this section apply when sending | |
or receiving SCTP packets which do not contain an INIT, SHUTDOWN | |
COMPLETE, COOKIE ECHO (see Section 5.1), ABORT or SHUTDOWN ACK chunk. | |
The rules for sending and receiving SCTP packets containing one of | |
these chunk types are discussed separately in Section 8.5.1. | |
When sending an SCTP packet, the endpoint MUST fill in the | |
Verification Tag field of the outbound packet with the tag value in | |
the Initiate Tag parameter of the INIT or INIT ACK received from its | |
peer. | |
When receiving an SCTP packet, the endpoint MUST ensure that the | |
value in the Verification Tag field of the received SCTP packet | |
matches its own Tag. If the received Verification Tag value does not | |
match the receiver's own tag value, the receiver shall silently | |
discard the packet and shall not process it any further except for | |
those cases listed in Section 8.5.1 below. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 96] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
8.5.1 Exceptions in Verification Tag Rules | |
A) Rules for packet carrying INIT: | |
- The sender MUST set the Verification Tag of the packet to 0. | |
- When an endpoint receives an SCTP packet with the Verification | |
Tag set to 0, it should verify that the packet contains only an | |
INIT chunk. Otherwise, the receiver MUST silently discard the | |
packet. | |
B) Rules for packet carrying ABORT: | |
- The endpoint shall always fill in the Verification Tag field of | |
the outbound packet with the destination endpoint's tag value | |
if it is known. | |
- If the ABORT is sent in response to an OOTB packet, the | |
endpoint MUST follow the procedure described in Section 8.4. | |
- The receiver MUST accept the packet if the Verification Tag | |
matches either its own tag, OR the tag of its peer. Otherwise, | |
the receiver MUST silently discard the packet and take no | |
further action. | |
C) Rules for packet carrying SHUTDOWN COMPLETE: | |
- When sending a SHUTDOWN COMPLETE, if the receiver of the | |
SHUTDOWN ACK has a TCB then the destination endpoint's tag MUST | |
be used. Only where no TCB exists should the sender use the | |
Verification Tag from the SHUTDOWN ACK. | |
- The receiver of a SHUTDOWN COMPLETE shall accept the packet if | |
the Verification Tag field of the packet matches its own tag OR | |
it is set to its peer's tag and the T bit is set in the Chunk | |
Flags. Otherwise, the receiver MUST silently discard the packet | |
and take no further action. An endpoint MUST ignore the | |
SHUTDOWN COMPLETE if it is not in the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state. | |
D) Rules for packet carrying a COOKIE ECHO | |
- When sending a COOKIE ECHO, the endpoint MUST use the value of | |
the Initial Tag received in the INIT ACK. | |
- The receiver of a COOKIE ECHO follows the procedures in Section | |
5. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 97] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
E) Rules for packet carrying a SHUTDOWN ACK | |
- If the receiver is in COOKIE-ECHOED or COOKIE-WAIT state the | |
procedures in section 8.4 SHOULD be followed, in other words it | |
should be treated as an Out Of The Blue packet. | |
9. Termination of Association | |
An endpoint should terminate its association when it exits from | |
service. An association can be terminated by either abort or | |
shutdown. An abort of an association is abortive by definition in | |
that any data pending on either end of the association is discarded | |
and not delivered to the peer. A shutdown of an association is | |
considered a graceful close where all data in queue by either | |
endpoint is delivered to the respective peers. However, in the case | |
of a shutdown, SCTP does not support a half-open state (like TCP) | |
wherein one side may continue sending data while the other end is | |
closed. When either endpoint performs a shutdown, the association on | |
each peer will stop accepting new data from its user and only deliver | |
data in queue at the time of sending or receiving the SHUTDOWN chunk. | |
9.1 Abort of an Association | |
When an endpoint decides to abort an existing association, it shall | |
send an ABORT chunk to its peer endpoint. The sender MUST fill in | |
the peer's Verification Tag in the outbound packet and MUST NOT | |
bundle any DATA chunk with the ABORT. | |
An endpoint MUST NOT respond to any received packet that contains an | |
ABORT chunk (also see Section 8.4). | |
An endpoint receiving an ABORT shall apply the special Verification | |
Tag check rules described in Section 8.5.1. | |
After checking the Verification Tag, the receiving endpoint shall | |
remove the association from its record, and shall report the | |
termination to its upper layer. | |
9.2 Shutdown of an Association | |
Using the SHUTDOWN primitive (see Section 10.1), the upper layer of | |
an endpoint in an association can gracefully close the association. | |
This will allow all outstanding DATA chunks from the peer of the | |
shutdown initiator to be delivered before the association terminates. | |
Upon receipt of the SHUTDOWN primitive from its upper layer, the | |
endpoint enters SHUTDOWN-PENDING state and remains there until all | |
outstanding data has been acknowledged by its peer. The endpoint | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 98] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
accepts no new data from its upper layer, but retransmits data to the | |
far end if necessary to fill gaps. | |
Once all its outstanding data has been acknowledged, the endpoint | |
shall send a SHUTDOWN chunk to its peer including in the Cumulative | |
TSN Ack field the last sequential TSN it has received from the peer. | |
It shall then start the T2-shutdown timer and enter the SHUTDOWN-SENT | |
state. If the timer expires, the endpoint must re-send the SHUTDOWN | |
with the updated last sequential TSN received from its peer. | |
The rules in Section 6.3 MUST be followed to determine the proper | |
timer value for T2-shutdown. To indicate any gaps in TSN, the | |
endpoint may also bundle a SACK with the SHUTDOWN chunk in the same | |
SCTP packet. | |
An endpoint should limit the number of retransmissions of the | |
SHUTDOWN chunk to the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans'. | |
If this threshold is exceeded the endpoint should destroy the TCB and | |
MUST report the peer endpoint unreachable to the upper layer (and | |
thus the association enters the CLOSED state). The reception of any | |
packet from its peer (i.e. as the peer sends all of its queued DATA | |
chunks) should clear the endpoint's retransmission count and restart | |
the T2-Shutdown timer, giving its peer ample opportunity to transmit | |
all of its queued DATA chunks that have not yet been sent. | |
Upon the reception of the SHUTDOWN, the peer endpoint shall | |
- enter the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, | |
- stop accepting new data from its SCTP user | |
- verify, by checking the Cumulative TSN Ack field of the chunk, | |
that all its outstanding DATA chunks have been received by the | |
SHUTDOWN sender. | |
Once an endpoint as reached the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state it MUST NOT | |
send a SHUTDOWN in response to a ULP request, and should discard | |
subsequent SHUTDOWN chunks. | |
If there are still outstanding DATA chunks left, the SHUTDOWN | |
receiver shall continue to follow normal data transmission procedures | |
defined in Section 6 until all outstanding DATA chunks are | |
acknowledged; however, the SHUTDOWN receiver MUST NOT accept new data | |
from its SCTP user. | |
While in SHUTDOWN-SENT state, the SHUTDOWN sender MUST immediately | |
respond to each received packet containing one or more DATA chunk(s) | |
with a SACK, a SHUTDOWN chunk, and restart the T2-shutdown timer. If | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 99] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
it has no more outstanding DATA chunks, the SHUTDOWN receiver shall | |
send a SHUTDOWN ACK and start a T2-shutdown timer of its own, | |
entering the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state. If the timer expires, the | |
endpoint must re-send the SHUTDOWN ACK. | |
The sender of the SHUTDOWN ACK should limit the number of | |
retransmissions of the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk to the protocol parameter ' | |
Association.Max.Retrans'. If this threshold is exceeded the endpoint | |
should destroy the TCB and may report the peer endpoint unreachable | |
to the upper layer (and thus the association enters the CLOSED | |
state). | |
Upon the receipt of the SHUTDOWN ACK, the SHUTDOWN sender shall stop | |
the T2-shutdown timer, send a SHUTDOWN COMPLETE chunk to its peer, | |
and remove all record of the association. | |
Upon reception of the SHUTDOWN COMPLETE chunk the endpoint will | |
verify that it is in SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state, if it is not the chunk | |
should be discarded. If the endpoint is in the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT | |
state the endpoint should stop the T2-shutdown timer and remove all | |
knowledge of the association (and thus the association enters the | |
CLOSED state). | |
An endpoint SHOULD assure that all its outstanding DATA chunks have | |
been acknowledged before initiating the shutdown procedure. | |
An endpoint should reject any new data request from its upper layer | |
if it is in SHUTDOWN-PENDING, SHUTDOWN-SENT, SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED, or | |
SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state. | |
If an endpoint is in SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state and receives an INIT | |
chunk (e.g., if the SHUTDOWN COMPLETE was lost) with source and | |
destination transport addresses (either in the IP addresses or in the | |
INIT chunk) that belong to this association, it should discard the | |
INIT chunk and retransmit the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk. | |
Note: Receipt of an INIT with the same source and destination IP | |
addresses as used in transport addresses assigned to an endpoint but | |
with a different port number indicates the initialization of a | |
separate association. | |
The sender of the INIT or COOKIE ECHO should respond to the receipt | |
of a SHUTDOWN-ACK with a stand-alone SHUTDOWN COMPLETE in an SCTP | |
packet with the Verification Tag field of its common header set to | |
the same tag that was received in the SHUTDOWN ACK packet. This is | |
considered an Out of the Blue packet as defined in Section 8.4. The | |
sender of the INIT lets T1-init continue running and remains in the | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 100] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
COOKIE-WAIT or COOKIE-ECHOED state. Normal T1-init timer expiration | |
will cause the INIT or COOKIE chunk to be retransmitted and thus | |
start a new association. | |
If a SHUTDOWN is received in COOKIE WAIT or COOKIE ECHOED states the | |
SHUTDOWN chunk SHOULD be silently discarded. | |
If an endpoint is in SHUTDOWN-SENT state and receives a SHUTDOWN | |
chunk from its peer, the endpoint shall respond immediately with a | |
SHUTDOWN ACK to its peer, and move into a SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state | |
restarting its T2-shutdown timer. | |
If an endpoint is in the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state and receives a | |
SHUTDOWN ACK, it shall stop the T2-shutdown timer, send a SHUTDOWN | |
COMPLETE chunk to its peer, and remove all record of the association. | |
10. Interface with Upper Layer | |
The Upper Layer Protocols (ULP) shall request for services by passing | |
primitives to SCTP and shall receive notifications from SCTP for | |
various events. | |
The primitives and notifications described in this section should be | |
used as a guideline for implementing SCTP. The following functional | |
description of ULP interface primitives is shown for illustrative | |
purposes. Different SCTP implementations may have different ULP | |
interfaces. However, all SCTPs must provide a certain minimum set of | |
services to guarantee that all SCTP implementations can support the | |
same protocol hierarchy. | |
10.1 ULP-to-SCTP | |
The following sections functionally characterize a ULP/SCTP | |
interface. The notation used is similar to most procedure or | |
function calls in high level languages. | |
The ULP primitives described below specify the basic functions the | |
SCTP must perform to support inter-process communication. Individual | |
implementations must define their own exact format, and may provide | |
combinations or subsets of the basic functions in single calls. | |
A) Initialize | |
Format: INITIALIZE ([local port], [local eligible address list]) -> | |
local SCTP instance name | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 101] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
This primitive allows SCTP to initialize its internal data structures | |
and allocate necessary resources for setting up its operation | |
environment. Once SCTP is initialized, ULP can communicate directly | |
with other endpoints without re-invoking this primitive. | |
SCTP will return a local SCTP instance name to the ULP. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
None. | |
Optional attributes: | |
The following types of attributes may be passed along with the | |
primitive: | |
o local port - SCTP port number, if ULP wants it to be specified; | |
o local eligible address list - An address list that the local SCTP | |
endpoint should bind. By default, if an address list is not | |
included, all IP addresses assigned to the host should be used by | |
the local endpoint. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: If this optional attribute is supported by an | |
implementation, it will be the responsibility of the implementation | |
to enforce that the IP source address field of any SCTP packets sent | |
out by this endpoint contains one of the IP addresses indicated in | |
the local eligible address list. | |
B) Associate | |
Format: ASSOCIATE(local SCTP instance name, destination transport addr, | |
outbound stream count) | |
-> association id [,destination transport addr list] [,outbound stream | |
count] | |
This primitive allows the upper layer to initiate an association to a | |
specific peer endpoint. | |
The peer endpoint shall be specified by one of the transport | |
addresses which defines the endpoint (see Section 1.4). If the local | |
SCTP instance has not been initialized, the ASSOCIATE is considered | |
an error. | |
An association id, which is a local handle to the SCTP association, | |
will be returned on successful establishment of the association. If | |
SCTP is not able to open an SCTP association with the peer endpoint, | |
an error is returned. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 102] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Other association parameters may be returned, including the complete | |
destination transport addresses of the peer as well as the outbound | |
stream count of the local endpoint. One of the transport address | |
from the returned destination addresses will be selected by the local | |
endpoint as default primary path for sending SCTP packets to this | |
peer. The returned "destination transport addr list" can be used by | |
the ULP to change the default primary path or to force sending a | |
packet to a specific transport address. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: If ASSOCIATE primitive is implemented as a | |
blocking function call, the ASSOCIATE primitive can return | |
association parameters in addition to the association id upon | |
successful establishment. If ASSOCIATE primitive is implemented as a | |
non-blocking call, only the association id shall be returned and | |
association parameters shall be passed using the COMMUNICATION UP | |
notification. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o local SCTP instance name - obtained from the INITIALIZE operation. | |
o destination transport addr - specified as one of the transport | |
addresses of the peer endpoint with which the association is to be | |
established. | |
o outbound stream count - the number of outbound streams the ULP | |
would like to open towards this peer endpoint. | |
Optional attributes: | |
None. | |
C) Shutdown | |
Format: SHUTDOWN(association id) | |
-> result | |
Gracefully closes an association. Any locally queued user data will | |
be delivered to the peer. The association will be terminated only | |
after the peer acknowledges all the SCTP packets sent. A success | |
code will be returned on successful termination of the association. | |
If attempting to terminate the association results in a failure, an | |
error code shall be returned. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 103] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Optional attributes: | |
None. | |
D) Abort | |
Format: ABORT(association id [, cause code]) | |
-> result | |
Ungracefully closes an association. Any locally queued user data | |
will be discarded and an ABORT chunk is sent to the peer. A success | |
code will be returned on successful abortion of the association. If | |
attempting to abort the association results in a failure, an error | |
code shall be returned. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
Optional attributes: | |
o cause code - reason of the abort to be passed to the peer. | |
None. | |
E) Send | |
Format: SEND(association id, buffer address, byte count [,context] | |
[,stream id] [,life time] [,destination transport address] | |
[,unorder flag] [,no-bundle flag] [,payload protocol-id] ) | |
-> result | |
This is the main method to send user data via SCTP. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o buffer address - the location where the user message to be | |
transmitted is stored; | |
o byte count - The size of the user data in number of bytes; | |
Optional attributes: | |
o context - an optional 32 bit integer that will be carried in the | |
sending failure notification to the ULP if the transportation of | |
this User Message fails. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 104] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o stream id - to indicate which stream to send the data on. If not | |
specified, stream 0 will be used. | |
o life time - specifies the life time of the user data. The user | |
data will not be sent by SCTP after the life time expires. This | |
parameter can be used to avoid efforts to transmit stale user | |
messages. SCTP notifies the ULP if the data cannot be initiated | |
to transport (i.e. sent to the destination via SCTP's send | |
primitive) within the life time variable. However, the user data | |
will be transmitted if SCTP has attempted to transmit a chunk | |
before the life time expired. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: In order to better support the data lifetime | |
option, the transmitter may hold back the assigning of the TSN number | |
to an outbound DATA chunk to the last moment. And, for | |
implementation simplicity, once a TSN number has been assigned the | |
sender should consider the send of this DATA chunk as committed, | |
overriding any lifetime option attached to the DATA chunk. | |
o destination transport address - specified as one of the | |
destination transport addresses of the peer endpoint to which this | |
packet should be sent. Whenever possible, SCTP should use this | |
destination transport address for sending the packets, instead of | |
the current primary path. | |
o unorder flag - this flag, if present, indicates that the user | |
would like the data delivered in an unordered fashion to the peer | |
(i.e., the U flag is set to 1 on all DATA chunks carrying this | |
message). | |
o no-bundle flag - instructs SCTP not to bundle this user data with | |
other outbound DATA chunks. SCTP MAY still bundle even when this | |
flag is present, when faced with network congestion. | |
o payload protocol-id - A 32 bit unsigned integer that is to be | |
passed to the peer indicating the type of payload protocol data | |
being transmitted. This value is passed as opaque data by SCTP. | |
F) Set Primary | |
Format: SETPRIMARY(association id, destination transport address, | |
[source transport address] ) | |
-> result | |
Instructs the local SCTP to use the specified destination transport | |
address as primary path for sending packets. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 105] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
The result of attempting this operation shall be returned. If the | |
specified destination transport address is not present in the | |
"destination transport address list" returned earlier in an associate | |
command or communication up notification, an error shall be returned. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - specified as one of the transport | |
addresses of the peer endpoint, which should be used as primary | |
address for sending packets. This overrides the current primary | |
address information maintained by the local SCTP endpoint. | |
Optional attributes: | |
o source transport address - optionally, some implementations may | |
allow you to set the default source address placed in all outgoing | |
IP datagrams. | |
G) Receive | |
Format: RECEIVE(association id, buffer address, buffer size | |
[,stream id]) | |
-> byte count [,transport address] [,stream id] [,stream sequence | |
number] [,partial flag] [,delivery number] [,payload protocol-id] | |
This primitive shall read the first user message in the SCTP in-queue | |
into the buffer specified by ULP, if there is one available. The | |
size of the message read, in bytes, will be returned. It may, | |
depending on the specific implementation, also return other | |
information such as the sender's address, the stream id on which it | |
is received, whether there are more messages available for retrieval, | |
etc. For ordered messages, their stream sequence number may also be | |
returned. | |
Depending upon the implementation, if this primitive is invoked when | |
no message is available the implementation should return an | |
indication of this condition or should block the invoking process | |
until data does become available. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o buffer address - the memory location indicated by the ULP to store | |
the received message. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 106] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o buffer size - the maximum size of data to be received, in bytes. | |
Optional attributes: | |
o stream id - to indicate which stream to receive the data on. | |
o stream sequence number - the stream sequence number assigned by | |
the sending SCTP peer. | |
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this | |
Receive contains a partial delivery of the whole message. When | |
this flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number MUST | |
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates | |
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence | |
number. | |
o payload protocol-id - A 32 bit unsigned integer that is received | |
from the peer indicating the type of payload protocol of the | |
received data. This value is passed as opaque data by SCTP. | |
H) Status | |
Format: STATUS(association id) | |
-> status data | |
This primitive should return a data block containing the following | |
information: | |
association connection state, | |
destination transport address list, | |
destination transport address reachability states, | |
current receiver window size, | |
current congestion window sizes, | |
number of unacknowledged DATA chunks, | |
number of DATA chunks pending receipt, | |
primary path, | |
most recent SRTT on primary path, | |
RTO on primary path, | |
SRTT and RTO on other destination addresses, etc. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
Optional attributes: | |
None. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 107] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
I) Change Heartbeat | |
Format: CHANGEHEARTBEAT(association id, destination transport address, | |
new state [,interval]) | |
-> result | |
Instructs the local endpoint to enable or disable heartbeat on the | |
specified destination transport address. | |
The result of attempting this operation shall be returned. | |
Note: Even when enabled, heartbeat will not take place if the | |
destination transport address is not idle. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - specified as one of the transport | |
addresses of the peer endpoint. | |
o new state - the new state of heartbeat for this destination | |
transport address (either enabled or disabled). | |
Optional attributes: | |
o interval - if present, indicates the frequency of the heartbeat if | |
this is to enable heartbeat on a destination transport address. | |
This value is added to the RTO of the destination transport | |
address. This value, if present, effects all destinations. | |
J) Request HeartBeat | |
Format: REQUESTHEARTBEAT(association id, destination transport | |
address) | |
-> result | |
Instructs the local endpoint to perform a HeartBeat on the specified | |
destination transport address of the given association. The returned | |
result should indicate whether the transmission of the HEARTBEAT | |
chunk to the destination address is successful. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - the transport address of the | |
association on which a heartbeat should be issued. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 108] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
K) Get SRTT Report | |
Format: GETSRTTREPORT(association id, destination transport address) | |
-> srtt result | |
Instructs the local SCTP to report the current SRTT measurement on | |
the specified destination transport address of the given association. | |
The returned result can be an integer containing the most recent SRTT | |
in milliseconds. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - the transport address of the | |
association on which the SRTT measurement is to be reported. | |
L) Set Failure Threshold | |
Format: SETFAILURETHRESHOLD(association id, destination transport | |
address, failure threshold) | |
-> result | |
This primitive allows the local SCTP to customize the reachability | |
failure detection threshold 'Path.Max.Retrans' for the specified | |
destination address. | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - the transport address of the | |
association on which the failure detection threshold is to be set. | |
o failure threshold - the new value of 'Path.Max.Retrans' for the | |
destination address. | |
M) Set Protocol Parameters | |
Format: SETPROTOCOLPARAMETERS(association id, [,destination transport | |
address,] protocol parameter list) | |
-> result | |
This primitive allows the local SCTP to customize the protocol | |
parameters. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 109] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Mandatory attributes: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o protocol parameter list - The specific names and values of the | |
protocol parameters (e.g., Association.Max.Retrans [see Section | |
14]) that the SCTP user wishes to customize. | |
Optional attributes: | |
o destination transport address - some of the protocol parameters | |
may be set on a per destination transport address basis. | |
N) Receive unsent message | |
Format: RECEIVE_UNSENT(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer size | |
[,stream id] [, stream sequence number] [,partial flag] | |
[,payload protocol-id]) | |
o data retrieval id - The identification passed to the ULP in the | |
failure notification. | |
o buffer address - the memory location indicated by the ULP to store | |
the received message. | |
o buffer size - the maximum size of data to be received, in bytes. | |
Optional attributes: | |
o stream id - this is a return value that is set to indicate | |
which stream the data was sent to. | |
o stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating | |
the stream sequence number that was associated with the message. | |
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this | |
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When | |
this flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number MUST | |
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates | |
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence | |
number. | |
o payload protocol-id - The 32 bit unsigned integer that was sent to | |
be sent to the peer indicating the type of payload protocol of the | |
received data. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 110] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
O) Receive unacknowledged message | |
Format: RECEIVE_UNACKED(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer size, | |
[,stream id] [, stream sequence number] [,partial flag] | |
[,payload protocol-id]) | |
o data retrieval id - The identification passed to the ULP in the | |
failure notification. | |
o buffer address - the memory location indicated by the ULP to store | |
the received message. | |
o buffer size - the maximum size of data to be received, in bytes. | |
Optional attributes: | |
o stream id - this is a return value that is set to indicate which | |
stream the data was sent to. | |
o stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating the | |
stream sequence number that was associated with the message. | |
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this | |
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When this | |
flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number MUST | |
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates | |
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence | |
number. | |
o payload protocol-id - The 32 bit unsigned integer that was sent to | |
be sent to the peer indicating the type of payload protocol of the | |
received data. | |
P) Destroy SCTP instance | |
Format: DESTROY(local SCTP instance name) | |
o local SCTP instance name - this is the value that was passed to | |
the application in the initialize primitive and it indicates which | |
SCTP instance to be destroyed. | |
10.2 SCTP-to-ULP | |
It is assumed that the operating system or application environment | |
provides a means for the SCTP to asynchronously signal the ULP | |
process. When SCTP does signal an ULP process, certain information | |
is passed to the ULP. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 111] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: In some cases this may be done through a | |
separate socket or error channel. | |
A) DATA ARRIVE notification | |
SCTP shall invoke this notification on the ULP when a user message is | |
successfully received and ready for retrieval. | |
The following may be optionally be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o stream id - to indicate which stream the data is received on. | |
B) SEND FAILURE notification | |
If a message can not be delivered SCTP shall invoke this notification | |
on the ULP. | |
The following may be optionally be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o data retrieval id - an identification used to retrieve unsent and | |
unacknowledged data. | |
o cause code - indicating the reason of the failure, e.g., size too | |
large, message life-time expiration, etc. | |
o context - optional information associated with this message (see D | |
in Section 10.1). | |
C) NETWORK STATUS CHANGE notification | |
When a destination transport address is marked inactive (e.g., when | |
SCTP detects a failure), or marked active (e.g., when SCTP detects a | |
recovery), SCTP shall invoke this notification on the ULP. | |
The following shall be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o destination transport address - This indicates the destination | |
transport address of the peer endpoint affected by the change; | |
o new-status - This indicates the new status. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 112] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
D) COMMUNICATION UP notification | |
This notification is used when SCTP becomes ready to send or receive | |
user messages, or when a lost communication to an endpoint is | |
restored. | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: If ASSOCIATE primitive is implemented as a | |
blocking function call, the association parameters are returned as a | |
result of the ASSOCIATE primitive itself. In that case, | |
COMMUNICATION UP notification is optional at the association | |
initiator's side. | |
The following shall be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o status - This indicates what type of event has occurred | |
o destination transport address list - the complete set of transport | |
addresses of the peer | |
o outbound stream count - the maximum number of streams allowed to | |
be used in this association by the ULP | |
o inbound stream count - the number of streams the peer endpoint has | |
requested with this association (this may not be the same number | |
as 'outbound stream count'). | |
E) COMMUNICATION LOST notification | |
When SCTP loses communication to an endpoint completely (e.g., via | |
Heartbeats) or detects that the endpoint has performed an abort | |
operation, it shall invoke this notification on the ULP. | |
The following shall be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o status - This indicates what type of event has occurred; The status | |
may indicate a failure OR a normal termination event | |
occurred in response to a shutdown or abort request. | |
The following may be passed with the notification: | |
o data retrieval id - an identification used to retrieve unsent and | |
unacknowledged data. | |
o last-acked - the TSN last acked by that peer endpoint; | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 113] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
o last-sent - the TSN last sent to that peer endpoint; | |
F) COMMUNICATION ERROR notification | |
When SCTP receives an ERROR chunk from its peer and decides to notify | |
its ULP, it can invoke this notification on the ULP. | |
The following can be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
o error info - this indicates the type of error and optionally some | |
additional information received through the ERROR chunk. | |
G) RESTART notification | |
When SCTP detects that the peer has restarted, it may send this | |
notification to its ULP. | |
The following can be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
H) SHUTDOWN COMPLETE notification | |
When SCTP completes the shutdown procedures (section 9.2) this | |
notification is passed to the upper layer. | |
The following can be passed with the notification: | |
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association | |
11. Security Considerations | |
11.1 Security Objectives | |
As a common transport protocol designed to reliably carry time- | |
sensitive user messages, such as billing or signaling messages for | |
telephony services, between two networked endpoints, SCTP has the | |
following security objectives. | |
- availability of reliable and timely data transport services | |
- integrity of the user-to-user information carried by SCTP | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 114] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
11.2 SCTP Responses To Potential Threats | |
SCTP may potentially be used in a wide variety of risk situations. | |
It is important for operator(s) of systems running SCTP to analyze | |
their particular situations and decide on the appropriate counter- | |
measures. | |
Operators of systems running SCTP should consult [RFC2196] for | |
guidance in securing their site. | |
11.2.1 Countering Insider Attacks | |
The principles of [RFC2196] should be applied to minimize the risk of | |
theft of information or sabotage by insiders. Such procedures | |
include publication of security policies, control of access at the | |
physical, software, and network levels, and separation of services. | |
11.2.2 Protecting against Data Corruption in the Network | |
Where the risk of undetected errors in datagrams delivered by the | |
lower layer transport services is considered to be too great, | |
additional integrity protection is required. If this additional | |
protection were provided in the application-layer, the SCTP header | |
would remain vulnerable to deliberate integrity attacks. While the | |
existing SCTP mechanisms for detection of packet replays are | |
considered sufficient for normal operation, stronger protections are | |
needed to protect SCTP when the operating environment contains | |
significant risk of deliberate attacks from a sophisticated | |
adversary. | |
In order to promote software code-reuse, to avoid re-inventing the | |
wheel, and to avoid gratuitous complexity to SCTP, the IP | |
Authentication Header [RFC2402] SHOULD be used when the threat | |
environment requires stronger integrity protections, but does not | |
require confidentiality. | |
A widely implemented BSD Sockets API extension exists for | |
applications to request IP security services, such as AH or ESP from | |
an operating system kernel. Applications can use such an API to | |
request AH whenever AH use is appropriate. | |
11.2.3 Protecting Confidentiality | |
In most cases, the risk of breach of confidentiality applies to the | |
signaling data payload, not to the SCTP or lower-layer protocol | |
overheads. If that is true, encryption of the SCTP user data only | |
might be considered. As with the supplementary checksum service, | |
user data encryption MAY be performed by the SCTP user application. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 115] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Alternately, the user application MAY use an implementation-specific | |
API to request that the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) | |
[RFC2406] be used to provide confidentiality and integrity. | |
Particularly for mobile users, the requirement for confidentiality | |
might include the masking of IP addresses and ports. In this case | |
ESP SHOULD be used instead of application-level confidentiality. If | |
ESP is used to protect confidentiality of SCTP traffic, an ESP | |
cryptographic transform that includes cryptographic integrity | |
protection MUST be used, because if there is a confidentiality threat | |
there will also be a strong integrity threat. | |
Whenever ESP is in use, application-level encryption is not generally | |
required. | |
Regardless of where confidentiality is provided, the ISAKMP [RFC2408] | |
and the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) [RFC2409] SHOULD be used for key | |
management. | |
Operators should consult [RFC2401] for more information on the | |
security services available at and immediately above the Internet | |
Protocol layer. | |
11.2.4 Protecting against Blind Denial of Service Attacks | |
A blind attack is one where the attacker is unable to intercept or | |
otherwise see the content of data flows passing to and from the | |
target SCTP node. Blind denial of service attacks may take the form | |
of flooding, masquerade, or improper monopolization of services. | |
11.2.4.1 Flooding | |
The objective of flooding is to cause loss of service and incorrect | |
behavior at target systems through resource exhaustion, interference | |
with legitimate transactions, and exploitation of buffer-related | |
software bugs. Flooding may be directed either at the SCTP node or | |
at resources in the intervening IP Access Links or the Internet. | |
Where the latter entities are the target, flooding will manifest | |
itself as loss of network services, including potentially the breach | |
of any firewalls in place. | |
In general, protection against flooding begins at the equipment | |
design level, where it includes measures such as: | |
- avoiding commitment of limited resources before determining that | |
the request for service is legitimate | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 116] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
- giving priority to completion of processing in progress over the | |
acceptance of new work | |
- identification and removal of duplicate or stale queued requests | |
for service. | |
- not responding to unexpected packets sent to non-unicast | |
addresses. | |
Network equipment should be capable of generating an alarm and log if | |
a suspicious increase in traffic occurs. The log should provide | |
information such as the identity of the incoming link and source | |
address(es) used which will help the network or SCTP system operator | |
to take protective measures. Procedures should be in place for the | |
operator to act on such alarms if a clear pattern of abuse emerges. | |
The design of SCTP is resistant to flooding attacks, particularly in | |
its use of a four-way start-up handshake, its use of a cookie to | |
defer commitment of resources at the responding SCTP node until the | |
handshake is completed, and its use of a Verification Tag to prevent | |
insertion of extraneous packets into the flow of an established | |
association. | |
The IP Authentication Header and Encapsulating Security Payload might | |
be useful in reducing the risk of certain kinds of denial of service | |
attacks." | |
The use of the Host Name feature in the INIT chunk could be used to | |
flood a target DNS server. A large backlog of DNS queries, resolving | |
the Host Name received in the INIT chunk to IP addresses, could be | |
accomplished by sending INIT's to multiple hosts in a given domain. | |
In addition, an attacker could use the Host Name feature in an | |
indirect attack on a third party by sending large numbers of INITs to | |
random hosts containing the host name of the target. In addition to | |
the strain on DNS resources, this could also result in large numbers | |
of INIT ACKs being sent to the target. One method to protect against | |
this type of attack is to verify that the IP addresses received from | |
DNS include the source IP address of the original INIT. If the list | |
of IP addresses received from DNS does not include the source IP | |
address of the INIT, the endpoint MAY silently discard the INIT. | |
This last option will not protect against the attack against the DNS. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 117] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
11.2.4.2 Blind Masquerade | |
Masquerade can be used to deny service in several ways: | |
- by tying up resources at the target SCTP node to which the | |
impersonated node has limited access. For example, the target | |
node may by policy permit a maximum of one SCTP association with | |
the impersonated SCTP node. The masquerading attacker may attempt | |
to establish an association purporting to come from the | |
impersonated node so that the latter cannot do so when it requires | |
it. | |
- by deliberately allowing the impersonation to be detected, thereby | |
provoking counter-measures which cause the impersonated node to be | |
locked out of the target SCTP node. | |
- by interfering with an established association by inserting | |
extraneous content such as a SHUTDOWN request. | |
SCTP reduces the risk of blind masquerade attacks through IP spoofing | |
by use of the four-way startup handshake. Man-in-the-middle | |
masquerade attacks are discussed in Section 11.3 below. Because the | |
initial exchange is memoryless, no lockout mechanism is triggered by | |
blind masquerade attacks. In addition, the INIT ACK containing the | |
State Cookie is transmitted back to the IP address from which it | |
received the INIT. Thus the attacker would not receive the INIT ACK | |
containing the State Cookie. SCTP protects against insertion of | |
extraneous packets into the flow of an established association by use | |
of the Verification Tag. | |
Logging of received INIT requests and abnormalities such as | |
unexpected INIT ACKs might be considered as a way to detect patterns | |
of hostile activity. However, the potential usefulness of such | |
logging must be weighed against the increased SCTP startup processing | |
it implies, rendering the SCTP node more vulnerable to flooding | |
attacks. Logging is pointless without the establishment of operating | |
procedures to review and analyze the logs on a routine basis. | |
11.2.4.3 Improper Monopolization of Services | |
Attacks under this heading are performed openly and legitimately by | |
the attacker. They are directed against fellow users of the target | |
SCTP node or of the shared resources between the attacker and the | |
target node. Possible attacks include the opening of a large number | |
of associations between the attacker's node and the target, or | |
transfer of large volumes of information within a legitimately- | |
established association. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 118] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Policy limits should be placed on the number of associations per | |
adjoining SCTP node. SCTP user applications should be capable of | |
detecting large volumes of illegitimate or "no-op" messages within a | |
given association and either logging or terminating the association | |
as a result, based on local policy. | |
11.3 Protection against Fraud and Repudiation | |
The objective of fraud is to obtain services without authorization | |
and specifically without paying for them. In order to achieve this | |
objective, the attacker must induce the SCTP user application at the | |
target SCTP node to provide the desired service while accepting | |
invalid billing data or failing to collect it. Repudiation is a | |
related problem, since it may occur as a deliberate act of fraud or | |
simply because the repudiating party kept inadequate records of | |
service received. | |
Potential fraudulent attacks include interception and misuse of | |
authorizing information such as credit card numbers, blind masquerade | |
and replay, and man-in-the middle attacks which modify the packets | |
passing through a target SCTP association in real time. | |
The interception attack is countered by the confidentiality measures | |
discussed in Section 11.2.3 above. | |
Section 11.2.4.2 describes how SCTP is resistant to blind masquerade | |
attacks, as a result of the four-way startup handshake and the | |
Verification Tag. The Verification Tag and TSN together are | |
protections against blind replay attacks, where the replay is into an | |
existing association. | |
However, SCTP does not protect against man-in-the-middle attacks | |
where the attacker is able to intercept and alter the packets sent | |
and received in an association. For example, the INIT ACK will have | |
sufficient information sent on the wire for an adversary in the | |
middle to hijack an existing SCTP association. Where a significant | |
possibility of such attacks is seen to exist, or where possible | |
repudiation is an issue, the use of the IPSEC AH service is | |
recommended to ensure both the integrity and the authenticity of the | |
SCTP packets passed. | |
SCTP also provides no protection against attacks originating at or | |
beyond the SCTP node and taking place within the context of an | |
existing association. Prevention of such attacks should be covered | |
by appropriate security policies at the host site, as discussed in | |
Section 11.2.1. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 119] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
12. Recommended Transmission Control Block (TCB) Parameters | |
This section details a recommended set of parameters that should be | |
contained within the TCB for an implementation. This section is for | |
illustrative purposes and should not be deemed as requirements on an | |
implementation or as an exhaustive list of all parameters inside an | |
SCTP TCB. Each implementation may need its own additional parameters | |
for optimization. | |
12.1 Parameters necessary for the SCTP instance | |
Associations: A list of current associations and mappings to the data | |
consumers for each association. This may be in the | |
form of a hash table or other implementation dependent | |
structure. The data consumers may be process | |
identification information such as file descriptors, | |
named pipe pointer, or table pointers dependent on how | |
SCTP is implemented. | |
Secret Key: A secret key used by this endpoint to compute the MAC. | |
This SHOULD be a cryptographic quality random number | |
with a sufficient length. Discussion in [RFC1750] can | |
be helpful in selection of the key. | |
Address List: The list of IP addresses that this instance has bound. | |
This information is passed to one's peer(s) in INIT and | |
INIT ACK chunks. | |
SCTP Port: The local SCTP port number the endpoint is bound to. | |
12.2 Parameters necessary per association (i.e. the TCB) | |
Peer : Tag value to be sent in every packet and is received | |
Verification: in the INIT or INIT ACK chunk. | |
Tag : | |
My : Tag expected in every inbound packet and sent in the | |
Verification: INIT or INIT ACK chunk. | |
Tag : | |
State : A state variable indicating what state the association | |
: is in, i.e. COOKIE-WAIT, COOKIE-ECHOED, ESTABLISHED, | |
: SHUTDOWN-PENDING, SHUTDOWN-SENT, SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED, | |
: SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT. | |
Note: No "CLOSED" state is illustrated since if a | |
association is "CLOSED" its TCB SHOULD be removed. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 120] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Peer : A list of SCTP transport addresses that the peer is | |
Transport : bound to. This information is derived from the INIT or | |
Address : INIT ACK and is used to associate an inbound packet | |
List : with a given association. Normally this information is | |
: hashed or keyed for quick lookup and access of the TCB. | |
Primary : This is the current primary destination transport | |
Path : address of the peer endpoint. It may also specify a | |
: source transport address on this endpoint. | |
Overall : The overall association error count. | |
Error Count : | |
Overall : The threshold for this association that if the Overall | |
Error : Error Count reaches will cause this association to be | |
Threshold : torn down. | |
Peer Rwnd : Current calculated value of the peer's rwnd. | |
Next TSN : The next TSN number to be assigned to a new DATA chunk. | |
: This is sent in the INIT or INIT ACK chunk to the peer | |
: and incremented each time a DATA chunk is assigned a | |
: TSN (normally just prior to transmit or during | |
: fragmentation). | |
Last Rcvd : This is the last TSN received in sequence. This value | |
TSN : is set initially by taking the peer's Initial TSN, | |
: received in the INIT or INIT ACK chunk, and | |
: subtracting one from it. | |
Mapping : An array of bits or bytes indicating which out of | |
Array : order TSN's have been received (relative to the | |
: Last Rcvd TSN). If no gaps exist, i.e. no out of order | |
: packets have been received, this array will be set to | |
: all zero. This structure may be in the form of a | |
: circular buffer or bit array. | |
Ack State : This flag indicates if the next received packet | |
: is to be responded to with a SACK. This is initialized | |
: to 0. When a packet is received it is incremented. | |
: If this value reaches 2 or more, a SACK is sent and the | |
: value is reset to 0. Note: This is used only when no | |
: DATA chunks are received out of order. When DATA chunks | |
: are out of order, SACK's are not delayed (see Section | |
: 6). | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 121] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Inbound : An array of structures to track the inbound streams. | |
Streams : Normally including the next sequence number expected | |
: and possibly the stream number. | |
Outbound : An array of structures to track the outbound streams. | |
Streams : Normally including the next sequence number to | |
: be sent on the stream. | |
Reasm Queue : A re-assembly queue. | |
Local : The list of local IP addresses bound in to this | |
Transport : association. | |
Address : | |
List : | |
Association : The smallest PMTU discovered for all of the | |
PMTU : peer's transport addresses. | |
12.3 Per Transport Address Data | |
For each destination transport address in the peer's address list | |
derived from the INIT or INIT ACK chunk, a number of data elements | |
needs to be maintained including: | |
Error count : The current error count for this destination. | |
Error : Current error threshold for this destination i.e. | |
Threshold : what value marks the destination down if Error count | |
: reaches this value. | |
cwnd : The current congestion window. | |
ssthresh : The current ssthresh value. | |
RTO : The current retransmission timeout value. | |
SRTT : The current smoothed round trip time. | |
RTTVAR : The current RTT variation. | |
partial : The tracking method for increase of cwnd when in | |
bytes acked : congestion avoidance mode (see Section 6.2.2) | |
state : The current state of this destination, i.e. DOWN, UP, | |
: ALLOW-HB, NO-HEARTBEAT, etc. | |
PMTU : The current known path MTU. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 122] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Per : A timer used by each destination. | |
Destination : | |
Timer : | |
RTO-Pending : A flag used to track if one of the DATA chunks sent to | |
this address is currently being used to compute a | |
RTT. If this flag is 0, the next DATA chunk sent to this | |
destination should be used to compute a RTT and this | |
flag should be set. Every time the RTT calculation | |
completes (i.e. the DATA chunk is SACK'd) clear this | |
flag. | |
last-time : The time this destination was last sent to. This can be | |
used : used to determine if a HEARTBEAT is needed. | |
12.4 General Parameters Needed | |
Out Queue : A queue of outbound DATA chunks. | |
In Queue : A queue of inbound DATA chunks. | |
13. IANA Considerations | |
This protocol will require port reservation like TCP for the use of | |
"well known" servers within the Internet. All current TCP ports | |
shall be automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space. New | |
requests should follow IANA's current mechanisms for TCP. | |
This protocol may also be extended through IANA in three ways: | |
-- through definition of additional chunk types, | |
-- through definition of additional parameter types, or | |
-- through definition of additional cause codes within | |
ERROR chunks | |
In the case where a particular ULP using SCTP desires to have its own | |
ports, the ULP should be responsible for registering with IANA for | |
getting its ports assigned. | |
13.1 IETF-defined Chunk Extension | |
The definition and use of new chunk types is an integral part of | |
SCTP. Thus, new chunk types are assigned by IANA through an IETF | |
Consensus action as defined in [RFC2434]. | |
The documentation for a new chunk code type must include the | |
following information: | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 123] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
a) A long and short name for the new chunk type; | |
b) A detailed description of the structure of the chunk, which MUST | |
conform to the basic structure defined in Section 3.2; | |
c) A detailed definition and description of intended use of each | |
field within the chunk, including the chunk flags if any; | |
d) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk type | |
within the operation of the protocol. | |
The last chunk type (255) is reserved for future extension if | |
necessary. | |
13.2 IETF-defined Chunk Parameter Extension | |
The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an | |
IETF Consensus action as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the | |
chunk parameter MUST contain the following information: | |
a) Name of the parameter type. | |
b) Detailed description of the structure of the parameter field. | |
This structure MUST conform to the general type-length-value | |
format described in Section 3.2.1. | |
c) Detailed definition of each component of the parameter value. | |
d) Detailed description of the intended use of this parameter type, | |
and an indication of whether and under what circumstances multiple | |
instances of this parameter type may be found within the same | |
chunk. | |
13.3 IETF-defined Additional Error Causes | |
Additional cause codes may be allocated in the range 11 to 65535 | |
through a Specification Required action as defined in [RFC2434]. | |
Provided documentation must include the following information: | |
a) Name of the error condition. | |
b) Detailed description of the conditions under which an SCTP | |
endpoint should issue an ERROR (or ABORT) with this cause code. | |
c) Expected action by the SCTP endpoint which receives an ERROR (or | |
ABORT) chunk containing this cause code. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 124] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
d) Detailed description of the structure and content of data fields | |
which accompany this cause code. | |
The initial word (32 bits) of a cause code parameter MUST conform to | |
the format shown in Section 3.3.10, i.e.: | |
-- first two bytes contain the cause code value | |
-- last two bytes contain length of the Cause Parameter. | |
13.4 Payload Protocol Identifiers | |
Except for value 0 which is reserved by SCTP to indicate an | |
unspecified payload protocol identifier in a DATA chunk, SCTP will | |
not be responsible for standardizing or verifying any payload | |
protocol identifiers; SCTP simply receives the identifier from the | |
upper layer and carries it with the corresponding payload data. | |
The upper layer, i.e., the SCTP user, SHOULD standardize any specific | |
protocol identifier with IANA if it is so desired. The use of any | |
specific payload protocol identifier is out of the scope of SCTP. | |
14. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values | |
The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED: | |
RTO.Initial - 3 seconds | |
RTO.Min - 1 second | |
RTO.Max - 60 seconds | |
RTO.Alpha - 1/8 | |
RTO.Beta - 1/4 | |
Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds | |
Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts | |
Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address) | |
Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts | |
HB.interval - 30 seconds | |
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The SCTP implementation may allow ULP to | |
customize some of these protocol parameters (see Section 10). | |
Note: RTO.Min SHOULD be set as recommended above. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 125] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
15. Acknowledgements | |
The authors wish to thank Mark Allman, R.J. Atkinson, Richard Band, | |
Scott Bradner, Steve Bellovin, Peter Butler, Ram Dantu, R. | |
Ezhirpavai, Mike Fisk, Sally Floyd, Atsushi Fukumoto, Matt Holdrege, | |
Henry Houh, Christian Huitema, Gary Lehecka, Jonathan Lee, David | |
Lehmann, John Loughney, Daniel Luan, Barry Nagelberg, Thomas Narten, | |
Erik Nordmark, Lyndon Ong, Shyamal Prasad, Kelvin Porter, Heinz | |
Prantner, Jarno Rajahalme, Raymond E. Reeves, Renee Revis, Ivan Arias | |
Rodriguez, A. Sankar, Greg Sidebottom, Brian Wyld, La Monte Yarroll, | |
and many others for their invaluable comments. | |
16. Authors' Addresses | |
Randall R. Stewart | |
24 Burning Bush Trail. | |
Crystal Lake, IL 60012 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-815-477-2127 | |
EMail: rrs@cisco.com | |
Qiaobing Xie | |
Motorola, Inc. | |
1501 W. Shure Drive, #2309 | |
Arlington Heights, IL 60004 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-847-632-3028 | |
EMail: qxie1@email.mot.com | |
Ken Morneault | |
Cisco Systems Inc. | |
13615 Dulles Technology Drive | |
Herndon, VA. 20171 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-703-484-3323 | |
EMail: kmorneau@cisco.com | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 126] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Chip Sharp | |
Cisco Systems Inc. | |
7025 Kit Creek Road | |
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-919-392-3121 | |
EMail: chsharp@cisco.com | |
Hanns Juergen Schwarzbauer | |
SIEMENS AG | |
Hofmannstr. 51 | |
81359 Munich | |
Germany | |
Phone: +49-89-722-24236 | |
EMail: HannsJuergen.Schwarzbauer@icn.siemens.de | |
Tom Taylor | |
Nortel Networks | |
1852 Lorraine Ave. | |
Ottawa, Ontario | |
Canada K1H 6Z8 | |
Phone: +1-613-736-0961 | |
EMail: taylor@nortelnetworks.com | |
Ian Rytina | |
Ericsson Australia | |
37/360 Elizabeth Street | |
Melbourne, Victoria 3000 | |
Australia | |
Phone: +61-3-9301-6164 | |
EMail: ian.rytina@ericsson.com | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 127] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Malleswar Kalla | |
Telcordia Technologies | |
3 Corporate Place | |
PYA-2J-341 | |
Piscataway, NJ 08854 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-732-699-3728 | |
EMail: mkalla@telcordia.com | |
Lixia Zhang | |
UCLA Computer Science Department | |
4531G Boelter Hall | |
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1596 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-310-825-2695 | |
EMail: lixia@cs.ucla.edu | |
Vern Paxson | |
ACIRI | |
1947 Center St., Suite 600, | |
Berkeley, CA 94704-1198 | |
USA | |
Phone: +1-510-666-2882 | |
EMail: vern@aciri.org | |
17. References | |
[RFC768] Postel, J. (ed.), "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC | |
768, August 1980. | |
[RFC793] Postel, J. (ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, | |
RFC 793, September 1981. | |
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet hosts - application | |
and support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. | |
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191, | |
November 1990. | |
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC | |
1700, October 1994. | |
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery | |
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 128] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, | |
August 1996. | |
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision | |
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. | |
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the | |
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. | |
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC | |
2402, November 1998. | |
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security | |
Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. | |
[RFC2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M. and J. Turner, | |
"Internet Security Association and Key Management | |
Protocol", RFC 2408, November 1998. | |
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange | |
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. | |
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an | |
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, | |
October 1998. | |
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | |
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. | |
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion | |
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999. | |
18. Bibliography | |
[ALLMAN99] Allman, M. and Paxson, V., "On Estimating End-to-End | |
Network Path Properties", Proc. SIGCOMM'99, 1999. | |
[FALL96] Fall, K. and Floyd, S., Simulation-based Comparisons of | |
Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP, Computer Communications Review, | |
V. 26 N. 3, July 1996, pp. 5-21. | |
[RFC1750] Eastlake, D. (ed.), "Randomness Recommendations for | |
Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 129] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
[RFC1950] Deutsch P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format | |
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996. | |
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- | |
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, March 1997. | |
[RFC2196] Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, | |
September 1997. | |
[RFC2522] Karn, P. and W. Simpson, "Photuris: Session-Key Management | |
Protocol", RFC 2522, March 1999. | |
[SAVAGE99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and Anderson, T., | |
"TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM | |
Computer Communication Review, 29(5), October 1999. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 130] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Appendix A: Explicit Congestion Notification | |
ECN (Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., "Explicit Congestion Notification", | |
RFC 2481, January 1999) describes a proposed extension to IP that | |
details a method to become aware of congestion outside of datagram | |
loss. This is an optional feature that an implementation MAY choose | |
to add to SCTP. This appendix details the minor differences | |
implementers will need to be aware of if they choose to implement | |
this feature. In general RFC 2481 should be followed with the | |
following exceptions. | |
Negotiation: | |
RFC2481 details negotiation of ECN during the SYN and SYN-ACK stages | |
of a TCP connection. The sender of the SYN sets two bits in the TCP | |
flags, and the sender of the SYN-ACK sets only 1 bit. The reasoning | |
behind this is to assure both sides are truly ECN capable. For SCTP | |
this is not necessary. To indicate that an endpoint is ECN capable | |
an endpoint SHOULD add to the INIT and or INIT ACK chunk the TLV | |
reserved for ECN. This TLV contains no parameters, and thus has the | |
following format: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Parameter Type = 32768 | Parameter Length = 4 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
ECN-Echo: | |
RFC 2481 details a specific bit for a receiver to send back in its | |
TCP acknowledgements to notify the sender of the Congestion | |
Experienced (CE) bit having arrived from the network. For SCTP this | |
same indication is made by including the ECNE chunk. This chunk | |
contains one data element, i.e. the lowest TSN associated with the IP | |
datagram marked with the CE bit, and looks as follows: | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Chunk Type=12 | Flags=00000000| Chunk Length = 8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Lowest TSN Number | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Note: The ECNE is considered a Control chunk. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 131] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
CWR: | |
RFC 2481 details a specific bit for a sender to send in the header of | |
its next outbound TCP segment to indicate to its peer that it has | |
reduced its congestion window. This is termed the CWR bit. For | |
SCTP the same indication is made by including the CWR chunk. | |
This chunk contains one data element, i.e. the TSN number that | |
was sent in the ECNE chunk. This element represents the lowest | |
TSN number in the datagram that was originally marked with the | |
CE bit. | |
0 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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Chunk Type=13 | Flags=00000000| Chunk Length = 8 | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Lowest TSN Number | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
Note: The CWR is considered a Control chunk. | |
Appendix B Alder 32 bit checksum calculation | |
The Adler-32 checksum calculation given in this appendix is copied from | |
[RFC1950]. | |
Adler-32 is composed of two sums accumulated per byte: s1 is the sum | |
of all bytes, s2 is the sum of all s1 values. Both sums are done | |
modulo 65521. s1 is initialized to 1, s2 to zero. The Adler-32 | |
checksum is stored as s2*65536 + s1 in network byte order. | |
The following C code computes the Adler-32 checksum of a data buffer. | |
It is written for clarity, not for speed. The sample code is in the | |
ANSI C programming language. Non C users may find it easier to read | |
with these hints: | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 132] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
& Bitwise AND operator. | |
>> Bitwise right shift operator. When applied to an | |
unsigned quantity, as here, right shift inserts zero bit(s) | |
at the left. | |
<< Bitwise left shift operator. Left shift inserts zero | |
bit(s) at the right. | |
++ "n++" increments the variable n. | |
% modulo operator: a % b is the remainder of a divided by b. | |
#define BASE 65521 /* largest prime smaller than 65536 */ | |
/* | |
Update a running Adler-32 checksum with the bytes buf[0..len-1] | |
and return the updated checksum. The Adler-32 checksum should be | |
initialized to 1. | |
Usage example: | |
unsigned long adler = 1L; | |
while (read_buffer(buffer, length) != EOF) { | |
adler = update_adler32(adler, buffer, length); | |
} | |
if (adler != original_adler) error(); | |
*/ | |
unsigned long update_adler32(unsigned long adler, | |
unsigned char *buf, int len) | |
{ | |
unsigned long s1 = adler & 0xffff; | |
unsigned long s2 = (adler >> 16) & 0xffff; | |
int n; | |
for (n = 0; n < len; n++) { | |
s1 = (s1 + buf[n]) % BASE; | |
s2 = (s2 + s1) % BASE; | |
} | |
return (s2 << 16) + s1; | |
} | |
/* Return the adler32 of the bytes buf[0..len-1] */ | |
unsigned long adler32(unsigned char *buf, int len) | |
{ | |
return update_adler32(1L, buf, len); | |
} | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 133] | |
RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol October 2000 | |
Full Copyright Statement | |
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | |
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | |
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | |
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | |
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | |
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | |
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | |
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | |
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other | |
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of | |
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for | |
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be | |
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than | |
English. | |
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be | |
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. | |
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an | |
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | |
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | |
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION | |
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF | |
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |
Acknowledgement | |
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | |
Internet Society. | |
Stewart, et al. Standards Track [Page 134] | |