1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Masotta
Request for Comments: 7440 Serva
Category: Standards Track January 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">TFTP Windowsize Option</span>
Abstract
The "Trivial File Transfer Protocol" (<a href="./rfc1350">RFC 1350</a>) is a simple,
lockstep, file transfer protocol that allows a client to get or put a
file onto a remote host. One of its primary uses is in the early
stages of nodes booting from a Local Area Network (LAN). TFTP has
been used for this application because it is very simple to
implement. The employment of a lockstep scheme limits throughput
when used on a LAN.
This document describes a TFTP option that allows the client and
server to negotiate a window size of consecutive blocks to send as an
alternative for replacing the single-block lockstep schema. The TFTP
option mechanism employed is described in "TFTP Option Extension"
(<a href="./rfc2347">RFC 2347</a>).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7440">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7440</a>.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Windowsize Option Specification .................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Traffic Flow and Error Handling .................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Proof of Concept and Windowsize Evaluation ......................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Congestion and Error Control ....................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
Author's Address ...................................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
TFTP is virtually unused for Internet transfers today, TFTP is still
massively used in network boot/installation scenarios including EFI
(Extensible Firmware Interface). TFTP's inherently low transfer rate
has been, so far, partially mitigated by the use of the blocksize
negotiated extension [<a href="./rfc2348" title=""TFTP Blocksize Option"">RFC2348</a>]. Using this method, the original
limitation of 512-byte blocks are, in practice, replaced in Ethernet
environments by blocks no larger than 1468 Bytes to avoid IP block
fragmentation. This strategy produces insufficient results when
transferring big files, for example, the initial ramdisk of Linux
distributions or the PE images used in network installations by
Microsoft WDS/MDT/SCCM. Considering TFTP looks far from extinction
today, this document presents a negotiated extension, under the terms
of the "TFTP Option Extension" [<a href="./rfc2347" title=""TFTP Option Extension"">RFC2347</a>], that produces TFTP transfer
rates comparable to those achieved by modern file transfer protocols.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions Used in This Document</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lowercase uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying the significance given in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Windowsize Option Specification</span>
The TFTP Read Request or Write Request packet is modified to include
the windowsize option as follows. Note that all fields except "opc"
MUST be ASCII strings followed by a single-byte NULL character.
2B string 1B string 1B string 1B string 1B
+-------+---~~---+----+---~~---+----+-----~~-----+----+---~~---+----+
| opc |filename| 0 | mode | 0 | windowsize | 0 | #blocks| 0 |
+-------+---~~---+----+---~~---+----+-----~~-----+----+---~~---+----+
opc
The opcode field contains either a 1 for Read Requests or a 2 for
Write Requests, as defined in [<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>].
filename
The name of the file to be read or written, as defined in
[<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>].
mode
The mode of the file transfer: "netascii", "octet", or "mail", as
defined in [<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>].
windowsize
The windowsize option, "windowsize" (case insensitive).
#blocks
The base-10 ASCII string representation of the number of blocks in
a window. The valid values range MUST be between 1 and 65535
blocks, inclusive. The windowsize refers to the number of
consecutive blocks transmitted before stopping and waiting for the
reception of the acknowledgment of the last block transmitted.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
For example:
+------+--------+----+-------+----+------------+----+----+----+
|0x0001| foobar |0x00| octet |0x00| windowsize |0x00| 16 |0x00|
+------+--------+----+-------+----+------------+----+----+----+
is a Read Request for the file named "foobar" in octet transfer mode
with a windowsize of 16 blocks (option blocksize is not negotiated in
this example, the default of 512 Bytes per block applies).
If the server is willing to accept the windowsize option, it sends an
Option Acknowledgment (OACK) to the client. The specified value MUST
be less than or equal to the value specified by the client. The
client MUST then either use the size specified in the OACK or send an
ERROR packet, with error code 8, to terminate the transfer.
The rules for determining the final packet are unchanged from
[<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>] and [<a href="./rfc2348" title=""TFTP Blocksize Option"">RFC2348</a>].
The reception of a data window with a number of blocks less than the
negotiated windowsize is the final window. If the windowsize is
greater than the amount of data to be transferred, the first window
is the final window.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Traffic Flow and Error Handling</span>
The next diagram depicts a section of the traffic flow between the
Data Sender (DSND) and the Data Receiver (DRCV) parties on a generic
windowsize TFTP file transfer.
The DSND MUST cyclically send to the DRCV the agreed windowsize
consecutive data blocks before normally stopping and waiting for the
ACK of the transferred window. The DRCV MUST send to the DSND the
ACK of the last data block of the window in order to confirm a
successful data block window reception.
In the case of an expected ACK not timely reaching the DSND
(timeout), the last received ACK SHALL set the beginning of the next
windowsize data block window to be sent.
In the case of a data block sequence error, the DRCV SHOULD notify
the DSND by sending an ACK corresponding to the last data block
correctly received. The notified DSND SHOULD send a new data block
window whose beginning MUST be set based on the ACK received out of
sequence.
Traffic with windowsize = 1 MUST be equivalent to traffic specified
by [<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>].
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
For normative traffic not specifically addressed in this section,
please refer to [<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>] and its updates.
[ DRCV ] <---traffic---> [ DSND ]
ACK# -> <- Data Block# window block#
...
<- |DB n+01| 1
<- |DB n+02| 2
<- |DB n+03| 3
<- |DB n+04| 4
|ACK n+04| ->
<- |DB n+05| 1
Error |<- |DB n+06| 2
<- |DB n+07| 3
|ACK n+05| ->
<- |DB n+06| 1
<- |DB n+07| 2
<- |DB n+08| 3
<- |DB n+09| 4
|ACK n+09| ->
<- |DB n+10| 1
Error |<- |DB n+11| 2
<- |DB n+12| 3
|ACK n+10| ->| Error
<- |DB n+13| 4
- timeout -
<- |DB n+10| 1
<- |DB n+11| 2
<- |DB n+12| 3
<- |DB n+13| 4
|ACK n+13| ->
...
Section of a Windowsize = 4 TFTP Transfer
Including Errors and Error Recovery
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Proof of Concept and Windowsize Evaluation</span>
Performance tests were run on the prototype implementation using a
variety of windowsizes and a fixed blocksize of 1456 bytes. The
tests were run on a lightly loaded Gigabit Ethernet, between two
Toshiba Tecra Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz laptops, in "octet" mode,
transferring a 180 MByte file.
^
|
300 +
Seconds | windowsize | time (s)
| ---------- ------
| x 1 257
250 + 2 131
| 4 76
| 8 54
| 16 42
200 + 32 38
| 64 35
|
|
150 +
|
| x
|
100 +
|
| x
|
50 + x
| x
| x x
|
0 +-//--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-->
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Windowsize (in Blocks of 1456 Bytes)
Comparatively, the same 180 MB transfer performed over a drive mapped
on Server Message Block (SMB) / Common Internet File System (CIFS) on
the same scenario took 23 seconds.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
The comparison of transfer times (without a gateway) between the
standard lockstep schema and the negotiated windowsizes are:
Windowsize | Time Reduction (%)
---------- -----------------
1 -0%
2 -49%
4 -70%
8 -79%
16 -84%
32 -85%
64 -86%
The transfer time decreases with the use of a windowed schema. The
reason for the reduction in time is the reduction in the number of
the required synchronous acknowledgements exchanged.
The choice of appropriate windowsize values on a particular scenario
depends on the underlying networking technology and topology, and
likely other factors as well. Operators SHOULD test various values
and SHOULD be conservative when selecting a windowsize value because
as the former table and chart shows, there is a point where the
benefit of continuing to increase the windowsize is subject to
diminishing returns.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Congestion and Error Control</span>
From a congestion control (CC) standpoint, the number of blocks in a
window does not pose an intrinsic threat to the ability of
intermediate devices to signal congestion through drops. The rate at
which TFTP UDP datagrams are sent SHOULD follow the CC guidelines in
<a href="./rfc5405#section-3.1">Section 3.1 of [RFC5405]</a>.
From an error control standpoint, while [<a href="./rfc1350" title=""The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)"">RFC1350</a>] and subsequent
updates do not specify a circuit breaker (CB), existing
implementations have always chosen to fail under certain
circumstances. Implementations SHOULD always set a maximum number of
retries for datagram retransmissions, imposing an appropriate
threshold on error recovery attempts, after which a transfer SHOULD
always be aborted to prevent pathological retransmission conditions.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
An implementation example scaled for an Ethernet environment
(1 Gbit/s, MTU=1500) would be to set:
windowsize = 8
blksize = 1456
maximum retransmission attempts per block/window = 6
timeout between retransmissions = 1 S
minimum inter-packet delay = 80 uS
Implementations might well choose other values based on expected
and/or tested operating conditions.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
TFTP includes no login or access control mechanisms. Care must be
taken when using TFTP for file transfers where authentication, access
control, confidentiality, or integrity checking are needed. Note
that those security services could be supplied above or below the
layer at which TFTP runs. Care must also be taken in the rights
granted to a TFTP server process so as not to violate the security of
the server's file system. TFTP is often installed with controls such
that only files that have public read access are available via TFTP.
Also listing, deleting, renaming, and writing files via TFTP are
typically disallowed. TFTP file transfers are NOT RECOMMENDED where
the inherent protocol limitations could raise insurmountable
liability concerns.
TFTP includes no protection against an on-path attacker; care must be
taken in controlling windowsize values according to data sender, data
receiver, and network environment capabilities. TFTP service is
frequently associated with bootstrap and initial provisioning
activities; servers in such an environment are in a position to
impose device or network specific throughput limitations as
appropriate.
This document does not add any security controls to TFTP; however,
the specified extension does not pose additional security risks
either.
<span class="grey">Masotta Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7440">RFC 7440</a> TFTP Windowsize Option January 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1350">RFC1350</a>] Sollins, K., "The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)", STD 33,
<a href="./rfc1350">RFC 1350</a>, July 1992,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1350">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1350</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2347">RFC2347</a>] Malkin, G. and A. Harkin, "TFTP Option Extension", <a href="./rfc2347">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2347">2347</a>, May 1998, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2347">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2347</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2348">RFC2348</a>] Malkin, G. and A. Harkin, "TFTP Blocksize Option", <a href="./rfc2348">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2348">2348</a>, May 1998, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2348">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2348</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5405">RFC5405</a>] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage
Guidelines for Application Designers", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp145">BCP 145</a>, <a href="./rfc5405">RFC 5405</a>,
November 2008, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
Author's Address
Patrick Masotta
Serva
EMail: patrick.masotta.ietf@vercot.com
URI: <a href="http://www.vercot.com/~serva/">http://www.vercot.com/~serva/</a>
Masotta Standards Track [Page 9]
</pre>
|
