skip to main content
article

Delay-based congestion avoidance for TCP

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 2003Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The set of TCP congestion control algorithms associated with TCP/Reno (e.g., slow-start and congestion avoidance) have been crucial to ensuring the stability of the Internet. Algorithms such as TCP/NewReno (which has been deployed) and TCP/Vegas (which has not been deployed) represent incrementally deployable enhancements to TCP as they have been shown to improve a TCP connection's throughput without degrading performance to competing flows. Our research focuses on delay-based congestion avoidance algorithms (DCA), like TCP/Vegas, which attempt to utilize the congestion information contained in packet round-trip time (RTT) samples. Through measurement and simulation, we show evidence suggesting that a single deployment of DCA (i.e., a TCP connection enhanced with a DCA algorithm) is not a viable enhancement to TCP over high-speed paths. We define several performance metrics that quantify the level of correlation between packet loss and RTT. Based on our measurement analysis we find that although there is useful congestion information contained within RTT samples, the level of correlation between an increase in RTT and packet loss is not strong enough to allow a TCP/Sender to reliably improve throughput. While DCA is able to reduce the packet loss rate experienced by a connection, in its attempts to avoid packet loss, the algorithm will react unnecessarily to RTT variation that is not associated with packet loss. The result is degraded throughput as compared to a similar flow that does not support DCA.

References

  1. {1} V. Jacobson, "Congestion avoidance and control," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1988, pp. 314-329. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. {2} V. Jacobson, C. Leres, and S. McCanne. (1989, June) tcpdump. {Online}. Available: ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.govGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. {3} M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens, "TCP congestion control," IETF, RFC 2581, Apr. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. {4} S. Floyd, "A report on some recent developments in TCP congestion control," IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 39, pp. 84-90, Apr. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. {5} M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow, "TCP selective acknowledgment options," Network Working Group, RFC 2018, Apr. 1996. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. {6} M. Allman and S. Floyd. (2000, Aug.) Enhancing TCP's loss recovery using limited transmit. IETF. Internet Draft. {Online}. Available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. {7} R. Jain, "A delay-based approach for congestion avoidance in interconnected heterogeneous computer networks," Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 56-71, Oct. 1989. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. {8} L. S. Brakmo, S. W. O'Malley, and L. L. Peterson, "TCP Vegas: New techniques for congestion detection and avoidance," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1994, pp. 24-35. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. {9} Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, "Eliminating periodic packet losses in the 4.3-Tahoe BSD TCP congestion control algorithm," Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 9-16, Apr. 1992. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. {10} U. Hengartner, J. Bolliger, and T. Gross, "TCP Vegas revisited," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2000, pp. 1546-1555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. {11} S. Low, L. Peterson, and L. Wang, "Understanding TCP Vegas: Aduality model," J. ACM, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 207-235, Mar. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. {12} J. Mo et al., "Analysis and comparison of TCP/Reno and Vegas," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 1999, pp. 1556-1563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. {13} D. Bansal, H. Balakrishnan, S. Floyd, and S. Shenker, "Dynamic behavior of slowly-responsive congestion control algorithms," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2001, pp. 263-274. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. {14} K. Claffy, G. Miller, and K. Thompson, "The nature of the beast: Recent traffic measurements from an internet backbone," in Proc. INET Conf., 1998, {Online.} Available: http://www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/6g/6g_3.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. {15} W. Fang and L. Peterson, "Inter-AS traffic patterns and their implications," in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, 1999, pp. 1859-1868.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. {16} K. Thompson, G. Miller, and R. Wilder, "Wide area internet traffic patterns and characteristics," IEEE Network, vol. 11, pp. 10-23, Nov. 1997. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. {17} C. Fraleigh, S. Moon, B. Lyles, C. Cotton, M. Khan, D. Moll, R. Rockwell, T. Seely, and C. Diot, "Packet-level traffic measurements from the Sprint IP backbone," IEEE Network, to be published. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. {18} J. Padhye et al., "Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1998, pp. 303-314. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. {19} J. Martin, "RTT-based congestion avoidance for high speed TCP Internet connections," Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, Dec. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. {20} The Network Simulator. Univ. California, Berkeley, CA. {Online}. Available: http://www-mash.cs.Berkeley.EDU/ns/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. {21} J. Ahn, P. Danzig, Z. Liu, and L. Yan, "Evaluation of TCP Vegas: Emulation and experiment," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1995, pp. 185-195. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. {22} J. Bolot, "End-to-end packet delay and loss behavior in the Internet," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1993, pp. 289-298. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. {23} S. Moon, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley, "Correlation of packet delay and loss in the Internet," Dept. Comput. Sci., Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst, Tech. Rep. 98-11, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. {24} V. Paxson, "End-to-end internet packet dynamics," IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 7, pp. 277-292, June 1999. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. {25} M. Yajnik, S. Moon, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley, "Measurement and modeling of the temporal dependence in packet loss," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1999, pp. 345-352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. {26} V. Paxson, "Measurements and analysis of end-to-end Internet dynamics," Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, CA, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. {27} Y. Zhang, N. Duffield, V. Paxson, and S. Shenker, "On the constancy of internet path properties," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop (IMW2001), Nov. 2001, pp. 197-211. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. {28} D. Loguinov and H. Radha, "Large-scale experimental study of internet performance using video traffic," Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 7-19, Jan. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. {29} W. Leland et al., "On the self-similar nature of Ethernet traffic," IEEE Trans. Networking, vol. 2, pp. 1-15, Feb. 1994. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. {30} S. Floyd, M. Handley, J. Padhye, and J. Widmer, "Equation-based congestion control for unicast applications," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2000, pp. 43-56. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. {31} S. Cen, C. Pu, and J. Walpole, "Flow and congestion control for internet streaming applications," in Proc. Multimedia Computing and Networking, Jan. 1998, pp. 250-264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. {32} R. Rejaie, M. Handley, and D. Estrin, "RAP: An end-to-end rate-based congestion control mechanism for realtime streams in the Internet," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 1999, pp. 1337-1345.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. {33} P. Hurley et al., "ABE: Providing a low-delay service within best effort," IEEE Network, vol. 15, pp. 60-69, May/June 2001. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. {34} R. Miles. ttcp measurement tool. The FreeBSD Project. {Online}. Available: http://www.freebsd.org/portsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. {35} S. Bortzmeyer. (2002, Oct.) Echoping measurement tool. {Online}. Available: http://echoping.sourceforge.netGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. {36} V. Paxson and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's retransmission timer," Network Working Group, RFC 2988, Nov. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. {37} S. Shenker, L. Zhang, and D. Clark, "Some observations on the dynamics of a congestion control algorithm," in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1990, pp. 30-39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. {38} S. Floyd and K. Ramakrishnan. (1999, Jan.) A Proposal to add explicit congestion notification to IP. Experimental RFC 2481. Info. Sci. Inst., Los Angeles, CA. {Online}. Available: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2481.txt Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. {39} M. Goyal, R. Guerin, and R. Rajan, "Predicting TCP throughput from noninvasive network sampling," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, June 2002, pp. 180-189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. {40} P. Barford and M. Crovella, "Generating representative web workloads for network and server performance evaluation," in ACM SIGMETRICS, July 1998, pp. 151-160. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. {41} S. Floyd and V. Paxson, "Difficulties in simulating the internet," IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 9, pp. 392-403, Aug. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Delay-based congestion avoidance for TCP

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader