1 / 19

M-TCP : TCP for Mobile Cellular Networks

M-TCP : TCP for Mobile Cellular Networks. Kevin Brown and Suresh Singh Department of Computer Science Univ. of South Carolina ACM Computer Communications Review, 1997 2005.07.29 Hyun-Jin Kim. Introduction – TCP in Mobile Environment. Traditional TCP

dori
Download Presentation

M-TCP : TCP for Mobile Cellular Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. M-TCP : TCP for Mobile Cellular Networks Kevin Brown and Suresh Singh Department of Computer Science Univ. of South Carolina ACM Computer Communications Review, 1997 2005.07.29 Hyun-Jin Kim

  2. Introduction – TCP in Mobile Environment • Traditional TCP • TCP is designed to work on wired networks • Negligible medium loss • Buffer overflow at routers leads network congestion • TCP under wireless mobile networks • High BER and frequent disconnections lead packet losses • But, TCP simply interprets them as a indication of congestion • Significant degradation of end-to-end performance • Approaches for improving TCP performance • Snoop TCP [1] • I-TCP[2] & MTCP[3] • M-TCP

  3. Former Solutions – SNOOP TCP • Snoop module resides at the BS (Base Station) • Inspects TCP header of data packets and ACK packets • Keeps track of packets in both direction • Local retransmission between BS and MH (Mobile Host) • Pros • Preserves end-to-end TCP semantics • Changes are restricted to BS and optionally to MH • Cons • Under long and frequent disconnections, sender times out • Frequent handoffs – snoop module needs to build its cache up

  4. Former Solutions – I-TCP & MTCP • Split connection protocols • FH to BS, BS to MH • Wireless connection can even use another transport protocol that suits wireless medium • Pros • When a handoff occurs, the old BS can deliver the packets of its buffer to the new BS • Sender does not concern about wireless environment • Cons • Breaks end-to-end TCP semantics • BS can be a bottleneck BS FH MH Standard TCP Wireless TCP FH Socket MH Socket

  5. SH FH (Fixed Host) MH MSS TCP M - TCP SH-TCP M-TCP M-TCP - Overview • TCP connection is split in two at the SH • Maintains end-to-end TCP semantics • “Persist mode” – keeps timer of sender • SH (Supervisor Host) • Maintains several MSS (Mobile Support Station) – reduces handoff overheads • Serves function of gateway • Bandwidth manager, local recovery

  6. M-TCP – The SH-TCP client • Goal – keeps the FH’s congestion window size • FH uses unmodified TCP to send data to the SH • SH-TCP client • Passes packets from the FH on to M-TCP • Does not ACK those packets until the MH does • So, end-to-end TCP semantics are maintained • Sends ACK to the sender except ACK for one last byte • When the MH is disconnected, sends ACK for the last byte with a window size set to ‘0’ – “persist mode” • When a MH regains its connection, it sends a greeting packet • This packet allows the sender to leave “persist mode”

  7. M-TCP – M-TCP between the SH and MH • Goal – fast local recovery from disconnection events • Has responds to notifications of wireless link connectivity • M-TCP at the MH is notified the connection is lost • Freezes all M-TCP timer • Connection is regained • Unfreezes all M-TCP timers • MH sends a specially marked ACK to M-TCP at the SH which contains the highest received sequence number • How to determine the connection is lost? • Assumes the SH assigns fixed bandwidth • No ACK from the MH within Timeout of M-TCP (See next slide)

  8. FH MH SH (2) (3) RTT(1) (4) M-TCP– How to estimate RTO ? • Therefore, the SH can estimate RTO between itself and the MH • The SH can determine the connection is lost by using estimated RTO (1): FTCPRTO (2+4): STCPRTO (3): SM-TCPRTO Therefore (1) = (2+4)+(3)

  9. M-TCP – Other Issues • Compressed M-TCP • Packets are compressed at the SH and decompressed at the MH • When a handoff occurs • Freezes connection state • Some of the state about the connection is passed to the new SH • Removes the contents of the socket buffers at the old SH • Unfreezes connection state • Connection setup • Two different operations for setting up • FH  SH and SH  MH • Transparent SH • FH  MH • SH automatically creates sockets for the FA and the MH

  10. M-TCP - Normal Transmission (1/2) (2,1) buffered SH cwnd=2 cwnd=3 SH-TCP M-TCP This is for freezing sender’s window.

  11. M-TCP - Normal Transmission (2/2) (4,3) buffered SH cwnd=3 cwnd=5 M-TCP SH-TCP This is for freezing sender’s window.

  12. M-TCP - Disconnection (8,7,6,5) buffered SH cwnd=5 cwnd=6 Freezing Freezing M-TCP SH-TCP Freezing Notifydisconnection

  13. M-TCP - Recovery (8,7,6,5) buffered SH Notify reconn. cwnd=6 cwnd=9 M-TCP SH-TCP

  14. M-TCP - Performance Evaluation • Experimental set up • All nodes are Pentium PCs • Wireless link is emulated at the SH • 32Kbps downlink, 8Kbps uplink • Disconnection length – 0.5 ~ 4.5 sec • Cell latency mean – 5 sec (12 disconnection events in 5 sec) FH1 Distance Sender SH MH Emulated 32kbps Link 14 Hops FH2 Close Sender 4 Hops

  15. M-TCP - Performance Evaluation • M-TCP vs TCP performance

  16. M-TCP - Performance Evaluation • Compressed M-TCP vs normal M-TCP

  17. M-TCP - Performance Evaluation • M-TCP processing time

  18. Conclusion • M-TCP • Solution to improve TCP in mobile networks • Splits TCP connection, but it makes an effort to maintain end-to-end TCP semantics • Persist mode • Still exists problems • When the MH sends cumulative ACK • When the FH finishes to send data • High processing at SH • Does M-TCP really maintain end-to-end TCP semantics?

  19. References • [1] H. Balakrishnan, S.Seshan, and Randy Katz, “Improving Reliable Transport and Handoff Performance in Cellular Wireless Networks”, Wireless Networks, Vol 1 No.4 December 1995 • [2] A.Bakre and B.R.Badrinath, “I-TCP: Indirect TCP for Mobile Hosts”, IC on Distributed Computing Systems 1995 • [3] R. Yavatkar and N. Bhagawat, “Improving End-to-End Performance of TCP over Mobile Internetworks”, IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1994

More Related