1 / 19

TCP in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

TCP in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. 2009. Summary: TCP Congestion Control. When CongWin is below Threshold, sender in slow-start phase, window grows exponentially. When CongWin is above Threshold, sender is in congestion-avoidance phase, window grows linearly. AIMD

mariko
Download Presentation

TCP in Wireless Ad Hoc 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. TCP in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks 2009

  2. Summary: TCP Congestion Control • When CongWin is below Threshold, sender in slow-start phase, window grows exponentially. • When CongWin is above Threshold, sender is in congestion-avoidance phase, window grows linearly. AIMD • When a triple duplicate ACK occurs, Threshold set to CongWin/2 and CongWin set to Threshold. AIMD • When timeout occurs, Threshold set to CongWin/2 and CongWin is set to 1 MSS.

  3. TCP Problem over Wireless Networks • In TCP • Packet Loss <=> Congestion • But in Mobile Networks • Packet Loss <=> Congestion (Net) ??? • high bit error rate (Phy) - No • access contention (MAC) - ? • disconnection (Net) - No • handoff (Net) - No • The TCP end-to-end performance is degraded seriously in wireless networks

  4. Problems with TCP in ad hoc networks • Multihop - throughput reduction • mobility - path breaks and forces TCP to timeout • Random interference/jamming causes packet loss => timeout • Source cannot discriminate between congestion loss and random loss => drive TCP window to zero! • Interaction between TCP backoff and MAC backoff may cause unfairness and “capture”

  5. Impact of Multi-Hop Wireless Paths TCP Throughput using 2 Mbps 802.11 MAC, transmission range = one hop For large number of hops throughput stabilizes (pipelining effect)

  6. Throughput Degradations withIncreasing Number of Hops • Packet transmission can occur on at most one hop among three consecutive hops • Increasing the number of hops from 1 to 2, 3 results in increased delay, and decreased throughput • Increasing number of hops beyond 3 allows simultaneous transmissions on more than one link, however, degradation continues due to contention between TCP Data and Acks traveling in opposite directions • When number of hops is large enough, the throughput stabilizes due to effective pipelining

  7. Impact of Mobility on TCP • Mobility causes route changes • Throughput generally degrades with increasing speed … Ideal Average throughput over 50 runs Actual Speed (m/s)

  8. How to Improve Throughput • Network feedback • Inform TCP of route failure by explicit message • Let TCP know when route is repaired • Probing (eg, persistent pkt retransmissions) • Explicit link repair notification • Alleviates repeated TCP timeouts and backoff

  9. Performance with Explicit Notification

  10. TCP-over-wireless

  11. TCP Westwood: Efficient Transport for High-speed wired/wireless Networks (Mobicom 2001)

  12. TCP Westwood (Mobicom 2001) Key Idea: • Enhance congestion control via theRate Estimate (RE) • Estimate is computed at the sender by sampling and exponential filtering • Samples are determined from ACK inter-arrival times and info in ACKs regarding amounts of bytes delivered • RE is used by sender to properly setcwnd and ssthresh after packet loss (indicated by 3 DUPACKs, or Timeout)

  13. Bottleneck packets Receiver Sender ACKs measure Internet Rate Estimation (BE-> RE) • Ideally, would like to determine the connection fair share of the bottleneck bandwidth • Since fair share is difficult (to define or determine), we instead estimate the achieved rate: Rate Estimate (RE)

  14. dk tk-1 tk “Original” Rate estimation (BE-> RE) • First TCPW version used a “bandwidth like” estimator (BE) given by: sample exponential filter filter gain RE/BE Estimation is similar to Keshav Packet Pair estimation

  15. TCP Westwood: the control algorithm • TCPW Algorithm Outline: • When three duplicate ACKs are detected: • set ssthresh=BE*RTTmin(instead of ssthresh=cwin/2 as in Reno) • if (cwin > ssthresh) set cwin=ssthresh • When a TIMEOUT expires: • set ssthresh=BE*RTTmin(instead of ssthresh=cwnd/2 as in Reno) and cwin=1 Note: RTTmin= min round trip delay experienced by the connection

  16. TCP Westwood Benefits • Reno overreacts to random loss (cwin cut by half) • TCPW less sensitive to random loss • (1) a small fraction of “randomly” lost packets minimally impacts the rate estimate RE • (2) Thus, cwin = RE x RTT remains unchanged • As a result, TCPW throughput is higher than Reno • What do we gain by using RE “feedback” in addition to packet loss? (a) better performance with random loss (ie, loss caused by random errors as opposed to overflow) (b) ability to distinguish random loss from buffer loss (c) using RE to estimate bottleneck bdw during slow start

  17. TCPW in a wireless lossy environment • Efficiency: Improvement significant on high (Bdw x Length) paths • Fairness: better fairness than RENO under varying RTT • Friendliness: TCPW is friendly to TCP Reno

  18. TCPW in presence of random loss: Analysis and Simulation

  19. Summary • Introduced the concept of Rate Estimation and related work • Reviewed end-to-end estimation based congestion control methods • Presented TCP Westwood, and the evolution of “fair rate” estimate to improve the performance; showed simulation results to evaluate the method • Compared TCPW with other methods

More Related