170 likes | 175 Views
Explore the TCP-FCW protocol, a free-congestion-window concept optimizing real-time data transfer on networks with high packet loss. Learn how it compares to TCP-RTM, its benefits, and considerations for future enhancements.
E N D
TCP-FCW – transport protocol for real-time transmissions on high-loss networks Sergei Kozlov, 23-02-2004
Agenda • RTP/RTCP versus TCP • TCP-RTM (TCP Real-Time Mode) • TCP-RTM and bursty losses • “Free congestion window” (FCW) concept • Short evaluation of TCP-FCW • Very briefly – future work
RTP/RTCP • RTP is widely used for RT streaming • RTP = UDP + time-stamping • no reliability – what is lost is lost • no in-sequence guarantees – upper layers should take care of it • low end-to-end delay, low jitter • RTCP – a protocol for controlling the stream • feedback on the quality of data • delivery to the sender of a participant’s canonical name • awareness of participants about each other
TCP (I) • Guaranteed delivery • what you send is what you receive (sooner or later…) • Sophisticated retransmission mechanism • based on RTT measurements, duplicate acknowledgments, timeouts etc. • Congestion-control mechanism • this is how it stays non-aggressive to the others • It’s designed for reliable data transfers • favors reliability over timeliness • may introduce unwanted delays for RT data
sender receiver data ack data ack TCP (II) – retransmissions and sliding window • Straight-forward acknowledgments • Ineffective usage of the network Sending application snd_wnd • Sliding window (snd_wnd) TCP-buffer ? next_to_be_acked next_to_be_sent not yet send sent & acknowledged sent but not acknowledged empty buffer
TCP-RTM: “semi-reliable” protocol * • Combines retransmission abilities of TCP and non-blocking behavior of RTP • Retransmission mechanisms reused from TCP • Packets that cannot be delivered in timely fashion are being skipped • Application techniques resemble those for RTP (surveyed later) • Requires minimum of TCP-code modifications, can be implemented as another TCP-option * Sam Liang, David Cheriton, “TCP-RTM: Using TCP for Real Time Applications,” Submitted to IEEE ICNP ’02, 2002
TCP-RTM receiver – “read-over-hole” technique Receiving application snd_cwnd step1 ? re-requeston dup-acks Receiving application step2 ! Too late to resend - acknowledge Receiving application step3 segment consumed by application skipped segment segment received but not yet consumed by application empty buffer
TCP-RTM sender Step 1 Step 2 Sending app Sending app TCP TCP SND_BUF SND_BUF NextByteToSend NextByteToSend
TCP-RTM – application techniques • Receiver application doesn’t read from the buffer until the data is needed for timely playback • this provides fixed play-back delay • timestamps are needed for this • TCP-RTM supports application-level framing (ALF) • one application frame per TCP-segment – hence, always integral application frames are lost • every application write/read operation deals with 1 application level frame • ALF helps effective recovery from the losses
Wireless LAN – an example of a burst loss network Managed WLAN (NatLab), UDP packets, packet_size=500B, 100 packets/sec
Receiving application snd_cwnd step1 ? ? ? Receiving application (blocked) step2 ? ? ? re-send on rto step3 Receiving application out-of-date TCP-RTM and burst losses segments consumed by application received out-of-date sergments sergments received but not yet consumed by application empty buffer
Recovery price • rto is doubled with every packet loss buf_size = 64K, frame_size=1K, frames sent every period=20mS Near-exponential dependency – congestion window doesn’t grow large enough to trigger the dup-ack retransmission * - TCP-buffer gets full
TCP-FCW vs TCP-RTM • TCP-RTM wasn’t meant to be used on burst losses networks • Losses of more than one segment in a row are not expected to happen • To be used on the real Internet • Be TCP friendly (use congestion avoidance) • TCP-FCW meets different assumptions • To be used on the QoS enabled networks with bandwidth reservations • “Send as fast as you can, but not faster than requested by the application” • Thus, we can control the bit-rate of the transmission on the application level • Provide “immediate recovery” – no slow start • It’s not meant to be used on the current Internet
TCP-FCW: “free-congestion-window” Receiving application step1 ? ? ? re-request – dup-acks again! Receiving application step2 ! resent Receiving application step3 packet consumed by application skipped packet recovered packet packet received but not consumed by application empty buffer
Evaluation • Result: exponential growth of pbd in case of TCP-RTM vs linear growth in case of TCP-FCW
Further work • TCP-MM (multi-media) – the content-aware transport protocol • Firstly - video • It will “know” about I,P,B frames of a video stream • Not segment, but video-frame-oriented