1 / 17

Weighted Proportional Fairness and Differential End-to-End Services

Weighted Proportional Fairness and Differential End-to-End Services. Fairness. in general: every flow should get a fair share of the bottlenecks types of fairness: max-min fairness proportional fairness weighed fairness: a flow of weight 2 is treated like two flows of weight 1.

rsara
Download Presentation

Weighted Proportional Fairness and Differential End-to-End Services

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. Weighted Proportional Fairness and Differential End-to-End Services Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  2. Fairness • in general: every flow should get a fair share of the bottlenecks • types of fairness: • max-min fairness • proportional fairness • weighed fairness: a flow of weight 2 is treated like two flows of weight 1 Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  3. TCP Congestion Control • throughput of TCP is limited by the smaller of maximum window and congestion window • upon loss TCP halves the congestion window (multiplicative decrease) • in absence of losses TCP increases congestion window by 1 packet per RTT (linear increase) Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  4. Work by F. Kelly: • weighted proportional fairness where weight is price per time unit: • maximises the utility perceived by each user • maximises total utility provided by network. http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/rate.html • linear decrease/multiplicative increase leads to proportional fairness Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  5. Our goal and study case: • modify TCP to achieve weighted proportional fairness • e.g. for the UK academic Web cache servers • two solutions: • control TCP receive buffers (prototype) • modify TCP congestion control (simulation results) Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  6. The UK academic cache servers US UK 8 mb/s web traffic cacheserver 34 mb/s non-web traffic Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  7. 1 Modifying the receive window • receive window limits maximum throughput Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  8. Results • prototype: cgi-script on the web cache allows users to modify receive buffer size and thus speed/cost of surfing. • limitations: receive buffer limits absolute rate, not proportional • given price ki that a user wants to pay, she should get of total receive buffer • only works if all connections share the same bottleneck Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  9. 2 Modifying Congestion Control • MulTCP, behaves like N TCPs in all phases of TCP: • linear increase: N TCPs increase their window by one packet per window, MulTCP increases it by N packets • multiplicative decrease: Uppon loss, one of N TCPs reduces its window by half, MulTCP reduces it by 1/2N Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  10. MulTCP congestion control (cont’d) • slow start: N TCPs all start with one packet, then send two packets per ack • MulTCP can’t start with N packets, too bursty! • MulTCP start with one packet, then sends three packets per ack until same window as N TCPs Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  11. Simulations • The simulated network: Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  12. Results gain in throughput as function of N Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  13. Problem: Billing and Policing • how do we find out how much a user owes to the network or one network to another? • how do we find if a TCP is not more aggressive than it should? • how do we aggregate this information? Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  14. Receive window based • billing can be done as by-product of receive window allocation • hierarchical caches allow for aggregation • policing is not necessary! Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  15. MulTCP Billing • to bill user: need to know amount of data from user and average N during sampling period • network-network: need to know amount of data from network and average N • ask users to periodically declare average N per destination network, measure amount of data Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  16. MulTCP Policing • ask user to explicitly mark packets with N being used: • put N in TOS bits, or • put N in first packet of TCP connection (TCP option) • randomly analyse traffic traces Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

  17. Conclusions • weighted proportional fairness: • achieves optimal utility and utilisation • is easy to implement in a distributed end-to-end manner • no modifications needed in routers! • however, billing and policing can not be done in distributed, aggregated manner Philippe Oechslin p.oechslin@cs.ucl.ac.uk

More Related