1 / 18

Roland Kempter The University of Alberta, June 17 th , 2004

Wireless Random Packet Networking, Part II: TCP/IP Over Lossy Links - TCP SACK without Congestion Control. Roland Kempter The University of Alberta, June 17 th , 2004 Department of Electrical And Computer Engineering University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA Email: rolke@gmx.net. Organization.

teagan-franco
Download Presentation

Roland Kempter The University of Alberta, June 17 th , 2004

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. Wireless Random Packet Networking, Part II:TCP/IP Over Lossy Links - TCP SACK without Congestion Control Roland Kempter The University of Alberta, June 17th, 2004 Department of Electrical And Computer EngineeringUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City, UT, USAEmail: rolke@gmx.net

  2. Organization The History of TCP2. Current TCP Congestion Control3.Design Ideas: no congestion control at all4. Measurement Results5. Future TCP Congestion Control?6. Conclusion

  3. ‘88 ‘90 ‘94 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 TCP SACK TCP FACK New Reno Old Tahoe Reno Vegas Tahoe 1. The History of TCP (incomplete) Old Tahoe slow start and congestion avoidance. After packet loss, timeout followed by slowstartTahoe added fast recovery. Duplicate ACKs initiate fast retransmit, then slowstart [Jaco88]Reno fast retransmit extended by fast recovery [Jaco90]New Reno small optimization of TCP Reno, immediately retransmit the packet following a partial ACK without leaving fast recovery [Hoe96]TCP SACK specify the range of packets that were received out of order. More than one packet per RTT during fast recovery is send [MatmahFlRo96]

  4. 2. Congestion Control: slow start Slow Start: with every received ACK, double the number of packets that are sent.Slow start adds a window to the sender's TCP: the congestion window, called cwnd as well as a variable called ssthres exponential growth of the Congestion Window up to ssthres, then linear growth Figure taken from[Jaco88] The congestion windowis flow control imposedby the sender. It is based on the sender's educated guess of perceived network congestion. Congestion Control assumes that packets are only lost due to overfull queues.

  5. Fast retransmission/fast recovery [unfortunately, I it slipped my mind where I found this animation: I hope you don‘t mind!] 2. Congestion Control: congestion avoidance in TCP Reno window time CA SS SS: Slow Start CA: Congestion Avoidance

  6. Congestion window assumed bottlenecks: queue sizes in the network Advertised window assumed bottleneck: receiver’s buffer Bandwidth window, “ACK clock” assumed bottleneck: link capacity 2. TCP Congestion Control TCP send rate is determined by three windows: win=min(snd_cwnd,snd_wnd,snd_bwnd)

  7. Again: Congestion Control assumes that packets are only lost due to overfull queues Also: In real world, is there more to infer from a lost packet than it has to be retransmitted? SACK optimizes the „Retransmission Business“ 2. Congestion Control: congestion avoidance When do we need the snd_cwnd ? only if we assume that the queues in the network are the bottlenecks.

  8. 3. Design Idea • TCP offers: • Flow Control • Bandwidth Control • Congestion Control • In-order-delivery • Error Control (retransmissions) • ...and a lot more • TCP does not: • offer timely delivery • avoid unnecessary overhead under certain conditions (e.g short connections) • Perform well in lossy (wireless) environments Why? Because of the way TCP handles congestion control

  9. 3. Design Idea: no congestion control at all Recall the sending rate is given by: win=min(snd_cwnd,snd_wnd,snd_bwnd) Now: win=min(snd_bwnd,snd_wnd) Without SACK, this flavor of TCP will perform poorly (waste of bandwidth on duplicate ACKs that can lead to timeouts) SACK gives us control over the now “static” window UDP? In contrast to UDP, the protocol will still guarantee for in-order delivery and will adopt to the link capacity.

  10. Node 1 Node 2 Node 3, „base“ Node 0, „base“ [emu] www.emulab.net 4. Measurements: the emulation environment On all links, delay=10ms. Loss rates varied from p=0, p=0.001, p=0.01, p=0.1 to p=0.2 Packt loss events are uniformly distributed. Emulation has been set up in the emulab environment [emu].

  11. [eth] www.etheral.com,packet sniffer and analyzer 4. Measurements: collection of Data 1. Initializetcpdumpon the to-be-observed node: sudo tcpdump -c num -w file -i if & 2. Start ttcp on the receiving node ttcp -r -s src 3. Startttcpon the sending node ttcp -t -s -n num dst num - number of packets to be captured file - name of the dump file if - interface to be listened to src - IP address of the sending node dst - IP address of the receiving node Traces have been analyzed off-line with ethereal [eth].

  12. optimum size of the send window in case of a link bottleneck: bandwidth-delay product advertised receiver window seq # ACKs received 4. Measurements: time-sequence graph of SACKBASE, lossless link tcpdumpstarted on the sender, zoomed into connection „set up“ phase

  13. 4. Measurements: time-sequence graph of SACKEXP, lossless link tcpdumpstarted on the sender, zoomed into connection „set up“ phase

  14. [KemXinKas04] R. Kempter, B. Xin, S. Kumar Kasera, “Towards a Composable Transport Protocol: TCP without Congestion Control”, submitted to SIGCOMM 2004 4. Measurements: summary of results, competing flows

  15. [KemXinKas04] R. Kempter, B. Xin, S. Kumar Kasera, “Towards a Composable Transport Protocol: TCP without Congestion Control”, submitted to SIGCOMM 2004 4. Measurements: summary of results, competing flows

  16. [RamFloyd99] Ramakrishnan, K.K., and Floyd, S., A Proposal to add Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 2481, January 1999 5. Future TCP Congestion Control? ECN bit Another way to do congestion control: the ECN bit Instead of dropping packets, a router sends a TCP an explicit message stating that the network is becoming congested. The network determines an explicit rate for a sender [RamFloyd99]. Hop-by-Hop vs. End-to-end congestion control

  17. 6. Conclusion • Due to ambiguity in packet loss, current TCP congestion control • leads to low throughput over lossy links • TCP without any congestion control and without SACK is very inefficient • At p=0.1%, SACKEXP achieves 91% of the goodput of a lossless link, • whereas TCP SACK only achieves 65% (at identical efficiencies of 91%) • As the loss rate increases to 20%, SACKEXP achieves goodputs in • the order of 700% at similarefficiencies compared to TCP SACK • In the future, we plan to investigate the performance of SACKEXP with • Congestion Control based on the ECN bit/ICMP Source Quench • Performance of SACKEXP has to be compared to a TCP that can resort to • a Link Layer retransmission scheme.

  18. [Jaco88] Van Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control”, ACM SIGCOMM '88 [Jaco90] Van Jacobson, “Modified TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm”, email to end2end-interest@ISI.EDU, April 1990 [BraMalPet94] Lawrence S. Brakmo, Sean W. O'Malley, Larry L. Peterson, „TCP Vegas: New Techniques for Congestion Detection and Avoidance“, Sigcomm 1994 [MatMahFlRo96] M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, A. Romanow, „TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options“, RFC 2018, April 1996 [Hoe96] Janey C. Hoe, “Improving the start-up behavior of a Congestion Control Scheme for TCP, Sigcomm 1996 [MatMah96] M. Mathis and J. Mahdavi, "Forward acknowledgement: Refining TCP congestion control“, ACM Computer Communication Review, Oct 1996. THE END Questions are welcome!

More Related