An Efficient TCP Flow Control and Fast Recovery Scheme for Lossy Networks

  • H. Y. Liao
  • Y. C. Chen
  • C. L. Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2094)


The initial TCP Tahoe version uses the slow-start algorithm to deal with flow control and congestion avoidance. The later Reno version deploys both fast-retransmit and fast-recovery algorithms. Traditionally a segment loss is considered as owing to the network congestion. However, a packet loss may be caused by some other reason such as a transmission error in the wireless link. Due to this reason, we design a mechanism that subdivides the congestion control mechanism into two parts, the packet loss indication and the loss recovery. Regarding the former, we no longer treat the packet loss caused by the transmission error as an indication of network congestion. While for the latter, we proposed a modified scoreboard algorithm in TCP FACK to quickly recover the packet loss and prevent the retransmitted packet from being lost again.


Congestion Control Packet Loss Rate Congestion Window Bottleneck Link Congestion Avoidance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    L. Brakmo, S. O’Malley, and L. Peterson, “TCP Vegas: End-to-End Congestion Control in a Global Internet.” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC), 13(8):1465–1480, October 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. Fall and S. Floyd. “Simulation-based comparisons of Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP.” ACM Computer Communication Review, 26(3):5–21, July 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Floyd. “TCP and Successive Fast Retransmission”, February 1995.
  4. [4]
    J. Hoe. “Start-up Dynamics of TCP’s Congestion Control and Avoidance Schemes,” Master’s Thesis, MIT. June 1995Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Hoe. “Improving the Start-up Behavior of a Congestion Control Scheme for TCP,”. SIGCOMM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, August 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    V. Jacobson. Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control,” in Proc. SIGCOMM’88 Symp., August 1988, pp.314–329.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Jain, “ A delay-based approach for congestion avoidance in interconnected heterogeneous computer networks,” ACM Computer Communication Review, vol. 19 no. 5, pp.56–71, Oct. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Phil Karn and Craig Partridge. Improving Round-Trip Time Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols. ACM SIGCOMM, pages 2–7, August 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Mathis and J. Mahdavi. “Forward Acknowledgement (FACK): Refining TCP Congestion control.” Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’96, pages 281–291, August 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Mathis and J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgement option. Internet Draft, work in progress, May 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. McCanne and S. Floyd. UCB/LBNL/VINT Network Simulator-ns(version 2) network simulator,
  12. [12]
    W. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. Stallings, High-Speed Networks, TCP/IP and ATM Design Principles. Prentice-Hall, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Gary R. Wright and W. Richard Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume II: The Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Y. Liao
  • Y. C. Chen
  • C. L. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchu 300Taiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations