Advertisement

Abstract

TCP is the dominating transmission protocol in the Internet since decades. It proved its flexibility to adapt to unknown and changing network conditions. A distinguished TCP feature is the comparably fair resource sharing. Unfortunately, this abstract fairness is frequently misinterpreted as convergence towards equal sharing rates. In this paper we show in theory as well as in experiment that TCP rate convergence does not exist. Instead, the individual TCP flow rate is persistently fluctuating over a range close to one order of magnitude. The fluctuations are not short term but correlated over long intervals, such that the carried data volume converges rather slowly. The weak convergence does not negate fairness in general. Nevertheless, a particular transmission operation could deviate considerably.

Keywords

TCP Congestion Resource sharing Fairness Convergence 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work has been funded in part by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) in scope of project SASER under grant No. 16BP12200.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobson, V.: Congestion avoidance and control. In: Proceedings of the SIGCOMM 1988 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiu, D.-M., Jain, R.: Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks. J. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 17(1), 1–14 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Podlesny, M., Gorinsky, S.: Multimodal Congestion Control for Low Stable-State Queuing. Technical Report WUCSE-2006–41, August 2006. http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cse_research/192
  4. 4.
    Li, Y.-T., Leith, D., Shorten, R.N.: Experimental Evaluation of TCP Protocols for High-Speed Networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 15(5), 1109–1122 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., Ott, T.: The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Comput. Commun. Rev. 27(3), 67–82 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Padhye, J., Firoiu, V., Towsley, D., Kurose, J.: Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, 1998, pp. 303–314 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lautenschlaeger, W.: A Deterministic TCP Bandwidth Sharing Model, April 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4173
  8. 8.
    Handbook Teletraffic Engineering, ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 16/2 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogoiavlenskaia, O.: Markovian Model of Internetworking Flow Control, Kalashnikov Memorial Seminar, Petrozavodsk, Инфopмaциoнныe пpoцeccы, 2.2 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ha, Sangtae, Rhee, Injong, Lisong, Xu: CUBIC: a new TCP-friendly high-speed TCP variant. ACM SIGOPS Operating Syst. Rev. 42(5), 64–74 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Floyd, S., Jacobsen, V.: Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1(4), 397–413 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKenney, P.E.: Stochastic fairness queueing. In: Proceedings of the INFOCOM 1990 (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Briscoe, R.: Re-feedback: Freedom with Accountability for Causing Congestion in a Connectionless Internetwork, Diss. UC London (2009). http://www.bobbriscoe.net/projects/refb/refb_dis.pdf
  14. 14.
    Braden, R. (ed.) Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers, IETF, RFC 1122 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allman, M.: TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC), IETF, RFC 3465 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hemminger, S.: tcp: remove Appropriate Byte Count support (2013). https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/ca2eb5679f8ddffff60156af42595df44a315ef0
  17. 17.
    Allman, M., Paxson, V., Blanton, E.: TCP Congestion Control, IETF, RFC 5681 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bell LabsNokiaStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations