Advertisement

How Insufficient Send Socket Buffer Affects MPTCP Performance over Paths with Different Delay

  • Toshihiko Kato
  • Adhikari Diwakar
  • Ryo Yamamoto
  • Satoshi Ohzahata
  • Nobuo Suzuki
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 746)

Abstract

Recently, the multipath transport protocol such as Multipath TCP becomes increasingly important. It allows more than one TCP connections via different paths to compose one Multipath TCP communication. However, it has some problems when those paths have different delay. Especially, the limited buffer space at either sender or receiver may degrade the throughput due to head-of-line blocking. Our previous paper pointed out that insufficient send socket buffer and receive socket buffer provide different situations of performance degradation, and that insufficient send socket buffer gives poorer throughput. This paper extends the performance analysis of our previous paper in the conditions with various combinations of send socket buffer size and transmission delay. It gives more detailed analysis using Multipath TCP level sequence number and congestion window size, and suggests the reasons for performance degradation.

Keywords

Multipath TCP Send socket buffer Head-of-line blocking Opportunistic retransmission Penalization 

References

  1. 1.
    Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., Iyengar, J.: Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development. IETF RFC 6182 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O.: TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses. IETF RFC 6824 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Wischik, D.: Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols. IETF RFC 6356 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scharf, M., Kiesel, S.: Head-of-line blocking in TCP and SCTP: analysis and measurements. In: IEEE GLOBECOM 2006, pp. 1–5 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raiciu, C., et al.: How hard can it be? Designing and implementing a deployable multipath TCP. In: 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2012), pp. 1–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paasch, C., Khalili, R., Bonaventure, O.: On the benefits of applying experimental design to improve multipath TCP. In: 9th ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT 2013), pp. 393–398 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferlin, S., Dreibholz, T., Alay, O.: Multi-path transport over heterogeneous wireless networks: does it really pay off? In: IEEE GLOBECOM 2014, Wireless Networking Symposium, pp. 4807–4813 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paasch, O., Ferlin, S., Alay, O., Bonaventure, O.: Experimental evaluation of multipath TCP schedulers. In: 2014 SIGCOMM Workshop on Capacity Sharing Workshop (CSWS 2014), pp. 27–32 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arzani, B., Gurney, A., Cheng, S., Guerin, R., Loo, B.T.: Impact of path characteristics and scheduling policies on MPTCP performance. In: 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, pp. 743–748 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, J., Oh, B., Lee, J.: Receive buffer based path management for MPTCP in heterogeneous networks. In: 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and service Management (IM), pp. 648–651 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou, F., et al.: The performance impact of buffer sizes for multi-path TCP in internet setups. In: 2017 IEEE 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 9–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kato, T., Tenjin, M., Yamamoto, R., Ohzahata, S., Shinbo, H.: Microscopic approach for experimental analysis of multipath TCP throughput under insufficient send/receive socket buffers. In: 15th International Conference WWW/Internet 2016, pp. 191–199 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MultiPath TCP – Linux Kernel implementation. http://www.multipath-tcp.org/
  14. 14.
    Handley, N., Padhye, J., Floyd, S: TCP Congestion Window Validation. IETF RFC 2861 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshihiko Kato
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adhikari Diwakar
    • 1
  • Ryo Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Satoshi Ohzahata
    • 1
  • Nobuo Suzuki
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Electro-CommunicationsChofuJapan
  2. 2.Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute InternationalSoraku-gunJapan

Personalised recommendations