An Investigation of the TCP Meltdown Problem and Proposing Raptor Codes as a Novel to Decrease TCP Retransmissions in VPN Systems

  • Irfaan CoonjahEmail author
  • Pierre Clarel Catherine
  • K. M. S. Soyjaudah
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 862)


When TCP was designed, the protocol designers at this time did not cater for the problem of running TCP within itself and the TCP dilemma was not originally addressed. The protocol is meant to be reliable and uses adaptive timeouts to decide when a resend should occur. This design can fail when stacking TCP connections though, and this type of network slowdown is known as a “TCP meltdown problem.” This happens when a slower outer connection causes the upper layer to queue up more retransmissions than the lower layer is able to process. Some computer scientists designed a Virtual Private Networking product (OpenVPN) to accommodate problems that may occur when tunneling TCP within TCP. They designed the VPN to use UDP as the base for communication to increase the performance. But the problem with UDP is said to be unreliable and not all VPN systems support UDP tunneling. This paper seeks to provide systems with low-latency primitives for reliable communication that are fundamentally scalable and robust. The focus of the authors is on proposing raptor codes to solve the TCP meltdown problems in VPN systems and decrease delays and overheads. The authors of this paper will simulate the TCP meltdown problem inside a VPN tunnel.


Tunneling VPN TCP Raptor codes 


  1. 1.
    Y.-L. Chang, C.-C. Hsu, Connection-oriented routing in ad hoc networks based on dynamic group infrastructure, in Fifth IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, 2000. Proceedings. ISCC 2000, pp. 587–592 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Dasgupta, R. Mukherjee, A. Gupta, Congestion avoidance topology in wireless sensor network using Karnaugh map. Appl. Innov. Mob. Comput. (AIMoC) 2015, 89–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Coonjah, P.C. Catherine, K. Soyjaudah, Experimental performance comparison between TCP vs UDP tunnel using OpenVPN, in 2015 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Security (ICCCS), pp. 1–5 (Dec 2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Nakazawa, H. Tamura, K. Kawahara, Y. Oie, Performance analysis of IP datagram transmission delay in MPLS: impact of both the number and the bandwidth of LSPS of layer 2, in IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2001. ICC 2001, vol 4, pp. 1006–1010 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, H. Rangarajan, A new framework for loop-free on-demand routing using destination sequence numbers, in 2004 IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems, pp. 426–435 (Oct 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-K. Choi, C. Un, On acknowledgement schemes of sliding window flow control. IEEE Trans. Commun. 37, 1184–1191 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z. Anwar, A. Malik, Can a DDoS attack meltdown my data center? A simulation study and defense strategies. IEEE Commun. Lett. 18, 1175–1178 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Gurtov, R. Ludwig, Responding to spurious timeouts in TCP, in INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications. IEEE Societies, vol 3, pp. 2312–2322 (March 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Haeri, A. Rad, TCP retransmission timer adjustment mechanism using model-based RTT predictor, in Control Conference, 2004. 5th Asian, vol. 1, pp. 686–693 (July 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Seth, M. Venkatesulu, TCP Timers, pp. 323–375. (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Haeri, A. Rad, TCP retransmission timer adjustment mechanism using system identification, in Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, 2004. vol. 3, pp. 2328–2332 (June 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Barayuga, W. Yu, Packet level TCP performance of NAT44, NAT64 and IPv6 using iperf in the context of IPv6 migration, in 2015 5th International Conference on IT Convergence and Security (ICITCS), pp. 1–3 (Aug 2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Wang, D. Xu, S. Yan, Analysis and application of wireshark in TCP/IP protocol teaching, in 2010 International Conference on E-Health Networking, Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (EDT), vol. 2, pp. 269–272 (April 2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Sivasubramanian, H. Leib, Fixed-rate raptor codes over Rician fading channels. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 57, 3905–3911 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    T.Y. Chen, K. Vakilinia, D. Divsalar, R.D. Wesel, Protograph-based raptor-like LDPC codes. IEEE Trans. Commun. 63, 1522–1532 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Palanisamy, T.V.S. Sreedhar, Performance analysis of raptor codes in wi-max systems over fading channel, in TENCON 2008 - 2008 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1–5 (Nov 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Shokrollahi, Raptor codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 2551–2567 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Zeineddine, L.M.A. Jalloul, M.M. Mansour, Hardware-oriented construction of a family of rate-compatible raptor codes. IEEE Commun. Lett. 18, 1131–1134 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Cataldi, M. Grangetto, T. Tillo, E. Magli, G. Olmo, Sliding-window raptor codes for efficient scalable wireless video broadcasting with unequal loss protection. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 19, 1491–1503 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Song, Y. Choi, C. Kim, Connection rerouting method for general application to connection-oriented mobile communication networks, in EUROMICRO 96. Beyond 2000: Hardware and Software Design Strategies, Proceedings of the 22nd EUROMICRO Conference, pp. 412–419 (Sep 1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.J. Vickers, T. Suda, Connectionless service for public ATM networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32, 34–43 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irfaan Coonjah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pierre Clarel Catherine
    • 2
  • K. M. S. Soyjaudah
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MauritiusMokaMauritius
  2. 2.School of Innovative Technologies and EngineeringUniversity of TechnologyPort LouisMauritius

Personalised recommendations