1 / 24

ARC TCP Workshop, ENS, Paris, November 5-7, 2003

Equation-Based Rate Control: Is it TCP-friendly ? Milan Vojnovic Joint work with Jean-Yves Le Boudec. ARC TCP Workshop, ENS, Paris, November 5-7, 2003. The Axiom: TCP-friendliness. Requires adaptive sources to obey to TCP in the following sense: TCP-friendliness (late 1990’s).

isla
Download Presentation

ARC TCP Workshop, ENS, Paris, November 5-7, 2003

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. Equation-Based Rate Control: Is it TCP-friendly ?Milan VojnovicJoint work with Jean-Yves Le Boudec ARC TCP Workshop, ENS, Paris, November 5-7, 2003

  2. The Axiom: TCP-friendliness Requires adaptive sources to obey to TCP in the following sense:TCP-friendliness (late 1990’s) “A flow that is not TCP-friendly is one whose long-term arrival rate exceeds that of any conformant TCP in the same circumstances.” Floyd and Fall, 1999

  3. Equation-Based Rate Control: Basic Control Estimator of 1/p: Send rate: Example Protocol: TFRC (RFC 3448, IETF proposed standard, Jan 2003)

  4. Is Equation-Based Rate Control a TCP Friend ? We deduce: the Engineering Intuition p -> f(p) is TCP loss-throughput formula So, it must be that if I adjust the send rate at loss-events to f(), evaluated at the on-line estimated loss-event rate, my new protocol will be TCP-friendly Problem: When the Intuition is True and when Not ?

  5. Outline 1. Breakdown the TCP-friendliness into sub-conditions, study the sub-conditions separately • Why the common evaluation practice to verify TCP-friendliness is not good ? 2. TCP-friendliness is difficult to verify • Counterexamples to TCP-friendliness 3. Conservativeness is easier • Sufficient conditions for conservativeness • Or bounded non-conservativeness

  6. measured throughputs x x’ TCP Test: TCP-friendly iff x <= x’ 1. Common Evaluation Practice Common Practice: Non-TCP Why the common evaluation practice is NOT GOOD ?- hides a cause of the observed throughput deviation- may lead a protocol designer to an improper adjustment

  7. Breakdown the TCP-Friendliness Condition (I) Does the source verify x <= f(p,r) ? (II) Does the source attain the same loss-event rate as TCP ? (III) Does the source see the same average round-trip time as TCP ? (IV) Does TCP verify its throughput formula ? Important to BREAKDOWN the TCP-friendliness conditioninto sub-conditions, and study them separately !

  8. (x, p, r) (x’, p’, r’) TCP Equation-Based Rate Control throughput loss-event rate average RTT Breakdown the TCP-Friendliness Condition (Cont’d) (I) Conservativenessx<= f(p, r) (II) Loss-Event Rates p>= p’ (III) Round-Trip Times r>= r’ (IV) Obedience of TCP to the Formula x’ >= f(p’, r’) If (I), (II), (III), and (IV) hold, that implies TCP-friendliness.

  9. Ass. EBRC uses f(p) in (1) r r AIMD (a,b) EBRC (1) TCP-like (b=1/2) p’/p=16/9 (approx. 1.7778) 2. Counterexample to TCP-Friendliness:AIMD experiences larger loss rate than EBRC Example 1: Either One AIMD or One EBRC over a Link Ob: p’ > p <=> non-TCP-friendliness

  10. Convergence for One EBRC over a Link slope K2/2

  11. Convergence for One EBRC over a Link (Cont’d) Can be seen as Jacobi iterative solving of: The equilibrium point: If stable: Remarks • both AIMD and EBRC are rate-based • both AIMD and EBRC are fluid, no packetization effects => the deviation of the loss-event rates is intrinsic to the very nature of the dynamics of the two controls

  12. Validation by ns-2 Simulation x/x’ TFRC b pakets b TCP b pakets x/f(p,r) p’/p r’/r x’/f(p’,r’) Breakdown:

  13. AIMD sees larger loss rate than EBRC (Cont’d) Example 2: One AIMD and One EBRC Competing for a Link • time t is a loss-event iff at t-the sum of the send rates of the two sources = r • a loss-event is assigned to either AIMD or EBRC • Zn = 1 iff the nth loss-event is assigned to EBRC, else Zn=0 g : R+L+1 -> R+ is a non-linear function; the system is non-linear

  14. Example 2: Numerical Simulations

  15. Example 2: Validation by ns-2 Simulation x/x’ TCP TFRC b pakets b x/f(p,r) p’/p r’/r x’/f(p’,r’) Breakdown:

  16. Internet Measurements EPFL Long-lived transmissions with TFRC and TCP Estimated: loss-event rates, average round-trip times, throughputs INRIA, KTH, UMASS,UMELB

  17. Breakdown into Sub-Conditions: x/f(p,r) p’/p r’/r x’/f(p’,r’) EPFL to UMASS TFRC/TCP throughput x/x’

  18. assume: the send rate is a stationary ergodic process • The send rate control: 3. Conservativeness Convergence: • The estimator is updated at special points in time Q. Is x <= f(p) ?

  19. Conditions for Conservativeness In practice: • the conditions are true, or almost • the result explains overly conservativeness

  20. Is Negative or Slightly Positive ? InternetLAN to LANEPFL sender InternetLAN to cable-modem at EPFL Lab

  21. Cause: convexity of 1/f(1/x) PFTK-simplified 16 8 PFTK 4 L=2 SQRT Throughput-Drop Puzzle Empirical indications: TFRC looses throughput for large loss-event rates E.g. Bansal et al (ACM SIGCOMM 2001): “ … in return to for smoother transmission rates, slowly-responsive algorithms lose throughput to faster ones (like TCP) under dynamic network conditions.” Why ?

  22. What Causes Excessive Conservativeness ? Palm inversion: Throughput: May make the control conservative ? !

  23. What Causes Excessive Conservativeness ? (Cont’d) • 1/f(1/x) is assumed to be convex, thus, it is above its tangents • take the tangent at 1/p • the “overshoot” bounded by a function of p and

  24. Conclusion 1. Breakdown the TCP-friendliness into sub-conditions, study the sub-conditions separately 2. TCP-friendliness is difficult to verify 3. Conservativeness is easier

More Related