1 / 40

Chapter 3 Transport Layer – part B

Chapter 3 Transport Layer – part B. Adapted from Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach, 6th edition, Jim Kurose, Keith Ross Addison-Wesley, March 2012. Outline. Principles of Congestion Control TCP Cong. Control Review Congestion Control – Beyond TCP. congestion :

arne
Download Presentation

Chapter 3 Transport Layer – part B

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. Chapter 3Transport Layer – part B • Adapted from Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach, 6th edition, Jim Kurose, Keith RossAddison-Wesley, March 2012 Transport Layer

  2. Outline • Principles of Congestion Control • TCP Cong. Control Review • Congestion Control – Beyond TCP Transport Layer

  3. congestion: informally: “too many sources sending too much data too fast for network to handle” different from flow control! manifestations: lost packets (buffer overflow at routers) long delays (queueing in router buffers) a top-10 problem! Principles of congestion control TransportLayer

  4. two senders, two receivers one router, infinite buffers output link capacity: R no retransmission maximum per-connection throughput: R/2 R/2 lout delay lin R/2 lin R/2 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 1 original data: lin throughput:lout Host A unlimited shared output link buffers Host B • large delays as arrival rate, lin, approaches capacity TransportLayer

  5. one router, finite buffers sender retransmission of timed-out packet application-layer input = application-layer output: lin = lout transport-layer input includes retransmissions : lin lin Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 ‘ lin: original data lout l'in:original data, plus retransmitted data Host A finite shared output link buffers Host B TransportLayer

  6. idealization: perfect knowledge sender sends only when router buffers available R/2 lout lin R/2 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 lin: original data lout copy l'in:original data, plus retransmitted data A free buffer space! finite shared output link buffers Host B TransportLayer

  7. Idealization: known loss packets can be lost, dropped at router due to full buffers sender only resends if packet known to be lost Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 lin: original data lout copy l'in:original data, plus retransmitted data A no buffer space! Host B TransportLayer

  8. Idealization: known loss packets can be lost, dropped at router due to full buffers sender only resends if packet known to be lost R/2 when sending at R/2, some packets are retransmissions but asymptotic goodput is still R/2 (why?) lout lin R/2 Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 lin: original data lout l'in:original data, plus retransmitted data A free buffer space! Host B TransportLayer

  9. when sending at R/2, some packets are retransmissions including duplicated that are delivered! lin timeout Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 Realistic: duplicates • packets can be lost, dropped at router due to full buffers • sender times out prematurely, sending twocopies, both of which are delivered R/2 lout R/2 lin lout copy l'in A free buffer space! Host B TransportLayer

  10. when sending at R/2, some packets are retransmissions including duplicated that are delivered! lin Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2 Realistic: duplicates • packets can be lost, dropped at router due to full buffers • sender times out prematurely, sending twocopies, both of which are delivered R/2 lout R/2 “costs” of congestion: • more work (retrans) for given “goodput” • unneeded retransmissions: link carries multiple copies of pkt • decreasing goodput TransportLayer

  11. four senders multihop paths timeout/retransmit Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3 Q:what happens as linand lin’ increase ? A:as red lin’ increases, all arriving blue pkts at upper queue are dropped, blue throughput g 0 lout Host A lin: original data Host B l'in:original data, plus retransmitted data finite shared output link buffers Host D Host C TransportLayer

  12. Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3 C/2 lout lin’ C/2 another “cost” of congestion: • when packet dropped, any “upstream transmission capacity used for that packet was wasted! TransportLayer

  13. end-end congestion control: no explicit feedback from network congestion inferred from end-system observed loss, delay approach taken by TCP network-assisted congestion control: routers provide feedback to end systems single bit indicating congestion (SNA, DECbit, TCP/IP ECN, ATM) explicit rate for sender to send at Approaches towards congestion control two broad approaches towards congestion control: TransportLayer

  14. TCP congestion control: • goal: TCP sender should transmit as fast as possible, but without congesting network • Q: how to find rate just below congestion level • decentralized: each TCP sender sets its own rate, based on implicit feedback: • ACK: segment received (a good thing!), network not congested, so increase sending rate • lost segment: assume loss due to congested network, so decrease sending rate Transport Layer

  15. TCP Congestion Control • Challenge • determining the available capacity in the first place (Without additional protocols or APIs) • adjusting to changes in the available capacity (Adjustments must be made quickly since a large window may already be out on the network) • Implementation • increase CongestionWindow when congestion goes down (slowly) • decrease CongestionWindow when congestion goes up (quickly) • Question: how does the source determine whether or not the network is congested? Transport Layer

  16. loss, so decrease rate X TCP congestion control: bandwidth probing • “probing for bandwidth”: increase transmission rate on receipt of ACK, until eventually loss occurs, then decrease transmission rate • continue to increase on ACK, decrease on loss (since available bandwidth is changing, depending on other connections in network) ACKs being received, so increase rate X X X TCP’s “sawtooth” behavior X sending rate time • Q: how fast to increase/decrease? • details to follow Transport Layer

  17. sender limits transmission: cwnd is dynamic, function of perceived network congestion TCP sending rate: roughly: send cwnd bytes, wait RTT for ACKS, then send more bytes < cwnd ~ ~ RTT TCP Congestion Control: details sender sequence number space cwnd last byte ACKed last byte sent sent, not-yet ACKed (“in-flight”) rate bytes/sec LastByteSent- LastByteAcked cwnd TransportLayer

  18. when connection begins, increase rate exponentially until first loss event: initially cwnd = 1 MSS double cwnd every RTT done by incrementing cwnd for every ACK received summary:initial rate is slow but ramps up exponentially fast time TCP Slow Start Host B Host A one segment RTT two segments four segments TransportLayer

  19. loss indicated by timeout: cwnd set to 1 MSS; window then grows exponentially (as in slow start) to threshold, then grows linearly loss indicated by 3 duplicate ACKs: TCP RENO dup ACKs indicate network capable of delivering some segments cwnd is cut in half window then grows linearly TCP Tahoe always sets cwnd to 1 (timeout or 3 duplicate acks) TCP: detecting, reacting to loss TransportLayer

  20. Q: when should the exponential increase switch to linear? A: when cwnd gets to 1/2 of its value before timeout. Implementation: variable ssthresh on loss event, ssthresh is set to 1/2 of cwndjust before loss event TCP: switching from slow start to CA TransportLayer

  21. TCP: congestion avoidance AIMD • when cwnd > ssthresh grow cwnd linearly • increase cwnd by 1 MSS per RTT • approach possible congestion slower than in slowstart • implementation: cwnd = cwnd + MSS/cwnd for each ACK received • ACKs: increase cwnd by 1 MSS per RTT: additive increase • loss: cut cwnd in half (non-timeout-detected loss ): multiplicative decrease AIMD: Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease Transport Layer

  22. TCP AIMD Transport Layer

  23. TCP congestion control: • goal: TCP sender should transmit as fast as possible, but without congesting network • Q: how to find rate just below congestion level • decentralized: each TCP sender sets its own rate, based on implicit feedback: • ACK: segment received (a good thing!), network not congested, so increase sending rate • lost segment: assume loss due to congested network, so decrease sending rate Transport Layer

  24. TCP Congestion Control • Challenge • determining the available capacity in the first place (Without additional protocols or APIs) • adjusting to changes in the available capacity (Adjustments must be made quickly since a large window may already be out on the network) • Implementation • increase CongestionWindow when congestion goes down (slowly) • decrease CongestionWindow when congestion goes up (quickly) • Question: how does the source determine whether or not the network is congested? Transport Layer

  25. loss, so decrease rate X TCP congestion control: bandwidth probing • “probing for bandwidth”: increase transmission rate on receipt of ACK, until eventually loss occurs, then decrease transmission rate • continue to increase on ACK, decrease on loss (since available bandwidth is changing, depending on other connections in network) ACKs being received, so increase rate X X X TCP’s “sawtooth” behavior X sending rate time • Q: how fast to increase/decrease? • details to follow Transport Layer

  26. sender limits transmission: LastByteSent-LastByteAcked  CongWin Roughly, CongWin is dynamic, function of perceived network congestion How does sender perceive congestion? loss event = timeout or 3 duplicate acks TCP sender reduces rate (CongWin) after loss event three mechanisms: slow start AIMD conservative after timeout events CongWin rate = Bytes/sec RTT TCP Congestion Control Transport Layer

  27. TCP: congestion avoidance AIMD • when cwnd > ssthresh grow cwnd linearly • increase cwnd by 1 MSS per RTT • approach possible congestion slower than in slowstart • implementation: cwnd = cwnd + MSS/cwnd for each ACK received • ACKs: increase cwnd by 1 MSS per RTT: additive increase • loss: cut cwnd in half (non-timeout-detected loss ): multiplicative decrease AIMD: Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease Transport Layer

  28. TCP AIMD Transport Layer

  29. TCP Tahoe • Slow-start • Congestion control upon time-out or DUP-ACKs • When the sender receives 3 duplicate ACKs for the same sequence number, sender infers a loss • Congestion window reduced to 1 and slow-start performed again • Simple • Congestion control too aggressive Transport Layer

  30. TCP Reno • Tahoe + Fast re-transmit • Packet loss detected both through timeouts, and through DUP-ACKs • Sender reduces window by half, the ssthresh is set to half of current window, and congestion avoidance is performed (window increases only by 1 every round-trip time) • Fast recovery ensures that pipe does not become empty • Window cut-down to 1 (and subsequent slow-start) performed only on time-out Transport Layer

  31. TCP New-Reno • TCP-Reno with more intelligence during fast recovery • In TCP-Reno, the first partial ACK will bring the sender out of the fast recovery phase • Results in timeouts when there are multiple losses • In TCP New-Reno, partial ACK is taken as an indication of another lost packet (which is immediately retransmitted). • Sender comes out of fast recovery only after all outstanding packets (at the time of first loss) are ACKed Transport Layer

  32. TCP SACK • TCP (Tahoe, Reno, and New-Reno) uses cumulative acknowledgements • When there are multiple losses, TCP Reno and New-Reno can retransmit only one lost packet per round-trip time • SACK enables receiver to give more information to sender about received packets allowing sender to recover from multiple-packet losses faster Transport Layer

  33. TCP SACK (Example) • Assume packets 5-25 are transmitted • Let packets 5, 12, and 18 be lost • Receiver sends back a CACK=5, and SACK=(6-11,13-17,19-25) • Sender knows that packets 5, 12, and 18 are lost and retransmits them immediately Transport Layer

  34. TCP Vegas • Idea: source watches for some sign that some router's queue is building up and congestion will happen soon; e.g., • RTT is growing • sending rate flattens Transport Layer

  35. Summary: TCP Congestion Control • when cwnd < ssthresh, sender in slow-start phase, window grows exponentially. • when cwnd >= ssthresh, sender is in congestion-avoidance phase, window grows linearly. • when triple duplicate ACK occurs, ssthresh set to cwnd/2, cwnd set to ~ ssthresh • when timeout occurs, ssthresh set to cwnd/2, cwnd set to 1 MSS. Transport Layer

  36. 3 W avg TCP thruput = bytes/sec RTT 4 W W/2 TCP throughput • avg. TCP thruput as function of window size, RTT? • ignore slow start, assume always data to send • W: window size (measured in bytes) where loss occurs • avg. window size (# in-flight bytes) is ¾ W • avg. thruput is 3/4W per RTT TransportLayer

  37. . 1.22 MSS TCP throughput = RTT L TCP Futures: TCP over “long, fat pipes” • example: 1500 byte segments, 100ms RTT, want 10 Gbps throughput • requires W = 83,333 in-flight segments • throughput in terms of segment loss probability, L [Mathis 1997]: ➜ to achieve 10 Gbps throughput, need a loss rate of L = 2·10-10 – a very small loss rate! • new versions of TCP for high-speed TransportLayer

  38. fairness goal: if K TCP sessions share same bottleneck link of bandwidth R, each should have average rate of R/K TCP Fairness TCP connection 1 bottleneck router capacity R TCP connection 2 TransportLayer

  39. two competing sessions: additive increase gives slope of 1, as throughout increases multiplicative decrease decreases throughput proportionally Why is TCP fair? equal bandwidth share R loss: decrease window by factor of 2 congestion avoidance: additive increase Connection 2 throughput loss: decrease window by factor of 2 congestion avoidance: additive increase Connection 1 throughput R TransportLayer

  40. Fairness and UDP multimedia apps often do not use TCP do not want rate throttled by congestion control instead use UDP: send audio/video at constant rate, tolerate packet loss Fairness, parallel TCP connections application can open multiple parallel connections between two hosts web browsers do this e.g., link of rate R with 9 existing connections: new app asks for 1 TCP, gets rate R/10 new app asks for 11 TCPs, gets R/2 Fairness (more) TransportLayer

More Related