1 / 27

TCP Performance

TCP Performance. Phil Cayton CSE 581 01/12/02. Papers read for this discussion. TCP Behavior of a Busy Internet Server: Analysis and Improvements H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, S. Seshan, M. Stemm, R. Katz An Integrated Congestion Management Architecture of Internet Hosts

gracie
Download Presentation

TCP Performance

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. TCP Performance Phil Cayton CSE 581 01/12/02

  2. Papers read for this discussion • TCP Behavior of a Busy Internet Server: Analysis and Improvements • H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, S. Seshan, M. Stemm, R. Katz • An Integrated Congestion Management Architecture of Internet Hosts • H. Balakrishnan, H. Rahul, S. Seshan • Endpoint Admission Control: Architectural Issues and Performance • L. Breslau, E. Knightly, S. Shenker, I. Stoica, H. Zhang • TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver • S. Savage, N. Cardwell, D. Wetherall, T. Anderson

  3. Agenda • Overview of Loss Recovery and Congestion Control Behavior • Issues with TCP and Current Trends & Techniques to solve them • Attacks against & Defenses for TCP Vulnerabilities • Integrated Congestion Management • Endpoint Admission Control • Summary • Discussion

  4. Changing Nature of Net Traffic • Historically – single, long-running xfers • Telnet, FTP, etc • Currently – multiple, concurrent, short-lived transfers and use of transports that do not adapt to congestion • Do not give TCP time to adapt to network congestion • Receiver modifications exacerbate problem by circumventing congestion control mechanisms. • Can hog bandwidth or commit DOS attacks • PROBLEM – Current trends could affect long term stability of internet

  5. AIMD • Slow Start • Start the congestion window (CW) at the size of a single segment & send it. If segment acked before timeout add one segment to the CW size up to MSS. • Congestion Avoidance • Once CW reaches threshold only add a new segment for each estimated segment RTT. • Multiplicative Decrease • Reduce CW size by half for each retransmit

  6. Problems with Current TCP Congestion Control • Loss Recovery Techniques not effective in dealing with packet losses • Default Socket Buffer Size to small • Receiver window becomes a bottleneck • Parallel connections less responsive to congestion-induced losses • Ack-Compression can artificially increase perceived queue-length

  7. Solving Problems and Improving TCP Performance • Integrated Congestion Control/Loss Recovery • Apps can use multiple TCP connections • Single integrated CW for the set of TCP connections • Eliminates slow-start for new connections • Decreases overall effect of congestion as all connections are informed of and react to the congestion • Data-driven loss recovery integrated across set of TCP connections • Connections know if ‘lost’ segments arrive on other connections and do not need to timeout.

  8. Solving Problems and Improving TCP Performance • Increase default socket buffer size • Increases maximum receiver advertised window on connection est. • Allows for higher potential performance • Calculate Ack-Compression factor • If significant ack-compression, slow-data rate to limit danger of packet loss

  9. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Ack Division • Receiver can acknowledge segments multiple times (up to #bytes acks) • Leads Sender to grow CW faster than normal. Bunch of acks Burst 1 RTT later

  10. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Solution to Ack Division • Modify congestion control to guarantee segment-level granularity • Only increment MSS when a valid Ack arrives for the entire segment.

  11. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Duplicate Ack Spoofing • Receiver sends multiple acks/sequence # • No way to tell what segment is being acked • Causes sender to enter fast-recovery mode and increase MSS Burst of dup acks Sender enters Fast Recovery and bursts 1 RTT later

  12. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Solution to Duplicate Ack Spoofing • Add new fields to TCP headers. • “nonce & nonce-reply” – random values sent with segments and replies. Only increment congestion Window for replies to previously unacked packets (determined by nonce/reply) • Oops…requires us to modify servers & clients • Server maintains count of un-acked segments. Only incr cwnd while count > 0

  13. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Optimistic Acking • Send acks for segments not yet received • Dec perceived RTT, affecting CW growth. Segment acks Segs arrive

  14. TCP Vulnerabilities and Misbehaving Receivers • Solution to Optimistic Acking • Again use nonce/nonce-reply as spoofer cannot guess random-nonce values • Oops… does not take into account cumulative losses • Cumulative Nonce • Oops… still requires modification of TCP • “slightly” random sequence sizes • Spoofer unable to correctly anticipate segment boundaries and incorrect sequence numbers can be ignored.

  15. Integrated Congestion Management • TCP-Friendly approach for end-system Congestion management that • Enables efficient multiplexing of concurrent flows • Enables apps/xports to adapt to congestion • Ensures proper and stable congestion behavior • Delivers trusted intermediary between flows for bandwidth management • Provides per-host/per-domain statistics (bandwidth, loss rates, RTT)

  16. Integrated Congestion Management • Goals • Ensure stable net behavior • Enable shared state learning for app adaptation • Guiding Principles • Put app in control • App decides what to transmit • App decides how to apportion allocated bandwidth • Accommodate traffic heterogeneity • TCP bulk xfers, short xactions, RT-flows at various rates, layered streams, new apps • Accommodate application heterogeneity (Syncronous or Asynchronous) • Learn from the application

  17. Integrated Congestion Management • CM Functions • Query path status • Schedule data transmissions • Update variables on congestion • CM Algorithms • Rate-based AIMD control • Loss-resilient, light-weight feedback protocol • Exponential aging when feedback infrequent • Scheduler to apportion bandwidth between flows

  18. Integrated Congestion Management Note high-variance Web traces for web-like workload with 4 concurrent connections using TCP-Reno Same workload with TCP/CM Note extremely low-variance

  19. Integrated Congestion Management • More efficient if sender and receiver use CM, but not required • CM improves Reliability & consistency to make apps better netizens • CM Ensures proper & stable congestion behavior

  20. Endpoint Admission Control • Goal of AC – Provide QOS to soft-RT flows • Traditional Approaches • Integrated Services: per-flow router based AC • Flows must request service from the network. • Acceptance depends on the level of available resources • Limited scalability (routers must keep per-flow state & process per-flow reservation messages) • Differentiated Services: routers use priority/buffering mechanisms based on DS field in packet headers • No per-flow admission control or signaling • Routers do not maintain per-flow state • Good scalability • No AC – QOS degrades if resources are limited • Goal –IntServe QOS & DiffServ scalability while maintaining compatibility w/ Best Effort traffic

  21. Endpoint Admission Control • Router Scheduling Mechanisms • FIFO • no flow admitted if the load while probing is greater than the capacity (no stolen bandwidth) • Fair Queuing • Isolate flows to give each a fair share. Flow acceptance could impair service to others. • Possibility of lower than optimal utilization • Coexisting w/ Best Effort Traffic • Don’t “borrow” bandwidth from best-effort traffic • Don’t allow best-effort traffic to preempt AC traffic • Multiple Levels of Service • All probes (regardless of priority) at same level • Probes at different level than any data traffic to avoid “stealing” service between levels

  22. Endpoint Admission Control • Endpoint Probing Algorithms • Acceptance Threshold • Too low threshold leads to higher blocking • All AC flows should adopt uniform acceptance threshold • Accuracy • In-Band Probing – probe packets same priority as data (shorter set-up times, no starvation) • Out-of-Band Probing – probe packets lower priority than data packets (no data packet loss) • Thrashing • Accepted flow levels low, but high probe-traffic prevents further admission • Use slow-start probing

  23. Endpoint Admission Control • Simulations • Probing: slow-start, early reject and simple • Options: in-band probing, out-of-band probing, signal congestion with packet drops, signal congestion with congestion marks

  24. Endpoint Admission Control • Thrashing - Loss rate for simple & early reject probing algorithms for in-band probing design substantially worse than that of the Intserv “MBAC” benchmark • Slow start based algorithm in contrast is much closer to MBAC • OOB dropping similar loss-load frontiers as MBAC • Robustness • In-band dropping has highest, OOB marking lowest dropping rates. • Heterogeneous Thresholds • Lower thresholds for higher QOS->higher block rates->lower QOS • Uniform thresholds seem to yield higher overall QOS • Heterogeneous Traffic • Traditional admission control discriminates against bigger flows. • Edge admission control less discriminate and can admit too much • Multi-hop • Drop rates higher for longer/multi-hops but Admission accuracy unaffected

  25. Endpoint Admission Control • Cons • Substantial setup delay • QOS unpredictable across settings • No mechanism to enforce uniform admission thresholds • Users could forge admission fields and be granted higher QOS without being subject to AC • Pros • Scalable scheduling for soft-RT applications • Provides multiple QOS levels along with Best-effort • Early tests show good TCP-friendliness

  26. Summary • TCP not designed for prevalent traffic patterns • TCP designed for cooperative environment and contains vulnerabilities • Modest (server side) changes can make TCP more robust for current traffic and less vulnerable to spoofs and DOS attacks • More substantial (sender and reciever) changes can further add congestion management and improve overall stability and security

  27. Discussion

More Related