View
218
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Introduction
Congestion control at the End Host
Treating the Network as a Black Box
Main indicator Round Trip Time
Probabilistic Early Response TCP (PERT)
3
Motivation
Implementing AQM at the Router is not easy. Current techniques depend on Packet loss to detect
congestion. Easier to modify TCP stack at the End Host. Can work any AQM mechanism at the router.
4
Challenges
RTT based estimation have been characterized to be inaccurate.
Hard to measure Queuing Delays when they are small compared to the RTT.
5
Accuracy of End-host Based Congestion Estimation
Previous studies looked at the relation between increase in RTT and packet loss for a single stream.
Results 1. Losses are preceded by increase in RTT in very
few cases.
2. Responding to a false prediction results in severe loss in performance.
7
Accuracy of End-host Based Congestion Estimation
Previous studies claim transition 5 happens more then transition 2
Limitation of previous studies is to look at the relation between higher RTT in packet loss for a single flow
Packet loss should be looked at the router not for a single flow
8
Accuracy of End-host Based Congestion Estimation
Ns-2 simulationTwo routers connected to a100 Mps link with end nodes having 500 Mbps
link, different combination of long term and short term flows. The reference flows have RTT of 60ms which is equal to 12000Km.
9
Different Congestions Predictors
Efficiency of Packet loss prediction(Number of 2 transitions)/(2 transitions +5 transitions)
False Positives(Number of 5 transitions)/(2 transitions +5 transitions)
False Negatives(Number of 4 transitions)/(2 transitions +4 transitions)
10
Previous WorkIn 1989 first paper was published proposing to enhance
TCP with delay-based congestion avoidance.
TRI-S: Throughput is used to detect congestion instead of delay DUAL: Current RTT is compared with Average of Minimum and
Maximum RTT Vegas: Achieved throughput is compared to expected
throughput based on minimum Observed RTT. CIM: Moving Average of small number of RTT samples is
compared with moving average of large number of RTT samples CARD: Congestion Avoidance using RTT Delay
11
Improving Congestion Prediction
*Vegas, Card, TRI-S, and dual obtain RTT samples once per RTT.
Smoothed RTT Exponential Weighted Moving Average
12
Improving Congestion Prediction
We improve accuracy by more frequent sampling and history information
End-host congestion prediction is not perfect, thus we need mechanisms to counter this inaccuracy.
13
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
Keeping the amount of Response small.
Respond Probabilistically.
14
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
Keeping the amount of Response small.
Respond Probabilistically.
Not much Loss in throughput
Maintains High link Utilization
Buildup of the bottleneck queue “may not be cleared out” quickly.
VEGAS
15
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
No Loss of throughput Maintains High link
Utilization Buildup of the
bottleneck queue “may not be cleared out” quickly.
VEGAS
This causes a tradeoff in the fairness properties of TCP to maintain high link utilization
Vegas uses “additive decrease” for early congestion response
16
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
No Loss of throughput Maintains High link
Utilization Buildup of the bottleneck
queue “may not be cleared out” quickly.
VEGAS
This causes a tradeoff in the fairness properties of TCP to maintain high link utilization
AI/AD for these transitions will result in compromising the fairness properties of the protocol.
Vegas uses “additive decrease” for early congestion response
17
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
No Loss of throughput Maintains High link
Utilization Buildup of the
bottleneck queue “may not be cleared out” quickly.
VEGAS
Compared to the flow starting earlier, flows that start late may have a different idea of the Minimum RTT on the path.
This gives an unfair advantage to flows starting later, giving them more share of the Bandwidth.RTT= Propagation Delay
+ Queuing Delay
18
Response to Congestion PredictionHow do we reduce the impact of FALSE Positives?
Keeping the amount of Response small.
Respond Probabilistically.
When the probability of false positives is high, the probability of response to an early congestion signal should be low
High Probability of False Positives Low Response!
Low Probability of False Positives High response!
19
Designing the Probabilistic ResponseFalse positives occur…
False Positives occur when the queue length is smaller.
False positives occur when the queue length is less than 50% of the total queue size.
srtt0.99 is the signal congestion predictor
20
Designing the Probabilistic Responsewhat should be my response function?
Response should be
Small for low queue size
Response should large for large queue size.
srtt0.99 is the signal congestion predictor
21
Designing the Probabilistic Responsewhat should be my response function?
Thus we emulate the probabilistic response function of RED.
Thus
P - probabilistic
E - early
R - response
T - TCP
22
PERT
Tmin = Minimum Threshold =P+ 5ms=5ms
Tmax = Maximum Threshold=P+10ms=10ms
pmax =maximum probablity of response=.05 P= propagation delay= ??= 0!!!
24
Is it necessary to have a 50% reduction in the congestion window in case of early response??
Routers are commonly set to the Bandwidth Delay Product of the Link since the TCP flow reduces its window by 50%
If B is the buffer size and f is the window reduction factor, the relationship between them is given by
Since the flows respond before the bottleneck queue is full, a large multiplicative decrease can result in lower link utilization but reducing the amount of response make it hard to empty the buffer, leading to unfairness.
25
Experimental Evaluation Impact of Bottleneck link Bandwidth
Setup: Single bottleneck with bottle neck bandwidth between 1 Mbps to 1Gbps, RTT from 10ms to 1s. Simulations run for 400s. Results measured between stable period. RTT set to 60ms.
26
Experimental Evaluation
Impact of Round Trip DelaysThe bottleneck link bandwidth is 150 Mbps and number of flows is 50. The end-to-end delay is varied from
10ms to 1s.
27
Experimental Evaluation
Impact of Varying the Number of Long-term Flows.
Link bandwidth set to 500 Mbps, end to end delay set to 60ms.
28
Bottle Neck Link b/w -150Mbps
End-End Delay - 60ms
Long term Flows – 50
Short Term varying from 10 to 1000
Bottle Neck Link b/w -150Mbps
End-End Delay – n * 12
1<n<10
Short Term - 100
29
Multiple Bottlenecks
Bottleneck link bandwidth –150Mbps; Delay - 5ms; Link capacity – 1 Gbps; Delay – 5ms
Response to sudden changes in responsive traffic:
31
Modeling of PERT
Forward propagation delay:
C – link capacity ; q(t) – queue size at time t ;
Note: Queuing Delay is perceived before R(t)
The Window Dynamics of PERT:
( A )
( 2 )
( 3 )
32
Modeling of PERTNote: PERT makes its decision at the end host and not the router.
Incoming rate y(t) =>
( 5 )
( 6 )
( 4 )
37
Conclusion
Congestion prediction at end host is more accurate than characterized by previous studies, but requires further research to improve the accuracy of end host delay-based predictors.
PERT emulates the behavior of AQM in the congestion response function
Benefits are similar to ECN Its link utilization is similar to router –based schemes PERT is flexible, in the sense that other AQM
schemes can be emulated.
38
Few of Our Observations
The authors have put a good deal of effort, but is its as simple and eye-catching if we implemented on any kind of network in real time?
What modifications have to now be made at the end host, such as additional hardware/software and cost??
Is it compatible with other versions of TCP? Will this implementation give an advantage to other
connections less/least proactive connections or misbehaving connections to take advantage of my readiness to lessen the job a router has to perform?