Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/1080091.1080111acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free access

Improving accuracy in end-to-end packet loss measurement

Published: 22 August 2005 Publication History

Abstract

Measurement and estimation of packet loss characteristics are challenging due to the relatively rare occurrence and typically short duration of packet loss episodes. While active probe tools are commonly used to measure packet loss on end-to-end paths, there has been little analysis of the accuracy of these tools or their impact on the network. The objective of our study is to understand how to measure packet loss episodes accurately with end-to-end probes. We begin by testing the capability of standard Poisson-modulated end-to-end measurements of loss in a controlled laboratory environment using IP routers and commodity end hosts. Our tests show that loss characteristics reported from such Poisson-modulated probe tools can be quite inaccurate over a range of traffic conditions. Motivated by these observations, we introduce a new algorithm for packet loss measurement that is designed to overcome the deficiencies in standard Poisson-based tools. Specifically, our method creates a probe process that (1) enables an explicit trade-off between accuracy and impact on the network, and (2) enables more accurate measurements than standard Poisson probing at the same rate. We evaluate the capabilities of our methodology experimentally by developing and implementing a prototype tool, called BADABING. The experiments demonstrate the trade-offs between impact on the network and measurement accuracy. We show that BADABING reports loss characteristics far more accurately than traditional loss measurement tools.

References

[1]
The Wisconsin Advanced Internet Laboratory. http://wail.cs.wisc.edu, 2005.
[2]
A. Adams, J. Mahdavi, M. Mathis, and V. Paxson. Creating a scalable architecture for Internet measurement. IEEE Network, 1998.
[3]
G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A one way packet loss metric for IPPM. IETF RFC 2680, September 1999.
[4]
S. Alouf, P. Nain, and D. Towsley. Inferring network characteristics via moment-based estimators. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '00, Tel Aviv, Israel, April 2000.
[5]
G. Appenzeller, I. Keslassy, and N. McKeown. Sizing router buffers. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '04, Portland, OR, 2004.
[6]
P. Barford and J. Sommers. Comparing probe- and router-based packet loss measurements. IEEE Internet Computing, September/October 2004.
[7]
P. Benko and A. Veres. A passive method for estimating end-to-end TCP packet loss. In Proceedings of IEEE Globecom '02, Taipei, Taiwan, November 2002.
[8]
J. Bolot. End-to-end packet delay and loss behavior in the Internet. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '93, San Francisco, September 1993.
[9]
S. Brumelle. On the relationship between customer and time averages in queues. Journal of Applied Probability, 8, 1971.
[10]
N. Cardwell, S. Savage, and T. Anderson. Modeling TCP latency. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '00, Tel-Aviv, Israel, March 2000.
[11]
M. Coates and R. Nowak. Network loss inference using unicast end-to-end measurement. In Proceedings of ITC Conference on IP Traffic, Measurement and Modeling, September 2000.
[12]
N. Duffield, F. Lo Presti, V. Paxson, and D. Towsley. Inferring link loss using striped unicast probes. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '01, Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.
[13]
S. Floyd and V. Paxson. Difficulties in simulating the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(4), 2001.
[14]
C. Fraleigh, C. Diot, B. Lyles, S. Moon, P. Owezarski, D. Papagiannaki, and F. Tobagi. Design and deployment of a passive monitoring infrastructure. In Proceedings of Passive and Active Measurement Workshop, Amsterdam, Holland, April 2001.
[15]
J. Hoe. Improving the start-up behavior of a congestion control scheme for TCP. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '96, Palo Alto, CA, August 1996.
[16]
Merit Internet Performance Measurement and Analysis Project. http://nic.merit.edu/ipma/, 1998.
[17]
Internet Protocol Performance Metrics. http://www.advanced.org/ippm/index.html, 1998.
[18]
L. Le, J. Aikat, K. Jeffay, and F. Smith. The effects of active queue management on web performance. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany, August 2003.
[19]
W. Leland, M. Taqqu, W. Willinger, and D. Wilson. On the self-similar nature of Ethernet traffic (extended version). IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, pages 2:1--15, 1994.
[20]
J. Mahdavi, V. Paxson, A. Adams, and M. Mathis. Creating a scalable architecture for Internet measurement. In Proceedings of INET '98, Geneva, Switzerland, July 1998.
[21]
M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgement options. IETF RFC 2018, 1996.
[22]
M. Mathis, J. Semke, J. Mahdavi, and T. Ott. The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Computer Communications Review, 27(3), July 1997.
[23]
NLANR Passive Measurement and Analysis (PMA). http://pma.nlanr.net/, 2005.
[24]
J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. Towsley, and J. Kurose. Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '98, Vancouver, Canada, September 1998.
[25]
D. Papagiannaki, R. Cruz, and C. Diot. Network performance monitoring at small time scales. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference '03, Miami, FL, October 2003.
[26]
A. Pasztor and D. Veitch. PC based Precision timing without GPS. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, Marina Del Ray, CA, June 2002.
[27]
V. Paxson. End-to-end Internet packet dynamics. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes, France, September 1997.
[28]
V. Paxson. Strategies for sound Internet measurement. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference '04, Taormina, Italy, November 2004.
[29]
K. Salamatian, B. Baynat, and T. Bugnazet. Cross traffic estimation by loss process analysis. In Proceedings of ITC Specialist Seminar on Internet Traffic Engineering and Traffic Management, Wurzburg, Germany, July 2003.
[30]
S. Savage. Sting: A tool for measuring one way packet loss. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '00, Tel Aviv, Israel, April 2000.
[31]
J. Sommers and P. Barford. Self-configuring network traffic generation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference '04, 2004.
[32]
The DETER Testbed. http://www.isi.edu/deter/, 2005.
[33]
A. Tirumala, F. Qin, J. Dugan, J. Ferguson, and K. Gibbs. Iperf 1.7.0 -- the TCP/UDP bandwidth measurement tool. http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf. 2005.
[34]
C. Villamizar and C. Song. High Performance TCP in ASNET. Computer Communications Review, 25(4), December 1994.
[35]
B. White, J. Lepreau, L. Stoller, R. Ricci, S. Guruprasad, M. Newbold, M. Hibler, C. Barb, and A. Joglekar. An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks. In Proceedings of 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Boston, MA, December 2002.
[36]
R. Wolff. Poisson arrivals see time averages. Operations Research, 30(2), March-April 1982.
[37]
M. Yajnik, S. Moon, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley. Measurement and modeling of temporal dependence in packet loss. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '99, New York, NY, March 1999.
[38]
L. Zhang, Z. Liu, and C. Xia. Clock Synchronization Algorithms for Network Measurements. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, New York, NY, June 2002.
[39]
Y. Zhang, N. Duffield, V. Paxson, and S. Shenker. On the constancy of Internet path properties. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop '01, San Francisco, November 2001.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Burst Ratio of Packet Losses in Individual Network FlowsInformatica10.15388/23-INFOR509(35-52)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2023
  • (2023)In-network Latency Nowcast Using Data Stream Learning Models2023 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC)10.1109/IWCMC58020.2023.10183080(1214-1219)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
  • (2022)Flow-level loss detection with Δ-sketchesProceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research10.1145/3563647.3563653(25-32)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCOMM '05: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
August 2005
350 pages
ISBN:1595930094
DOI:10.1145/1080091
  • cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
    ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 35, Issue 4
    Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
    October 2005
    324 pages
    ISSN:0146-4833
    DOI:10.1145/1090191
    Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 August 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Badabing
  2. active measurement
  3. network congestion
  4. network probes
  5. packet loss

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

SIGCOMM05
Sponsor:
SIGCOMM05: ACM SIGCOMM 2005 Conference
August 22 - 26, 2005
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 462 of 3,389 submissions, 14%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)240
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)49
Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Burst Ratio of Packet Losses in Individual Network FlowsInformatica10.15388/23-INFOR509(35-52)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2023
  • (2023)In-network Latency Nowcast Using Data Stream Learning Models2023 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC)10.1109/IWCMC58020.2023.10183080(1214-1219)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
  • (2022)Flow-level loss detection with Δ-sketchesProceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research10.1145/3563647.3563653(25-32)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022
  • (2020)Statistical Error Propagation Affecting the Quality of Experience Evaluation in Video on Demand ApplicationsApplied Sciences10.3390/app1010366210:10(3662)Online publication date: 25-May-2020
  • (2020)Gestatten: Estimation of User's Attention in Mobile MOOCs From Eye Gaze and Gaze Gesture TrackingProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33949744:EICS(1-32)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2020
  • (2020)A Glimpse into the Past, Present, and Future of Engineering Interactive Computing SystemsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33949734:EICS(1-32)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Packet loss detection in networked control systemsInternational Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control10.1002/rnc.502030:15(6073-6090)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2020
  • (2019)RINGLM: A Link-Level Packet Loss Monitoring Solution for Software-Defined NetworksIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications10.1109/JSAC.2019.292706337:8(1703-1720)Online publication date: Aug-2019
  • (2019)Towards Measuring Quality of Service in Untrusted Multi-Vendor Service Function Chains: Balancing Security and Resource ConsumptionIEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications10.1109/INFOCOM.2019.8737487(163-171)Online publication date: Apr-2019
  • (2018)Packet Loss Detection in Networked Control Systems via Process Measurements2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)10.1109/CDC.2018.8619678(4849-4854)Online publication date: Dec-2018
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media