Is it really necessary to go beyond a fairness metric for next-generation congestion control?
Article No.: 1, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
A recent article suggests that the potential for deployment of congestion control mechanisms in the future Internet should be evaluated using a new concept called "harm" instead of measuring "fairness". While there are good arguments in favor of this new approach, its practical benefits have not yet been experimentally evaluated, and calculating harm requires producing more experimental data. We apply the harm concept to data produced in real-life experiments with competing pairs of various TCP variants: Cubic vs. Reno, BBR vs. Cubic, and Reno vs. Vegas. These experiments cover various levels of "aggression" as well as different feedback types that the controls are based upon. We present a new linear representation of relative harm between scenarios, which can help us to assess the differences in harm between a variety of situations. Among other results, we can see that BBR is on average 1.6 times more harmful to Cubic in high-BDP situations (when Cubic is most aggressive) than Cubic is to Reno.
References
[1]
M. Altaian, V. Paxson, and E. Blanton. 2009. TCP Congestion Control. RFC 5681 (Draft Standard).
[2]
Rukshani Athapathu, Ranysha Ware, Aditya Abraham Philip, Srinivasan Seshan, and Justine Sherry. 2020. Prudent: A Watchdog Service for Measuring Congestion Control Harm on the Internet. In ACM SIGCOMM 2020 Networking Networking Women Professional Development Workshop (N2Women'20). https://www.justinesherry.com/papers/athapathu-n2women20.pdf
[3]
L.S. Brakmo and L.L. Peterson. 1995. TCP Vegas: end to end congestion avoidance on a global Internet. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 13, 8 (1995), 1465--1480.
[4]
Bob Briscoe. 2007. Flow rate fairness: dismantling a religion. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 37, 2 (2007), 63--74.
[5]
Neal Cardwell, Yuchung Cheng, C. Stephen Gunn, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh, and Van Jacobson. 2016. BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control. ACM Queue 14, September-October (2016), 20 -- 53. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3022184
[6]
Ferenc Fejes, Gergő Gombos, Sándor Laki, and Szilveszter Nádas. 2019. Who Will Save the Internet from the Congestion Control Revolution?. In Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Buffer Sizing (Palo Alto, CA, USA) (BS '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 6 pages.
[7]
S. Floyd and K. Fall. 1999. Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 7, 4 (1999), 458--472.
[8]
Mario Hock, Roland Bless, and Martina Zitterbart. 2017. Experimental evaluation of BBR congestion control. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP). IEEE, 1--10.
[9]
Per Hurtig, Habtegebreil Haile, Karl-Johan Grinnemo, Anna Brunstrom, Eneko Atxutegi, Fidel Liberal, and Åke Arvidsson. 2018. Impact of TCP BBR on CUBIC Traffic: A Mixed Workload Evaluation. In 2018 30th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 30), Vol. 01. 218--226.
[10]
Rajendra K Jain, Dah-Ming W Chiu, William R Hawe, et al. 1984. A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination. Technical Report. Eastern Research Laboratory, Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson, MA.
[11]
Ayush Mishra, Xiangpeng Sun, Atishya Jain, Sameer Pande, Raj Joshi, and Ben Leong. 2019. The Great Internet TCP Congestion Control Census. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. 3, 3, Article 45 (Dec. 2019), 24 pages.
[12]
David Ros and Michael Welzl. 2013. Less-than-Best-Effort Service: A Survey of End-to-End Approaches. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials 15, 2 (2013), 898--908.
[13]
Dominik Scholz, Benedikt Jaeger, Lukas Schwaighofer, Daniel Raumer, Fabien Geyer, and Georg Carle. 2018. Towards a Deeper Understanding of TCP BBR Congestion Control. In 2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops. 1--9.
[14]
Ranysha Ware, Matthew K. Mukerjee, Srinivasan Seshan, and Justine Sherry. 2019. Beyond Jain's Fairness Index: Setting the Bar For The Deployment of Congestion Control Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets '19). Association for Computing Machinery, 17--24.
[15]
Ranysha Ware, Matthew K Mukerjee, Srinivasan Seshan, and Justine Sherry 2019. Modeling BBR's interactions with loss-based congestion control. In Proceedings of the internet measurement conference. 137--143.
[16]
J. Widmer, R. Denda, and M. Mauve. 2001. A survey on TCP-friendly congestion control. IEEE Network 15, 3 (2001), 28--37.
[17]
Lisong Xu, Sangtae Ha, Injong Rhee, Vidhi Goel, and Lars Eggert. 2021. CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-04. Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-04 Work in Progress.
[18]
Sebastian Zander and Grenville Armitage. 2015. Teacup v1. 0-a system for automated TCP testbed experiments. Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures, Swinburne University of Technology, Tech. Rep. A 140314 (2015), 2014.
Index Terms
- Is it really necessary to go beyond a fairness metric for next-generation congestion control?
Recommendations
On Explicit Congestion Notification for Stream Control Transmission Protocol in Lossy Networks
As a congestion avoidance mechanism, Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is designed to inform a data source to react to potential congestion early. Currently, the new transport protocol, Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), is not ECN-...
ModQUIC protocol performance verification with CUBIC and BBR congestion control mechanisms
ModQUIC protocol is developed to compete for TCP's dominance. In this work, ModQUIC protocol performance is evaluated using the BBR protocol and suggested a new decrease factor (β) for CUBIC protocol. Results show that ModQUIC with BBR outperforms ModQUIC ...
Comparative analysis of TCP congestion control mechanisms
NISS '20: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Networking, Information Systems & SecurityTCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is the most used transport protocol for wired and wireless networks. It provides many services (reliability, end to end delivery ...) to the applications running over the Internet, but to be able to manage traffics ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2022
28 pages
ISBN:9781450394444
DOI:10.1145/3547115
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
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
In-Cooperation
- IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
- Internet Society: Internet Society
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 August 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ANRW '22
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 34 of 58 submissions, 59%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 135Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)49
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 24 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in