Mobile Networks: TCP in Wireless Networks

Wireless and Mobile Systems Design
Lecture 11
Mobile Networks:
TCP in Wireless Networks
Lecture Objectives
Describe TCPs flow control mechanism
Describe operation of TCP Reno and TCP Vegas,
including congestion avoidance (congestion control),

slow start, and fast retransmission and recovery
mechanisms
Describe performance problems of TCP in wireless
networks
Summarize proposed schemes to overcome
performance limitations of TCP in wireless networks
Mobile Networks: TCP in Wireless Networks
Agenda
TCP overview
Flow control
Congestion avoidance, slow start, and
retransmission
TCP Reno and TCP Vegas
TCP in wireless networks
Solutions to TCP performance problems in wireless
networks
TCP Flow Control

TCP inherently supports flow control to prevent
buffer overflow at the receiver

Useful for fast sender transmitting to slower receiver
Receiver advertises a window (wnd) in
acknowledgements returned to the sender

Sender cannot send more than wnd unacknowledged
bytes to the receiver
Src
Dest
Limits amount of
data that destination
must buffer
TCP Flow Control Example

Sender
wnd = 1200
Receiver
500 bytes
500 bytes
wnd = 200
200 bytes
wnd = 500
500 bytes
Flow Control Can Limit Throughput (1)

Let rtt be the round-trip time, i.e., the time from
sending a segment until an acknowledgement (ACK)

is received
Let t = wnd/b be the time to transmit a full window
of data, where b is link bandwidth
Sender
t
rtt
Receiver
wnd
bytes
Flow Control Can Limit Throughput (2)

For a link with a high delay-bandwidth product
(rttb), the flow control window can limit throughput

for the connection
In this case, t rtt
Throughput is wnd/rtt
Sender
t
rtt
Receiver
wnd
bytes
TCP Congestion Avoidance

Congestion avoidance (control) was added to TCP in
an attempt to reduce congestion inside the network

A much harder problem
Requires the cooperation of multiple senders
Must rely on indirect measures of congestion
Implemented at sender
Src
Dest
Attempts to reduce
buffer overflow inside
the network
Recent History of TCP

TCP has been improved over the years
More robust estimates of round-trip time
Faster recovery from packet loss
Congestion avoidance and improvements
TCP Reno
Developed by Van Jacobsen in 1990
Improvement to TCP Tahoe (1988)
Added fast recovery and fast retransmit
TCP Vegas
Developed by Brakmo and Peterson in 1995
New congestion avoidance algorithm
TCP Operation
Flow control (already discussed)
Congestion avoidance
Introduce a congestion window (cwnd), in addition to flow
control window (wnd)
Need to manage size of congestion window
Slow start
Aggressively grow congestion window until congestion is
detected
In Reno, aggressively reduce rate when invoked
Loss detection and retransmission
Fast retransmission and recovery
Less severe adjustment congestion window size
10
Congestion Avoidance: TCP Reno (1)

TCP can maintain a congestion window size, cwnd, at
the sender
Sender can transmit up to minimum of cwnd and wnd bytes
TCP Reno uses packet loss as an indicator of
network congestion
Most packet loss occurs due to congestion at intermediate
routers since IP has no congestion control mechanism

Packet losses due to bit errors are rare
TCP Reno is reactive with respect to congestion

Responds to loss of packets indicated by timeout or
duplicate ACKs
11
Congestion Avoidance: TCP Reno (2)

When packet loss occurs, congestion window size is
reduced
Due to timeout: cwnd = 1 and enter slow start

Due to duplicate ACKs: cwnd = cwnd/2 + 3segment_size
Congestion window size is increased when data is
successfully acknowledged
Slow start
Slow start active if cwnd ssthresh (threshold)
During slow start, congestion window increased by
segment_size for every ACK received opens the

window exponentially
Congestion avoidance
cwnd = cwnd + (1/cwnd) + segment_size/8 for every ACK
received additive growth in window size (about one
segment every round trip time)
12
Congestion Window in TCP Reno
G. Xylomenos, G. C. Polyzos, P. Mahonen, and M. Saaranen, TCP Performance Issues over Wireless Links,
IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 52-58, April 2001.
13
Congestion Avoidance: TCP Vegas (1)

Sets congestion window size based on difference
between the expected and actual data rates

Goal is to control the number of outstanding bytes in queues
in the network (i.e., the backlog in queue)
Define
cwnd:
rtt*:
rtt:
diff:
:
:
Current congestion window size

Minimum (congestion-free) round-trip time
Actual (with congestion) round-trip time
Estimated backlog in queue
low threshold for diff (want diff > )
high threshold for diff (want diff < )
diff = (cwnd/rtt* cwnd/rtt) rtt*
14

Estimated backlog in queue (repeated here)
diff = (cwnd/rtt* cwnd/rtt) rtt*
TCP Vegas attempts to keep at least bytes, but
fewer than bytes, in queue

If diff < , increase cwnd by 1
If diff > , decrease cwnd by 1
Otherwise ( diff ), cwnd is not changed
TCP Vegas provides a proactive response to
congestion
Congestion window changed gradually as observed backlog
(delay) changes
15

Throughput
Expected
Throughput
/rtt
C
Linearly
Increasing
cwnd+
cwnd
cwnd+
/rtt
Actual
Throughput
Linearly
Decreasing
Window Size
16
Slow Start Mechanism

The goal of the slow start mechanism is to detect and
avoid congestion as a connection begins or after a

timeout
Slow start threshold (sshtresh) set to half of cwnd when
congestion is detected
Slow start is active if cwnd ssthresh
Initially, cwnd = 1 segment
TCP Reno doubles the congestion window every
round-trip time if no loss occurs

TCP Vegas doubles the congestion window every
other round-trip time if no loss occurs
17
Loss Detection: TCP Reno

Coarse-grain timeout indicates packet loss
Sender starts a timer when TCP segment is sent
Timeout occurs if ACK not received before timeout
Retransmission occurs
Slow start is invoked (big reduction in rate!)
Three duplicate ACKs indicate packet loss
Receiver required to send an ACK if it receives an out of
order segment a segment may be out of order or lost
Sender assumes loss when it receives three duplicate ACKs
Fast retransmission and recovery mechanism retransmit
the requested segment (which is presumed lost after three
duplicate ACKs) without waiting for a timeout
Congestion avoidance (smaller reduction in rate)
18
Loss Detection: TCP Vegas

Coarse-grain timeout mechanism
Same as for TCP Reno
Fine-grain timeout mechanism
If a duplicate ACK is received and the round-trip time of the
first unacknowledged segment exceeds the fine-grain
timeout value, then segment loss is assumed and requested
segment is retransmitted
If a non-duplicate ACK is received after a retransmission and
the round-trip time of the segment exceeds the fine-grain
timeout value, then segment loss is assumed and
retransmission occurs
19
TCP Reno Behavior

cwnd
Timeout
SS
cwnd cwnd/2 + 3
cwnd 1
SS
CA
Duplicate ACK
CA
SS
CA
CA
time
SS: Slow start

CA: Collision avoidance
20
TCP Vegas Behavior

cwnd
SS
CA
time
Converges more smoothly assuming sufficiently
large buffers
21
TCP Reno Pros and Cons (1)

TCP Reno benefits
Simple bandwidth estimation scheme
Aggressive congestion avoidance mechanism ensures
bandwidth when connected to TCP Vegas connections
More widely deployed, probably due to its maturity and
aggressiveness
TCP Reno problems
Constantly updates window size
Can lead to periodic oscillation in window size
Can lead to oscillation in round trip times, causing delay
jitter and inefficient bandwidth utilization
Can have many retransmissions of the same packets
after a packet is dropped
22
TCP Reno Pros and Cons (2)

TCP Reno problems (continued)
Connections with shorter round trip times can update
congestion window sizes more quickly
Such connections can received an unfair share of
network capacity
TCP Reno is biased against connections with longer
delays
23
TCP Vegas Pros and Cons

TCP Vegas benefits
Fair bandwidth estimation scheme
Window update rate does not depend only on round-trip
time as in TCP Reno
Smooth sending rate and efficient link utilization when
queue sizes are large (window stabilizes between and )
TCP Vegas detects losses faster than TCP Reno and can
recover from multiple drops more efficiently
TCP Vegas problems
Cannot compete with more aggressive TCP Reno
connections
Vegas may not stabilize if buffers are small, leading to
behavior that is similar to that of TCP Reno
24
TCP Reno versus TCP Vegas

TCP Vegas generally outperforms TCP Reno in a
homogeneous environment
TCP Vegas achieves between 40% and 70% better
throughput
TCP Vegas has 20% to 50% of the losses compared to the
TCP Reno
Factors
Slow-start and congestion avoidance have the greatest
influence on throughput
Congestion detection mechanism during congestion
avoidance has only minor or negative effect on throughput
Congestion detection mechanism may exhibit problems
related to fairness among competing connections
25
Agenda
TCP overview
Flow control
Congestion avoidance, slow start, and retransmission

Solutions to TCP performance problems in wireless
networks
26
TCP Problems with Wireless

Packet loss in wireless networks typically due to
Bit errors due to wireless channel impairments
Handoffs due to mobility
Possibly congestion, but not often
As weve seen, TCP assumes packet loss is due to
Congestion in the network
Packet reordering, but not often
In a wireless network, TCP congestion avoidance can
be triggered by packet loss

TCPs mechanisms do not respond well to packet loss due
to bit errors or handoffs

Performance of TCP-based applications can suffer
27
More TCP Problems with Wireless

Bursts of errors may occur due to low signal strength
or longer period of noise

More than one packet lost in TCP
More likely to be detected as a timeout enter slow start!
Delay is often very high

Round-trip time can be very long and variable
TCPs timeout mechanisms may not work well
Problem exacerbated by link-level retransmission
Links may be asymmetric
Delayed ACKs in the slow direction can limit throughput in
the fast direction
28
Week 13 In-Class Laboratory

Experiments to consider
Influence of bit errors in the wireless channel on TCP
performance
TCP Reno versus TCP Vegas in this environment
Interactions are relatively complex
Typical studies use simulation, which provides a very
controlled environment
Were being a bit bold in trying to do experimental
measurements
There is no at-home exercise for this week
You will be responsible for findings and observations on the
final exam
29
Agenda
TCP overview
Flow control
Congestion avoidance, slow start, and retransmission
Solutions to TCP performance problems in
wireless networks
30
General Solution Approaches

Link-layer approaches
Split-connection approaches
End-to-end approaches
31
Link-Layer Protocols (1)

Hide losses not due to congestion from the sender
by making link appear to be more reliable

Link-level automatic retransmission request (ARQ)
Forward error correction (FEC) codes
Hybrid ARQ and FEC
Advantages
Requires no change to existing sender behavior
Matches layered protocol model
Problem
Interactions with TCP, e.g., fast retransmission by TCP can
be triggered by delays due to link-level timeout and
retransmission
32
Link-Layer Protocols (2)

Negative interactions with TCP can be reduced by
making the link-level protocol TCP-aware

Example: Snoop TCP
Advantages
Attempts to retransmit locally and suppress duplicate
acknowledgements
State is soft, so handoff is simplified
Disadvantage
May not completely shield TCP from the effects of
mobility and the wireless link
33
Split-Connection Protocols (1)

Hide the wireless link entirely by terminating the TCP
connection prior to the wireless link

At the base station or access point
Use a special protocol or regular TCP over the
wireless link
Example: Indirect TCP
Problems
Extra protocol overhead
Violates end-to-end semantics of TCP
Complicates handoff due to state information at the access
point or base station where the protocol is split
34
Split-Connection Protocols (2)
Logical TCP Connection

Host
Host
TCP
AP
TCP*
Split
Connection
35
End-to-End Protocols (1)

Make TCP sender aware that some losses are not due
to congestion and, thus, avoid congestion control

when not needed
Use selective acknowledgement (SACKs) for finegrained error recovery
SACK RFC
SMART
Use explicit loss notification (ELN) to distinguish
between congestion and other losses
36
End-to-End Protocols (2)

Advantages
Maintains end-to-end semantics of TCP
Introduces no extra overhead at base stations for protocol
processing or handoff
Disadvantages
Requires modified TCP
May not operate efficiently, e.g., for packet reordering versus
packet loss
37
Indirect TCP: Overview

Standard TCP
Fixed
Host
Wired
Network
Mobile
Host
TCP
Proxy
Standard
TCP
Wireless
TCP*
Indirect TCP
(* Normal TCP or modified transport protocol)
38
Indirect TCP: Handoff

An access point or router can act as a Mobile IP
foreign agent and as the TCP proxy for Indirect TCP

(I-TCP)
If the mobile host moves to a different foreign agent,
a handoff is needed for Mobile IP
If the mobile host moves to a different proxy, a
handoff of the full TCP state is needed for I-TCP
Buffered data
Sequence numbers
Port
39
Indirect TCP: Advantages

Does not require changes to TCP at the hosts in the
fixed network
Errors from the wireless link are corrected at the TCP
proxy and, thus, do not propagate through the fixed
network
New protocol affects only a limited part of the
Internet
Optimizations possible over wireless link
Variance in delay between proxy and mobile host may be
small, permitting optimized TCP

Opportunity for header compression, etc.
Opportunity for a different transport protocol
40
Indirect TCP: Disadvantages

Loss of TCPs end-to-end semantics
What happens if the proxy or the mobile host fails?
Handoff overhead can be significant
Overhead at the proxy for per packet processing (up
to TCP and back down)

Can be reduced by good design
TCP proxy must be trusted

Obvious opportunities for snooping and denial of service
End-to-end IP-level privacy and authentication (e.g., using
IPSec) must terminate at the proxy
41
Indirect TCP: Wireless Transport

I-TCP as originally proposed uses TCP as the
wireless transport protocol

Timeouts at the wireless sender may stall the original sender
on the fixed network
Selective acknowledgement protocols have been
shown to provide better performance

Better suited to wireless link with higher error rate
42
Snoop TCP: Overview

Provide reliable link layer that is TCP aware
Snoop agent at the access point or foreign agent
Buffers data at the ends of the links for retransmissions
(instead of going back to TCP end points)
Snoops on acknowledgements and filters duplicate
acknowledgements
Standard TCP
Fixed
Host
Wired
Network
Snoop
Agent
Mobile
Host
43
Snoop TCP: Operation (1)

Snoop agent monitors and buffers data sent from
fixed network to mobile host

Snoop agent monitors ACKs from the mobile host
Can discard buffer data when acknowledged
Can retransmit data when
Delayed ACK, or
Duplicate ACK
Timeout can be relatively short leading to a fast
retransmission
Snoop Agent discards duplicate ACKs from mobile
host
44
Snoop TCP: Operation (2)

Snoop agent discards duplicate data that has already
been sent by the agent and acknowledged

Snoop agent cannot generate ACKs that are sent
back to the fixed host
Unlike split-connection schemes, Snoop TCP preserves end-
to-end TCP semantics
45
Snoop TCP: Reverse Direction

Snoop monitors traffic from mobile host back to
fixed host and detects missing segments

A negative ACK (NACK) is sent immediately to the
mobile host
Mobile host can retransmit missing segment,
hopefully in time to avoid a TCP timeout at the fixed
host
46
Snoop TCP: Advantages

Preserves end-to-end TCP semantics
Requires no changes in TCP for fixed hosts
No changes in TCP are possible for the mobile hosts,
but reverse direction traffic can benefit from changes

at mobile host
There is no need for handoff
Automatic fallback to standard TCP
No need to ensure that all foreign networks provide a Snoop
agent
47
Snoop TCP: Disadvantages

Does not fully isolate wireless link errors from the
fixed network
Mobile host must be modified to handle NACKs for
reverse (mobile to fixed) traffic
Cannot snoop encrypted datagrams
Cannot use with privacy
Retransmission of data from agent not authenticated
due to protection from replay attacks

Cannot use with authentication
48
Summary
TCP is a complex protocol
Minimal support from underlying protocols
Indirect observation of network environment
Large number of competing flows from different hosts
Congestion avoidance is still a research issue
TCP does not perform well in a wireless environment
where packets are usually lost due to bit errors, not

congestion
Schemes have been proposed to address TCP
performance problems
Link-level recovery
Split protocols
End-to-end protocols
49

Mobile Networks: TCP in Wireless Networks

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Mobile Networks: TCP in Wireless Networks

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wireless and Mobile Systems Design

including congestion avoidance (congestion control),