LEDBAT-MP -- On the Application of "Lower-than-Best-Effort" for Concurrent Multipath Transfer

The Internet is based on best effort communication, i.e. It tries to deliver packets but does not provide any guarantees. A transport protocol can make use of this best effort service to provide a suitable service to its applications. Also, its congestion control is responsible for a fair distribution of the resources within the Internet. However, background data transfer applications (like file sharing or update fetching) do not require "best effort", they in fact could use a "lower-than-best-effort" service to leave resources to more important applications if needed. For this purpose, the Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT) algorithm has been standardized by the IETF. Nowadays, multi-homing is becoming increasingly common in modern networks and several approaches to exploit this feature (e.g. CMT-SCTP, MPTCP) have evolved that are able to combine resources of multiple paths. For background traffic oriented algorithms like LEDBAT, this feature could be of great use, too, i.e. By increasing the overall bandwidth while shifting the transmission away from paths which are used by other flows. This could be particularly useful for non-critical bulk transfers in data centres. In this paper, we introduce our approach LEDBAT for Multi-Path - denoted as LEDBAT-MP - and analyze its performance by simulations. With this paper, we want to highlight some generic design questions and start a discussion on how a solid universal background multi-path congestion control strategy should behave.

[1]  Lixia Zhang,et al.  Stream Control Transmission Protocol , 2000, RFC.

[2]  Mark Handley,et al.  The resource pooling principle , 2008, CCRV.

[3]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  Simulation and Experimental Evaluation of Multipath Congestion Control Strategies , 2012, 2012 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops.

[4]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  On the impact of congestion control for Concurrent Multipath Transfer on the transport layer , 2011, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Telecommunications.

[5]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  On the Use of Concurrent Multipath Transfer over Asymmetric Paths , 2010, 2010 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2010.

[6]  Janardhan R. Iyengar,et al.  Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT) , 2012, RFC.

[7]  Yu Cao,et al.  Delay-based congestion control for multipath TCP , 2012, 2012 20th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP).

[8]  Michael Welzl,et al.  Assessing LEDBAT's Delay Impact , 2013, IEEE Communications Letters.

[9]  E.W. Knightly,et al.  TCP-LP: low-priority service via end-point congestion control , 2006, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[10]  Qian Zhang,et al.  A Compound TCP Approach for High-Speed and Long Distance Networks , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[11]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  Design and Implementation of the NORNET CORE Research Testbed for Multi-homed Systems , 2013, 2013 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops.

[12]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  On the fairness of transport protocols in a multi-path environment , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[13]  Yi-Cheng Chan,et al.  CODE TCP: A competitive delay-based TCP , 2010, Comput. Commun..

[14]  Mark Handley,et al.  Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development , 2011, RFC.

[15]  R. Srikant,et al.  TCP-Illinois: A loss- and delay-based congestion control algorithm for high-speed networks , 2008, Perform. Evaluation.

[16]  Erwin P. Rathgeb,et al.  Improving the Acknowledgment Handling of SCTP , 2010, 2010 Fourth International Conference on Digital Society.

[17]  Mark Handley,et al.  Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols , 2011, RFC.

[18]  Jon Postel,et al.  Transmission Control Protocol , 1981, RFC.

[19]  Michael Welzl,et al.  Less-than-Best-Effort Service: A Survey of End-to-End Approaches , 2013, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[20]  Thomas Dreibholz Evaluation and Optimisation of Multi-Path Transport using the Stream Control Transmission Protocol , 2012 .

[21]  M. Dahlin,et al.  TCP Nice: a mechanism for background transfers , 2002, OSDI '02.

[22]  Miroslav Popovic,et al.  MPTCP Is Not Pareto-Optimal: Performance Issues and a Possible Solution , 2013, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[23]  Larry Peterson,et al.  TCP Vegas: new techniques for congestion detection and avoidance , 1994, SIGCOMM 1994.

[24]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  Applying TCP-Friendly Congestion Control to Concurrent Multipath Transfer , 2010, 2010 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications.

[25]  Janardhan R. Iyengar,et al.  Non-Renegable Selective Acknowledgments (NR-SACKs) for SCTP , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.

[26]  Özgü Alay,et al.  Measuring the QoS Characteristics of Operational 3G Mobile Broadband Networks , 2014, 2014 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops.

[27]  C. Raiciu,et al.  Practical Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Prot ocols , 2009 .

[28]  Jon Postel,et al.  DOD standard transmission control protocol , 1980, CCRV.

[29]  Janardhan R. Iyengar,et al.  Concurrent Multipath Transfer Using SCTP Multihoming Over Independent End-to-End Paths , 2006, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[30]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  NorNet Core - A multi-homed research testbed , 2014, Comput. Networks.

[31]  Thomas Dreibholz,et al.  Evaluation of Concurrent Multipath Transfer over Dissimilar Paths , 2011, 2011 IEEE Workshops of International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications.

[32]  Cheng Jin,et al.  FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, and Performance , 2004, INFOCOM.