Edge-to-edge proactive congestion control for aggregated traffic

We present Ping Trunking, a novel edge-to-edge management technique that can provide soft service guarantees to aggregate traffic streams without requiring any special support at the core of the network. Our proposal is designed to work over aggregated flows that bundle a varying number of user flows for common treatment between two nodes in a network. To regulate the user data transmission rate, a Vegas-like management connection is established between the two edges of each aggregate. This control connection injects control packets into the network to probe its congestion level. Thanks to this managing, Ping Trunking is able to fairly share the network bandwidth among competing aggregates in accordance with their subscribed target rates. In addition, it does not cause undesired sharp variations in the transmission rates of handled aggregates and avoids packet losses at the core nodes. We demonstrate analytically and through simulation experiments the effectiveness of our technique.

[1]  Ketan Mayer-Patel,et al.  Aggregate congestion control for distributed multimedia applications , 2004, IEEE INFOCOM 2004.

[2]  V. Jacobson,et al.  Congestion avoidance and control , 1988, CCRV.

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

[4]  Fernando Paganini,et al.  Dynamics of TCP/RED and a scalable control , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[5]  Matthew Mathis,et al.  The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm , 1997, CCRV.

[6]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  An integrated congestion management architecture for Internet hosts , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[7]  T. V. Lakshman,et al.  SRED: stabilized RED , 1999, IEEE INFOCOM '99. Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings. Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. The Future is Now (Cat. No.99CH36320).

[8]  David L. Black,et al.  An Architecture for Differentiated Service , 1998 .

[9]  Tzi-cker Chiueh,et al.  Aggregate TCP congestion control using multiple network probing , 2000, Proceedings 20th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[10]  David Harrison,et al.  An accumulation-based congestion control model , 2003, IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2003. ICC '03..

[11]  Van Jacobson,et al.  Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance , 1993, TNET.

[12]  Mahesh K. Marina,et al.  Performance of route caching strategies in Dynamic Source Routing , 2001, Proceedings 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops.

[13]  Andrés Suárez-González,et al.  Ping Trunking: A Vegas-Like Congestion Control Mechanism for Aggregated Traffic , 2004, QofIS.

[14]  Konstantinos Psounis,et al.  CHOKe - a stateless active queue management scheme for approximating fair bandwidth allocation , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[15]  Alan Chapman.  Traffic Management for Aggregate IP Streams , 1999 .

[16]  Jean C. Walrand,et al.  Analysis and comparison of TCP Reno and Vegas , 1999, IEEE INFOCOM '99. Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings. Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. The Future is Now (Cat. No.99CH36320).

[17]  Song Chong,et al.  Stabilized Edge-to-Edge Aggregate Flow Control , 2004, NETWORKING.

[18]  Eric C. Rosen,et al.  Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture , 2001, RFC.

[19]  David D. Clark,et al.  Explicit allocation of best-effort packet delivery service , 1998, TNET.

[20]  Sally Floyd,et al.  Simulation-based comparisons of Tahoe, Reno and SACK TCP , 1996, CCRV.

[21]  Robert Tappan Morris,et al.  Dynamics of random early detection , 1997, SIGCOMM '97.

[22]  Fouad A. Tobagi,et al.  Improving the performance of interactive TCP applications using service differentiation , 2002, Comput. Networks.

[23]  S. Low,et al.  Understanding Vegas: a duality model , 2002 .

[24]  Thomas Bonald,et al.  Comparison of TCP Reno and TCP Vegas via Fluid Approximation , 1999 .