Enabling compatibility between TCP Reno and TCP Vegas

Despite research showing the superiority of TCP Vegas over TCP Reno, Reno is still the most widely deployed variant of TCP This predicament is due primarily to the alleged incompatibility of Vegas with Reno. While Vegas in isolation performs better with respect to overall network utilization, stability, fairness, throughput and packet loss, and burstiness; its performance is generally mediocre in any environment where Reno connections exist. Hence, there exists no incentive for any operating system to adopt TCP Vegas. In this paper we show that the accepted (default) configuration of Vegas is indeed incompatible with TCP Reno. However with a careful analysis of how Reno and Vegas use buffer space in routers, Reno and Vegas can be compatible with one another if Vegas is configured properly. Furthermore, we show that overall network performance actually improves with the addition of properly configured Vegas flows competing head-to-head with Reno flows.

[1]  Larry L. Peterson,et al.  TCP Vegas: End to End Congestion Avoidance on a Global Internet , 1995, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[2]  Van Jacobson,et al.  Congestion avoidance and control , 1988, SIGCOMM '88.

[3]  Sally Floyd,et al.  Connections with multiple congested gateways in packet-switched networks part 1: one-way traffic , 1991, CCRV.

[4]  Ian Foster,et al.  The Grid 2 - Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, Second Edition , 1998, The Grid 2, 2nd Edition.

[5]  Ami Marowka,et al.  The GRID: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure , 2000, Parallel Distributed Comput. Pract..

[6]  Allison Mankin,et al.  Random drop congestion control , 1990, SIGCOMM '90.

[7]  Masayuki Murata,et al.  Analysis and improvement of fairness between TCP Reno and Vegas for deployment of TCP Vegas to the Internet , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Network Protocols.

[8]  Masayuki Murata,et al.  Fairness and stability of congestion control mechanisms of TCP , 1998, 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).

[9]  QUTdN QeO,et al.  Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance , 1993, TNET.

[10]  J.-Y. Le Boudec,et al.  A note on the fairness of TCP Vegas , 2000, 2000 International Zurich Seminar on Broadband Communications. Accessing, Transmission, Networking. Proceedings (Cat. No.00TH8475).

[11]  Andras Veres,et al.  The chaotic nature of TCP congestion control , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[12]  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).

[13]  Zhen Liu,et al.  Evaluation of TCP Vegas: emulation and experiment , 1995, SIGCOMM '95.

[14]  Wu-chun Feng,et al.  The Failure of TCP in High-Performance Computational Grids , 2000, ACM/IEEE SC 2000 Conference (SC'00).