Feedback-Based Path Failure Detection and Buffer Blocking Protection for MPTCP

A multipath TCP (MPTCP) is a promising protocol that has been standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force to support multipath operations in the transport layer. However, although the MPTCP can provide multiple transmission paths and aggregate the bandwidth of multiple paths, it does not consistently achieve more throughput (goodput) nor a greater connection resilience. Currently, the MPTCP is vulnerable to path failure or underperforming subflows, which cause transmission interruption or throughput (goodput) degradation. Unfortunately, there is no exact rule for declaring a path failure or preventing the usage of underperforming subflows in the MPTCP. In this paper, we propose a novel path failure detection method referred to as feedback-based path failure (FPF) detection. In addition, we propose a new decision method called buffer blocking protection (BBP) to address the underperforming subflows for the MPTCP. Measurement results indicate that the FPF detection reduces transmission interruption time by the fast path failure decision, which can prevent duplicate transmission interruption events and unnecessary retransmissions. Furthermore, the FPF detection is sufficiently robust in terms of packet loss and the delay difference between paths. The results additionally show that the BBP method prevents goodput degradation due to underperforming subflows. Consequently, the MPTCP with the BBP method can at least achieve the throughput performance of a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which uses the best path regardless of the delay difference between paths.

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

[2]  Özgü Alay,et al.  Multi-path transport over heterogeneous wireless networks: Does it really pay off? , 2014, 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference.

[3]  Wei Song,et al.  Goodput improvement for multipath TCP by congestion window adaptation in multi-radio devices , 2013, 2013 IEEE 10th Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC).

[4]  Nick McKeown,et al.  A network in a laptop: rapid prototyping for software-defined networks , 2010, Hotnets-IX.

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

[6]  Robert T. Braden,et al.  Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers , 1989, RFC.

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

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

[9]  Mark Handley,et al.  How Hard Can It Be? Designing and Implementing a Deployable Multipath TCP , 2012, NSDI.

[10]  Paul D. Amer,et al.  Concurrent Multipath Transfer during path failure , 2009, Comput. Commun..

[11]  Olivier Bonaventure,et al.  On the benefits of applying experimental design to improve multipath TCP , 2013, CoNEXT.

[12]  Olivier Bonaventure,et al.  MultiPath TCP: From Theory to Practice , 2011, Networking.

[13]  Choong Seon Hong,et al.  A Multipath Cubic TCP Congestion Control with Multipath Fast Recovery over High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks , 2012, IEICE Trans. Commun..

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

[15]  Damon Wischik,et al.  RFC 6356, Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols , 2011 .

[16]  Mark Handley,et al.  TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses , 2020, RFC.

[17]  Yong Cui,et al.  Network coding based multipath TCP , 2012, 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops.