Fighting the bufferbloat: On the coexistence of AQM and low priority congestion control

Nowadays, due to excessive queuing, delays on the Internet can grow longer than several round trips between the Moon and the Earth - for which the “bufferbloat” term was recently coined. Some point to active queue management (AQM) as the solution. Others propose end-to-end low-priority congestion control techniques (LPCC). Under both approaches, promising advances have been made in recent times: notable examples are CoDel for AQM, and LEDBAT for LPCC. In this paper, we warn of a potentially fateful interaction when AQM and LPCC techniques are combined: namely (i) AQM resets the relative level of priority between best effort and low-priority congestion control protocols; (ii) while reprioritization generally equalizes the priority of LPCC and TCP, we also find that some AQM settings may actually lead best effort TCP to starvation. By an extended set of experiments conducted on both controlled testbeds and on the Internet, we show the problem to hold in the real world for all tested combination of AQM policies and LPCC protocols. To further validate the generality of our findings, we complement our experiments with packet-level simulation, to cover cases of other popular AQM and LPCC that are not available in the Linux kernel. To promote cross-comparison, we make our scripts and dataset available to the research community.

[1]  Aleksandar Kuzmanovic,et al.  TCP-LP: a distributed algorithm for low priority data transfer , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[2]  Christophe Diot,et al.  Reasons not to deploy RED , 1999, 1999 Seventh International Workshop on Quality of Service. IWQoS'99. (Cat. No.98EX354).

[3]  Dario Rossi,et al.  A hands-on assessment of transport protocols with lower than best effort priority , 2010, IEEE Local Computer Network Conference.

[4]  Boris Nechaev,et al.  Netalyzr: illuminating the edge network , 2010, IMC '10.

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

[6]  Rolf Winter,et al.  Out of my way - evaluating Low Extra Delay Background Transport in an ADSL access network , 2010, 2010 22nd International Teletraffic Congress (lTC 22).

[7]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Yes, We LEDBAT: Playing with the New BitTorrent Congestion Control Algorithm , 2010, PAM.

[8]  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).

[9]  David Ott,et al.  Tuning RED for Web traffic , 2001, TNET.

[10]  Paul E. McKenney,et al.  Stochastic fairness queueing , 1990, Proceedings. IEEE INFOCOM '90: Ninth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies@m_The Multiple Facets of Integration.

[11]  Dario Rossi,et al.  The Quest for LEDBAT Fairness , 2010, 2010 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2010.

[12]  Dario Rossi,et al.  LEDBAT: The New BitTorrent Congestion Control Protocol , 2010, 2010 Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks.

[13]  Van Jacobson,et al.  Controlling Queue Delay , 2012, ACM Queue.

[14]  George Varghese,et al.  Efficient fair queueing using deficit round-robin , 1996, TNET.

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