Delay-based congestion control: Flow vs. BitTorrent swarm perspectives

BitTorrent, one of the most widespread file-sharing P2P applications, recently introduced LEDBAT, a novel congestion control protocol aiming at (i) limiting the additional delay due to queuing, to reduce interference with the rest of user traffic (e.g., Web, VoIP and gaming) sharing the same access bottleneck, and (ii) efficiently using the available link capacity, to provide users with good BitTorrent performance at the same time. In this work, we adopt two complementary perspectives: namely, a flow viewpoint to assess the Quality of Service (QoS) as in classic congestion control studies, and a BitTorrent swarm viewpoint to assess peer-to-peer users Quality of Experience (QoE). We additionally point out that congestion control literature is rich of protocols, such as VEGAS, LP, and NICE sharing similarities with LEDBAT, that is therefore mandatory to consider in the analysis. Hence, adopting the above viewpoints we both (i) contrast LEDBAT to the other protocols and (ii) provide deep understanding of the novel protocol and its implication on QoS and QoE. Our simulation based investigation yields several insights. At flow-level, we gather LEDBAT to be lowest priority among all protocols, which follows from its design that strives to explicitly bound the queuing delay at the bottleneck link to a maximum target value. At the same time, we see that this very same protocol parameter can be exploited by adversaries, that can set a higher target to gain an unfair advantage over competitors. Interestingly, swarm-level performance exhibit an opposite trade-off, with smaller targets being more advantageous for QoE of BitTorrent users. This can be explained with the fact that larger delay targets slow down BitTorrent signaling task, with possibly negative effect on the swarming protocol efficiency. Additionally, we see that for the above reason, in heterogeneous swarms, any delay-based protocol (i.e., not only LEDBAT but also VEGAS or NICE) can yield a competitive QoE advantage over loss-based TCP. Overall this tension between swarm and flow-levels suggests that, at least in current ADSL/cable access bottleneck scenarios, a safe LEDBAT operational point may be used in practice. At the same time, our results also point out that benefits similar to LEDBAT can also be gathered with other delay-based protocols such as VEGAS or NICE.

[1]  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).

[2]  Arun Venkataramani,et al.  Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation Tcp Nice: a Mechanism for Background Transfers , 2022 .

[3]  Guillaume Urvoy-Keller,et al.  Impact of Inner Parameters and Overlay Structure on the Performance of BitTorrent , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[4]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Experimental Assessment of BitTorrent Completion Time in Heterogeneous TCP/uTP Swarms , 2012, TMA.

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

[6]  Mikel Izal,et al.  Dissecting BitTorrent: Five Months in a Torrent's Lifetime , 2004, PAM.

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

[8]  Venkata N. Padmanabhan,et al.  Analyzing and Improving a BitTorrent Networks Performance Mechanisms , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[9]  Johan A. Pouwelse,et al.  The Bittorrent P2P File-Sharing System: Measurements and Analysis , 2005, IPTPS.

[10]  William Chan,et al.  Improving Traffic Locality in BitTorrent via Biased Neighbor Selection , 2006, 26th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'06).

[11]  Van Jacobson,et al.  BufferBloat: What’s Wrong with the Internet? , 2011, ACM Queue.

[12]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Rethinking the Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT) Protocol , 2013, Comput. Networks.

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

[14]  Raj Jain,et al.  A delay-based approach for congestion avoidance in interconnected heterogeneous computer networks , 1989, CCRV.

[15]  Cacm Staff,et al.  BufferBloat , 2011, Communications of the ACM.

[16]  Dario Rossi,et al.  On the impact of uTP on BitTorrent completion time , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing.

[17]  Walid Dabbous,et al.  Can Realistic BitTorrent Experiments Be Performed on Clusters? , 2010, 2010 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P).

[18]  Di Wu,et al.  Unraveling the BitTorrent Ecosystem , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[19]  Eddie Kohler,et al.  Clustering and sharing incentives in BitTorrent systems , 2006, SIGMETRICS '07.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  Martin May,et al.  Probe and Pray: Using UPnP for Home Network Measurements , 2012, PAM.

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

[24]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Rethinking low extra delay background transport protocols , 2010, ArXiv.

[25]  Sally Floyd,et al.  The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm , 2004, RFC.

[26]  Injong Rhee,et al.  CUBIC: a new TCP-friendly high-speed TCP variant , 2008, OPSR.

[27]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Data plane throughput vs control plane delay: Experimental study of BitTorrent performance , 2013, IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings.

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

[29]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Fighting the bufferbloat: On the coexistence of AQM and low priority congestion control , 2014, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS).

[30]  Mirja Kühlewind,et al.  Evaluation of Different Decrease Schemes for LEDBAT Congestion Control , 2011, EUNICE.

[31]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Modeling the interdependency of low-priority congestion control and active queue management , 2013, Proceedings of the 2013 25th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC).

[32]  Tobias Hoßfeld,et al.  Efficient simulation of large-scale p2p networks: packet-level vs. flow-level simulations , 2007, UPGRADE '07.

[33]  Laurent Massoulié,et al.  ISP Friend or Foe? Making P2P Live Streaming ISP-Aware , 2009, 2009 29th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

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

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

[36]  R. Srikant,et al.  Modeling and performance analysis of BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks , 2004, SIGCOMM '04.

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

[38]  Dario Rossi,et al.  To the Moon and back: Are Internet bufferbloat delays really that large? , 2013, 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[39]  Sally Floyd,et al.  The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm , 2004, RFC.