Advertisement

Journal of Network and Systems Management

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 486–517 | Cite as

A Lightweight Fairness-Driven AQM for Regulating Bandwidth Utilization in Best-Effort Routers

  • Zawar HussainEmail author
  • Ghulam Abbas
  • Zahid Halim
Article

Abstract

The end-to-end congestion control mechanism of transmission control protocol (TCP) is critical to the robustness and fairness of the best-effort Internet. Since it is no longer practical to rely on end-systems to cooperatively deploy congestion control mechanisms, the network itself must now participate in regulating its own resource utilization. To that end, fairness-driven active queue management (AQM) is promising in sharing the scarce bandwidth among competing flows in a fair manner. However, most of the existing fairness-driven AQM schemes cannot provide efficient and fair bandwidth allocation while being scalable. This paper presents a novel fairness-driven AQM scheme, called CHORD (CHOKe with recent drop history) that seeks to maximize fair bandwidth sharing among aggregate flows while retaining the scalability in terms of the minimum possible state space and per-packet processing costs. Fairness is enforced by identifying and restricting high-bandwidth unresponsive flows at the time of congestion with a lightweight control function. The identification mechanism consists of a fixed-size cache to capture the history of recent drops with a state space equal to the size of the cache. The restriction mechanism is stateless with two matching trial phases and an adaptive drawing factor to take a strong punitive measure against the identified high-bandwidth unresponsive flows in proportion to the average buffer occupancy. Comprehensive performance evaluation indicates that among other well-known AQM schemes of comparable complexities, CHORD provides enhanced TCP goodput and intra-protocol fairness and is well-suited for fair bandwidth allocation to aggregate traffic across a wide range of packet and buffer sizes at a bottleneck router.

Keywords

Active queue management Congestion control Fair bandwidth allocation Unresponsive flows 

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, R.: Active queue management: a survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15(3), 1425–1476 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kushwaha, V., Gupta, R.: Congestion control for high-speed wired network: a systematic literature review. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 45, 62–78 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, F., Fairhurst, G.: IETF recommendations regarding active queue management. IETF RFC 7567, BCP 197. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7567.txt (2015). Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  4. 4.
    Floyd, S.: Congestion control principles. IETF RFC 2914, BCP 41. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2914.html (2000). Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  5. 5.
    Papadimitriou, D. Welzl, M., Scharf, M., Briscoe B.: Open research issues in Internet congestion control. IETF RFC 6077. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6077.txt (2011). Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  6. 6.
    Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering, S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G., Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J., Zhang, L.: Recommendations on queue management and congestion avoidance in the Internet. IETF RFC 2309. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2309.txt (1998). Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  7. 7.
    Abbas, G., Halim, Z., Abbas, Z.H.: Fairness-driven queue management: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 18(1), 324–367 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Floyd, S., Fall, K.: Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 7(4), 458–472 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohler, E., Handley, M., Floyd S.: Datagram congestion control protocol (DCCP). IETF RFC 4340. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4340.txt (2006). Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  10. 10.
    Anjum, F. M., Tassiulas, L.: Fair bandwidth sharing among adaptive and non-adaptive flows in the Internet. In: Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, 21–25 March, New York, USA, pp. 1412–1420 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nossenson, R., Maryuma, H.: Active queue management in blind access networks. In: Third International Conference on Access Networks, 24–29 June, Venice, Italy, pp. 27–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latré, S., Meerssche, W., Deschrijver, D., Papadimitriou, D., Dhaene, T., Turck, F.: A cognitive accountability mechanism for penalizing misbehaving ECN-based TCP stacks. Int. J. Netw. Manag. 23(1), 16–40 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hwang, J., Byun, S.-S.: A resilient buffer allocation scheme in active queue management: a stochastic cooperative game theoretic approach. Int. J. Commun Syst. 28(6), 1080–1099 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yi, S., Deng, X., Kesidis, G., Das, C.R.: A dynamic quarantine scheme for controlling unresponsive TCP sessions. Telecommun. Syst. 37, 169–189 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanlin, S., Yuehui, J., Yidong, C., Hongbo, W., Shiduan C.: Improving fairness of RED aided by lightweight flow information. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Broadband Network & Multimedia Technology, 18–20 October, Beijing, China, pp. 335–339 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abbas, G., Nagar, A. K., Tawfik, H., Goulermas J. Y.: Pricing and unresponsive flows purging for global rate enhancement. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. Article ID 379652, 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alvarez-Flores, E.P., Ramos-Munoz, J.J., Ameigeiras, P., Lopez-Soler, J.M.: Selective packet dropping for VoIP and TCP flows. Telecommun. Syst. 46(1), 1–16 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xue, L., Kumar, S., Cui, C., Kondikoppa, P., Chiu, C.-H., Park, S.-J.: Towards fair and low latency next generation high speed networks: AFCD queuing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 70, 183–193 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsavlidis, L., Efraimidis, P.S., Koutsiamanis, R.-A.: Prince: an effective router mechanism for networks with selfish flows. J. Internet Eng. 6(1), 355–362 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menth, M., Zeitler, N.: Activity-based congestion management for fair bandwidth sharing in trusted packet networks. In: 2016 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, 25–26 April, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 231–239 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pan, R., Prabhakar, B., Psounis, K.: CHOKe—a stateless active queue management scheme for approximating fair bandwidth allocation. In: Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, 26–30 March, Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 942–951 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiang, Y., Hamdi, M., Liu, J.: Self adjustable CHOKe: an active queue management algorithm for congestion control and fair bandwidth allocation. In: Eight IEEE International Symposium on Computers and Communication, 30 June–3 July, Kemer–Antalya, Turkey, pp. 1018–1025 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamaguchi, Y., Takahashi, Y.: A queue management algorithm for fair bandwidth allocation. Comput. Commun. 30(9), 2048–2059 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kesselman, A., Leonardi, S.: Game-theoretic analysis of Internet switching with selfish users. Theor. Comput. Sci. 452, 107–116 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lu, L., Du, H., Liu, R.P.: CHOKeR: a novel AQM algorithm with proportional bandwidth allocation and TCP protection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 10(1), 637–644 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manzoor, S., Abbas, G., Hussain, M.: CHOKeD: fair active queue management. In: 15th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, 26–28 October, Liverpool, UK, pp. 512–516 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raza, U., Abbas, G., Hussain, Z.: CHOKe-FS: CHOKe with fair bandwidth share. In: 2015 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies, 12–13 December, Karachi, Pakistan, pp. 1–5 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussain, Z., Abbas, G., Raza, U.: CHOKe with recent drop history. In: Proceedings of 13th IEEE International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology, 14–16 December, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp. 160–165 (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang, X., Jin, G., Yang, J.: LRURC: A low complexity and approximate fair active queue management algorithm for choking non-adaptive flows. IEEE Commun. Lett. 19(4), 545–548 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Floyd, S., Jacobson, V.: Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1(4), 397–413 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abbas, G., Nagar, A.K., Tawfik, H.: On unified quality of service resource allocation scheme with fair and scalable traffic management for multiclass Internet services. IET Commun. 5(16), 2371–2385 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feknous, M., Houdoin, T., Le Guyader, B., De Biasio, J., Gravey, A., Gijón, J.A.T.: Internet traffic analysis: a case study from two major European operators. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, 23–26 June, Portugal, pp. 1–7 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jain, R.: The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis. Wiley, Hoboken (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andrew, L., Marcondes, C., Floyd, S., Dunn, L., Guillier, R., Gang, W., Eggert, L., Ha, S., Rhee, I.: Towards a common TCP evaluation suite. In: Sixth International Workshop on Protocols for FAST Long-Distance Networks, 5–7 March, Manchester, UK, pp. 1–5 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gastwirth, J.L.: The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev. Econ. Stat. 54(3), 306–316 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Villamizar, C., Song, C.: High performance TCP in ANSNET. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 24(5), 45–60 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vishwanath, A., Sivaraman, V., Rouskas G. N.: Considerations for sizing buffers in optical packet switched networks. In: 28th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 19–25 April, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 1323–1331 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beheshti, N., Burmeister, E., Ganjali, Y., Bowers, J.E., Blumenthal, D.J., McKeown, N.: Optical packet buffers for backbone Internet routers. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 18(5), 1599–1609 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gharakheili, H.H., Vishwanath, A., Sivaraman, V.: Comparing edge and host traffic pacing in small buffer networks. Comput. Netw. 77, 103–116 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gettys, J.: Bufferbloat: dark buffers in the Internet. IEEE Internet Comput. 15(3), 95–96 (2011). doi: 10.1109/MIC.2011.56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Sciences and EngineeringGIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and TechnologyTopiPakistan

Personalised recommendations