Advertisement

Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 47, Issue 3–4, pp 323–336 | Cite as

SCTP: designed for timely message delivery?

  • Per HurtigEmail author
  • Anna Brunstrom
Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

To reduce cost and provide more flexible services, telecommunication operators are currently replacing traditional telephony networks with IP-networks. To support the requirements of telephony signaling in IP-networks, SCTP was standardized. SCTP solves a number of problems that follows from using TCP for telephony signaling transport. However, the design of SCTP is still largely based on TCP, and most of SCTP’s data transmission mechanisms are inherited from TCP. Signaling traffic has stricter requirements of timely delivery than TCP bulk traffic. However, such requirements are not supported optimally by the inherited TCP mechanisms. We therefore argue that SCTP is not fully designed for timely message delivery. In this article we present and evaluate two loss recovery adaptations that enhance the timeliness of SCTP: Early Retransmit and a modified RTO management algorithm. In addition, we evaluate an adapted Nagle-like algorithm. The results from our evaluations show a significant reduction of message delivery times. Using our loss recovery enhancements, delivery times were typically reduced with at least 30–50%. Furthermore, in some situations, message delivery times were reduced with up to 70%, using the modified Nagle algorithm. In addition to this, we evaluate all the proposals together under realistic conditions, with very good results.

Keywords

SCTP Transport protocols IP-networking Network emulation Loss recovery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allman, M., Avrachenkov, K., Ayesta, U., Blanton, J., & Hurtig, P. (2010). Early retransmit for TCP and SCTP. RFC 5827, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2010. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braden, R. (1989). Requirements for Internet hosts—communication layers. RFC 1122, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1989. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caro, A. Jr., Amer, P., & Stewart, R. (2004). End-to-end failover thresholds for transport layer multihoming. In IEEE military communications conference (MILCOMM 2004), October 2004. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekström, H., & Ludwig, R. (2004). The peak-hopper: A new end-to-end retransmission timer for reliable unicast transport. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia, J., Conchon, E., Perennou, T., & Brunstrom, A. (2007). KauNet: improving reproducibility for wireless and mobile research. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on system evaluation for mobile platforms, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurtig, P., & Brunstrom, A. (2008). Enhancing SCTP loss recovery: An experimental evaluation of early retransmit. Computer Communications, 31(16), 3778–3788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurtig, P., & Brunstrom, A. (2008). Improved loss detection for signaling traffic in SCTP. In Proceedings of the international conference on communications (ICC’08), Beijing, China, May 2008. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IBM Corporation. The lksctp project. http://lksctp.sourceforge.net.
  9. 9.
    Ludwig, R., & Sklower, K. (2000). The Eifel retransmission timer. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 30(3), 17–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minshall, G. (1999). A suggested modification to Nagle’s algorithm. Expired Internet draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1999. draft-minshall-nagle-01. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mogul, J. C., & Minshall, G. (2001). Rethinking the TCP Nagle algorithm. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 31(1), 6–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagle, J. (1984). Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks. RFC 896, Internet Engineering Task Force, January. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ong, L., Rytina, I., Garcia, M., Schwarzbauer, H., Coene, L., Lin, H., Juhasz, I., Holdrege, M., & Sharp, C. (1999). Framework architecture for signaling transport. RFC 2719, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1999. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paxson, V. (1997). End-to-end Internet packet dynamics. In ACM SIGCOMM ’97, volume 27,4 of CCR, pp. 139–154, Cannes, France, September 1997. ACM Press. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paxson, V., & Allman, M. (2000). Computing TCP’s retransmission timer. RFC 2988, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 2000. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petlund, A., Beskow, P., Pedersen, J., Paaby, E. S., Griwodz, C., & Halvorsen, P. (2009). Improving SCTP retransmission delays for time-dependent thin streams. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 45(1–3), 33–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rizzo, L. (1997). Dummynet: a simple approach to the evaluation of network protocols. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 27(1), 31–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rüngeler, I., Tüxen, M., & Rathgeb, E. P. (2009). Congestion and flow control in the context of the message-oriented protocol SCTP. In Proceedings of the 8th international IFIP-TC 6 networking conference (Networking’09), pp. 468–481, Aachen, Germany, May 2009. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., & Anderson, T. (1999). TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 29(5), 71–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stewart, R. (2007). Stream control transmission protocol. RFC 4960, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 2007. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stewart, R., Poon, K., Tuexen, M., Yasevich, V., & Lei, P. (2010). Sockets API extensions for stream control transmission protocol (SCTP). Internet draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, March 2010. draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-22. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations