TCP throughput guarantee in the DiffServ Assured Forwarding service: what about the results?

Article

Abstract

Since the proposition of quality of service (QoS) architectures by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the interaction between TCP and the QoS services has been intensively studied. This paper proposes to look forward to the results obtained in terms of TCP throughput guarantee in the DiffServ assured forwarding (DiffServ/AF) service and to present an overview of the different proposals to solve the problem. It has been demonstrated that the standardized IETF DiffServ conditioners such as the token bucket color marker and the time sliding window color maker were not good TCP traffic descriptors. Starting with this point, several propositions have been made, and most of them present new marking schemes in order to replace or improve the traditional token bucket color marker. The main problem is that TCP congestion control is not designed to work with the AF service. Indeed, both mechanisms are antagonists. TCP has the property to share in a fair manner the bottleneck bandwidth between flows while DiffServ network provides a level of service that is controllable and predictable. In this paper, we build a classification of all the propositions made during the past few years and compare them. As a result, we will see that these conditioning schemes can be separated into three sets of action levels and that the conditioning at the network edge level is the most accepted one. We conclude that the problem is still unsolved and that TCP, conditioned or not conditioned, remains inappropriate for the DiffServ/AF service.

Keywords

QoS End to end guarantee TCP DiffServ Assured forwarding 

References

  1. 1.
    Blake S, Black D, Carlson M, Davies E, Wang Z, Weiss W (1998) An architecture for differentiated services. Request For Comments 2475. IETF, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Briscoe B, Jacquet A, Salvatori A, Koyabe M, Moncaster T (2007) Re-ECN: Adding accountability for causing congestion to TCP/IP. Internet Draft draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-04.txt. IETF, JulyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chait Y, Hollot C, Misra V, Towsley D, Zhang H (2002) Providing throughput differentiation for TCP flows using adap tive two color marking and multi-level aqm. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, New York, June 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christin N, Liebeherr J, Abdelzaher T (2002) A quantitative assured forwarding service. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, vol 2, New York, June 2002, pp 864–873Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark D, Fang W (1998) Explicit allocation of best effort packet delivery service. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 6(4):362–373, AugustCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Rezende JF (1999) Assured service evaluation. In: Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM. Rio de Janeiro, December 1999, pp 100–104Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dovrolis C, Ramanathan P (2000) Proportional differentiated services, part ii: Loss rate differentiation and packet dropping. In: Proc. of IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Quality of Service—IWQoS, Pittsburgh, June 2000Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Gendy MA, Shin KG (2002) Assured forwarding fairness using equation-based packet marking and packet separation. Comput Networks 41(4):435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Exposito E, Diaz M, Sénac P (2004) Design principles of a QoS-oriented transport protocol. In: IFIP International Conference on Intelligence in Communication Systems, Bangkok, November 2004Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EuQoS. End-to-end quality of service support over heterogeneous networks. http://www.euqos.org/
  11. 11.
    Fang W, Seddigh N, Nandy B (2000) A time sliding window three colour marker. Request For Comments 2859. IETF, JuneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feng W, Kandlur D, Saha D, Shin KS (1998) Adaptive packet marking for providing differentiated services in the Internet. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols - ICNP, Austin, October 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Firoiu V, Le Boudec J, Towsley D, Zhang Z (2001) Advances in Internet quality services. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Floyd S (2000) Congestion control principles. Request For Comments 2914. IETF, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Floyd S, Fall K (1999) Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 7(4):458–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Floyd S, Handley M, Padhye J, Widmer J (2000) Equation-based congestion control for unicast applications. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, Stockholm, August 2000, pp 43–56Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goyal M, Durresi A, Jain R, Liu C (1999) Effect of number of drop precedences in assured forwarding. In: Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 188–193Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jourjon G, Lochin E, Sénac P (2008) Design, implementation and evaluation of a QoS-aware transport protocol. Comput Commun 31(9):1713–1722. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2007.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Habib A, Bhargava B, Fahmy S (2002) A round trip time and time-out aware traffic conditioner for differentiated services networks. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Communications - ICC, New York, April 2002Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heinanen J, Guerin R (1999) A single rate three color marker. Request For Comments 2697. IETF, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heinanen J, Guerin R (1999) A two rate three color marker. Request For Comments 2698. IETF, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobson V (1988) Congestion avoidance and control. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM. Stanford, August 1988, pp 314–329Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jourjon G, Lochin E, Dairaine L, Senac P, Moors T, Seneviratne A (2006) Implementation and performance analysis of a QoS-aware TFRC mechanism. In: Proc. of IEEE ICON, Singapore, September 2006Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar K, Ananda A, Jacob L (2001) A memory based approach for a TCP-friendly traffic conditioner in diffserv networks. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols—ICNP, Riverside, November 2001Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lochin E, Anelli P, Fdida S (2005) AIMD Penalty Shaper to Enforce Assured Service for TCP Flows. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Networking—ICN, La Reunion, April 2005Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lochin E, Anelli P, Fdida S (2005) Penalty shaper to enforce assured service for TCP flows. In: IFIP Networking, Waterloo, May 2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Semke J, Mathis M, Mahdavi J (1997) The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Comput Commun Rev 27(3):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mellia M, Stoica I, Zhang H (2003) TCP-aware packet marking in networks with diffserv support. Comput Networks 42(1):81–100, MayMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verticale G, Giacomazzi P, Musumeci L (2003) Transport of TCP/IP traffic over assured forwarding IP-differentiated services. IEEE Netw 17(5):18–28, SeptemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Padhye J, Firoiu V, Towsley D, Kurose J (1998) Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, Vancouver, September 1998, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park E-C, Choi C-H (2004) Proportional bandwidth allocation in DiffServ networks. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, March 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aquila (2003) Adaptive resource control for qos using an ip-based layered architecture. http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/
  33. 33.
    GCAP (2000) Global communication architecture and protocols for new qos services over ipv6 networks. http://www.laas.fr/GCAP/
  34. 34.
    Geant (2008) The pan-european gigabit research network. http://www.dante.net/geant/
  35. 35.
    Tf-tant: Differentiated services testing. http://www.dante.net/quantum/qtp/
  36. 36.
    TEQUILA (2004) Traffic engineering for quality of service in the internet, at large scale. http://www.ist-tequila.org/
  37. 37.
    Ramakrishnan K, Floyd S, Black D (2001) The addition of explicit congestion notification (ECN) to ip. Request For Comments 3168. IETF, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sahu S, Nain P, Diot C, Firoiu V, Towsley DF (2000) On achievable service differentiation with token bucket marking for TCP. In: Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems. pp. 23–33Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seddigh N, Nandy B, Pieda P (1999) Bandwidth assurance issues for TCP flows in a differentiated services network. In: Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM, Rio De Janeiro, December 1999, p 6Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yeom I, Reddy N (1999) Realizing throughput guarantees in a differentiated services network. In: Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems- ICMCS, vol 2. Florence, June 1999, pp 372–376Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yeom I, Reddy N (2001) Adaptive marking for aggregated flows. In: Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM. San Antonio, November 2001Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yeom I, Reddy N (2001) Modeling TCP behavior in a differentiated services network. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 9(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut TELECOM and Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Toulouse - LAAS-CNRS - ISAEToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Université de la Réunion - LIMSaint-Denis MessagFrance

Personalised recommendations