Wireless Networks

, Volume 8, Issue 2–3, pp 289–299 | Cite as

Optimizing the End-to-End Performance of Reliable Flows over Wireless Links

  • Reiner Ludwig
  • Almudena Konrad
  • Anthony D. Joseph
  • Randy H. Katz

Abstract

Pure end-to-end error recovery fails as a general solution to optimize throughput when wireless links form parts of the end-to-end path. It can lead to decreased end-to-end throughput, an unfair load on best-effort networks, and a waste of valuable radio resources. Link layer error recovery over wireless links is essential for reliable flows to avoid these problems. We demonstrate this through an analysis of a large set of block erasure traces measured in different real-world radio environments, with both stationary and mobile hosts. Our analysis is based on a case study of the circuit-switched data service implemented in GSM. We show that the throughput on this wireless channel can be increased by using a larger (fixed) frame size for the reliable link layer protocol. This yields an improvement of up to 25% when the channel quality is good and 18% even under poor radio conditions. Our results suggest that adaptive frame length control could further increase the channel throughput. Finally, we discuss link and transport layer error control mechanisms and their interactions with end-to-end congestion control schemes. For reliable flows, we argue in favor of highly persistent error recovery and lossless handover schemes implemented at the link layer.

TCP wireless flow differentiation link ARQ persistency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Allman, V. Paxson and W. Stevens, TCP congestion control, RFC 2581 (April 1999).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Bakre and B.R. Badrinath, I-TCP: Indirect TCP for mobile hosts, in: Proceedings of ICDCS'95 (May 1995).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Balakrishnan, S. Seshan and R.H. Katz, Improving reliable transport and handoff performance in cellular wireless networks, Wireless Networks 1(4) (December 1995) 469–481.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Balakrishnan and R.H. Katz, Explicit loss notification and wireless web performance, in: Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM'98 (1998).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Bhagwat, P. Bhattacharya, A. Krishna and S.K. Tripathi, Using channel state dependent packet scheduling to improve TCP throughput over wireless LANs, Wireless Networks 3(1) (January 1997) 91–102.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Blake et al., An architecture for differentiated services, RFC 2475 (December 1998).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Braden, Requirements for Internet hosts – Communication layers, RFC 1122 (October 1989).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Braden et al., Recommendations on queue management and congestion avoidance in the Internet, FC 2309 (April 1998).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K. Brown and S. Singh, M-TCP: TCP for mobile cellular networks, ACM Computer Communication Review 27(5) (October 1997).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Cáceres and L. Iftode, Improving the performance of reliable transport protocols in mobile computing environments, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 13(5) (June 1995) 850–857.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Deering and R. Hinden, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) specification, RFC 2460 (December 1998).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Degermark, B. Nordgren and S. Pink, IP header compression, RFC 2507 (February 1999).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R.C. Durst, G.J. Miller and E.J. Travis, TCP extensions for space communications, in: Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM'96 (1996).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D.A. Eckhardt and P. Steenkiste, Improving wireless LAN performance via adaptive local error control, in: Proceedings of IEEE ICNP'98 (1998).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    ETSI, Radio Link Protocol for data and telematic services on the Mobile Station–Base Station System (MS–BSS) interface and the Base Station System–Mobile Switching Center (BSS–MSC) interface, GSM Specification 04.22, Version 5.0.0 (December 1995).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    ETSI, Digital cellular communications system (Phase 2+), Radio Link Protocol for data and telematic services on the Mobile Station–Base Station System (MS–BSS) interface and the Base Station System–Mobile Switching Center (BSS–MSC) interface, GSM Specification 04.22, Version 6.1.0 (November 1998).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    ETSI, Digital cellular communications system (Phase 2+), Rate adaption on the Mobile Station–Base Station System (MS–BSS) interface, GSM Specification 04.21, Version 7.0.0 (October 1998).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    ETSI, Digital cellular communications system (Phase 2+), General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Mobile Station (MS)–Base Station System (BSS) interface, Radio Link Control/Medium Access Control (RLC/MAC) protocol, GSM Specification 04.60, Version 6.1.0 (August 1998).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    ETSI, Digital cellular communications system (GSM Radio Access Phase 3), Channel coding, GSM Specification 05.03, Version 6.0.0 (January 1998).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Floyd, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, S. McCanne and L. Zhang, A reliable multicast framework for light-weight sessions and application level framing, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 5(6) (December 1997) 784–803.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    T.R. Henderson and R.H. Katz, Transport protocols for Internet-compatible satellite networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 17(2) (February 1999) 326–344.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    V. Jacobson, Congestion avoidance and control, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'88 (1988).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    V. Jacobson, Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links, RFC 1144 (February 1990).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    V. Jacobson, R. Braden and D. Borman, TCP extensions for high performance, RFC 1323 (May 1992).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    P. Karn and C. Partridge, Improving round-trip time estimates in reliable transport protocols, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'87 (1987).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    P. Karn, The Qualcomm CDMA digital cellular system, in: Proceedings of the USENIX Mobile and Location-Independent Computing Symposium, USENIX Association (August 1993).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. Kent and R. Atkinson, Security architecture for the Internet protocol, RFC 2401 (November 1998).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Kojo, K. Raatikainen, M. Liljeberg, J. Kiiskinen and T. Alanko, An efficient transport service for slow wireless telephone links, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 15(7) (September 1997) 1337–1348.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    P. Lettieri and M.B. Srivastava, Adaptive frame length control for improving wireless link throughput, range, and energy efficiency, in: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM'98 (1998).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    R. Ludwig and B. Rathonyi, Link layer enhancements for TCP/IP over GSM, in: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM'99 (1999).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Ludwig, B. Rathonyi, A. Konrad, K. Oden and A. Joseph, Multilayer tracing of TCP over a reliable wireless link, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS'99 (1999).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Ludwig, A case for flow-adaptive wireless links, Technical report UCB//CSD-99-1053, University of California at Berkeley (May 1999).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    R. Ludwig and R.H. Katz, The Eifel algorithm: Making TCP robust against spurious retransmissions, ACM Computer Communication Review 30(1) (January 2000).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R. Ludwig and K. Sklower, The Eifel retransmission timer, ACM Computer Communication Review 30(3) (July 2000).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd and A. Romanow, TCP selective acknowledgement options, RFC 2018 (October 1996).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M. Meyer, TCP Performance over GPRS, in: Proceedings of IEEE WCNC'99 (1999).Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    M. Mouly and M.-B. Pautet, The GSM System for Mobile Communications (Cell&Sys, France, 1992).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    B.D. Noble, M. Satyanarayanan, G.T. Nguyen and R.H. Katz, Trace-based mobile network emulation, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'97 (1997).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    PILC (Performance Implications of Link Characteristics), Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mailing list, http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/pilc/list/archive/Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    J. Postel, User Datagram Protocol, RFC 768 (August 1980).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    J. Postel, Internet Protocol, RFC 791 (September 1981).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    J. Postel, Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793 (September 1981).Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    K.K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd and D. Black, The addition of explicit congestion notification (ECN) to IP, RFC 3168 (September 2001).Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark, End-to-end arguments in system design, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(4) (November 1984).Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    N.K.G. Samaraweera and G. Fairhurst, Reinforcement of TCP error recovery for wireless communication, ACM Computer Communication Review 28(2) (April 1998).Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    W. Simpson, The Point-to-Point Protocol, RFC 1661 (July 1994).Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    R. Srinivasan, RPC: Remote Procedure Call protocol specification, Version 2, RFC 1831 (August 1995).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    W.R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 1, The Protocols (Addison-Wesley, 1994).Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Sun Microsystems Inc., NFS: Network File System protocol specification, RFC 1094 (March 1989).Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    G.R. Wright and W.R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 2, The Implementation (Addison-Wesley, 1995).Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    V. Paxson and M. Allman, Computing TCP's retransmission timer, RFC 2988 (November 2000).Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    J. Mogul and S. Deering, Path MTU discovery, RFC 1191 (November 1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reiner Ludwig
    • 1
  • Almudena Konrad
    • 2
  • Anthony D. Joseph
    • 2
  • Randy H. Katz
    • 2
  1. 1.Ericsson ResearchHerzogenrathGermany
  2. 2.Computer Science DivisionUniversity of California at BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations