A Stable and Flexible TCP-Friendly Congestion Control Protocol for Layered Multicast Transmission
We propose an improvement of our RLS (Receiver-driven Layered multicast with Synchronization points) protocol, called CIFL for “Coding-Independent Fair Layered mulaticast”, along two axes. In CIFL, each receiver of a layered multicast transmission will try and find the adequate number of layers to subscribe to, so that the associated throughput is fair towards TCP and stable in steady-state. The first improvement is that CIFL is not specific to any coding scheme. It can work as well with an exponentially distributed set of layers (where the throughput of each layer i equals the sum of the throughputs of all layers below i), or with layers of equal throughputs, or any other scheme. The second improvement is the excellent stability of the protocol which avoids useless join attempts by learning from its unsuccessful previous attempts in the same (or better) network conditions. Moreover, the protocol tries and reaches its ideal TCP-friendly as soon as possible by computing its target throughput in a clever way when an incipient congestion is confirmed.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A Basu and J. Golestani. Estimation of receiver round trip times in multicast communications. Technical report, Bell Laboratories, http://www.bell-labs.com/user/golestani/rtt.ps, 1999.
- Ibtissam El Khayat. Comparaison d’algorithmes de controle de congestion pour la vidéo multipoints en couches. Master’s thesis, University of Liège, Belgium, June 2000.Google Scholar
- Ibtissam El Khayat and Guy Leduc. Congestion control for layered multicast transmission. To appear in Networking and Information Systems, 2000.Google Scholar
- A Legout and E. W. Biersack. PLM: Fast convergence for cumulative layered multicast transmission schemes. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS’2000, Santa Clara, CA, USA, June 2000.Google Scholar
- A Legout and W Biersack. Pathological behaviors for RLM and RLC. In Proceedings of NOSSDAV’2000, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, June 2000.Google Scholar
- M. Mathis, J. Semke, Mahdavi, and T. Ott. The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Computer Communication Review, 27(3), July 1997.Google Scholar
- S McCanne and S Floyd. The LBNL Network Simulator. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1997.Google Scholar
- S McCanne, V Jacobson, and M Vetterli. Receiver-driven layered multicast. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’95, pages 117–130, Palo Alto, California, 1995.Google Scholar
- J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. Towsley, and J. Kurose. Modeling TCP reno performance: A simple model and its empirical validation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’2000, August 2000.Google Scholar
- Dan Rubenstein, Jim Kurose, and Don Towsley. The impact of multicast layering on network fairness. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’99, Cambridge, MA, September 1999.Google Scholar
- Schulzrinne, Casner, Frederick, and Jacobson. RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications. Internet-Draft ietf-avt-rtp-new-01.txt (work inprogress), 1998.Google Scholar
- D Sisalem and A Wolisz. MLDA: A TCP-friendly congestion control framework for heterogenous multicast environments. In Eighth International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS 2000), Pittsburgh, June 2000.Google Scholar
- Lorenzo Vicisano, Jon Crowcroft, and Luigi Rizzo. TCP-like congestion control for layered multicast data transfer. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM’98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998.Google Scholar