Advertisement

Evaluating the Performance of Next Generation Web Access via Satellite

  • Raffaello Secchi
  • Althaff Mohideen
  • Gorry Fairhurst
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 154)

Abstract

Responsiveness is a critical metric for web performance. Update to the web protocols to reduce web page latency have been introduced by joint work between the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This has resulted in new protocols, including HTTP/2 and TCP modifications, offering an alternative to the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP/1.1). This paper evaluates the performance of the new web architecture over an operational satellite network. It presents the main features of the new protocols and discusses their impact when using a satellite network. Our tests comparing the performance of web-based applications over the satellite network with HTTP/2 confirm important reductions of page load times with respect to HTTP/1.1. However, it was also shown that performance could be significantly improved by changing the default server/client HTTP/2 configuration to best suit the satellite network.

Keywords

SPDY HTTP/2 PEP 

References

  1. 1.
    Domenech, J., Pont, A., Sahuquillo, J., Gil, J.: A user-focussed evaluation of prefetching algorithms. ACM Comp. Comm. 30, 2213–2224 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramachandran, S.: Web Metrics: Size and number of resources (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Frystyk, H.: Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.0. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-05, IETF Secretariat (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fielding, R.T., et al.: Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616, RFC Editor (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allman, M., Paxson, V., Blanton, E.: TCP Congestion Control. RFC 5681. RFC Editor (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elkhatib, Y., Tyson, G., Welzl, M.: Can SPDY really make the web faster? In: proceedings of IFIP Networking Conference, Tronhdeim (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peon, R., Belshe, M.: SPDY protocol - Draft 3 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roskind, J.: QUIC (QUIC UDP Internet Connections), Multiplexed Stream Transport over UDP Google Technical report (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belshe, M., Peon, R., Thomson, M.: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). RFC 7540, RFC Editor (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, Z.S., Balasubramanian, A., Krishnamurthy, A., Wetherall, D.: How Speedy is SPDY? In: 11th USENIX NSDI, Seattle, pp. 287–393 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caviglione, L., Gotta, A.: SPDY over high latency satellite channels. EAI Endorsed Trans. Mobile Comm. Appl. 2, 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luglio, M., Roseti, C., Zampognaro, F.: SPDY multiplexing approach on long-latency links. In: Proceedings of IEEE WCNC, Instanbul, pp. 3450–3455 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luglio, M., Roseti, C., Zampognaro, F.: Resource optimization over DVB-RCS satellite links through the use of SPDY. In: Proceedingsof WiOpt, Hammamet (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radhakrishnan, S., Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Jain, A., Raghavan, B.: TCP Fast Open. In: Proceedings of ACM Conext 20133, Tokyo (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    WalkerSand: Quarterly Web Traffic Report. Technical report, WalkerSands Communications, Chicago (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., Jain, A.: TCP Fast Open. RFC 7413, RFC Editor (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braden, B.: T/TCP - TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification. RFC 1644, RFC Editor (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Hara, B., Calhoun, P., Kempf, J.: Configuration and Provisioning for Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Problem Statement. RFC 3990, RFC Editor (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., Mathis, M.: Increasing TCP’s Initial Window. RFC 6928, RFC Editor (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dukkipati, N., et al.: An argument for increasing TCP’s initial congestion window. ACM SIGCOMM Comp. Comm. Rev. 40, 26–33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Touch, J.: Automating the Initial Window in TCP. Internet-Draft draft-touch-tcpm-automatic-iw-03.txt, IETF Secretariat (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Avanti: Avanti Satellite Communications (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hughes Networks: IP over Satellite (IPoS) - The Standard for Broadband over Satellite (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobson, V., Braden, B., Borman, D.: TCP Extensions for High Performance. RFC 1323, RFC Editor (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Computer Sciences, Social informatics and Telecommunication Engineering 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaello Secchi
    • 1
  • Althaff Mohideen
    • 1
  • Gorry Fairhurst
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations