Throughput of a Network Shared by TCP Reno and TCP Vegas in Static Multi-hop Wireless Network

  • Sukant Kishoro BisoyEmail author
  • Prasant Kumar Pattnaik
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 410)


Previous study has shown the superiority of TCP Vegas over TCP Reno in wired and wireless network. However, when both Reno and Vegas co-exist on a wired link, protocol Vegas dominated by Reno due to its conservative nature. However, previous study does not include all the issues which might be arising during communication in the network. This paper finds the performance (throughput and fairness) of a network shared by Reno and Vegas in static multi hop wireless ad hoc network focusing on four issues. Here we introduced a new parameter called PST (Percentage Share of Throughput) which measures fairness among different connections shared by a common link. The issues are: (1) Both Reno and Vegas flows in forward direction, (2) Reno flows in forward and Vegas flows in reverse direction, (3) Both Reno and Vegas flows in forward direction along with bursty UDP traffic in background, (4) Both Reno and Vegas flows in forward direction where receiver is enabled with delayed acknowledgement (DelAck) schemes. Our result shows that Reno and Vegas are more compatible (or fairer) when DSDV protocol is used and their PST is much closer to each other (around 50 %). For increased hop length, DSDV is better routing protocol for all issues we have considered. However, use of DelAck techniques improves the throughput than others.


Reno Vegas Forward Reverse Background traffic DelAck and PST 


  1. 1.
    Perkins, C.E., Belding-Royer, E., Das, S.R.: Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. In: IETF RFC 3561. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P., Laouiti, A., Minet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Qayyum, A., Viennot, L.: Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR). In: IETF RFC 3626Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Internet Engineering Task Force.: Manet working group charter.
  4. 4.
    Johnson, D.B., Maltz, D.A., Hu, Y.C.: The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile ad-hoc networks (DSR). In: IETF Internet Draft (work in progress). (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parkins, C.E., Bhagwat, P.: Highly dynamic destination sequence distance vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’94, London, UK. (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Postel, J.: Transmission control protocol. In: RFC 793. (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bisoy, S.K., Pattnaik, P.K.: Interaction between internet based TCP variants and routing protocols in MANET. In: Proceedings of Springer International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications (FICTA), vol. 247, pp. 423–433. (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu, Y., Wang, Y., John, C.S. Lui, Chiu, D.M.: Balancing throughput and fairness for TCP flows in multihop ad-hoc networks. In: 5th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks and Workshops (WIOPT’07), April 16–20, Limassol, Cyprus, pp. 1–10. (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasegawa, G., Kurata, K., Murata, M.: Analysis and improvement of fairness between TCP reno and vegas for deployment of TCP vegas to the internet. In: Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, pp. 177–186. (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu, K., Gerla, M., Qi, L., Shu, Y.: Enhancing TCP fairness in ad hoc wireless networks using neighborhood RED. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Sept 14–19, San Diego, CA, USA. (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feng W., Vanichpun, S.: Enabling compatibility between TCP reno and TCP vegas. In: Proceeding of Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT’03), Jan 2003, Florida, USA, pp. 301–308. (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Podlesny, M., Williamson, C.: Providing fairness between TCP new reno and TCP vegas with RD network services. In: 18th International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS), Beijing, Chaina, pp. 1–9. (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vukadinovic, V., Trajkovic, L.: RED with dynamic thresholds for improved fairness. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), Nicosia, Cyprus, March 14–17. (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiu, D., Jain, R.: Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 17, 1–14 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brakmo, L., O’Malley, S., Peterson, L.: TCP vegas: new techniques for congestion detection and avoidance. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 24–35. (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Information Sciences Institute: The network simulator Ns-2. University of Southern California.
  17. 17.
    Li, J., Blake, C., De C.D., Lee, H., Morris, R.: Capacity of ad hoc wireless networks. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference in Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2001), pp. 61–69. (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freeney, L.M.: An energy consumption model for performance analysis of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. Mob. Netw. Appl. 6(3), 239–249 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V.N., Fairhurst, G., Sooriyabandara, M.: TCP performance implications of network path asymmetry. In: IETF RFC 3449. (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V.: How network asymmetry affects TCP. IEEE Commun. Mag. 39(4), 60–67 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sukant Kishoro Bisoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prasant Kumar Pattnaik
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringC. V. Raman College of EngineeringBhubaneswarIndia
  2. 2.School of Computer EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations