# TCP Performance in Wireless multi-hop Networks

## Introduction

 Early research showed TCP suffers poor Performance in wireless networks because of packet losses and corruption caused by wireless inducted errors Further studies searched for mechanism to improve TCP performance in cellular wireless systems Other researches investigated other network problems that negativly affect TCP performance, such as bandwidth asymmetry and large round trip times, which are prevalent in satelite networks During the presentaition we adress another network charackteristic that impacts TCP performance, which is common in mobile ad hoc networks: link failures due to mobility First present performance analysis of standart TCP over mobile ad hoc networks Then present analysis of the use of explicit notification techniques to counter the affects of link failures

## Performance Metric

 Throughput as performance metric used TCP throughput ussually less than optimal due to TCP senders inability to accurate determine the cause of a packet loss TCP sender assumes that all packets losses are caused by congestion When link on TCP route breaks, TCP sender reacts as if congestion was the cause, reducing its congestion window and, in instance of a timeout, backing-off its retransmission timeout (RTO) Therefore, route changes due to host mobility can detrimental impact on TCP performance To gauge impact of route changes on TCP perfomance, we derived an upper bound on TCP throughput, the expected throughput TCP throughput measure obtained by simulation is then compared with expected throughput Expected throughput was obtained as the following: - First simulated a static (fixed) network of n nodes that formed a linear chain containing n-1 wireless hops - Nodes used 802.11 protocol for medium access - Then a one-way TCP data transfer was performed between the two nodes at the ends of the linear chain, and the TCP throughput was measured between these nodes
 Hops Throughput (Kbps) Table 1 shows measured TCP throughput as a function of number of hops, averaged over ten runs Throughput decreases rapidly when number of hops is increased from 1, then stabilizes once the number of hops becomes large 1 1463.0 2 729.0 3 484.4 4 339.9 5 246.4 6 205.2 7 198.1 8 191.8 9 185.3 10 182.4
 Our objective here is to use these measurements to determine expected troughput Expected throughput is a function of mobility pattern For instance, if two nodes are always adjacent and move together, the expected thoughput for the TCP connection between them would be identical to that for one hop in Table 1

expected throughput = ${\displaystyle {\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }T_{i}*t_{i}}{\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }t_{i}}}}$

## Measurement of TCP-Reno Throughput

 TCP throughput should monotonically degrade as speed increase Throughput drops sharply as mean speed increased from 2 m/s to 10 m/s When mean speed increase from 10 m/s to 20 m/s and 30 m/s th averaged over 50 runs decreases only sligthly Counter intuitive result: In fact throughput could have potentially increased with speed Following observations are to be seen: although, for any given speed, the points may be located near or far from the diagonal line (expected throughput), when speed is increased, the points tend to move away from the diagonal, signifying a degradation in th For given speed, certain mobility patterns achieve th close to 0, although other mobility patterns (with the same mean speed) are able to achieve a higher throughput Even at high speeds, some mobility patterns result in high throughput that is close to the expected throughput If two nodes move together, the link between them will not break, regardless of their speed

## Mobility Induced Behaviours

 Observing examples of mobility induced behaviours There are several possible explanations (due to the variety of used protocols, such as 802.11 MAC, ARP, DSR and TCP on top of them) Throughput: Function of data acknowledged to the sender The following scenario results in almost zero throughput (due to route failures of some TCP packets)
 Event Time (secs) Node SeqNo Pkt Reason of dropping s 0.000 1 1 tcp D 0.191 5 1 tcp NRTE s 6.000 1 1 tcp r 6.045 2 1 tcp s 6.145 2 1 ack D 6.216 21 1 ack NRTE s 18.000 1 1 tcp s 42.000 1 1 tcp s 90.000 1 1 tcp D 120.000 15 1 tcp END D 120.000 16 1 tcp END D 120.000 25 1 tcp END

s – send, r – receive, D – dropped, NRTE – no route found

First conclusion:

 Clear: Characteristics of the routing protocol have an eminent impact on TCP Performance Biggest problem: Caching and propagation of stale routes TCP sender's routing protocol is unable to quickly recognize and purge stale routes This gets even more complicated, when the intermediate nodes are allowed to respond to route requests with their own stale routes in cache (amplified by overhearing propagated stale routes and spreading the wrong information around) Upon further inspection it was recognizable that the routing protocol regularly fails, when the minimum path increases in length, independent of the mean speeds In case the nodes move closer DSR can maintain the route, in case they diverge DSR does not search another route until an error occurs Thus, the TCP sender repeatedly times-out and backs-off The problem should be familiar to all reactive routing protocols

Solutions:

 Using more effective cache maintenance strategies Including simple techniques like dynamically adjusting the route cache timeout mechanism (depending on the observed route failure rate) The use of negative route information The use of signal strength information First improve routing protocols, then look at TCP

## Explicit Feedback

Explicit Feedback is a technique for signaling congestion, corruption due to wireless transmission errors and link failures due to mobility.

Here we take a brief look at Explicit Link Failure Notification - ELFN.

 Objective: Provide the TCP sender with information about link and route failures so that it can avoid responding to the failures as if congestion occurred Different ways in implementing the ELFN message: - Very simple one: a "host unreachable" ICMP message as a notice to the sender - Another way: a message piggy-backed on the message, which is already sent from the routing protocol The approach in this case: The DSR route failure message carries parts of the TCP/IP headers of the packet (by which the notice was instigated), including sender and receiver addresses (to identify the connection), ports and the TCP sequence number Functionality: 1. TCP sender receives an ELFN 2. Disables its retransmission timers, enters stand-by mode 3. On stand-by a packet is sent periodically to probe the network if there is a new route 4. On receiving an ack it leaves stand-by, restores timers and continues as normal (here used packet probing instead of sending a "route established" message)

Result:The use of ELFN improved the throughput for each of the speeds (closer proximity to the expected throughput line, also tighter clustering of the different moving patterns shows an improvement too).

## Split-TCP

 Developed scheme by Kopparty, Krishnamurthy, Faloutsos, Tripathi at the University of California, Riverside, Riverside Split-TCP (also "TCP with proxies") separates the functionalities of TCP congestion control and reliable packet delivery For any TCP connection certain nodes along the route take up the role of being proxies (they buffer packets upon receipt) By introducing proxies shorter TCP connections are emulated == a better parallelism in the network is achieved, "unfair" advantages of short connections are minimized Long connections are much more likely to freeze because they have more links and since short connections can transmit faster they can dominate shared links The 802.11 MAC Protocol centuates the problems:"Channel Capture Effect" (the first connection captures the channel until it has transmitted all its data) Examining the effect of splitting long TCP connections into shorter localized segments ("zones") Using proxies as interfacing agents between these zones A proxy intercepts packets, buffers them, acknowledges their receipt to the source (or the previous proxy) by sending a local acknowledgement (LACK) and takes over the responsibility of delivering the packets further Upon the receipt of a LACK (from the next proxy or final destination) a proxy will purge the packet from its buffer Hereby the end-to-end acknowledgement of TCP is not changed (since the overhead of ACKS and LACKS is so small that it is said to be acceptable) Important point: Congestion seems to be a local phenomenon, whereas reliability is an end-to-end requirement  splitting the transport layer functionalities into these both The source sends at a rate proportional to the rate of arrival of LACKS from the next proxy, the proxies themselves do so too But the source only purges a packet from buffer on receipt of an ACK Correspondingly the transmission window is split into two windows: the congestion window and the end-to-end window, where the congestion window would always be a sub-window of the end-to-end window At each proxy there would be a congestion window which would govern the rate of sending between proxies

Overall Result:

 Split-TCP is able to deal better with problems of mobility – if one “zone” fails because of a broken link, then it is possible to sustain data transfer on other local segments (where a normal TCP session can be choked) Thus, Split-TCP takes advantage of the links that are up! Furthermore Split-TCP does improve the fairness between TCP sessions in a network, because now all sessions are of a short length The channel capture effect is less detrimental, because only small regions are captured, not a whole connection The total throughput improves with the use of proxies by about 5 to 30% The unfairness decreases from 0.8 to 0.2 (1.0 being the maximum unfairness)

## Conclusion

TCP drops significantly when node movement causes link failures, because of TCP's inability to recognize the difference between link failure and congestion.

The use of ELFN can improve the TCP performance significantly.

There is a bad interaction between TCP and ARP (BSD-implementation, one-packet queue, no request time-out mechanism), because ARP drops packets regularly or holds them indefinitely while awaiting resolution, so a more advanced ARP needs to be employed.

As mentioned the route cache is another big problem, more aggressive cache management protocols are needed therefore.

Split-TCP can be seen as good step forward to improve wireless connections.

## References

[1] G. Holland and N. Vaidya, “Analysis of TCP Performance Over Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, IEEE/ACM MOBICOM, 1999

[2] S. Kopparty, S. Krishnamurthy, M. Faloutsos and S. Tripathi, “Split-TCP for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, 2002

[3] H. Balakrishnan, V.N. Padmanabhan, S. Seshan and R.H. Katz, “A Comparison of Mechanisms for improving TCP Performance over wireless links”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1997

[4] M. Gerla, K. Tang and R. Bagrodia, “TCP Performance in wireless multi-hop networks”, 1998