TCP Performance in Wireless multi-hop Networks: Difference between revisions
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
<li>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) |
<li>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) |
||
<li>Throughput: Function of data acknowledged to the sender |
<li>Throughput: Function of data acknowledged to the sender |
||
<li>The following scenario results in almost zero throughput (due to route failures of some TCP packets) |
|||
</td></tr> |
</td></tr> |
||
</table> |
</table> |
||
<table border=1 align=center> |
<table border=1 align=center> |
||
<tr><td><i><b>Event</b></i></td><td><i><b>Time (secs)</b></i></td> |
<tr><td><i><b>Event</b></i></td><td><i><b>Time (secs)</b></i></td> |
||
<td><i><b>Node</b></i></td><td><i><b>SeqNo</b></i></td> |
<td><i><b>Node</b></i></td><td><i><b>SeqNo</b></i></td> |
||
<td><i><b>Pkt</b></i></td><td><i><b>Reason of dropping</b></i></td></tr> |
<td><i><b>Pkt</b></i></td><td><i><b>Reason of dropping</b></i></td></tr> |
||
<tr><td>s</td><td>0.000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td></td></tr> |
<tr><td>s</td><td>0.000</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td></td></tr> |
||
<tr><td>D</td><td>0.191</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>NRTE</td></tr> |
<tr><td>D</td><td>0.191</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>NRTE</td></tr> |
||
Line 171: | Line 170: | ||
<tr><td>D</td><td>120.000</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>END</td></tr> |
<tr><td>D</td><td>120.000</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>END</td></tr> |
||
<tr><td>D</td><td>120.000</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>END</td></tr> |
<tr><td>D</td><td>120.000</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>tcp</td><td>END</td></tr> |
||
</table> |
|||
s – send, r – receive, D – dropped, NRTE – no route found |
|||
<font size=+1><i>First conclusion:</i></font> |
|||
<table><tr><td> </td> |
|||
<td> |
|||
<li>Clear: Characteristics of the routing protocol have an eminent impact on TCP Performance |
|||
<li>Biggest problem: Caching and propagation of stale routes |
|||
<li>TCP sender's routing protocol is unable to quickly recognize and purge stale routes |
|||
<li>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) |
|||
<li>Upon further inspection it was recognizable that the routing protocol regularly fails, when the minimum path increases in length, independent of the mean speeds |
|||
<li>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 |
|||
<li>Thus, the TCP sender repeatedly times-out and backs-off |
|||
<li>The problem should be familiar to all reactive routing protocols |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
<font size=+1><i>Solutions:</i></font> |
|||
<table><tr><td> </td> |
|||
<td> |
|||
<li>Using more effective cache maintenance strategies |
|||
<li>Including simple techniques like dynamically adjusting the route cache timeout mechanism (depending on the observed route failure rate) |
|||
<li>The use of negative route information |
|||
<li>The use of signal strength information |
|||
<li>First improve routing protocols, then look at TCP |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
</table> |
||
== |
== Explicit Feedback == |
||
Explicit Feedback is a technique for signaling congestion, corruption due to wireless transmission errors and link failures due to mobility.<br> |
|||
Here we take a brief look at <i>Explicit Link Failure Notification</i> - <b>ELFN</b>. |
|||
<table> |
|||
<tr><td> </td> |
|||
<td> |
|||
<li>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 |
|||
<li>Different ways in implementing the ELFN message:<br> |
|||
- Very simple one: a "host unreachable" ICMP message as a notice to the sender<br> |
|||
- Another way: a message piggy-backed on the message, which is already sent from the routing protocol |
|||
<li>The approach in this case:<br> |
|||
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<br><br> |
|||
<b>Functionality:</b><br> |
|||
1. TCP sender receives an ELFN<br> |
|||
2. Disables its retransmission timers, enters stand-by mode<br> |
|||
3. On stand-by a packet is sent periodically to probe the network if there is a new route<br> |
|||
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) |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
<b>Result:</b>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 == |
== Split-TCP == |
||
<table><tr><td> </td> |
|||
<td> |
|||
<li>Developed scheme by Kopparty, Krishnamurthy, Faloutsos, Tripathi at the University of California, Riverside, Riverside |
|||
<li>Split-TCP (also "TCP with proxies") separates the functionalities of TCP congestion control and reliable packet delivery |
|||
<li>For any TCP connection certain nodes along the route take up the role of being proxies (they buffer packets upon receipt) |
|||
<li>By introducing proxies shorter TCP connections are emulated == a better parallelism in the network is achieved, "unfair" advantages of short connections are minimized |
|||
<li>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 |
|||
<li>The 802.11 MAC Protocol centuates the problems:<br>"Channel Capture Effect" (the first connection captures the channel until it has transmitted all its data) |
|||
<li>Examining the effect of splitting long TCP connections into shorter localized segments ("zones") |
|||
<li>Using proxies as interfacing agents between these zones |
|||
<li>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 |
|||
<li>Upon the receipt of a LACK (from the next proxy or final destination) a proxy will purge the packet from its buffer |
|||
<li>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) |
|||
<li><b>Important point:</b> Congestion seems to be a local phenomenon, whereas reliability is an end-to-end requirement splitting the transport layer functionalities into these both |
|||
<li>The source sends at a rate proportional to the rate of arrival of LACKS from the next proxy, the proxies themselves do so too |
|||
<li>But the source only purges a packet from buffer on receipt of an ACK |
|||
<li>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 |
|||
<li>At each proxy there would be a congestion window which would govern the rate of sending between proxies<br><br> |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
<font size=+1><b>Overall Result:</b></font> |
|||
<table><tr><td> </td> |
|||
<td> |
|||
<li>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) |
|||
<li>Thus, Split-TCP takes advantage of the links that are up! |
|||
<li>Furthermore Split-TCP does improve the fairness between TCP sessions in a network, because now all sessions are of a short length |
|||
<li>The channel capture effect is less detrimental, because only small regions are captured, not a whole connection |
|||
<li>The total throughput improves with the use of proxies by about 5 to 30% |
|||
<li>The unfairness decreases from 0.8 to 0.2 (1.0 being the maximum unfairness) |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
== Conclusion == |
== 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 == |
== References == |
||
<i> |
|||
[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 |
|||
[5] http://www.google.de |
|||
</i> |
Latest revision as of 13:02, 3 February 2005
Introduction
|
Simulation Environment and Methodology
|
Performance Metric
- 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 |
|
expected throughput =
Measurement of TCP-Reno Throughput
|
Mobility Induced Behaviours
|
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:
|
Solutions:
|
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.
- 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 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
"Channel Capture Effect" (the first connection captures the channel until it has transmitted all its data) |
Overall Result:
|
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