TCP Performance in Wireless multi-hop Networks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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) |
|||
Line 170: | Line 172: | ||
</table> |
</table> |
||
s – send, r – receive, D – dropped, NRTE – no route found |
s – send, r – receive, D – dropped, NRTE – no route found |
||
<i>First conclusion:</i> |
|||
<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) |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
== TCP Performance Using Explicit Feedback == |
== TCP Performance Using Explicit Feedback == |
Revision as of 08:56, 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:
|