TCP Performance in Wireless multi-hop Networks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
== 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 |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
== Conclusion == |
== Conclusion == |
||
== References == |
== References == |
Revision as of 09:28, 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
|