TCP Performance in Wireless multi-hop Networks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
Here we take a brief look at <i>Explicit Link Failure Notification</i> - <b>ELFN</b>. |
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 |
|||
</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
== Split-TCP == |
== Split-TCP == |
Revision as of 09:22, 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 |