3rd Edition: Chapter 3

Report
Congestion Control
1
Principles of Congestion Control
Congestion:
 informally: “too many sources sending too much
data too fast for network to handle”
 different from flow control!
 manifestations:
 lost packets (buffer overflow at routers)
 long delays (queueing in router buffers)
 a top-10 problem!
Transport Layer
3-2
Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 1
Host A
 two senders, two
receivers
 one router,
infinite buffers
 no retransmission
Host B
lout
lin : original data
unlimited shared
output link buffers
 large delays
when congested
 maximum
achievable
throughput
Transport Layer
3-3
Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2
 one router,
finite buffers
 sender retransmission of lost packet
Host A
Host B
lin : original
data
l'in : original data, plus
retransmitted data
lout
finite shared output
link buffers
Transport Layer
3-4
Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 2
(goodput)
= l
out
in
 “perfect” retransmission only when loss:
 always:
l
l > lout
in
 retransmission of delayed (not lost) packet makes
(than perfect case) for same
R/2
l
in
lout
R/2
larger
R/2
lin
a.
R/2
lout
lout
lout
R/3
lin
b.
R/2
R/4
lin
R/2
c.
“costs” of congestion:
 more work (retrans) for given “goodput”
 unneeded retransmissions: link carries multiple copies of pkt
Transport Layer
3-5
Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3
 four senders
Q: what happens as l
in
and l increase ?
 multihop paths
 timeout/retransmit
in
Host A
lin : original data
lout
l'in : original data, plus
retransmitted data
finite shared output
link buffers
Host B
Transport Layer
3-6
Causes/costs of congestion: scenario 3
H
o
s
t
A
l
o
u
t
H
o
s
t
B
another “cost” of congestion:
 when packet dropped, any “upstream transmission
capacity used for that packet was wasted!
Transport Layer
3-7
Approaches towards congestion control
two broad approaches towards congestion control:
end-end congestion
control:
 no explicit feedback from
network
 congestion inferred from
end-system observed loss,
delay
 approach taken by TCP
network-assisted
congestion control:
 routers provide feedback
to end systems
 single bit indicating
congestion (SNA,
DECbit, TCP/IP ECN,
ATM)
 explicit rate sender
should send at
Transport Layer
3-8
Network assisted congestion control
 Active Queue Management
 monitor queue, do not just drop upon overflow
more intelligent decisions
 maintain low average queue length, alleviate phase
effects, enforce fairness
 Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
 Instead of dropping, set a bit;
 reduced loss - major benefit!
Explicit Congestion Control (ECN)
 Receiver informs sender about bit; sender behaves as if a packet
was dropped

actual communication between end nodes and the network
 Typical incentives:
 sender = server; efficiently use connection, fairly distribute bandwidth
 use ECN as it was designed
 receiver = client; goal = high throughput, does not care about others
 ignore ECN flag, do not inform sender about it
 Need to make it impossible for receiver to lie about ECN flag
when it was set


Solution: nonce = random number from sender, deleted by router when
setting ECN
Sender believes “no congestion” if correct nonce is sent back
ECN Bits in IP Header
2 bits => 4 ECN Codepoints
Source: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~yackoski/856_ecn.ppt
Value
Name
00
Not-ECT (Not ECN Capable
Transport)
10
ECT(0) (ECN Capable Transport (0) )
01
ECT(1) (ECN Capable Transport(1) )
11
CE (Congestion Experienced)
ECN Bits in TCP Header
ECE flag - ECN-Echo flag
CWR flag - Congestion Window Reduced flag
Source: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~yackoski/856_ecn.ppt
ECN in action
ACKs
S ende r
R eceive r
C ong estion
1
S end pack et w ith
E C T = 1, C E = 0,
no nc e = rand om
2
E C T = 1, so d on ’t drop
up da te : C E = 1
no nc e = 0
3
R ed uce cw nd ,
set C W R = 1
O n ly se t E C E = 1
in A C K s aga in
w h en C E = 1
D ata packets
4
S et E C E = 1 in
su bseq ue nt A C K s
eve n if C E = 0
5
 Nonce provided by bit combination:
 ECT(0): ECT=1, CE=0
 ECT(1): ECT=0, CE=1
 Nonce usage specification still experimental
Case study: ATM ABR congestion control
ABR: available bit rate:
 “elastic service”
RM (resource management)
cells:
 if sender’s path
 sent by sender, interspersed
“underloaded”:
 sender should use
available bandwidth
 if sender’s path
congested:
 sender throttled to
minimum guaranteed
rate
with data cells
 bits in RM cell set by switches
(“network-assisted”)
 NI bit: no increase in rate
(mild congestion)
 CI bit: congestion
indication
 RM cells returned to sender by
receiver, with bits intact
Transport Layer 3-14
Case study: ATM ABR congestion control
 two-byte ER (explicit rate) field in RM cell
 congested switch may lower ER value in cell
 sender’ send rate thus maximum supportable rate on path
 EFCI bit in data cells: set to 1 in congested switch
 if data cell preceding RM cell has EFCI set, sender sets CI
bit in returned RM cell
Transport Layer 3-15
Questions?

similar documents