1. A Comparison of Mechanisms for Improving TCP Performance over Wireless Links Published In IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL.5 NO.6,DECEMBER 1997 BY Hari Balakrishnan, Venkata N. Padmanabhan, Srinivasan Seshan and Randy H. Katz Computer Science Division, Department of EECS, University of California at Berkeley

2. This paper examines and compares the effectiveness of several schemes designed to improve the performance of TCP in wireless and lossy links. Structure of this paper: Classification and Introduction of these schemes Protocol Implementation Details Experimental Methodology Experimental Results Conclusions

3. Assume congestion to be the primary cause for packet losses and unusual delays, while communication over wireless link is often characterized by sporadic high bit-error rates and intermittent connectivity due to handoffs Invoke congestion control and avoidance algorithms, resulting in significant degraded end- to-end performance and very high interactive delays Problems with traditional TCP over wireless network

4. Classification of Schemes End-to-End protocols –loss recovery handled by sender Link-layer solutions –hide link-related losses from sender –TCP sender may not be fully shielded Split-connection approaches –hide any noncongestion-related losses from TCP sender –since the problem is local, solve it locally

5. End-to-End Proposals Make the sender realize some losses are due to bit- error, not congestion. Sender avoid invoking congestion control algorithms if noncongestion-related losses occur Use SACKs and ELN mechanism

6. End-to-End Proposals SACKs (E2E-IETF-SACK) –Selective Acknowledgments algorithms –ACK contains information about up to three noncontiguous blocks of data that have been received successfully by the receiver. –Use [starting sequence #, ending sequence #] to describe each block –Sender invokes standard TCP congestion control

7. End-to-End Proposals SMART (E2E-SMART) –ACK contains the sequence # of the packet that caused the receiver to generate this ACK –sender uses this information to create a bitmask of packets that have been delivered successfully to the receiver. –When detects a gap in the bitmask, assumes the missing packets have been lost –a tradeoff between reordering and lost ACK

8. End-to-End Proposals ELN (E2E-ELN) –adds an Explicit Loss Notification option in TCP ACK –sender may perform retransmissions after receiving 3 duplicate ACKs with ELN, without invoking the associated congestion-control E2E-ELN-RXMT –an enhancement of ELN. –retransmit after the first duplicate ACK with the ELN

9. Link-layer Protocols Main techniques : –Forward Error Correction (FEC) –Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ)

10. Link-layer Protocols LL –use cumulative ACKs to detect lost packets –use TCP ACK to minimize overhead –Timeout: smoothed RTT estimate –minimum timeout is 200ms

11. Link-layer Protocols LL-SMART –use a SMART-based ACK at link layer LL-TCP-AWARE –identical to the Snoop protocol LL-SMART-TCP-AWARE –snoop + SMART-based techniques

12. Link-layer Protocols Snoop protocol (TCP-aware link-layer schemes) –Introduce a module--snoop agent at the base station –monitors every packet that passes through the TCP connection in both directions –maintains a cache of TCP packets sent from the sender that havent yet been acknowledged by the receiver. –If detect packet loss (use duplicate ACKs or local timeout), retransmit the packet if it is in the cache and suppress the duplicate ACKs

13. Split-connection proposal Split each TCP connection into two separate TCP connections at the base station. Sender Base station Receiver Over wireless hop, a protocol tuned to the wireless environment may be used to get a better performance. –Examples : Indirect-TCP, selective repeat protocol (SRP) over UDP wirewireless

14. Split-connection proposal Indirect-TCP: –a split-connection solution using standard TCP for connection over the wireless link –Using Standard TCP over wireless link results in several performance problems: TCP sender(base station) of the wireless connection often times out,causing the original sender to stall Every packet incurs the overhead of going through TCP protocol processing twice at the base station End-to-end semantics of TCP acknowledgments is violated Maintains a significant amount of state at the base station per TCP connection, handoff procedures tend to be complicated and slow.

15. Experimental Methodology Peak throughput for TCP bulk transfers is 1.5 Mbps in the local area testbed and 1.35 Mbps in the wide area testbed in the absence of congestion or wireless losses. Focus on data transfer to the mobile host, which is the common case for mobile applications (e.g., Web accesses)

16. Experimental Methodology Errors generating: the receiver uses Exponentially Distributed bit-error model to generate errors –Use this model, there will be several occasions when multiple packets are lost in close succession –To understand the precise dynamics of each protocol Losses generating: In both directions Assume losses are only due to wireless errors TCP data packet size: 1400 bytes Each run consists of an 8-Mbyte transfer from source to receiver across both the wried net and the WaveLAN link The WAN experiments are performed across 16 Internet hops with minimal congestion in order to study the impact of large delay- bandwidth products.

17. Experimental Results---Link Layer Protocols

18. When a loss occurs, link-layer protocols that do not attempt in-order delivery across the link (e.g.LL), cause packets to reach the TCP receiver out of order, which triggers the sender enter a fast retransmission and recovery.This potentially cause degraded throughput and goodput

19. Experimental Results---Link Layer Protocols -In wide-area experiments, throughput difference is about 30%. This is due to the higher bandwidth-delay product of the wide-area connection (23000bytes=1.35Mbs * 135ms)

20. Experimental Results---Link Layer Protocols Summary –Simple link-layer retransmission scheme does not entirely avoid the adverse effects of TCP fast retransmissions and the consequent performance degradation. –An enhanced link-layer scheme that uses knowledge of TCP semantics to prevent duplicate ACKs caused by wrieless losses from reaching the sender and locally retransmits packets achieves significantly better performance.

21. Experimental Results---End-to-End protocols Benefits of Three techniques –Selective Acknowledgments

22. Experimental Results---End-to-End protocols Partial acknowledgments: –E2E-NEWRENO, which uses partial ACK information to recover from multiple losses in a window at the rate of one packet per roundtrip time, performs better than E2E both over a LAN and in the WAN experiments. –The performance improvement is a function of the socket buffer size the larger the buffer size, the better the relative performance.

23. Experimental Results---End-to-End protocols Explicit Loss Notification (ELN)

24. Experimental Results---End-to-End protocols Summary –E2E-NEWRENO is better than E2E, especially for large socket buffer sizes. –Adding ELN to TCP improves throughput significantly by successfully preventing unnecessary fluctuations in the transmission window. –SACKs provide significant improvement over TCP Reno, but perform about 10-15% worse than the best link-layer schemes in the LAN experiments, and about 35% worse in the WAN experiments. –These results suggest that an end-to-end protocol that has both ELN and SACKs will result in good performance, and is an area of current work.

25. Experimental Results---Split-connection protocol

27. Summary: –While the split-connection approach results in good throughput if the wireless connection uses special mechanisms, the performance is worse than that of a well tuned,TCP-aware link-layer protocol (LL-TCP- AWARE or LL-SMART-TCP-AWARE). –The link-layer protocol preserves the end-to-end semantics of TCP acknowledgments.This demonstrates that the end-to-end connection need not be split at the base station in order to achieve good performance.

28. Experimental Results---reaction to Burst Errors Selective acknowledgments improve the performance of LL-SMART-TCP-AWARE over LL-TCP-AWARE by up to 30% in the presence of burst errors.

29. Experimental Results--- Performance at Different Error Rates At the 16 KB error rate(higher rate), the performance of the TCP-aware link-layer schemes is about 1.75-2 times better than E2E-SMART and about times better than TCP Reno.

30. CONCLUSIONS 1. A reliable link-layer protocol –that uses knowledge of TCP(LL-TCP- AWARE) to shield the sender from duplicate ACKs arising from wireless losses gives a 10- 30% higher throughput than one (LL) that operates independently of TCP and does not attempt in-order delivery of packets. Of the schemes we investigated, the TCP-aware link- layer protocol with selective ACKs performs the best.

31. CONCLUSIONS 2. The split-connection approach – though uses SACKs, the throughput is still slightly less than that for a well-tuned link-layer scheme that does not split the connection. This demonstrates that splitting the end-to-end connection is not a requirement for good performance.

32. CONCLUSIONS 3. The selective ACK scheme –SMART-based scheme is quite effective in dealing with a high packet loss rate when employed over the wireless hop or by a sender in a LAN environment. – In the WAN experiments, the SACK scheme based on the IETF Draft resulted in significantly improving end- to-end performance. –From our results we conclude that selective acknowledgment schemes are very useful in the presence of lossy links, especially when losses occur in bursts.

33. CONCLUSIONS 4. End-to-end schemes –are promising since significant performance gains can be achieved without any extensive support from intermediate nodes in the network, while not as effective as local techniques in handling wireless losses. – The explicit loss notification scheme we evaluated resulted in a throughput improvement of more than a factor of two over TCP-Reno, with comparable goodput values.