RE: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion control on TCP/
Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com> Thu, 09 March 2000 18:10 UTC
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id NAA01989 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:10:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lint.cisco.com (lint.cisco.com [171.68.224.209]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01810 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:09:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigger-dawgs (rtp-dial-1-77.cisco.com [161.44.116.77]) by lint.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id KAA05368; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000309130232.00a30220@lint.cisco.com>
X-Sender: pferguso@lint.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:08:06 -0500
To: "Schipper, Dell" <dell.schipper@FNC.FUJITSU.COM>
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion control on TCP/
Cc: Jianbo Huang <jbhuang@ACM.ORG>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <DB62B90D197CD311A6A0009027C39AFB0B917D@rchsemx1.fnc.fujits u.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
At 11:16 AM 03/09/2000 -0600, Schipper, Dell wrote: >I recall that Larry Roberts a few years ago gave presentations (at >NetWorld+InterOp ?) that compared the congestion avoidance algorithms of >ATM-ABR service to TCP/IP. I know he has started a new company since >then and I do not have any contact information. One of my favorites along those lines was: "End-to-End Traffic Management Issues in IP/ATM Internetworks," draft-jagan-e2e-traf-mgmt-00.txt, S. Jagannath and N. Yin, August 1997. - paul [snip] Abstract This document addresses the end-to-end traffic management issues in IP/ATM internetworks. In the internetwork environment, the ATM control mechanisms (e.g., Available Bit Rate (ABR) and UBR with Early Packet Discard (EPD)) are applicable to the ATM subnetwork, while the TCP flow control extends from end to end. We investigated the end to end performance in terms of TCP throughput and file transfer delay in cases using ABR and UBR in the ATM subnetwork. In this document, we also discuss the issue of trade-off between the buffer requirements at the ATM edge device (e.g., Ethernet-ATM switch, ATM router interface) versus ATM switches inside the ATM network. Our simulation results show that in certain scenarios (e.g., with limited edge device buffer memory) UBR with EPD may perform comparably to ABR or even outperform ABR. We show that it is not sufficient to have a lossless ATM subnetwork from the end-to-end performance point of view. The results illustrate the necessity for an edge device congestion handling mechanism that can couple the ABR and TCP feedback control loops. We present an algorithm that makes use of the ABR feedback information and edge device congestion state to make packet dropping decisions at the edge of the ATM network. Using the algorithm at the edge device, the end-to-end performance in throughput and delay are improved while using ABR as the ATM subnetwork technology and with small buffers in the edge device. [snip]
- Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion cont… Michael CTR Bellopede
- RE: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion … Schipper, Dell
- RE: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion … Paul Ferguson
- Re: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion … Jon Crowcroft