A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols

Welzl, M.; Ros, D.

doi:10.17487/rfc6297

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…o Less-than-Best-Effort (LBE) congestion controls: Per [RFC6297], an LBE service "results in smaller bandwidth and/or delay impact on standard TCP than standard TCP itself, when sharing a bottleneck with it." A base-line congestion control for this category is Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT) [RFC6817].…”

Section: Congestion Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue Management (AQM)

Natarajan¹,

Khademi²,

Kuhn³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Congestion Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue Management (AQM)

Natarajan¹,

Khademi²,

Kuhn³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, LBE behavior can be achieved at the transport layer with a mechanism that resembles TCP but exhibits a 1 For this reason, LBE is sometimes referred to as a scavenger service. more cautious behavior, e.g.…”

Section: A Goal and Outline Of The Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We thank Padma Bhooma for allowing us to use his figures from [51], and all the people who have contributed to RFC 6297 [1]: Melissa Chavez and Yinxia Zhao for reference pointers, as well as Jari Arkko, Mayutan Arumaithurai, Dragana Damjanovic, Elwyn Davies, Wesley Eddy, Stephen Farrell, Mirja Kuehlewind, Tina Tsou and Rolf Winter for their comments and suggestions.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides, by both running for very long periods and opening Manuscript received 3 November 2011; revised 12 May 2012. A shorter version of this paper appeared as RFC 6297 [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TCP-based bulk transfer applications will tend to saturate the bottleneck buffer, inducing huge delays that render interactive applications unusable [2]. Latency-sensitive flows may thus benefit from some flows receiving a less-than-best-effort (LBE) service-that is, a service that allows to use only residual network resources 1 and aims at lowering the impact of the latter flows on the former. In other words, users could obtain a more appropriate network behavior (perceived as better overall performance) if an LBE service were used by some applications, as this would allow time-critical data transfers to access more of the available bandwidth when they need it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Less-than-Best-Effort Service: A Survey of End-to-End Approaches

Ros

Welzl

2013

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper provides a survey of transport protocols and congestion control mechanisms that are designed to have a smaller bandwidth and/or delay impact on standard TCP than standard TCP itself when they share a bottleneck with it. Such protocols and mechanisms provide what is sometimes called a less-than-best-effort or lower than best-effort service. To a user, such a service can, for instance, be an attractive choice for applications which create traffic that is considered less urgent than that of others-e.g., automatic backup, software updates running in the background, or peer-to-peer applications. The focus of this survey is on end-host approaches for achieving a lessthan-best-effort service. This includes e.g. upper-layer methods, or techniques that leverage standard transport-layer mechanisms so as to reduce the impact on other competing flows.Index Terms-Transport protocols; congestion control; quality of service; less-than-best effort service.

show abstract

Adaptive low-priority transfer for high bandwidth and delay product networks

Wang

Han

et al. 2016

Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the exponential growth of the Internet, there is an increasing need to provide different types of services for numerous applications. Among these services, low‐priority data transfer across wide area network has attracted much attention and has been used in a number of applications, such as data backup and system updating. Although the design of low‐priority data transfer has been investigated adequately in low speed networks at transport layer, it becomes more challenging for the design of low‐priority data transfer with the adaptation to high bandwidth delay product networks than the previous ones. This paper proposes an adaptive low‐priority protocol to achieve high utilization and fair sharing of links in high bandwidth delay product networks, which is implemented at transport layer with an end‐to‐end approach. The designed protocol implements an adaptive congestion control mechanism to adjust the congestion window size by appropriate amount of spare bandwidth. The improved congestion mechanism is intent to make as much use of the available bandwidth without disturbing the regular transfer as possible. Experiments demonstrate that the adaptive low‐priority protocol achieve efficient and fair bandwidth utilization, and remain non‐intrusive to high priority traffic. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols

Cited by 17 publications

References 33 publications

Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue Management (AQM)

Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue Management (AQM)

Less-than-Best-Effort Service: A Survey of End-to-End Approaches

Adaptive low-priority transfer for high bandwidth and delay product networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About