Analysis and enhancement of TCP Vegas congestion control in a mixed TCP Vegas and TCP Reno network scenario

Vendictis, Andrea De; Baiocchi, Andrea; Bonacci, Michela

doi:10.1016/s0166-5316(03)00064-6

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[13]have evaluatedthe behavior of TCP Vegas and TCP Reno in a wired but heterogeneous network.Thehave concluded that it is not possible to achieve fairness in TCP Vegas and TCP Reno.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation Study of Variants of Transmission Control Protocol

Moza¹,

Kumar²

2015

CAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) provides reliable, connection oriented, end to end communication. TCP is used mostly by wired links. Source of delay and data corruption, due to peripheral parameters, is minimal in wired links. Thus packet loss due to congestion is the main concern. Therefore quality of service parameters, namely throughput, delay and packet loss need to be analyzed. At present many TCP variants are available and therefore their performance can be compared based on these parameters. In this paper various TCP variants are simulated and their performance is compared in terms of throughput, delay, packet delivery ratio and packet loss for a particular network topology. NS2, an event driven simulator, is used for simulation. The result shows that TCP Vegas is better than other TCP variants for sending data and information.

show abstract

“…[13]have evaluatedthe behavior of TCP Vegas and TCP Reno in a wired but heterogeneous network.Thehave concluded that it is not possible to achieve fairness in TCP Vegas and TCP Reno.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation Study of Variants of Transmission Control Protocol

Moza¹,

Kumar²

2015

CAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these proposals, like Compound TCP [21], TCP Illinois [22] and RACC [23], are hybrid loss-and delay-based mechanisms, whereas others (e.g., FAST TCP [24], NewVegas [25], or CODE TCP [26]) are variants of Vegas based primarily on delays. 4 Though not specific to Vegas, there are also proposals, such as [27], [28], aiming at improving the coexistence of loss-based and delay-based congestion-controlled flows.…”

Section: A Tcp Vegasmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…In this section, we present a summary of these two congestion control mechanisms and explain why they are incompatible. Then two algorithms, NewVegas [17] and Vegas-A [18], that attempt to solve the fairness problem between Vegas and Reno are described.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, if no router provides useful information, such schemes cannot function properly. The second type attempt to solve the incompatibility problem by dynamically adjusting a and b based on feedback from the network [17,18]. Such schemes attempt to detect whether or not Reno connections exist in the network.…”

Section: Incompatibility Of Tcp Vegas With Tcp Renomentioning

confidence: 99%