Design, implementation and evaluation of a QoS-aware transport protocol

In the context of a reconfigurable transport protocol framework, we propose a QoS-aware Transport Protocol (QSTP), specifically designed to operate over QoS-enabled networks with bandwidth guarantee. QSTP combines QoS-aware TFRC congestion control mechanism, which takes into account the network-level bandwidth reservations, with a Selective ACKnowledgment (SACK) mechanism in order to provide a QoS-aware transport service that fill the gap between QoS enabled network services and QoS constraint applications. We have developed a prototype of this protocol in the user-space and conducted a large range of measurements to evaluate this proposal under various network conditions. Our results show that QSTP allows applications to reach their negotiated QoS over bandwidth guaranteed networks, such as DiffServ/AF network, where TCP fails. This protocol appears to be the first reliable protocol especially designed for QoS network architectures with bandwidth guarantee

TCP throughput guarantee in the DiffServ Assured Forwarding service: what about the results?

Since the proposition of Quality of Service architectures by the IETF, the interaction between TCP and the QoS services has been intensively studied. This paper proposes to look forward to the results obtained in terms of TCP throughput guarantee in the DiffServ Assured Forwarding (DiffServ/AF) service and to present an overview of the different proposals to solve the problem. It has been demonstrated that the standardized IETF DiffServ conditioners such as the token bucket color marker and the time sliding window color maker were not good TCP traffic descriptors. Starting with this point, several propositions have been made and most of them presents new marking schemes in order to replace or improve the traditional token bucket color marker. The main problem is that TCP congestion control is not designed to work with the AF service. Indeed, both mechanisms are antagonists. TCP has the property to share in a fair manner the bottleneck bandwidth between flows while DiffServ network provides a level of service controllable and predictable. In this paper, we build a classification of all the propositions made during these last years and compare them. As a result, we will see that these conditioning schemes can be separated in three sets of action level and that the conditioning at the network edge level is the most accepted one. We conclude that the problem is still unsolved and that TCP, conditioned or not conditioned, remains inappropriate to the DiffServ/AF service