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

On-board congestion control for satellite packet switching networks

It is desirable to incorporate packet switching capability on-board for future communication satellites. Because of the statistical nature of packet communication, incoming traffic fluctuates and may cause congestion. Thus, it is necessary to incorporate a congestion control mechanism as part of the on-board processing to smooth and regulate the bursty traffic. Although there are extensive studies on congestion control for both baseband and broadband terrestrial networks, these schemes are not feasible for space based switching networks because of the unique characteristics of satellite link. Here, we propose a new congestion control method for on-board satellite packet switching. This scheme takes into consideration the long propagation delay in satellite link and takes advantage of the the satellite's broadcasting capability. It divides the control between the ground terminals and satellite, but distributes the primary responsibility to ground terminals and only requires minimal hardware resource on-board satellite

Tiny Codes for Guaranteeable Delay

Future 5G systems will need to support ultra-reliable low-latency communications scenarios. From a latency-reliability viewpoint, it is inefficient to rely on average utility-based system design. Therefore, we introduce the notion of guaranteeable delay which is the average delay plus three standard deviations of the mean. We investigate the trade-off between guaranteeable delay and throughput for point-to-point wireless erasure links with unreliable and delayed feedback, by bringing together signal flow techniques to the area of coding. We use tiny codes, i.e. sliding window by coding with just 2 packets, and design three variations of selective-repeat ARQ protocols, by building on the baseline scheme, i.e. uncoded ARQ, developed by Ausavapattanakun and Nosratinia: (i) Hybrid ARQ with soft combining at the receiver; (ii) cumulative feedback-based ARQ without rate adaptation; and (iii) Coded ARQ with rate adaptation based on the cumulative feedback. Contrasting the performance of these protocols with uncoded ARQ, we demonstrate that HARQ performs only slightly better, cumulative feedback-based ARQ does not provide significant throughput while it has better average delay, and Coded ARQ can provide gains up to about 40% in terms of throughput. Coded ARQ also provides delay guarantees, and is robust to various challenges such as imperfect and delayed feedback, burst erasures, and round-trip time fluctuations. This feature may be preferable for meeting the strict end-to-end latency and reliability requirements of future use cases of ultra-reliable low-latency communications in 5G, such as mission-critical communications and industrial control for critical control messaging.Comment: to appear in IEEE JSAC Special Issue on URLLC in Wireless Network

Full TCP/IP for 8-Bit architectures

We describe two small and portable TCP/IP implementations fulfilling the subset of RFC1122 requirements needed for full host-to-host interoperability. Our TCP/IP implementations do not sacrifice any of TCP's mechanisms such as urgent data or congestion control. They support IP fragment reassembly and the number of multiple simultaneous connections is limited only by the available RAM. Despite being small and simple, our implementations do not require their peers to have complex, full-size stacks, but can communicate with peers running a similarly light-weight stack. The code size is on the order of 10 kilobytes and RAM usage can be configured to be as low as a few hundred bytes

A Comparison of Selected GBN ARQ Schemes for Variable-Error-Rate Channel Using QAM

In non-stationary channels, error rates vary considerably. The paper compares Yao's Adaptive Go-back-N (GBN) Automatic-Repeat-Request (ARQ) scheme with Adaptive go-back-N with sliding window mechanism which both estimate the channel state in a simple manner, and adaptively switch their operation mode. The throughput of these schemes is compared in conditions of Additive White Gauss Noise (AWGN) channel with independent errors using 16-QAM modulation

Survey of unified approaches to integrated-service networks

The increasing demand for communication services, coupled with recent technological advances in communication media and switching techniques, has resulted in a proliferation of new and expanded services. Currently, networks are needed which can transmit voice, data, and video services in an application-independent fashion. Unified approaches employ a single switching technique across the entire network bandwidth, thus, allowing services to be switched in an application-independent manner. This paper presents a taxonomy of integrated-service networks including a look at N-ISDN, while focusing on unified approaches to integrated-service networks.The two most promising unified approaches are burst and fast packet switching. Burst switching is a circuit switching-based approach which allocates channel bandwidth to a connection only during the transmission of "bursts" of information. Fast packet switching is a packet switching-based approach which can be characterized by very high transmission rates on network links and simple, hardwired protocols which match the rapid channel speed of the network. Both approaches are being proposed as possible implementations for integrated-service networks. We survey these two approaches, and also examine the key performance issues found in fast packet switching. We then present the results of a simulation study of a fast packet switching network

Reliable Packet Streams with Multipath Network Coding

With increasing computational capabilities and advances in robotics, technology is at the verge of the next industrial revolution. An growing number of tasks can be performed by artificial intelligence and agile robots. This impacts almost every part of the economy, including agriculture, transportation, industrial manufacturing and even social interactions. In all applications of automated machines, communication is a critical component to enable cooperation between machines and exchange of sensor and control signals. The mobility and scale at which these automated machines are deployed also challenges todays communication systems. These complex cyber-physical systems consisting of up to hundreds of mobile machines require highly reliable connectivity to operate safely and efficiently. Current automation systems use wired communication to guarantee low latency connectivity. But wired connections cannot be used to connect mobile robots and are also problematic to deploy at scale. Therefore, wireless connectivity is a necessity. On the other hand, it is subject to many external influences and cannot reach the same level of reliability as the wired communication systems. This thesis aims to address this problem by proposing methods to combine multiple unreliable wireless connections to a stable channel. The foundation for this work is Caterpillar Random Linear Network Coding (CRLNC), a new variant of network code designed to achieve low latency. CRLNC performs similar to block codes in recovery of lost packets, but with a significantly decreased latency. CRLNC with Feedback (CRLNC-FB) integrates a Selective-Repeat ARQ (SR-ARQ) to optimize the tradeoff between delay and throughput of reliable communication. The proposed protocol allows to slightly increase the overhead to reduce the packet delay at the receiver. With CRLNC, delay can be reduced by more than 50 % with only a 10 % reduction in throughput. Finally, CRLNC is combined with a statistical multipath scheduler to optimize the reliability and service availability in wireless network with multiple unreliable paths. This multipath CRLNC scheme improves the reliability of a fixed-rate packet stream by 10 % in a system model based on real-world measurements of LTE and WiFi. All the proposed protocols have been implemented in the software library NCKernel. With NCKernel, these protocols could be evaluated in simulated and emulated networks, and were also deployed in several real-world testbeds and demonstrators.:Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 6 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3 Opportunities of Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 State of the Art of Multipath Communication 19 2.1 Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.2 Data Link Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3 Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4 Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.5 Application Layer and Session Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.6 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3 NCKernel: Network Coding Protocol Framework 27 3.1 Theory that matters! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.1 Socket Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.2 En-/Re-/Decoder API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3.3 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.4 Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.5 Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.5 Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4 Low-Latency Network Coding 35 4.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2 Random Linear Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3 Low Latency Network Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.4 CRLNC: Caterpillar Random Linear Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.4.1 Encoding and Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.4.2 Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.4.3 Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.5.1 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.5.2 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.5.3 Packet Loss Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.5.4 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.5.5 Window Size Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5 Delay-Throughput Tradeoff 55 5.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.2 Network Coding with ARQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.3 CRLNC-FB: CRLNC with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.3.1 Encoding and Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3.2 Decoding and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3.3 Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.4 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.4.1 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.4.2 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.4.3 Systematic Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.4.4 Coded Packet Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.4.5 Comparison with other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6 Multipath for Reliable Low-Latency Packet Streams 73 6.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6.3 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.1 Traffic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.2 Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.3 Channel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.3.4 Reliability Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.4 Multipath CRLNC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.4.1 Window Size for Heterogeneous Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.4.2 Packet Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5.1 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5.2 Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.5.3 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7 Conclusion 94 7.1 Results and Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 7.2 Future Research Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Acronyms 99 Publications 101 Bibliography 10