• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Network Working Group A. MankinRequest for Comments: 1254 MITREK. RamakrishnanDigital Equipment CorporationEditorsAugust 1991Gateway Congestion Control SurveyStatus of this MemoThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It is asurvey of some of the major directions and issues. It does notspecify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo isunlimited.AbstractThe growth of network intensive Internet applications has madegateway congestion control a high priority. The IETF Performance andCongestion Control Working Group surveyed and reviewed gatewaycongestion control and avoidance approaches. The purpose of thispaper is to present our review of the congestion control approaches,as a way of encouraging new discussion and experimentation. Includedin the survey are Source Quench, Random Drop, Congestion Indication(DEC Bit), and Fair Queueing. The task remains for Internetimplementors to determine and agree on the most effective mechanismsfor controlling gateway congestion.1. IntroductionInternet users regularly encounter congestion, often in mild forms.However, severe congestion episodes have been reported also; andgateway congestion remains an obstacle for Internet applications suchas scientific supercomputing data transfer. The need for Internetcongestion control originally became apparent during several periodsof 1986 and 1987, when the Internet experienced the "congestioncollapse" condition predicted by Nagle [Nag84]. A large number ofwidely dispersed Internet sites experienced simultaneous slowdown orcessation of networking services for prolonged periods. BBN, thefirm responsible for maintaining the then backbone of the Internet,the ARPANET, responded to the collapse by adding link capacity[Gar87].Much of the Internet now uses as a transmission backbone the NationalScience Foundation Network (NSFNET). Extensive monitoring andcapacity planning are being done for the NSFNET backbone; still, asPerformance and Congestion Control Working Group [Page 1]
 
RFC 1254 Gateway Congestion Control Survey August 1991the demand for this capacity grows, and as resource-intensiveapplications such as wide-area file system management [Sp89]increasingly use the backbone, effective congestion control policieswill be a critical requirement.Only a few mechanisms currently exist in Internet hosts and gatewaysto avoid or control congestion. The mechanisms for handlingcongestion set forth in the specifications for the DoD Internetprotocols are limited to:Window flow control in TCP [Pos81b], intended primarily forcontrolling the demand on the receiver's capacity, both in termsof processing and buffers.Source quench in ICMP, the message sent by IP to request that asender throttle back [Pos81a].One approach to enhancing Internet congestion control has been tooverlay the simple existing mechanisms in TCP and ICMP with morepowerful ones. Since 1987, the TCP congestion control policy, Slow-start, a collection of several algorithms developed by Van Jacobsonand Mike Karels [Jac88], has been widely adopted. Successful Internetexperiences with Slow-start led to the Host Requirements RFC [HREQ89]classifying the algorithms as mandatory for TCP. Slow-start modifiesthe user's demand when congestion reaches such a point that packetsare dropped at the gateway. By the time such overflows occur, thegateway is congested. Jacobson writes that the Slow-start policy isintended to function best with a complementary gateway policy[Jac88].1.1 DefinitionsThe characteristics of the Internet that we are interested in includethat it is, in general, an arbitrary mesh-connected network. Theinternetwork protocol is connectionless. The number of users thatplace demands on the network is not limited by any explicitmechanism; no reservation of resources occurs and transport layerset-ups are not disallowed due to lack of resources. A path from asource to destination host may have multiple hops, through severalgateways and links. Paths through the Internet may be heterogeneous(though homogeneous paths also exist and experience congestion).That is, links may be of different speeds. Also, the gateways andhosts may be of different speeds or may be providing only a part oftheir processing power to communication-related activity. Thebuffers for storing information flowing through Internet gateways arefinite. The nature of the internet protocol is to drop packets whenthese buffers overflow.Performance and Congestion Control Working Group [Page 2]
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...