International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering ISSN: 2454-4248

Volume: 4 Issue: 2 74 – 77
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Congestion-Free Network using Network-Based Protocol

Dr. Chandrashekhar UPPIN
HOD, Department of Computer Science,
Faculty of Computing and Applied Sciences.
Baze University, Jabi Abuja (Nigeria)
cv.uppin@bazeuniversity.edu.ng
cvuppin@gmail.com

Abstract –The Internet’s exceptional scalability and sturdiness results in the formof end-to-end Internet crowding control. End-to-end crowding
control algorithms are not responsible for preventingcrowdingdownfall and inequityproduced by applications that are impassive to network
crowding. To overcome these, we have proposed a newcrowding-avoidance tool called Congestion Free Router (CFR). CFR involves the give-
and-take of response between routers at the boundaries of a network in order to sense and curbimpassive traffic flow before they enter the
network, thereby preventing crowding within the network.
Keywords – Congestion Free Router; Routers;

__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION programming or queue management mechanisms in network

routers. As an example, per-flow packet programming
CFR demands the give-and-take of response between routers
mechanisms like WFQ commit to provide honest allocations
at the boundaries of a network so as to find and limit
of information measure to flows competitive for identical
impassive traffic flows before they enter the network,
link.
thereby preventing crowding inside the network.

The vitalidea behind the web is uttered by the measurability

dispute: no protocol, tool, or facilityshould be presented into
the web if it doesn't scale well. A key result to the
measurability argument is that the end-to-end argument: to
keep up measurability, algorithmic complexness should be
pressed to the sides of the network whenever possible.

Perhaps the most effective example of the web philosophy is

management protocol TCP protocol communications
protocol congestion control, which is enforced primarily
through algorithms operational at finish systems. Sadly,
management protocol TCP protocol communications
protocol congestion control additionally illustrates a number
of the shortcomings of the end-to-end argument.
II. LITERATURE SURVEY
The conditions of crowding downfall from undelivered
packets and of unfair information measure allocations
haven't gone unrecognized. Some have argued that there are
social incentives for transmission applications to be friendly
to the network, since an application wouldn't need to be
control accountable for output degradation within the web.
However, unresponsive UDP flows have become
disturbingly frequent within the web, and that they are an
example that the web cannot swear alone on social
incentives to regulate congestion or to work fairly.
Some have argued that congestion collapse and unfairness
may be slaked through the utilization of improved packet
IJFRCSCE | February 2018, Available @ http://www.ijfrcsce.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For example, consider the example shown in Fig. 1. In the
above example, two impassive flows (flow A and flow B)
contest for information in a network containing two hold-up
links (- and -) settled by a reasonableline-uptool at routers
and, at the initialhold-up link (-), reasonableline-up at router
confirms that each movementacceptspartial of the link’s
offered bandwidth (750 kb/s). On the second hold-up link (-
), much of the traffic from flow B is cast-off due to the
link’s narrowability (128 kb/s). Hence, flow-A
attainsanamount of 750 kb/s, and flow B attainsaamount of
128 kb/s.
Noticeably, crowdingdownfall has happened,
sincemovement B’s packets, which are eventuallycast-off on
the second hold-up link (-), edge the amount of flow A
athwart the initialhold-up link (-). Aprovision of hold-up is
held to be universally max-min reasonable if, at every link,
all livelymovements not hold-up at another link are
allocated a maximum, equal share of the link’s remaining
hold-up [22]. A globally max-min fair allocation of
74
International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering
Volume: 4 Issue: 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
bandwidth for the example shown in Fig. 1 would have been
III. PROBLEM DEFINATION
As a result of its firmobedience to endwisecrowding control,
the current Webaches from two disorders: Congestion
downfall from undelivered packets, and unfair provisions of
bandwidth amongopposing traffic movements.
The first disorder — congestion downfall from undelivered
packets — ascends when packets that are crashed before
reaching their finalpersistentlydevour bandwidth termini.
The second disorder—one-sided bandwidth allocation to
contra network movements—ascends in the Internet for a
most of goals, one of which is the presence of claims that do
not respond properly to traffic. Adaptive applications (e.g.,
TCP-based applications) that respond to congestion by
rapidly reducing their transmission rates are likely to receive
ISSN: 2454-4248
74 – 77
1.372 Mb/s for flow A and 128 kb/s for flow B.
unfairly small bandwidth allocations when competing with
unresponsive applications. The Internet protocols
themselves can also introduce unfairness. The TCP
algorithm, for instance, inherently causes each TCP flow to
receive a bandwidth that is inversely proportional to its
round-trip time [6]. Hence, TCP connections with short
round-trip times may receive unfairly large allocations of
network bandwidth when compared to connections with
longer round-trip times.
The impact of emerging streaming media traffic on
traditional data traffic is of growing concern in the Internet
community. Streaming media traffic is unresponsive to the
congestion in a network, and it can aggravate congestion
collapse and unfair bandwidth allocation.

IV. ARCHITECTURE

Fig 1: System Architecture

V. Implementation
To address the maladies of congestion collapse we introduce
and investigate a novel Internet traffic control protocol
called Congestion Free Router (CFR). The basic principle of
CFR is to compare, at the borders of a network, the rates at
which packets from each application flow are entering and
leaving the network. If a flow’s packets are entering the
IJFRCSCE | February 2018, Available @ http://www.ijfrcsce.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
network faster than they are leaving it, then the network is
likely buffering or, worse yet, discarding the flow’s packets.
In other words, the network is receiving more packets than it
is capable of handling. CFR prevents this scenario by
―patrolling‖ the network’s borders, ensuring that each flow’s
packets do not enter the network at a rate greater than they
are able to leave the network. This patrolling prevents
congestion collapse from undelivered packets, because
75
International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering ISSN: 2454-4248
Volume: 4 Issue: 2 74 – 77
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
unresponsive flow’s otherwise undeliverable packets never
enter the network in the first place.
Although CFR is capable of preventing congestion collapse
and improving the fairness of bandwidth allocations, these
improvements do not come for free. CFR solves these
problems at the expense of some additional network
complexity, since routers at the border of the network are
expected to monitor and control the rates of individual flows
in CFR. CFR also introduces added communication
overhead, since in order for an edge outer to know the rate at
which its packets are leaving the network, it must exchange
feedback with other edge routers. Unlike some existing
approaches trying to solve congestion collapse, however,
CFR’s added complexity is isolated to edge routers; routers
within the core of the network do not participate in the
prevention of congestion collapse. Moreover, end systems
operate in total ignorance of the fact that CFR is
implemented in the network, so no changes to transport
protocols are necessary at end systems.
VI. RESULTS
Fig. 3 IN router

Fig. 2 Source

Fig. 4 Router

76
IJFRCSCE | February 2018, Available @ http://www.ijfrcsce.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering
Volume: 4 Issue: 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 5 Details Window
VII. CONCLUSION
In this work, we have obtained a new congestion-avoidance
tool for the Internet called CFR and an ECSFQ tool. Distinct
existing Internet crowding control tactics, which rely merely
on endwise control, CFR is able to avoidbottleneckdownfall
from undelivered packets. ECSFQ balances CFR by
providing good bandwidth divisions in a main-stateless
fashion. CFR ensures at the boundary of the network that
each movements of packets do not enter the network sooner
than they are able to consent it, while ECSFQ confirms, at
the core of the network that movementsspreading at a rate
lesser than their reasonable share experience no congestion,
i.e., low network queuing delay.
IJFRCSCE | February 2018, Available @ http://www.ijfrcsce.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2454-4248
74 – 77
REFERENCES
[1] S. Floyd and K. Fall, ―Promoting the use of end-to-end
congestion control in the internet,‖ IEEE/ACM Trans.
Networking, vol. 7, pp. 458–472, Aug. 1999.
[2] J. Nagle, ―Congestion control in IP/TCP Internet works,‖
Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 896, Jan. 1984.
[3] V. Jacobson, ―Congestion avoidance and control,‖ ACM
Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 314–329, Aug.
1988.
[4] (1999, Jan.) Real Broadcast Network White Paper. Real
Networks, Inc. [Online]. Available:
http://www.real.com/solutions/rbn/ whitepaper.html
[5] (1999, Jan.) Real Video Technical White Paper. Real
Networks Inc. [Online]. Available:
http://www.real.com/devzone/library/whitepapers/
overview.html
[6] A. Habib and B. Bhargava, ―Unresponsive flow detection
and control in differentiated services networks,‖ presented at
the 13th IASTED Int. Conf. Parallel and Distributed
Computing and Systems, Aug. 2001.
[7] A. Mustafa and M. Hassan, ―End to end IP rate control,‖ in
Recent Advances in Computing and Communications. New
York: McGraw-Hill, Dec. 2000, pp. 279–282.
[8] A. Rangarajan and A. Acharya, ―ERUF: Early regulation of
unresponsive best-effort traffic,‖ presented at the Int. Conf.
Networks and Protocols, Oct. 1999.
[9] S. Robinson, ―Multimedia transmission drive net toward
gridlock,‖ New York Times, Aug. 23, 1999.
[10] A. Demers, S.Keshav, and S. Shenker, ―Analysis and
simulation of a fair queuing algorithm,‖ in Proc. ACM
SIGCOMM, Sept. 1989, pp. 1–12.
77