Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a
Wireless Communication Environment
Author1* 1, 2, Author2
Faculty of Science and Technology - Department of Computing and Informatics
Abstract
TCP Is a transport layer protocol that gives reliable
and connection-oriented transmission. The main
problem of a protocol is in wireless networks. In a
wireless network the packet loss could also be because
of network congestion or could also be due to the
quality of nodes. TCP starts its back-off procedure
once it detects packet loss, if them packet loss is thanks
to node movement then the back-off the procedure is
going to be unessential and it'll produce a delay within
the network.
The cardinal concept of TCP improvement changed
into to hold facts in the community in which network
congestion plays an essential function to reason packet
loss. Alternatively, there are several different motives
to lose packets in cellular ad hoc networks because of
fading, interfaces, a multi-direction routing, a
malicious node, and a black hollow. In conjunction
with throughput, equity of TCP protocols is important
to set up proper verbal exchange. On this paper, an
empirical examine has been achieved via simulation
and analysis of TCP variations underneath AODV,
DSDR, DSR, OLSR routing protocols. In our
simulation, we studied a couple of versions of TCP,
together with Reno, New-Reno, Vegas, and Tahoe. The
simulation work has been achieved in an NS2
surroundings. Based totally on the simulation effects
we achieved observations for one of a kind TCP
packets underneath numerous QoS metrics including a
drop, a throughput, a postpone, and a jitter.
Keywords- MANET; AODV; DSDV; DSR; OLSR;
Tahoe;
Reno; New-Reno; Vegas; NS2.
[1] INTRODUCTION
Wireless programs have become increasingly
1
common these days for computer manufacturers. TCP
is one of the most popular end-to-end agreements
reliable and compatible connections to both cables and
wireless networks. Unlike wireless links, wireless
radio stations are affected by a number of factors that
can lead to higher Bit rates Error Rate (BER). Or, TCP
does not have performance to determine packet loss
when reasons can be network congestion, channel
errors, link failure, blurring, wide connections, multi-
lane route, bad nodes as well black hole, etc. Being the
leading layer of transport A protocol that provides
reliable byte delivery between end-host applications
with connectivity management, congestion control,
flow control, and error control.
A mobile ad hoc temporary network is an
independent and self-prepared network consisting of
several cellular components namely mobile devices
such as mobile phones, PDAs, tablets, etc. In addition,
communication between mobile nodes occurs through
wireless links occur between nodes and without the
support of any infrastructure or other central access
points such as a Base Station. MANET has never built
any consistent topology as it is naturally strong. UDP
is necessary to transfer the actual data packets. Due to
its reliability, TCP and its variants play a crucial role
in data transfer over MANET. Though similar studies
have been carried out earlier but this paper provides a
succinct view of the Comparative performance of four
TCP variants over four different routing protocols in a
wireless communication environment.
[2] OVERVIEW OF SIMULATED
ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. AODV
Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing protocol
(AODV) is an on call for routing protocol. To find a
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment
course to the vacation spot, the supply node floods
the community with direction request packets. The
route request packets create brief route entries for
the reverse direction through each node it passes
within the network. Whilst it reaches the vacation
spot a route respond is dispatched lower back
through the same path the route request became
transmitted. Every node keeps a path table access
which updates the direction expiry time
B. DSDV
Destination-sequenced distance vector routing
protocol (DSDV) is one of the most famous desk-
pushed routing algorithms for MANET that's
primarily based on the dispensed bellman-ford
algorithm. DSDV routing protocol keeps a
routing table that lists all available destinations,
the wide variety of hops to reach the vacation
spot, and the collection number assigned by
means of the vacation spot node. The routing
table update can be dispatched in ways: a
"complete dump" or an incremental update. A
complete unload sends the full routing desk to the
associates and could span many packets while in
an incremental update simplest the one's entries
from the routing desk are dispatched that have a
metric alternate since the final replace..
C. DSR
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a type of
trajectory based on two processes: route acquisition
and route adjustment [8]. Route detection is the way
in which node S wishes to send a package to the
original location D finds the route to D .Route
Discovery is used only when S is trying to send a
package to D and does not know the route to D S
can find it while using the source path to D once the
network topology has changed so much that it can
no longer use its route to D because the route link is
no longer active works. When Route Maintenance
indicates a source route is broken, S can attempt to
use any other route it happens to know to D, or can
invoke Route Discovery again to find a new route.
Route Maintenance is used only when S is actually
sending packets to D [9].
D. OLSR
Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR)
[10] is based on link state algorithm and it is
proactive in nature. The OLSR is a better utility than
a state-linked legal link as environmental change
causes a flood of information for all managers
available on the network. In OLSR, each node uses
2
the latest data than the packet. Each node in the
network selects a set of nodes in its location,
redistributing its packets. This setting of selected
neighborhoods is called multipoint relays (MPR) for
that node. These are used to reduce radio flooding..
OLSR uses two kinds of the control messages: Hello
and Topology Control (TC) [10]
[3] RELATED RESEARCH
Ad hoc networking protocol protocols have been
well studied over the past few years. TCP variants
such as New Reno, Reno, Tahoe, Vegas are often used
to test the performance of MANETs routing protocols.
Tayade and Sharma [11] used TCP variants such as
Tahoe, Reno, Lite to compare DSR performance in
which they found that TCP Reno was the best between
Tahoe, Reno, and Lite, which could be considered in
terms of node speed compared to packet loss. TCP Lite
is ready for variation of your node number for both
packet loss losses.
According to the reference [12], with the improved
TCP New Reno (ABRA New Reno) it was upgraded to
temporary ad networks using New Retransmission
Time out statistics, to improve traffic control
performance and was implemented in the Ad-hoc
mobile network under QualNet 4.0 Simulator. ABRA
New Reno operates well under a variety of high-
density node conditions, high node speed, and
downtime, due to time efficiency, advanced routes
between nodes, good bandwidth exploitation, and
minimal packing delays.
Elaarag in [13] has shown that the TCP protocol
works best when using a sequential link line that is
suitable for mobile networks. The use of link-layer
protocols to provide acceptable error performance over
a wireless connection has now become an industry-
standard while link-layer protocols can provide
reliability, layer-to-layer protocol can be built to
handle handoff and disconnection.
Lee, Ahn, and Campbell in [14] demonstrated
the INSIGNIA program not only improved TCP good
put but also demonstrated improved quality of service
for general transportation conditions. At high speeds,
TCP flows often reduce the size of the part of their
windows to a minimum due to packet loss caused by a
lack of connectivity or traffic congestion. Many
congestion points are seen under high mobility.
Kim, Bae, and Toh [15] used ns-2, and their
proposed TCP- Vegas-ad hoc showed better
performance than standard TCP-Vegas. In particular, it
has improved performance (up to 20%) in high-node
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment
traffic using the Random way-point model. Wei,
Yeung, and Hai [16] used comparisons of TCP
performance on Random Waypoint (RW) and Social
Network (SN) mobility models and showed that SN
exceeds RW. Yoon, Liu, and Noble [17] argue that
the Random Waypoint is considered risky as their
findings show that this model fails to provide a
stable position in that the normal nodal speed
decreases over time, so it should not be used for
simulation
[4] OVERVIEW OF TCP
VARIENTS
A. TCP Tahoe
Tahoe refers back to the TCP congestion
manipulate algorithm which turned into
cautioned by way of van Jacobson in his paper
[18]. This implementation added a range of new
algorithms and refinements to earlier
implementations. The new algorithms include C.
sluggish-begin, congestion avoidance, and fast
retransmit.
TCP packet transmissions are processed by the
incoming knowledge. But, there is a problem-
whilst a connection first starts off evolved up it
desires to have acknowledgements so we need
to have information inside the network and to
place facts in the network we once more need
acknowledgements. To get around this
circularity, Tahoe shows that on every occasion
a TCP connection starts or re-begins after a
packet loss it needs to undergo a process known
as ‘slow-start.
For congestion avoidance, Tahoe makes use of
‘additive increase multiplicative decrease. A
packet loss is taken as a sign of congestion and
Tahoe saves half of the current window as a
threshold cost. It then set the congestion
window to at least one and starts a sluggish start
until it reaches the threshold value. After that, it
increments After that, it rises in sequence until D.
it meets the packet loss. For this reason, it
increases its window slowly because it
processes the bandwidth capacity.
B. TCP Reno
TCP Reno is the maximum widely adopted
internet TCP protocol. It retains the basic
precept of Tahoe, which includes gradual starts
off evolved and the coarse grain re-transmit
timer. But, it adds some intelligence over it in
order that lost packets are detected earlier and
3
the pipeline isn't always emptied on every
occasion a packet is misplaced. It employs four
transmission stages: Gradual begin, congestion
avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recuperation.
When packet loss happens in a congested link
due to buffer overflow in the intermediate routers,
both the sender receives three reproduction
acknowledgements or the sender’s retransmission
timeout (RTO) timer expires. Therefore, TCP
Reno calls for that we acquire immediately
acknowledgement on every occasion a segment is
obtained. If we obtain some of the reproduction
acknowledgements then meaning that sufficient
time has surpassed and even if the phase had
taken a longer direction, it has to have gotten to
the receiver by now. There may be a completely
high probability that it changed into misplaced. So
Reno shows an algorithm known as ‘fast re-
transmit’ [19, 20]
New TCP-Reno
New-Reno is a smaller conversion than TCP-
Reno. It can detect multiple packet losses and thus
works much better than RENO in the event of
multiple packet losses. Like Reno, New-Reno also
enters shipping as soon as it receives multiple
packages; however, it is different from RENO in
that it does not result in a speedy recovery until all
the data that was outstanding at the time of instant
recovery is approved. It, therefore, overcomes the
problem facing Reno of reducing the magnitude
of window stability times. The immediate transfer
phase is similar to Reno. The difference is the
rapid recovery phase that allows for more
transfers to the new Reno [21]. TCP New-Reno is
emerging from a speedy recovery after gaining
acceptance of all non-accepted components. Then
set the window size to reduce the initial limit and
proceed to the congestion phase [22].
TCP Vegas
Vegas is a TCP launch that transforms Reno. It
builds on the fact that effective methods of
dealing with congestion are much more effective
than effective ones. It tries to circumvent the grain
expiration problem by suggesting an algorithm
that checks the expiration time on a more efficient
schedule. Also, it overcomes the problem of
needing multiple duplicates to detect packet loss,
and it also suggests a modified startup algorithm
that prevents it from crowding the network. It gets
congested before the packet is lost. However it
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

still maintains another Reno and Tahoe process, Figure 1. Simulation Topology in NS2 environment

Method Value
Channel type Channel/Wireless channel
Radio-propagation Propagation/Two ray round
model
Network interface type Phy/wirelessphy
MAC type Mac/802.11
Interface queue type Queue/Drop Tail SIMULATION DESCRIPTION
Link Layer Type LL
TABLE I. PARAMETERS
Antenna Antenna/omni antenna
Maximum packet in ifq 50
Area (m×m) 1000×1000
Number of mobile nodes 16
QOS METRICS AND SIMULATION RESULT
TCP (NewReno, Reno,
Source type
Tahoe, Vegas) We used different parameter of QoS metrics such as
Simulation Time 100 seconds delay, jitter, packet drop and throughput to understand
Routing protocol AODV, DSDV, DSR, OLSR the behavior of TCP for AODV, DSDV, DSR, and
OLSR Routing Protocol under the time period of 100
and packet loss can still be attributed to the sec in both static and dynamic network simulation
closure of grain-based alternatives. The three scenario.
major changes caused by Vargas are the New
Re-Transmission Mechanism, Prevention of
Overcrowding using Comparison of Shipping A. Drop
and Expectations, and Modified Slow-start [23]. Routers may fail to deliver (drop) some packets when they
arrive when their buffers are full. Some, none, or all packets
may be discarded, depending on network status, and it is not
possible to determine what will happen ahead of time. A
receiving request may request that this information be
SIMULATION TOPOLOGY transferred to another location, possibly causing significant
delays in the transfer. Drop can be define as:
There is a simulation site with 16 wireless
No of Packets Dropped = No of pkt Sent – No of pkt Received
mobile sites positioned in the same way and
form the Capture Ad Network, which travels
TABLE II. NUMBERS OF PACKETS DROP FOR NEW-RENO
over 1000 × 1000 meters in 40 seconds of the
simulated time. We used a standard two-ray Routing
Total Total Total
Packet Type Sent Received dropped
ground transmission model, IEEE 802.11 Protocol
packets packets packets
MAC, and an Omni-directed antenna model for
NS2. We used AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR AODV 2895 2823 72

router algorithm and line line length for each New-Reno DSDV 2699 2641 28

location. The source domains respectively are DSR 3053 2977 76

6, 15 and 5 and the available nodes respectively OLSR 2941 2876 65

are 0, 1 and 11.

TABLE III. NUMBERS OF PACKETS DROP FOR RENO

Total Total Total
Routing
Packet Type Sent Received dropped
Protocol
packets packets packets
AODV 3016 2971 45
DSDV 3132 3071 61
Reno
DSR 3042 2973 69

4
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

OLSR 2694 2625 69 New-Reno DSR 4145040 2386468

OLSR 4129280 2414216
TABLE IV. NUMBERS OF PACKETS DROP FOR TAHOE
Total Total Total TABLE VII. DATA FOR THROUGHPUT IN RENO
Routing
Packet Type Sent Received dropped
Protocol
packets packets packets Total
Total Sending
AODV 3135 3085 50 Routing Receiving
Packet Type Throughput
Protocol Throughput
DSDV 2706 2644 62 (kbps)
Tahoe (kbps)
DSR 3110 3032 68
OLSR 2645 2585 60 AODV 4076944 2501464
DSDV 4533600 2244016
Reno
TABLE V. NUMBERS OF PACKETS DROP FOR VEGAS DSR 4172704 2399304
OLSR 4129280 2424856
Total Total Total
Routing
Packet Type Sent Received dropped
Protocol
packets packets packets
TABLE VIII. DATA FOR THROUGHPUT IN TAHOE
AODV 2558 2546 12
DSDV 3283 3257 26 Total
Vegas Total Sending
Routing Receiving
DSR 2153 2146 7 Packet Type Throughput
Protocol Throughput
OLSR 2416 2394 22 (kbps)
(kbps)

B. Throughput AODV 4164192 2428048

DSDV 4549560 2251976
Tahoe
DSR 4326000 2367488
Throughput is the size of the wide variety of OLSR 4131408 2394000
packets passing through the community in a unit
of time. This metric shows the total variety of TABLE IX. DATA FOR THROUGHPUT IN VEGAS

packets which have been effectively delivered to Total Sending

Total
the destination nodes and throughput improves Packet Type
Routing
Throughput
Receiving
Protocol Throughput
with increasing node density. Throughput can be (kbps)
(kbps)
defined as:
AODV 4131840 2531256
Σ Node Throughputs of Vegas DSDV 4564992 2343520
DSR 3911680 2467840
OLSR 3970048 2497208

C. Delay
A specific package transfers from source to location
and calculates the difference between delivery times
and received times. Delays due to route acquisition,
line, broadcast and transfer time are included in the
delay metric.. Delay can be defined as:
Packet Delay = packets receive time – packet send time

Figure 2. Delay for TCP New Reno for 100 sec

Data
Figure 3. Delay for TCP Reno for 100 sec
Transmission Total number
of nodes
TABLE VI. DATA FOR THROUGHPUT IN NEW-RENO
Total
Total
Routing Receiving
Packet Type Sending
Protocol Throughput
Throughput
(kbps)
(kbps)

AODV 859424 449540

DSDV 4533600 2264764

5
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

Figure 6. Jitter for TCP New Reno for 100 sec

Figure 4. Delay for TCP Tahoe for 100 sec

Figure 7. Jitter for TCP Reno for 100 sec

Figure 5. Delay for TCP Vegas for 100 sec

D. Jitter Figure 8. Jitter for TCP Tahoe for 100 sec

Jitter variation of packet arrival time. In jitter
calculations the variance in packet arrival time is
expected to be small. Delays between different
packages must be low if we want to work better on
Ad-hoc Networks. Jitter can be defined as:

Jitter ( i ) = Delay (i+1) – Delay (i) where i =

1,2,3…..n

Figure 9. Jitter for TCP Vegas for 100 sec

RESULT ANALYSI TABLE

6
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

DROP RATE FOR TCP VEGAS

Total
Drop
TABLE X. TOTAL RECEIVING THROUGHPUT RATE, PKT DELIVERY Packet Type
Routing Receiving
Rate
Delivery
AND Protocol Throughput Rate (%)
Rate (%) (%)
DROP RATE FOR TCP NEW-RENO
Total
Drop
Routing Receiving Delivery Rate
Packet Type Rate
Protocol Throughput (%) AODV 61.26 % 0.47 % 99.53 %
Rate (%) (%)
Vegas DSDV 51.34 % 0.79 % 99.21 %

DSR 63.09 % 0.33 % 99.67 %

AODV 52.31 % 2.49 % 97.51 %
OLSR 62.90 % 0.91 % 99.9
New-Reno DSDV 49.96 % 1.04 % 97.85 %

DSR 57.57 % 2.49 % 97.51 %

OLSR 58.47 % 2.21 % 97.79 %

CONCLUSION
TABLE XI. TOTAL RECEIVING THROUGHPUT RATE, PKT
DELIVERY AND
DROP RATE FOR TCP RENO
Total
We've got finished our simulation for four
Drop
Packet Type
Routing
Protocol
Receiving
Throughput
Rate
Delivery Rate
(%)
varieties of TCP variations and analyzed TCP
(%)
Rate (%) variants over AODV, DSDV, DSR, and OLSR
wherein NewReno, Reno, Tahoe and Vegas
overall performance are respectively (NewReno)
AODV 61.36 % 1.49 % 98.51 %
drop price = 1.04 %; shipping rate = 97.Eighty
Reno DSDV 49.50 % 1.95 % 98.05 % five %; overall receiving throughput = 49.96 %
DSR 57.50 % 2.27 % 97.73 % for DSDV, (Reno) drop charge = 1.Forty nine %;
OLSR 58.72 % 2.56 % 97.44 % shipping fee = 98.51 %; general receiving
throughput = 61.36 % for aodv, (Tahoe) drop rate
= 1.59 %; delivery charge = 98.41 %; general
receiving throughput = fifty eight.31 % for
TABLE XII. TOTAL RECEIVING THROUGHPUT AODV, (Vegas) drop price = zero.33 %; delivery
RATE, PKT DELIVERY AND charge = 99.67 %; total receiving throughput =
DROP RATE FOR TCP TAHOE
sixty three.09 % for dsr. From our simulation
study we've got found that Vegas plays higher
Total
Routing Receiving
Drop
Delivery Rate over AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR than New
Packet Type Rate
Protocol Throughput (%)
Rate (%) (%) Reno, Reno and Tahoe, in which drop fee = zero.
Forty seven %; delivery fee = 99.Fifty three %;
overall receiving throughput = sixty one.26 % for
AODV 58.31 % 1.59 % 98.41 %
AODV, drop rate = 0.79 %; transport fee = ninety
Tahoe DSDV 49.50 % 2.29 % 97.71 % nine.21 %; general receiving throughput = fifty
DSR 54.73 % 2.19 % 97.49 % one.34 % for DSDV, drop price = zero.33 %;
OLSR 57.95 % 2.29 % 97.73 % shipping charge = ninety nine. Sixty seven %;
overall receiving throughput = 63.09 % for DSR,
drop charge = zero.91 %; transport fee = ninety
nine.09 %; general receiving throughput = sixty
TABLE XIII. TOTAL RECEIVING two.90 % for ALSR. Considering the overall
THROUGHPUT
performance at the variants of TCP, Vegas shows
RATE, PKT DELIVERY AND

7
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

the very best efficiency and plays pleasant. So networks for IPv4” IETF Experimental RFC 4728,
we can finish that during phrases of drop costs, February 2007
transport quotes and general receiving [9] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic
throughput, Vegas is definitely pleasant a few Source Routing in ad hoc Wireless Networks. In
of the 4 editions.
Mobile Computing, edited by Tomasz Imielinski and
Hank Korth, chapter 5, pages 153-181. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1996
REFERENCES
[10] T. H. Clausen and P. Jacquet (eds.), “Optimized Link
[1] Alaa Seddik-Ghaleb; Yacine Ghamri-Doudane; Sidi- State Routing Protocol (OLSR)”, IETF Experimental
Mohammed Senouci, "A Performance study of TCP RFC 3626, October 2003
variants (Tahoe, Reno, New- Reno, SACK, Vegas, and [11] Mandakini Tayade; Sanjev Sharma, "Performance
Westwood) in terms of energy consumption and comparison of TCP variants in mobile ad-Hoc
average goodput within a static ad hoc environment", Networks", International Journal of Computer
IWCMC'2006, Science and Information Security, Vol. 9, No. 3, March
Vancouver, Canada, Juillet 2006 2011, pp. 165- 170
[2] Maxim Podlesny; Carey Williamson, "Providing [12] Dhananjay Bisen; Sanjeev Sharma, "Improved
fairness between TCP NewReno and TCP Vegas with performance of TCP New Reno over Mobile Ad-hoc
RD network services", Proceedings of 18th Workshop Network using ABRA", International Journal of
on Quality of Service (IWQoS), Beijing, China. Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 2,
[3] C. Perkins, E. B. Royer and S. Das,”AdHoc On- April 2011, pp. 102-111
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing”, RFC [13] Hala Elaarag, "Improving TCP performance over mobile
3561, IETF Network Working Group, July 2003. networks",
[4] C. Siva Rama Murthy and B.S. Manoj, “Adhoc ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 34, No. 3, September
wireless networks: architectures and protocols”, 2002, pp. 357–374
Second Edition, Prentice Hall. [14] Seoung-Bum Lee; Gahng-Seop Ahn; Andrew T.
[5] T. G. Basavaraju and Subir Kumar Sarkar, “Adhoc Campbell, "Improving UDP and TCP performance in
mobile wireless networks: principles, protocols and mobile ad hoc networks with INSIGNIA", IEEE
applications”, Auerbach Publications, 2008. Communications Magazine, June 2001, pp. 156-165

[6] Ramesh, Dr. P. Subbaiah, N. Koteswar Rao and M. [15] Dongkyun Kim; Hanseok Bae; C. K. Toh, "Improving
Janardhana Raju,"Performance comparison and TCP-Vegas performance over MANET routing
analysis of DSDV and AODV for MANET," (JJCSE) protocols", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
International Journal on Computer Science and VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 1,
Engineering , vol. 02 , pp. 183-188, 2010 JANUARY 2007, pp. 372-377

[7] Md. Monzur Morshed; Franz I. S. Ko; Dongwook [16] Ren Wei; Yeung D. Y.; Jin Hai, "TCP performance
Lim; Md. Habibur Rahman; Md. Rezaur Rahman evaluation over AODV and DSDV in RW and SN
Mazumder; Jyotirmoy Ghosh, "Performance mobility models", Journal of Zhejiang University
evaluation of DSDV and AODV routing protocols in Science, 2006 Vol.7 No.10 pp.1683-1689
mobile ad-hoc networks", NISS, 2010, pp. 399-403, [17] Jungkeun Yoon; Mingyan Liu; Brian Noble, "Random
May 2010 Waypoint considered harmful", IEEE INFOCOM
[8] D. Johnson, Y. Hu and D. Maltz, “The Dynamic 2003, vol.2, pp. 1312-1321
Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for mobile ad hoc [18] V. Jacobson. “Congestion avoidance and control”, on
8
Unit Title: Mobile and Wireless Networks
Performance Comparison of TCP Variants in a Wireless Communication Environment

SIGCOMM '88 Symposium proceedings on modification to TCP’s fast recovery algorithm” RFC
Communications architectures and protocols 2582, Apr 1999

[19] V. Jacobson. “Modified TCP congestion avoidance [22] H. Lee, S. Lee, and Y. Choi, “The influence of the
algorithm”, Technical report, 30 Apr. 1990. Email large bandwidth- delay product on TCP Reno,
to the end2end-interest Mailing List, URL: NewReno, and SACK,” in Proc. Information
ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/email/vanj.90apr30.txt Networking Conference, Oita, Japan, Feb. 2001, pp.

[20] S. Floyd and K. Fall, “Simulation based 327– 334

comparisons of Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP,” L. S. Brakmo, L. L. Peterson, “TCP Vegas: End to End

ACM Computer Communication Review, vol. 26, congestion avoidance on a global Internet”, IEEE Journal on

no. 3, pp. 5–21, July 1996 Selected Areas in Communication, vol. 13[1995], pp. 1465-
1490
[21] S. Floyd, T. Henderson “The New- Reno