Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TCP ACC Simulation Enhanced Congestion Window Increment and Adaptive Fast Recovery Congestion Control Algorithm in Wired Network Scenario19!1!18
TCP ACC Simulation Enhanced Congestion Window Increment and Adaptive Fast Recovery Congestion Control Algorithm in Wired Network Scenario19!1!18
1. Introduction
In the phase of a slow start and congestion avoidance algorithm implementation must
be used by a TCP sender data controlling to inject outstanding data into the network. This
can be handled by two variables the congestion window (Cwnd), this is a sender side
limit of data amount transmission before receiving an acknowledgment (ACK) and
receiver advertised window (RWND) is the receiver side limit of data amount outstanding
for processing. Another variable is slow to start threshold (ssthresh), it is used for
determining the congestion avoidance algorithm is used to data transmission control. The
initial cwnd size depends on the SENDER MAXIMUM SEGMENT SIZE (SMSS) and
cwnd set to less or equal to 2 * SMSS. on receiving every ACK cwnd is increased by full
segment size until not detected duplicate ACK. when packet loss detected then set the
maximum ssthresh by the maximum value between flightsize/2 and 2*SMSS, where
flightsize is the amount of outstanding data in the network. The threshold selection is
important for quality of service requirement for the communication network. The
intelligent and optimal threshold selection is for both local and global communication
schemes. [13]
The TCP sender SHOULD use the "fast retransmit" algorithm to detect and repair
loss, based on incoming duplicate ACKs. After receiving 3 duplicate ACKs, TCP
performs a retransmission of what appears to be the missing segment, without waiting for
the retransmission timer to expire.
1. If 3DUPACK is received, set ssthresh to max(flightsize/2, 2*SMSS)
2. Retransmit the lost segment and set cwnd to ssthresh plus 3*SMSS.
3. For each additional duplicate, ACK received, increment cwnd by SMSS.
4. Transmit a segment, if allowed by the new value of cwnd and the rwnd.
5. When the next ACK arrives that acknowledges new data, set cwnd to ssthresh
This ACK should be the acknowledgment elicited by the retransmission from step 1,
one RTT after the retransmission.[12]Figure 1 shows the TCP congestion control
algorithm implementation data flow diagram with the different stages.
Fig 1 TCP Congestion control algorithm with fast recovery flow representation
In this paper, we propose an improved version of TCP congestion control algorithm,
named TCP-ACC based on the TCP BIC. The algorithm TCP ACC is simulated and
analysis with the other congestion control algorithms as NewReno, BIC, and Hybrid
Illinois. Experimental results obtained using network simulators NS3 that show the
performance of the algorithm is significantly improved as compared to other.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section II, we give an overview of
the goal of the congestion control algorithms. In section III, we give a description of the
NS3 simulation setup and analysis of different algorithm results. In the section, IV
proposed TCP-ACC algorithm analysis with others. Section V Finally, we summarize the
findings.
Parameters Values
Bandwidth 2, 5, 10 Mb/s
Time of Simulation 25, 50,80 seconds
Queue Type PfifoFastQueueDisc
Nodes 2
Delay 0.01 ms
TCP Congestion Control NewReno, BIC, Hybrid
Algorithms Illinois and Another
Congestion Control(ACC)
Access Bandwidth 10 Mb/s
Access Delay 0.45 ms
Figure 4shows the comparison between average round-trip time for the bandwidth 2,
5 and 10 Mbps with simulation time 25,50 and 80 seconds. This shows that the less
bandwidth and high simulation time increase the Round Trip Time. Whereas we see in
the graph when increasing the bottleneck bandwidth 2 Mb/s to 10 Mb/s correspondingly
decreasing the average round trip time.
NewReno
0.3
Average RTT (s)
0.2
2Mbps
0.1
5Mbps
0 10Mbps
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
In figure 5 shows the comparison between average Congestion windows segment size
for the bandwidth 2,5,10 Mbps and simulation time 25,50 and 80 seconds for each
bandwidth. This shows that the less bandwidth and high simulation time increase the
congestion window size. Whereas the bottleneck bandwidth is increasing then the cwnd
size is also increasing with simulation time that represents the more data packet can push
into the network without congestion.
50000 10Mbps
0
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
After regress simulation study we got the figure 7that shows the comparison between
average round-trip time for the bandwidth 2, 5 and10 Mbps for each bandwidth
simulation time 25,50 and 80 seconds. This shows that the using of BIC congestion
control when bandwidth increase than averages RTT is decreased but when simulation
time increased then not much more effect on the average RTT its remain about to same.
Through this graph, we observed that TCP BIC not having much more impact when
increasing the simulation time. TCP BIC average RTT is greater than the average RTT of
TCP NewReno.
0.1 10Mbps
0
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
In figure 8 shows the comparison between average congestion windows segment size
for the bandwidth 2,5 and 10 Mbps, simulation time 25,50 and 80 seconds for each
bandwidth. This shows that the less bandwidth and high simulation time increase the
congestion window size. This is observed by the following figure 8 for the bandwidth
2Mb/s average cwnd increased much corresponding to the bandwidth 10 Mb/s when
increasing simulation time 25 to 80 seconds. It is also observed that BIC average cwnd
more than the average cwnd of TCP NewReno.
TCP BIC
Average cwnd ( Segments)
200000
2Mbps
150000
5Mbps
100000
10Mbps
50000
0
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
TCP-Illinois is hybrid congestion control algorithm in which the data packet flow
congestion control by the packet drop detection as well as round-trip timeout estimation.
It is a targeted at high-speed, long-distance communication networks. The TCP-Illinois is
a loss-delay based algorithm, which uses packet loss as the primary congestion
signal to determine the direction of window update and queuing delay as the
secondary congestion signal to determine the amount of change to adjust the pace
of window size [19][20].Following figure 9 shows the performance of the Hybrid
TCP Illinois for the 2Mb/s bandwidth and simulation time 25 and 50 seconds. In
both cases, the Hybrid TCP Illinois does not drop any packets to calculating the
next threshold because it starts slowly with low ssthreshold and gradually
increase on the basis of round-trip time. The comparison graph shows the growth
of cwnd, ACK and Round trip time correspondingly.
Fig9Simulation results of Hybrid TCP Illinois for 25 and 50 Seconds
Figure 10shows the comparison between average round-trip time for the bandwidth 2,
5 and 10 Mbps and simulation time 25,50, 80 seconds for each bandwidth. This is
observed by the graph that the when bandwidth increase then average RTT is decreased
but in TCP BIC when simulation time increased then not much more effect on the
average RTT its remain about to same whereas hybrid TCP Illinois round trip time
increased according to the simulation time increase and its average round-trip time less
than to the TCP BIC.
Fig 10 comparative results of Hybrid TCP Illinois RTT for different bandwidth
0.25
Hybrid TCP Illinois
Average cwnd ( Segments)
0.2
0.15 2Mbps
0.1 5Mbps
0.05 10Mbps
0
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
150000
100000 2Mbps
5Mbps
50000
10Mbps
0
25 50 80
Simulation Time (s)
Figure 11graph shows the comparison between average congestion windows segment
size for the bandwidth 2, 5 and 10 Mbps, simulation time 25,50 and 80 seconds for each
bandwidth. It is observed through the graph that the when bandwidth increase than
average cwnd increased. The hybrid TCP Illinois average congestion window size is
greater than the TCP NewReno but similar to the TCP BIC.
The TCP ACC is a proposed new congestion control algorithm based on the TCP
BIC. This algorithm called TCP ACC (Another Congestion Control) algorithm. After
modification of TCP BIC, we get the TCP ACC. The BIC is the default LINUX operating
system congestion control TCP; so that this attracts our attention to enhancing its
performance. Till now we are little bit modify in fast recovery method and test with
different TCPs. In TCP ACC approach change made in fast recovery method to gain
maximum throughput, Congestion window and minimum round-trip time. The TCP ACC
simulate in the same scenario we applied for the NewReno, BIC and hybrid Illinois. After
simulation result, we get the better output in some cases of existing well established TCP
congestion control algorithms.
In the figure 12 comparison between TCP NewReno and ACC on the basis of
Congestion window growth, Acknowledgement growth and round-trip time for the
scenario 2Mb/s bandwidth and 25 second simulation time. In this result, we observed that
in TCP NewReno has an advantage over ACC in respect of RTT whereas ACC has an
advantage over NewReno with respect to the congestion windows growth.
Fig 12 Comparison TCP BIC Vs TCP ACC for bandwidth 2Mb/s and 25 seconds simulation
In the figure 13 comparison between TCP BIC and ACC on the basis of Congestion
window growth, Acknowledgement growth and round-trip time for the scenario 2Mb/s
bandwidth and 25 second simulation time. In this result, we observed that in TCP BIC
some data packet lost and then fast recovery method apply as well as we observed RTT
difference.
Fig 13Comparison TCP BIC Vs TCP ACC for bandwidth 5Mbps and 25 seconds simulation
In the figure 14 comparison between Hybrid TCP Illinois and ACC on the basis of above
similar types for the scenario 2Mb/s bandwidth and 25 second simulation time. In this result,
we observed that in Hybrid TCP Illinois and ACC do not lose data packet as well as have more
stable output. The RTT is less in Illinois than the ACC but ACC having the more windows
size. It’s taking times to apply fast recovery method also we observed through the graph.
Fig 14Comparison TCP BIC Vs TCP ACC for bandwidth 10Mbps and 25 seconds simulation
Figure 15shows the clear comparison between TCP NewReno, BIC, Hybrid Illinois and TCP
ACC on the basis of average round trip time (RTT) that show the TCP ACC having low RTT
in corresponding to the TCP BIC RTT whereas NewReno and Hybrid Illinois having less RTT
than ACC. In this regard from the following graph study, we clearly say that TCP NewReno
has minimum RTT and BIC have maximum RTT.
Fig 15Comparison TCP NewReno, BIC, Hybrid Illinois and ACC for Average RTT of different bandwidth
0.25
0.2 BIC
0.15 ACC
0.1 NewReno
0.05
Illinois
0
2 5 10
Bandwidth Mb/s
Figure 16 shows the comparison between TCP NewReno, BIC, Hybrid Illinois and ACC on the
basis of average congestion windows growth. In this graph, we notice that it is not having
much more difference between TCP ACC and BIC and both are also having greater average
cwnd than the hybrid Illinois and NewReno. It is also observed in the following graph that the
average congestion window increased corresponding to the bandwidth and simulation time.
Fig 16Comparison TCP NewReno, BIC, Hybrid Illinois and ACC for Average Cwnd of different bandwidth
Average Congestion Window
200000
247
Throughput KB/s
246
245
Throughput
244
243
242
NewReno BIC Illinois ACC
The above figure 17 depicts the throughput for 2Mb/s bandwidth and 25 second
simulation time of TCP NewReno, BIC, Hybrid Illinois and ACC. The graph clearly
showed that proposed new congestion control algorithm ACC having much better
throughput than the other congestion control algorithms.
5. Conclusion
In this research paper, we analyze the already implemented congestion control
algorithms. These algorithms are TCP NewReno, BIC, and Hybrid Illinois. The
Performance of these congestion control algorithms simulated through the network
simulator NS3. In NS3 a simple network scenario implemented and simulated for
bottleneck bandwidth 2, 5 and 10 Mb/s and the simulation Time 25, 50 and 80 Second for
each bandwidth. The analysis result of the new proposed TCP ACC (Another Congestion
Control) is efficient than the other TCP in terms of throughput, Good put and congestion
windows size but Round Trip Time is similar to BIC. The conclusion of this research
paper analysis is that TCP ACC has better performance in the specified scenario and
produced better performance result rather than the TCP BIC.
References
[1] N. Patriciello, “A SACK-based Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm for ns-3 TCP,” pp. 1–8,
2017.
[2] A. B. Habtie, A. Abraham, and D. Midekso, “Cellular Network Based Real-Time Urban Road
Traffic State Estimation Framework Using Neural Network Model Estimation,” pp. 38–44.
[3] M. Ahmed, “TCP Congestion Control Identification,” 2014. [Online] Available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3742v1.
[4] T. A. N. Nguyen, S. Gangadhar, and J. P. G. Sterbenz, “Performance Evaluation of TCP
Congestion Control Algorithms in Data Center Networks,” pp. 21–28, 2016.
[5] Girish Paliwal and Swapnesh Taterh, “Impact of Dense Network in MANET Routing Protocols
AODV and DSDV Comparative Analysis Through NS3,” pp. 327–335, 2017.
[6] S. Gangadhar, T. Nguyen, G. Umapathi, and J. Sterbenz, “TCP Westwood(+) Protocol
Implementation in ns-3,” 2013.
[7] A. Abraham, R. Falcon, and M. Koeppen, Computational Intelligence in Wireless Sensor
Networks: Recent Advances and Future Challenges: Springer, 2017.
[8] Girish Paliwal, Ankur Prakash Mudgal, and Swapnesh Taterh, “A Study on various attacks of
TCP/IP and security challanges in MANET Layer Architecture,” pp. 195–209, 2015.
[9] T. K. Sharma, M. Pant, and A. Abraham, “Blend of local and global variant of PSO in ABC,”
pp. 113–119.
[10] J. W. Jun Zhang, “TCP-ACC: An Active Congestion Compensation TCP for Wireless
Networks,” pp. 1–7, 2014.
[11] Paola G. Vinueza Naranjo, Mohammad Shojafar, Ajith Abraham and Enzo Baccarelli, “A New
Stable Election-based Routing Algorithm to Preserve Aliveness and Energy in Fog-supported
Wireless Sensor Networks: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics,” (eng), 2016.
[12] “RFC 2581,” 2001.
[13] P Muppala, Johnson Thomas, Ajith Abraham, “QoS-based Authentication Scheme for Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks: Proceedings 4-6 April, 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada,” 2005.
[14] J. Prakash, R. Kumar, and J. P. Saini, “A New Congestion Avoidance and Mitigation
Mechanism Based on Traffic Assignment Factor and Transit Routing in MANET,” vol. 469, pp.
501–511.
[15] W. Hua and G. Jian, “Analysis of TCP BIC Congestion Control Implementation,” in 2012
International Conference on Computer Science and Service System, Nanjing, China, 2012, pp.
781–784.
[16] P. Yang et al., “TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm Identification,” IEEE/ACM Trans.
Networking, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1311–1324, 2014.
[17] L. A. Grieco and S. Mascolo, “Performance evaluation and comparison of Westwood+, New
Reno, and Vegas TCP congestion control,” SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 34, no. 2, p.
25, 2004.
[18] Khalid Hussain Mohammadani, Safi Faizullah, Arshad Shaikh, Nazish Nawaz Hussaini, and
Rahat Ali Khan, “Empirical Examination of TCP in MANET,” pp. 22–27, 2017.
[19] A. Esterhuizen and A.E. Krzesinski, “TCP Congestion Control Comparison,”
[20] https://www.nsnam.org/docs/models/html/tcp.html.