Loss Resilience Experiment

Random losses (e.g. packet loss due to random bit corruptions) can deteriorate the bandwidth utilization of congestion control algorithms (CCAs). Many CCAs misinterpret random losses as a signal for congestion and as a consequence the CCAs decrease the sending rate of a flow. The loss resilience experiment evaluates the influence of random losses on the operating point of CCAs.

A CCA should be resilient against random losses. There are two ways to achieve that resilience. First, a CCA may not decrease the sending rate when packet loss is detected. By doing that, a CCA can maintain its bandwidth utilization at the risk of ignoring a possible congestion signal. Second, a CCA may recover from a decrease of the sending rate quickly.

Scenario

To evaluate the loss resilience, a static dumbbell topology with a single flow that uses greedy source traffic is set up. The experiment is repeated with different random loss probabilities set by the parameter loss.

To summarize the experiment setup:

  • Topology: Dumbbell topology (\(K=1\)) with static network parameters

  • Flows: A single flow (\(K=1\)) that uses a CCA

  • Traffic Generation Model: Greedy source traffic

Experiment Results

Experiment #7

Command: ns3-dev-ccperf-static-dumbbell-default --experiment-name=loss_resilience --db-path=benchmark_TcpNewReno.db '--parameters={aut:TcpNewReno,loss:0.02}' --aut=TcpNewReno --stop-time=15s --seed=42 --loss=0.02 --bw=16Mbps --qlen=20p --qdisc=FifoQueueDisc --rtts=15ms --sources=src_0 --destinations=dst_0 --protocols=TCP --algs=TcpNewReno --recoveries=TcpPrrRecovery --start-times=0s --stop-times=15s '--traffic-models=Greedy(bytes=0)'

Flows

src dst transport_protocol cca cc_recovery_alg traffic_model start_time stop_time
src_0 dst_0 TCP TcpNewReno TcpPrrRecovery Greedy(bytes=0) 0.00 15.00

Metrics

The following tables list the flow, link, and network metrics of experiment #7. Refer to the the metrics page for definitions of the listed metrics.

Flow Metrics

Flow metrics capture the performance of an individual flow. They are measured at the endpoints of a network path at either the source, the receiver, or both. Bold values indicate which flow achieved the best performance.

Metric flow_1
cov_in_flight_l4 0.67
cov_throughput_l4 0.88
flow_completion_time_l4 14.93
mean_cwnd_l4 5.90
mean_delivery_rate_l4 3.31
mean_est_qdelay_l4 1.05
mean_idt_ewma_l4 5.06
mean_in_flight_l4 5.62
mean_network_power_l4 206.01
mean_one_way_delay_l7 6470.69
mean_recovery_time_l4 97.93
mean_sending_rate_l4 3.39
mean_sending_rate_l7 5.36
mean_srtt_l4 16.05
mean_throughput_l4 3.31
mean_throughput_l7 3.22
mean_utility_mpdf_l4 -0.41
mean_utility_pf_l4 1.17
mean_utilization_bdp_l4 0.29
mean_utilization_bw_l4 0.21
total_retransmissions_l4 97.00
total_rtos_l4 5.00

Figures

The following figures show the results of the experiment #7.

Time Series Plot of the Operating Point

Time series plot of the number of segments in flight, the smoothed round-trip time (sRTT), and the throughput at the transport layer.

Comparison of Congestion Control Algorithms (CCAs)

Figures

Mean Bandwidth Utilization vs Packet Error Probability

The mean bandwidth utilization vs the packet error probability. High utilization indicates good performance. Loss-resilient CCAs should reach a high bandwidth utilization independent of the packet error probability.