skip to main content
10.1145/938985.938987acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobicomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A receiver-centric transport protocol for mobile hosts with heterogeneous wireless interfaces

Published:14 September 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Numerous transport protocols have been proposed in related work for use by mobile hosts over wireless environments. A common theme among the design of such protocols is that they specifically address the distinct characteristics of the last-hop wireless link, such as random wireless errors, round-trip time variations, blackouts, handoffs, etc. In this paper, we argue that due to the defining role played by the wireless link on a connection's performance, locating the intelligence of a transport protocol at the mobile host that is adjacent to the wireless link can result in distinct performance advantages. To this end, we present a receiver-centric transport protocol called RCP (Reception Control Protocol) that is a TCP clone in its general behavior, but allows for better congestion control, loss recovery, and power management mechanisms compared to sender-centric approaches. More importantly, in the context of recent trends where mobile hosts are increasingly being equipped with multiple interfaces providing access to heterogeneous wireless networks, we show that a receiver-centric protocol such as RCP can enable a powerful and comprehensive transport layer solution for such multi-homed hosts. Specifically, we describe how RCP can be used to provide: (i) a scalable solution to support interface specific congestion control for a single active connection; (ii) seamless server migration capability during handoffs; and (iii) effective bandwidth aggregation when receiving data through multiple interfaces, either from one server, or from multiple replicated servers. We use both packet level simulations, and real Internet experiments to evaluate the proposed protocol.

References

  1. Akamai Technologies. Akamai accelerated network program. http://www.akamai.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. B. Bakshi, P. Krishna, N. Vaidya, and D. Pradhan. Improving performance of TCP over wireless networks. In Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS, Baltimore, MD, USA, May 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, S. Seshana, and R. Katz. A comparison of mechanisms for improving TCP performance over wireless links. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):756--769, Dec. 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Biaz and N. Vaidya. Discriminating congestion losses from wireless losses using inter-arrival times at the receiver. In Proceedings of IEEE ASSET, pages 10--17, Richardson, TX, USA, Mar. 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Blanton, M. Allman, K. Fall, and L. Wang. A conservative SACK-based loss recovery algorithm for TCP. IETF Internet Draft; draft-allman-tcp-sack-13.txt, Oct. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Bovet and M. Cesati. Understanding the Linux Kernel. O'Reilly & Associates, Dec. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Clark, V. Jacobson, J. Romkey, and H. Salwen. An analysis of TCP processing overhead. IEEE Communications Magazine, 27(6):23--39, June 1989.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Clark, M. Lambert, and L. Zhang. NETBLT: A high throughput transport protocol. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Stowe, VT, USA, Aug. 1987.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. ETSI. BRAN; HIPERLAN/2; Requirements and architecture for internetworking between HIPERLAN/2 and 3rd generation cellular systems. TR 101 957, V1.1.1, Aug. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Floyd and T. Henderson. The NewReno modification to TCP's fast recovery algorithm. IETF RFC 2582, Apr. 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Goff, J. Moronski, and D. Phatak. Freeze-TCP: A true end-to-end TCP enhancement mechanism for mobile environments. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Tel-Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. R. Gupta, M. Chen, S. McCanne, and J. Walrand. A receiver-driven transport protocol for the web. In Proceedings of INFORMS, Mar. 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Pahdye, and J. Widmer. Equation-based congestion control for unicast applications. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Henderson and R. Katz. Satellite transport protocol (STP): An SSCOP-based transport protocol for datagram satellite networks. In Proceedings of Workshop on Satellite-Based Information Services (WOSBIS), Budapest, Hungary, Oct. 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. H.-Y. Hsieh and R. Sivakumar. A transport layer approach for achieving aggregate bandwidths on multi-homed mobile hosts. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, pages 83--94, Atlanta, GA, USA, Sept. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. IEEE. Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications. ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.11, Aug. 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. V. Jacobson, R. Braden, and D. Borman. TCP extensions for high performance. IETF RFC 1323, May 1992.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Kay and J. Pasquale. Profiling and reducing processing overheads in TCP/IP. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 4(6):817--828, Dec. 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Krashinsky and H. Balakrishnan. Minimizing energy for wireless web access with bounded slowdown. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, pages 119--130, Atlanta, GA, USA, Sept. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. Magalhaes and R. Kravets. Transport level mechanisms for bandwidth aggregation on mobile hosts. In Proceedings of IEEE ICNP, Riverside, CA USA, Nov. 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Mascolo, C. Casetti, M. Gerla, M. Sanadidi, and R. Wang. TCP-Westwood: Bandwidth estimation for enhanced transport over wireless links. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, Rome, Italy, July 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Mathis and J. Mahdavi. Forward acknowledgement: Refining TCP congestion control. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Aug. 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgement options. IETF RFC 2018, Oct. 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Mehra, C. De Vleeschouwer, and A. Zakhor. Receiver-driven bandwidth sharing for TCP. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Postel. Transmission control protocol. IETF RFC 793, Sept. 1981.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Riegel and M. Tuexen. Mobile SCTP. IETF Internet Draft; draft-riegel-tuexen-mobile-sctp-02.txt, Feb. 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. A. Sanmateu, L. Morand, E. Bustos, S. Tessier, F. Paint, and A. Sollund. Using Mobile IP for provision of seamless handoff between heterogeneous access networks, or how a network can support the always-on concept. In Proceedings of EURESCOM Summit, Heidelberg, Germany, Nov. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. T. Simunic, L. Benini, P. Glynn, and G. De Micheli. Dynamic power management for portable systems. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, Boston, MA, USA, Aug. 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. Singh and S. Singh. Energy consumption of TCP Reno, Newreno, and SACK in multi-hop wireless networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, Marina Del Rey, CA, USA, June 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. P. Sinha, N. Venkitaraman, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bharghavan. WTCP: A reliable transport protocol for wireless wide-area networks. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, Seattle, WA, USA, Aug. 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Snoeren, D. Andersen, and H. Balakrishnan. Fine-grained failover using connection migration. In Proceedings of USITS, San Francisco, CA, USA, Mar. 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. Snoeren and H. Balakrishnan. An end-to-end approach to host mobility. In Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM, Boston, MA, USA, Aug. 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. N. Spring, M. Chesire, M. Berryman, V. Sahasranaman, T. Anderson, and B. Bershad. Receiver based management of low bandwidth access links. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Tel-Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. M. Stemm and R. Katz. Vertical handoffs in wireless overlay networks. Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), 3(4):335--350, 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. F. Sultan, K. Srinivasan, D. Iyer, and L. Iftode. Migratory TCP: Connection migration for service continuity in the Internet. In Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS, Vienna, Austria, July 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. The Network Simulator. ns-2. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. V. Tsaoussidis, H. Badr, X. Ge, and K. Pentikousis. Energy/Throughput tradeoffs of TCP error control strategies. In Proceedings of IEEE ISCC, Antibes, France, July 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. V. Tsaoussidis and C. Zhang. TCP-Real: Receiver-oriented congestion control. Computer Networks, 40(4):477--497, Nov. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. G. Wright and W. Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Reading, MA, USA, Oct. 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. M. Zorzi and R. Rao. Is TCP energy efficient? In Proceedings of MoMuC, San Diego, CA, USA, Nov. 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A receiver-centric transport protocol for mobile hosts with heterogeneous wireless interfaces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      MobiCom '03: Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking
      September 2003
      376 pages
      ISBN:1581137532
      DOI:10.1145/938985

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 September 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      MobiCom '03 Paper Acceptance Rate27of281submissions,10%Overall Acceptance Rate440of2,972submissions,15%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader