skip to main content
10.1145/1005686.1005717acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmetricsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Rate-based versus queue-based models of congestion control

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mathematical models of congestion control capture the congestion indication mechanism at the router in two different ways: rate-based models, where the queue-length at the router does not explicitly appear in the model, and queue-based models, where the queue length at the router is explicitly a part of the model. Even though most congestion indication mechanisms use the queue length to compute the packet marking or dropping probability to indicate congestion, we argue that, depending upon the choice of the parameters of the AQM scheme, one would obtain a rate-based model or a rate-and-queue-based model as the deterministic limit of a stochastic system with a large number of users. We also consider the impact of implementing AQM schemes in the real queue or a virtual queue. If an AQM scheme is implemented in a real queue, we show that, to ensure that the queuing delays are negligible compared to RTTs, one is forced to choose the parameters of a AQM scheme in a manner which yields a rate-based deterministic model. On the other hand, if the AQM scheme is implemented in a virtual queue, small-queue operation is achieved independent of the choice of the parameters, thus showing a robustness property of virtual queue-based schemes.

References

  1. T. Alpcan and T. Başar. A utility-based congestion control scheme for internet-style networks with delay. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, pages 2039--2048, San Francisco, California, March-April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. E. Altman, K. Avrachenkov, C. Barakat, and R. Nunez-Queija. State-dependent M/G/1 type queueing analysis for congestion control in data networks. Computer Networks, 39(6):789--808, August 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. Athuraliya, D. E. Lapsley, and S. H. Low. Random early marking for Internet congestion control. In Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM, pages 1747--1752, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Athuraliya and S. H. Low. Optimization flow control, I: Basic algorithm and convergence. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, pages 861--875, December 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Athuraliya and S. H. Low. Optimization flow control, II: Implementation. 2000. http://netlab.caltech.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. Baccelli and D. Hong. Flow level simulation of large IP networks. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, pages 1911--1921, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. H. Chen and D. D. Yao. Fundamentals of Queueing Networks. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones. An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Deb. Deterministic fluid models for internet congestion control. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, September 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Deb, S. Shakkottai, and R. Srikant. Stability and convergence of TCP flows in a many-flows regime. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, pages 884--894, San Francisco, CA, April.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Deb, and R. Srikant. Stochastic models of proportionally fair congestion controllers. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. S. Floyd. TCP and explicit congestion notification. ACM Computer Communication Review, 24:10--23, October 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Floyd and V. Jacobson. Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1(4):397--413, August 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. J. Gibbens and F. P. Kelly. Resource pricing and the evolution of congestion control. Automatica, 35:1969--1985, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. V. Hollot and Y. Chait. Nonlinear stability analysis for a class of TCP/AQM schemes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 2309--2314, Orlando, FL, December 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. C. V. Hollot, Y. Liu, V. Mishra, and D. Towsley. Unresponsive flows and AQM performance. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, volume 1, pages 85--95, San Francisco, CA, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. C. V. Hollot, V. Misra, D. Towsley, and W. Gong. On designing improved controllers for AQM routers supporting TCP flows. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, pages 1726--1734, Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. F. P. Kelly. Models for a self-managed Internet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A358:2335--2348, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. F. P. Kelly. Fairness and stability of end-to-end congestion control. European Journal of Control, 9:149--165, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. F. P. Kelly, A. Maulloo, and D. Tan. Rate control in communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49:237--252, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. L. Kleinrock. Queueing Systems, Volume 1: Theory. Wiley--Interscience, New York, 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant. Analysis and design of an adaptive virtual queue algorithm for active queue management. In Proceedings of ACM Sigcomm, pages 123--134, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant. A time-scale decomposition approach to adaptive ECN marking. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pages 1330--1339, Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant. End-to-end congestion control: utility functions, random losses and ECN marks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, to be published. An earlier version appeared in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Liu, T. Başar, and R. Srikant. Controlling the Internet: A survey and some new results. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, Hawaii, December 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. S. H. Low, F. Paganini, J. Wang, S. Adlakha, and J. C. Doyle. Dynamics of TCP/RED and a scalable control. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, pages 239--248, New York, June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. V. Misra, W. Gong, and D. Towsley. Stochastic differential equation modeling and analysis of TCP windowsize behavior. In Proceedings of Performance'99, Istanbul, Turkey, October 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. T. J. Ott. ECN protocols and TCP paradigm. http://web.njit.edu/~ott/Papers, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Shakkottai and R. Srikant. Mean FDE models for Internet congestion control. 2002,. http://www.comm.csl.uiuc.edu/~srikant. A shorter version appeared in the Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. P. Tinnakornsrisuphap and A. Makowski. Limit behavior of ECN/RED gateways under a large number of TCP flows. In Proceedings of INFOCOM, pages 873--883, San Francisco, CA, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. G. Vinnicombe. On the stability of networks operating TCP-like congestion control. In Proceedings of the IFAC World Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2002. Also, University of Cambridge Technical Report CUED/F-INFENG/TR.398, http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/gv.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. J. T. Wen and M. Arcak. A unifying passivity framework for network flow control. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, pages 1156--1166, San Francisco, California, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Y. Yi, S. Deb, and S. Shakkottai. Short queue regime and rate based marking. In Proceedings of Conference on Information Science and Systems, Princeton, NJ, March 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Rate-based versus queue-based models of congestion control

      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
        SIGMETRICS '04/Performance '04: Proceedings of the joint international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems
        June 2004
        450 pages
        ISBN:1581138733
        DOI:10.1145/1005686
        • cover image ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review
          ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review  Volume 32, Issue 1
          June 2004
          432 pages
          ISSN:0163-5999
          DOI:10.1145/1012888
          Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2004 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: 1 June 2004

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate459of2,691submissions,17%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader