Skip to main content

How Insufficient Send Socket Buffer Affects MPTCP Performance over Paths with Different Delay

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies (WorldCIST'18 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 746))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Recently, the multipath transport protocol such as Multipath TCP becomes increasingly important. It allows more than one TCP connections via different paths to compose one Multipath TCP communication. However, it has some problems when those paths have different delay. Especially, the limited buffer space at either sender or receiver may degrade the throughput due to head-of-line blocking. Our previous paper pointed out that insufficient send socket buffer and receive socket buffer provide different situations of performance degradation, and that insufficient send socket buffer gives poorer throughput. This paper extends the performance analysis of our previous paper in the conditions with various combinations of send socket buffer size and transmission delay. It gives more detailed analysis using Multipath TCP level sequence number and congestion window size, and suggests the reasons for performance degradation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., Iyengar, J.: Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development. IETF RFC 6182 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O.: TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses. IETF RFC 6824 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Wischik, D.: Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols. IETF RFC 6356 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scharf, M., Kiesel, S.: Head-of-line blocking in TCP and SCTP: analysis and measurements. In: IEEE GLOBECOM 2006, pp. 1–5 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Raiciu, C., et al.: How hard can it be? Designing and implementing a deployable multipath TCP. In: 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2012), pp. 1–14 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paasch, C., Khalili, R., Bonaventure, O.: On the benefits of applying experimental design to improve multipath TCP. In: 9th ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT 2013), pp. 393–398 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferlin, S., Dreibholz, T., Alay, O.: Multi-path transport over heterogeneous wireless networks: does it really pay off? In: IEEE GLOBECOM 2014, Wireless Networking Symposium, pp. 4807–4813 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Paasch, O., Ferlin, S., Alay, O., Bonaventure, O.: Experimental evaluation of multipath TCP schedulers. In: 2014 SIGCOMM Workshop on Capacity Sharing Workshop (CSWS 2014), pp. 27–32 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Arzani, B., Gurney, A., Cheng, S., Guerin, R., Loo, B.T.: Impact of path characteristics and scheduling policies on MPTCP performance. In: 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, pp. 743–748 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kim, J., Oh, B., Lee, J.: Receive buffer based path management for MPTCP in heterogeneous networks. In: 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and service Management (IM), pp. 648–651 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zhou, F., et al.: The performance impact of buffer sizes for multi-path TCP in internet setups. In: 2017 IEEE 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 9–16 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kato, T., Tenjin, M., Yamamoto, R., Ohzahata, S., Shinbo, H.: Microscopic approach for experimental analysis of multipath TCP throughput under insufficient send/receive socket buffers. In: 15th International Conference WWW/Internet 2016, pp. 191–199 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. MultiPath TCP – Linux Kernel implementation. http://www.multipath-tcp.org/

  14. Handley, N., Padhye, J., Floyd, S: TCP Congestion Window Validation. IETF RFC 2861 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshihiko Kato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kato, T., Diwakar, A., Yamamoto, R., Ohzahata, S., Suzuki, N. (2018). How Insufficient Send Socket Buffer Affects MPTCP Performance over Paths with Different Delay. In: Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L., Costanzo, S. (eds) Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST'18 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 746. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77712-2_57

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77712-2_57

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77711-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77712-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy