On analysis of traffic flow demultiplexing effectiveness

E. P. Stepanov

Modelirovanie i analiz informacionnyh sistem, Tome 26 (2019) no. 1, pp. 170-190.

Résumé

It is known that the demultiplexing of the individual traffic flow into several independent transport subflows can increase the speed of it. This statement is true for a single flow but its truth for the massive case, when demultiplexing technics are applied to all traffic flows in the network of a single Internet Service Provider (ISP), is not obvious. The question arises, what impact the massive demultiplexing of traffic flows will have on the whole ISP network bandwidth. In this paper, this question is considered for the static case, when each flow is demultiplexed statically, i.e. every flow before its launching is demultiplexed into the same number of subflows. We developed a mathematical model that was used to construct a simulation model in order to obtain more accurate estimates of the network performance with and without flow demultiplexing. Using simulation model, network properties are defined, under which the demultiplexing of traffic flows is justified. We proved the correctness of the obtained results by emulating a network load based on a protocol stack virtualization for the same input. We considered various routing policies that can be used for massive demultiplexing. Special attention is paid to algorithms that allow you to build routes with minimal intersections, since using the nonintersecting routes with non-optimal cost can increase the network performance. The routes constructed with these algorithms were used both for the network performance analysis with demultiplexed flows and in the case of balancing non-demultiplexed flows.

Détail

Keywords: multipath routing, quality of service, MPTCP.

Bibliographie

[1] Kim Bong Ho, Calin Doru, “On the Split-TCP Performance over Real 4G LTE and 3G Wireless Networks”, IEEE Communications Magazine, 55:4 (2017), 124–131 | DOI

[2] Chiesa M., Kindler G., Schapira M., “Traffic Engineering With Equal-Cost-MultiPath: An Algorithmic Perspective”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 25:2 (2017), 779–792 | DOI

[3] Saltzer J. H., Reed D. P., Clark D. D., “End-to-end Arguments in System Design”, ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 2:4 (1984), 277–288 | DOI

[4] Curtis A. R., Kim W., Yalagandula P., “Mahout: Low-overhead datacenter traffic management using end-host-based elephant detection”, 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, 2011, 1629–1637 | DOI

[5] Ford A., et al., RFC 6824: TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses, 2013, 64 pp.

[6] Raiciu C., et al., “How Hard Can It Be? Designing and Implementing a Deployable Multipath TCP”, 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 12, 2012, 399–412 | MR

[7] Habib S., et al., The Past, Present, and Future of Transport-Layer Multipath, 2016, arXiv: 1601.06043

[8] Boccassi L., Fayed M.M., Marina M.K., “Binder: A System to Aggregate Multiple Internet Gateways in Community Networks”, Proceedings of the 2013 ACM MobiCom Workshop on Lowest Cost Denominator Networking for Universal Access, ACM, 2013, 3–8 | DOI

[9] Chemeritskiy E., Stepanov E., Smeliansky R., “Managing network resources with flow (de) multiplexing protocol”, Mathematical and Computational Methods in Electrical Engineering, Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering Series, 53, 2015, 35–43

[10] Raiciu C., Handley M., Wischik D., RFC 6356: Coupled Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols, 2011, 12 pp.

[11] Khalili R., et al., “MPTCP Is Not Pareto-Optimal: Performance Issues and a Possible Solution”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 21:5 (2013), 1651–1665 | DOI

[12] Peng Q., et al., “Multipath TCP: Analysis, Design, and Implementation”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24:1 (2016), 596–609 | DOI

[13] Le T. A., Hong C. S., Lee S., “MPCubic: An extended cubic TCP for multiple paths over high bandwidth-delay networks”, ICTC 2011, 2011, 34–39 | Zbl

[14] Ha B. P., et al., “A hybrid multipath congestion control algorithm for high speed and/or long delay networks”, 2014 International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Communications, ATC 2014, 2014, 452–456 | Zbl

[15] Bich-Phuong Ha, et al., “A Multipath Cubic TCP Congestion Control with Multipath Fast Recovery over High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks”, IEICE Transactions on Communications, E-95B:7 (2012), 2232–2244

[16] Hassayoun S., Iyengar J., Ros D., “Dynamic Window Coupling for multipath congestion control”, 2011 19th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, 2011, 341–352 | DOI

[17] Jean-Yves Boudec, Rate adaptation, Congestion Control and Fairness: A Tutorial, 2018, 54 pp.

[18] Knight S. et al., “The internet topology zoo”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29:9 (2011), 1765–1775 | DOI

[19] Carter H., “Chaddock, Robert, Emmet. Principles and Methods of Statistics. Pp. xvi+471. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 123:1 (1926), 229 | DOI

[20] van der Linden S., Detal G., Bonaventure O., “Revisiting Next-hop Selection in Multipath Networks”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2011 Conference, 2011, 420–421

[21] Navin Kukreja, et al., “SDN based automated testbed for evaluating multipath TCP”, IEEE International Conference on Communication, ICC 2015 (London, United Kingdom, June 8–12, 2015), 2016, 718–723

[22] Chawanat Nakasan, et al., A Simple Multipath OpenFlow Controller using topology-based algorithm for Multipath TCP, 2015, arXiv: 1509.08388

[23] Dijkstra E. W., “A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs”, Numer. Math., 1:1 (1959), 269–271 | DOI | MR | Zbl

[24] Suurballe J. W., Tarjan R. E., “A quick method for finding shortest pairs of disjoint paths”, Networks, 14:2 (1984), 325–336 | DOI | MR | Zbl