Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fairness to AIMD congestion control #88

Closed
goelvidhi opened this issue Aug 31, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Fairness to AIMD congestion control #88

goelvidhi opened this issue Aug 31, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@goelvidhi
Copy link
Collaborator

@goelvidhi goelvidhi commented Aug 31, 2021

Markku Kojo said,

The equation on page 12 to derive increase factor α_cubic that
intends to achieve the same average window as AIMD TCP seems to
have its origins in a preliminary paper that states that the
authors do not have an explanation to the discrepancy between
their AIMD model and experimental results, which clearly deviate.
It seems to have gone unnoticed that the equation assumes equal
drop probability for the different values of the increase factor
and multiplicative decrease factor but the drop probability
changes when these factors change. The equations for the drop
probability / the # of packets in one congestion epoch
are available in the original paper and one can easily verify
this. Therefore, the equations used in CUBIC are not correct
and seem to underestimate W_est for AIMD TCP, resulting in
moving away from AIMD-Friendly region too early. This gives
CUBIC unjustified advantage over AIMD TCP particularly in
environments with low level of statistical multiplexing. With
high level of multiplexing, drop probability goes higher and
differences in the drop probablilities tend to get small. On the
other hand, with such high level of competition, the theoretical
equations may not be that valid anymore.

@lisongxu lisongxu self-assigned this Sep 1, 2021
@larseggert
Copy link
Member

@larseggert larseggert commented Sep 16, 2021

@lisongxu, any update?

@lisongxu
Copy link
Collaborator

@lisongxu lisongxu commented Sep 29, 2021

Thanks, Markku! I agree with you that the AIMD model presented in [FHP00] and adopted by Cubic is only an approximate model (e.g., assumption of packet loss). Cubic chooses this model to calculate alpha_cubic, because it is simple and thus easier to implement and captures some basic behaviors of AIMD algorithms. If there are other more accurate and easy-to-implement AIMD models, Cubic should be updated to adopt these models.

[FHP00] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and J. Padhye, "A Comparison of Equation-Based and AIMD Congestion Control", May 2000, https://www.icir.org/tfrc/aimd.pdf.

Thanks again

@larseggert
Copy link
Member

@larseggert larseggert commented Oct 11, 2021

@lisongxu so will there be a PR to address this issue, or do we close with no action?

@lisongxu
Copy link
Collaborator

@lisongxu lisongxu commented Oct 12, 2021

Close with no action. Thanks

@larseggert larseggert closed this Oct 12, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants