On rate limitation mechanisms for TCP throughput: A longitudinal analysis

Year
2017
Abstract

TCP remains the dominant transport protocol for Internet traffic. It is usually considered to have its sending rate covered by a sliding window congestion control mechanism. However, in addition to this normal congestion control, a number of other mechanisms limit TCP throughput. This paper analyzes the extent to which network, host and application settings define flow throughput over time and across autonomous systems. Our study draws on data from a longitudinal study spanning five years of passive traces collected from a single transit link. Mechanisms for this include limiting by application, interference with the TCP window control mechanism and artificial limitations on maximum window sizes by the operating system. This paper uses a large data set to assess the impact of each mechanism. We conclude that more than half of all heavy-hitter inbound traffic remains throttled by constraints beyond network capacity. For this data set, TCP congestion control is no longer the dominant mechanism that moderates throughput.

Summary

A five-year longitudinal study of passive traces from a single transit link, dissecting exactly which mechanisms — application-level limiting, interference with the TCP window control mechanism, and OS-imposed maximum window sizes — actually govern TCP throughput; finds more than half of heavy-hitter inbound traffic is throttled by constraints beyond network capacity, so TCP congestion control is no longer the dominant limiter in this data set.

bibtex
@article{araujo2017ratelimitation,
author = {Jo\~ao Taveira Ara\'ujo and Raul Landa and Richard G. Clegg and George Pavlou and Kensuke Fukuda},
title = {On rate limitation mechanisms for TCP throughput: A longitudinal analysis},
journal = {Computer Networks},
year = {2017},
volume = {113},
pages = {159--175},
doi = {10.1016/j.comnet.2016.12.003}
}
Authors
João Taveira Araújo, Raul Landa, Richard G. Clegg, George Pavlou, Kensuke Fukuda
Venue
Computer Networks, 113, pp. 159-175