Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-72kh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T01:22:09.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Explicit congestion control: charging, fairness, and admission management

from Part III - Protocols and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2012

Frank Kelly
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, UK
Gaurav Raina
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
Byrav Ramamurthy
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
George N. Rouskas
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Krishna Moorthy Sivalingam
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Get access

Summary

In the design of large-scale communication networks, a major practical concern is the extent to which control can be decentralized. A decentralized approach to flow control has been very successful as the Internet has evolved from a small-scale research network to today's interconnection of hundreds of millions of hosts; but it is beginning to show signs of strain. In developing new end-to-end protocols, the challenge is to understand just which aspects of decentralized flow control are important. One may start by asking how should capacity be shared among users? Or, how should flows through a network be organized, so that the network responds sensibly to failures and overloads? Additionally, how can routing, flow control, and connection acceptance algorithms be designed to work well in uncertain and random environments?

One of the more fruitful theoretical approaches has been based on a framework that allows a congestion control algorithm to be interpreted as a distributed mechanism solving a global optimization problem; for some overviews see [1, 2, 3]. Primal algorithms, such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), broadly correspond with congestion control mechanisms where noisy feedback from the network is averaged at endpoints, using increase and decrease rules of the form first developed by Jacobson. Dual algorithms broadly correspond with more explicit congestion control protocols where averaging at resources precedes the feedback of relatively precise information on congestion to endpoints.

Type
Chapter
Information
Next-Generation Internet
Architectures and Protocols
, pp. 257 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

M., Chiang, S. H., Low, A. R., Calderbank, and J. C., Doyle. Layering as optimization decomposition: a mathematical theory of network architectures. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95 (2007) 255–312.Google Scholar
F., Kelly. Fairness and stability of end-to-end congestion control. European Journal of Control, 9 (2003) 159–176.Google Scholar
R., Srikant. The Mathematics of Internet Congestion Control (Boston: Birkhauser, 2004).Google Scholar
V., Jacobson. Congestion avoidance and control. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1988).Google Scholar
D., Katabi, M., Handley, and C., Rohrs. Internet congestion control for future high bandwidth-delay product environments. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (2002).Google Scholar
H., Balakrishnan, N., Dukkipati, N., McKeown, and C., Tomlin. Stability analysis of explicit congestion control protocols. IEEE Communications Letters, 11 (2007) 823–825.Google Scholar
N., Dukkipati, N., McKeown, and A. G., Fraser. RCP-AC: congestion control to make flows complete quickly in any environment. High-Speed Networking Workshop: The Terabits Challenge, Spain (2006).Google Scholar
T., Voice and G., Raina. Stability analysis of a max-min fair Rate Control Protocol (RCP) in a small buffer regime. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54 (2009) 1908–1913.Google Scholar
S., Shenker. Fundamental design issues for the future Internet. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communication, 13 (1995) 1176–1188.Google Scholar
R., Johari and J. N., Tsitsiklis. Efficiency of scalar-parameterized mechanisms. Operations Research, articles in advance (2009) 1–17.Google Scholar
F., Kelly. Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 8 (1997) 33–37.Google Scholar
J. F., Nash. The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 28 (1950) 155–162.Google Scholar
R., Mazumdar, L. G., Mason, and C., Douligeris. Fairness and network optimal flow control: optimality of product forms. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 39 (1991) 775–782.Google Scholar
A., Stefanescu and M. W., Stefanescu. The arbitrated solution for multiobjective convex programming. Revue Roumaine de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 20 (1984) 593–598.Google Scholar
N., Dukkipati, M., Kobayashi, R., Zhang-Shen, and N., McKeown. Processor sharing flows in the Internet. Thirteenth International Workshop on Quality of Service, Germany (2005).Google Scholar
S., Ben Fredj, T., Bonald, A., Proutière, G., Régnié, and J. W., Roberts. Statistical bandwidth sharing: a study of congestion at flow level. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (2001).Google Scholar
L., Massoulié. Structural properties of proportional fairness: stability and insensitivity. The Annals of Applied Probability, 17 (2007) 809–839.Google Scholar
J., Roberts and L., Massoulié. Bandwidth sharing and admission control for elastic traffic. ITC Specialists Seminar, Yokohama (1998).Google Scholar
T., Bonald, L., Massoulié, A., Proutière, and J., Virtamo. A queueing analysis of max-min fairness, proportional fairness and balanced fairness. Queueing Systems, 53 (2006) 65–84.Google Scholar
J.-Y., Le Boudec and B., Radunovic. Rate performance objectives of multihop wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 3 (2004) 334–349.Google Scholar
S. C., Liew and Y. J., Zhang. Proportional fairness in multi-channel multi-rate wireless networks – Parts I and II. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 7 (2008) 3446–3467.Google Scholar
B., Briscoe. Flow rate fairness: dismantling a religion. Computer Communication Review, 37 (2007) 63–74.Google Scholar
F., Kelly, G., Raina, and T., Voice. Stability and fairness of explicit congestion control with small buffers. Computer Communication Review, 38 (2008) 51–62.Google Scholar
G., Raina, D., Towsley, and D., Wischik. Part II: control theory for buffersizing. Computer Communication Review, 35 (2005) 79–82.Google Scholar
D., Wischik and N., McKeown. Part I: buffer sizes for core routers. Computer Communication Review, 35 (2005) 75–78.Google Scholar
J. M., Harrison. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Flow Systems (New York: Wiley, 1985).Google Scholar
T., Voice and G., Raina. Rate Control Protocol (RCP): global stability and local Hopf bifurcation analysis, preprint (2008).
A., Lakshmikantha, R., Srikant, N., Dukkipati, N., McKeown, and C., Beck. Buffer sizing results for RCP congestion control under connection arrivals and departures. Computer Communication Review, 39 (2009) 5–15.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×