9.

Mobile Transport Layer

Motivation
TCP Mechanisms
Classical Approaches
Optimizations
TCP for 2.5/3G Wireless

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 1

Transport Layer

E.g., HTTP (used by web services)

typically uses TCP:
Client Server
Reliable transport between client and server TCP SYN
required
TCP SYN/ACK Connection
TCP: setup
Stream-oriented, not transaction-oriented TCP ACK
Network friendly: time-out HTTP request
Congestion
Data
Slow down transmission HTTP response transmission
Well known TCP guesses quite often
>15 s
wrong in wireless and mobile networks: no data
Packet loss due to transmission errors Connection
GPRS: 500 ms!
Packet loss due to change of network release
Result:
Severe performance degradation

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 2

1
 Motivation (1)

Transport protocols typically designed for:

Fixed end-systems
Fixed, wired networks
Research activities:
Performance
Congestion control
Efficient retransmissions
TCP congestion control:
Packet loss in fixed networks typically due to (temporary) overload situations
Router have to discard packets as soon as the buffers are full
TCP recognizes congestion only indirect via missing acknowledgements,
retransmissions unwise, they would only contribute to the congestion and make it
even worse
Slow-start algorithm as reaction

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 3

Influences of Mobility on TCP Mechanisms

TCP assumes congestion, if packets are dropped:

Typically wrong in wireless networks, here we often have packet loss due to
transmission errors
Furthermore, mobility itself can cause packet loss, if, e.g., a mobile node roams
from one access point (e.g., foreign agent in Mobile IP) to another, while there are
still packets in transit to the wrong access point and forwarding is not possible

The performance of an unchanged TCP degrades severely:

However, TCP cannot be changed fundamentally due to the large base of
installation in the fixed network, TCP for mobility has to remain compatible
The basic TCP mechanisms keep the whole Internet together

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 5

2
 Original TCP Congestion Control (1)

Congestion control:
Addresses the queuing situation in routers
Congestion leads to retransmissions in the transport layer
This leads to an increase of the congestion
Congestion control needs to adapt sending rate(s)
Queue management within routers need to drop packets

Application Application
Congestion Control
TCP TCP
Protocol IP IP IP
View * * * *
* * * *

* Queue Management

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 6

Original TCP Congestion Control (2)

r(p,RTT) Router b
Source Sink
Feedback Output Port
Control
q(r,b) b: Bottleneck Bandwidth
Loop
q: Queue Size
View p(q), RTT(q) AQM p: Loss Probability
Control Law d: Propagation Delay
r: Rate

Approaches for TCP: AQM: Alternate Queue Management

Implicit mechanisms:
Increase of sending credit after receipt of an ACK
Decrease of sending credit upon lack of an ACK
Explicit mechanisms:
Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 2481)

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 7

3
 Window-based Congestion Control (1)

Window W defines the number of packets

allowed to be sent upon receipt of an ACK

Bursty Window Control:

ACK step = W RTT

Advantage:
Sender
Small overhead
due to ACKs W=4
Drawbacks:
Bursty nature Receiver
Loss of ACKs

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 8

Window-based Congestion Control (2)

Sliding Window Control:

ACK step = 1 W

Sender
W=5

Receiver
Advantages:
Not bursty
Loss of ACKs bearable
Drawbacks:
Large overhead due to many ACKs
Interdependency between error control and window size
2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 9

4
 Window-based Congestion Control (3)

Control of transmission volume, bytes or packets

Effective rate = W(t) / RTT(t); b: Bottleneck Bandwidth

q: Queue Size
W(t) = f(p(t)) p: Loss Probability
RTT(t) = q(t) + 2*d d: Propagation Delay

Optimal Window: W = b * 2d
Optimal link utilization:
Max.

Delay
Effective rate = b*(2d/2d) = b
No queue at bottleneck: Power
Optimal network performance (power)

Power = Throughput / Delay:

Throughput b
2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 10

Early Approach: Indirect TCP

Indirect TCP or I-TCP segments the connection:

No changes to the TCP protocol for hosts connected to the wired Internet, millions
of computers use (variants of) this protocol
Optimized TCP protocol for mobile hosts
Splitting of the TCP connection at, e.g., the foreign agent into 2 TCP connections,
no real end-to-end connection any longer
Hosts in the fixed part of the net do not notice the characteristics of the wireless
part

Mobile Terminal Access Point

(Foreign Agent) Wired Internet

wireless TCP Standard TCP

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 11

5
 I-TCP Socket and State Migration

Access Point1

Socket migration
and state transfer Internet

Access Point2
Mobile Terminal

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 12

Indirect TCP Discussion

Advantages:
No changes in the fixed network necessary, no changes for the hosts (TCP
protocol) necessary, all current optimizations to TCP still work
Transmission errors on the wireless link do not propagate into the fixed network
Simple to control, mobile TCP is used only for one hop between, e.g., a foreign
agent and mobile host
Therefore, a very fast retransmission of packets is possible, the short delay on the
mobile hop is known

Disadvantages:
Loss of end-to-end semantics, an acknowledgement to a sender does now not any
longer mean that a receiver really got a packet, foreign agents might crash
Higher latency possible due to buffering of data within the foreign agent and
forwarding to a new foreign agent

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 13

6
 Early Approach: Snooping TCP

Transparent extension of TCP within the foreign agent:

Buffering of packets sent to the mobile host
Lost packets on the wireless link (both directions!) will be retransmitted
immediately by the mobile host or foreign agent, respectively (so called local
retransmission)
The foreign agent therefore snoops the packet flow and recognizes
acknowledgements in both directions, it also filters ACKs
Changes of TCP only within the foreign agent

Local Retransmission Correspondent

Foreign Host
Agent
Wired Internet

Snooping of ACKs Buffering of data

Mobile
Terminal
End-to-end TCP Connection

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 14

Snooping TCP Details

Data transfer to the mobile host:

FA buffers data until it receives ACK of the MH, FA detects packet loss via
duplicated ACKs or time-out
Fast retransmission possible, transparent for the fixed network
Data transfer from the mobile host:
FA detects packet loss on the wireless link via sequence numbers, FA answers
directly with a NACK to the MH
MH can now retransmit data with only a very short delay
Integration of the MAC layer:
MAC layer often has similar mechanisms to those of TCP
Thus, the MAC layer can already detect duplicated packets due to
retransmissions and discard them
Problems:
Snooping TCP does not isolate the wireless link as good as I-TCP
Snooping might be useless depending on encryption schemes

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 15

7
 Early approach: Mobile TCP

Special handling of lengthy and/or frequent disconnections

M-TCP splits as I-TCP does:
Unmodified TCP fixed network to supervisory host (SH)
Optimized TCP SH to MH
Supervisory host:
No caching, no retransmission
Monitors all packets, if disconnection detected (no ACKs for some time)
Set sender window size to 0
Sender automatically goes into persistent mode (no sending possible)
Old or new SH reopen the window at original size
Advantages:
Maintains semantics, supports disconnection, no buffer forwarding
Drawbacks:
Loss on wireless link propagated into fixed network
Adapted TCP on wireless link
2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 16

Fast Retransmit and Fast Recovery

Change of foreign agent often results in packet loss:

TCP reacts with slow-start although there is no congestion

Forced fast retransmit:

As soon as the mobile host has registered with a new foreign agent, the MH
sends duplicated acknowledgements on purpose
This forces the fast retransmit mode at the communication partners
Additionally, the TCP on the MH is forced to continue sending with the actual
window size and not to go into slow-start after registration

Advantage:
Simple changes result in significant higher performance
Drawback:
Further mix of IP and TCP, no transparent approach

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 17

8
 Transmission and Time-out Freezing

Mobile hosts can be disconnected for a longer time:

No packet exchange possible, e.g., in a tunnel, disconnection due to overloaded
cells or multiplexing with higher priority traffic
TCP disconnects after time-out (loss of layer 2 connectivity) completely
TCP freezing:
MAC layer is often able to detect interruption in advance
MAC can inform TCP layer of upcoming loss of connection
TCP stops sending, but does now not assume a congested link
MAC layer signals again if reconnected

Advantage:
Scheme is independent of data
Drawback:
TCP on mobile host has to be changed, mechanism depends on MAC layer

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 18

Selective Retransmission

TCP acknowledgements are often cumulative:

ACK n acknowledges correct and in-sequence receipt of packets up to n
If single packets are missing quite often a whole packet sequence beginning at
the gap has to be retransmitted (go-back-n), thus wasting bandwidth
Selective retransmission as one solution:
RFC2018 allows for acknowledgements of single packets, not only
acknowledgements of in-sequence packet streams without gaps
Sender can now retransmit only the missing packets

Advantage:
Much higher efficiency
Drawback:
More complex software in a receiver, more buffer needed at the receiver

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 19

9
 Transaction-oriented TCP

TCP phases:
Connection setup, data transmission, connection release
Using 3-way-handshake needs 3 packets for setup and release, respectively
Thus, even short messages need a minimum of 7 packets!
Transaction-oriented TCP:
RFC1644, T-TCP, describes a TCP version to avoid this overhead
Connection setup, data transfer and connection release can be combined
Compare WAP Transaction Layer Protocol
Thus, only 2 or 3 packets are needed

Advantage:
Efficiency
Drawback:
Requires changed TCP
Mobility not longer transparent

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 20

Comparison of Approaches for Mobile TCP

Approach Mechanism Advantages Disadvantages

Indirect TCP splits TCP connection isolation of wireless loss of TCP semantics,
into two connections link, simple higher latency at
handover
Snooping TCP snoops data and transparent for end-to- problematic with
acknowledgements, local end connection, MAC encryption, bad isolation
retransmission integration possible of wireless link
M-TCP splits TCP connection, Maintains end-to-end Bad isolation of wireless
chokes sender via semantics, handles link, processing
window size long term and frequent overhead due to
disconnections bandwidth management
Fast retransmit/ avoids slow-start after simple and efficient mixed layers, not
fast recovery roaming transparent
Transmission/ freezes TCP state at independent of content changes in TCP
time-out freezing disconnect, resumes or encryption, works for required, MAC
after reconnection longer interrupts dependant
Selective retransmit only lost data very efficient slightly more complex
retransmission receiver software, more
buffer needed
Transaction combine connection Efficient for certain changes in TCP
oriented TCP setup/release and data applications required, not transparent
transmission

2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 21

10
 TCP Improvements (1)

Initial research work:

Indirect TCP, Snoop TCP, M-TCP, T/TCP, SACK, Transmission/time-out freezing
TCP over 2.5/3G wireless networks
Fine tuning todays TCP 0 .93 * MSS
BW
Learn to live with: RTT * p
Data rates: 64 kbit/s up, 115-384 kbit/s down; max. TCP BandWidth
asymmetry: 3-6, but also up to 1000 (broadcast Max. Segment Size
systems), periodic allocation/release of channels Round Trip Time
loss probability
High latency, high jitter, packet loss
Suggestions:
Large (initial) sending windows, large maximum transfer unit, selective
acknowledgement, explicit congestion notification (ECN), time stamp, no
header compression
Already in use:
i-mode running over FOMA
WAP 2.0 (TCP with wireless profile)
2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 22

TCP Improvements (2)

Performance enhancing proxies (PEP, RFC 3135):

Transport layer:
Mobile system
Local retransmissions and acknowledgements
Additionally on the application layer: wireless
Content filtering, compression, picture downscaling
E.g., Internet/WAP gateways PEP
Web service gateways?
Big problem: breaks end-to-end semantics:
Disables use of IP security
Choose between PEP and security! Internet

More open issues:

RFC 3150 (slow links)
Recommends header compression, no timestamp
RFC 3155 (links with errors): Comm. partner
States that explicit congestion notification cannot be used
In contrast to 2.5G/3G recommendations!
2005 Burkhard Stiller and Jochen Schiller FU Berlin M9 23

11