To Switch or Not to Switch to TCP Prague? Incentives for Adoption in a Partial L4S Deployment
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866911938358804480 |
|---|---|
| author | Sarpkaya, Fatih Berkay Srivastava, Ashutosh Fund, Fraida Panwar, Shivendra |
| author_facet | Sarpkaya, Fatih Berkay Srivastava, Ashutosh Fund, Fraida Panwar, Shivendra |
| contents | The Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) architecture has the potential to reduce queuing delay when it is deployed at endpoints and routers throughout the Internet. However, it is not clear how TCP Prague, a prototype scalable congestion control for L4S, behaves when L4S is not yet universally deployed. Specifically, we consider the question: in a partial L4S deployment, will a user benefit by unilaterally switching from the status quo TCP to TCP Prague? To address this question, we evaluate the performance of a TCP Prague flow when sharing an L4S or non-L4S bottleneck queue with a non-L4S flow. Our findings suggest that the L4S congestion control, TCP Prague, has less favorable throughput or fairness properties than TCP Cubic or BBR in some coexistence scenarios, which may hinder adoption. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2407_00464 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | To Switch or Not to Switch to TCP Prague? Incentives for Adoption in a Partial L4S Deployment Sarpkaya, Fatih Berkay Srivastava, Ashutosh Fund, Fraida Panwar, Shivendra Networking and Internet Architecture The Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) architecture has the potential to reduce queuing delay when it is deployed at endpoints and routers throughout the Internet. However, it is not clear how TCP Prague, a prototype scalable congestion control for L4S, behaves when L4S is not yet universally deployed. Specifically, we consider the question: in a partial L4S deployment, will a user benefit by unilaterally switching from the status quo TCP to TCP Prague? To address this question, we evaluate the performance of a TCP Prague flow when sharing an L4S or non-L4S bottleneck queue with a non-L4S flow. Our findings suggest that the L4S congestion control, TCP Prague, has less favorable throughput or fairness properties than TCP Cubic or BBR in some coexistence scenarios, which may hinder adoption. |
| title | To Switch or Not to Switch to TCP Prague? Incentives for Adoption in a Partial L4S Deployment |
| topic | Networking and Internet Architecture |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00464 |