Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time MediaCALLSTATS I/O OyRauhankatu 11 C00100HelsinkiFinlandvarun.singh@iki.fihttps://www.callstats.io/Technical University of MunichDepartment of InformaticsChair of Connected MobilityBoltzmannstrasse 3Garching85748Germanyott@in.tum.deGoogleKungsbron 211122StockholmSwedenholmer@google.com
TSV
RMCATRTPRTCPCongestion ControlThe Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit
media in telephony and video conferencing applications. This
document describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion
control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time
media.Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
() in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
. Introduction
. Terminology
. Metrics
. RTP Log Format
. List of Network Parameters
. One-Way Propagation Delay
. End-to-End Loss
. Drop-Tail Router Queue Length
. Loss Generation Model
. Jitter Models
. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV)
. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR-BPDV)
. Recommended Distribution
. Traffic Models
. TCP Traffic Model
. RTP Video Model
. Background UDP
. Security Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. References
. Normative References
. Informative References
Contributors
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
IntroductionThis memo describes the guidelines to help with evaluating
new congestion control algorithms for interactive
point-to-point real-time media. The requirements for the
congestion control algorithm are outlined in . This document
builds upon previous work at the IETF: Specifying New Congestion Control
Algorithms and Metrics for the
Evaluation of Congestion Control Algorithms.The guidelines proposed in the document are intended to help
prevent a congestion collapse, to promote fair capacity usage, and
to optimize the media flow's throughput. Furthermore, the proposed
congestion control algorithms are expected to operate within the envelope of the
circuit breakers defined in RFC 8083 .This document only provides the broad set of network
parameters and traffic models for evaluating a new
congestion control algorithm. The minimal requirement
for congestion control proposals is to produce or present
results for the test scenarios described in (Basic Test Cases),
which also defines the specifics for the test cases.
Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results
for the
wireless test scenarios.
This document does not cover application-specific
implications of congestion control algorithms and how
those could be evaluated. Therefore, no quality metrics
are defined for performance evaluation; quality metrics
and the algorithms to infer those vary between media types.
Metrics and algorithms to assess, e.g., the quality of
experience, evolve continuously so that determining
suitable choices is left for future work. However, there
is consensus that each congestion control algorithm
should be able to show that it is useful for interactive
video by performing analysis using real codecs and
video sequences and state-of-the-art quality metrics.
Beyond optimizing individual metrics, real-time
applications may have further options to trade off
performance, e.g., across multiple media; refer to the
RMCAT
requirements document. Such trade-offs may be
defined in the future.
Terminology The terminology defined in RTP,
RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences
with Minimal Control, RTCP Extended
Report (XR), Extended RTP Profile
for RTCP-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP applies.Metrics This document specifies testing criteria for evaluating
congestion control algorithms for RTP media flows. Proposed
algorithms are to prove their performance by means of
simulation and/or emulation experiments for all the cases
described.Each experiment is expected to log every incoming and outgoing
packet (the RTP logging format is described in ). The logging can be done inside the
application or at the endpoints using PCAP (packet capture, e.g.,
tcpdump , Wireshark ).
The following metrics are calculated based on the
information in the packet logs:
Sending rate, receiver rate, goodput (measured at 200ms intervals)
Packets sent, packets received
Bytes sent, bytes received
Packet delay
Packets lost, packets discarded (from the playout or de-jitter buffer)
If using retransmission or FEC: post-repair loss
Self-fairness and fairness with respect to cross
traffic: Experiments testing a given congestion control proposal must
report on relative ratios of the average throughput
(measured at coarser time intervals) obtained by each
RTP media stream. In the presence of background cross-traffic
such as TCP, the report must also include the relative
ratio between average throughput of RTP media streams and
cross-traffic streams.
During static periods of a test (i.e., when bottleneck
bandwidth is constant and no arrival/departure of
streams), these reports on relative ratios serve as an
indicator of how fairly the RTP streams share bandwidth
amongst themselves and against cross-traffic streams. The
throughput measurement interval should be set at a few
values (for example, at 1 s, 5 s, and 20 s) in order to
measure fairness across different timescales.
As a general guideline, the relative ratio between congestion-controlled RTP
flows with the same priority level and similar path RTT
should be bounded between 0.333 and 3. For example, see
the test scenarios described in .
Convergence time: The time taken to reach a stable rate at startup,
after the available link capacity changes, or when new flows get added
to the bottleneck link.
Instability or oscillation in the sending rate: The frequency or
number of instances when the sending rate oscillates between an
high watermark level and a low watermark level, or vice-versa in
a defined time window. For example, the watermarks can be set at 4x
interval: 500 Kbps, 2 Mbps, and a time window of 500 ms.
Bandwidth utilization, defined as the ratio of the instantaneous
sending rate to the instantaneous bottleneck capacity: This metric is
useful only when a congestion-controlled RTP flow is by itself or is competing with similar
cross-traffic.
Note that the above metrics are all objective
application-independent metrics. Refer to
for objective metrics for evaluating codecs.
From the logs, the statistical measures (min, max, mean, standard
deviation, and variance) for the whole duration or any specific part of
the session can be calculated. Also the metrics (sending rate,
receiver rate, goodput, latency) can be visualized in graphs as
variation over time; the measurements in the plot are at one-second
intervals. Additionally, from the logs, it is possible to plot the
histogram or cumulative distribution function (CDF) of packet delay.RTP Log Format
Having a common log format simplifies running analyses across
different measurement setups and comparing their results.
Send or receive timestamp (Unix): <int>.<int> -- sec.usec decimal
RTP payload type <int> -- decimal
SSRC <int> -- hexadecimal
RTP sequence no <int> -- decimal
RTP timestamp <int> -- decimal
marker bit 0|1 -- character
Payload size <int> -- # bytes, decimal
Each line of the log file should be terminated with CRLF,
CR, or LF characters. Empty lines are disregarded.If the congestion control implements retransmissions or Forward Error Correction (FEC), the
evaluation should report both packet loss (before applying
error resilience) and residual packet loss (after applying
error resilience).These data should suffice to compute the media-encoding independent
metrics described above. Use of a common log will allow simplified
post-processing and analysis across different implementations.
List of Network ParametersThe implementors are encouraged to choose evaluation settings
from the following values initially:One-Way Propagation DelayExperiments are expected to verify that the congestion control is
able to work across a broad range of path characteristics, including challenging situations, for example, over
transcontinental and/or satellite links. Tests thus account for the following different latencies:
Very low latency: 0-1 ms
Low latency: 50 ms
High latency: 150 ms
Extreme latency: 300 ms
End-to-End Loss Many paths in the Internet today are largely lossless;
however, in scenarios featuring interference in wireless
networks, sending to and receiving from remote regions,
or high/fast mobility, media flows may exhibit substantial
packet loss. This variety needs
to be reflected appropriately by the tests.To model a wide range of lossy links, the experiments can choose one of the
following loss rates; the fractional loss is the ratio of packets lost
and packets sent:
no loss: 0%
1%
5%
10%
20%
Drop-Tail Router Queue LengthRouters should be configured to use drop-tail queues in
the experiments due to their (still) prevalent nature.
Experimentation with Active Queue Management (AQM) schemes is encouraged but not mandatory.
The router queue length is measured as the time taken to drain the
FIFO queue. It has been noted in various discussions that the queue
length in the currently deployed Internet varies significantly. While
the core backbone network has very short queue length, the home
gateways usually have larger queue length. Those various queue lengths
can be categorized in the following way:
QoS-aware (or short): 70 ms
Nominal: 300-500 ms
Buffer-bloated: 1000-2000 ms
Here the size of the queue is measured in bytes or packets.
To convert the queue length measured in seconds to queue length in
bytes:QueueSize (in bytes) = QueueSize (in sec) x Throughput (in
bps)/8Loss Generation Model
Many models for generating packet loss are available: some
generate correlated packet losses, others generate independent packet losses. In addition,
packet losses can also be extracted from packet traces.
As a (simple) minimum loss
model with minimal parameterization (i.e., the loss rate),
independent random losses must be used in the evaluation.
It is known that independent loss models may reflect reality poorly,
and hence more sophisticated loss models could be
considered.
Suitable models for correlated losses include the Gilbert-Elliot
model and models that generate losses by
modeling a queue with its (different) drop behaviors.
Jitter ModelsThis section defines jitter models for the purposes of this
document. When jitter is to be applied to both the congestion-controlled RTP flow and any
competing flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the competing flow will
use the jitter definition below that does not allow for reordering of
packets on the competing flow (see NR-BPDV definition below).Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. It is
typically used to refer to the variation of a metric (e.g.,
delay) with respect to some reference metric (e.g., average
delay or minimum delay). For example in RFC 3550, jitter is
computed as the smoothed difference in packet arrival times
relative to their respective expected arrival times, which is
particularly meaningful if the underlying packet delay
variation was caused by a Gaussian random process.Because jitter is an overloaded term, we use the term
Packet Delay Variation (PDV) instead to describe the variation
of delay of individual packets in the same sense as the IETF
IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group has defined PDV in their documents (e.g., RFC 3393)
and as the ITU-T SG16 has defined IP Packet Delay Variation
(IPDV) in their documents (e.g., Y.1540).Most PDV distributions in packet network systems are
one-sided distributions, the measurement of which with a
finite number of measurement samples results in one-sided
histograms. In the usual packet network transport case, there
is typically one packet that transited the network with the
minimum delay; a (large) number of packets transit the network
within some (smaller) positive variation from this minimum
delay, and a (small) number of the packets transit the network
with delays higher than the median or average transit time
(these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause
significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and
should be considered in rate adaptation designs for RTP
congestion control.In this section we define two different bounded PDV
characteristics, 1) Random Bounded PDV and 2) Approximately Random
Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV.The former, 1) Random Bounded PDV, is presented for
information only, while the latter, 2) Approximately Random
Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV, must be used in the
evaluation.Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV)The RBPDV probability distribution function (PDF) is specified to
be of some mathematically describable function that includes some
practical minimum and maximum discrete values suitable for testing.
For example, the minimum value, x_min, might be specified as the
minimum transit time packet, and the maximum value, x_max, might be
defined to be two standard deviations higher than the mean.Since we are typically interested in the distribution relative to
the mean delay packet, we define the zero mean PDV sample, z(n), to be
z(n) = x(n) - x_mean, where x(n) is a sample of the RBPDV random
variable x and x_mean is the mean of x.We assume here that s(n) is the original source time of packet n
and the post-jitter induced emission time, j(n), for packet n is:
j(n) = {[z(n) + x_mean] + s(n)}.
It follows that the separation in the post-jitter time of
packets n and n+1 is {[s(n+1)-s(n)] - [z(n)-z(n+1)]}. Since
the first term is always a positive quantity, we note that
packet reordering at the receiver is possible whenever the
second term is greater than the first. Said another way,
whenever the difference in possible zero mean PDV sample
delays (i.e., [x_max-x_min]) exceeds the inter-departure
time of any two sent packets, we have the possibility of
packet reordering.There are important use cases in real networks where packets can
become reordered, such as in load-balancing topologies and during
route changes. However, for the vast majority of cases, there is no
packet reordering because most of the time packets follow the same
path. Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets
after it on that flow are also delayed. This is especially true for
mobile wireless links where there are per-flow queues prior to base
station scheduling. Owing to this important use case, we define
another PDV profile similar to the above, but one that does not allow
for reordering within a flow.Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR-BPDV)No Reordering BPDV, NR-BPDV, is defined similarly to the above with
one important exception. Let serial(n) be defined as the serialization
delay of packet n at the lowest bottleneck link rate (or other
appropriate rate) in a given test. Then we produce all the post-jitter
values for j(n) for n = 1, 2, ... N, where N is the length of the
source sequence s to be offset. The exception can be stated as
follows: We revisit all j(n) beginning from index n=2, and if j(n) is
determined to be less than [j(n-1)+serial(n-1)], we redefine j(n) to
be equal to [j(n-1)+serial(n-1)] and continue for all remaining n
(i.e., n = 3, 4, .. N). This models the case where the packet n is
sent immediately after packet (n-1) at the bottleneck link rate.
Although this is generally the theoretical minimum in that it assumes
that no other packets from other flows are in between packet n and n+1
at the bottleneck link, it is a reasonable assumption for per-flow
queuing.We note that this assumption holds for some important exception
cases, such as packets immediately following outliers. There are a
multitude of software-controlled elements common on end-to-end
Internet paths (such as firewalls, application-layer gateways, and other middleboxes) that
stop processing packets while servicing other functions (e.g., garbage
collection). Often these devices do not drop packets, but rather queue
them for later processing and cause many of the outliers. Thus NR-BPDV
models this particular use case (assuming serial(n+1) is defined
appropriately for the device causing the outlier) and is believed
to be important for adaptation development for congestion-controlled RTP streams.Recommended DistributionWhether Random Bounded PDV or Approximately Random
Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV, it is recommended that
z(n) is distributed according to a truncated Gaussian for
the above jitter models:z(n) ~ |max(min(N(0, std2), N_STD * std), -N_STD * std)|where N(0, std2) is the Gaussian distribution with zero mean and
std is standard deviation. Recommended values:
std = 5 ms
N_STD = 3
Traffic ModelsTCP Traffic ModelLong-lived TCP flows will download data throughout the
session and are expected to have infinite amount of data to
send or receive. This roughly applies, for example, when
downloading software distributions.Each short TCP flow is modeled as a sequence of file downloads
interleaved with idle periods. Not all short TCP flows start at the same
time, i.e., some start in the ON state while others start in the OFF
state.The short TCP flows can be modeled as follows: 30
connections start simultaneously fetching small (30-50 KB)
amounts of data, evenly distributed. This covers the case
where the short TCP flows are fetching web page resources rather
than video files.The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is
typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean value of
10 seconds.
Many different TCP congestion control schemes are deployed
today. Therefore, experimentation with a range of different
schemes, especially including CUBIC , is encouraged.
Experiments must document in detail which congestion control
schemes they tested against and which parameters were used.
RTP Video Model
describes two
types of video traffic models for evaluating candidate algorithms for RTP congestion control.
The first model statistically characterizes the behavior of a video
encoder, whereas the second model uses video traces.
Sample video test sequences are available at . The following two video streams
are the recommended minimum for testing: Foreman (CIF
sequence) and FourPeople (720p); both come as raw video data
to be encoded dynamically. As these video sequences are
short (300 and 600 frames, respectively), they shall be
stitched together repeatedly until the desired length is
reached.
Background UDPBackground UDP flow is modeled as a constant
bit rate (CBR) flow. It will download data at a particular CBR
for the complete session, or will change to particular
CBR at predefined intervals. The inter-packet interval is
calculated based on the CBR and the packet size (typically
set to the path MTU size, the default value can be 1500 bytes).
Note that new transport protocols such as QUIC may use UDP;
however, due to their congestion control algorithms, they will exhibit
behavior conceptually similar in nature to TCP flows above and
can thus be subsumed by the above, including the division into
short-lived and long-lived flows. As QUIC evolves independently of
TCP congestion control algorithms, its future congestion
control should be considered as competing traffic as appropriate.
Security Considerations
This document specifies evaluation criteria and parameters
for assessing and comparing the performance of congestion
control protocols and algorithms for real-time
communication. This memo itself is thus not subject to
security considerations but the protocols and algorithms
evaluated may be. In particular, successful operation
under all tests defined in this document may suffice for a
comparative evaluation but must not be interpreted that
the protocol is free of risks when deployed on the
Internet as briefly described in the following by example.
Such evaluations are expected to be
carried out in controlled environments for limited numbers
of parallel flows. As such, these evaluations are by
definition limited and will not be able to systematically
consider possible interactions or very large groups of
communicating nodes under all possible circumstances, so
that careful protocol design is advised to avoid
incidentally contributing traffic that could lead to
unstable networks, e.g., (local) congestion collapse.
This specification focuses on assessing the regular
operation of the protocols and algorithms under
consideration. It does not suggest checks against
malicious use of the protocols -- by the sender, the
receiver, or intermediate parties, e.g., through faked,
dropped, replicated, or modified congestion signals. It is
up to the protocol specifications themselves to ensure that
authenticity, integrity, and/or plausibility of received
signals are checked, and the appropriate actions (or
non-actions) are taken.
IANA ConsiderationsThis document has no IANA actions.ReferencesNormative ReferencesRTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time ApplicationsThis memorandum describes RTP, the real-time transport protocol. RTP provides end-to-end network transport functions suitable for applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or simulation data, over multicast or unicast network services. RTP does not address resource reservation and does not guarantee quality-of- service for real-time services. The data transport is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow monitoring of the data delivery in a manner scalable to large multicast networks, and to provide minimal control and identification functionality. RTP and RTCP are designed to be independent of the underlying transport and network layers. The protocol supports the use of RTP-level translators and mixers. Most of the text in this memorandum is identical to RFC 1889 which it obsoletes. There are no changes in the packet formats on the wire, only changes to the rules and algorithms governing how the protocol is used. The biggest change is an enhancement to the scalable timer algorithm for calculating when to send RTCP packets in order to minimize transmission in excess of the intended rate when many participants join a session simultaneously. [STANDARDS-TRACK]RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal ControlThis document describes a profile called "RTP/AVP" for the use of the real-time transport protocol (RTP), version 2, and the associated control protocol, RTCP, within audio and video multiparticipant conferences with minimal control. It provides interpretations of generic fields within the RTP specification suitable for audio and video conferences. In particular, this document defines a set of default mappings from payload type numbers to encodings. This document also describes how audio and video data may be carried within RTP. It defines a set of standard encodings and their names when used within RTP. The descriptions provide pointers to reference implementations and the detailed standards. This document is meant as an aid for implementors of audio, video and other real-time multimedia applications. This memorandum obsoletes RFC 1890. It is mostly backwards-compatible except for functions removed because two interoperable implementations were not found. The additions to RFC 1890 codify existing practice in the use of payload formats under this profile and include new payload formats defined since RFC 1890 was published. [STANDARDS-TRACK]RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)This document defines the Extended Report (XR) packet type for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), and defines how the use of XR packets can be signaled by an application if it employs the Session Description Protocol (SDP). XR packets are composed of report blocks, and seven block types are defined here. The purpose of the extended reporting format is to convey information that supplements the six statistics that are contained in the report blocks used by RTCP's Sender Report (SR) and Receiver Report (RR) packets. Some applications, such as multicast inference of network characteristics (MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP) monitoring, require other and more detailed statistics. In addition to the block types defined here, additional block types may be defined in the future by adhering to the framework that this document provides.Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)Real-time media streams that use RTP are, to some degree, resilient against packet losses. Receivers may use the base mechanisms of the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) to report packet reception statistics and thus allow a sender to adapt its transmission behavior in the mid-term. This is the sole means for feedback and feedback-based error repair (besides a few codec-specific mechanisms). This document defines an extension to the Audio-visual Profile (AVP) that enables receivers to provide, statistically, more immediate feedback to the senders and thus allows for short-term adaptation and efficient feedback-based repair mechanisms to be implemented. This early feedback profile (AVPF) maintains the AVP bandwidth constraints for RTCP and preserves scalability to large groups. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Support for Reduced-Size Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities and ConsequencesThis memo discusses benefits and issues that arise when allowing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTCP) packets to be transmitted with reduced size. The size can be reduced if the rules on how to create compound packets outlined in RFC 3550 are removed or changed. Based on that analysis, this memo defines certain changes to the rules to allow feedback messages to be sent as Reduced-Size RTCP packets under certain conditions when using the RTP/AVPF (Real-time Transport Protocol / Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback) profile (RFC 4585). This document updates RFC 3550, RFC 3711, and RFC 4585. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP SessionsThe Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is widely used in telephony, video conferencing, and telepresence applications. Such applications are often run on best-effort UDP/IP networks. If congestion control is not implemented in these applications, then network congestion can lead to uncontrolled packet loss and a resulting deterioration of the user's multimedia experience. The congestion control algorithm acts as a safety measure by stopping RTP flows from using excessive resources and protecting the network from overload. At the time of this writing, however, while there are several proprietary solutions, there is no standard algorithm for congestion control of interactive RTP flows.This document does not propose a congestion control algorithm. It instead defines a minimal set of RTP circuit breakers: conditions under which an RTP sender needs to stop transmitting media data to protect the network from excessive congestion. It is expected that, in the absence of long-lived excessive congestion, RTP applications running on best-effort IP networks will be able to operate without triggering these circuit breakers. To avoid triggering the RTP circuit breaker, any Standards Track congestion control algorithms defined for RTP will need to operate within the envelope set by these RTP circuit breaker algorithms.Video Traffic Models for RTP Congestion Control EvaluationsThis document describes two reference video traffic models for evaluating RTP congestion control algorithms. The first model statistically characterizes the behavior of a live video encoder in response to changing requests on the target video rate. The second model is trace-driven and emulates the output of actual encoded video frame sizes from a high-resolution test sequence. Both models are designed to strike a balance between simplicity, repeatability, and authenticity in modeling the interactions between a live video traffic source and the congestion control module. Finally, the document describes how both approaches can be combined into a hybrid model.Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time MediaInformative ReferencesThe Gilbert-Elliott Model for Packet Loss in Real Time Services on the InternetThe estimation of quality for real-time services over telecommunication networks requires realistic models for impairments and failures during transmission. We focus on the classical Gilbert-Elliott model whose second order statistics is derived over arbitrary time scales and used to fit packet loss processes of traffic traces measured in the IP back- bone of Deutsche Telekom. The results show that simple Markov models are appropriate to capture the observed loss pattern.
14th GI/ITG Conference - Measurement, Modelling and Evalutation [sic] of Computer and Communication SystemsVideo Codec Testing and Quality MeasurementThis document describes guidelines and procedures for evaluating a video codec. This covers subjective and objective tests, test conditions, and materials used for the test.Work in ProgressSpecifying New Congestion Control AlgorithmsThe IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely shown to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed networks). Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion control schemes that significantly differ from the IETF's congestion control principles. Using these new congestion control schemes in the global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic using the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently standardized congestion control. Therefore, the IETF must proceed with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control proposals. The goal of this document is to provide guidance for considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion Control MechanismsThis document discusses the metrics to be considered in an evaluation of new or modified congestion control mechanisms for the Internet. These include metrics for the evaluation of new transport protocols, of proposed modifications to TCP, of application-level congestion control, and of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms in the router. This document is the first in a series of documents aimed at improving the models that we use in the evaluation of transport protocols.This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group (TMRG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or any other community) about the metrics that congestion control mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of trade-offs between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of trade-offs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of optimizing for a single metric. This memo provides information for the Internet community.CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance NetworksCUBIC is an extension to the current TCP standards. It differs from the current TCP standards only in the congestion control algorithm on the sender side. In particular, it uses a cubic function instead of a linear window increase function of the current TCP standards to improve scalability and stability under fast and long-distance networks. CUBIC and its predecessor algorithm have been adopted as defaults by Linux and have been used for many years. This document provides a specification of CUBIC to enable third-party implementations and to solicit community feedback through experimentation on the performance of CUBIC.Test Cases for Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time MediaEvaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless NetworksHomepage of tcpdump and libpcapHomepage of WiresharkVideo Test Media SetContributorsThe content and concepts within this document are a product of
the discussion carried out in the Design Team. provided the text for the jitter models ().Acknowledgments Much of this document is derived from previous work on
congestion control at the IETF. The authors would like to thank
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, and
for providing valuable feedback on draft versions of this document.
Additionally, thanks to the participants of the Design Team for
their comments and discussion related to the evaluation
criteria.Authors' AddressesCALLSTATS I/O OyRauhankatu 11 C00100HelsinkiFinlandvarun.singh@iki.fihttps://www.callstats.io/Technical University of MunichDepartment of InformaticsChair of Connected MobilityBoltzmannstrasse 3Garching85748Germanyott@in.tum.deGoogleKungsbron 211122StockholmSwedenholmer@google.com