Counter-intuitive throughput behaviors in networks under end-to-end control

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 355-368

  Tang, Ao ^a   Wang, Jiantao ^a   Low, Steven H ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fairness; Flow control; Optimization; Throughput

Indexed keywords

BANDWIDTH; CONGESTION CONTROL (COMMUNICATION); FREQUENCY ALLOCATION; OPTIMIZATION; TELECOMMUNICATION LINKS; TELECOMMUNICATION TRAFFIC; TOPOLOGY;

BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION POLICY; END-TO-END CONTROL; NETWORK SETTING; SINGLE-LINK TOPOLOGY;

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 33646009997     PISSN: 10636692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TNET.2006.872552     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. N. Bean, F. Kelly, and P. Taylor, "Braess's paradox in loss networks," J. Appl. Prob., vol. 34, pp. 155-159, 1997.
2. D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data Networks, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
3. T. Bonald and L. Massoulie, "Impact of fairness on internet performance," in Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS, Jun. 2001, pp. 82-91.
4. D. Braess, "Über ein Paradoxen aus der Verkehrsplanung," Unternehmensforschung, vol. 12, pp. 258-268, 1968.
5. M. Butler and H. Williams, The allocation of shared fixed costs. [Online]. Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/ operationalResearch/pdf/lseor02-52.pdf%, 2002
6. B. Calvert, W. Solomon, and I. Ziedins, "Braess's paradox in a queuing network with state depending routing," J. Appl. Prob., vol. 34, pp. 134-154, 1997.
7. C. Fisk and S. Pallottino, "Empirical evidence for equilibrium paradoxes with implications for optimal planning strategies," Transport. Res., vol. 15A, pp. 245-248, 1981.
8. J. Cohen and P. Horowitz, "Paradoxical behavior of mechanical and electrical networks," Nature, vol. 352, pp. 699-701, Aug. 1991.
9. J. Cohen and F. Kelly, "A paradox of congestion in a queuing network," J. Appl. Prob., vol. 27, pp. 730-734, 1990.
10. S. Floyd, HighSpeed TCP for large congestion windows. [Online]. Available: http://www.icir.org/floyd/hstcp.html, Feb. 2003, Internet draft draft-floyd-tcp-highspeed-02.txt, work in progress
11. M. Frank, "The Braess paradox," Math. Program., vol. 20, pp. 283-302, 1981.
12. E. Gafni and D. Bertsekas, "Dynamic control of session input rates in communication networks," IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-29, no. 1, pp. 1009-1016, Jan. 1984.
13. R. Horn and C. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985.
14. R. Jain, W. Hawe, and D. Chiu, A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer systems Digital Equipment Corp., Tech. Rep. DEC-TR-301, Sep. 1984.
15. C. Jin, D. Wei, and S. H. Low, "TCP FAST: Motivation, architecture, algorithms, performance," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2004.
16. H. Kameda, E. Altman, T. Kozawa, and Y. Hosokawa, "Braess-like paradoxes in distributed computer systems," IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1687-1690, 2000.
17. H. Kameda and O. Pourtallier, "Paradoxes in distributed decisions on optimal load balancing for networks of homogeneous computers," J. ACM, vol. 49, pp. 407-433, 2002.
18. F. Kelly, A. Maulloo, and D. Tan, "Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability," J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 237-252, Mar. 1998.
19. T. Kelly, Scalable TCP: Improving performance in highspeed wide area networks. [Online]. Available: http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctk21/ scalable/, Dec. 2002
20. Y. Korilis, A. Lazar, and A. Orda, "Capacity allocation under non-cooperative routing," IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 309-325, 1997.
21. Y. Korilis, A. Lazar, and A. Orda, "Avoiding the Braess paradox in noncooperative networks," J. Appl. Prob., vol. 36, pp. 211-222, 1999.
22. S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant, "End-to-end congestion control: Utility functions, random losses and ECN marks," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 689-702, Oct. 2003.
23. S. H. Low, "A duality model of TCP and queue management algorithms," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 525-536, Aug. 2003.
24. S. H. Low and D. Lapsley, "Optimization flow control, I: Basic algorithm and convergence," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 861-874, Dec. 1999.
25. S. H. Low, L. Peterson, and L. Wang, "Understanding Vegas: A duality model," J. ACM, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 207-235, Mar. 2002.
26. H. Luo, S. Lu, V. Bharghavan, J. Cheng, and G. Zhong, "A packet scheduling approach to QoS support in multihop wireless networks," ACM J. Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), Special Issue on QoS in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 193-206, Jun. 2004.
27. L. Massoulie and J. Roberts, "Bandwidth sharing: Objectives and algorithms," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 320-328, Jun. 2002.
28. J. Mo and J. Walrand, "Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 556-567, Oct. 2000.
29. J. Murchland, "Braess's paradox of traffic flow," Transpn. Res., vol. 4, pp. 391-394, 1970.
30. R. Srinivasan and A. Somani, "On achieving fairness and efficiency in high-speed shared medium access," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 111-124, Feb. 2003.
31. A. Tang, J. Wang, and S. H. Low, "Is fair allocation always inefficient," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2004.
32. A. Tang, J. Wang, S. H. Low, and M. Chiang, "Network equilibrium of heterogeneous congestion control protocols," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2005, pp. 1338-1349.
33. H. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, 3 ed. New York: Norton, 1992.
34. H. Yaiche, R. Mazumdar, and C. Rosenberg, "A game theoretic framework for bandwidth allocation and pricing in broadband networks," IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 667-678, Oct. 2000.