skip to main content
article

Web100: extended TCP instrumentation for research, education and diagnosis

Published:01 July 2003Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

TCP has become the dominant protocol for all network data transport because it presents a simple uniform data delivery service which is sufficient for most applications over all types of lower network layers. By its very nature, TCP's adaption and retransmission strategies hide all of the details of the lower layers from the application. For example the only symptom of spurious packet loss (or nearly any other network problem) is longer elapsed time and lower performance.This information hiding is fundamentally important to the growth of the Internet because it decouples the evolution of applications from the evolution of link layers. However it also hides valuable information from researchers, educators, network administrators, and other people who would benefit from insight into the inner workings of TCP and the lower layers.In this paper, we present an architecture and infrastructure that provides for per-connection TCP instrumentation to expose otherwise hidden protocol events. We show examples how the infrastructure can be used in support of research, education and advanced network diagnostic tools.Our work was motivated by the observation that since about 1985 network data rates for typical novice network users have fallen by about three orders of magnitude behind expert users (who have kept up with Moore's Law). We use the term "Wizard Gap" to describe this phenomenon. The Web100 and Net100 projects were formed as one step in closing the Wizard Gap.

References

  1. M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens. Tcp congestion control, RFC2581, April 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. ANINEAR. Advanced networking infrastructure needs in the atmospheric and related sciences (aninars) workshop report. http://www.scd.ucar.edu/nets/projects/completed/1999.complete.projects/nlanr/ final.report.htm.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. S. Brakmo, S. W. O'Malley, and L. L. Peterson. TCP vegas: New techniques for congestion detection and avoidance. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 24--35, 1994.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. CAIDA. Internet tools taxonomy, 2003. http://www.caida.org/tools/taxonomy/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Carlson. Developing the Web100 based network diagnostic tool (NDT). PAM, April 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. D. Clark. Window and acknowledgement strategy in TCP, RFC813, July 1982.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. T. Dunigan. Floyd's TCP slow-start and AIMD mods, 2003. http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/netperf/floyd.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. Dunigan. Kelly's scalable TCP AIMD mods, 2003. http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/netperf/kelly.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. T. Dunigan. ORNL TCP Web100 bandwidth tester, 2003. http://firebird.ccs.ornl.gov:7123/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Dunigan, M. Mathis, and B. Tierney. A TCP Tuning Daemon. Supercomputing 2002, November 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. W. Feng, M. Fisk, M. Gardner, and E. Weigle. Dynamic Right-Sizing: An Automated, Lightweight, and Scalable Technique for Enchancing Grid Performance. 7th PfHSN, page 16, April 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Floyd. HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows. Work-in- Progress: IETF Internet-Draft, August 2003. http://www.ietf.org/internetdrafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-highspeed-01.txt.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Floyd. Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion Windows. Work in progress: IETF Internet-Draft, July 2003. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-slowstart-00.txt.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Floyd and V. Paxson. Diffculties in simulating the internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(4):392--403, August 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Handley, J. Padhye, and S. Floyd. TCP congestion window validation, RFC2861, June 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Heffner. High bandwidth TCP queuing, July 2002. http://www.psc.edu/~jheffner/papers/senior_thesis.ps.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. V. Jacobson. Modified TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Message to end2end-interest list, April 1990. ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/email/vanj.90apr30.txt.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. V. Jacobson, R. Braden, and D. Borman. TCP extensions for high performance, RFC1323, May 1992.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. Jin et al. FAST kernel: Background theory and experimental results. In First International Workshop on Protocols for Fast Long-Distance Networks, February 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. T. Kelly. Scalable TCP: Improving performance in highspeed wide area networks. In First International Workshop on Protocols for Fast Long-Distance Networks, February 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. LBNL. Network tools analysis framework (ntaf), 2003. http://www-didc.lbl.gov/NTAF/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Lee, M. Stoufer, and B. Tierney. Monitoring data archives for Grid environments. Supercomputing 2002, November 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Mathis. Pushing up performance for everyone, December 1999. Presentation to Joint Techs workshop (first use of wizard gap).]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Mathis, J. Heffner, R. Reddy, and J. Saperia. TCP Extended Statistics MIB. Work in progress: IETF Internet-Draft, November 2002. Status page: http://www.web100.org/mib.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgement options, RFC2018, October 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Mathis and R. Reddy. Enabling High Performance Data Transfers, 2002. http://www.psc.edu/networking/perf_tune.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Mathis and R. Reddy. Pathprobe: Network Path Diagnostic Tools, 2002. http://www.psc.edu/~web100/pathprobe/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Mathis, J. Semke, and J. Mahdavi. The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Computer Communications Review, 27(3), 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Mogul and S. Deering. Path MTU discovery, RFC1191, November 1990.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Nagle. Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks, RFC896, January 1984.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Net100. Home page, 2003. http://www.net100.org/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. NLANR. Iperf---the TCP/UDP bandwidth measurement tool, 2002. http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Ostermann. TCPtrace, 2003. http://www.tcptrace.org/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. V. Paxson and M. Allman. Computing TCP's retransmission timer, RFC2988, November 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. V. Paxson and S. Floyd. Why we don't know how to simulate the internet. In Winter Simulation Conference, pages 1037--1044, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, and D. Black. A proposal to add explicit congestion notification (ECN) to IP, RFC3168, September 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. R. Reddy. SYN option check server, 2003. http://syntest.psc.edu:7961/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Semke, J. Mahdavi, and M. Mathis. Automatic TCP Buffer Tuning. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 315--323, 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. B. Tierney. Using NetLogger and Web100 for TCP analysis. Protocols for High Speed Networks. http://www-didc.lbl.gov/papers/PFDL.tierney.pdf.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. A. Tirumala, L. Cottrell, and T. Dunigan. Measuring end-toend bandwidth with Iperf using Web100. PAM, April 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. G. Turner. tcpestats: A Net-SNMP AgentX agent implementing the Web100 Project's TCP Extended Statistics MIB, 2002. http://www.aarnet.edu.au/network/software/web100/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. C. Villamizar and C. Song. High performance TCP in ANSNET. Computer Communications Review, 24(5), 1995.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Web100. Kernel Instrument Set, 2002. http://www.web100.org/download/kernel/alpha2.0/tcp-kis.txt.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. G. Wood. 12--NEWS: Internet2 Land Speed Winners Set New Transcontinental Internet Performance Records, 2002. http://mail.internet2.edu:8080/guest/archives/i2-news/log200003/msg00011.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Web100: extended TCP instrumentation for research, education and diagnosis
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
      ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 33, Issue 3
      July 2003
      141 pages
      ISSN:0146-4833
      DOI:10.1145/956993
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2003 Authors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 July 2003

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader