FAIR CHARGES FOR INTERNET CONGESTION Damon Wischik Statistical Laboratory, Cambridge Electrical Engineering, Stanford www.stanford.edu/~wischik.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Balaji Prabhakar Active queue management and bandwidth partitioning algorithms Balaji Prabhakar Departments of EE and CS Stanford University
Advertisements

Congestion Control and Fairness Models Nick Feamster CS 4251 Computer Networking II Spring 2008.
Congestion Control and Fairness Models Nick Feamster CS 4251 Computer Networking II Spring 2008.
Game Theory and the Internet Flow and Congestion Control.
The assumption of maximizing behavior lies at the heart of economic analysis. Firms are assumed to maximize economic profit. Economic profit is the difference.
Computer Networking Lecture 20 – Queue Management and QoS.
Restless bandits and congestion control Mark Handley, Costin Raiciu, Damon Wischik UCL.
1 CONGESTION CONTROL. 2 Congestion Control When one part of the subnet (e.g. one or more routers in an area) becomes overloaded, congestion results. Because.
TELE202 Lecture 8 Congestion control 1 Lecturer Dr Z. Huang Overview ¥Last Lecture »X.25 »Source: chapter 10 ¥This Lecture »Congestion control »Source:
Congestion Control Created by M Bateman, A Ruddle & C Allison As part of the TCP View project.
Mathematical models of the Internet Frank Kelly Hood Fellowship Public Lecture University of Auckland 3 April 2012.
Resource Pooling A system exhibits complete resource pooling if it behaves as if there was a single pooled resource. The Internet has many mechanisms for.
Congestion Control An Overview -Jyothi Guntaka. Congestion  What is congestion ?  The aggregate demand for network resources exceeds the available capacity.
Max Min Fairness How define fairness? “ Any session is entitled to as much network use as is any other ” ….unless some sessions can use more without hurting.
XCP: Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Network Dina Katabi, Mark Handley and Charlie Rohrs Presented by Ao-Jan Su.
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1 ECSE-6600: Internet Protocols Informal Quiz #05: SOLUTIONS Shivkumar Kalyanaraman: GOOGLE: “Shiv.
Resource pricing and the evolution of congestion control By R. J. Gibbens and F. P. Kelly.
CPSC Topics in Multimedia Networking A Mechanism for Equitable Bandwidth Allocation under QoS and Budget Constraints D. Sivakumar IBM Almaden Research.
Dynamic Internet Congestion with Bursts Stefan Schmid Roger Wattenhofer Distributed Computing Group, ETH Zurich 13th International Conference On High Performance.
Lecture 9. Unconstrained Optimization Need to maximize a function f(x), where x is a scalar or a vector x = (x 1, x 2 ) f(x) = -x x 2 2 f(x) = -(x-a)
Charge-Sensitive TCP and Rate Control Richard J. La Department of EECS UC Berkeley November 22, 1999.
TCP Stability and Resource Allocation: Part I. References The Mathematics of Internet Congestion Control, Birkhauser, The web pages of –Kelly, Vinnicombe,
Diffusion Mechanisms for Active Queue Management Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Delaware May 19th / 2004 Rafael Nunez.
Network Bandwidth Allocation (and Stability) In Three Acts.
Analysis and Simulation of a Fair Queuing Algorithm
EE689 Lecture 5 Review of last lecture More on HPF RED.
1 TCP Transport Control Protocol Reliable In-order delivery Flow control Responds to congestion “Nice” Protocol.
1 Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, IEEE Transactions on Networking, Vol.1, No. 4, (Aug 1993), pp
Computer Networking Lecture 17 – Queue Management As usual: Thanks to Srini Seshan and Dave Anderson.
A Strategy for Implementing Smart Market Pricing Scheme on Diff-Serv Murat Yuksel and Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance
Diffusion Mechanisms for Active Queue Management Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Delaware May 19th / 2004 Rafael Nunez.
10th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems 1 A Comparative Evaluation of Internet Pricing Schemes: Smart Market and Dynamic Capacity Contracting.
Modeling Quality-Quantity based Communication Orr Srour under the supervision of Ishai Menache.
Diffusion Early Marking Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Delaware May / 2004 Rafael Nunez Gonzalo Arce.
Advanced Computer Networks : RED 1 Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, IEEE Transactions on Networking,
Distributed resource allocation in wireless data networks: Performance and design Alexandre Proutière Orange-FT / ENS Paris.
September 27, Instabilities and Oscillations in Networks of Queues Matthew Andrews Bell Labs Joint work with Alex Slivkins (Cornell)
DaVinci: Dynamically Adaptive Virtual Networks for a Customized Internet Jennifer Rexford Princeton University With Jiayue He, Rui Zhang-Shen, Ying Li,
Congestion models for bursty TCP traffic Damon Wischik + Mark Handley University College London DARPA grant W911NF
General Equilibrium and the Efficiency of Perfect Competition
1 MaxNet and TCP Reno/RED on mice traffic Khoa Truong Phan Ho Chi Minh city University of Technology (HCMUT)
CONGESTION CONTROL and RESOURCE ALLOCATION. Definition Resource Allocation : Process by which network elements try to meet the competing demands that.
Computer Networks Performance Metrics. Performance Metrics Outline Generic Performance Metrics Network performance Measures Components of Hop and End-to-End.
ACN: RED paper1 Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, IEEE Transactions on Networking, Vol.1, No. 4, (Aug.
27th, Nov 2001 GLOBECOM /16 Analysis of Dynamic Behaviors of Many TCP Connections Sharing Tail-Drop / RED Routers Go Hasegawa Osaka University, Japan.
Congestion Control in CSMA-Based Networks with Inconsistent Channel State V. Gambiroza and E. Knightly Rice Networks Group
Peter Key Cambridge UK joint work with Richard Gibbens, Statistical Laboratory, Cambridge Uni. UK The.
CSE 561 – Congestion Control with Network Support David Wetherall Spring 2000.
Queueing and Active Queue Management Aditya Akella 02/26/2007.
Packet Scheduling and Buffer Management Switches S.Keshav: “ An Engineering Approach to Networking”
Jean Walrand – NSF – April 24-25, 20031/5 Economic Mechanisms Grand Challenge: Design economic mechanisms that provide incentives for increasing the utility.
Michael Schapira Yale and UC Berkeley Joint work with P. Brighten Godfrey, Aviv Zohar and Scott Shenker.
DaVinci: Dynamically Adaptive Virtual Networks for a Customized Internet Jiayue He, Rui Zhang-Shen, Ying Li, Cheng-Yen Lee, Jennifer Rexford, and Mung.
Some questions about multipath Damon Wischik, UCL Trilogy UCL.
June 4, 2003EE384Y1 Demand Based Rate Allocation Arpita Ghosh and James Mammen {arpitag, EE 384Y Project 4 th June, 2003.
Jennifer Rexford Fall 2014 (TTh 3:00-4:20 in CS 105) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks TCP.
We used ns-2 network simulator [5] to evaluate RED-DT and compare its performance to RED [1], FRED [2], LQD [3], and CHOKe [4]. All simulation scenarios.
1 Fair Queuing Hamed Khanmirza Principles of Network University of Tehran.
Analysis and Design of an Adaptive Virtual Queue (AVQ) Algorithm for AQM By Srisankar Kunniyur & R. Srikant Presented by Hareesh Pattipati.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Congestion Control 0.
ECEN 619, Internet Protocols and Modeling Prof. Xi Zhang Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, IEEE Transactions.
1 Transport Bandwidth Allocation 3/29/2012. Admin. r Exam 1 m Max: 65 m Avg: 52 r Any questions on programming assignment 2 2.
Chapter 6 Queuing Disciplines
TCP Congestion Control
TCP, XCP and Fair Queueing
Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance
Understanding Congestion Control Mohammad Alizadeh Fall 2018
Resource Pooling A system exhibits complete resource pooling if it behaves as if there was a single pooled resource. I propose ‘extent of resource pooling’
Congestion control and the P2P value chain
Presentation transcript:

FAIR CHARGES FOR INTERNET CONGESTION Damon Wischik Statistical Laboratory, Cambridge Electrical Engineering, Stanford

INTERNET CONGESTION  Users send packets.  When a router’s buffer fills:  it drops further incoming packets.  When a user detects a dropped packet, typically:  it reduces its transmission rate;  it resends the dropped packet.  Thus congestion slows down file transfers. A B

WHO DOES WHAT  Users have no incentive to reduce rates  If they cooperate, the system works (Jacobson 1988)  If they are greedy, they will cause congestion collapse (Floyd+Fall 1999) ENTITYDOES WHAT?KNOWS WHAT?WANTS WHAT? userchooses rate at which to send packets how many of its packets are dropped send lots of packets quickly routerforwards packets; drops some queue size; net incoming packet rate ?

PRICE AS AN INCENTIVE  Give users an incentive to control congestion  let each user send what it wills; charge accordingly  (Gibbens+Kelly 1999) (Gibbens+Kelly 1999) ENTITYDOES WHAT?KNOWS WHAT?WANTS WHAT? userchooses rate at which to send packets its bill; how many of its packets are dropped low bill; send lots of packets quickly routerforwards packets; drops some; charges users queue size; net incoming packet rate control congestion

OBJECTIVE  The network aims to distribute resources  efficiently  fairly  simply  We seek mechanisms that are feasible  technologically  economically

EFFICIENT. FAIR. SIMPLE.  Economists  efficient but impractical pricing schemes (MacKie-Mason+Varian 1994) (MacKie-Mason+Varian 1994)  regulators are interested in fairness  Engineers  simple working idea of fairness, efficiency  simple algorithms such as RED (Floyd+Jacobson 1993) (Floyd+Jacobson 1993)  Queueing theorists  analyze how congestion occurs

EFFICIENT. FAIR. SIMPLE.  Economists  efficient but impractical pricing schemes (MacKie-Mason+Varian 1994) (MacKie-Mason+Varian 1994)  regulators are interested in fairness  Engineers  simple working idea of fairness, efficiency  simple algorithms such as RED (Floyd+Jacobson 1993) (Floyd+Jacobson 1993)  Queueing theorists  analyze how congestion occurs (Wischik 1999) (Wischik 1999)

OUTLINE OF TALK  Define what it means for prices to be  efficient  fair  Analyse and devise  simple charging algorithms

EFFICIENCY

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY  Let there be one router, for simplicity.  Let each user  send amount, where  experience average drop rate  have net utility  Seek to maximize net welfare   where and  Charge price  Assume user acts to 

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY  Let there be one router, for simplicity.  Let each user  send amount, where  experience average drop rate  have net utility  Seek to maximize net welfare   where and  Charge price  Assume user acts to 

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY  Let there be one router, for simplicity.  Let each user  send amount, where  experience average drop rate  have net utility  Seek to maximize net welfare   where and  Charge price  Assume user acts to 

THREE SORTS OF EFFICIENCY  Three different user models:  Let be a fluid amount   Let be a random process   Let belong to some fixed traffic class   (Courcoubetis+Kelly+Weber 1997)  Three different optimal prices.

THREE PRICING SCHEMES CHARGESEFFICIENT, WHENFAIR? SPSP X a fluid quantity LL X a random process EB X belongs to some fixed traffic class

FAIRNESS

FAIRNESS 1/4  Effective bandwidth theory says   The EB scheme charge is   This yields a total allocation of costs  accounting definition of fairness  “crudest but most direct approach”

FAIRNESS 2/4  Let each customer  have bundle, and utility  u envies v if   We call an allocation no-envy fair if no one envies anyone else.  well-developed mathematical theory (Thomson+Varian 1985, Baumol 1986)  avoids interpersonal comparison of utility;  but of no use to us!

FAIRNESS 3/4  The Burden Test for Fairness  let C = extra cost of serving customer X  let P = revenue from X  if C>P,  the firm makes a loss on X; it must make up the difference by overcharging others  X benefits from cross-subsidization  The  L scheme charges:  P(X) = C(X) = L(Y) – L(Y-X)  precisely the cost of serving a user

SOCIAL INSTABILITY OF  L   L charges a user its burden cost  C( )=2; C( )=2; C( )=2  Users have an incentive to form coalitions   L is socially unstable queued serviced dropped

FAIRNESS 4/4  A price is anonymously equitable if  no user, no collection of users, and no part of a user benefits from cross-subsidization;  that is, any collection of packets Z is charged at least  P(Z) >= C(Z) = L(Y)-L(Y-Z)  To be fair  charge every packet that contributes to congestion

SAMPLE PATH SHADOW PRICING  Charge every packet whose removal would lead to one less drop (Gibbens+Kelly 1999) (Gibbens+Kelly 1999)  This is anonymously equitable queued (charged) serviced dropped

THREE SORTS OF FAIRNESS CHARGES A USER EFFICIENT, WHEN FAIR? SPSPthe extra cost of each individual packet X a fluid quantityanonymously equitable LL the net extra cost of its packets X a probability distribution satisfies the burden test EBthe effective bandwidth of its distribution X a predefined traffic type achieves a total allocation of costs

WHICH FAIRNESS IS BEST?  The three definitions measure different things  SPSP = “consumption”   L = SPSP – discount  EB = SPSP - discount  discounts take account of how users respond  Technological considerations:  routers cannot model user behaviour  SPSP is the right definition of fairness

A FAIRNESS ANALOGY  Andrew, Betty and Charles share a cake. Each takes one third.  The cost is split equally.

A FAIRNESS ANALOGY  Andrew, Betty and Charles share a cake. Each takes one third.  They each want different amounts:  Andrew and Betty demand exactly one third each;  Charles only wants one quarter, but is happy to eat the rest.  Instead of splitting the cost equally, Charles is given a discount.

SIMPLE CHARGING ALGORITHMS

MARKING AND CHARGING  Let routers mark packets to indicate congestion — but how? (Ramakrishnan+Floyd 1999)(Ramakrishnan+Floyd 1999)  Users should respond by reducing their rate  but have no incentive to do so  Let us charge the user for each marked packet, and mark according to SPSP (Gibbens+Kelly 1999) (Gibbens+Kelly 1999)

GOOD MARKING ALGORITHMS  Want to mark according to SPSP  SPSP requires foreknowledge:  whether or not a packet should be marked depends on future overflows.  So seek approximations to SPSP: use theory  to analyze RED, to see how close it is;  to suggest new algorithms—ROSE. queued (charged) serviced dropped

ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS  Theorem: (Wischik 1999) sample path large deviations(Wischik 1999)  Let X i = random amount of work that a user generates at time i, X =( X 1,X 2,…)  The most likely path to lead to marking is given by   can be calculated  Proof: large deviations

THE RED ALGORITHM  Keep a moving average of queue size   When exceeds a threshold  mark each incoming packet, with probability  (Floyd+Jacobson 1993, Cisco 1998)Floyd+Jacobson 1993Cisco 1998  Fair? Not close to SPSP marked packets bursty flow smooth flow incoming work time REDSPSP Paths most likely to lead to marking

SUMMARY  Users need incentives to cooperate,  such as congestion charges.  Efficiency? No clear definition  Fairness? SPSP  Marks can convey prices, so  design simple marking algorithms  analyse their behaviour  Other questions  market structure?  user behaviour?

MARKET STRUCTURE  Marks indicate  how much networks should pay each other,  where capacity should be expanded.  Who should pay for congestion?  only the receiver knows the price  but maybe the sender should pay $6 $5 $3 network service provider +3 marks +2 marks +1 mark nsp

USER BEHAVIOUR  Is the system stable?  Kelly, Maulloo, Tan (1998) Rate control in communication networks Rate control in communication networks  How might users behave?  Gibbens, Kelly (1999) The evolution of congestion control The evolution of congestion control  Microsoft Research Cambridge A distributed network game A distributed network game