低于尽力而为优先级的传输协议的实际评估
A hands-on Assessment of Transport Protocols with Lower than Best Effort Priority
摘要：
去年，官方BitTorrent客户端切换到LEDBAT，这是一种新的拥塞控制算法，目标是低于最佳努力的传输服务。在本文中，我们研究了这个新的协议，通过数据包级的模拟，特别注重与其他低于最佳努力协议，如TCP-LP和TCP-NICE的性能比较：我们的目标确实是量化和相对权重的低优先级的水平，这些协议提供。我们的研究结果表明，LEDBAT传输一般达到最低的优先级，与默认配置的TCP-NICE和TCP-LP代表不断增加的侵略性水平。此外，我们进行了仔细的灵敏度分析LEDBAT性能，通过调整其主要参数在两个协议间（对TCP）和协议内（对LEDBAT本身）的情况。在协议间的情况下，虽然在配置错误的情况下LEDBAT竞争积极TCP，但是我们表明，它是不可能实现任意级别的低优先级仅仅通过调整其参数。在协议内的情况下，我们表明，共存的遗留流略有不同的设置，或经历不同的网络条件，可能会导致显着的不公平。
英文摘要：
Last year, the official BitTorrent client switched to LEDBAT, a new congestion control algorithm targeting a lower-than Best Effort transport service. In this paper, we study this new protocol through packet-level simulations, with a special focus on a performance comparison with other lower-than Best Effort protocols such as TCP-LP and TCP-NICE: our aim is indeed to quantify and relatively weight the level of Low-priority provided by such protocols. Our results show that LEDBAT transport generally achieves the lowest possible level of priority, with the default configurations of TCP-NICE and TCP-LP representing increasing levels of aggressiveness. In addition, we perform a careful sensitivity analysis of LEDBAT performance, by tuning its main parameters in both inter-protocol (against TCP) and intra-protocol (against LEDBAT itself) scenarios. In the inter-protocol case, although in case of misconfiguration LEDBAT competes as aggressively as TCP, however we show that it is not possible to achieve an arbitrary level of low-priority by merely tuning its parameters. In the intra-protocol case, we show that coexistence of legacy flows with slightly dissimilar settings, or experiencing different network conditions, can result in significant unfairness.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
