Study of TCP and UDP Interaction for the AF PHB
draft-nsbnpp-diffserv-udptcpaf-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Biswajit Nandy , Nabil Seddigh | ||
| Last updated | 1999-09-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This informational draft presents results of a study on using different drop precedence assignments to address fairness issues when UDP and TCP traffic share the same Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB class. In particular, six different possible combinations of drop precedence assignment were explored with two different models of RED parameter settings. We present results showing that the type of RED model utilized can play a role in the nature of bandwidth sharing between TCP and UDP flows. The results also show that with the current four Class, three Drop Precedence AF specification, complete fairness between TCP and UDP cannot be completely achieved using separate drop precedence assignment. This is true for both under-provisioned networks and over-provisioned networks. Certain drop precedence mapping schemes are beneficial to TCP while others are beneficial for UDP.
Authors
Dr. Biswajit Nandy
Nabil Seddigh
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)