Cited by 405Network Traffic and Congestion ControlTraffic control and managementAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis

Analytic evaluation of RED performance

Open access
Bonald, T., May, M., Bolot, J.-C.·2002·Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064)

Abstract

End-to-end congestion control mechanisms such as those in TCP are not enough to prevent congestion collapse in the Internet, and they must be supplemented by control mechanisms inside the network. The IRTF has singled out random early detection (RED) as one queue management scheme recommended for rapid deployment throughout the Internet. However, RED is not a thoroughly understood scheme-witness for example how the recommended parameter setting, or even the various benefits RED is claimed to provide, have changed over the past few years. In this paper, we describe simple analytic models for RED, and use these models to quantify the benefits (or lack thereof) brought about by RED. In particular, we examine the impact of RED on the loss and delay suffered by bursty and less bursty traffic (such as TCP and UDP traffic, respectively). We find that: (i) RED does eliminate the higher loss bias against bursty traffic observed with tail drop, but not by decreasing the loss rate of bursty traffic, rather by increasing that of non bursty traffic; (ii) the number of consecutive packet drops is higher with RED than tail drop, suggesting RED might not help as anticipated with the global synchronization of TCP flows; (iii) RED can be used to control the average queueing delay in routers and hence the end to end delay, but increases the jitter of non bursty streams. Thus, applications that generate smooth traffic, such as interactive audio applications, will suffer higher loss rates and require large playout buffers, thereby negating at least in part the lower mean delay brought about by RED.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/infcom.2000.832539

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonald, T., May, M., & Bolot, J.-C.
Affiliations
  • Orange (France) (FR)
  • École Nationale Supérieure d'Ingénieurs du Mans (FR)
Venue
Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2002-11-07
Volume
3
Pages
1415-1424
OpenAlex
W2127638367
Cited by
405
References
19
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 15
FWCI
26.27
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Traffic control and management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Advanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Keywords
random early detection, red, queue management, congestion control, drop tail, bursty traffic, packet loss, queuing delay, jitter, UDP, analytical model, playout buffer, Internet congestion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review