Cited by 27Network Traffic and Congestion ControlWireless Networks and ProtocolsNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

Bayesian packet loss detection for TCP

I'onseca, N., Crovella, M.·2005·Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

Abstract

One of TCP's critical tasks is to determine which packets are lost in the network, as a basis for control actions (flow control and packet retransmission). Modern TCP implementations use two mechanisms: timeout, and fast retransmit. Detection via timeout is necessarily a time-consuming operation; fast retransmit, while much quicker, is only effective for a small fraction of packet losses. In this paper we consider the problem of packet loss detection in TCP more generally. We concentrate on the fact that TCP's control actions are necessarily triggered by inference of packet loss, rather than conclusive knowledge. This suggests that one might analyze TCP's packet loss detection in a standard inferencing framework based on probability of detection and probability of false alarm. This paper makes two contributions to that end: first, we study an example of more general packet loss inference, namely optimal Bayesian packet loss detection based on round trip time. We show that for long-lived flows, it is frequently possible to achieve high detection probability and low false alarm probability based on measured round trip time. Second, we construct an analytic performance model that incorporates general packet loss inference into TCP. We show that for realistic detection and false alarm probabilities (as are achievable via our Bayesian detector) and for moderate packet loss rates, the use of more general packet loss inference in TCP can improve throughput by as much as 25%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/infcom.2005.1498462

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
I'onseca, N., & Crovella, M.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2005-08-24
Volume
3
Pages
1826-1837
OpenAlex
W2145246546
Cited by
27
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Wireless Networks and Protocols
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
TCP, packet loss detection, Bayesian detection, round-trip time, detection probability, false alarm probability, fast retransmit, TCP timeout, flow control, packet retransmission, throughput, analytical performance model

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