Motivation: This paper proposes RED-PD to control high-bandwidth flows 
at the congested router in which high-bandwidth flows are identified 
based on the packet drop history and then are monitored to drop packets 
and control their throughput.
Key Points:
1) The central idea of the paper is that only a small fraction of flows 
are responsible for most of the bytes sent. A mere 1% of the flows 
accounted for about 80% of the bytes and 64% of the packets. This shows 
the skewedness of bandwidth distribution as well as justifies the 
partial flow state approach.
2) RED-PD uses RED drop history to identify high bandwidth flows. RED 
drop history is a reasonably random sample of incoming traffic and also 
represents flows that have been indeed sent congestion signals.
3) The reason for using M lists instead of last K seconds seems not well 
motivated in the paper. One reason could be that they want to use an 
"average" to determine the high flows.
4) Preferential dropping is done using a pre-filter in front of the 
output queue with a probability dependent on the excess sending rate of 
the flow. Unmonitored traffic is directly put in the output queue.
5) In the evaluation, the authors have used fixed size packets (1000 
bytes). This does not depict real world scenario and thus, raises some 
suspicion on the results obtained.
6) The RTT R plays a significant role in the effectiveness of RED-PD and 
it might be worthwhile in looking into the possibility of dynamically 
varying R depending on the health of the network.
7) The protocol keeps a check on misbehaving flows by declaring them as 
unresponsive and then penalizes them by tighter control although this 
scheme is subject to false positives and negatives.
The results of RED-PD definitely look promising and are on obvious 
improvement to RED.
Received on Sun Oct 01 2006 - 23:47:39 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 02 2006 - 11:28:09 EDT