Effective Delay-Controlled Load Distribution over Multipath Networks

被引:51
作者
Prabhavat, Sumet [1 ]
Nishiyama, Hiroki [1 ]
Ansari, Nirwan [2 ]
Kato, Nei [1 ]
机构
[1] Tohoku Univ, Grad Sch Informat Sci, Kato Lab, Aoba Ku, Sendai, Miyagi 9808579, Japan
[2] New Jersey Inst Technol, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Adv Networking Lab, Newark, NJ 07102 USA
关键词
Delay minimization; load distribution; multipath forwarding; packet reordering; packet delay variation;
D O I
10.1109/TPDS.2011.43
中图分类号
TP301 [理论、方法];
学科分类号
081202 ;
摘要
Owing to the heterogeneity and high degree of connectivity of various networks, there likely exist multiple available paths between a source and a destination. An effective model of delay-controlled load distribution becomes essential to efficiently utilize such parallel paths for multimedia data transmission and real-time applications, which are commonly known to be sensitive to packet delay, packet delay variation, and packet reordering. Recent research on load distribution has focused on load balancing efficiency, bandwidth utilization, and packet order preservation; however, a majority of the solutions do not address delay-related issues. This paper proposes a new load distribution model aiming to minimize the difference among end-to-end delays, thereby reducing packet delay variation and risk of packet reordering without additional network overhead. In general, the lower the risk of packet reordering, the smaller the delay induced by the packet reordering recovery process, i.e., extra delay induced by the packet reordering recovery process is expected to decrease. Therefore, our model can reduce not only the end-to-end delay but also the packet reordering recovery time. Finally, our proposed model is shown to outperform other existing models, via analysis and simulations.
引用
收藏
页码:1730 / 1741
页数:12
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
Adiseshu H., 1996, Computer Communication Review, V26, P131, DOI 10.1145/248157.248169
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1998, 2330 RFC
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2001, 3031 RFC
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2000, 2991 RFC
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1999, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS, DOI DOI 10.17487/RFC2679
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1998, RFC
[7]  
Awduche D., 2000, 3272 RFC
[8]   Packet reordering is not pathological network behavior [J].
Bennett, JCR ;
Partridge, C ;
Shectman, N .
IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, 1999, 7 (06) :789-798
[9]  
CAO Z, 2000, P IEEE INFOCOM, P332
[10]  
Chandra R, 2004, IEEE INFOCOM SER, P882