期刊名称：International Journal of Advanced Research In Computer Science and Software Engineering
印刷版ISSN：2277-6451
电子版ISSN：2277-128X
出版年度：2012
卷号：2
期号：2
出版社：S.S. Mishra
摘要：Here we are going to see the general difference between two linear congestion control protocols {AIMD, AIAD} in the context of these various loss recovery and router algorithms. We show that while AIMD is an unambiguous Choice for the traditional setting of Reno-style loss recovery and FIFO drop-tail routers, it fails to provide the best good put performance in the more modern settings. Where AIMD fails, AIAD proves to be a reasonable alternative. From the early days of modern congestion control, ushered in by the development of TCP's and DEC bit's congestion control algorithm. There has been widespread agreement that linear additive-increase-multiplicative-decrease (AIMD) congestion control algorithms should be used. However, the early congestion control design decisions were made in a context where loss recovery was fairly primitive (e.g. TCP Reno) and often timed-out when more than a few losses occurred and routers were FIFO drop-tail. In subsequent years, there has been significant improvement in TCP's loss recovery algorithms. For instance, TCP SACK can recover from many losses without timing out. In addition, there have been many proposals for improved router queuing behavior. For example, RED active queue management and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) can tolerate bursty flow behavior.
关键词：AIMD; MIMD; AIAD; congestion control; active queue management
