Mobile Communications

Chapter 9
Mobile Transport Layer

• Motivation, TCP-mechanisms
• Classical approaches (Indirect TCP, Snooping TCP, Mobile
TCP)
• Additional optimizations (Fast retransmit/recovery,
Transmission freezing, Selective retransmission, Transaction
oriented TCP)
• TCP for 2.5G/3G wireless
Transport Layer
• E.g. HTTP (used by web
services) typically uses TCP Client Server
• Reliable transport between client TCP SYN
and server required
TCP SYN/ACK
• TCP Connection
setup
• Steam oriented, not transaction
TCP ACK
oriented
• Network friendly: time-out HTTP request
 congestion Data
 slow down transmission HTTP response transmission
• Well known – TCP guesses quite
often wrong in wireless and >15 s
mobile networks no data
• Packet loss due to transmission GPRS: 500ms! Connection
errors release
• Packet loss due to change of
network
• Result
• Severe performance degradation
Motivation I
• Transport protocols typically designed for
• Fixed end-systems
• Fixed, wired networks
• Research activities
• Performance
• Congestion control
• Efficient retransmissions
• TCP congestion control
• packet loss in fixed networks typically due to (temporary)
overload situations
• router have to discard packets as soon as the buffers are full
• TCP recognizes congestion only indirect via missing
acknowledgements, retransmissions unwise, they would only
contribute to the congestion and make it even worse
• slow-start algorithm as reaction
Motivation II

• TCP slow-start algorithm

• sender calculates a congestion window for a receiver
• start with a congestion window size equal to one segment
• exponential increase of the congestion window up to the congestion
threshold, then linear increase
• missing acknowledgement causes the reduction of the congestion
threshold to one half of the current congestion window
• congestion window starts again with one segment
• TCP fast retransmit/fast recovery
• TCP sends an acknowledgement only after receiving a packet
• if a sender receives several acknowledgements for the same
packet, this is due to a gap in received packets at the receiver
• however, the receiver got all packets up to the gap and is actually
receiving packets
• therefore, packet loss is not due to congestion, continue with
current congestion window (do not use slow-start)
Influences of mobility on TCP-
mechanisms
• TCP assumes congestion if packets are dropped
• typically wrong in wireless networks, here we often have
packet loss due to transmission errors
• furthermore, mobility itself can cause packet loss, if e.g. a
mobile node roams from one access point (e.g. foreign agent
in Mobile IP) to another while there are still packets in transit
to the wrong access point and forwarding is not possible

• The performance of an unchanged TCP degrades severely

• however, TCP cannot be changed fundamentally due to the
large base of installation in the fixed network, TCP for
mobility has to remain compatible
• the basic TCP mechanisms keep the whole Internet together
Early approach: Indirect TCP I
• Indirect TCP or I-TCP segments the connection
• no changes to the TCP protocol for hosts connected to the
wired Internet, millions of computers use (variants of) this
protocol
• optimized TCP protocol for mobile hosts
• splitting of the TCP connection at, e.g., the foreign agent
into 2 TCP connections, no real end-to-end connection any
longer
• hosts in the fixed part of the net do not notice the
characteristics of the wireless part
mobile host
access point
(foreign agent) „wired“ Internet

„wireless“ TCP standard TCP

I-TCP socket and state migration

access point1

socket migration
and state transfer Internet

access point2
mobile host
Indirect TCP II
• Advantages
• no changes in the fixed network necessary, no changes for
the hosts (TCP protocol) necessary, all current optimizations
to TCP still work
• transmission errors on the wireless link do not propagate
into the fixed network
• simple to control, mobile TCP is used only for one hop
between, e.g., a foreign agent and mobile host
• therefore, a very fast retransmission of packets is possible,
the short delay on the mobile hop is known
• Disadvantages
• loss of end-to-end semantics, an acknowledgement to a
sender does now not any longer mean that a receiver really
got a packet, foreign agents might crash
• higher latency possible due to buffering of data within the
foreign agent and forwarding to a new foreign agent
Early approach: Snooping TCP I
• “Transparent” extension of TCP within the foreign agent
• buffering of packets sent to the mobile host
• lost packets on the wireless link (both directions!) will be
retransmitted immediately by the mobile host or foreign
agent, respectively (so called “local” retransmission)
• the foreign agent therefore “snoops” the packet flow and
recognizes acknowledgements in both directions, it also
filters ACKs
• changes of TCP only within the foreign agent
local retransmission correspondent
foreign host
agent
„wired“ Internet

snooping of ACKs buffering of data

mobile
host
end-to-end TCP connection
Snooping TCP II

• Data transfer to the mobile host

• FA buffers data until it receives ACK of the MH, FA detects packet
loss via duplicated ACKs or time-out
• fast retransmission possible, transparent for the fixed network
• Data transfer from the mobile host
• FA detects packet loss on the wireless link via sequence numbers,
FA answers directly with a NACK to the MH
• MH can now retransmit data with only a very short delay
• Integration of the MAC layer
• MAC layer often has similar mechanisms to those of TCP
• thus, the MAC layer can already detect duplicated packets due to
retransmissions and discard them
• Problems
• snooping TCP does not isolate the wireless link as good as I-TCP
• snooping might be useless depending on encryption schemes
Early approach: Mobile TCP

• Special handling of lengthy and/or frequent

disconnections
• M-TCP splits as I-TCP does
• unmodified TCP fixed network to supervisory host (SH)
• optimized TCP SH to MH
• Supervisory host
• no caching, no retransmission
• monitors all packets, if disconnection detected
• set sender window size to 0
• sender automatically goes into persistent mode
• old or new SH reopen the window
• Advantages
• maintains semantics, supports disconnection, no buffer forwarding
• Disadvantages
• loss on wireless link propagated into fixed network
• adapted TCP on wireless link
Fast retransmit/fast recovery
• Change of foreign agent often results in packet loss
• TCP reacts with slow-start although there is no congestion
• Forced fast retransmit
• as soon as the mobile host has registered with a new foreign
agent, the MH sends duplicated acknowledgements on
purpose
• this forces the fast retransmit mode at the communication
partners
• additionally, the TCP on the MH is forced to continue sending
with the actual window size and not to go into slow-start
after registration
• Advantage
• simple changes result in significant higher performance
• Disadvantage
• further mix of IP and TCP, no transparent approach
Transmission/time-out freezing
• Mobile hosts can be disconnected for a longer time
• no packet exchange possible, e.g., in a tunnel, disconnection
due to overloaded cells or mux. with higher priority traffic
• TCP disconnects after time-out completely
• TCP freezing
• MAC layer is often able to detect interruption in advance
• MAC can inform TCP layer of upcoming loss of connection
• TCP stops sending, but does now not assume a congested
link
• MAC layer signals again if reconnected
• Advantage
• scheme is independent of data
• Disadvantage
• TCP on mobile host has to be changed, mechanism depends
on MAC layer
Selective retransmission
• TCP acknowledgements are often cumulative
• ACK n acknowledges correct and in-sequence receipt of
packets up to n
• if single packets are missing quite often a whole packet
sequence beginning at the gap has to be retransmitted (go-
back-n), thus wasting bandwidth
• Selective retransmission as one solution
• RFC2018 allows for acknowledgements of single packets, not
only acknowledgements of in-sequence packet streams
without gaps
• sender can now retransmit only the missing packets
• Advantage
• much higher efficiency
• Disadvantage
• more complex software in a receiver, more buffer needed at
the receiver
Transaction oriented TCP
• TCP phases
• connection setup, data transmission, connection release
• using 3-way-handshake needs 3 packets for setup and
release, respectively
• thus, even short messages need a minimum of 7 packets!
• Transaction oriented TCP
• RFC1644, T-TCP, describes a TCP version to avoid this
overhead
• connection setup, data transfer and connection release can
be combined
• thus, only 2 or 3 packets are needed
• Advantage
• efficiency
• Disadvantage
• requires changed TCP
• mobility not longer transparent
Comparison of different approaches
for a “mobile” TCP
Approach Mechanism Advantages Disadvantages
Indirect TCP splits TCP connection isolation of wireless loss of TCP semantics,
into two connections link, simple higher latency at
handover
Snooping TCP “snoops” data and transparent for end-to- problematic with
acknowledgements, local end connection, MAC encryption, bad isolation
retransmission integration possible of wireless link
M-TCP splits TCP connection, Maintains end-to-end Bad isolation of wireless
chokes sender via semantics, handles link, processing
window size long term and frequent overhead due to
disconnections bandwidth management
Fast retransmit/ avoids slow-start after simple and efficient mixed layers, not
fast recovery roaming transparent
Transmission/ freezes TCP state at independent of content changes in TCP
time-out freezing disconnect, resumes or encryption, works for required, MAC
after reconnection longer interrupts dependant
Selective retransmit only lost data very efficient slightly more complex
retransmission receiver software, more
buffer needed
Transaction combine connection Efficient for certain changes in TCP
oriented TCP setup/release and data applications required, not transparent
transmission
TCP Improvements I
• Initial research work 0.93 * MSS
• Indirect TCP, Snoop TCP, M-TCP, T/TCP, BW 
SACK, Transmission/time-out freezing, … RTT * p
• TCP over 2.5/3G wireless networks • max. TCP BandWidth
• Max. Segment Size
• Fine tuning today’s TCP • Round Trip Time
• loss probability
• Learn to live with
• Data rates: 64 kbit/s up, 115-384 kbit/s down; asymmetry: 3-
6, but also up to 1000 (broadcast systems), periodic
allocation/release of channels
• High latency, high jitter, packet loss
• Suggestions
• Large (initial) sending windows, large maximum transfer unit,
selective acknowledgement, explicit congestion notification,
time stamp, no header compression
• Widespread use
• i-mode running over FOMA
• WAP 2.0 (“TCP with wireless profile”)
TCP Improvements II
• Performance enhancing proxies (PEP, RFC 3135)
Mobile system
• Transport layer
• Local retransmissions and acknowledgements wireless
• Additionally on the application layer
• Content filtering, compression, picture downscaling
PEP
• E.g., Internet/WAP gateways
• Web service gateways?
• Big problem: breaks end-to-end semantics
• Disables use of IP security
Internet
• Choose between PEP and security!
• More open issues
• RFC 3150 (slow links)
• Recommends header compression, no timestamp
Comm. partner
• RFC 3155 (links with errors)
• States that explicit congestion notification cannot be used
• In contrast to 2.5G/3G recommendations!