Extensive evaluation on the performance and behaviour of TCP congestion control protocols under varied network scenarios

In recent decades, many TCP Congestion Control (CC) protocols have been proposed to improve the performance and reliability of TCP in various network scenarios. However, CC protocols are usually closely coupled with network conditions such as latency and packet loss. Considering that networks with different properties are common, e.g., wired/wireless LAN and Long Fat Networks (LFNs), investigating both performance and behaviors of CC protocols under varied network scenarios becomes crucial for both network management and development. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive measurement study on the goodput, RTT, retransmission, friendliness, fairness, convergence time and stability of most widely-used CC protocols over wired LAN/WAN and wireless LAN (both 2.4GHz and 5GHz Wi-Fi). We also conduct comparative studies with respect to transmission cost, congested reverse path and bottleneck queue size in network simulator. Based on our analysis, we reveal several interesting and original observations. We found that the goodput of BBR is at least 22.5% lower than other CC protocols in wireless LAN due to insufficient pacing rate, even though it can always fully utilize the bottleneck bandwidth with low RTT in wired networks. We also observed that the total on-wire data volume of BBR is higher than CUBIC (e.g., 2.37% higher when RTT = 100ms and loss rate = 0.01%). In addition, BBR can fully utilize the bottleneck bandwidth in most queue sizes (≥ 20packets). Surprisingly, we noticed that as the default CC protocol in most modern operating systems, CUBIC is too aggressive and unfriendly in both LAN and wireless LAN, greatly suppressing the goodput of other competing CC protocols. More specifically for CUBIC in wireless LAN, it generates 129% more retransmissions than other CC protocols. Nevertheless, we have also seen that, in scenario with heavily-congested reverse path, CUBIC can provide full utilization on bottleneck bandwidth. Lastly, we also observed that BBR converges very quickly in all evaluated scenarios, while other CC protocols present varied results, e.g., Westwood+ and Veno converge faster in 5GHz Wi-Fi networks than 2.4GHz networks.