ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Controlling unresponsive connections in an active network architecture
Full text PdfPdf (196 KB)
Source International Journal of Network Management archive
Volume 13 ,  Issue 4  (July 2003) table of contents
Pages: 289 - 305  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISSN:1099-1190
Authors
Niraj Prabhavalkar  Applied Systems Software Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The State University of New Jersey
Manish Parashar  Applied Systems Software Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The State University of New Jersey
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 0,   Downloads (12 Months): 2,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: 10.1002/nem.484

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the design, implementation and evaluation of Limiting Greedy Connections (LGC), an active mechanism for controlling unresponsive connections and minimizing the degradation in network performance caused by bandwidth-greedy applications. The primary objectives of the LGC mechanism are to limit the impact of greedy connections on a congested node, to keep a loose upper bound on the packet queue occupancy at the intermediate nodes of the network and to minimize packet loss. The LGC mechanism is evaluated for a variety of network topologies, transmitting sources and node queue parameters, using a Java-based active network testbed.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
1. Yang C, Reddy AVS. A taxonomy for congestion control algorithms in packet switched networks. IEEE Network Magazine July/August 1995; 9: No. 5.
 
2
3
 
4
4. Tennenhouse DL, Smith JM, Sincoskie WD, Wetherall DJ, Minden GJ. A survey of active network research. IEEE Communications Magazine January 1997; 80-86.
5
 
6
6. Wetherall D, Guttag J, Tennenhouse DL. ANTS: A toolkit for building and dynamically deploying network protocols. Proceedings of IEE OPENARCH'98, San Francisco, CA, April 1998, pp. 117-129.
 
7
7. Alexander DS, Arbaugh WA, Hicks MW, Kakkar P, Keromytis AD, Moore JT, Gunter CA, Nettles SM, Smith JM. The SwitchWare active network architecture. IEEE Network Magazine Special issue on Active and Controllable Networks, May/June 1998; 12: No. 3, 29-36.
 
8
8. SwitchWare, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania and Bell Core. http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~switchware/ (visited 06/10/2002).
 
9
9. Composable Active Network Elements (CANES), College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology and Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/ projects/canes/ (visited 06/10/2002).
 
10
10. NetScript, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/dcc/netscript/(visited 06/10/2002).
11
 
12
 
13
13. Braden B, Clark D, Crowcroft J, Davie B, Deering S, Estrin D, Floyd S, Jacobson V, Minshall G, Partridge C, Peterson L, Ramakrishnan K, Shenker S, Wroclawski J, Zhang L. Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet, Request for Comments: 2309. April 1998.
 
14
 
15
15. Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Transmission Control Protocol, Request for Comments: 793. September 1981.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Niraj Prabhavalkar: colleagues
Manish Parashar: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: