Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On the use of TCP BBR in cellular networks
University of the Basque Country, Spain.
University of the Basque Country, Spain.
Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. (Distributed Systems and Communications Research Group (DISCO))
Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. (Distributed Systems and Communications Research Group (DISCO))ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4147-9487
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: IEEE Communications Magazine, ISSN 0163-6804, E-ISSN 1558-1896, no 3, p. 172-179Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

TCP BBR (Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-trip propagation time) is a new TCP variant developed at Google, and which, as of this year, is fully deployed in Googles internal WANs and used by services such as Google.com and YouTube. In contrast to other commonly used TCP variants, TCP BBR is not loss-based but model-based: It builds a model of the network path between communicating nodes in terms of bottleneck bandwidth and minimum round-trip delay and tries to operate at the point where all available bandwidth is used and the round-trip delay is at minimum. Although, TCP BBR has indeed resulted in lower latency and a more efficient usage of bandwidth in fixed networks, its performance over cellular networks is less clear. This paper studies TCP BBR in live mobile networks and through emulations, and compares its performance with TCP NewReno and TCP CUBIC, two of the most commonly used TCP variants. The results from these studies suggest that in most cases TCP BBR outperforms both TCP NewReno and TCP CUBIC, however, not so when the available bandwidth is scarce. In these cases, TCP BBR provides longer file completion times than any of the other two studied TCP variants. Moreover, competing TCP BBR flows do not share the available bandwidth in a fair way, something which, for example, shows up when shorter TCP BBR flows struggle to get its fair share from longer ones. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2018. no 3, p. 172-179
Keywords [en]
tcp, bbr, cubic, newreno, 4g, lte, mobile, congestion control, Bandwidth, Mobile telecommunication systems, Wireless networks, Available bandwidth, Bottleneck bandwidth, Cellular network, Fixed networks, Model-based OPC, Network condition, Network paths, Round trip delay, Transmission control protocol
National Category
Telecommunications
Research subject
Computer Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-65339DOI: 10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700725Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85044079664OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-65339DiVA, id: diva2:1164084
Projects
COST-IC1304
Funder
EU, Horizon 2020, IC1304Available from: 2017-12-09 Created: 2017-12-09 Last updated: 2018-06-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Haile, Habtegebreil KassayeGrinnemo, Karl-JohanBrunström, Anna

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Haile, Habtegebreil KassayeGrinnemo, Karl-JohanBrunström, Anna
By organisation
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
In the same journal
IEEE Communications Magazine
Telecommunications

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 932 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf