A hands-on Assessment of Transport Protocols with Lower than Best Effort Priority

TL;DR

This study evaluates LEDBAT and other lower-than-Best-Effort protocols through simulations, demonstrating LEDBAT's ability to provide minimal priority and analyzing its sensitivity and fairness under various configurations.

Contribution

It offers a detailed performance comparison of LEDBAT with TCP-LP and TCP-NICE, including sensitivity analysis and fairness considerations in diverse network scenarios.

Findings

LEDBAT generally achieves the lowest priority level

Tuning LEDBAT parameters cannot arbitrarily change its low-priority behavior

Fairness issues arise when legacy flows with different settings coexist

Abstract

Last year, the official BitTorrent client switched to LEDBAT, a new congestion control algorithm targeting a lower-than Best Effort transport service. In this paper, we study this new protocol through packet-level simulations, with a special focus on a performance comparison with other lower-than Best Effort protocols such as TCP-LP and TCP-NICE: our aim is indeed to quantify and relatively weight the level of Low-priority provided by such protocols. Our results show that LEDBAT transport generally achieves the lowest possible level of priority, with the default configurations of TCP-NICE and TCP-LP representing increasing levels of aggressiveness. In addition, we perform a careful sensitivity analysis of LEDBAT performance, by tuning its main parameters in both inter-protocol (against TCP) and intra-protocol (against LEDBAT itself) scenarios. In the inter-protocol case, although in case of misconfiguration LEDBAT competes as aggressively as TCP, however we show that it is not possible to achieve an arbitrary level of low-priority by merely tuning its parameters. In the intra-protocol case, we show that coexistence of legacy flows with slightly dissimilar settings, or experiencing different network conditions, can result in significant unfairness.