Analytic evaluation of RED performance

International audienceEnd-to-end congestion control mechanisms such as those in TCP are not enough to prevent congestion collapse in the Internet (for starters, not all applications might be willing to use them), and they must be supplemented by control mechanisms inside the network. The IRTF has singled out Random Early Detection (RED) as one queue management scheme recommended for rapid deployment throughout the Internet. However , RED is not a thoroughly understood scheme – witness for example how the recommended parameter settings, or even the various benefits RED is claimed to provide, have changed over the past few years. In this paper, we describe simple analytic models for RED, and use these models to quantify the benefits (or lack thereof) brought about by RED. In particular, we examine the impact of RED on the loss and delay suffered by bursty and less bursty traffic (such as TCP and UDP traffic, respectively). We find that (i) RED does eliminate the higher loss bias against bursty traffic observed with Tail Drop, but not by decreasing the loss rate of bursty traffic, rather by increasing that of non bursty traffic; (ii) the number of consecutive packet drops is higher with RED than Tail Drop, suggesting RED might not help as anticipated with the global synchronization of TCP flows; (iii) RED can be used to control the average queueing delay in routers and hence the end to end delay, but increases the jitter of non bursty streams. Thus, applications that generate smooth traffic, such as interactive audio applications, will suffer higher loss rates and require large playout buffers, thereby negating at least in part the lower mean delay brought about by RED