514 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002Fig. 1. RED example.is continually dropping packets due to buffer overflow, BLUE support. RED alleviates this problem by detecting incipientincrements the marking probability, thus increasing the rate congestion early and delivering congestion notification to theat which it sends back congestion notification. Conversely, if end-hosts, allowing them to reduce their transmission ratesthe queue becomes empty or if the link is idle, BLUE decreases before queue overflow occurs. In order to be effective, a REDits marking probability. Using both simulation and experi- queue must be configured with a sufficient amount of buffermentation, we demonstrate the superiority of BLUE to RED in space to accommodate an applied load greater than the linkreducing packet losses even when operating with a smaller capacity from the instant in time that congestion is detectedbuffer. Using mechanisms based on BLUE, a novel mechanism using the queue length trigger, to the instant in time that thefor effectively and scalably enforcing fairness among a large applied load decreases at the bottleneck link in response tonumber of flows is also proposed and evaluated. congestion notification. RED must also ensure that congestion The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II gives notification is given at a rate which sufficiently suppresses thea description of RED and shows why it is ineffective at managing transmitting sources without underutilizing the link. Unfor-congestion. Section III describes BLUE and provides a detailed tunately, when a large number of TCP sources are active, theanalysis and evaluation of its performance based on simula- aggregate traffic generated is extremely bursty , . Burstytion as well as controlled experiments. Section IV describes and traffic often defeats the active queue management techniquesevaluates Stochastic Fair BLUE (SFB), an algorithm based on used by RED since queue lengths grow and shrink rapidly,BLUE which scalably enforces fairness amongst a large number well before RED can react. Fig. 1 shows a simplified pictorialof connections. Section V compares SFB to other approaches example of how RED functions under this congestion scenario.which have been proposed to enforce fairness amongst connec- The congestion scenario presented in Fig. 1 occurs whentions. Finally, Section VI concludes with a discussion of future a large number of TCP sources are active and when a smallwork. amount of buffer space is used at the bottleneck link. As the figure shows, at , a sufficient change in aggregate TCP load (due to TCP opening its congestion window) causes the II. BACKGROUND transmission rates of the TCP sources to exceed the capacity One of the biggest problems with TCP’s congestion control of the bottleneck link. At , the mismatch between loadalgorithm over drop-tail queues is that sources reduce their and capacity causes a queue to build up at the bottleneck.transmission rates only after detecting packet loss due to queue At , the average queue length exceeds and theoverflow. Since a considerable amount of time may elapse congestion-control mechanisms are triggered. At this point,between the packet drop at the router and its detection at the congestion notification is sent back to the end hosts at a ratesource, a large number of packets may be dropped as the dependent on the queue length and marking probability .senders continue transmission at a rate that the network cannot At , the TCP receivers either detect packet loss or observe
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 515Fig. 2. Ideal scenario. Fig. 3. BLUE algorithm.packets with their ECN bits set. In response, duplicate acknowl- A. The Algorithmedgment and/or TCP-based ECN signals are sent back to thesources. At , the duplicate acknowledgment and/or ECN The key idea behind BLUE is to perform queue managementsignals make their way back to the sources to signal congestion. based directly on packet loss and link utilization rather than onAt , the sources finally detect congestion and adjust their the instantaneous or average queue lengths. This is in sharp con-transmission rates. Finally, at , a decrease in offered load trast to all known active queue management schemes which useat the bottleneck link is observed. Note that it has taken from some form of queue occupancy in their congestion management. until before the offered load becomes less than BLUE maintains a single probability, , which it uses to markthe link’s capacity. Depending upon the aggressiveness of the (or drop) packets when they are enqueued. If the queue is contin-aggregate TCP sources ,  and the amount of buffer space ually dropping packets due to buffer overflow, BLUE incrementsavailable in the bottleneck link, a large amount of packet loss , thus increasing the rate at which it sends back congestionand/or deterministic ECN marking may occur. Such behavior notification. Conversely, if the queue becomes empty or if theleads to eventual underutilization of the bottleneck link. link is idle, BLUE decreases its marking probability. This effec- One way to solve this problem is to use a large amount of tively allows BLUE to “learn” the correct rate it needs to sendbuffer space at the RED gateways. For example, it has been sug- back congestion notification. Fig. 3 shows the BLUE algorithm.gested that, in order for RED to work well, an intermediate router Note that the figure also shows a variation to the algorithm inrequires buffer space that amounts to twice the bandwidth–delay which the marking probability is updated when the queue lengthproduct . This approach, in fact, has been taken by an in- exceeds a certain value. This modification allows room to be leftcreasingly large number of router vendors. Unfortunately, in in the queue for transient bursts and allows the queue to controlnetworks with large bandwidth–delay products, the use of large queueing delay when the size of the queue being used is large.amounts of buffer adds considerable end-to-end delay and delay Besides the marking probability, BLUE uses two other parame-jitter. This severely impairs the ability to run interactive applica- ters which control how quickly the marking probability changestions. In addition, the abundance of deployed routers which have over time. The first is freeze_time. This parameter determineslimited memory resources makes this solution undesirable. the minimum time interval between two successive updates of Fig. 2 shows how an ideal queue management algorithm . This allows the changes in the marking probability to takeworks. In this figure, the congested gateway delivers congestion effect before the value is updated again. While the experimentsnotification at a rate which keeps the aggregate transmission in this paper fix freeze_time as a constant, this value shouldrates of the TCP sources at or just below the clearing rate. be randomized in order to avoid global synchronization .While RED can achieve this ideal operating point, it can do so The other parameters used ( and ) determine the amount byonly when it has a sufficiently large amount of buffer space and which is incremented when the queue overflows or is decre-is correctly parameterized. mented when the link is idle. For the experiments in this paper, is set significantly larger than . This is because link un- derutilization can occur when congestion management is either III. BLUE too conservative or too aggressive, but packet loss occurs only when congestion management is too conservative. By weighting In order to remedy the shortcomings of RED, we propose, heavily against packet loss, BLUE can quickly react to a sub-implement, and evaluate a fundamentally different queue man- stantial increase in traffic load. Note that there are a myriad ofagement algorithm called BLUE. Using both simulation and ex- ways in which can be managed. While the experiments inperimentation, we show that BLUE overcomes many of RED’s this paper study a small range of parameter settings, experimentsshortcomings. RED has been designed with the objective to: 1) with additional parameter settings and algorithm variations haveminimize packet loss and queueing delay; 2) avoid global syn- also been performed with the only difference being how quicklychronization of sources; 3) maintain high link utilization; and 4) the queue management algorithm adapts to the offered load. It isremove biases against bursty sources. This section shows how relatively simple process to configure BLUE to meet the goals ofBLUE either improves or matches RED’s performance in all of controlling congestion. The first parameter, freeze_time, shouldthese aspects. The results also show that BLUE converges to the be set based on the effective round-trip times of connectionsideal operating point shown in Fig. 2 in almost all scenarios, multiplexed across the link in order to allow any changes ineven when used with very small buffers. the marking probability to reflect back on to the end sources
516 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002 TABLE I RED CONFIGURATIONS TABLE II BLUE CONFIGURATIONSFig. 4. Network topology.before additional changes are made. For long-delay paths suchas satellite links, freeze_time should be increased to match the algorithm becomes decoupled from the queue length and thuslonger round-trip times. The second set of parameters and acts more like BLUE. Table I shows the configurations used forare set to give the link the ability to effectively adapt to macro- RED; Table II shows the configurations used for BLUE. For thescopic changes in load across the link at the connection level. BLUE experiments, and are set so that is an order ofFor links where extremely large changes in load occur only on magnitude larger than . Using these values, the freeze_timethe order of minutes, and should be set in conjunction with is then varied between 10 and 100 ms. Additional simulationsfreeze_time to allow to range from 0 to 1 on the order of using a wider range of values were also performed and showedminutes. This is in contrast to current queue length approaches similar results.where the marking and dropping probabilities range from 0 to Fig. 5 shows the loss rates observed over different queue1 on the order of milliseconds even under constant load. Over sizes using both BLUE and RED with 1000 and 4000 connec-typical links, using freeze_time values between 10 and 500 ms tions present. In these experiments, the queue at the bottleneckand setting and so that they allow to range from 0 to link between and is sized from 100 to 1000 kB. This1 on the order of 5 to 30 s will allow the BLUE control algo- corresponds to queueing delays which range from 17.8 andrithm to operate effectively. Note that, while BLUE algorithm 178 ms as shown in the figure. In all experiments, the linkitself is extremely simple, it provides a significant performance remains over 99.9% utilized. As Fig. 5(a) shows, with 1000improvement even when compared to a RED queue which has connections, BLUE maintains zero loss rates over all queuebeen reasonably configured. sizes even those which are below the bandwidth–delay product of the network . This is in contrast to RED which suffersB. Packet Loss Rates Using RED and BLUE double-digit loss rates as the amount of buffer space decreases. In order to evaluate the performance of BLUE, a number of An interesting point in the RED loss graph shown in Fig. 5(a) issimulation experiments were run using ns  over a small net- that it shows a significant dip in loss rates at a buffering delaywork shown in Fig. 4. Using this network, Pareto on/off sources of around 80 ms. This occurs because of a special operatingwith mean on-times of 2 s and mean off-times of 3 s were run point of RED when the average queue length stays abovefrom one of the leftmost nodes ( , , , , ) to one of the all the time. At several points during this particular experiment,rightmost nodes ( , , , , ). In addition, all sources the buffering delay and offered load match up perfectly towere enabled with ECN support, were randomly started within cause the average queue length to stay at or above . Inthe first 1 s of simulation, and used 1 kB packets. Packet loss this operating region, the RED queue marks every packet, butstatistics were then measured after 100 s of simulation for 100 s. the offered load is aggressive enough to keep the queue full.Loss statistics were also measured for RED using the same net- This essentially allows RED to behave at times like BLUE withwork and under identical conditions. For the RED queue, a marking probability of 1 and a queueing delay equivalent toand were set to 20% and 80% of the queue size, respec- . This unique state of operation is immediately disruptedtively. RED’s congestion notification mechanism was made as by any changes in the load or round-trip times, however. Whenaggressive as possible by setting to 1. For these experi- the buffering delay is increased, the corresponding round-tripments, this is the ideal setting of since it minimizes both times increase and cause the aggregate TCP behavior to bethe queueing delay and packet loss rates for RED . Given these less aggressive. Deterministic marking on this less aggressivesettings, a range of RED configurations are studied which vary load causes fluctuations in queue length which can increasethe value of , the weight in the average queue length calcula- packet loss rates since RED undermarks packets at times. Whention for RED. It is interesting to note that, as gets smaller, the the buffering delay is decreased, the corresponding round-tripimpact of queue length on RED’s congestion management al- times decrease and cause the aggregate TCP behavior to begorithm gets smaller. For extremely small values of , RED’s more aggressive. As a result, packet loss is often accompanied
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 517 (a) (a) (b) (b)Fig. 5. Packet loss rates of RED and BLUE. (a) 1000 sources. (b) 4000 sources. Fig. 6. Queue length plots of (a) RED and (b) BLUE.with deterministic marking. When combined, this leads againto fluctuations in queue length. At a load which is perfectly allows legacy routers to perform well even with limited memoryselected, the average queue length of RED can remain at resources. and the queue can avoid packet loss and prevent queuefluctuations by marking every packet. As Fig. 5(b) shows, C. Understanding BLUEwhen the number of connections is increased to 4000, BLUE To fully understand the difference between the RED andstill significantly outperforms RED. Even with an order of BLUE algorithms, Fig. 6 compares their queue length plotsmagnitude more buffer space, RED still cannot match BLUE’s in an additional experiment using the configuration ofloss rates using 17.8 ms of buffering at the bottleneck link. It BLUE and the configuration of RED. In this experiment,is interesting to note that BLUE’s marking probability remains a workload of infinite sources is changed by increasing theat 1 throughout the duration of all of these experiments. Thus, number of connections by 200 every 20 s. As Fig. 6(a) shows,even though every packet is being marked, the offered load can RED sustains continual packet loss throughout the experiment.still cause a significant amount of packet loss. The reason why In addition, at lower loads, periods of packet loss are oftenthis is the case is that the TCP sources being used do not invoke followed by periods of underutilization as deterministic packeta retransmission timeout upon receiving an ECN signal with marking and dropping eventually causes too many sources toa congestion window of 1. Section III-D shows how this can reduce their transmission rates. In contrast, as Fig. 6(b) shows,significantly influence the performance of both RED and BLUE. since BLUE manages its marking rate more intelligently, the The most important consequence of using BLUE is that queue length plot is more stable. Congestion notification iscongestion control can be performed with a minimal amount given at a rate which neither causes periods of sustained packetof buffer space. This reduces the end-to-end delay over the loss nor periods of continual underutilization. Only when thenetwork, which in turn, improves the effectiveness of the offered load rises to 800 connections, does BLUE sustain acongestion control algorithm. In addition, smaller buffering significant amount of packet loss.requirements allow more memory to be allocated to high-pri- Fig. 7 plots the average queue length ( ) and the markingority packets ,  and frees up memory for other router probability of RED throughout the exper-functions such as storing large routing tables. Finally, BLUE iment. The average queue length of RED contributes directly
518 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002 (a) Fig. 8. Marking behavior of BLUE (p ). While low packet loss rates, low queueing delays, and high link utilization are extremely important, the queue length and marking probability plots allow us to explore the effectiveness of RED and BLUE in preventing global synchronization and in removing biases against bursty sources. RED attempts to avoid global synchronization by randomizing its marking decision and by spacing out its marking. Unfortunately, when aggregate TCP load changes dramatically as it does when a large amount of con- nections are present, it becomes impossible for RED to achieve this goal. As Fig. 7(b) shows, the marking probability of RED (b) changes considerably over very short periods of time. Thus, REDFig. 7. Marking behavior of RED. (a) Q . (b) p =(1 0 count 2 p ) fails to mark packets evenly over time and hence cannot remove synchronization among sources. As Fig. 8 shows, the marking probability of BLUE remains steady. As a result, BLUE marksto its marking probability since is a linear function of packets randomly and evenly over time. Consequently, it does a . As better job in avoiding global synchronization.shown in Fig. 7(a), the average queue length of RED fluctuates Another goal of RED is to eliminate biases against burstyconsiderably as it follows the fluctuations of the instantaneous sources in the network. This is done by limiting the queue oc-queue length. Because of this, the marking probability of cupancy so that there is always room left in the queue to bufferRED, as shown in Fig. 7(b), fluctuates considerably as well. transient bursts. In addition, the marking function of RED takesIn contrast, Fig. 8 shows the marking probability of BLUE. As into account the last packet marking time in its calculationsthe figure shows, the marking probability converges to a value in order to reduce the probability that consecutive packets be-that results in a rate of congestion notification which prevents longing to the same burst are marked. Using a single markingpacket loss and keeps link utilization high throughout the ex- probability, BLUE achieves the same goal equally well. As theperiment. In fact, the only situation where BLUE cannot prevent queue length plot of BLUE shows (Fig. 6), the queue occupancysustained packet loss is when every packet is being marked, remains below the actual capacity, thus allowing room for abut the offered load still overwhelms the bottleneck link. As burst of packets. In addition, since the marking probability re-described earlier, this occurs at 60 s when the number of mains smooth over large time scales, the probability that twosources is increased to 800. The reason why packet loss still consecutive packets from a smoothly transmitting source areoccurs when every packet is ECN-marked is that for these sets marked is the same as with two consecutive packets from aof experiments, the TCP implementation used does not invoke bursty source.an RTO when an ECN signal is received with a congestionwindow of 1. This adversely affects the performance of bothRED and BLUE in this experiment. Note that the comparison D. The Effect of ECN Timeoutsof marking probabilities between RED and BLUE gives some All of the previous experiments use TCP sources which sup-insight as to how to make RED perform better. By placing a port ECN, but do not perform a retransmission timeout upon re-low pass filter on the calculated marking probability of RED, it ceipt of an ECN signal with a congestion window of 1. This hasmay be possible for RED’s marking mechanism to behave in a a significant, negative impact on the packet loss rates observedmanner similar to BLUE’s. for both RED and BLUE especially at high loads. Fig. 9 shows
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 519 (a) (a) (b) (b)Fig. 9. Queue length plots of (a) RED and (b) BLUE with ECN timeouts. Fig. 10. Marking behavior with ECN timeouts. (a) p =(1 0 count 2 p ) of RED. (b) p of BLUE.the queue length plot of RED and BLUE using the same ex-periments as in Section III-B, but with TCP sources enabled the queue is fully occupied, RED overmarks and drops packetswith ECN timeouts. Fig. 9(a) shows that, by deterministically causing a subsequent period of underutilization as described inmarking packets at , RED oscillates between periods of Section II. Conversely, when the queue is empty, RED under-packet loss and periods of underutilization as described in Sec- marks packets causing a subsequent period of high packet losstion II. Note that this is in contrast to Fig. 6(a) where, without as the offered load increases well beyond the link’s capacity.ECN timeouts, TCP is aggressive enough to keep the queue Fig. 11 shows how ECN timeouts impact the performance ofoccupied when the load is sufficiently high. An interesting point RED and BLUE. The figure shows the loss rates and link uti-to make is that RED can effectively prevent packet loss by setting lization using the 1000- and 4000-connection experiments inits value sufficiently far below the size of the queue. In Section III-B. As the figure shows, BLUE maintains low packetthis experiment, a small amount of loss occurs since determin- loss rates and high link utilization across all experiments. Theistic ECN marking does not happen in time to prevent packet figure also shows that the use of ECN timeouts allows REDloss. While the use of ECN timeouts allows RED to avoid packet to reduce the amount of packet loss in comparison to Fig. 5.loss, the deterministic marking eventually causes underutiliza- However, because RED often deterministically marks packets,tion at the bottleneck link. Fig. 9(b) shows the queue length it suffers from poor link utilization unless correctly parameter-plot of BLUE over the same experiment. In contrast to RED, ized. The figure shows that only an extremely small value ofBLUE avoids deterministic marking and maintains a marking (configuration ) allows RED to approach the performance ofprobability that allows it to achieve high link utilization while BLUE. As described earlier, a small value effectively decou-avoiding sustained packet loss over all workloads. ples congestion management from the queue length calculation Fig. 10 shows the corresponding marking behavior of both making RED queue management behave more like BLUE.RED and BLUE in the experiment. As the figure shows, BLUEmaintains a steady marking rate which changes as the workload E. Implementationis changed. On the other hand, RED’s calculated marking prob- In order to evaluate BLUE in a more realistic setting, it hasability fluctuates from 0 to 1 throughout the experiment. When been implemented in FreeBSD 2.2.7 using ALTQ . In this
520 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002 (a) (b) (c) (d)Fig. 11. Performance of RED and BLUE with ECN timeouts. (a) Loss rates (1000 sources). (b) Link utilization (1000 sources). (c) Loss rates (4000 sources). (d)Link utilization (4000 sources).implementation, ECN uses two bits of the type-of-service (ToS)field in the IP header . When BLUE decides that a packetmust be dropped or marked, it examines one of the two bits todetermine if the flow is ECN-capable. If it is not ECN-capable,the packet is simply dropped. If the flow is ECN-capable, theother bit is set and used as a signal to the TCP receiver thatcongestion has occurred. The TCP receiver, upon receiving thissignal, modifies the TCP header of the return acknowledgmentusing a currently unused bit in the TCP flags field. Upon receiptof a TCP segment with this bit set, the TCP sender invokes con-gestion-control mechanisms as if it had detected a packet loss. Using this implementation, several experiments were run onthe testbed shown in Fig. 12. Each network node and link is Fig. 12. Experimental testbed.labeled with the CPU model and link bandwidth, respectively.Note that all links are shared Ethernet segments. Hence, the terface of the Intellistation Zpro is sized at 50 kB which corre-acknowledgments on the reverse path collide and interfere with sponds to a queueing delay of about 40 ms. For the experimentsdata packets on the forward path. As the figure shows, FreeBSD- with RED, a configuration with a of 10 kB, a ofbased routers using either RED or BLUE queue management on 40 kB, a of 1, and a of 0.002 was used. For the exper-their outgoing interfaces are used to connect the Ethernet and iments with BLUE, a of 0.01, a of 0.001, and a freeze_timeFast Ethernet segments. In order to generate load on the system, of 50 ms was used. To ensure that the queue management mod-a variable number of netperf  sessions are run from the ifications did not create a bottleneck in the router, the testbedIBM PC 360 and the Winbook XL to the IBM PC 365 and the was reconfigured exclusively with Fast Ethernet segments andThinkpad 770. The router queue on the congested Ethernet in- a number of experiments between network endpoints were run
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 521 packet loss rates across all loads. At higher loads, when packet loss is observed, BLUE maintains a marking probability which is approximately 1, causing it to mark every packet it forwards. IV. STOCHASTIC FAIR BLUE Up until recently, the Internet has mainly relied on the coop- erative nature of TCP congestion control in order to limit packet loss and fairly share network resources. Increasingly, however, new applications are being deployed which do not use TCP con- gestion control and are not responsive to the congestion signals given by the network. Such applications are potentially dan- gerous because they drive up the packet loss rates in the network and can eventually cause congestion collapse , . In order (a) to address the problem of nonresponsive flows, a lot of work has been done to provide routers with mechanisms for protecting against them , , . The idea behind these approaches is to detect nonresponsive flows and to limit their rates so that they do not impact the performance of responsive flows. This section describes and evaluates Stochastic Fair BLUE (SFB), a novel technique based on Bloom filters  for protecting TCP flows against nonresponsive flows. Based on the BLUE algorithm. SFB is highly scalable and enforces fairness using an extremely small amount of state and a small amount of buffer space. A. The Algorithm Fig. 14 shows the basic SFB algorithm. SFB is a FIFO queueing algorithm that identifies and rate-limits nonrespon- sive flows based on accounting mechanisms similar to those (b) used with BLUE. SFB maintains accounting bins. The bins are organized in levels with bins in each level. InFig. 13. Queue management performance. (a) Throughput. (b) Percent packetloss. addition, SFB maintains ( ) independent hash functions, each associated with one level of the accounting bins. Each hash function maps a flow, via its connection ID (Source address,using the BLUE modifications on the intermediate routers. In all Destination address, Source port, Destination port, Protocol),of the experiments, the sustained throughput was always above into one of the accounting bins in that level. The accounting80 Mb/s. Fig. 13(a) and (b) show the throughput and packet loss rates at bins are used to keep track of queue occupancy statistics ofthe bottleneck link across a range of workloads. The throughput packets belonging to a particular bin. This is in contrast tomeasures the rate at which packets are forwarded through the Stochastic Fair Queueing  (SFQ) where the hash functioncongested interface while the packet loss rate measures the ratio maps flows into separate queues. Each bin in SFB keeps aof the number of packets dropped at the queue and the total marking/dropping probability as in BLUE, which is updatednumber of packets received at the queue. In each experiment, based on bin occupancy. As a packet arrives at the queue, itthroughput and packet loss rates were measured over five 10-s is hashed into one of the bins in each of the levels. Ifintervals and then averaged. Note that the TCP sources used in the number of packets mapped to a bin goes above a certainthe experiment do not implement ECN timeouts. As Fig. 13(a) threshold (i.e., the size of the bin), for the bin is increased.shows, both the BLUE queue and the optimally configured RED If the number of packets drops to zero, is decreased.queue maintain relatively high levels of throughput across all The observation which drives SFB is that a nonresponsiveloads. However, since RED periodically allows the link to be- flow quickly drives to 1 in all of the bins it is hashedcome underutilized, its throughput remains slightly below that into. Responsive flows may share one or two bins with nonre-of BLUE. As Fig. 13(b) shows, RED sustains increasingly high sponsive flows, however, unless the number of nonresponsivepacket loss as the number of connections is increased. Since ag- flows is extremely large compared to the number of bins, a re-gregate TCP traffic becomes more aggressive as the number of sponsive flow is likely to be hashed into at least one bin that isconnections increases, it becomes difficult for RED to maintain not polluted with nonresponsive flows and thus has a normallow loss rates. Fluctuations in queue lengths occur so abruptly value. The decision to mark a packet is based on , the min-that the RED algorithm oscillates between periods of sustained imum value of all bins to which the flow is mapped into. Ifmarking and packet loss to periods of minimal marking and link is 1, the packet is identified as belonging to a nonrespon-underutilization. In contrast, BLUE maintains relatively small sive flow and is then rate-limited. Note that this approach is akin
522 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002 Fig. 15. Example of SFB. B. Evaluation Using ns, the SFB algorithm was simulated in the same net- work as in Fig. 4 with the transmission delay of all of the links set to 10 ms. The SFB queue is configured with 200 kB of bufferFig. 14. SFB algorithm. space and maintains two hash functions each mapping to 23 bins. The size of each bin is set to 13, approximately 50% moreto applying a Bloom filter on the incoming flows. In this case, than 1/23 of the available buffer space. Note that, by allocatingthe dictionary of messages or words is learned on the fly and more than 1/23 of the buffer space to each bin, SFB effectivelyconsists of the IP headers of the nonresponsive flows which are “overbooks” the buffer in an attempt to improve statistical multi-multiplexed across the link . When a nonresponsive flow is plexing. Notice that even with overbooking, the size of each bin is quite small. Since BLUE performs extremely well under con-identified using these techniques, a number of options are avail- strained memory resources, SFB can still effectively maximizeable to limit the transmission rate of the flow. In this paper, flows network efficiency. The queue is also configured to rate-limitidentified as being nonresponsive are simply limited to a fixed nonresponsive flows to 0.16 Mb/s.amount of bandwidth. This policy is enforced by limiting the In the experiments, 400 TCP sources and one nonresponsive,rate of packet enqueues for flows with values of 1. Fig. 15 constant rate source are run for 100 s from randomly selectedshows an example of how SFB works. As the figure shows, a nodes in ( , , , , and ) to randomly selected nodes innonresponsive flow drives up the marking probabilities of all of ( , , , , and ). In one experiment, the nonresponsivethe bins it is mapped into. While the TCP flow shown in the flow transmits at a rate of 2 Mb/s while in the other, it transmitsfigure may map into the same bin as the nonresponsive flow at at a rate of 45 Mb/s. Table III shows the packet loss observed ina particular level, it maps into normal bins at other levels. Be- both experiments for SFB. As the table shows, for both exper-cause of this, the minimum marking probability of the TCP flow iments, SFB performs extremely well. The nonresponsive flowis below 1.0 and thus, it is not identified as being nonresponsive. sees almost all of the packet loss as it is rate-limited to a fixedOn the other hand, since the minimum marking probability of amount of the link bandwidth. In addition, the table shows thatthe nonresponsive flow is 1.0, it is identified as being nonre- in both cases, a very small amount of packets from TCP flowssponsive and rate-limited. are lost. Table III also shows the performance of RED. In con- Note that just as BLUE’s marking probability can be used in trast to SFB, RED allows the nonresponsive flow to maintainSFB to provide protection against nonresponsive flows, it is also a throughput relatively close to its original sending rate. As apossible to apply Adaptive RED’s parameter  to do the result, the remaining TCP sources see a considerable amountsame. In this case, a per-bin value is kept and updated of packet loss which causes their performance to deteriorate.according to the behavior of flows which map into the bin. As SFRED, on the other hand, does slightly better at limiting the ratewith RED, however, there are two problems which make this ap- of the nonresponsive flow, however, it cannot fully protect theproach ineffective. The first is the fact that a large amount of TCP sources from packet loss since it has a difficult time dis-buffer space is required in order to get RED to perform well. cerning nonresponsive flows from moderate levels of conges-The second is that the performance of a RED-based scheme is tion. Finally, the experiments were repeated using SFQ with anlimited since even a moderate amount of congestion requires a equivalent number of bins (i.e., 46 distinct queues) and a buffer setting of 1. Thus, RED, used in this manner, has an ex- more than twice the size (414 kB), making each queue equallytremely difficult time distinguishing between a nonresponsive sized at 9 kB. For each bin in the SFQ, the RED algorithm wasflow and moderate levels of congestion. In order to compare ap- applied with and values set at 2 and 8 kB, respec-proaches, Stochastic Fair RED (SFRED) was also implemented tively. As the table shows, SFQ with RED does an adequate jobby applying the same techniques used for SFB to RED. of protecting TCP flows from the nonresponsive flow. However,
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 523 TABLE III SFB LOSS RATES IN Mb/s (ONE NONRESPONSIVE FLOW) (a) (b) (a) (b)Fig. 16. Bandwidth of TCP flows (45 Mb/s nonresponsive flow). (a) SFB. (b) RED. (c) SFRED. (d) SFQ + RED.in this case, partitioning the buffers into such small sizes causes all TCP flows suffers considerably as the nonresponsive flowa significant amount of packet loss to occur due to RED’s in- is allowed to grab a large fraction of the bottleneck linkability to operate properly with small buffers. Additional exper- bandwidth. Fig. 16(c) shows that while SFRED does succeed iniments show that as the amount of buffer space is decreased even rate-limiting the nonresponsive flow, it also manages to drop afurther, the problem is exacerbated and the amount of packet significant amount of packets from TCP flows. This is due toloss increases considerably. the fact that the lack of buffer space and the ineffectiveness of To qualitatively examine the impact that the nonresponsive combine to cause SFRED to perform poorly as describedflow has on TCP performance, Fig. 16(a) plots the throughput in Section IV-A. Finally, Fig. 16(d) shows that while SFQ withof all 400 TCP flows using SFB when the nonresponsive RED can effectively rate-limit the nonresponsive flows, theflow sends at a 45 Mb/s rate. As the figure shows, SFB partitioning of buffer space causes the fairness between flowsallows each TCP flow to maintain close to a fair share of the to deteriorate as well. The large amount of packet loss inducesbottleneck link’s bandwidth while the nonresponsive flow is a large number of retransmission timeouts across a subset ofrate-limited to well below its transmission rate. In contrast, flows which causes significant amounts of unfairness .Fig. 16(b) shows the same experiment using normal RED Thus, through the course of the experiment, a few TCP flowsqueue management. The figure shows that the throughput of are able to grab a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth
524 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002Fig. 17. Probability of misclassification using 900 bins. Fig. 18. Bandwidth of TCP flows using SFB with eight nonresponsive flows.while many of the flows receive significantly less than a fair Using the result from (1), it is possible to optimize the perfor-share of the bandwidth across the link. In addition to this, mance of SFB given a priori information about its operating en-SFQ with RED allows 1/46 of the 400 flows to be mapped vironment. Suppose the number of simultaneously active nonre-into the same queue as the nonresponsive flow. Flows that sponsive flows can be estimated ( ) and the amount of memoryare unlucky enough to map into this bin receive an extremely available for use in the SFB algorithm is fixed ( ). Then, bysmall amount of the link bandwidth. SFB, in contrast, is able minimizing the probability function in (1) with the additionalto protect all of the TCP flows in this experiment. boundary condition that , SFB can be tuned for op- timal performance. To demonstrate this, the probability for mis-C. Limitations of SFB classification across a variety of settings is evaluated. Fig. 17 While it is clear that the basic SFB algorithm can protect TCP- shows the probability of misclassifying a flow when the totalfriendly flows from nonresponsive flows without maintaining number of bins is fixed at 900. In this figure, the number of levelsper-flow state, it is important to understand how it works and used in SFB along with the number of nonresponsive flows areits limitations. SFB effectively uses levels with bins varied. As the figures show, when the number of nonrespon-in each level to create virtual buckets. This allows SFB sive flows is small compared to the number of bins, the useto effectively identify a single nonresponsive flow in an of multiple levels keeps the probability of misclassification ex-flow aggregate using amount of state. For example, tremely low. However, as the number of nonresponsive flows in-in the previous section, using two levels with 23 bins per creases past half the number of bins present, the single level SFBlevel effectively creates 529 buckets. Since there are only 400 queue affords the smallest probability of misclassification. Thisflows in the experiment, SFB is able to accurately identify is due to the fact that when the bins are distributed across mul-and rate-limit a single nonresponsive flow without impacting tiple levels, each nonresponsive flow pollutes a larger numberthe performance of any of the individual TCP flows. As the of bins. For example, using a single level SFB queue with 90number of nonresponsive flows increases, the number of bins bins, a single nonresponsive flow pollutes only one bin. Usingwhich become “polluted” or have values of 1 increases. a two-level SFB queue with each level containing 45 bins, theConsequently, the probability that a responsive flow gets hashed number of effective bins is 45 45 (2025). However, a singleinto bins which are all polluted, and thus becomes misclassified, nonresponsive flow pollutes two bins (one per level). Thus, theincreases. Clearly, misclassification limits the ability of SFB advantage gained by the two-level SFB queue is lost when ad-to protect well-behaved TCP flows. ditional nonresponsive flows are added, as a larger fraction of Using simple probabilistic analysis, (1) gives a closed-form bins become polluted compared to the single-level situation.expression of the probability that a well-behaved TCP flow gets In order to evaluate the performance degradation of SFB asmisclassified as being nonresponsive as a function of number of the number of nonresponsive flows increases, Fig. 18 shows thelevels ( ), the number of bins per level ( ), and the number of bandwidth plot of the 400 TCP flows when eight nonrespon-nonresponsive/malicious flows ( ), respectively sive flows are present. In these experiments, each nonresponsive flow transmits at a rate of 5 Mb/s. As (1) predicts, in an SFB con- figuration that contains two levels of 23 bins, 8.96% (36) of the (1) TCP flows are misclassified when eight nonresponsive flows are present. When the number of nonresponsive flows approachesIn this expression, when is 1, SFB behaves much like SFQ. , the performance of SFB deteriorates quickly as an increasingThe key difference is that SFB using one level is still a FIFO number of bins at each level becomes polluted. In the case ofqueueing discipline with a shared buffer while SFQ has separate eight nonresponsive flows, approximately six bins or one-fourthper-bin queues and partitions the available buffer space amongst of the bins in each level are polluted. As the figure shows, thethem. number of misclassified flows matches the model quite closely.
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 525Note that even though a larger number of flows are misclassifiedas the number of nonresponsive flows increases, the probabilityof misclassification in a two-level SFB still remains below thatof SFQ or a single-level SFB. Using the same number of bins(46), the equation predicts that SFQ and a single-level SFB mis-classify 16.12% of the TCP flows (64) when eight nonrespon-sive flows are present.D. SFB With Moving Hash Functions In this section, two basic problems with the SFB algorithmare addressed. The first, as described above, is to mitigate theeffects of misclassification. The second is to be able to detectwhen nonresponsive flows become responsive and to reclassifythem when they do. The idea behind SFB with moving hash functions is to peri- (a)odically or randomly reset the bins and change the hash func-tions. A nonresponsive flow will continually be identified andrate-limited regardless of the hash function used. However, bychanging the hash function, responsive TCP flows that happento map into polluted bins will potentially be remapped into atleast one unpolluted bin. Note that this technique effectively cre-ates virtual bins across time just as the multiple levels of bins inthe original algorithm creates virtual bins across space. In manyways the effect of using moving hash functions is analogous tochannel hopping in CDMA ,  systems. It essentially re-duces the likelihood of a responsive connection being continu-ally penalized due to erroneous assignment into polluted bins. To show the effectiveness of this approach, the idea of movinghash functions was applied to the experiment in Fig. 19(b). Inthis experiment, 8 nonresponsive flows along with 400 respon-sive flows share the bottleneck link. To protect against con- (b)tinual misclassification, the hash function is changed every 2 s. Fig. 19. Bandwidth of TCP flows using modified SFB algorithms.(a) MovingFig. 19(a) shows the bandwidth plot of the experiment. As the hash. (b) Double buffered moving hash.figure shows, SFB performs fairly well. While flows are some-times misclassified causing a degradation in performance, none performance of this approach. As the figure shows, the doubleof the TCP-friendly flows are shut out due to misclassification. buffered moving hash effectively controls the bandwidth ofThis is in contrast to Fig. 18 where a significant number of TCP the nonresponsive flows and affords the TCP flows a veryflows receive very little bandwidth. high level of protection. Note that one of the advantages of the While the moving hash functions improve fairness across moving hash function is that it can quickly react to nonrespon-flows in the experiment, it is interesting to note that every sive flows which become TCP-friendly. In this case, changingtime the hash function is changed and the bins are reset, the hash bins places the newly reformed flow out on parole fornonresponsive flows are temporarily placed on “parole.” That good behavior. Only after the flow resumes transmitting at ais, nonresponsive flows are given the benefit of the doubt high rate is it again rate-limited. Additional experiments showand are no longer rate-limited. Only after these flows cause that this algorithm allows for quick adaptation to flow behaviorsustained packet loss, are they identified and rate-limited again. .Unfortunately, this can potentially allow such flows to grabmuch more than their fair share of bandwidth over time. Forexample, as Fig. 19(a) shows, nonresponsive flows are allowed V. COMPARISONS TO OTHER APPROACHESto consume 3.85 Mb/s of the bottleneck link. One way to solvethis problem is to use two sets of bins. As one set of bins is A. RED With a Penalty Boxbeing used for queue management, a second set of bins using The RED with penalty box approach takes advantage ofthe next set of hash functions can be warmed up. In this case, the fact that high-bandwidth flows see proportionally largerany time a flow is classified as nonresponsive, it is hashed using amounts of packet loss. By keeping a finite log of recentthe second set of hash functions and the marking probabilities packet loss events, this algorithm identifies flows which areof the corresponding bins in the warmup set are updated. When nonresponsive based on the log . Flows which are identifiedthe hash functions are switched, the bins which have been as being nonresponsive are then rate-limited using a mechanismwarmed up are then used. Consequently, nonresponsive flows such as class-based queueing . While this approach mayare rate-limited right from the beginning. Fig. 19(b) shows the be viable under certain circumstances, it is unclear how the
526 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002algorithm performs in the face of a large number of nonre- TCP flows against nonresponsive flows using a minimal amountsponsive flows. Unless the packet loss log is large, a single of buffer space. Finally, as with the packet loss log approach,set of high bandwidth flows can potentially dominate the FRED also has a problem when dealing with a large number ofloss log and allow other, nonresponsive flows to go through nonresponsive flows. In this situation, the ability to distinguishwithout rate-limitation. In addition, flows which are classified these flows from normal TCP flows deteriorates considerablyas nonresponsive remain in the “penalty box” even if they since the queue occupancy statistics used in the algorithm be-subsequently become responsive to congestion. A periodic and come polluted. By not using packet loss as a means for iden-explicit check is thus required to move flows out of the penalty tifying nonresponsive flows, FRED cannot make the distinctionbox. Finally, the algorithm relies on a TCP-friendliness check between TCP flows multiplexed across a link versus non-in order to determine whether or not a flow is nonresponsive. responsive flows multiplexed across a link.Without a priori knowledge of the round-trip time of every flowbeing multiplexed across the link, it is difficult to accurately D. RED With Per-Flow Queueingdetermine whether or not a connection is TCP-friendly. A RED-based, per-active flow approach has been proposed for providing fairness between flows . The idea behind this ap-B. Stabilized RED proach is to do per-flow accounting and queueing only for flows Stabilized RED is a another approach to detecting nonrespon- which are active. The approach argues that, since keeping a largesive flows . In this case, the algorithm keeps a finite log number of states is feasible, per-flow queueing and accountingof recent flows it has seen. The idea behind this is that nonre- is possible even in the core of the network. The drawbacks ofsponsive flows will always appear in the log multiple times and this approach is that it provides no savings in the amount of statecan be singled out for punishment. Unfortunately, for a large required. If flows are active, states must be kept to iso-number of flows, using the last flows can fail to catch non- late the flows from each other. In addition, this approach doesresponsive flows. For instance, consider a single nonresponsive not address the large amount of legacy hardware which exists inflow sending at a constant rate of 0.5 Mb/s in an aggregate con- the network. For such hardware, it may be infeasible to providesisting of 1000 flows over a bottleneck link of 100 Mb/s where per-flow queueing and accounting. Because SFB provides con-a fair share of bandwidth is 0.1 Mb/s. In order to ensure that the siderable savings in the amount of state and buffers required, itnonresponsive flow even shows up in the last flows seen, is a viable alternative for providing fairness efficiently.needs to be at least 200 or 20% of the total number of flows. Ingeneral, if there are a total of flows and a nonresponsive flow E. Stochastic Fair Queueingis sending at times the fair share, needs to be at least SFQ is similar to an SFB queue with only one level of bins.in order to catch the flow. The SFB algorithm, on the other hand, The biggest difference is that, instead of having separate queues,has the property that the state scales with the number of nonre- SFB uses the hash function for accounting purposes. Thus, SFBsponsive flows. To ensure detection of the nonresponsive flow has two fundamental advantages over SFQ. The first is that it canin the above situation, a static 10 3 SFB queue which keeps make better use of its buffers. SFB gets some statistical multi-state on 30 bins or 3% of the total number of flows is sufficient. plexing of buffer space as it is possible for the algorithm to over-With the addition of mutating hash functions, an even smaller book buffer space to individual bins in order to keep the bufferSFB queue can be used. space fully-utilized. As described in Section IV-B, partitioning the available buffer space adversely impacts the packet loss ratesC. FRED and the fairness amongst TCP flows. The other key advantage is that SFB is a FIFO queueing discipline. As a result, it is possible Another proposal for using RED mechanisms to provide fair- to change the hash function on the fly without having to worryness is Flow-RED (FRED) . The idea behind FRED is to keep about packet re-ordering caused by mapping flows into a dif-state based on instantaneous queue occupancy of a given flow. If ferent set of bins. Without additional tagging and book-keeping,a flow continually occupies a large amount of the queue’s buffer applying the moving hash functions to SFQ can cause signifi-space, it is detected and limited to a smaller amount of the buffer cant packet re-ordering.space. While this scheme provides rough fairness in many situa-tions, since the algorithm only keeps state for flows which havepackets queued at the bottleneck link, it requires a large buffer VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKspace to work well. Without sufficient buffer space, it becomes We have demonstrated the inherent weakness of current activedifficult for FRED to detect nonresponsive flows, as they may queue management algorithms which use queue occupancynot have enough packets continually queued to trigger the detec- in their algorithms. In order to address this problem, wetion mechanism. In addition, nonresponsive flows are immedi- have designed and evaluated a fundamentally different queueately re-classified as being responsive as soon as they clear their management algorithm called BLUE. BLUE uses the packet losspackets from the congested queue. For small queue sizes, it is and link utilization history of the congested queue, insteadquite easy to construct a transmission pattern which exploits this of queue lengths to manage congestion. In addition to BLUE,property of FRED in order to circumvent its protection mecha- we have proposed and evaluated SFB, a novel algorithm fornisms. Note that SFB does not directly rely on queue occupancy scalably and accurately enforcing fairness amongst flows instatistics, but rather long-term packet loss and link utilization a large aggregate. Using SFB, nonresponsive flows can bebehaviors. Because of this, SFB is better suited for protecting identified and rate-limited using a very small amount of state.
FENG et al.: THE BLUE ACTIVE QUEUE MANAGEMENT ALGORITHMS 527 REFERENCES  K. Ramakrishnan and S. Floyd, “A proposal to add Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP,”, RFC 2481, Jan. 1999.  B. Suter, T. V. Lakshman, D. Stiliadis, and A. Choudhury, “Design con-  S. Athuraliya, S. Low, V. Li, and Q. Yin, “REM active queue manage- siderations for supporting TCP with per-flow queueing,” in Proc. IEEE ment,” IEEE Network Mag., vol. 15, pp. 48–53, May 2001. INFOCOM, Mar. 1998, pp. 299–306.  B. Bloom, “Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors,”  V. K. Garg, K. Smolik, and J. E. Wilkes, Applications of CDMA in Wire- Commun. ACM, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 422–426, July 1970. less/Personal Communications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,  R. Braden, D. Clark, J. Crowcroft, B. Davie, S. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Oct. 1996. Floyd, V. Jacobson, G. Minshall, C. Partridge, L. Peterson, K. Ramakr-  C. Villamizar and C. Song, “High-performance TCP in ANSNET,” ishnan, S. Shenker, J. Wroclawski, and L. Zhang, “Recommendations Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 45–60, Oct. 1994. on queue management and congestion avoidance in the Internet,”, RFC 2309, Apr 1998.  K. Cho, “A framework for alternate queueing: Toward traffic manage- ment by PC-UNIX based routers,” in USENIX Annu. Tech. Conf., June 1998, pp. 247–258. Wu-chang Feng received the B.S. degree in  I. Cidon, R. Guerin, and A. Khamisy, “On protective buffer policies,” computer engineering from Penn State University, IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 2, pp. 240–246, June 1994. State College, and the M.S.E. and Ph.D. degrees in  S. Doran, “RED experience and differentiated queueing,” presented at computer science engineering from the University the North American Network Operators’ Group (NANOG) Meeting, of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dearborn, MI, June 1998. He is currently an Assistant Professor at the  K. Fall and S. Floyd. (1997, Feb.) Router mechanisms to Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI) at the Oregon support end-to-end congestion control. [Online]. Available: Health and Science University (OHSU) where he ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/collapse.ps is currently a member of the Systems Software  W. Feng, D. Kandlur, D. Saha, and K. G. Shin, “Techniques for elimi- Laboratory. Prior to joining OGI/OHSU, he served nating packet loss in congested TCP/IP networks,” Univ. Michigan, Ann as a Senior Architect at Proxinet/Pumatech, Inc. Arbor, MI, Tech. Rep. UM CSE-TR-349-97, Oct. 1997.  , “A self-configuring RED gateway,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1999, pp. 1320–1328.  W. Feng, D. Kandlur, D. Saha, and K. G. Shin, “Blue: A new class of active queue management algorithms,” Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Kang G. Shin (S’75–M’78–SM’83–F’92) received the B.S. degree in elec- Tech. Rep. UM CSE-TR-387-99, Apr. 1999. tronics engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, in 1970 and  , “Stochastic fair BLUE: A queue management algorithm for en- the M.S. and Ph.D degrees in electrical engineering from Cornell University, forcing fairness,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Apr. 2001, pp. 1520–1529. Ithaca, NY, in 1976 and 1978, respectively.  S. Floyd, “TCP and explicit congestion notification,” Comput. Commun. He is the O’Connor Chair Professor of Computer Science, and the Founding Rev., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 10–23, Oct. 1994. Director of the Real-Time Computing Laboratory, Department of Electrical En-  S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, “On traffic phase effects in packet-switched gineering and Computer Science, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. gateways,” Internetworking: Research and Experience, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. His current research focuses on QoS-sensitive networking and computing as 115–156, Sept. 1992. well as on embedded real-time OS, middleware and applications, all with em-  , “Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance,” phasis on timeliness and dependability. He has supervised the completion of 42 IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 1, pp. 397–413, Aug. 1993. Ph.D. theses, and authored/coauthored over 600 technical papers and numerous  , “Link-sharing and resource management models for packet net- book chapters in the areas of distributed real-time computing and control, com- works,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 3, pp. 365–386, Aug. 1995. puter networking, fault-tolerant computing, and intelligent manufacturing. He  R. Guerin, S. Kamat, V. Peris, and R. Rajan, “Scalable QoS provision has coauthored (with C. M. Krishna) Real-Time Systems (New York: McGraw through buffer management,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Sept. 1998, pp. Hill, 1997). 29–40. Dr. Shin received the Outstanding IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC  C. Hollot, V. Misra, D. Towsley, and W. Gong, “On designing improved CONTROL Paper Award in 1987, and the Research Excellence Award in 1989, controllers for aqm routers supporting TCP flows,” in Proc. IEEE IN- the Outstanding Achievement Award in 1999, the Service Excellence Award in 2000, and the Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award in 2001 from the FOCOM, Apr. 2001, pp. 1726–1734. University of Michigan. He has also coauthored papers with his students which  IEEE 802.11 Standard, June 1997. have received the Best Student Paper Awards from the 1996 IEEE Real-Time  V. Jacobson, “Congestion avoidance and control,” in Proc. ACM SIG- Technology and Application Symposium and the 2000 UNSENIX Technical COMM, Aug. 1988, pp. 314–329. Conference.  S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant, “Analysis and design of an Adaptive Virtual Queue (AVQ) algorithm for active queue management,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2001, pp. 123–134.  W. Leland, M. Taqqu, W. Willinger, and D. Wilson, “On the self-similar nature of ethernet traffic (extended version),” IEEE/ACM Trans. Net- working, vol. 2, pp. 1–15, Feb. 1994. Dilip D. Kandlur (S’90–M’91) received the  D. Lin and R. Morris, “Dynamics of random early detection,” in Proc. M.S.E. and Ph.D. degrees in computer science and ACM SIGCOMM, Sept. 1997, pp. 127–137. engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann  S. McCanne and S. Floyd. (1996) ns-LBNL Network Simulator. [On- Arbor. line]. Available: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/ns/ He heads the Networking Software and Services Department at the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,  P. McKenney, “Stochastic fairness queueing,” in Proc. IEEE IN- Yorktown Heights, NY. Since joining the IBM T. J. FOCOM, Mar. 1990, pp. 733–740. Watson Research Center, his research work has cov-  R. Morris, “TCP behavior with many flows,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. ered various aspects of providing quality of service Network Protocols, Oct. 1997, pp. 205–211. in hosts and networks and their application to multi-  (1998). Netperf. [Online]. Available: http://www.netperf.org/ media systems, network and server performance, web  T. Ott, T. Lakshman, and L. Gong, “SRED: Stabilized RED,” in Proc. caching, etc. In particular, he has worked on protocols and architectures for IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1999, pp. 1346–1355. providing quality of service in IP and ATM networks, their impact on trans-  V. Paxson, “End-to-end internet packet dynamics,” in Proc. ACM SIG- port protocols, and their realization in protocol stacks for large servers and COMM, Sept. 1997, pp. 139–152. switch/routers. He holds ten U.S. patents.  V. Paxson and S. Floyd, “Wide-area traffic: The failure of Poisson mod- Dr. Kandlur is a member of the IEEE Computer Society and currently Vice- eling,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1994, pp. 257–268. Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on Computer Communications. He has  K. K. Ramakrishan and R. Jain, “A binary feedback scheme for conges- been awarded an Outstanding Technical Achievement Award for his work in tion avoidance in computer networks,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. creating the QoS architecture for IBM server platforms, and has been recognized 8, no. 2, pp. 158–181, May 1990. as an IBM Master Inventor.
528 IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 10, NO. 4, AUGUST 2002 Debanjan Saha (M’01) received the B.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, India, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Maryland at College Park, all in computer science. He manages the advanced development group at Tellium, Inc., West Long Branch, NJ. Prior to his tenure at Tellium, he spent several years at IBM Research and Lucent Bell Labs, where he designed and developed protocols for IP routers and Internet servers. He is actively involved with various standards bodies, most notably IETF andOIF. He also serves as editor of international journals and magazines, technicalcommittee members of workshops and conferences. He is a notable author ofnumerous technical articles on various topics of networking and is a frequentspeaker at academic and industrial events.