Nowadays, loss-based TCP congestion controls in general and CUBIC specifically became the de facto standard for the Internet. BBR congestion control challenges the loss-based approach by modeling the network based on estimated bandwidth and round-trip time. At Dropbox, we've been using BBRv1 since 2017 and are accustomed to its pros and cons. BBRv2 introduces a set of improvements to network modeling (explicit loss targets and inflight limits) and fairness (differential probing and headroom for new flows.) In this paper, we go over experimental data gathered on the Dropbox Edge Network. We compare BBRv2 to BBRv1 and CUBIC showing that BBRv2 is a definite improvement over both of them. We also show that BBRv2 experimental results match its theoretical design principles.
翻译:目前,基于损失的TCP拥堵控制在总体上成为互联网的实际标准,而CUBIC则具体成为互联网的实际标准。BBR拥堵控制对基于损失的方法提出了挑战,根据估计带宽和往返时间对网络进行建模。在Droppox,我们自2017年以来一直使用BBRv1, 并且习惯于它的利弊。BBRv2引入了一系列改进网络建模(明确损失目标、飞行限制)和公平(对新流动的不同的探测和主机)。在本文中,我们翻过在投篮式Edge网络上收集的实验数据。我们比较BBRv2与BBRv1和CUBIC, 表明BBRv2比两者都有明显的改进。我们还显示BBRv2实验结果符合理论设计原则。