Nowadays, loss-based TCP congestion controls in general and CUBIC specifically became the de facto standard for the Internet for many operating systems. 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 will go over experimental data gathered on the Dropbox Edge Network. We compare BBRv2 to BBRv1 and CUBIC and show 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许多操作系统事实上的互联网标准。 BBR 拥堵控制通过基于估计带宽和圆程时间的网络模型化来挑战基于损失的方法。 在Droppox, 我们自2017年以来一直使用BBRv1, 并且习惯于它的利弊。 BBRV2 引入了一系列网络建模改进( 明确损失目标、 飞行限制) 和公平( 不同测试和新流量的总部 ) 。 在本文中, 我们将翻过在 Drobox Edge 网络上收集的实验数据。 我们将 BBRV2 与 BBRv1 和 CUBIC 进行比较, 并显示 BBRV2 与这两个网络的理论设计原则相比, 都有一个明显的改进。 我们还显示 BBRV2 实验结果符合其理论设计原则 。