<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Testa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D Rossi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Rao</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Legout</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Data Plane Throughput vs Control Plane Delay: Experimental Study of BitTorrent Performance</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE P2P'XIII</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">09/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.enst.fr/ drossi/paper/rossi13p2p-a.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In this paper, we address the trade-off between the data plane efficiency and the control plane timeliness for the BitTorrent performance. We argue that loss-based congestion control protocols can fill large buffers, leading to a higher end-to-end delay, unlike low-priority or delay-based congestion control protocols. We perform experiments for both the uTorrent and mainline BitTorrent clients, and we study the impact of uTP (a novel transport protocol proposed by BitTorrent) and several TCP congestion control algorithms (Cubic, New Reno, LP, Vegas and Nice) on the download completion time. Briefly, in case peers in the swarm all use the same congestion control algorithm, we observe that the specific algorithm has only a limited impact on the swarm performance. Conversely, when a mix of TCP congestion control algorithms coexists, peers employing a delay-based low-priority algorithm exhibit shorter completion time.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">YiXi Gong</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D Rossi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Testa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S. Valenti</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D. Taht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fighting the bufferbloat: on the coexistence of AQM and low priority congestion control</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE INFOCOM Workshop on Traffic Monitoring and Analysis  (TMA'13)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bufferbloat</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.enst.fr/ drossi/paper/rossi13tma-b.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Chirichella</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D Rossi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Testa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">T. Friedman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Pescape</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Passive bufferbloat measurement exploiting transport layer information</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE GLOBECOM</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.enst.fr/ drossi/paper/rossi13globecom.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Chirichella</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D Rossi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Testa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">T. Friedman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Pescape</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Remotely Gauging Upstream Bufferbloat Delays</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Passive and Active Measurement (PAM)</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.enst.fr/ drossi/paper/rossi13pam.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">  ``Bufferbloat'' is the growth in buffer size that has led Internet
  delays to occasionally exceed the light propagation delay from the Earth
  to the Moon. Manufacturers have built in large buffers to prevent
  losses on Wi-Fi, cable and ADSL links. But the combination of some links'
  limited bandwidth with TCP's tendency to saturate that
  bandwidth results in  excessive queuing delays. In response, new
  congestion control protocols such as BitTorrent's uTP/LEDBAT aim at
  explicitly limiting the delay that they add over the bottleneck link.
This work proposes and validate a methodology to monitor the upstream
    queuing delay experienced by remote hosts, both those using
  LEDBAT, through LEDBAT's native one-way delay measurements, and
  those using TCP (via the Time-stamp Option). 
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">YiXi Gong</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D Rossi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">C. Testa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S. Valenti</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D. Taht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interaction or Interference: can AQM and Low Priority Congestion Control Successfully Collaborate</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ACM CoNEXT, Extended Abstract</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.enst.fr/drossi/paper/rossi12conext.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Heterogeneity in the Internet ecosystem sometimes turns interaction into interference. Over the years, active queue management (AQM) and end-to-end low-priority congestion control (LPCC) have been proposed as alternative solutions to counter the persistently full buffer problem -- that recently became popular under the ``bufferbloat'' term. In this work, we point out the existence of a negative interplay among AQM and LPCC techniques. Intuitively, as AQM is designed to penalize the most aggressive flows it mainly hit best effort TCP: it follows that LPCC is not able to maintain its low priority, thus becoming as aggressive as TCP. By an extended set of simulation on various AQM policies and LPCC protocols, including the very recent CoDel AQM and LEDBAT LPCC proposals, we point out that this interference is quite universal and deserves further attention.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>