WWW/Internet - Portal do Software Público Brasileiro

IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2010predominance of CUBIC protocol throughout the simulation time. As a result, CUBIC has a highpredominance in the instant throughput chart. Note that DCCP CCID3 has no window mechanism.Figure 4. Queue size x window size.Figure 5. Instant throughput.However, as presented in the Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12, CUBIC has dropped much more packetsthan DCCP variants, what reflects negatively in the delivery rate. Note that CUBIC needs to ensure reliabilitywith packet retransmissions. Such a situation may not be suitable for some streaming applications.Table 10. CUBIC versus DCCP CCID2 with CBR TrafficDelivery Rate(%)Sent Packets(packets)Dropped Packets(packets)AverageThroughput (Kbps)Average End toEnd Delay (s)CUBIC 85.57 (0.03) 91769.80 (4288.40) 13224.00 (3994.18) 697.56 (10.39) 0.15 (0.00)DCCP CCID2 98.48 (0.00) 12749.00 (1338.22) 181.95 (7.32) 111.64 (11.89) 0.15 (0.01)Table 11. CUBIC versus DCCP CCID3 with CBR TrafficDelivery Rate(%)Sent Packets(packets)Dropped Packets(packets)AverageThroughput (Kbps)Average End toEnd Delay (s)CUBIC 85.53 (0.04) 98492.90 (3724.37) 14512.50 (3124.35) 745.78 (13.61) 0.14 (0.00)DCCP CCID3 97.84 (0.01) 11841.60 (1655.01) 230.00 (19.51) 103.17 (14.80) 0.14 (0.01)Table 12. CUBIC versus Compound TCP with CBR TrafficDelivery Rate(%)Sent Packets(packets)Dropped Packets(packets)AverageThroughput (Kbps)Average End toEnd Delay (s)CUBIC 92.07 (0.03) 57587.80 (9011.43) 4621.80 (1546.94) 470.43 (74.31) 0.15 (0.01)CTCP 99.32 (0.00) 29643.80 (4752.92) 138.30 (30.26) 261.93 (42.20) 0.18 (0.02)Figure 6. Queue size x window size.Figure 7. Instant throughput.217