A Google Congestion Control Algorithm for Real-Time Communication
draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc-01

Abstract

This document describes two methods of congestion control when using real-time communications on the World Wide Web (RTCWEB); one delay-based and one loss-based.

It is published as an input document to the RMCAT working group on congestion control for media streams. The mailing list of that working group is rmcat@ietf.org.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 1.1. Mathematical notation conventions
• 2. System model
• 3. Feedback and extensions
• 4. Delay-based control
• 4.1. Arrival-time model
• 4.2. Arrival-time filter
• 4.3. Over-use detector
• 4.4. Rate control
• 4.5. Parameters settings
• 5. Loss-based control
• 6. Interoperability Considerations
• 7. Implementation Experience
• 8. Further Work
• 9. IANA Considerations
• 10. Security Considerations
• 11. Acknowledgements
• 12. References
• 12.1. Normative References
• 12.2. Informative References
• Appendix A. Change log
• A.1. Version -00 to -01
• A.2. Version -01 to -02
• A.3. Version -02 to -03
• A.4. rtcweb-03 to rmcat-00
• A.5. rmcat -00 to -01
• A.6. rmcat -01 to -02
• A.7. rmcat -02 to -03
• A.8. ietf-rmcat -00 to ietf-rmcat -01
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

Congestion control is a requirement for all applications sharing the Internet resources [RFC2914].

Congestion control for real-time media is challenging for a number of reasons:

• The media is usually encoded in forms that cannot be quickly changed to accommodate varying bandwidth, and bandwidth requirements can often be changed only in discrete, rather large steps
• The participants may have certain specific wishes on how to respond - which may not be reducing the bandwidth required by the flow on which congestion is discovered
• The encodings are usually sensitive to packet loss, while the real-time requirement precludes the repair of packet loss by retransmission

This memo describes two congestion control algorithms that together are able to provide good performance and reasonable bandwidth sharing with other video flows using the same congestion control and with TCP flows that share the same links.

The signaling used consists of experimental RTP header extensions and RTCP messages RFC 3550 [RFC3550] as defined in [abs-send-time], [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb] and [I-D.holmer-rmcat-transport-wide-cc-extensions].

1.1. Mathematical notation conventions

The mathematics of this document have been transcribed from a more formula-friendly format.

The following notational conventions are used:

X_hat

An estimate of the true value of variable X - conventionally marked by a circumflex accent on top of the variable name.

X(i)

The "i"th value of vector X - conventionally marked by a subscript i.

E{X}

The expected value of the stochastic variable X

2. System model

The following elements are in the system:

• RTP packet - an RTP packet containing media data.
• Packet group - a set of RTP packets transmitted from the sender uniquely identified by the group departure and group arrival time (absolute send time) [abs-send-time]. These could be video packets, audio packets, or a mix of audio and video packets.
• Incoming media stream - a stream of frames consisting of RTP packets.
• RTP sender - sends the RTP stream over the network to the RTP receiver. It generates the RTP timestamp and the abs-send-time header extension
• RTP receiver - receives the RTP stream, marks the time of arrival.
• RTCP sender at RTP receiver - sends receiver reports, REMB messages and transport-wide RTCP feedback messages.
• RTCP receiver at RTP sender - receives receiver reports and REMB messages and transport-wide RTCP feedback messages, reports these to the sender side controller.
• RTCP receiver at RTP receiver, receives sender reports from the sender.
• Loss-based controller - takes loss rate measurement, round trip time measurement and REMB messages, and computes a target sending bitrate.
• Delay-based controller - takes the packet arrival info, either at the RTP receiver, or from the feedback received by the RTP sender, and computes a maximum bitrate which it passes to the loss-based controller.

Together, loss-based controller and delay-based controller implement the congestion control algorithm.

3. Feedback and extensions

There are two ways to implement the proposed algorithm. One where both the controllers are running at the send-side, and one where the delay-based controller runs on the receive-side and the loss-based controller runs on the send-side.

The first version can be realized by using a per-packet feedback protocol as described in [I-D.holmer-rmcat-transport-wide-cc-extensions]. Here, the RTP receiver will record the arrival time and the transport-wide sequence number of each received packet, which will be sent back to the sender periodically using the transport-wide feedback message. The RECOMMENDED feedback interval is once per received video frame or at least once every 30 ms if audio-only or multi-stream. If the feedback overhead needs to be limited this interval can be increased to 100 ms.

The sender will map the received {sequence number, arrival time} pairs to the send-time of each packet covered by the feedback report, and feed those timestamps to the delay-based controller. It will also compute a loss ratio based on the sequence numbers in the feedback message.

The second version can be realized by having a delay-based controller at the receive-side, monitoring and processing the arrival time and size of incoming packets. The sender SHOULD use the abs-send-time RTP header extension [abs-send-time] to enable the receiver to compute the inter-group delay variation. The output from the delay-based controller will be a bitrate, which will be sent back to the sender using the REMB feedback message [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb]. The packet loss ratio is sent back via RTCP receiver reports. At the sender the bitrate in the REMB message and the fraction of packets lost are fed into the loss-based controller, which outputs a final target bitrate. It is RECOMMENDED to send the REMB message as soon as congestion is detected, and otherwise at least once every second.

4. Delay-based control

The delay-based control algorithm can be further decomposed into three parts: an arrival-time filter, an over-use detector, and a rate controller.

4.1. Arrival-time model

This section describes an adaptive filter that continuously updates estimates of network parameters based on the timing of the received packets.

We define the inter-arrival time, t(i) - t(i-1), as the difference in arrival time of two packets or two groups of packets. Correspondingly, the inter-departure time, T(i) - T(i-1), is defined as the difference in departure-time of two packets or two groups of packets. Finally, the inter-group delay variation, d(i), is defined as the difference between the inter-arrival time and the inter-departure time. Or interpreted differently, as the difference between the delay of group i and group i-1.

  d(i) = t(i) - t(i-1) - (T(i) - T(i-1))

At the receiving side we are observing groups of incoming packets, where a group of packets is defined as follows:

• A sequence of packets which are sent within a burst_time interval constitute a group. RECOMMENDED value for burst_time is 5 ms.
• In addition, any packet which has an inter-arrival time less than burst_time and an inter-group delay variation d(i) less than 0 is also considered being part of the current group of packets. The reasoning behind including these packets in the group is to better handle delay transients, caused by packets being queued up for reasons unrelated to congestion. As an example this has been observed to happen on many Wi-Fi and wireless networks.

An inter-departure time is computed between consecutive groups as T(i) - T(i-1), where T(i) is the departure timestamp of the last packet in the current packet group being processed. Any packets received out of order are ignored by the arrival-time model.

Each group is assigned a receive time t(i), which corresponds to the time at which the last packet of the group was received. A group is delayed relative to its predecessor if t(i) - t(i-1) > T(i) - T(i-1), i.e., if the inter-arrival time is larger than the inter-departure time.

We can model the inter-group delay variation as:

  d(i) = w(i)

Here, w(i) is a sample from a stochastic process W, which is a function of the link capacity, the current cross traffic, and the current sent bitrate. We model W as a white Gaussian process. If we are over-using the channel we expect the mean of w(i) to increase, and if a queue on the network path is being emptied, the mean of w(i) will decrease; otherwise the mean of w(i) will be zero.

Breaking out the mean, m(i), from w(i) to make the process zero mean, we get

Equation 1

  d(i) = m(i) + v(i)

The noise term v(i) represents network jitter and other delay effects not captured by the model.

4.2. Arrival-time filter

The parameter d(i) is readily available for each group of packets, i > 1. We want to estimate m(i) and use this estimate to detect whether or not the bottleneck link is over-used. The parameter can be estimated by any adaptive filter – we are using the Kalman filter.

Let m(i) be the estimate at time i

We model the state evolution from time i to time i+1 as

  m(i+1) = m(i) + u(i)

where u(i) is the state noise that we model as a stationary process with Gaussian statistic with zero mean and variance

  q(i) = E{u(i)^2}

q(i) is RECOMMENDED equal to 10^-3

Given equation 1 we get

    d(i) = m(i) + v(i)

where v(i) is zero mean white Gaussian measurement noise with variance var_v = E{v(i)^2}

The Kalman filter recursively updates our estimate m_hat(i) as

  z(i) = d(i) - m_hat(i-1)

  m_hat(i) = m_hat(i-1) + z(i) * k(i)

                     e(i-1) + q(i)
  k(i) = ----------------------------------------
             var_v_hat(i) + (e(i-1) + q(i))

  e(i) = (1 - k(i)) * (e(i-1) + q(i))

The variance var_v(i) = E{v(i)^2} is estimated using an exponential averaging filter, modified for variable sampling rate

  var_v_hat(i) = max(alpha * var_v_hat(i-1) + (1-alpha) * z(i)^2, 1)

  alpha = (1-chi)^(30/(1000 * f_max))

where f_max = max {1/(T(j) - T(j-1))} for j in i-K+1,...,i is the highest rate at which the last K packet groups have been received and chi is a filter coefficient typically chosen as a number in the interval [0.1, 0.001]. Since our assumption that v(i) should be zero mean WGN is less accurate in some cases, we have introduced an additional outlier filter around the updates of var_v_hat. If z(i) > 3*sqrt(var_v_hat) the filter is updated with 3*sqrt(var_v_hat) rather than z(i). For instance v(i) will not be white in situations where packets are sent at a higher rate than the channel capacity, in which case they will be queued behind each other.

4.3. Over-use detector

The inter-group delay variation estimate m(i), obtained as the output of the arrival-time filter, is compared with a threshold del_var_th(i). An estimate above the threshold is considered as an indication of over-use. Such an indication is not enough for the detector to signal over-use to the rate control subsystem. A definitive over-use will be signaled only if over-use has been detected for at least overuse_time_th milliseconds. However, if m(i) < m(i-1), over-use will not be signaled even if all the above conditions are met. Similarly, the opposite state, under-use, is detected when m(i) < -del_var_th(i). If neither over-use nor under-use is detected, the detector will be in the normal state.

The threshold del_var_th has a remarkable impact on the overall dynamics and performance of the algorithm. In particular, it has been shown that using a static threshold del_var_th, a flow controlled by the proposed algorithm can be starved by a concurrent TCP flow [Pv13]. This starvation can be avoided by increasing the threshold del_var_th to a sufficiently large value.

The reason is that, by using a larger value of del_var_th, a larger queuing delay can be tolerated, whereas with a small del_var_th, the over-use detector quickly reacts to a small increase in the offset estimate m(i) by generating an over-use signal that reduces the delay-based estimate of the available bandwidth A_hat (see Section 4.4). Thus, it is necessary to dynamically tune the threshold del_var_th to get good performance in the most common scenarios, such as when competing with loss-based flows.

For this reason, we propose to vary the threshold del_var_th(i) according to the following dynamic equation:

del_var_th(i) = 
         del_var_th(i-1) + (t(i)-t(i-1)) * K(i) * (|m(i)|-del_var_th(i-1))

with K(i)=K_d if |m(i)| < del_var_th(i-1) or K(i)=K_u otherwise. The rationale is to increase del_var_th(i) when m(i) is outside of the range [-del_var_th(i-1),del_var_th(i-1)], whereas, when the offset estimate m(i) falls back into the range, del_var_th is decreased. In this way when m(i) increases, for instance due to a TCP flow entering the same bottleneck, del_var_th(i) increases and avoids the uncontrolled generation of over-use signals which may lead to starvation of the flow controlled by the proposed algorithm [Pv13]. Moreover, del_var_th(i) SHOULD NOT be updated if this condition holds:

  |m(i)| - del_var_th(i) > 15

It is also RECOMMENDED to clamp del_var_th(i) to the range [6, 600], since a too small del_var_th(i) can cause the detector to become overly sensitive.

On the other hand, when m(i) falls back into the range [-del_var_th(i-1),del_var_th(i-1)] the threshold del_var_th(i) is decreased so that a lower queuing delay can be achieved.

It is RECOMMENDED to choose K_u > K_d so that the rate at which del_var_th is increased is higher than the rate at which it is decreased. With this setting it is possible to increase the threshold in the case of a concurrent TCP flow and prevent starvation as well as enforcing intra-protocol fairness. RECOMMENDED values for del_var_th(0), overuse_time_th, K_u and K_d are respectively 12.5 ms, 10 ms, 0.01 and 0.00018.

4.4. Rate control

The rate control is split in two parts, one controlling the bandwidth estimate based on delay, and one controlling the bandwidth estimate based on loss. Both are designed to increase the estimate of the available bandwidth A_hat as long as there is no detected congestion and to ensure that we will eventually match the available bandwidth of the channel and detect an over-use.

As soon as over-use has been detected, the available bandwidth estimated by the delay-based controller is decreased. In this way we get a recursive and adaptive estimate of the available bandwidth.

In this document we make the assumption that the rate control subsystem is executed periodically and that this period is constant.

The rate control subsystem has 3 states: Increase, Decrease and Hold. "Increase" is the state when no congestion is detected; "Decrease" is the state where congestion is detected, and "Hold" is a state that waits until built-up queues have drained before going to "increase" state.

The state transitions (with blank fields meaning "remain in state") are:

+----+--------+-----------+------------+--------+
|     \ State |   Hold    |  Increase  |Decrease|
|      \      |           |            |        |
| Signal\     |           |            |        |
+--------+----+-----------+------------+--------+
|  Over-use   | Decrease  |  Decrease  |        |
+-------------+-----------+------------+--------+
|  Normal     | Increase  |            |  Hold  |
+-------------+-----------+------------+--------+
|  Under-use  |           |   Hold     |  Hold  |
+-------------+-----------+------------+--------+

The subsystem starts in the increase state, where it will stay until over-use or under-use has been detected by the detector subsystem. On every update the delay-based estimate of the available bandwidth is increased, either multiplicatively or additively, depending on its current state.

The system does a multiplicative increase if the current bandwidth estimate appears to be far from convergence, while it does an additive increase if it appears to be closer to convergence. We assume that we are close to convergence if the currently incoming bitrate, R_hat(i), is close to an average of the incoming bitrates at the time when we previously have been in the Decrease state. "Close" is defined as three standard deviations around this average. It is RECOMMENDED to measure this average and standard deviation with an exponential moving average with the smoothing factor 0.95, as it is expected that this average covers multiple occasions at which we are in the Decrease state. Whenever valid estimates of these statistics are not available, we assume that we have not yet come close to convergence and therefore remain in the multiplicative increase state.

If R_hat(i) increases above three standard deviations of the average max bitrate, we assume that the current congestion level has changed, at which point we reset the average max bitrate and go back to the multiplicative increase state.

R_hat(i) is the incoming bitrate measured by the delay-based controller over a T seconds window:

  R_hat(i) = 1/T * sum(L(j)) for j from 1 to N(i)

N(i) is the number of packets received the past T seconds and L(j) is the payload size of packet j. A window between 0.5 and 1 second is RECOMMENDED.

During multiplicative increase, the estimate is increased by at most 8% per second.

  eta = 1.08^min(time_since_last_update_ms / 1000, 1.0)
  A_hat(i) = eta * A_hat(i-1)

During the additive increase the estimate is increased with at most half a packet per response_time interval. The response_time interval is estimated as the round-trip time plus 100 ms as an estimate of over-use estimator and detector reaction time.

  response_time_ms = 100 + rtt_ms
  alpha = 0.5 * min(time_since_last_update_ms / response_time_ms, 1.0)
  A_hat(i) = A_hat(i-1) + max(1000, alpha * expected_packet_size_bits)

expected_packet_size_bits is used to get a slightly slower slope for the additive increase at lower bitrates. It can for instance be computed from the current bitrate by assuming a frame rate of 30 frames per second:

  bits_per_frame = A_hat(i-1) / 30
  packets_per_frame = ceil(bits_per_frame / (1200 * 8))
  avg_packet_size_bits = bits_per_frame / packets_per_frame

Since the system depends on over-using the channel to verify the current available bandwidth estimate, we must make sure that our estimate does not diverge from the rate at which the sender is actually sending. Thus, if the sender is unable to produce a bit stream with the bitrate the congestion controller is asking for, the available bandwidth estimate should stay within a given bound. Therefore we introduce a threshold

  A_hat(i) < 1.5 * R_hat(i)

When an over-use is detected the system transitions to the decrease state, where the delay-based available bandwidth estimate is decreased to a factor times the currently incoming bitrate.

  A_hat(i) = beta * R_hat(i)

beta is typically chosen to be in the interval [0.8, 0.95], 0.85 is the RECOMMENDED value.

When the detector signals under-use to the rate control subsystem, we know that queues in the network path are being emptied, indicating that our available bandwidth estimate A_hat is lower than the actual available bandwidth. Upon that signal the rate control subsystem will enter the hold state, where the receive-side available bandwidth estimate will be held constant while waiting for the queues to stabilize at a lower level – a way of keeping the delay as low as possible. This decrease of delay is wanted, and expected, immediately after the estimate has been reduced due to over-use, but can also happen if the cross traffic over some links is reduced.

It is RECOMMENDED that the routine to update A_hat(i) is run at least once every response_time interval.

4.5. Parameters settings