论文标题

YouTube在Google的Quic vs Internet Middleboxs上:协议可持续性与应用程序之间的一场战争

YouTube over Google's QUIC vs Internet Middleboxes: A Tug of War between Protocol Sustainability and Application QoE

论文作者

Chaudhary, Sapna, Sachdeva, Prince, Mondal, Abhijit, Chakraborty, Sandip, Maity, Mukulika

论文摘要

诸如Web代理,防火墙等之类的中间箱被广泛部署在当今的网络基础架构中。结果,大多数协议都需要调整其行为以共存。最常用的运输协议之一,QUIC,通过落回TCP(将其阻止)来适应此类中间箱。在本文中,我们认为Quic的盲目后备行为,即没有区分由Middlebox引起的故障和由网络拥塞引起的故障,对Quic的表现产生了巨大影响。为此,我们专注于YouTube视频流,并通过一次启用TCP和QUIC来利用YouTube的生产端点进行测量研究。总的来说,我们从5个不同的地理位置和各种视频流派收集了各种带宽模式的2600多个流数小时的数据。令我们惊讶的是,我们观察到,遗产设置(TCP)的表现要优于Quic启用的浏览器,占60%以上的情况。我们看到,在各个QoE参数,带宽模式,位置和视频中,我们的观察结果是一致的。接下来,我们进行深度参与分析,以发现这种行为背后的根本原因。我们发现退缩事件和QoE掉落事件之间的良好相关性(0.3-0.7),即质量下降,重新延误或停滞。我们进一步执行Granger因果分析,发现后备Granger会导致70%支持Quic的会议的质量下降或停滞。我们认为,我们的研究将帮助设计师重新审视使​​Quic中后备的决定,并区分由Middleboxs和网络拥塞引起的数据包滴。

Middleboxes such as web proxies, firewalls, etc. are widely deployed in today's network infrastructure. As a result, most protocols need to adapt their behavior to co-exist. One of the most commonly used transport protocols, QUIC, adapts to such middleboxes by falling back to TCP, where they block it. In this paper, we argue that the blind fallback behavior of QUIC, i.e., not distinguishing between failures caused by middleboxes and that caused by network congestion, hugely impacts the performance of QUIC. For this, we focus on YouTube video streaming and conduct a measurement study by utilizing production endpoints of YouTube by enabling TCP and QUIC at a time. In total, we collect over 2600 streaming hours of data over various bandwidth patterns, from 5 different geographical locations and various video genres. To our surprise, we observe that the legacy setup (TCP) either outperforms or performs the same as the QUIC-enabled browser for more than 60% of cases. We see that our observation is consistent across individual QoE parameters, bandwidth patterns, locations, and videos. Next, we conduct a deep-dive analysis to discover the root cause behind such behavior. We find a good correlation (0.3-0.7) between fallback and QoE drop events, i.e., quality drop and re-buffering or stalling. We further perform Granger causal analysis and find that fallback Granger causes either quality drop or stalling for 70% of the QUIC-enabled sessions. We believe our study will help designers revisit the decision to enable fallback in QUIC and distinguish between the packet drops caused by middleboxes and network congestion.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源