Redundant Data Bundling (RDB) is a mechanism for TCP that aims to reduce the per-packet latency for traffic produced by interactive applications. The master’s thesis Taming Redundant Data Bundling: Balancing fairness and latency for redundant bundling in TCP presents a new implementation in the Linux kernel, along with a detailed set of experiments that show the benefits of RDB. The thesis builds on the original work on RDB, and addresses some unresolved issues making the new implementation a candidate for widespread deployment. The paper Latency and Fairness Trade-Off for Thin Streams using Redundant Data Bundling in TCP presented at LCN2015 describes the RDB mechanism in detail.
Time-dependent applications using TCP often send thin-stream traffic, characterised by small packets and high intertransmission-times. Retransmissions after packet loss can result in very high delays for such flows as they often cannot trigger fast retransmit. Redundant Data Bundling is a mechanism that preempts the experience of loss for a flow by piggybacking unacknowledged segments with new data as long as the total packet size is lower than the flow maximum segment size. Although successful at reducing retransmission latency, this mechanism had design issues leaving it open for abuse, effectively making it unsuitable for general Internet deployment. In this paper, we have redesigned the RDB mechanism to make it safe for deployment. We improve the trigger for when to apply it and evaluate its fairness towards competing traffic. Extensive experimental results confirm that our proposed modifications allows for inter-flow fairness while maintaining the significant latency reductions from the original RDB mechanism.
Thin streams and latency reducing mechanisms
Applications like online games, remote control systems, high-frequency trading and sensor networks provide a hugely increased utility when their per-packet latencies are at their lowest. They have in common that they produce mostly traffic with thin-stream characteristics, consisting of small packet payloads and high inter-transmission times (ITTs). Table 1 shows some examples of traffic properties for applications producing thin streams.
||Payload size (B)
||Packet inter-arrival time (ms)
||Avg. BW req
|VNC (from client)
|Skype (2 users)
|SSH text session
|World of Warcraft
|Age of Conan
Some existing mechanisms in the Linux kernel aimed at reducing latencies for TCP are
- Thin Linear Timeouts (LT)
- Modified fast retransmit (mFR)
- Early Retransmit (ER)
- Tail Loss Probe (TLP)
These mechanisms are reactive, i.e. they modify how the TCP sender reacts to loss or possible loss by triggering retransmits faster. The problem is that in a best case scenario, they still require at least an RTT of extra delay for the loss signal to reach the sender host before the data is retransmitted. The exception to this is in cases where the TLP packet retransmits the lost packet.
Read more about time-dependent networking (TDN) and earlier work on thin streams and interactive applications.
Redundant Data Bundling
In contrast to the earlier mentioned reactive mechanisms, RDB is a proactive mechanism which tries to prevent unnecessary delays when packet loss occurs. By bundling already sent data with packets containing new data, RDB can be considered a retransmission mechanism that retransmits segments even before any loss signals are present.
An important property of RDB is that it does not produce extra packets on the network, but instead utilizes the “free” space in small TCP packets produced by interactive applications.
Figure 1: Example of an Ethernet frame for a TCP packet with 100 bytes payload.
TCP requires that the payload in each packet is sequential, however, a receiver is required to accept any new data in a packet even if some of the data has already been received. RDB takes advantage of this by bundling already sent (but un-ACKed) data segments in packets with new data.
Figure 2 shows an example with four separate data segments (S1-S4) illustrating how RDB organizes the data segments in each packet.
Figure 2: Example showing how RDB bundles the data of previously sent packets in packets with new data.
Note about “Free” or unused space in Ethernet frames
For small TCP packets with less than 1 * MSS worth of payload, the Ethernet frame will not fill the maximum segment size. “Free” is this context refers to additional space that may be used without increasing the same number of Ethernet frames through the network.
RDB in action
Figure 3 shows a scenario where an application performs write calls to the TCP socket with 365 bytes per call. When two consecutive packets are lost, the lost segments are “recovered” by the third packet which bundles the (new) segments from the previous two packets.
Figure 3: Packet timeline of a TCP thin stream using RDB.
Limiting RDB to thin streams
To ensure only thin streams can use RDB, a mechanism called Dynamic Packets in Flight Limit (DPILF) is used. By specifying a minimum allowed ITT, a maximum packets in flight limit is calculated dynamically based on the current RTT measurements. Figure 4 shows how the DPIFL is calculated for the minimum ITT limits 5, 10, 20 and 30 ms, with different RTTs.
Figure 4: Example of DPIFL for different minimum ITT values
For comparison, a Static Packets in Flight Limit (SPILF) of 3 is included in figure 4 to show how the thin stream test currently used in the Linux kernel does not adjust the limit based on RTT measurements.
Experiments and results
A wide range of tests have been performed to evaluate the effects of RDB in regards to reduced latencies, as well as fairness towards competing network traffic. The experiments have been performed in a testbed with Linux (Debian) hosts as depicted in figure 5.
Figure 5: Testbed setup
Tests with uniform loss rate
A set of tests were performed where netem on BRIDGE2 was configured with a uniform loss rate. These tests illustrate the difference in latency between regular TCP and RDB with different bundling rates. In figure 6 we see the result from one of the test sets with a uniform loss rate of 10%. The plot shows the ACK latency for three separate tests, where each test started 20 different TCP streams. One test where only regular TCP was used, and the two other tests with 10 regular TCP streams, and 10 RDB streams, where a limit was imposed on when any redundant data could be bundled. For RDB SPIFL 3, each TCP stream was allowed to bundle only when there were three or fewer packets in flight (PIFs). With an ITT of 30 ms, and a network delay configured with 75 ms in each direction (RTT of 150 ms), each stream would have 5 PIFs as long as it is not congestion limited.
Figure 6: Experiment with uniform loss
Comparing the latency of the different stream types, we see a significant difference when RDB is enabled. The RDB streams that were allowed to bundle while PIFs <= 7 have a significantly better ACK latency, where 90% of the TCP segments have no extra delay. For the regular TCP streams we see that almost 60% of the TCP segments have a higher ACK latency than the ideal 150 ms, even when only 10% of the packets are lost. This is due to head-of-line blocking causing delays not only for the lost segment, but for every segment transmitted after the lost segment, until a retransmission arrives at the receiver side.
Latency tests with cross traffic over a shared bottleneck
In these experiments a set of RDB-enabled thin streams and regular TCP streams are tested while competing against greedy TCP flows over a shard bottleneck. Each of the following plots show the results from two test runs, one where 20 TCP streams (TCP Reference) compete against 5 greedy TCP flows, and another where 10 RDB-enabled thin streams and 10 TCP thin streams compete against 5 greedy TCP flows. The shared bottleneck is configured with a rate limit of 5Mbit and a pfifo queue of one bandwidth-delay product (63 packets).
Figure 7: Experiment with no bundling limit
The RDB streams plotted in figure 7 are allowed to bundle any available previous segments as long as the payload does not exceed one MSS. Looking at the latencies we see a significant difference between the RDB streams and the TCP streams, however, comparing the latencies to the TCP reference values we see that the increased bandwidth due to the redundant data causes extra queuing delays which may not be desirable.
Figure 8: Experiment with bundling limit
Figure 8 shows the results from a test with the same setup as in figure 7, except for a limitation on the redundancy level for the RDB streams where they are allowed to bundle only one previous segment with each packet. The results show that with the reduced redundancy level, the RDB streams still have a much lower latency that the competing TCP streams, while avoiding the extra queuing delay found in the previous tests.
The RDB mechanism uses a proactive approach to reduce latencies for time-dependent traffic over TCP. By continually bundling (retransmitting) data instead of waiting for any loss signals before triggering a retransmission, RDB is able to avoid the extra delay of at least 1 RTT needed for a loss signal to reach the sender host. This results in significantly reduced latencies for thin stream traffic that experience sporadic packet loss.
Main benefits of RDB:
- RDB is backwards compatible TCP mechanism that requires sender side modifications only. This means that e.g. a Linux server can enable RDB on connections to unmodified TCP receivers. In this case, only the data sent from the server to the client will benefit from RDB, and the data in the reverse path will use regular TCP.
- RDB does not produce extra packets on the network, and achieves the reduced latencies by using the packets that are already scheduled for transmission.
- Reduces latencies for RDB enabled streams without unreasonable negative effects on competing traffic .
 B. R. Opstad, “Taming redundant data bundling” Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, May 2015. (Download PDF)
 K. Evensen, A. Petlund, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen, “Redundant bundling in TCP to reduce perceived latency for time-dependent thin streams” Comm. Letters, IEEE, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 324–326, April 2008.
 B. R. Opstad, J. Markussen, I. Ahmed, A. Petlund, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen, “Latency and Fairness Trade-Off for Thin Streams using Redundant Data Bundling in TCP”, IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA, Oct. 2015. (Download PDF)