Skip to main content
Log in

Restrictive mechanism of flow control among non-cooperative Internet users

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The flow and congestion control methods based on one-shot game model with non-cooperative game theory can explain the non-cooperative behavior of Internet users. However, the low efficiency of equilibrium solutions affects their utility. Here the behavior of flow and congestion control based on infinitely repeated game models is addressed; the repeated and infinitely repeated flow and congestion control game model is presented; the existence and optimization of the Nash equilibrium point are proved; the discount factor in repeated game is discussed; the punishment and threat strategy to users’ misbehavior is studied in N-users infinitely flow control game; the punishment restrictive method of users’ behavior is designed in infinitely and finitely games; finally, a flow control algorithm based on repeated game, FCAR, is provided based on the conclusions of repeated game model. The results of experiment and simulation show that FCAR algorithm could regularize and restrict users’ misbehavior effectively. FCAR algorithm can also make non-cooperative Internet users achieve cooperation in order to optimize the utility of the whole flow and congestion control system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman E, Boulogne T, Azouzi R E, et al. A survey on networking games in telecommunications. Comput Oper Res, 2006, 33: 286–311

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Friedmn E J, Shenker S. Learning and implemention on the Inernet. Game Econ Behav, 1996, 16: 65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shneidman J, Parkes D, Massoulie L. Faithfulness in internet algorithms. In: Proc. SIGCOMM Workshop on Practice and Theory of Incentives and Game Theory in Networked Systems (PINS’04), Portland, Oregon, USA, 2004. 220–227

  4. Roughgarden T, Tardos E. How bad is selfish routing? J ACM, 2002, 49: 236–259

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Key P B, McAulcy D R. Differential QoS and pricing in network: where flow control meets game theory. IEE Proc Softw, 1999, 146: 39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garg R, Kamra A, Khurana V. Eliciting cooperation form selfish users: a game-theoretic approach towards congestion control in communication networks. Technical Report RI01001, IBM India Research Lab, April 2001. Available at http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/papersearch.html

  7. Karp R, Koutsoupias E, Papadimitriou C, et al. Optimization problems in congestion control. In: Proc. of 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Redondo Beach, 2000. 66–74

  8. Christin N, Grossklags J, Chuang J. Near rationality and competitive equilibria in networked systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Practice and Theory of Incentives in Networked Systems Table of Contents, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2004. 213–219

  9. Lai K, Feldman M, Stoica I, et al. Incentives for cooperation in peer-to-peer networks. In: Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems (P2PEcon’03), Berkeley, USA, 2003

  10. Chen Y, Teo K H, Kishore S, et al. A game-theoretic framework for interference management through cognitive sensing. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society, 2008. 3573–3577

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tao J, Wu Q L, Wu Q. Application research of network resource allocation algorithm based on non-cooperative bidding game. Chin J Elect, 2006, 34: 241–246

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman M, Papadimitriou C, Chuang J, et al. Free-riding and whitewashing in peer to peer systems. IEEE J Select Areas Commun, 2006, 24: 1010–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. He L, Walrand J. Pricing and revenue sharing strategies for internet service providers. IEEE J Select Areas Commun, 2006, 24: 942–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Samuelson L. Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Basar T, Srikant R. Revenue-maximizing pricing and capacity expansion in a many-users regime. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2002, New York, 2002. 1556–1563

  16. Bertsekas D P. Nonlinear Programming. Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific, 1995. 169–177

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Efstathiou E, Frangoudis P, Polyzos G. Stimulating participation in wireless community networks. In: Proceedings of Infocom 2006: 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. Piscataway: IEEE Press, 2006. 1–13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Felegyhazi M, Cagalj M, Bidokhti S S, et al. Non-cooperative multi-radio channel allocation in wireless networks. In: INFOCOM 2007. 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. Piscataway: IEEE Press, 2007. 1442–1450

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Johari R, Tsitsiklis J N. Efficiency loss in a network resource allocation game. Math Operat Res, 2004, 29: 407–435

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Richard J, Venkat A. Optimal routing control: repeated game approach. IEEE Trans Automat Control, 2002, 47: 437–450

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Tao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tao, J., Zhong, X. & Lu, Y. Restrictive mechanism of flow control among non-cooperative Internet users. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 54, 12–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-010-4145-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-010-4145-z

Keywords

Navigation