MIT Uses Machine Learning Algorithm To Make TCP Twice As Fast

An anonymous reader writes "MIT is claiming they can make the Internet faster if we let computers redesign TCP/IP instead of coding it by hand. They used machine learning to design a version of TCP that's twice the speed and causes half the delay, even with modern bufferbloated networks. They also claim it's more 'fair.' The researchers have put up a lengthy FAQ and source code where they admit they don't know why the system works, only that it goes faster than normal TCP."

Comments

I'd be wary.

[Fishchip]

This is how things like Skynet get started.

Re:I'd be wary.

[Sqr(twg)]

That's easy to prevent.

Re:I'd be wary.

[jamesh]

At the very least i'd be doing a grep for things like "kill all humans" in the source code.

Uh Oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

they admit they don't know why the system works, only that it goes faster than normal TCP

And so it begins...

All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[Jane Q. Public]

Allow a computer to design a faster TCP? Sure!

Let them actually implement it without knowing how it works? Oh, Hell no!

I'm not talking "Skynet" or anything here... but if it breaks, who's going to fix it?

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[Intropy]

We're already in that boat. One of the reasons it's so hard to make changes is that nobody really knows why the internet works. We know how and why individual networks work. We can understand and model RIP and OSPF just fine. And we know how BGP operates too. But that large scale structure is a mess. It's unstable. The techniques we use could easily create disconnected or even weakly connected networks. But they don't except for occasionally a single autonomous system falling off. We've built ourselves a nice big gordian knot already. We know what it's made of, and we know how it operates, but good luck actually describing the thing.

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[techhead79]

we don't have to know WHY it works better, just that it does and how to build a working copy

But the fact that it does work better means we're either missing a part of the picture that is obviously important or the AI version is leveraging quirks with the system that no current model we have represents. I'm shocked to read that anyone would be comfortable just ignoring the why of something just so we can progress beyond our understanding. If we don't understand the why then we're missing something very important that could lead to breakthroughs in many other areas. Do not let go of the curiosity that got us here to begin with.

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[blankinthefill]

I don't think they just drop the questions and run with it. I'm pretty sure that, when we don't understand how things that are useful work, we just implement them... and study them at the same time. I guarantee you that SOMEONE, at least, is studying why an AI antenna works better than our man-designed ones, and they're doing it for the very reasons that you mention. But I think the point the GP was trying to get at is that we've never let out ability to not understand things hinder our adoption of those very things in the past, and as long as we have good evidence that this thing performs correctly, and we can replicate it, then why wouldn't we use it at the same time we study it?

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[Animats]

One of the reasons it's so hard to make changes is that nobody really knows why the internet works.

We still don't know how to deal with congestion in the middle of a pure datagram network. The Internet works because last-mile congestion is worse than backbone congestion. If you have a backbone switch today with more traffic coming in than the output links can handle, the switch is unlikely to do anything intelligent about which packets to drop. Fortunately, fiber optic links are cheap enough that the backbone can be over-provisioned.

The problem with this is video over the Internet. Netflix is a third of peak Internet traffic. Netflix plus Youtube is about half of Internet traffic during prime time. This is creating demand for more and more bandwidth to home links. Fortunately the backbone companies are keeping up. Where there's been backbone trouble, it's been more political than technical. It also helps that there are so few big sources. Those sources are handled as special cases. Most of the bandwidth used today is one-to-many. That can be handled. If everybody was making HDTV video calls, we'd have a real problem.

(I was involved with Internet congestion control from 1983-1986, and the big worry was congestion in the middle of the network. The ARPANET backbone links were 56Kb/s. Leased lines typically maxed out at 9600 baud. Backbone congestion was a big deal back then. This is partly why TCP was designed to avoid it at all costs.)

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[jkflying]

It's not that we don't understand *why* something like a genetic-algorithm designed antenna works so well. We can evaluate its performance using Maxwell's equations and say, "Yes, it works well." without ever having to build the thing. What we don't have is a set of guidelines or 'rules of thumb' that can result in an antenna design that works just as well.

The difference is that the computer evaluates a billion antennas for us, doing some sort of high-dimensional genetic optimisation on the various lengths of the antenna components. It doesn't 'understand' why it gets the results it does. We do, because we understand Maxwell's equations and we understand how genetic optimisation works. But Maxwell's equations only work for evaluating a design, not for giving a tweak which will improve it. And we're dealing with too many variables that are unknown to have a closed-form solution.

As for this algorithm, they basically did the same thing. They defined a fitness function and then repeatedly varied the code they were using to find the best sequence of code. However, unlike the antenna analogy, they used actual equipment to evaluate the fitness function, not just a model. This means that they don't have an accurate model, which means that your complaint that we don't know why this works is entirely valid, and the antenna analogy is not =)

Re:All Jokes Aside... Still No.

[seandiggity]

We should keep investigating why it works but, to be fair, the history of communications is implementing tech before we understand it (e.g. the first trans-Atlantic cable, implemented before we understood wave-particle duality, and therefore couldn't troubleshoot it well when it broke).

Let's not forget this important quote: "I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."

...that's Isaac Newton telling us, "I can explain the effects of gravity but I have no clue WTF it is."

Re:For a second there

[cold fjord]

Colossus: The Forbin Project

Re:Headline epic fails.

[Lord_Naikon]

Huh? Did you read the same article as I did? As far as I can tell, the article is about a TCP congestion control algorithm, which runs on both endpoints of the connection, and has nothing to do with QoS on intermediate routers. The algorithm generates a set of rules based on three parameters resulting in a set of actions to take like increasing advertised receive window and tx rate control. The result of which is a vastly improved total network throughput (and lower latency) without changing the network itself.

I fail to see the relevance of predictive/adaptive caching. It isn't even mentioned in the article.

Come on now

[dbIII]

As complex systems goes there are far worse. Go ask an engineer or a scientist.

Re:Come on now

[Daniel Dvorkin]

As complex systems goes there are far worse. Go ask an engineer or a scientist.

I am a scientist--specifically, a bioinformaticist, which means I try to build mathematical and computational models of processes in living organisms, which are kind of the canonical example of complex systems. And I will cheerfully admit that the internet, taken as a whole, is at least as complex as anything I deal with.