Upload
anais
View
46
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Design an Application Layer Multicast. CHUN-TING, WU Teacher: KAI-WEI, KE. Outline. Introduction MANET Examples Performance Matrics Conclusions. Overview. Traditional network architectures distinguish between two types of entities - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Design an Application Layer Multicast
CHUN-TING, WUTeacher: KAI-WEI, KE
2
Outline Introduction MANET Examples Performance Matrics Conclusions
3
Overview Traditional network architectures
distinguish between two types of entities› end systems (hosts) and the network
(routers and switches). The key architectural question is: what
new features should be added to the IP layer?› Multicast and QoS
4
What is a multicast Delivery of information to a group Creating copies only when the links to
the multiple destinations
5
Why multicasting video-on-demand live media streaming video conferencing multiplayer games
Real time and large data flow
6
IP layer vs. Application layer
In deciding whether to implement multicast services at the IP layer or at end systems, there are two conflicting considerations that we need to reconcile.
7
IP layer vs. Application layer
First, IP Multicast requires routers to maintain per group state› violate the “stateless” architectural
principle, and introduce high complexity and serious scaling.
Second, IP Multicast calls for changes at the infrastructural level› slows down the pace of deployment.
8
Finally, IP Multicast is providing higher level features such as reliability, congestion control, flow control, and security has been shown to be more difficult than in the unicast case.
9
We consider a model in which multicast related features, such as group membership, multicast routing and packet duplication, are implemented at end systems, assuming only unicast IP service.
10
To be resolved An overlay approach to multicast,
however efficient, cannot perform as well as IP Multicast.
It is impossible to completely prevent some redundant traffic on physical links.
Communication between end systems involves increasing latency.
11
(b) naive unicast transmission. (c) the IP Multicast tree constructed by
DVMRP (d) an “intelligent” overlay tree
12
Conceptual comparisonIssues IP multicast Application
multicastefficiency in terms of delay/bandwidth
High Low — Medium
Complexity or Overhead
Low Medium — High
Ease of deployment Low Medium — High
OSI layer works Network layer Application layer
13
ALM properties GROUP MANAGEMENT
› Mesh First vs. Tree First› Source Specific Tree vs. Shared Tree› Refinement
ROUTING MECHANISM› Shortest Path› Minimum Spanning Tree› Clustering Structure
14
Mesh First vs. Tree First Tree-based
› Source node as the root, thus there is only one single path between every pair of sender and receiver.
› It’s very efficient since the routing information needs to be maintained is very little.
Mesh-based› More than one path between each sender and
receiver pair exists.› More robust but less efficient.
15
Source Specific Tree vs. Shared Tree
Source-tree-based› It construct a multicast tree among all the member nodes
for each source node.(usually this is a shortest path tree)› More efficient.› Too much routing information to maintain.
Shared-tree-based› It constructs only one multicast tree for a multicast group
including several source nodes. (usually this is a minimum spanning tree)
› Every source uses this tree to do multicast. › Less efficient.› It reduces the overhead greatly by maintaining less
routing information.
16
Refinement Constructed trees might be different
› Depending upon the order of joining requests
› Construct the tree in real time and have no a-priori knowledge of node arrivals
Local optimum to the global optimum and improves the system’s performance
17
Shortest Path A Shortest Path Tree constructs a
minimum cost path from a source node to all its receivers
A source-specific multicast tree or in graph theoretic terms a rooted tree
18
Minimum Spanning Tree Construct a low cost tree Used by a shared tree
19
Clustering Structure Construct a hierarchical cluster of
nodes with each cluster having a head Advantages
› Reduction in control overhead› Faster joining and leaving› A sub-optimal tree
20
MANET Form a temporary and dynamic
wireless network on a wireless channel without the fixed infrastructure
Self-organizing collection of Mobile Nodes
Low bandwidth, mobility and low power Due to the limited transmission range,
multiple hops may be needed
21
IP network and MANET router vs. forwarding node traverse internet vs. multi-hops routing fixed vs. topology changes frequently
22
Flooding-based Proactive (table-driven)
› continuously evaluate routes› maintain up-to-date routing information› periodically flood its location to other
nodes› maintains a location table
Reactive (on-demand)› routing creates routing only when desired› in searching of the destination
23
Quorum-based Explicit
› Location update is sent to a defined subset (update quorum)
› Location query is sent to a subset (query quorum)
Implicit› Location servers are chosen via a hashing
function
24
MAODV Multicast On-demand Distance Vector
routing protocol This protocol uses broadcast to find the
route in an on-demand way and constructs a shared routing tree.
25
26
MAODV Example
L
Group Join ProcessBroadcast - RREQOnly GM RespondsMulticast ActivationBroadcast Group Hello
Group member Multicast Tree member
Ordinary node
Potential Group memberMulticast link
Communication link
27
MAODV Example
L
Leaving a Multicast Group
Non leaf NodeMust remain as a Tree
member
Leaf NodeCan remove itself
from MTAgain Leaf Node Remove himself from
MT
Group member Multicast Tree member
Ordinary node
Potential Group memberMulticast link
Communication link
28
Local Connectivity Management Node must periodically hear from active
neighbors to know they are still within range
Every time hear broadcast, update lifetime If no broadcast with hello_interval,
broadcast Hello packet Failure to hear from a neighbor for
› (1 + allowed_hello_loss ) * hello_lifetime indicates loss of link
29
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ)› <J_flag, R_flag, Bcast_ID,
Src_Addr, Src_Seq#, Dst_Addr, Dst_Seq#, HopCnt>
Node can reply to RREQ if› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough” route to
the destination Nodes create reverse route entry Record Src IP Addr / Broadcast ID
to prevent multiple processing
Source
Destination
RREQ
30
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ) Node can reply to RREQ if
› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough”
route to the destination Nodes create reverse
route entry Record Src IP Addr /
Broadcast ID to prevent multiple processing
Source
DestinationRREP
31
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ) Node can reply to RREQ if
› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough”
route to the destination Nodes create reverse
route entry Record Src IP Addr /
Broadcast ID to prevent multiple processing
Source
Destination
32
Forward Path Setup Nodes along path
create forward route to dest
Source begins sending data when receives first RREP
Source
Destination
Data
33
Design properties GROUP MANAGEMENT
› Tree First› Shared Tree› No refinement
ROUTING MECHANISM› Minimum Spanning Tree
MANET ROUTING› Reactive› Flat
34
Performance Matrics Latency
› end-to-end delay Bandwidth
› throughput at the receiver Stress
› number of identical copies of a packet carried by a physical link
35
Performance Matrics Resource Usage
› 57 / 30 / 32 Protocol Overhead
› total bytes of non-data traffic
36
Conclusions Although, MANET multicast is an ALM,
using wired mech. cannot perform well. Actually, there is no a “one-for-all” scheme
that works well with different scenarios. Highly dynamic environment, nodes move
arbitrarily, thus network topology changes frequently and unpredictably
Moreover, bandwidth and battery power are limited.
Make multicast extremely challenging
37
References Tu, W. & Jia, W., “An End Host Multicast Protocol for Peer-to-Peer
Networks,” LCN '05: Proceedings of the The IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 392-399
Hosseini, M., Ahmed, D., Shirmohammadi, S. & Georganas, N., “A Survey of Application-Layer Multicast Protocols,” Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, 2007, Vol. 9(3), pp. 58-74
Junhai, L., Danxia, Y., Liu, X. & Mingyu, F., “A survey of multicast routing protocols for mobile Ad-Hoc networks,” Communications Surveys Tutorials, IEEE, 2009, Vol. 11(1), pp. 78 -91
Perkins, C. & Royer, E., “Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing,” Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1999. Proceedings. WMCSA '99. Second IEEE Workshop on, 1999, pp. 90 -100