A case for end system multicast

The conventional wisdom has been that Internet protocol (IP) is the natural protocol layer for implementing multicast related functionality. However, more than a decade after its initial proposal, IP multicast is still plagued with concerns pertaining to scalability, network management, deployment, and support for higher layer functionality such as error, flow, and congestion control. We explore an alternative architecture that we term end system multicast, where end systems implement all multicast related functionality including membership management and packet replication. This shifting of multicast support from routers to end systems has the potential to address most problems associated with IP multicast. However, the key concern is the performance penalty associated with such a model. In particular, end system multicast introduces duplicate packets on physical links and incurs larger end-to-end delays than IP multicast. We study these performance concerns in the context of the Narada protocol. In Narada, end systems self-organize into an overlay structure using a fully distributed protocol. Further, end systems attempt to optimize the efficiency of the overlay by adapting to network dynamics and by considering application level performance. We present details of Narada and evaluate it using both simulation and Internet experiments. Our results indicate that the performance penalties are low both from the application and the network perspectives. We believe the potential benefits of transferring multicast functionality from end systems to routers significantly outweigh the performance penalty incurred.

[1]  Jerome H. Saltzer,et al.  End-to-end arguments in system design , 1984, TOCS.

[2]  Fred B. Schneider,et al.  Byzantine generals in action: implementing fail-stop processors , 1984, TOCS.

[3]  Multicast routing in internetworks and extended LANs , 1988, CCRV.

[4]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  Bandwidth-delay based routing algorithms , 1995, Proceedings of GLOBECOM '95.

[5]  Yakov Rekhter,et al.  A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) , 1994, RFC.

[6]  Ellen W. Zegura,et al.  How to model an internetwork , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '96. Conference on Computer Communications.

[7]  J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves,et al.  The case for reliable concurrent multicasting using shared ACK trees , 1997, MULTIMEDIA '96.

[8]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Resilient multicast support for continuous-media applications , 1997, Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV '97).

[9]  Van Jacobson,et al.  Adaptive web caching: towards a new global caching architecture , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[10]  Jörg Liebeherr,et al.  A scalable control topology for multicast communications , 1998, Proceedings. IEEE INFOCOM '98, the Conference on Computer Communications. Seventeenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Gateway to the 21st Century (Cat. No.98.

[11]  Hui Zhang,et al.  A third-party value-added network service approach to reliable multicast , 1999, SIGMETRICS '99.

[12]  Anthony McAuley,et al.  AMRoute: Adhoc Multicast Routing Protocol , 1999 .

[13]  Stefan Savage,et al.  The end-to-end effects of Internet path selection , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[14]  Christophe Diot,et al.  Simple mu lticast: A design for sim-ple, low-overhead multicast , 1999 .

[15]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  On power-law relationships of the Internet topology , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[16]  David R. Cheriton,et al.  IP multicast channels: EXPRESS support for large-scale single-source applications , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[17]  Hui Zhang,et al.  A case for end system multicast (keynote address) , 2000, SIGMETRICS '00.

[18]  Zhanghui,et al.  A case for end system multicast (keynote address) , 2000 .

[19]  Mark Handley,et al.  Equation-based congestion control for unicast applications , 2000, SIGCOMM 2000.

[20]  Eric Brewer,et al.  Scattercast: an architecture for internet broadcast distribution as an infrastructure service , 2000 .

[21]  Ion Stoica,et al.  REUNITE: a recursive unicast approach to multicast , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[22]  Kirk L. Johnson,et al.  Overcast: reliable multicasting with on overlay network , 2000, OSDI.

[23]  Jörg Liebeherr,et al.  Application-layer multicast with Delaunay triangulations , 2001, GLOBECOM'01. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (Cat. No.01CH37270).

[24]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Bayeux: an architecture for scalable and fault-tolerant wide-area data dissemination , 2001, NOSSDAV '01.

[25]  Bobby Bhattacharjee,et al.  A Protocol for Scalable Application Layer Multicast , 2001 .

[26]  Dinesh C. Verma,et al.  ALMI: An Application Level Multicast Infrastructure , 2001, USITS.

[27]  Mark Handley,et al.  Application-Level Multicast Using Content-Addressable Networks , 2001, Networked Group Communication.

[28]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  Enabling conferencing applications on the internet using an overlay muilticast architecture , 2001, SIGCOMM 2001.

[29]  Sugih Jamin,et al.  End-Host Multicast Communication Using Switch-Trees Protocols , 2002, 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGRID'02).