QoS-Aware Streaming in Overlay Multicast Considering the Selfishness in Construction Action

Most existing overlay multicast proposals have assumed that the nodes are cooperative and thus focus on the global topology optimization. However, a unique and important characteristic of overlay nodes is that, as application-layer agents, they can be selfish with their own interests. To achieve better quality-of-service (QoS) or to minimize forwarding overhead, an overlay node can behave selfishly in the information collection or in the overlay construction. While the former has recently been investigated, the impact of selfishness in the construction action remains unclear. In this paper, we present the first systematic study on the impact of selfishness in both tree and mesh overlay construction. Our investigation considers multiple QoS measures for streaming applications, including stream latency, resolution, and continuity. Our contribution is twofold: first, we analyze how for selfish overlay nodes to choose a construction-action policy to optimize their individual multi-metric QoS. Second, we demonstrate that the selfishness-aware policy for the construction action is consistent with the QoS optimization for the global multicast session, but not vice versa. The implication is significant: A globally optimal overlay construction itself can be vulnerable to individual selfishness; but, following our directions, we can design an overlay that is both globally optimal and selfish-resistant.

[1]  Baochun Li,et al.  Strategyproof mechanisms for dynamic tree formation in overlay networks , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[2]  Helen J. Wang,et al.  Distributing streaming media content using cooperative networking , 2002, NOSSDAV '02.

[3]  Venkata N. Padmanabhan,et al.  Analyzing and Improving a BitTorrent Networks Performance Mechanisms , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

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

[5]  Ke Xu,et al.  Impact of receiver cheating on the stability of ALM tree , 2005, GLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005..

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

[7]  Stephen A. Jarvis,et al.  A Payment-based Incentive and Service Differentiation Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Streaming Broadcast , 2006, 200614th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[8]  John C.-I. Chuang,et al.  Incentive mechanism for peer-to-peer media streaming , 2004, Twelfth IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service, 2004. IWQOS 2004..

[9]  Xiang-Yang Li,et al.  Design multicast protocols for non-cooperative networks , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[10]  Stefan Schmid,et al.  On the topologies formed by selfish peers , 2006, PODC '06.

[11]  Bo Li,et al.  CoolStreaming/DONet: a data-driven overlay network for peer-to-peer live media streaming , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

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

[13]  Reza Rejaie,et al.  A framework for architecting peer-to-peer receiver-driven overlays , 2004, NOSSDAV '04.

[14]  Rayadurgam Srikant,et al.  Modeling and performance analysis of BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks , 2004, SIGCOMM 2004.

[15]  Vincent Roca,et al.  Impact of simple cheating in application-level multicast , 2004, IEEE INFOCOM 2004.

[16]  Venkata N. Padmanabhan,et al.  Analyzing and Improving BitTorrent Performance , 2005 .

[17]  Bruce M. Maggs,et al.  The feasibility of supporting large-scale live streaming applications with dynamic application end-points , 2004, SIGCOMM.

[18]  Klara Nahrstedt,et al.  RandPeer: Membership Management for QoS Sensitive Peer-to-Peer Applications , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[19]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  A case for end system multicast , 2002, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[20]  Kunwadee Sripanidkulchai,et al.  Considering Priority in Overlay Multicast Protocols Under Heterogeneous Environments , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[21]  Bo Li,et al.  Adaptive Video Multicast over the Internet , 2003, IEEE Multim..

[22]  Amin Vahdat,et al.  Bullet: high bandwidth data dissemination using an overlay mesh , 2003, SOSP '03.

[23]  Bo Li,et al.  Opportunities and Challenges of Peer-to-Peer Internet Video Broadcast , 2008, Proceedings of the IEEE.

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

[25]  Xiang-Yang Li,et al.  Designing Multicast Protocols for Non-Cooperative Networks , 2008, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[26]  Bo Li,et al.  DONet: A Data-Driven Overlay Network For Efficient Live Media Streaming , 2004, INFOCOM 2005.

[27]  Stephen E. Deering,et al.  Multicast routing in internetworks and extended LANs , 1988, SIGCOMM '88.

[28]  Vinay S. Pai,et al.  Chainsaw: Eliminating Trees from Overlay Multicast , 2005, IPTPS.

[29]  Kien A. Hua,et al.  ZIGZAG: an efficient peer-to-peer scheme for media streaming , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[30]  Stephen A. Jarvis,et al.  A Payment-Based Incentive and Service Differentiation Scheme for Peer-to-Peer Streaming Broadcast , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[31]  Bobby Bhattacharjee,et al.  Scalable application layer multicast , 2002, SIGCOMM '02.