Scribd
Upload
69 views19 pages

A Case For End System Multicast

This document discusses end system multicast as an alternative to IP multicast for delivering content to multiple destinations. It describes how end system multicast works at the host level rather than the network level. The document presents the Narada protocol as an example of an efficient self-organizing overlay for end system multicast and discusses its mechanisms for construction, adaptation, and group management. Open issues around performance and scalability with increasing group size are also noted.

Uploaded by

sushmsn
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views19 pages

A Case For End System Multicast

This document discusses end system multicast as an alternative to IP multicast for delivering content to multiple destinations. It describes how end system multicast works at the host level rather than the network level. The document presents the Narada protocol as an example of an efficient self-organizing overlay for end system multicast and discusses its mechanisms for construction, adaptation, and group management. Open issues around performance and scalability with increasing group size are also noted.

Uploaded by

sushmsn
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

A Case for End System

Multicast
Yang-hua Chu, Sanjay G. Rao, Srinivasan
Seshan and Hui Zhang

Presentation by Warren Cheung

Some Slides from


[Link]
ar/2000/%EC%9D%B4%EB%AF%BC%ED
%98%B8/5
Multicast
 Unicast:
– Point to Point delivery
– One Host to One Client

 Multicast:
– Deliver to multiple destinations
– One Host to Many Clients
IP vs. End System Multicast
 IP multicast
– Implemented at Internetworking layer
 Routers and switches

 End System multicast


– Implemented in the hosts and clients
Examples
Examples – IP Multicast
Examples – naive Unicast
Examples – End System Multicast
Considerations
 Transmission Redundancy of Data
– Unicast: many copies per link
– IP Multicast: one copy per link
– End System Multicast:
 slightly more inefficient than IP Multicast
 Delay
– Unicast same as IP Multicast
– End System Multicast incurs penalty
IP multicast
 Pros
– Possibly large performance benefits

 Cons
– Needs to maintain “group state”
– Infrastructure level changes are slow to
deploy
End System Multicast
 Pros
– Can be implemented now
 Hosts (Peer-to-Peer)
 Proxy

 Cons
– Performance degradation
Narada Protocol
 Self-Organising
– Constructs Overlay
– Adapt to Network/Group Dynamics

 Efficient
– Latency vs. Bandwidth
– Self-improving
Group Management
 Everyone keeps the member list
– Target Medium-Sized Groups
– Everyone periodically exchanges group
information with neighbours (refresh)
 Join
– Bootstrapping
 Leave
– Partition repair
Mesh Performance
 Mesh may be suboptimal due to:
– Network conditions
– Group dynamics

 Adding random neighbours

 Dropping low “cost” links


Open Issues
 Group size on Average overlay hops

 Short-term
Effects of events on
Performance

 Overlayconstruction/maintenance
costs when group sizes get very
large
Related Work on Overlays
 Mesh-based

 Tree-based overlays

 Delaunay Triangulations
– Map addresses to coordinate space
– Find closest neighbours
 Hierarchies of Clusters
Related Works
 EndSystem Multicast, Narada, Video
Streaming
– [Link]
 Comparison of some Application
Layer Multicast solutions
– [Link]
[Link]
Not-So-Closely Related Works
 BitTorrent (File Swarming)
– [Link]

 Herbivore (Anonymity/Security)
– [Link]
[Link]
Discussion
 IP Multicast
– Basically a failure – deployment issues
– Any fundamental/low level changes to
Internet infrastructure unlikely to
succeed
 End System Multicast
– Overhead/performance impact no longer
looks as disadvantageous as it originally
appeared
Discussion(2)
 Applications

– Limitations to video-conferencing more


due to limitation on the number of people
you can communicate with simultaneously
– For large number of clients, more likely to
be a broadcast
 Narada

– Implemented and used


– Broadcasts the annual SIG networking
conference

You might also like