a comparison of application-level and router-assisted hierarchical schemes for reliable multicast...
TRANSCRIPT
A Comparison of Application-Level and Router-Assisted Hierarchical Schemes for
Reliable Multicast
Pavlin RadoslavovChristos Papadopoulos
Ramesh GovindanDeborah Estrin
Reviewer: Jing Lu, Qian Wan
CS770x
Outline
• Introduction– ALH: RMTP
– RAH: LMS
• Metric Space
• Analysis Using k-ARY Trees
• Simulation Results
• Conclusion
IP Multicast
• Send packet from a source to the members of a multicast group.– Class D IP addresses (250 million)
– IGMP & MOSPF
– Best-effort packet forwarding
• Applications: multimedia, teleconferencing, distributed computing, etc.
Reliable IP Multicast
• Scalability issues:– Implosion: redundant messages triggered by packet loss
– Exposure: redundant retransmissions to receivers who haven't experienced loss
• Long recovery latency
• Hierarchical data recovery schemes:– ALH (Application-Level Hierarchical): End systems assist in
hierarchy creation and maintainance.• RMTP
– RAH (Router-Assisted Hierarchical): Routers assistance• LMS
RMTP Data Recovery
• Static hierarchical scheme– Designated Receivers (DRs) are chosen statically
– A receiver dynamically chooses a closest DR as its Ack and retransmission processor
– A DR collects Nack from its local group members and retransmits packet within the group using unicast/multicast
– A DR emits its own Nack to its parent DR in the upper hierarchy
– Sender deals with Nacks from DRs at the top level hierarchy
Heuristic Dynamic Hierarchy Creation in ALH
• Each receiver obtains distance info to each other
• Dynamically create the hierarchy from bottom-up:– Initially all receivers are eligible to become parents
– A fraction (fracpc) of receivers with the smallest sum of distances becomes parents.
– Receivers that are not elected choose the closest parent as its parent.
– Repeat the selection process among receivers chosen from the previous iteration until the number of receivers left <= 1/fracpc, so their parent is the sender itself.
LMS Data Recovery
• LMS extends router forwarding
• Enhance routers to:– Replier selection
– Forward Nacks to replier and discover root of loss subtree
– Perform DMCAST
LMS Replier Selection
• Router state per-source tree:– Upstream link
– List of downstream links
– Replier link id
sender
R1
R3
R2
R4
Rx1Rx7
Rx8
Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6
Rx2
LMS DMCAST
• DMCAST:– Replier encapsulates a multicast packet into a unicast packet and
sends to the turning-point router
– LMS router decapsulates and multicasts it on the specified link interfaces
LMS Enhanced Two-Step DMCAST
• Nack from a downstream replier specifies reply should be unicast back to it rather than to its turning point
• Replier then performs DMCAST when necessary
Summary of ALH and RAH
ALH RAH
Automatic creation of data recovery hierarchy
End-to-end mechanism and heuristic algorithm
Router selects the closest downstream receiver as replier
Retransmission Parent unicasts/multicasts recovery data to its group members
Replier unicasts recovery data to turning-point router, router multicasts it directly on specified links
• RAH is finer-grained with many more “internal nodes”• RAH is more congruent to the underlying multicast tree• RAH doesn’t have explicit group concept, so it is easily adaptive to membership change; membership maintenance cost is minimal
Metric Space
• Data Recovery Latency
• Receiver Exposure
• Data Traffic Overhead
• Control Traffic Overhead
Data Recovery Latency
sender
R1
R3
R2
R4
Rx1Rx7
Rx8
Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6
Rx2
Loss Rcvs lat RTT
Rx2 6 8
Rx3 8 10
Rx4 8 10
Rx5 8 10
Rx6 8 10
NormLat 0.79
Receiver Exposure
sender
R1
R3
R2
R4
Rx1Rx7
Rx8
Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6
Rx2
Loss Rcvs Exposure
Rx2 0
Rx3 0
Rx4 0
Rx5 0
Rx6 0
NormExp 0
Data Traffic Overhead
sender
R1
R3
R2
R4
Rx1Rx7
Rx8
Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6
Rx2
Loss Rcvs Data Subtree
Rx2 3 8
Rx3, Rx4, Rx5, Rx6
7
NormDataOverhead
1.25
Control Traffic Overhead
sender
R1
R3
R2
R4
Rx1Rx7
Rx8
Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6
Rx2
Loss Rcvs Control Subtree
Rx2 3 8
Rx3 3
Rx4 3
Rx5 3
Rx6 3
NormLat 1.875
Analysis using k-ARY Tree
• Purpose:− Gain initial understanding of the scalability of the ALH and RAH schemes
• Parameters:− k, L− q: fraction of leaf nodes that are receivers is 1/kq-1
• Assumptions:− Each parent (ALH) has k-1 children.− Single link loss and average per link-loss across all links
Data Overhead Analysis
L = 10
• RAH is slightly better than ALH• In some cases, RAH replier multicast data to all receivers within a subtree• ALH has to perform multiple multicasts within local groups