Bagnall, P., Briscoe, R. and A. Poppitt, "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", RFC 2729, December 1999.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of users. Mobile access is currently characterized by lower access speeds, the relatively limited processing power of portable units, higher bit and packet error rates, and user mobility. Multicast represents an efficient mechanism that implements point to multipoint communications. According to [Bagnall, 97] applications that use it fall into two classes, namely, soft real time and fully reliable multicast applications. Whereas the first of these handles delay sensitive applications such as video conferencing, service discovery and distance learning, the other class includes applications that ....

P. Bagnall, B. Briscoe, A. Poppitt, "Taxonomy of Communications Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", November 1997, Internet Draft, http://www.labs.bt.com/people/briscorj/projects/lsma/taxonomy-reqs.txt

....ulticast is an important technique for bandwidth preservation when using one to many communications. Examples of applications making extensive use of multicast include service discovery, access to distributed databases, distance learning and software distribution. According to their traffic type [1] these applications can fall into several classes. Two of these classes which are relevant to this paper are: multicast soft real time and multicast fully reliable. The first class represents applications that transmit continuous media data sensitive to delay and jitter but do not require a ....

P. Bagnall, B. Briscoe, A. Poppitt, "Taxonomy of Communications Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", November 1997, Internet Draft, http://www.labs.bt.com/people/briscorj/project s/lsma/taxonomy-reqs.txt

....web based applications. Those applications require a data transmission service better than the best e ort service currently o ered by IP, that does not provide any guarantee in terms of reliable and timing data delivery. The particular service to be provided depends on the requesting applications [6, 2]. It could be for instance de ned in terms of high reception rate, low end to end transmission delay or low packet loss probability. The vast range of QoS requirements makes dicult to devise mechanisms that are general enough to guarantee that those heterogeneous requirements are ful lled. As the ....

Bagnall P., Briscoe R., Poppitt A. \Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications". Internet Draft, draft-ietf-lsma-requirements-02.txt, Nov. 1998. Work in progress.

....are evaluated by means of a set of measurement tools aimed at recording a real time trace of the protocol activities that can be successively analyzed. The measurement tools run both at the sender and the receiver sites. The observed performance indexes are network throughput, delay and jitter [2]. The measurement tools produce dump les describing the observed trac. Generated dumps are evaluated from an external program that downsamples the data to a required timeslice, and generates data to be feeded to the gnuplot tool. Our user stack is currently composed of a freeware implementation ....

Bagnall P., Briscoe R., Poppitt A., \Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications," Internet Draft, draft-ietf-lsma-requirements-02.txt, Nov. 1998. Work in progress.

....for service providers to add session parameters and advertise the session description . In the longer term we wish to explore the possibility of selecting and configuring components based on high level declarations of requirements of the kind described in a Taxonomy of Communication Requirements [12]. 7 Conclusion The use of a session description containing a recipe to dynamically build the CPE part of a new service offers a number of benefits. By using a session announcement to deploy a recipe for building the application, barriers to deployment are reduced. By overcoming ....

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, A. Poppitt, A Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large Scale Multicast Applications, IETF Large Scale Multicast Applications Working Group RFC2729, December 1999, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2729.txt .

....then it is not able to provide the desired service to the application. In this thesis we will not discuss issues like how to reserve resources, how to reduce the amount of congestion in the network, etc. What is really important to us is the requirements of large scale multicast applications [5]. We are building a multicast protocol which makes efficient use of the existing network resources. For example, consider videoconferencing. It requires that the network should support high datarate, the end to end delay of data delivery from the source to the destination should be moderate and ....

....tree formation phase and then intermediate phase during which ocassionally groups can appear downstream. During the initial phase, Number of joins and join acks processed by a router = Fraction of groups present downstream per interface Number of interfaces Number of Acks = 1 c 1 [5, 6] If the group disappears on x ( 2) interfaces, Number of Quits processed by a router = 1 x [2, 2] Average number of Keepalive messages = Number of downstrean interfaces = c per T interval [4, 4] During the intermediate phase, suppose that the group reappears on x interfaces. Number of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, and A. Poppit. Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Largescale Multicast Applications. Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, draft-ietf-lsmarequirements -01.txt, Nov 1997. Work in Progress.

....This requirement reliability adds much complexity to multicast. Partially, this complexity stems from very dioeerent application requirements that have to be provided by the transport protocol. A systematic list of such application requirements has been published in an Internet Draft [2]. The following list shows some of them that are important for the transport protocols. Number of senders: Is it suOEcient, if the protocol supports only one sender (mass le distribution) or does the application allow many participants of the multicast session to send (e.g. a white board ....

....= 1 ; Parse the command line. The expected syntax is: For senders: filetrans s filename address port [ TTL ] For receivers: filetrans c address port [ TTL ] if (argc 4) cout helpstring endl ; exit(1) if ( strcmp(argv[1] c ) sendmode = 0 ; address = argv[2] ; port = atoi(argv[3] if (argc 4) ttl = atoi(argv[4] else ttl = 1 ; else if ( strcmp(argv[1] s ) sendmode = 1 ; if (argc 5) cout helpstring endl ; exit(1) else filename = argv[2] address = argv[3] port = atoi(argv[4] if (argc 5) ttl = ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, and A. Poppitt. Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications. Internet Draft: draft-taxonomy, November 1997.

....of ADUs, it can choose the most optimal way to repair missing information. Although this clearly increases the complexity of the application, it can minimize the sender s CPU and buffer load, and reduce the required network bandwidth. This mechanism has been identified as semantic reliability [2], because the decision of how to treat missing ADUs depends on the semantic of the missing data, and not on the order of sequence. Note that in ALF, packet numbering does not disappear. It is simply related to each type of ADU instead of being a unique sequence of numbers for the whole session. 3 ....

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, and A. Poppitt. Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications. Internet-Draft <drafttaxonomy >, November 1997.

....range of applications, and distributed virtual environments may belong to it. The Large scale Multicast Applications Working Group of the IETF is working on a taxonomy of communication requirements for any large scale multicast application. As of August 1997, this work is available as IETF draft [8]. The classification of communications parameters, their type, and their strictest requirement values for large scale multicast application has been proposed in [8] Table 7 gives a list of classification categories and their brief description. Taxonomy for LSMA summary Classification category ....

....of communication requirements for any large scale multicast application. As of August 1997, this work is available as IETF draft [8] The classification of communications parameters, their type, and their strictest requirement values for large scale multicast application has been proposed in [8]. Table 7 gives a list of classification categories and their brief description. Taxonomy for LSMA summary Classification category Description Reliability packet loss, or component reliability Ordering timing, sequencing, and causality Timeliness hard or soft real time requirements for ....

R. Briscoe and P. Bagnall. Taxonomy of communication requirements for large-scale multicast applications. Internet draft, July 1997. Work in progress.

....with the addition or removal of receiver interest. In the interests of full disclosure, we note that the present work is the subject of a European patent filing [6] 2. 2 Multicast non repudiation The need for proof of delivery is recognised in two taxonomies of multicast security requirements [3, 8], but solutions are rarely discussed in the academic literature. Proof of delivery is a very different problem to acknowledgement of delivery. It has to be possible to prove the receiver did indeed receive data when they might deny reception. Pay TV and pay per view systems invariably use the ....

Pete Bagnall, Bob Briscoe & Alan Poppitt, (BT), "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", Internet Draft (approved for RFC), Internet Engineering Task Force (17 May 1999) <draft-ietf-lsma-requirements-03.txt>

....Our approach is not novel in this respect, simply re using Chameleon. However, we include it to demonstrate our modular approach to the addition of mechanisms. 2. 3 Other Requirements Beyond the two requirements we have focussed on so far, two taxonomies of multicast security requirements [Bagnall99, Canetti99] include many other possible combinations of security requirements for multicast. We have placed sender authentication outside the scope of this paper, but its importance merits a brief survey of the literature. A sender may merely need to prove it is one of the group of valid receivers in which ....

Pete Bagnall, Bob Briscoe & Alan Poppitt, (BT), "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", Internet Draft (work in progress), Internet Engineering Task Force (17 May 1999) <draft-ietf-lsma-requirements-03.txt>

....The present paper shows how to construct a key sequence such that it can be partially reconstructed from intermediate seeds, thus removing the need for a smartcard if non repudiation is not a requirement. Beyond the requirement we focus on, two taxonomies of multicast security requirements [2, 5] include many other possible combinations of security requirements for multicast. It is generally agreed that a modular approach is required to building solutions for combined requirements, rather than searching for a single monolithic super solution . Later, as examples of this modular approach, ....

Pete Bagnall, Bob Briscoe, Alan Poppitt, (BT), "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", Internet Draft (work in progress), Internet Engineering Task Force (17 May 1999), draft-ietf-lsma-requirements-03.txt

No context found.

Bagnall, P., Briscoe, R. and A. Poppitt, "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", RFC 2729, December 1999.

No context found.

B.Briscoe, P.Bangall, "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications" Internet draft.

No context found.

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, A. Poppitt, "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications", Internet Request for Comment 2729, December 1999.

No context found.

P. Bagnall, R. Briscoe, and A. Poppitt. Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications. RFC 2729, December 1999.

No context found.

B.Briscoe, P.Bangall, "Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications" Internet draft.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC