S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....routers) should be independent from details of specific congestion control protocols. Observe that the required generality of network support poses a challenge because different multi group protocols specify different rules for group subscription. For instance, in replicated multicast protocols [4, 5], each group of a session delivers the same content at a different rate, and a receiver reacts to congestion by switching from its only subscribed group to a slower one. On the other hand, in layered multicast protocols [2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17] groups of a session carry cumulative layers of ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.

....and feedback driven transmission adjustment constitute two di erent paradigms for multicast congestion control, they are not mutually exclusive. Combining these paradigms in one design improves fairness and eciency of bandwidth allocation in heterogeneous multicast environments [4, 8] DSG [2, 3], SIM [7] and MLDA [16] are multi group feedback driven protocols that adjust both membership and transmission rates of the groups. Table 1 classi es the mentioned prominent multicast protocols with respect to their congestion control mechanisms. 3. THREAT MODEL We de ne a threat as a ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723-736, 1996.

....r r r u rate b b b b b b b b b b 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 Error ( Number of intervals (b) Bi modal distribution r r r r r r r r r u rate b b b b b b b b b b b Figure 10. Aggregation Accuracy Among replicated schemes, the representative approach is DSG [1, 4]. Jiang et al. extended DSG to partition receivers and determine group transmission rates dynamically [10] They formulated the problem of partitioning receivers as an optimization problem by using receiver utility function u IRF (r; g) However, they used three heuristics as guidelines for ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve performance of windowcontrolled multipoint connections. Computer Communications, (19):723--736, 1996.

....the receivers in B and C subscribing to two groups, and the receivers in E subscribing to three groups. Menu adaptation is a congestion control mechanism that allows the sender to adjust its menu and enforce the group subscriptions that improve the overall performance of the multicast session. [6] uses menu adaptation to control congestion for multicast of replicated data. However, solutions based solely on menu adaptation are insufficient because they cannot simultaneously achieve scalability and efficiency in a heterogeneous and dynamic environment. The above discussion suggests that a ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.

....servers by delaying acknowledgments. In contrast, Cheriton s VMTP protocol uses the response from the server as an implicit acknowledgment. If the server response or client request is lost, the client will time out and resend the request. VMTP does not address flow and congestion control. Ammar [9, 25] improves the latency of single source, bulk data distribution by parallelizing the multicast stream. The protocol partitions the receiver set into subgroups based on throughput and delay characteristics from the source. Thus, members with high throughput will be grouped together and will ....

....In addition to feedback service, recent research focuses on layered distribution of realtime data. McCanne [68] presents the receiver driven layered multicast (RLM) protocol for distribution of hierarchically encoded [93] video streams. RLM uses a parallel approach similar to Ammar s scheme [9, 25], except each band in the video stream is multicast on a different address. Thus, slow receivers tune into low frequency image bands, whereas receivers with a fast connection tune into all bands thereby receiving the highest quality image. Li [59, 60] presents the layered video multicast with ....

S. Cheung and M. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections. Technical Report GIT-CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, August 1994.

....SRM [10] use receiver reliability, but we need to get the ACKs for deducing the rates at which the leaf node recipients are receiving packets during Phase 1. In Phase 2, one could potentially eliminate the ACKs, but the use of active routers eliminates the ACK implosion problem. Cheung and Ammar [7] cater to the dynamic bandwidth fluctuations at the receivers, by frequent splitting and merging of groups. In realistic situations, frequent splitting and merging of groups might be infeasible. Bhattacharyya et al. [4] assume that the sender has a priori knowledge of the rate constraint of each ....

S. Cheung and M. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Computer Communications, 19:723--736, 1996.

....the list of receivers. As mentioned before, the list of recipients could consist of proxy addresses and not just the IP addresses of individual hosts. On the flip side, explicit enumeration requires more router support. B. Group Splitting and Multiple Channels The work of Cheung and Ammar [11] is closely related in terms of the splitting of groups for window controlled Multipoint Connections. However, their scheme suffers from the well known ACK implosion problem. The problem of splitting is much simpler if the sender keeps track of each receiver but this inherently limits the ....

S. Cheung and M. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Computer Communications, 19:723--736, 1996.

....requirements of the receivers. Other control actions are the merging of several groups into one if their operating points become very similar over time, or conversely, the splitting of a group into several groups if the receiver characteristics within the group become too heterogeneous over time [4]. Solutions could be envisioned where receivers collude in a distributed manner to agree on an optimal menu. Again, this violates the non cooperation assumption. Instead, the menu should be the responsibility of the sender, based on feedback from the receivers of all groups that make up the ....

....next section, we outline a solution to this problem that comprises elements of per group feedback, selective participation and menu adaptation. Our goal is to demonstrate that scalable multicast congestion control does not require receiver cooperation. We note that previous work by Ammar et al. [4], 3] although not motivated by our axioms, embodies elements of our proposed solution framework. III. CONTROL MECHANISMS AND PROTOCOLS Each of the three approaches described above require that the sender and the receivers are provided with sufficient information to control their operation. Our ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:pp. 723--736, 1996.

....using multiple groups, as well as the use of FEC in reliable multicasting Use of multiple multicast groups. It is a natural idea to consider using multiple multicast groups for reliable multicasting, and it has appeared before. Previously, it has been applied to congestion control [2] [4], 13] 25] and error recovery [10] Layering has the potential to work better for loss recovery than congestion control because loss recovery does not need any synchronization with other receivers on the common path. The known uses of multiple multicast groups differ from our LMR in the ....

....groups. Ammar and Wu [2] first applied the idea of destination set grouping for improving fairness among receivers with different capabilities. Their scheme divides receivers into groups with similar capabilities; in each group, the sender transmits data at a suitable rate. Later, Cheung et al. [4] extended the work for multicasting real time video. In both cases, the receivers do not belong to more than one group. McCanne et al. 13] applied a technique called Receiver driven Layered Multicast (RLM) to control congestion in real time video transmission. The sender multicasts different ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Technical Report CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, August 1994.

....into different cell sizes based on the planar point process to limit superfluous data at the receivers. The DSG scheme divides receivers in a multicast session into disjoint group with which a source carries independent conversations. DSG research have focused on rate control in reliable multicast [5] and fairness in video distribution [6] Also, DSG applies to a one to many or single source applications. We present a generic clustering framework to accommodate preference heterogeneity for multi party applications. V. DISCUSSIONS Although the sampling heuristic greatly reduces its running ....

CHEUNG, S. Y., AND AMMAR, M. H. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal 19 (1996), 723--736.

....be supported by the Internet architecture to realize large scale multicast applications. The Destination Set Group (DSG) scheme splits receivers in a multicast session into disjoint groups with which the source carries independent conversations. Research in DSG has focused on congestion control [4, 8] and fairness in video distribution [9] Our research is on dealing with heterogeneity at the application level. DIS Researchers have been looking at using multicast groups to split entities in the virtual environment. Macedonia et al. 20] proposes dividing entities based on temporal, spatial, ....

Cheung, S. Y., and Ammar, M. H. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal 19 (1996), 723--736.

....and control overhead, especially when fine grained filtering is required. The Destination Set Group (DSG) scheme splits receivers in a multicast session into disjoint groups with which source carries independent conversations. Research in DSG have focused on rate control in reliable multicast [4, 9] and fairness in video distribution [10] with a single source. Our research provides a generic clustering protocol architecture, which also work with multiple sources. Researchers in DIS have been looking at using multiple multicast groups to partition entities in the virtual environment. ....

Cheung, S. Y., and Ammar, M. H. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal 19 (1996), 723--736.

....ARQ protocol. The source partitions receivers into groups based on the latency of their ACKnowledgements (ACKs) Their results show that for various settings of the Go Back N protocol, DSG improves the throughput of the system when there is bandwidth heterogeneity. Cheung and Ammar [9] investigate DSG in window based congestion control in a multicast environment. The authors present a static grouping algorithm that can result in near optimal partitioning for static network conditions, and a dynamic grouping algorithm that adjusts the window sizes and partitioning to changing ....

Cheung, S. Y., and Ammar, M. H. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal 19 (1996), 723--736.

....using multiple groups, use of FEC in reliable multicasting, and estimating network delays. Use of multiple multicast groups. It is a natural idea to consider using multiple multicast groups for reliable multicasting, and it has appeared before. Previously, it has been applied to congestion control [24, 25, 26, 27] and error recovery [28] Layering has the potential to work better for loss recovery rather than congestion control because loss recovery does not need any synchronization with other receivers on the common path. The known uses of multiple multicast groups differ from our LMR in the particular ....

....groups. Ammar and Wu [24] first applied the idea of destination set grouping for improving fairness among receivers with different capabilities. Their scheme divides receivers into groups with similar capabilities; in each group, the sender transmits data at a suitable rate. Later, Cheung et al. [25] extended the work for multicasting real time video. In both cases, the receivers do not belong to more than one group. McCanne et al. 26] applied a technique called Receiver driven Layered Multicast (RLM) to control congestion in real time video transmission. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of windowcontrolled multipoint connections. Technical Report CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, August 1994.

.... correlation of errors, and effectiveness of underlying IP Multicast support (whether IP Multicast can efficiently support a large number of groups or frequent membership changes, whether IP Multicast has a good scoping mechanism, and whether all receivers can also be senders) Some protocols [1, 4] explicitly take differences in receiver performance into account by sorting receivers into groups with similar loss characteristics. In router based solutions, routers are modified to assist application end points with error detection and recovery. Solutions vary from adding minimum support in ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.

....using multiple groups, use of FEC in reliable multicasting, and estimating network delays. Use of multiple multicast groups. It is a natural idea to consider using multiple multicast groups for reliable multicasting, and it has appeared before. Previously, it has been applied to congestion control [24, 25, 26, 27] and error recovery [28] Layering has the potential to work better for loss recovery rather than congestion control because loss recovery does not need any synchronization with other receivers on the common path. The known uses of multiple multicast groups differ from our MLR in the particular ....

....groups. Ammar and Wu [24] first applied the idea of destination set grouping for improving fairness among receivers with different capabilities. Their scheme divides receivers into groups with similar capabilities; in each group, the sender transmits data at a suitable rate. Later, Cheung et al. [25] extended the work for multicasting real time video. In both cases, the receivers do not belong to more than one group. McCanne et al. 26] applied a technique called Receiver driven Layered Multicast (RLM) to control congestion in real time video transmission. The sender multicasts different ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Technical Report CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, August 1994.

....mentions weighted sum as one possible approach without further evaluation. Voting is proposed in [19] for best effort delivery of video traffic in the internet; the impact of voting threshold on the performance and the optimal design of the algorithm were left as open problems. Cheung, et.al. [20] propose a Destination Set Grouping (DSG) scheme to overcome the drawback of the listen to the slowest request approach. In their scheme, the receivers could be divided into groups based on their capabilities and the source carries out as many simultaneous independent connections as the number ....

....term time average of the number of packets served by the receiver server (definition of throughput) divided by OE. with receivers of different capabilities. We should group the homogeneous receivers together and set up multicast connections based on such groups whenever possible. Cheung, et.al. [20] suggested the same idea and provided algorithms to realize such grouping; their other work ( 27] 28] suggested such grouping can also improve fairness and throughput of data link layer protocols. Fig. 7 illustrates the effect of different on off time scales for homogeneous receivers. Fig. 7b ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar, "Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections,," in Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks, pp. 388--395, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept. 1995.

....short term congestion) are handled by throttling the sender s rate immediately. TMTP, on the other hand, does not handle short term congestion at all, and does not have any congestion localization feature. Our technique also bears some similarity to Cheung and Ammar s destination set grouping [37]. The main difference is that in their scheme, the sender always forms local groups, whereas we have SAs form a local group. Hence, no extra load is imposed on the sender when local groups are created by SAs. Recovery. When persistent congestion subsides, a receiver in a local group may re merge ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections. Technical Report GIT-CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, August 1994.

....scheme can also result in higher maximum throughput either in its pure form or when combined with the Multiple Copy scheme. We have recently investigated the use of the destination set splitting technique to improve the performance of window based congestion control in a multipoint conversation [15]. We are also currently investigating the feasibility of using a splitting technique to deal with heterogeneity in receivers in a point to multipoint video distribution scenario. 18 Appendix A : Proof of Theorem 1 Consider a point m = m 1 ; m g ) that satisfies for a given g, P g ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar, "Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections," College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Technical Report GIT-CC-94-32, August 1994. 21

....and or the receivers. In a typical single rate protocol (e.g. 1] the rate is picked to match the lowest capacity receiver (or path to a receiver) In a multi rate session the sender can transmit at different rates to different receivers through layering [2, 3, 4] or destination set splitting [5, 6] In either case, there needs to be (1) criteria for the setting of the session rate(s) and the allocation of receivers to the rates (in the case of multi rate sessions) and (2) protocols for implementing the appropriate rate settings and allocations. In this paper we aim to develop a protocol to ....

S. Cheung and M. Ammar, "Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of WindowControlled Multipoint Connections," Computer Communications, vol. 19, pp. 723--736, 1996.

....and buffering to a multicast receiver to allow for individual receiver functionality. We apply these techniques to video distribution and video on demand applications, an activity that will be prevalent in the distributed laboratory environment. Examples of our work in this area can be found in [70, 71, 72, 73]. Multicast addressing. Multicast IP uses group addressing where nodes that belong to the same multicast group are made to recognize a single multicast address. A source sending multicast packets to the group uses the multicast group address as the destination address. Whereas the multicast group ....

Cheung, S. Y., Ammar, M. H., "Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Windowcontrolled Multipoint Connections," GIT, College of Computing, Tech Report GIT-CC-94-32, August 1994.

....in order to conform to usage limitations of the Mbone. In section 7 we discuss the results from several experiments that we conducted using our protocol over the Mbone. The paper is concluded in section 8. 2 Related Work This work is an extension of our work in multicast destination set grouping [12, 13]. The work in [12] investigated the performance gain of destination set grouping in the context of an ARQ protocol over a broadcast channel. In [13] we designed and implemented a destination set grouping protocol for window flow controlled connections using a binary feedback flow control method. ....

....over the Mbone. The paper is concluded in section 8. 2 Related Work This work is an extension of our work in multicast destination set grouping [12, 13] The work in [12] investigated the performance gain of destination set grouping in the context of an ARQ protocol over a broadcast channel. In [13], we designed and implemented a destination set grouping protocol for window flow controlled connections using a binary feedback flow control method. The unfairness problem has also been identified by many researchers but we are not aware of any in depth proposal and investigation for a solution. ....

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar, "Using destination set grouping to improve the performance of window-controlled multipoint connections," in Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (to appear), IEEE Computer Society, Sept 1995.

No context found.

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.

No context found.

S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996.

No context found.

S.Y. Cheung and M.H. Ammar, "Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-Controlled Multipoint Connections," Technical Report, GIT-CC-94-32, Georgia Institute of Technology, August 1994.

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