Obraczka K, Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 36, pp. 94-102, Jan, 1998.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... are two main approaches for achieving reliability: ACK based (sender initiated) and NACK based (receiverinitiated) Although not in the framework of CVEs, extensive studies have been done regarding these two approaches for Reliable Multicast protocols (RM) We refer the readers to the literature [9] and refrain from detailed discussion of this topic. From the above two approaches, NACK based approaches have gained wider popularity since they have been proven to out perform ACK based approaches in terms of network bandwidth and other parameters. NACK based approaches use Automatic Repeat ....

K. Obraczka, "Multicast Transport Protocols: A Survey and Taxonomy", IEEE Communications, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1998, pp. 94-102.

....A main advantage that multicast based solutions have over client server solutions is their often inherent decentralized nature. This makes these solutions particularly attractive for large scale networks, except that building scalable reliable multicasting schemes is notoriously difficult [4] [5]. Fortunately, matters improve when dealing with probabilistic schemes in which no hard guarantees are given concerning the delivery of a multicast message. If a multicast message is required to be only eventually delivered with a high probability to all current group members, it appears that ....

Katia Obraczka, "Multicast transport protocols: A survey and taxonomy," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 94--102, Jan. 1998.

....communication identifies a body of research whose goal is to provide mechanisms for reliable communication among a group of possibly remote processes, and in addition to guarantee some degree of ordering and atomicity [5] of message delivery. Under this umbrella fall reliable multicast protocols [10, 11] as well as more complex systems such as Isis [2] and Horus [20] In contrast to these goals, the main purpose of contentbased publish subscribe middleware is to distribute messages (i.e. events) to all the interested parties based on their content and to do so in a scalable and e#cient way. ....

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

....channels between the dispatcher and its clients. Similarly, some of the existing publish subscribe systems which adopt a distributed dispatcher provide a reliable service [29, 23, 3, 22, 31, 5] but none of them use a content based routing scheme. Researchers working on reliable multicast [24, 19, 16] and group communication [13, 7] proposed several protocols for reliable multicast where routing is group or subject based. Unfortunately, none of them can be adapted easily to content based routing, for the reasons discussed in Section 3. In recent years, gossip techniques have been employed ....

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

....channels between the dispatcher and its clients. Similarly, some of the existing publish subscribe systems which adopt a distributed dispatcher provide a reliable service [28, 22, 2, 21, 29, 4] but none of them use a content based routing scheme. Researchers working on reliable multicast [23, 19, 16] and group communication [13, 6] proposed several protocols for reliable multicast where routing is group or subject based. Unfortunately, none of them can be adapted easily to contentbased routing, for the reasons discussed in Section 3. In recent years, gossip techniques have been employed ....

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

....these messages, the update will be delivered to only some of the hosts in the system, destroying replica similarity. This kind of failure becomes more likely as n gets larger. The direct mail approach can be made more e#cient and more reliable by using some form of multicast to distribute updates [44]. But there are problems here, as well. First, most multicast protocols are not optimized for many to many communication environments where messages are originated by many di#erent hosts simultaneously. Those that are designed for many to many communication are largely concerned with ....

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, pages 94--102, January 1998.

....error recovery, etc. recreating the mechanisms available in TCP. Even with real time streaming, the compression representations, such as MPEG 2, make the stream loss and order sensitive, requiring the reliable transport properties. By selecting a specialized reliable multicast protocols ( 1] [2]) the developer confronts the problem that none of these protocols are widely deployed, limiting the deployment of the application or requiring that the application developer distribute the multicast transport protocol implementation along with the application. In some cases, these specialized ....

....overall time needed to collect replies . TCPSMO s design philosophy is in general consistent to theirs; in other words, TCP SMO is designed as a straightforward multicast optimization over N unicasts in terms of data delivery. Over the last decade, many reliable multicast (RM) protocols ( 1] [2]) have been designed and studied, such as SRM [20] XTP [21] LBRM [22] OTERS [23] MTP [24] PGM [25] 0 7803 7476 2 02 17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE. RMP [26] etc. This tremendous effort has obtained much better understanding of numerous issues and achieved significant progress on this topic. Some of ....

Katia Obraczka, "Multicast transport protocols: A survey and taxonomy," IEEE Communications Magazine, Jan. 1998.

....the concerned multicast applications. 1. INTRODUCTION As current IP multicast provides best effort service, reliable multicast transport service should be implemented on it. A lot of studies on the reliable multicast transport have been made over the past several years to meet such requirements[O98]. With those research works, the Tree based ACK(TRACK) protocol is one of the promising RMT protocols of which the error recovery, congestion control and other functionalities are provided over a pre configured logical ACK tree[WCK 00, WCP 00] It is known to provide high scalability as well as ....

K. Obraczka, "Multicast Transport Protocols: A Survey and Taxonomy", IEEE Communication Magazine, January 1998.

.... the reliable multicast such as the error control and congestion avoidance, and the control of multicast session such as status monitoring and session management on top of IP multicast in the networks [1] Numerous researches on the multicast transport have been made over the past 10 20 years [2], 3] Based on those works, the IETF Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Working Group [4] has been standardizing three RMT protocols: Layered Coding Transport, NACK Oriented Reliable Multicast, and Tree based ACK (TRACK) protocols. On the other hand, ITU T and ISO IEC JTC 1 have also made efforts ....

K. Obraczka, "Multicast Transport Protocols: A Survey and Taxonomy, " IEEE Communication Magazine, vol. 36, Issue1, Jan. 1998, pp. 94-102.

....of the key enabling technologies for effective research, development, and technical support of IP based EDA companies. We have adopted a novel communication paradigm, semantic multicast, as a solution to the content discovery, data dissemination, and security problems. In opposition to multicast [Obr98], here the transmitted data is analyzed at an inter network of proxies which provide the dissemination and announcement services. IP block or EDA tool Collaboration and knowledge aggregation Design and debugging Sales and technical support Semantic dissemination Hypermedia Multicast Data ....

....and automating the process of keeping track of problems, their solutions, and rationalizing their dissemination may pay big dividends. 3. UNDERLYING ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES 3. 1 Semantic Multicast The paradigm of multicasting information on the Internet has been supported by a number of protocols [Obr98]. We have conceptualized and implemented semantic multicast as a means to realize a large scale shared interaction infrastructure for seamless collection, indexing, and dissemination of data produced in multicast collaborative sessions. A collaborative session is considered to consist of two ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.36, (no.1), pp.94-102, 1998.

....functions such as leave, withdrawal, or expel. The group coordination architecture put forward in this paper assume communication based on message passing in a packet switched network. 3.3. Multicast supported Coordination Group coordination relates to multicast routing and reliable multicasting [31], because control messages must be routed among hosts in the control tree built for managing session interactions. Failed control directives must be retransmitted, similar to packet loss recovery in reliable multicast. The IP multicast model lacks support for more sophisticated addressing among ....

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94--102, Jan. 1998.

No context found.

Obraczka K, Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 36, pp. 94-102, Jan, 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communication Magazine, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka 1998. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1), 94 -- 102.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94-102, Jan. 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, pages 94--102, Jan. 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast Transport Protocols: A Survey and Taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94-102,, 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka, Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94-102,, 1998.

No context found.

Katia Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, pages 94-102, January 1998.

No context found.

Katia Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy, January 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka, Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine 36(1): 94-102, Jan 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols : A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 1997.

No context found.

K. Obraczka. Multicast transport protocols: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):94--102, January 1998.

No context found.

K. Obraczka, "Multicast Transport Protocols: A Survey and Taxonomy," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 36, pp. 94 - 102, 1998.

First 50 documents

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