Citations: of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis - Herzog, Shenker, Estrin, the (ResearchIndex)

37 citations found. Retrieving documents...

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: An axiomatic analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1995.

Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check

This paper is cited in the following contexts:

First 50 documents

Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design - Sami (2003) (1 citation) (Correct)

....chapter describes joint work with Joan Feigenbaum, Arvind Krishanmurthy, and Scott Shenker; parts of it were reported in [FKSS03, AFK 03] Aaron Archer provided valuable comments. 23 problem of cost sharing for Internet multicast transmissions. In the first paper on the topic, Herzog et al. HSE97] considered axiomatic and implementation aspects of the problem. Subsequently, Moulin and Shenker [MS01] studied the problem from a purely economic point of view. Several more recent papers [FPS01, AR02, FGHK02, MT02] adopt the distributed algorithmic mechanism design approach, which augments a ....

....mechanism. If the charging mechanism were being designed by a monopoly network operator, then one might expect the goal to be maximizing revenue. There have been some recent investigations of revenuemaximizing charging schemes for multicast (see, e.g. FGHK02] but here we assume, as in [HSE97, MS01, FPS01, AR02] that the charging mechanism is decided by society at large (e.g. through standards bodies) or through competition. Competing network providers could not charge more than their real costs (or otherwise their prices would be undercut) nor less than their real costs (or else ....

Shai Herzog, Scott Shenker, and Deborah Estrin. Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: an axiomatic analysis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):847--860, December 1997.

Counting the Number of Members in Multicast Communication - Filali, Asaeda, Dabbous (2002) (Correct)

....whose optimal values largely depend on the network and members conditions. Second, they allow only the source to estimate the group size but not intermediate routers which may be useful for supporting some mechanisms such as bandwidth sharing strategies [20] and multicast pricing policies [16, 17]. Third, these methods are not scalable because of the use of periodic signaling messages from members to senders even when there is no change on the group membership. The work described in this paper is a complementary component of our architecture for bandwidth sharing between unicast and ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin, Sharing the cost of multicast trees: an axiomatic analysis, IEEE/ACM TON, V. 5, No. 6, pp. 847-860, 1997.

Performance Analysis and Pricing in Broadband Networks - Siris (Correct)

....by allowing multiple receivers share the same delivery tree. The problem of pricing such connections is related to how one can assess the total amount of resources used by a multicast tree, how these are allocated to individual receivers, and what accounting mechanisms are required (e.g. see [HSE95] Furthermore, the problem of pricing multicast connections is also related to the higher layer costs, such as the cost of content, which may outweigh the costs of network transport. Caching is very important for improving the performance of the World Wide Web, and much research is being ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees:an axiomatic analysis. In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM'95, pages 315--327, Cambridge, MA, USA, August 1995.

Survey of Multicast Routing Algorithms and Protocols - Paul, Raghavan (2002) (2 citations) (Correct)

....such as webcasting. However a pricing model based on membership size is proposed for sparse mode multicast. The bandwidth used by a multicast transmission is not directly attributable to a single receiver. Thus, there is a need for ways to distribute the cost among the various receivers. [15] suggests a One Pass mechanism whereby the accounting control messages make a single pass from the source down the multicast tree to all receivers. Nodes allocate costs to members as the accounting message passes through them. The information used to make the allocation decisions comes from two ....

Shai Herzog, Scott Shenker, Deborah Estrin, "Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis", in ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, August 1995, Vol. 25, pp. 315-327.

Admission Control and Routing: Theory and Practice - Gawlick (1995) (3 citations) (Correct)

....communication. However, we point to some related work. The RSVP protocol 93] is a signalling mechanism for admission control. The RSVP protocol assumes the existence of a separate mechanism that makes the actual admission control decisions. Other related work by Herzog, Shenker, and Estrin [HSE95] provides a mechanism for distributing the cost associated with a multicast tree among the members of the multicast group. Such a mechanism might be useful as a component of a cost based admission control algorithm. An influential set of distributed multicast protocols was developed by Deering ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: An axiomatic analysis. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '92, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1995.

Pricing Multicasting in More Practical Network Models - Adler, Rubenstein (2002) (5 citations) (Correct)

....than they would be willing to pay. If such a receiver drops out of the multicast session, the remaining receivers would be charged more than if a lower, acceptable price had been o ered to the exiting receiver. An alternative approach to pricing that has received considerable attention recently [10, 15, 17, 21, 22] is to have each receiver place a bid for the content. The network uses these bids to determine the set of receivers that obtain the content, as well as the price these accepted receivers pay. The price charged to an accepted receiver can be no more than its bid, but for reasons discussed below, ....

....ecient algorithms for the Marginal Cost mechanism, as well as algorithms and lower bounds on the eciency of algorithms for the Shapley Value mechanism. In this paper, we address the model used for the work in this area. In particular, the previous work on pricing mechanisms for multicasting [10, 15, 17, 21] uses a transmission model with a number of simplifying assumptions. We here address two of these assumptions: 1) that there is only one possible rate of transmission of the multicast session, and (2) that multicasting is possible at every node of the network at no cost. Both multiple rate ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis. Transactions on Networking, December 1997.

Receiver-Based Multicast Scoping: A new cost-conscious join/leave .. - George (1997) (3 citations) (Correct)

....of the incremental cost it is incurring by joining and remaining in a multicast session. The issue of cost allocation among multicast receivers and of pricing multicast sessions is a complex one and is outside the scope of this paper. For an excellent treatment of one aspect of this topic see [9]. We argue, however, that the receiver based scoping mechanism is an important tool that can be used in determining cost allocation and pricing strategies. A receiver s cost over the time it is a member of a session is a function of two parameters: ffl The receiver s MRR and how it varies over ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin, "Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: An axiomatic analysis," in Computer Communications Review, Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 95, pp. 315--327, August 1995.

Pricing Multicast Communication: A Cost-Based Approach - Chuang (2001) (73 citations) (Correct)

....with N R N H , since some of the hosts may be attached to common routing nodes. The sender would choose multicast over unicast as long as Pm , which is equal to (N 0.8 R ) P u , is less than N H P u . 3.2. Other issues This paper does not address the issue of cost allocation and settlement [15], except by noting that receiver initiation does not necessarily imply that the charges have to be split among the receivers. There are many instances in telephony, for example, where the payment party is different from the initiating party. Assigning all multicast charges to the sender would ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker and D. Estrin, Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: an axiomatic analysis, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1995).

Pricing Multicasting in More Practical Network Models - Adler, Rubenstein (2001) (5 citations) (Correct)

....be charged more than they would be willing to pay. By dropping out of the multicast session, the charge levied upon the remaining receivers would be more than if a lower, acceptable price had been o ered to the exiting receiver. An alternative pricing strategy that has received attention recently [9, 14, 20, 21] is to have each receiver place a bid for the content. After considering all bids, the network determines the set of receivers that receive the content, as well as the price these accepted receivers pay. The price charged to an accepted receiver can be no more than its bid, but for reasons ....

....on the eciency of algorithms for the Shapley Value mechanism. In this paper, we study the e ect on the complexity of realizing pricing mechanisms of incorporating two practical considerations into the network model. In particular, the model of [9] similar to that used in other related work [14, 20], makes two simplifying assumptions: 1) they assume that every recipient either receives a full bandwidth version of the multicast session or nothing, and (2) they assume that multicasting is possible at every node of the network at no cost. We here consider a network model that removes these ....

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis. Transactions on Networking, December 1997.

Charging Multicast Communications Based on a Tree Metric - Einsiedler, Hurley.. (1999) (4 citations) (Correct)

....is needed at every multicast router in order to provide fair distribution of cost, and this information needs to be passed to the edge. For this we propose a message which will carry this information down along a multicast tree. Ways to share the cost of a multicast tree are analysed in [22]. Our scheme can be considered to be Local members and next hops are allocated identical hops (see [22] in their notation which is a one pass mechanism. We do not require the total number of receivers downstream from each multicast router to be known; just its branching information. We share ....

....needs to be passed to the edge. For this we propose a message which will carry this information down along a multicast tree. Ways to share the cost of a multicast tree are analysed in [22] Our scheme can be considered to be Local members and next hops are allocated identical hops (see [22]) in their notation which is a one pass mechanism. We do not require the total number of receivers downstream from each multicast router to be known; just its branching information. We share the cost fairly amongst subtrees and not among total receivers. Cost division into areas facilitates ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin, "Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis," in Proceedings of ACM/SIGCOMM'95, Aug. 1995.

The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair .. - Anshelevich.. (2004) (1 citation) Self-citation (Cost) (Correct)

No context found.

Shai Herzog, Scott Shenker, Deborah Estrin. Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Dec. 1997.

Cost Sharing Methods for Multicast Services and.. - Eiji Takahashi Takaaki (2001) Self-citation (Sharing Cost) (Correct)

....and a group far from the source node would be formed. The former group is in the area where hop count from the source is less than the dividinghop count, and the latter group is in the area where hop count from the source is larger than the dividinghop count. Forinstance, the dividinghop count is [ 2], where m = 2 and Hmax is the maximum hopcount in the multicast tree. 4 Simulation Model 4.1 Tra#cMo paper, we use two tra#c models, a continuous broadcast model and a re ular broadcast model, in order to determine whether the simulation results depend on tra#c models or not. a) Co tinuo1 ....

Shai Herzog, Scott Shenker,and Deborah Estrin, "Sharing the "Cost" of Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis." IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 847--860, December 1997.

A Scalable Overlay Multicast Architecture for Large-Scale.. - Lao, Cui, Gerla (2004) (Correct)

No context found.

S. Herzog, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. Sharing the "cost" of multicast trees: An axiomatic analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1995.

Charging for Packet-switched Network Communication -.. - Karsten, Schmitt.. (2000) (2 citations) (Correct)