Performance of Multirate Multicast in Distributed Network
Soumen Kanrar, Mohammad Siraj
.
DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2010.36074   PDF    HTML     4,023 Downloads   7,575 Views   Citations

Abstract

The number of Internet users has increased very rapidly due to the scalability of the network. The users demand for higher bandwidth and better throughput in the case of on demand video, or video conference or any real time distributed network system. Performance is a great issue in any distributed networks. In this paper we have shown the performance of the multicast groups or clusters in the distributed network system. In this paper we have shown the performance of different users or receivers belongs to the multicast group or cluster in the distributed network, transfer data from the source node with multirate multicast or unirate multicast by considering packet level forwarding procedure in different sessions. In this work we have shown that how the throughput was effected when the number of receiver increase. In this work we have considered the different types of queue such as RED, Fair queue at the junction node for maintaining the end to end packet transmission. In this work we have used various congestion control protocol at the sender nodes. This paper we have shown the performance of the distributed cluster network by multirate multicast.

Share and Cite:

S. Kanrar and M. Siraj, "Performance of Multirate Multicast in Distributed Network," International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 6, 2010, pp. 554-562. doi: 10.4236/ijcns.2010.36074.

The number of Internet users has increased very rapidly due to the scalability of the network. The users demand higher bandwidth and better throughput in the case of on demand video, or video conference or any real time distributed network system. Performance is a great issue in any distributed networks. In this paper we have shown the performance of the multicast groups or clusters in the distributed network system. In this paper we have shown the performance of different users or receivers belongs to the multicast group or cluster in the distributed network, transfer data from the source node with multirate multicast or unirate multicast by considering packet level forwarding procedure in different sessions. In this work we have shown that how the throughput was effected when the number of receiver increases. In this work we have considered the different types of queue such as RED, Fair queue at the junction node for maintaining the end to end packet transmission. In this work we have used various congestion control protocol at the sender nodes. This paper we have shown the performance of the distributed cluster network by multirate multicast.

1. Introduction

The users i.e. the receivers are connected to the source for transferring data or exchanging information. Here the source and the receivers are forming a network, that network is scalable i.e., in the network any new user or receiver can join. According to the real world scenario any number of existing user or receiver can leave from the cluster network can join different cluster or group.  Each cluster be from a distributed network and well connected with other network. For any particular multicast group in the distributed network, the consist members of the group run different application program and required different packet size and data rate.

The performance of the distributed network in heterogeneous system, obtained by markovian model [1] and the queuing processing delay at the junction node.

Sending packets to the destination node with the minimum cost transmission delay, multicast session network coding techniques scheme used [2]. The end to end packet transmission in a set of active elastic sessions over a network, the session traffic [3] routed to the destination node through different path. The collision free broadcasting technique used [4] to minimize the latency and the number of transmissions in the broadcast network for end to end packet transmission in the distributed cluster network. The alternative ways for end to end packet forwarding used minimal congestion feed back signals from the router [5] and split the flow between each source destination pair. In end to end packet transmission, the random delay and TCP–congestion control [6] in the network is a issue. Receiver adjusts the rate based on the congestion level in Multicast Network [7] to reduce the congestion. In the real life scenario multicast traffic can cause more packet loss than uncast traffic for example in internet. The resource allocation by the Max –min fairness [8,9] and proportional fairness can reduce the traffic load in the network. The control multicast in the Network by using TCP [10,11] reduce the traffic load in the network. The inverted tree structure implemented in IP based network with the multicast session [12,13] to achieve better performance. The TCP congestion and the effect of that on the throughput of Multicast Group have greater impact in the system network [14]. Since the data packet be transferred between the source and receiver for end to end connection. The path between the source and receiver is not peer to peer, there be at least one junction node in between them .Due to limited bandwidth in the connecting paths, and queuing delay,  data packet may be loss. The packet processing delay at the junction node (it is random service time) and the propagation time in the link be consider, the packet transmission delay at the junction node be negligible. The different receivers take data packet from the source node via the junction node (there may be more than one junction nodes in the source to receiver link). Now different receivers taken data packet with different rate in the multicast group of the distributed network in a multicast session. It is called the multirate multicast .If all the receiver node taken data packet with same rate it is called unirate multicast. Each multicast session is the collection of virtual session [15,16].

where is the jth multicast session, and n is the number of node ( receiver) clearly, cardinality()n because in a particular session all receiver may not received data packet . is the virtual session in the j-th multicast session for the ith receiver node in the multicast group. Different type of tree formed in the cluster of the distributed network like the Figures 1,2,3.

In Figure 1 there is one multicast group and one junction node, In Figure 2 there are two multicast group and two junction node In Figure 3 three multicast group and three junction node. The receiver node takes data packet from the source node via the junction node through the source to receiver link path. The different types of queue like RED, FQ, SFQ attach at the junction node to capture the packet loss and measure the delay for the multicast group in the multirate multicast session. Figure 4 represent the junction node [17].

Figure 1. One multicast group.

Figure 2. Two multicast group.

Figure 3. Three multicast group.

Figure 4. Junction node.

Figure 4 represents the junction node of the network. The packets approach the junction node randomly and the queue stored the packets. The packets stored into the queue in the order n + 1, n, n – 1… i.e., the  packet be forwarded to the processing unit after that the and be forwarded to the processing unit. In side the queue there be waiting time for each packet and each packet have random service time or processing time according to the size of the packet and the destination multicast group. By using the packet level simulation we check how the throughput, delay, packet loss how the throughput be effected by increasing the number of receiver in the multicast group. The paper is structured as follows Section 1 is introduction, Section 2 presents Proposed model Section 3 presents the algorithms for the mathematical models, Section 4 and 5 represents simulation results and the conclusion.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] S. Kanrar and M. Siraj, “Performance of Heterogeneous Network,” International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2009, pp. 255-261.
[2] Y. F. Xi and E. M. Yeh, “Distributed Algorithms for Minimum cost Multicast with Network Coding,” IEEE/ ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2009, pp. 379-392.
[3] J. Nair and D. Manjunath, “Distributed iterative optimal Resource Allocation with Concurrent updates of routing and flow control variables,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2009, pp. 1312-1325
[4] R. Gandhi, A. Mishra and S. Parthasarathy, “Minimizing Broadcast Latency and Redundancy in Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 16 No. 4, 2008, pp. 840-851
[5] H. Han, S. Shakkottai, C. V. Hollot, R. Srikant and D. Towsley, “Multi-Path TCP: A Joint Congestion Control and Routing Scheme to Exploit Path Diversity in the Internet,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1260-1271
[6] S. J. Golestani and K. K. Sabanani, “Fundamental Observations on Multicast Congestation Control in The Internet,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, New York, Vol. 2, March 1999, pp. 990-1000.
[7] X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, “Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, Vol. 3, June 1998, pp. 1062-1072
[8] A. Mankin, A. Romanow, S. Bradner and V. Paxon, “IETF Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and Application Protocols,” Networking Working Group, Internet Draft, RFC 2357, 1998.
[9] J. MO and J. Walrand, “Fair End to End Windows Based Congestion Control,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 8, No. 5, October 2000, pp. 556-557.
[10] F. P. Kelly, “Charging and Rate Control for Elastic Traffic,” European Transactions on Telecommunications, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1998, pp. 33-37.
[11] M. Handley and S. Floyd, “Strawman Congestion Control Specifications,” Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), Reliable Multicast Research Group (RMRG), 1998. http:// www.aciri.org/mjh/rmcc.ps.gz
[12] L. Rizzo, L. Vicisano and J. Crowcroft, “TCP Like Congestion Control for Layered Multicast Data Transfer,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, Vol. 3, March 1998, pp. 996-1003.
[13] I. Stoica, T. S. E. Ng and H. Zhang, “REUNITE: A Recursive Unicast Approach to Multicast,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Tel Aviv, Vol. 3 March 2000, pp. 1644-1653
[14] S. Bhattacharyya, D. Towslay and J. Kurose, “The Loss Path Multiplicity Problem in Multicast Congestion Control,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, New York, Vol. 2, March 1999, pp. 856-863.
[15] A. Chaintreau, F. Baccelli and C. Doit, “Impact of TCP-like Congestion Control on the Throughput of Multicast Grouph,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2002, pp. 500-512.
[16] S. Deb and R. Srikant “Congestion Control for Fair Resource Allocation in Networks with Multicast Flow,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2004, pp. 274-285.
[17] R. C. Chalmers and K. C. Almeroth, ”Modeling the Branching Characteristics and Efficiency Gains of Global Multicast Tree,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, Vol. 1 April 2001, pp. 449-458.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.