Share This Article:

Self Organizing Communities: Enhancing Cooperation through Competition

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2870KB) PP. 303-315
DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2014.78033    2,121 Downloads   2,440 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

One of the open issues in today’s networking world is efficient content retrieval, storage, and provision. Numerous studies have been carried out in order to optimize the distribution and provision of content to end users. This is emphasized in today’s mobile networks that the ubiquity of network resources is considered an expected fact. In this paper we propose an architecture that is based on node co-operation that enhances the content distribution and retrieval. The architecture consists of the formation of loosely coupled and autonomous communities among nodes that share common interests where the already existing content is shared in a “common pool”. The co-operation is enforced by the acquisition of extra bandwidth that is distributed to the most helpful members. The autonomic aspect of the communities is based on the embedded mechanisms for cluster behavior, namely, voting, where the nodes decide themselves which members should be awarded, and reporting, where misbehaving nodes are removed from the community. In this paper the different elements of the architecture will be described, together with a theoretic study of its viability, and finally a set of simulations that evaluate its performance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Glentis, A. , Kypriadis, D. and Alonistioti, N. (2014) Self Organizing Communities: Enhancing Cooperation through Competition. International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences, 7, 303-315. doi: 10.4236/ijcns.2014.78033.

References

[1] Ahmed, R. and Boutaba, R. (2009) Plexus: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Protocol Enabling Efficient Subset
Search. IEEE/ ACM Transactions on Networking, 17, 130-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2008.
2001466
[2] Kottkamp, M., Rossler, A., Schlienz, J. and Schütz, J. (2011) LTE Release 9 Technology Introduction Whitepaper.
[3] Dobson, S., Denazis, S., Fernández, A., Gaiti, D., Gelenbe, E., Massacci, F., Nixon, P., Saffre, F., Schmidt, N. and Zambonelli, F. (2006) A Survey of Autonomic Communications. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 1, 223-259.
[4] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white
_paper_c11-520862.pdf
[5] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
[6] Chun, B.-G., Chaudhuri, K., Wee, H., Barreno, M., Papadimitriou, C.H. and Kubiatowicz, J. (2004) Selfish Caching in Distributed Systems: A Game-Theoretic Analysis. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, New York, 21-30.
[7] Inaltekin, H. and Wicker, S. (2008) The Analysis of Nash Equilibria of the One-Shot Random-Access Game for Wireless Networks and the Behavior of Selfish Nodes. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 16, 1094-1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2007.909668
[8] Chao, S.-L., Lin, G.-Y. and Wei, H.-Y. (2008) Mixed Altruistic and Selfish Users in Wireless Mesh Networks: A Game Theoretic Model for Multihop Bandwidth Sharing. Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, New York, 461-462.
[9] Milan, F., Jaramillo, J.J. and Srikant, R. (2006) Achieving Cooperation in Multihop Wireless Networks of Selfish Nodes, Proceeding from the 2006 Workshop on Game Theory for Communications and Networks, New York, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1190195.1190197
[10] Hu, J. and Burmester, M. (2006) Lars: A Locally Aware Reputation System for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, New York, 119-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1185448.1185475
[11] Hwang, J., Shin, A. and Yoon, H. (2008) Dynamic Reputation-Based Incentive Mechanism Considering Heterogeneous Networks. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Performance Monitoring and Measurement of Heterogeneous Wireless and Wired Networks, New York, 137-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1454630.1454651
[12] Molina, B., Pileggi, S.F., Esteve, M. and Palau, C.E. (2009) A Negotiation Framework for Content Distribution in Mobile Transient Networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 32, 1000-1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2009.03.007
[13] Eger, K. and Killat, U. (2008) Bandwidth Trading in Bittorrent-Like p2p Networks for Content Distribu-
tion. Computer Communications, 31, 201-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2007.08.005
[14] Han, S.C. and Xia, Y. (2009) Optimal Node-Selection Algorithm for Parallel Download in Overlay Content-Distribution Networks. Computer Networks, 53, 1480-1496.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2009.01.011
[15] Lloret, J., Garcia, M., Bri, D. and Diaz, J.R. (2009) Study and Performance of a Group-Based Content Delivery Network. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 32, 991-999.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2009.03.008
[16] Adar, E. and Huberman, B.A. (2000) Free Riding on Gnutella.
[17] Stutzbach, D. and Rejaie, R. (2006) Understanding Churn in Peer-to-Peer Networks. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, New York, 189-202.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 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.