Review-12

From: Pravin Bhat (pravinb@u.washington.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 07:53:34 PST

  • Next message: Karthik Gopalratnam: "PIM Review"

    Paper summary: The paper proposes a new multicast architecture, Protocol Independent
    Multicast (PIM), that unlike existing alternatives performs well in face of sparsely
    distributed group members across wide areas allowing the technology to potentially
    support multicast messaging over the entire internet.

    Paper strength:
    The paper clearly explains the motivations behind the need for a new multicast
    architecture. The current flooding based techniques or the techniques that rely on
    reconstructing the network topology (SPT) at each router cannot be efficiently
    scaled to work in large networks. However these techniques work well for multicast
    sessions that involve large fractions of the leaf nodes in a network. PIM tries to
    strike a balance between SPT based unicast messaging and large group multicast messaging
    by dynamically trying to group regions with dense distributions of group members
    into a shared routing tree minimizing extraneous transmissions and at the same
    time sparsely populated regions are served using a SPT based tree to minimize
    flooding in these regions.

    Limitations and Areas for improvement:
    The authors claim that one of the major motivations for the deployment of
    PIM over Core Based Trees (CBT) is that in practice the paths used by a single
    shared tree tends to be up to 1.4 times longer than the paths that might be used
    if a source specific SPT were to be constructed. However PIM cannot avoid such
    path inflation anyway considering that its goal is to support multicasting for
    wide areas spanning several ISPs/domains. Setting up all that state in intra-domain
    routers to ensure multicast packets inside a domain are routed along optimal routes
    might not be of much help when potentially one early-exit during inter-domain
    routing could override any performance gains from using PIM.

    Along the same lines the authors claim that using CBT causes greater traffic
    concentrations in certain links. However the use of preset Rendezvous Points
    and designated routers in PIM can cause similar stress in links connected to
    these high traffic points. Concentration of traffic does not provide a strong
    motivation for using PIM over CBT since this phenomenon is also common with
    popular servers and several technologies(CDN, rotating DNS entries) exist to
    solve this issue. It's easy to imagine generating several multicast shared trees
    for each domain which are assigned in a round-robin fashion when different groups
    want to start a multicast session thus distributing the load evenly over the
    entire domain.

    Also its not clear how a receiver can know when to initiate a shortest-path
    distribution without knowing ahead of time how many hosts from its current
    domain have already joined the multicast session. At the same time authors
    do not really explain how the first hop routers decide when to switch
    between SPT trees and shared trees.

    I was surprised to see that paper didnt provide an empirical comparision of PIM
    and any of other multicast routing techniques. I wasnt even sure if they had
    a working system at the time of writing the paper as they provide no numbers
    on the runtime performance of PIM. Overall I felt the paper could have done a
    better job of explaining the PIM architecture. At times various sections in
    the paper were hard to follow and didnt make a lot of sense.

    Relevance and Future work:
    Any significant work on multicasting protocols is bound to be relevant in terms
    of providing efficient services for the types of applications that are gaining
    popularity over the internet. Media broadcasts, teleconferencing, services that
    involve flash crowds can all use an efficient multicast technology to significantly
    reduce the amount of redundant traffic in the internet. The last paper we read
    suggested that P2P traffic accounts for majority of the traffic over the internet
    today and will continue to gain prominence in the years to come. One can see how
    the combination of multicast protocols and tornado codes could potentially
    minimize the amount of bandwidth that is wasted from having numerous users download
    the same file across P2P networks.

    For future work, the authors need to deploy PIM over several domains and compare
    its performance to existing technologies.


  • Next message: Karthik Gopalratnam: "PIM Review"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Nov 10 2004 - 07:53:38 PST