A Comparative Study of Multicast Protocols: Top, Bottom, or In the Middle? (2005)
Cached
Download Links
- [www.cse.uconn.edu]
- [www.ifi.uio.no]
- [www.cs.ucla.edu]
- [www.engr.uconn.edu]
- [infpri.at.ifi.uio.no]
- [www.cse.uconn.edu]
- [www.engr.uconn.edu]
- DBLP
Other Repositories/Bibliography
| Venue: | In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI’05) in conjunction with IEEE INFOCOM’05 |
| Citations: | 3 - 1 self |
BibTeX
@TECHREPORT{Lao05acomparative,
author = {Li Lao and Jun-hong Cui and Mario Gerla and Dario Maggiorini},
title = {A Comparative Study of Multicast Protocols: Top, Bottom, or In the Middle?},
institution = {In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI’05) in conjunction with IEEE INFOCOM’05},
year = {2005}
}
Bookmark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OpenURL
Abstract
Multicast solutions have been evolving from "bottom" to "top", i.e., from IP layer (called IP multicast) to application layer (referred to as application layer multicast). Recently, there are some new proposals (named as overlay multicast) using certain "infrastructure" (composed of proxies or service nodes) in the middle. Although it is well accepted that application layer multicast and overlay multicast are easier to deploy while sacrificing bandwidth efficiency compared with IP multicast, little research has been done to systematically evaluate and compare their performance. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study of different types of multicast routing protocols. We first present a qualitative comparison of three types of protocols, and then we provide a quantitative study of five representative protocols, namely, PIM-SSM, NARADA, NICE, POM and TTOM by extensive simulations. Our studies will help to answer some of the most important questions, such as which way to go: top, bottom, or in the middle? 1
