Quantitative Analysis of the Fault-Tolerance of Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) and Elastic Reliable Multicast (ERM) Protocols
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/tnc.52.2822Keywords:
Multicast, pragmatic general multicast, elastic reliable multicast, multicast-aware node, fault-toleranceAbstract
Multicast communication protocols are not immune from failures as a result of packets being dropped due to a broken link or time out processes. Therefore, it is essential to understand how these failures can affect the overall performance of multicast protocols over the Internet. This paper compares the fault-tolerance effect of two reliable multicast protocols: pragmatic general multicast (PGM) and elastic reliable multicast (ERM) in a situation where a multicast-aware node fails and the sub-nodes will have to request a repaired packet. A simulation model is developed in such a way that faults are randomly created on nodes and link for a specified period of time and the fault-tolerance effect on the two multicast protocols is analyzed. The model developed for this paper repeats the simulation for different network size, the results obtained show that the ERM protocol is better than the PGM as the size of the network increases. This finding is key while considering the improvement (or upgrade) of existing multicast protocols. The result is also significant at the early stage of designing new multicast protocols as it provides useful information in allocating scarce resource that can be appropriated to improve other infrastructure in the network.
References
(1) Kaur, K, and Sachdeva, M., Performance matrices for evaluation of multicast routing. International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM), 2012, 582-587.
(2) Strigel, A., and Manimaran, G., Managing Group Dynamics and failures in QOS Multicasting. IEEE communications, 2002. 40(6): 82-87.
(3) Unterbrunner, P., Alonso, D., and Kossmann, G., E-Cast: Elastic Multicast. Technical Report, 2011. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275716927.
(4) Mir, N., Musa, S., Torresand, R., and Swamy, S., Evaluation of PIM and CBT Multicast Protocols on Fault-Tolerance. International Journal of Computing and Networking Technology, 2014. 2(2): 59-64.
(5) Read, N., A Multicast performance evaluation between PGM and MDP-CC under varying Network Conditions, 2006. Available at
a. https://vlebb.leeds.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/orgs/SCH_Computing/FYProj/reports/0506/Read.pdf
(6) Youssef, S., Bouchaib, N., Soufiane, J., and Abdelkrim, H., Wireless Mesh Networks Capacity Improvement Using CBF. International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN), 2015. 7(3): 1-15.
(7) Baker, R. M., and Akcayol, A. A. 2011. A Survey of Multicast Routing Protocols in Ad-Hoc Networks. Gazi University Journal of Science, GU J Sci., 2011. 24(3): 451-462.
(8) Royer, E. R., and Perkins, C. E., Multicast Operation of the Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol. In Proc. of the 5th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), 1999. 207-218.
(9) Jetcheva, J. G., and Johnson, D. B., Adaptive Demand-Driven Multicast Routing in Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. In Proceeding of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Mobile and Ad-hoc Networking & Computing, 2001. 33-44.
(10) Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J., and E. L. Madruga, E. L., The Core Assisted Mesh Protocol. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on Ad-Hoc Networks, 1999. 17: 1380-1394.
(11) Lin, J., An Integrated Approach to Efficiently Providing Fault Tolerance for Mobile Multicast. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 2005, 21: 153-179
