Extending BGMP for Shared-Tree Inter-Domain QoS Multicast

  • Aiguo Fei
  • Mario Gerla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2092)


QoS support poses new challenges to multicast routing especially for inter-domain multicast where network QoS characteristics will not be readily available as in intra-domain multicast. Several existing proposals attempt to build QoS-sensitive multicast trees by providing multiple joining paths for a new member using a flooding-based search strategy which has the draw-back of excessive overhead and may not be able to determine which join path is QoS feasible sometimes. In this paper, first we propose a method to propagate QoS information in bidirectional multicast trees to enable better QoS-aware path selection decisions. We then propose an alternative ‘join point’ search strategy that would introduce much less control overhead utilizing the root-based feature of the MASC/BGMP inter-domain multicast architecture. Simulation results show that this strategy is as effective as flooding-based search strategy in finding alternative join points for a new member but with much less overhead. We also discuss extensions to BGMP to incorporate our strategies to enable QoS support.


Local Search Multicast Tree Multicast Group Virtual Link Local Search Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    K. Almeroth, “;The Evolution of Multicast: From the MBone to Inter-Domain Multicast to Internet2 Deployment,”, IEEE Network, January/February 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Apostolopoulos, S. Kama, D. Williams, R. Guerin, A. Orda, and T. Przygienda, “;QoS routing mechanisms and OSPF extensions,”, IETF RFC 2676, August 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Ballardie, “;Core based trees (CBT version 2) multicast routing: protocol specification,”, RFC2189, Septermber 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Bates, R. Chandra, D. Katz, and Y. Rekhter, “;Multiprotocol extensions for BGP-4,”, IETF RFC 2283, Feburary 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Blake, D. Black, et al., “;An architecture for differentiated services,”, RFC 2475, December1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, “;Integrated services in the Internet architecture: an overview,”, IETF RFC 1633, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, et al., “;Resource reservation protocol (RSVP)-version 1 functional specification,”, IETF RFC 2205, September 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Carlberg and J. Crowcroft, “;Quality of multicast service (QoMS) by yet another multicast (YAM) routing protocol,”, in Proceedings of HIPARCH’98, June 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Cain, S. Deering, and A. Thyagarajan, “;Internet group management protocol, Version 3,”, Internet draft: draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-v3-01.txt, Feburary 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Chen, K. Nahrstedt, and Y. Shavitt, “;A QoS-aware multicast routing protocol,”, in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM’00, March 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, et al., “;The PIM architecture for wide-area multicast routing,”, IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, Vol.4(2), pp.153–162, April 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, et al., “;Protocol independent multicast-sparse mode (PIM-SM): motivation and architecture,”, Internet draft: draft-ietf-idmr-pim-arch-05.txtps, August 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Estrin, M. Handley, and D. Thaler, “;Multicast-Address-Set advertisement and Claim mechanism,”, IETF Internet draft: draft-ietf-malloc-masc-05.txt, July 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Faloutsos, A. Banerjea, and R. Pankaj, “;QoSMIC: quality of service sensitive multicast internet protocol,”, in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’98, pp.144–153, September 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Farinacci, Y. Rekhter, D. Meyer, P. Lothberg, H. Kilmer, and J. Hall, “;Multicast source discovery protocol (MSDP),”, IETF Internet draft: draft-ietf-msdp-spec-06.txt.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Kumar, P. Radoslavov, D. Thaler, C. A laettino?glu, D. Estrin, and M. Handley, “;The MASC/BGMP architecture for inter-domain multicast routing,”, in Proceedings of ACMSIGCOMM’98, pp.93–104, September 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Moy, “;Multicast routing extensions to OSPF,”, RFC 1584, March 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Measurement and Operations Analysis Team, National Laboratory for Applied Network Research: http://moat.nlanr.net/AS/.
  19. 19.
    Oregon Route Views Project: http://www.antc.uoregon.edu/route-views/.
  20. 20.
    C. Partridge, D. Waitzman, and S. Deering, “;Distance vector multicast routing protocol,”, RFC 1075, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Thaler, D. Estrin, and D. Meyer, “;Border gateway multicast protocol (BGMP): protocol specification,”, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-02.txt, November 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Zappala, “;Alternate path routing in multicast,”, in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM’00, March 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aiguo Fei
    • 1
  • Mario Gerla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations