Advertisement

Performance Comparison of Active Network-Based and Non Active Network-Based Single-Rate Multicast Congestion Control Protocols

  • Y. Darmaputra
  • R. F. Sari
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3124)

Abstract

This paper presents the comparisons of two single-rate multicast protocol, Active Error Recovery/Nominee Congestion Avoidance (AER/ NCA) and Pragmatic General Multicast Congestion Control (PGMCC). Both protocols use worst receiver mechanism, NACK-based feedback, and window-based transmission rate adjustment. AER/NCA is implemented using the new Active Networks technology, while PGMCC is implemented using the traditional passive network.

We discovered from the simulation results that both protocols are TCP-friendly. The implementation of active networks causes many computations to be done in the network so that it would degrade network performance. However, in high loss rates network, active networks technology could provide fast recovery to loss packets.

Keywords

Loss Rate Active Network Propagation Delay Active Node Round Trip Time 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kasera, S., Bhattachayya, S., Keaton, M., Kiwior, D., Zabele, S., Kurose, J., Towsley, D.: Scalable Fair Reliable Multicast Using Active Services. IEEE Network 14(1), 48–57 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rizzo, L.: pgmcc: a TCP-friendly Single-rate Multicast Congestion Control Scheme. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 2000, Stockholm, Swedia, August 2000, pp. 17–28 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iannaccone, G., Rizzo, L.: Fairness of a single-rate multicast congestion control scheme. In: Palazzo, S. (ed.) IWDC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2170, p. 309. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ortiz Jr., S.: Active Networks: The Programmable Pipeline. IEEE Computer Technology News, 19–21 (August 1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel, A.: Active Network Technology: A Thorough Overview of Its Application and Its Future. IEEE Potentials (February/March 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolf, T., Choi, S.Y.: Aggregated Hierarchical Multicast for Active Networks. In: Proc. of the 2001 IEEE Conference on Military Communications (MILCOM), McLean, VA (October 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tennenhouse, D., Wetherall, D.: Towards an Active Network Architecture. Computer Communication Review 26(2), 5–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehman, L., Garland, S., Tennenhouse, D.: Active Reliable Multicast. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 1998, San Fransisco, USA, November 2000, pp. 581–589 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mark, G.: Marc Greis Tutorial for the UCB-LBNL-VINT Network Simulator, at http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/tutorial/index.html (September 9, 2003)
  10. 10.
    The Network Simulator NS-2, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
  11. 11.
    Fall, K., Floyd, S.: Simulation-based Comparisons of Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP. ACM Computer Communications Review 26(3), 5–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Darmaputra
    • 1
  • R. F. Sari
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Information and Communications Engineering Research Electrical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Indonesia 

Personalised recommendations