On Runtime Adaptation of Application-Layer Multicast Protocol Parameters

  • Christian Hübsch
  • Christoph P. Mayer
  • Oliver P. Waldhorst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6164)


Reasonable choice of protocol parameters is crucial for the successful deployment of overlay networks fulfilling given service quality requirements in next generation networks. Unfortunately, changing network conditions, as well as changing application and user requirements may invalidate an initial parameter choice during the lifetime of an overlay. To this end, runtime adaptation of protocol parameters seems to be a promising solution–however, it is not clear if protocol parameters can be adjusted dynamically at runtime in a distributed setting. In this paper, we show–using the NICE application layer multicast protocol as an example–that runtime adaptation of protocol parameters is indeed feasible. We propose an algorithm for adapting the NICE clustersize parameter k dynamically at runtime and discuss the impact on service quality. Our simulations show that runtime adaptation of NICE protocol parameters is promising for service improvement and that data latencies can be optimized by up to 25% without increasing the overhead significantly for most of the nodes.


Service Quality Data Packet Data Latency Overlay Network Overlay Structure 
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.


  1. 1.
    Banerjee, S., Bhattacharjee, B., Kommareddy, C.: Scalable Application Layer Multicast. In: Proc. Conf. on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (SIGCOMM 2002), October 2002, vol. 32, pp. 205–217 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgart, I., Heep, B., Krause, S.: OverSim: A Flexible Overlay Network Simulation Framework. In: Proc. 10th IEEE Global Internet Symp. (GI 2007) in conjunction with IEEE INFOCOM, May 2007, pp. 79–84 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan, J., Ammar, M.H.: Dynamic Topology Configuration in Service Overlay Networks: A Study of Reconfiguration Policies. In: Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2006), April 2006, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hosseini, M., Ahmed, D.T., Shirmohammadi, S., Georganas, N.D.: A Survey of Application-Layer Multicast Protocols. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 9(3), 58–74 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jelasity, M., Babaoglu, O.: T-Man: Gossip-based Overlay Topology Management. In: Brueckner, S.A., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Hales, D., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESOA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3910, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, J., Stribling, J., Morris, R., Kaashoek, F.M.: Bandwidth-efficient Management of DHT Routing Tables. In: Proc. 2nd conference on Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NDSI 2005), May 2005, vol. 2, pp. 99–114 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, J., Stribling, J., Morris, R., Kaashoek, F.M., Gil, T.M.: A Performance vs. Cost Framework for Evaluating DHT Design Tradeoffs under Churn. In: Proc. 24th IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2004), August 2005, vol. 1, pp. 225–236 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mao, Y., Loo, B.T., Ives, Z., Smith, J.M.: Mosaic: Unified declarative platform for dynamic overlay composition. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT 2008), December 2008, pp. 883–895 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tran, D.A., Hua, K., Do, T.: ZIGZAG: An Efficient Peer-to-Peer Scheme for Media Streaming. In: Proc. 22th IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2003), March 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1283–1292 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hübsch
    • 1
  • Christoph P. Mayer
    • 1
  • Oliver P. Waldhorst
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of TelematicsKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)Germany

Personalised recommendations