Agreement in Directed Dynamic Networks
We study the fundamental problem of achieving consensus in a synchronous dynamic network, where an omniscient adversary controls the unidirectional communication links. Its behavior is modeled as a sequence of directed graphs representing the active (i.e. timely) communication links per round. We prove that consensus is impossible under some natural weak connectivity assumptions, and introduce vertex-stable root components as a—practical and not overly strong—means for circumventing this impossibility. Essentially, we assume that there is a short period of time during which an arbitrary part of the network remains strongly connected, while its interconnect topology keeps changing continuously. We present a consensus algorithm that works under this assumption, and prove its correctness. Our algorithm maintains a local estimate of the communication graphs, and applies techniques for detecting stable network properties and univalent system configurations. Our possibility results are complemented by several impossibility results and lower bounds, which reveal that our algorithm is asymptotically optimal.
KeywordsDynamic Network Impossibility Result Communication Graph Consensus Algorithm Transmission Failure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Goiser, A., Khattab, S., Fassl, G., Schmid, U.: A new robust interference reduction scheme for low complexity direct-sequence spread-spectrum receivers: Performance. In: Proceedings 3rd International IEEE Conference on Communication Theory, Reliability, and Quality of Service (CTRQ 2010), pp. 15–21 (June 2010)Google Scholar
- 2.Ware, C., Judge, J., Chicharo, J., Dutkiewicz, E.: Unfairness and capture behaviour in 802.11 adhoc networks. In: 2000 IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2000. Global Convergence Through Communications (2000)Google Scholar
- 3.Kuhn, F., Oshman, R., Moses, Y.: Coordinated consensus in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: Agreement in directed dynamic networks. CoRR abs/1204.0641 (2012)Google Scholar
- 5.Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: Solving k-set agreement with stable skeleton graphs. In: IPDPS Workshops, pp. 1488–1495 (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Afek, Y., Gafni, E., Rosen, A.: The slide mechanism with applications in dynamic networks. In: ACM PODC, pp. 35–46 (1992)Google Scholar
- 7.Awerbuch, B., Patt-Shamir, B., Peleg, D., Saks, M.E.: Adapting to asynchronous dynamic networks. In: STOC 1992, pp. 557–570 (1992)Google Scholar
- 11.Kuhn, F., Lynch, N., Oshman, R.: Distributed computation in dynamic networks. In: ACM STOC, pp. 513–522 (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Biely, M., Charron-Bost, B., Gaillard, A., Hutle, M., Schiper, A., Widder, J.: Tolerating corrupted communication. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2007), pp. 244–253. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Gafni, E.: Round-by-round fault detectors (extended abstract): unifying synchrony and asynchrony. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 143–152. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
- 18.Peleg, D.: Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics ans Applications, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar