Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Available online 7 November 2005.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Abstract
Previous multicast research often makes commonly accepted but unverified assumptions on network topologies and group member distribution in simulation studies. In this paper, we propose a framework to systematically evaluate multicast performance for different protocols. We identify a series of metrics, and carry out extensive simulation studies on these metrics with different topological models and group member distributions for three case studies. Our simulation results indicate that realistic topology and group membership models are crucial to accurate multicast performance evaluation. These results can provide guidance for multicast researchers to perform realistic simulations, and facilitate the design and development of multicast protocols.
Keywords: Multicast; Performance evaluation; Topology models; Group membership models; Power-law
Article Outline
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Related work
- 3. The systematic and realistic performance evaluation framework
- 3.1. Models and parameters
- 3.2. Case studies
- 3.2.1. SBT vs. CBT
- 3.2.2. Multicast state scalability
- 3.2.3. Application-layer multicast: Narada vs. NICE
- 3.3. Metrics of interest
- 3.3.1. Routing performance
- 3.3.2. Multicast efficiency
- 3.3.3. State scalability
- 3.3.4. Link stress
- 3.3.5. Control overhead
- 4. Simulation results
- 4.1. Simulation setup
- 4.2. Multicast routing algorithms
- 4.2.1. AS-level topologies
- 4.2.1.1. Delay ratio
- 4.2.1.2. Cost ratio
- 4.2.1.3. Efficiency
- 4.2.2. Router-level topologies
- 4.2.2.1. Delay ratio
- 4.2.2.2. Efficiency
- 4.2.3. Group membership distributions
- 4.3. Multicast state scalability
- 4.4. Application-layer multicast
- 4.4.1. AS-level topologies
- 4.4.1.1. Delay ratio
- 4.4.1.2. Link stress ratio
- 4.4.1.3. Cost ratio and control overhead ratio
- 4.4.2. Router-level topologies
- 4.5. Lessons learned
- 5. Conclusion
- 5.1. Future work
- References
- Vitae






E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links

Cited By in Scopus (1)







