Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
tian zhenyu
 -- 1816 2023-10-24 13:24:21 |
2 Format correct
Wendy Huang
 Meta information modification 1816 2023-10-24 13:40:12 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Tian, Z.; You, J.; Hu, L. Multicast Joining Node Selection Method. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50737 (accessed on 06 July 2024).
Tian Z, You J, Hu L. Multicast Joining Node Selection Method. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50737. Accessed July 06, 2024.
Tian, Zhenyu, Jiali You, Linlin Hu. "Multicast Joining Node Selection Method" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50737 (accessed July 06, 2024).
Tian, Z., You, J., & Hu, L. (2023, October 24). Multicast Joining Node Selection Method. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50737
Tian, Zhenyu, et al. "Multicast Joining Node Selection Method." Encyclopedia. Web. 24 October, 2023.
Multicast Joining Node Selection Method
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/fi15050156

Network layer multicast is a powerful method for transmitting data from sources to multiple group members. When joining a multicast group, a group member first sends a request to a designated router (DR). Then, the DR selects a node in the existing multicast tree (known as a multicast joining node, or MJN) to establish a multicast distribution path from the MJN to itself. The MJN selection method runs on the DR and has a significant impact on the distribution of the multicast tree, that directly affects the load distribution in the network. However, the current MJN selection method cannot effectively detect the load status of the downlink multicast path in the case of asymmetric routing, leading to network congestion and limiting the number of multicast groups that the network can accommodate (multicast capacity). 

network layer multicast multicast joining node asymmetric routing multicast capacity IP multicast ICN multicast

1. Introduction

With the continuous advancement of multimedia technology, the volume of traffic generated by multimedia applications, such as online meetings and live video broadcasts, has been increasing steadily [1][2][3]. Multicast is a data transmission method that transmits packets along a distribution tree from data sources to a set of receivers by simply replicating the packets at branches of the multicast distribution tree [4][5][6]. Thus, multicast can effectively save network resources and improve bandwidth utilization. Multicast technology can be divided into network layer multicast, application layer multicast, and link layer multicast. Compared with the other two technologies, network layer multicast has greater scalability, as it has the ability to effectively avoid redundant data transmission and cover a wider network range. As a result, network-layer multicast has always been an important research topic.
According to Cisco’s annual internet report [7], the number of devices connected to the internet worldwide is expected to increase by 50% from 2018 to 2023. With the growth in the number of network devices, the number of multicast groups on the network is also expected to increase. In multicast technology, the multicast capacity, which refers to the number of multicast groups that the network can accommodate, is a very important indicator. The multicast capacity signifies the throughput and efficiency of the network, and is an important measure of the scalability of multicast technology. The selection method of multicast joining nodes (MJNs) has a significant influence on multicast capacity. When joining a multicast group, a group member first sends a request to a designated router (DR). Then, the DR selects a node in the existing multicast tree (known as a multicast joining node, or MJN) to establish a multicast distribution path from the MJN to itself. The MJN selection method running on the DR has a significant impact on the distribution of the multicast tree, which directly affects the load distribution in the network, and thus has a considerable impact on multicast capacity [8][9][10].
The main challenge faced by MJN selection methods is how to effectively detect the path load status between MJN and DR, especially in the case of asymmetric routing [4][8][9]. Due to the fact that asymmetric routing has become a common feature of networks, more and more multicast technologies are adopting a downlink multicast path to ensure the quality of multicast data transmission [1][11][12][13]. The establishment of downlink paths means that the multicast path is the shortest path from MJN to DR, which ensures that data can be transmitted from the multicast tree to the receiver with the shortest delay. In contrast to the downlink path, the uplink path means that the multicast path is the shortest path from DR to MJN, and multicast data will not be transmitted from the multicast tree to the receiver with the shortest delay, leading to a deterioration in the quality of multicast service. In order to establish low-load downlink multicast paths, DR must consider asymmetric routing when detecting multicast path load status, otherwise the load status of the upstream path will be detected, resulting in incorrect detection results. However, few existing MJN selection methods consider this. This defect makes it difficult for existing MJN selection methods to achieve good results in real environments. In addition, MJN selection methods should have low latency and distributed characteristics for practical engineering deployment.

2. Traditional IP Multicast and Existing ICN Multicast

In traditional TCP/IP multicast, WAVE [13] is an important MJN selection method that influences many multicast mechanisms [14][15][16][17].
This method requires the DR to first send a request to the root of the multicast tree. When the multicast tree root receives the request, it will forward the request along the multicast tree. Each multicast tree node that receives the request will reply to the DR with a probe message, that will collect the load status information along the way. Upon receiving the probe messages, the DR can understand the load status of the downlink multicast paths, and then select the path with the lowest load to join the multicast tree. This method is essentially a greedy method that selects the path with the lowest load to join the multicast tree each time. It can effectively deal with situations where the routing is asymmetric. However, because it requires probing all of the nodes on the multicast tree, this method can lead to long multicast service delays, heavy network loads, and difficulty in deploying in engineering environments.
In order to meet the deployment requirements in engineering environments, many mature TCP/IP multicast techniques directly select the root node of the multicast tree as the MJN. Among them, some multicast technologies construct source trees, in which the root node of the multicast tree is located at the data source. Therefore, the MJNs of these multicast technologies are data sources, such as PIM-SSM [18], PIM-DM [19], MOSPF [20], etc. There are also some multicast technologies that construct shared trees, in which the root node of the multicast tree is located at the core or Rendezvous Point(RP). Therefore, the MJNs of these multicast technologies are all cores or RPs. These MJN selection methods cannot consider the network load status, which may easily lead to network load congestion and limit the scalability of multicast.
In ICN, routing is based on the content name rather than the IP address. This name-based routing allows receivers to request data from any position on the multicast tree, which is beneficial for optimizing the path of multicast data transmission [21][22][23][24]. The following is an introduction to some of the MJN selection methods used in ICN multicast technologies.
ILDM [25] is a multicast technology based on ICN. This technology proposes a path-state-aware MJN selection method. The method requires the control plane to calculate the path from MJN to DR and to detect various load statuses. Upon obtaining the load status of the downlink multicast path, the control plane returns the MJN with the lowest path load to DR. The MJN selection method of ILDM is essentially the same as WAVE, both of which adopt a greedy strategy to select the path with the lowest load to join the multicast tree. The difference is that the path detection of WAVE is distributed, while ILDM utilizes the control plane. ILDM can effectively deal with asymmetric routing issues. However, ILDM is a centralized MJN selection mechanism, that requires the control plane to perform a large amount of calculation, resulting in long multicast service delays and high pressure on the central node.
Classic ICN solutions, such as DONA [26], CCN [27], and NDN [28][29] inherently support multicast. The multicast mechanism of these solutions aggregates identical data requests by preserving existing data forwarding paths, thus supporting multicast services. When selecting MJN in these multicast solutions, they essentially choose the node closest to the receiver. Data request packets sent by the receiver will be forwarded in the network according to specific rules, and the first node that has the requested data will become the MJN. This method is advantageous in shortening data forwarding paths, but it cannot perceive the network’s load state, which can lead to congestion.
As a famous ICN solution, PURSUIT [30] also proposes a multicast mechanism. The multicast mechanism in PURSUIT relies on the topology manager (TM). TM in PURSUIT encodes the forwarding path in the Bloom filter of the data packet. When the data packet reaches a forwarding node, the forwarding node only needs to perform an “AND” operation between the label of the outgoing link and the Bloom filter in the data packet. If there is any match, the data packet is forwarded through the corresponding link. Multicast transmission can be achieved by simply encoding the entire multicast tree into a single Bloom filter. This multicast method relies on the central management node TM. However, this method does not take into account the issue of routing asymmetry when calculating multicast trees. Moreover, the centralized calculation method is not conducive to improving multicast scalability.
NOMA [31] is a multicast communication mechanism designed based on MobilityFirst. NOMA uses Global Name Resolution Service (GNMRS) as a mapping between identifiers and address locators. NOMA first assigns a unique name to each network node; all entities interested in receiving data from a multicast stream can register their unique name in GNMRS. Then, the multicast service manager near the gateway uses this information to construct a multicast tree based on available resources and the desired size of the tree. Then, recursively, the names of each branch router in the multicast tree are mapped to the multicast group identifier in GNMRS. Similar to ILDM, PURSUIT, etc., the construction and maintenance of the multicast tree in NOMA depends on the multicast management node. However, this method does not take into account the issue of routing asymmetry when calculating multicast trees. Moreover, the centralized calculation method is not conducive to improving multicast scalability. At the same time, when the multicast membership changes, this method requires recalculation of the multicast tree, which can have a significant impact on the quality of multicast services.
In addition, there are many methods attempting to construct Steiner trees to the balance network load and improve multicast capacity. These methods include algorithms based on genetic algorithms [14][15][32], taboo search [33], greedy randomized adaptive search process [16][34], simulated annealing [17][35], and other ideas. Many of these algorithms also use greedy strategies proposed in WAVE [14][15][16][17]. However, a common problem with these algorithms is that they rely on centralized computing paradigms and involve a large number of iterative calculations. This can lead to significant service delays and central node performance bottlenecks, which hinder the scalability of multicast. In addition, they have not been able to address the issue of routing asymmetry.
In summary, some of the existing MJN selection methods are unable to consider the asymmetry of routing, such as most TCP/IP multicast protocols; some methods have high multicast processing delays and heavy network loads, such as WAVE; and some methods use a centralized computing paradigm, that is not conducive to improving multicast scalability, such as ILDM, PURSUIT, and NOMA. Therefore, there is a need for an MJN selection method that fully considers the asymmetry of routing, has low latency, and distributed characteristics.

References

  1. Latif, A.; Parameswaran, R.; Vishwarupe, S.; Khreishah, A.; Jararweh, Y.; Alenezi, A.H. MediaFlow: Multicast Routing and In-Network Monitoring for Professional Media Production. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2022, 19, 1862–1875.
  2. Farshad, A.; Nilsson, M.; Appleby, S. Adaptive media streaming over IP multicast (mABR) a data analytic evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Design, Deployment, and Evaluation of Network-Assisted Video Streaming, Rome, Italy, 9 December 2022.
  3. González, C.C.; Pizzi, S.; Murroni, M.; Araniti, G. Multicasting over 6G Non-Terrestrial Networks: A Softwarization-based Approach. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2023, 18, 91–99.
  4. Bhattacharjee, S.; Acharya, T.; Bhattacharya, U. Cognitive radio based spectrum sharing models for multicasting in 5G cellular networks: A survey. Comput. Netw. 2022, 208, 108870.
  5. Harrabi, S.; Jaafar, I.B.; Ghedira, K. Survey on IoV Routing Protocols. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2023, 128, 791–811.
  6. Bousbaa, F.Z.; Kerrache, C.A.; Lagraa, N.; Hussain, R.; Yagoubi, M.B.; Tahari, A.E.K. Group data communication in connected vehicles: A survey. Veh. Commun. 2022, 37, 100518.
  7. Cisco.cisco 2022 Annual Report. Available online: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/annual-reports.html (accessed on 10 February 2023).
  8. Kamran, R.; Jha, P.; Kiran, S.; Karandikar, A. A Survey on Multicast Broadcast Services in 5G and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2022 National Conference on Communications (NCC), Mumbai, India, 24–27 May 2022.
  9. Ahlawat, P.; Tyagi, K. Scalable Rekeying Using Linked LKH Algorithm for Secure Multicast Communication. In Advances in Malware and Data-Driven Network Security; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 112–126.
  10. Diab, K.; Yassini, P.; Hefeeda, M. Orca: Server-assisted Multicast for Datacenter Networks. In Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22), Renton, WA, USA, 4–6 April 2022.
  11. Oliveira, P.; Silva, A.; Valadas, R. HPIM-DM: A fast and reliable dense-mode multicast routing protocol. In IET Networks; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023.
  12. Li, L.S.; Chi, H.I.; Xie, K.C.; Chan, D.Y. Mobility-Sensitive Multicast Protocol in NEMO. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. 2022, 16, 1994–2017.
  13. Biersack, E.; Nonnenmacher, J. WAVE: A new multicast routing algorithm for static and dynamic multicast groups. In NOSSDAV; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.
  14. Guler, E.; Karakus, M.; Ayaz, F. Genetic algorithm enabled virtual multicast tree embedding in Software-Defined Networks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2023, 209, 103538.
  15. Palmieri, N.; Serianni, A. A proposal of a heuristic QoS multicast routing for multi-layer wireless architecture. In Proceedings of the Autonomous Systems: Sensors, Processing and Security for Ground, Air, Sea and Space Vehicles and Infrastructure 2022, Orlando, FL, USA, 3 April–13 June 2022; Volume 12115, pp. 83–91.
  16. Babu, S.; Parthiban, A.R.K. DTMR: An adaptive distributed tree-based multicast routing protocol for vehicular networks. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2022, 79, 103551.
  17. Meng, R.; Wan, J.; Xu, B.; Li, F.; Wang, W.; Li, Z.; Wang, C. CGM2: Carrier-Grade Minimalism Multicast with Stateless Explicit Path. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 23rd International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR), Taicang, China, 6–8 June 2022.
  18. Bhattacharyya, S.; Diot, C.; Giuliano, L.; Rockell, R.; Meylor, J. An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM). RFC 3569. Available online: https://www.hjp.at/doc/rfc/rfc3569.html (accessed on 17 April 2023).
  19. Adams, A.; Nicholas, J.; Siadak, W. Protocol Independent Multicast-Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised). RFC 3973. Available online: https://www.hjp.at/doc/rfc/rfc3973.html (accessed on 17 April 2023).
  20. Pan, Y.; Lyu, N.; Yang, C. GOR: Group-oblivious multicast routing in airborne tactical networks under uncertainty. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2022, 207, 103509.
  21. Rafique, W.; Hafid, A.S.; Cherkaoui, S. Complementing IoT Services Using Software Defined Information Centric Networks: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 23545–23569.
  22. Karim, F.A.; Aman, A.H.M.; Hassan, R.; Nisar, K. A Survey on Information-Centric Networking with Cloud Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2022, 2022, 7818712.
  23. Nour, B.; Sharif, K.; Li, F.; Biswas, S.; Moungla, H.; Guizani, M.; Wang, Y. A survey of Internet of Things communication using ICN: A use case perspective. Comput. Commun. 2019, 142–143, 95–123.
  24. Farhan, K.A.; Abdel-Fattah, F.; Altarawneh, F.; Lafi, M. Survey paper on multicast routing in mobile ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Jordan International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT), Amman, Jordan, 9–11 April 2019.
  25. Li, B.; Wang, J. An Identifier and Locator Decoupled Multicast Approach (ILDM) Based on ICN. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 578.
  26. Barakabitze, A.A.; Xiaoheng, T.; Tan, G. A Survey on Naming, Name Resolution and Data Routing in Information Centric Networking (ICN). Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Commun. Eng. 2014, 3, 8322–8330.
  27. Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Raychaudhuri, D.; Ravindran, R. A comparative study of MobilityFirst and NDN based ICN-IoT architectures. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Heterogeneous Networking for Quality, Reliability, Security and Robustness, Rhodes, Greece, 18–20 August 2014.
  28. Fahrianto, F.; Kamiyama, N. Comparison of migration approaches of ICN/NDN on IP networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Fifth International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), Gorontalo, Indonesia, 3–4 November 2020.
  29. Baccelli, E.; Mehlis, C.; Hahm, O.; Schmidt, T.C.; Wählisch, M. Information centric networking in the IoT: Experiments with NDN in the wild. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking, Paris, France, 24–26 September 2014.
  30. Fotiou, N.; Nikander, P.; Trossen, D.; Polyzos, G.C. Developing information networking further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT. In Broadband Communications, Networks, and Systems: 7th International ICST Conference, BROADNETS 2010, Athens, Greece, 25–27 October 2010, Revised Selected Papers 7; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
  31. Li, G.; Mishra, D.; Jiang, H. Cooperative NOMA with incremental relaying: Performance analysis and optimization. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 11291–11295.
  32. García, G.; Pinto-Roa, D.P. Multicast routing and virtual network function placement in NFV-SDN networks: A genetic algorithms approach. In Proceedings of the 2022 Latin America Networking Conference, Armenia, Columbia, 19–20 October 2022; pp. 10–17.
  33. Qi, X.; Chen, Y.; Jian, R.; Wang, J. Two-level-enforced security with hybrid precoding for multicast massive MIMO wiretap systems. Phys. Commun. 2022, 54, 101817.
  34. Wang, X.; Xing, H.; Song, F.; Luo, S.; Dai, P. Dynamic Multicast-oriented Virtual Network Function Placement with SFC Request Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2022 14th International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), Chongqing, China, 10–12 June 2022; pp. 81–88.
  35. Lakhlef, I.E.; Djamaa, B.; Senouci, M.R. A comprehensive study of multicast routing protocols in the Internet of Things. In Artificial Intelligence and Its Applications: Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Its Applications (2021), Hefei, China, 28–29 October 2021; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Computer Science, Information Systems
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Zhenyu Tian
,
Jiali You
,
Linlin Hu
View Times: 158
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 24 Oct 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback