How bad is reliable multicast without local recovery?

We examine the impact of the loss recovery mechanisms on the performance of a reliable multicast protocol. Approaches to reliable multicast can be divided into two major classes: source-based recovery, and distributed recovery. For both classes we consider the state of the art: for source-based reco...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Nonnenmacher, J., Lacher, M., Jung, M., Biersack, E.W., Carle, G.
Format: Tagungsbericht
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We examine the impact of the loss recovery mechanisms on the performance of a reliable multicast protocol. Approaches to reliable multicast can be divided into two major classes: source-based recovery, and distributed recovery. For both classes we consider the state of the art: for source-based recovery, a type 2 hybrid ARQ scheme with parity retransmission; for distributed recovery, a scheme with local multicast retransmission and local feedback processing. We further show the benefits of combining the two approaches and consider a type 2 hybrid ARQ scheme with local retransmission. The schemes are compared for up to 10/sup 6/ receivers under different loss scenarios with respect to network bandwidth usage and completion time of a reliable transfer. We show that the protocol based on local retransmissions via type 2 hybrid ARQ performs best for bandwidth and latency. For networks, where local retransmission is not possible, we show that a protocol based on type 2 hybrid ARQ comes close to the performance of a protocol with local retransmissions.
ISSN:0743-166X
2641-9874
DOI:10.1109/INFCOM.1998.662906