Abstract

Problem statement: Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an acceptable solution for current multicast applications; since the driving applications to date are one to many, including Internet TV, distance learning, file distribution and streaming media. Approach: It was useful for billing, address allocation and security. SSM still had serious state scalability problem when there were a large number of simultaneous on-going multicast groups in the network. Results: In this study, a scheme had been devised to improve the state scalability of source specific multicast. The scheme consisted of two stages: Conclusion/Recommendations: The first stage was to cluster the receivers based on their IP addresses and the second stage was to reduce the multicast state at routers. In order to prove the correctness of the proposed scheme, it had been applied to multicast trees built by other researchers. The results of the comparison approved our statement.

Highlights

  • IP multicast has existed since Stephen Deering established the model (called Any-Source Multicast (ASM)) in 1988[1]

  • In the IP multicast service model, a group of receiver hosts can be identified by a single class D IP group address

  • Receivers can dynamically join and leave the group. Such a service model provides a powerful abstraction for applications as end hosts can utilize the service without having to keep track of the membership of the group. It is the responsibility of IP multicast routing protocols to maintain the membership information and to build multicast distribution trees to deliver packets from a sender to all the receivers in a group

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

IP multicast has existed since Stephen Deering established the model (called Any-Source Multicast (ASM)) in 1988[1]. In the IP multicast service model, a group of receiver hosts can be identified by a single class D IP group address. Receivers can dynamically join and leave the group Such a service model provides a powerful abstraction for applications as end hosts (senders and receivers) can utilize the service without having to keep track of the membership of the group. It is the responsibility of IP multicast routing protocols to maintain the membership information and to build multicast distribution trees to deliver packets from a sender to all the receivers in a group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call