1 / 51

Scalable Group Communications and Systematic Group Modeling

Scalable Group Communications and Systematic Group Modeling. Jun-Hong Cui University of Connecticut jcui@cse.uconn.edu http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~jcui. Cool Application 1 : Teleconferencing. Cool Application 2 : Telemedicine. Cool Application 3 : Net Gaming. Multicast: What and How?.

odessa
Télécharger la présentation

Scalable Group Communications and Systematic Group Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scalable Group Communications and Systematic Group Modeling Jun-Hong Cui University of Connecticut jcui@cse.uconn.edu http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~jcui

  2. Cool Application 1 : Teleconferencing

  3. Cool Application 2 : Telemedicine

  4. Cool Application 3 : Net Gaming

  5. Multicast: What and How? • Multicast: • One to many or many to many communications (group communications) • To achieve multicast: • Multiple unicast (one to one) • Network multicast---IP multicast • Overlay multicast (using proxies) • Application layer multicast (end host)

  6. Outline of this talk • Scalable Group Communications --- Aggregated Multicast • Systematic Group Modeling --- GEM Model • Research Directions

  7. group NHop g1 Ab, A3 Domain B A2 B1 Domain A Ab Aa A3 A1 Domain C X1 Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D IP Multicast • Group: IP D class address • Use Tree delivery structure • Routers: keep forwarding entries per-group/source (multicast state) • IP multicast • Resource efficient • Scalable to group size

  8. group NHop Domain B g1 Ab, A3 A2 B1 g2 Domain A Ab, A3 Ab Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D The Problem: Not Scalable to the Number of Groups • More groups  more trees • More forwarding entries • More tree maintenance overhead • IP multicast NOT scalable to the number of groups • State Scalability problem • Serious in transit domains • Our solution • Aggregated multicast to improve state scalability

  9. group NHop Domain B g1 Ab, A3 A2 B1 g2 Domain A Ab, A3 Ab Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D Key Insight • There are many overlaps among multicast trees in transit domains

  10. Tree NHop Domain B T1 Ab, A3 A2 B1 Domain A Ab Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D Aggregated Multicast • Key idea: • Force multiple groups share a single delivery tree (aggregated tree) • Benefits: • Reduce state at core routers • Reduce tree maintenance overhead • Push complexity to edge • Target: • Multicast provisioning in transit domains

  11. Tree NHop Domain B T1 Ab, A3 A2 B1 Domain A De-aggregation Ab Aa A3 De-aggregation Aggregation A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D Aggregated Multicast (cont.) • Core routers: • Keep state per-tree • Edge routers: • Keep group state • Groups: • Aggregate at incoming edge router • De-aggregate at outgoing edge routers

  12. Tree NHop Domain B T1 Ab, A3 A2 B1 Domain A Ab DiscardPackets Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D Perfect Match vs. Leaky Match • Group-Tree match • Perfect match • Leaky match • Bandwidth waste in leaky match • Data delivery to non-member nodes

  13. Aggregation Control • Leaky match • Good for tree aggregation • But waste bandwidth • There is a trade-off • Static group-tree matching: NP hard • A dynamic group-tree matching algorithm to control the trade-off • Under a given bandwidth waste threshold

  14. Group-Tree Matching Domain B Domain E E1 A2 B1 Domain A A4 Ab Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D

  15. Domain B Domain E E1 A2 B1 Domain A A4 Ab Aa A3 A1 X1 Domain C Y1 C1 Domain X Domain Y D1 Customer Networks, Domain D Group-Tree Matching

  16. Implementation Issues • Multiplex multiple groups over a shared tree • IP encapsulation • MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) • Tree management and group-tree matching • Tree Manager (need to know group membership) • Distributed or centralized solutions • Have designed and implemented protocols: • ASSM for source specific multicast (SSM) • BEAM for shared tree multicast (ASM) • AQoSM for QoS multicast provisioning

  17. Extend to Overlay and Adhoc Net • Overlay multicast • Implement multicast in overlay net • A collection of proxies (or gateways) • Processing power, memory & bandwidth more critical • Aggregated multicast reduces management overhead • Wireless multicast • Implement multicast in wireless adhoc net • No infrastructure, self-organized • Energy, memory, bandwidth, resilience very critical • Aggregated trees help to improve performance

  18. Overlay Network

  19. Adhoc Network

  20. Outline of this talk • Scalable Group Communications --- Aggregated Multicast • Systematic Group Modeling --- GEM Model • Research Directions

  21. The Problem: Group Modeling • The locations of the group members • Given a graph, where should we place them? • Current assumptions: uniform random model (unproven) • All members uniformly distributed • Not realistic for many applications

  22. Group Modeling is Critical • Some studies have shown the locations of members have significant effects on • Scaling properties of multicast trees • Aggregatability of multicast state • Performance of state reduction schemes • Realistic group models • Improve effectiveness of simulation • Guide the design of protocols

  23. Our Contributions • Measure real group membership properties • MBONE (IETF/NASA) and Netgames (Quake) • Design a model to generate realistic membership • GEneralized Membership Model (GEM) • Use Maximum Enthropy: a statistical method

  24. Roadmap • Membership Characteristics • Measurement and Analysis Results • Model Design and Validation

  25. Beyond Uniform Random Model • How close are the members in a group? • Are all the members same in group participation? • What are the correlations between members in group participation?

  26. Member Router Edge Router An Illustration (Teleconference) Seattle 0.7 Boston 0.5 Internet 1.0 Atlanta 0.4 Los Angeles 0.5

  27. Membership Characteristics • Member clustering • Capture proximity of group members • Use network-aware clustering method • Group participation probability • Show difference among members/clusters • Pairwise correlation in group participation • Capture joint probability of two members/clusters • Use correlation coefficient (normalized covariance)

  28. Measure Membership Properties • MBONE applications (from UCSB) • IETF-43 (Audio and Video, Dec. 1998) • NASA Shuttle Launch (Feb. 1999) • Cumulative data sets on MBONE (1997-1999) • Net Games (using QStat) • Quake I (query master server) • Choose 10 most popular servers (May. 2002) • Examine three membership properties

  29. Member Clustering MBONE cumulative data sets (3, 0.64) MBONE real data sets Net game data sets CDF of cluster size for MBONE and net games

  30. Group Participation Probability CDF of participation probability for Net Game data sets

  31. Group Participation Probability CDF of participation probability for MBONE applications

  32. Pairwise Correlation in Group Participation CDF of correlation coefficient for Net Game data sets

  33. Pairwise Correlation in Group Participation CDF of correlation coefficient for MBONE applications

  34. Generalized Membership Model--- GEM (An Overview) Network topology Cluster method Group behavior Distr. of participation prob. Distr. of pairwise correlation Distr. of member cluster size Inputs 1. Create clusters in given topology 2. Select clusters as member clusters According to input distributions 3. Choose nodes for each member clusters GEM Desired number of multicast groups that follow the given distributions Outputs

  35. Member Distribution Generation • Definition: K clusters: C1 , C2 , … , Ci , … , CK Prob. pi for any i in [1, K] Joint prob. pi,jfor any i, j in [1, K] X=(X1 ,X2 , … , Xi , … , Xk): Xiis a binary indicator Xi = 1 if Ci is in the group Xi = 0 if Ci is not in the group • Objective: Generate vectors x=(x1 , x2 , … , xk) satisfying P(Xi = 1) = pi and P(Xi = 1 , Xj = 1) = pi,j

  36. Maximum Entropy Method • To calculate the distribution of (X1,X2, …, Xk) requires O(2K) constraints • But we only know O(K+K2) constraints • We use Maximum Entropy Method • Entropy is a measure of randomness • We construct a maximum entropy distr. p*(x) • Satisfy constraints in specified dimensions • Keep as random as possible in unconstrained dimensions • i.e. maximize entropy while match given constraints

  37. Three Cases Considering P(Xi=1)= pi and P(Xi=1, Xj=1)=pi,j • Uniform distr. without correlation (easy) pi,j = pi * pj , and pi = pj • Non-uniform distr. without correlation (easy) pi,j = pi * pj , but pi = pj not necessary • Non-uniform distr. with pairwise correlation Neither pi,j = pi * pjnor pi = pj necessary Need to calculate the maximum entropy distr. p*(x) Entropy decreases from case 1 to case 3

  38. Experimental Validation • Consider all membership properties • Consider three cases • Figures omitted … • Our experiments show • GEM can regenerate groups satisfying given distributions (from real measurement)

  39. Summary • Uniform random model • Can capture net games approximately • But not realistic for MBONE applications • GEM: a generalized membership model • Three cases (case 1: uniform random model) • Realistic membership can be regenerated • Beyond multicast • Peer-to-peer network modeling • Beyond wired network • Wireless adhoc networks, sensor networks …

  40. Outline of this talk • Scalable Group Communications --- Aggregated Multicast • Systematic Group Modeling --- GEM Model • Research Directions

  41. Networking: Expanding Visions (from Jim Kurose)

  42. Peer-to-Peer Networking

  43. Peer-to-Peer Networking Focus at the application level

  44. Applications & Challenges • Applications • P2P file sharing (Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, etc.) • Application-layer multicast • Characteristics • each node potentially same responsibility, functionality • logical connectivity rather than physical connectivity • Why P2P? • High resource utilization (bandwidth, memory, CPU) • Challenges • Self-organized and large scale (routing) • Reliability and security

  45. Research Directions • Overlay multicast • Scalability, QoS, security, pricing, … • Multicast modeling • Systematic multicast evaluation • Peer-to-peer networks • measurement & modeling, complex queries • Wireless adhoc networks • Mobility modeling, scalable multicast • Sensor networks • Sensor deployment and security • Very large scale sensor network design

  46. Questions? jcui@cse.uconn.edu http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~jcui

  47. THANKS!!!

  48. Network Characteristics • No fixed infrastructure, instantly deployable • Node portability, mobility • Error-prone channel • Limited resources • bandwidth, energy supply, memory and CPU. • Heterogeneous nodes • big/small; fast/slow etc • Heterogeneous traffic • voice, image, video, data • Wireless multihop connection • to save power, overcome obstacles, enhance spatial spectrum reuse, etc

  49. The maximum entropy distr. p*(x) is the solution for: Subject to and and Calculate the Maximum Entropy Distribution Use lagrange multipliers and numerical method to construct p*(x), Then Gibbs Sampler to sample it

  50. Group Participation Probability Participation probability distribution for IETF43-Video

More Related