The Trade-offs of Multicast Trees and Algorithms
draft-ietf-idmr-mtree-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(idmr WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Deborah Estrin , Liming Wei | ||
| Last updated | 1995-03-22 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Multicast trees can be shared across sources (shared trees) or may be source-specific (shortest path trees). Inspired by recent interests in using shared trees for interdomain multicasting, we investigate the trade-offs among shared tree types and source specific shortest path trees, by comparing performance over both individual multicast group and the whole network. The performance is evaluated in terms of path length, link cost, and traffic concentration. We present simulation results over a real network as well as random networks under different circumstances. One practically significant conclusion is that member- or sender-centered trees have good delay and cost properties on average, but they exhibit heavier traffic concentration which makes them inappropriate as the universal form of trees for all types of applications.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)