Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006 1
Tudor Mihai Blaga, G. Lazar, B. Moraru & V. DobrotaTechnical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania E-mail: {tudor.blaga, gabriel.lazar, bogdan.moraru, virgil.dobrota}
@com.utcluj.ro
Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate Technology and Native Multicast
2Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
I. IntroductionII. Alternative Group Communication
Services:I. CastGateII. CastGate RouterIII. CastGate Router with PIM-SM
III.Evaluating CastGateIV. Conclusion
Agenda
Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006 3
I. Introduction
4Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Introduction
Multicast provides better use of network resources in the case of media streamingLack of multicast deployment:
technical reasons (high complexity)marketing reasons (no customers)
Native multicast requires:IGMP and MLD for host managementrouting protocols PIM (Protocol Independent Multicast) DVMRP, MOSPF, CBT
AGCS Alternative Group Communication Servicesaddress lack of multicast and limitations of multicast (AAA)
Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006 5
II. Alternative Group Communication Services
CastGateCastGate RouterCastGate Router with PIM-SM
6Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
AGCS
AGCS – Alternative Group Communication Servicetunneling (UMTP)overlay multicasting (Narada)group specific routing services (Xcast)
CastGate:transition technology, seamless access to multicastbased on Enhanced UMTP (UDP Multicast Tunneling Protocol)
CastGate architecture:CastGate Tunnel ClientCastGate Tunnel ServerCastGate Tunnel Database Server
7Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate Client
TunnelDatabase
Server
TunnelServer
MulticastInternet
UnicastInternet
UMTP Tunnel
UMTP Tunnel
UMTP Tunnel
End Host
CastGateTunnelClient
End Host
End Host
CastGateTunnelClient
CastGateTunnelClient
8Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate Router
TunnelServer
MulticastInternet
UnicastInternet
UMTP TunnelEnd Host
CastGateRouter
End Host
End Host
UnicastRouter
9Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate with PIM-SM
Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006 10
III. Evaluating CastGate
CastGate ClientCastGate RouterCastGate with PIM-SMNative multicast
11Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Evaluating CastGate
Metrics:stress – for multicast value is 1resource usage:
di delay of link i, si stress of link i, L number of linksstretch or relative delay penaltycontrol overheadjoin latency or time to first packet
Delay on all links has relative value of 1Each LAN segment is considered one link
∑==
L
iii sdR
1*
12Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate Client
13Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate Router
14Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate with PIM-SM (worst case)
15Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
CastGate with PIM-SM (best case)
16Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Native multicast
17Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Evaluation Results
Stress evaluated on each linkR1-R2 – s1R2-R3 / R2-R4 – s2/s3R3-c1…c4/R3-c5…c7/R4-c8…c11/R4-c12-c16 – s4/s5/s6/s7
Values for s1 the highestCastGate with PIM-SM
2-8 times more efficient
comparable with native multicast
18Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Evaluation Results
Resource usage if di = 1:CastGate Client R = 17 + 8 + 8 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 49CastGate with PIM-SM resource usage
5 times less than CastGate Client, 2 times less than CastGate Router15% more than native multicast
Stretch determined from R1Higher for CastGate Router and CastGate with PIM-SM
∑==
7
1iisR
Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006 19
IV. Conclusion
20Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Conclusion
All CastGate based solutions were evaluatedEvaluated metrics: stress, resource usage and stretchCastGate with PIM-SM is more efficient
stress 4-8 times lessresource usage
2-5 times less more by 15% than native multicast
Stretch higher for CastGate Router and CastGate with PIM-SM because data crosses the same link twiceResult must be confirmed by practical experiments
control overheadjoin latency
21Tudor Mihai Blaga – Performance Metrics for AGCS Applied to CastGate and Native MulticastSibiu, June 1-3, 2006
Thank you!
