1 / 15

RVS Seminar SS 2002

RVS Seminar SS 2002. Performance Simulation of a Multicast Protocol for Small Conferences. Today‘s Presentation. The Diploma Thesis Multicast for Small Conferences The ns-2 Network Simulation Software Status Simulation Questions / Discussion. Diploma Thesis.

rafi
Download Presentation

RVS Seminar SS 2002

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. RVS Seminar SS 2002 Performance Simulation of a Multicast Protocol for Small Conferences

  2. Today‘s Presentation • The Diploma Thesis • Multicast for Small Conferences • The ns-2 Network Simulation Software • Status • Simulation • Questions / Discussion

  3. Diploma Thesis • Performance Simulation of a Multicast Protocol for Small Conferences • Part I: Building/Modifying ns-2 Modules • Part II: Performance Simulation

  4. Multicast for Small Conferences Report IAM-00-008 (T. Braun) Topic: Definition of a scalable multicast concept that can be used for small conferencing groups in the internet (especially telephone/audio conferences). Goal: Reduction of routing table overhead (compared to native multicast)

  5. MSC packet format • IPv6 destination address field contains unicast address of the nearest recipient • an IPv6 routing header carries the unicast addresses of all other recipient plus the multicast address

  6. MSC end systems / gateways • On sending: creation of an MSC packet • On receiving: • copy the multicast address into the destination field • remove the routing header • forward to higher level protocols / local receiver group • if more unicast addresses are present: remove own address, re-send the packet

  7. MSC routers • Non-MSC routers: ignore routing header • MSC-capable routers • analyse destination field and routing header • split address list and duplicate packet if members are reached via different outgoing interfaces • duplicate packet if a branch occurs after a few hops - but how does the router know this?

  8. The ns-2 Network Simulator • De facto standard simulation software for academic research • Part of the VINT (Virtual InterNet Testbed) project (USC/ISI); current version developed since 1995 • Website: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/

  9. ns-2 technology • Simulation scripts in OTcl • Coded in OTcl and C++ • analysis: tracefiles • visualization: NAM (Network Animator)

  10. ns-2 advantages • Extensive documentation (~350 pages) • Some additional tutorials • Marc Greis’s Tutorial on ns-2 • ns-2 by Example • lots of users worldwide, mailing list (archive) • specialized modules for LAN, mobile networking, satellite networking, ad-hoc networking

  11. ns-2 disadvantages • mixed coding in OTcl/C++ makes the code hard to understand • very few useful comments in the code • frequent changes in the software, documentation not always up to date • structure sometimes illogical (no real-world components)

  12. Completed Work • PART I: • ns-2 agent (sender/receiver) for end system MSC simulation • ns-2 classifier for MSC router simulation • (almost) classifier to simulate an MSC/native multicast gateway • PART II: real-world data for the simulation (topology, delays, routing)

  13. Real-World Topology • Backbone networks: Switch, Géant (Europe), Garr (Italy), Abilene (USA) • End systems: University web servers • Delays measured using ping and traceroute from different looking glasses • Transformation into an ns-2 topology with 77 nodes

  14. Next step: Simulation • Parameters: group size, group distribution (clustering), number/distribution of MSC-capable routers • comparison with native Multicast/explicit Multicast in terms of bandwidth usage, delay, protocol overhead

  15. Questions / Discussion

More Related