Type the Title of Your Paper, Capitalize First Letter from Each Word Except for the Following List (at, around, by, after, along, for, from, of, on, to, with, without, for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so, a, an, & the) (Use 18 Times New Roman; Bold) 177 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 © Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers http://asrjetsjournal.org/ Qualitative Analysis of an Unreliable Hybrid Multicast Protocol (UHMP) Okonkwo Obikwelu Raphaela, Anthony C. Achuenub* aDepartment of Computer Science, Nnamdi Azikwe University, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria bDepartment of Computer Science, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Edo State, Nigeria aEmail: atcbusiness2009@gmail.com bEmail: tonynayou2003@yahoo.com Abstract Protocol Independent multicast Sparse mode (PIM SM) and Protocol independent multicast Dense Mode (PIM DM) uses a best effort method of propagating data along a multicast distribution tree, but the difference between them is that in PIM SM, leafs interested sends join message to the stud which in turn sends to the Rendezvous Point source (RPS) or source and the distribution tree is created, while in PIM DM the RPS or source sends a flood message to the stub nodes which then forward it to leaf nodes and leaf nodes that are not interested sends a prune message. In the hybrid multicast protocol (UHMP) being proposed the stub nodes originates the flood message to the leaf and uninterested leaf sends prune message, any stub that has one or more interested leaf sends a join message to the RPS. A simulation model was developed to mimic the behaviour of PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP in different network size using hierarchical network and the control bandwidth overhead (CBO) for each of the multicast protocols was calculated, the CBO was use as the cost metric. The result shows that the UHMP uses less CBO than PIM DM both in a sparsely and densely populated network. While the differences in CBO usage between UHMP and PIM SM was not noticeable in sparse mode, UHMP however uses less CBO then PIM in a dense mode scenario. Keywords: PIM SM; PIM DM; Unreliable multicast; Hybrid multicast; join; flood and prune. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Corresponding author. http://asrjetsjournal.org/ American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 178 1. Introduction Flooding or Network wide broadcasting is the process in which one node sends a packet to all other nodes in the network. Many applications as well as various unicast routing protocols such as Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), and Location Aided Routing (LAR) use broadcasting or a derivation of it. The principal use of flooding in these protocols is for Location Discovery and for establishing routes [1]. The main advantage of unreliable multicast protocols is that it uses less control bandwidth overhead (CBO) since it does not guarantees that a receiver in the group either receives all data packets transmitted, but this does not guarantee that the multicast protocols CBO will not be much, because as the number of nodes increases, the total number of CBO messages sent also increases, hence the need to use a proposed model where the stub nodes ( a node before the leaf nodes) act as temporary RPS and this stub nodes generates flood/prune message towards leafs connected to them and a join/ prune message towards the Main RPS /source if any of the stub’s leaf is interested in receiving a multicast stream. This paper is organized into four parts: Sections 2, describes related work in view to reducing the control bandwidth overhead cost. Sections 3, discuss the methodology use . While Section 4, focuses on the performance analysis of the propose multicast protocol against the existing PIM SM and PIM DM protocol. 1.1. Related Work The need to reduce the control bandwidth overhead when setting up, maintaining and tearing down a multicast distribution tree necessitated [1], to propose an Optimized Flooding Protocol (OFP), based on a variation of The Covering Problem, which is encountered in geometry, to minimize the unnecessary transmissions drastically and still be able to cover the whole region. They concluded that OFP does not need hello messages and hence OFP saves a significant amount of wireless bandwidth and incurs lesser overhead. The author [2], proposed an efficient hybrid multicast routing protocol suitable for high mobility applications and it addresses the scalability issue of ODMRP protocol by separating data forwarding path from join query forwarding path, they incorporated a low overhead local clustering technique to classify all nodes into core and normal categories. When multicast routes to destination nodes are unavailable, join-query messages are sent to all nodes in the network and data packets are forwarded by the core nodes to the destination nodes using Differential Destination Multicast by [3]. The author [4], gave a general overview on multicast protocols in Ad Hoc Networks, describing how they work, showing the reasons for developing these protocols and comparing the protocols to explain the advantages and limitations. Flooding and prune is one technique use to set up, maintain and tear down the multicast tree, in a multicast network, but it is discovered to have some draw backs such as contention, because neighboring nodes tend to retransmit flood message, redundant retransmission can also occur where node re-broadcast a flood message to American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 179 other nodes that have already received it especially in flooding a wireless network based CSMA/CA as illustrated by [5]. 1.2. Materials and Methods A video stream from source to RPS was created using Microsoft encoder to IIS stream server, stub nodes were also created from which leafs (users) can connect to the RPS, as illustrated in figure 1 Figure 1: Model / Architecture of the proposed unreliable Hybrid Multicast Protocol (UHMP) Leaf send prune message to stud nodes if not interested Stud sends flood/prune to the leaf node Leaf send Ack message to stud nodes if interested Leaf send Ack message to stud nodes if interested Stud sends join/prune to the RPS node Stud sends flood/prune to the leaf node Stud sends flood/prune to the leaf node Stud sends join/prune to the RPS node Source sends the multicast data RPS STUD LEAF LEAF LEAF SOURCE STUD American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 180 When the leafs initiate the multicast process it behaves as a PIM SM and when the source /RPS initiate the multicast process it acts as a PIM DM but when the stubs initiate the multicast process using a hybrid of flood/prune of the PIM DM and Join/prune of the PIM SM it acts as an unreliable Hybrid Multicast Protocol (UHMP). The overall total number of CBO was calculated for each of the multicast protocols for a three tier, four ties, five tier and six tier hierarchical network in a controlled environment and the test data use for each of the instances of the multicast protocol being analysis is show in table 1. Table 1: Test Data for the Multicast protocols RANGE OF CONNECTED LEAFS STUD1 STUD2 STUD3 STUD4 STUD5 1 – 5 1 leaf 2 leafs 3 leafs 1 leaf 4 leafs 6 – 10 6 leafs 7 leafs 8 leafs 7 leafs 9 leafs 11 – 15 11 leafs 13 leafs 14 leafs 13 leafs 12 leafs 16 – 20 16 leafs 17 leafs 18 leafs 17 leafs 19 leafs 21 – 25 21 leafs 22 leafs 23 leafs 22 leafs 24 leafs 26 – 30 26 leafs 27 leafs 28 leafs 27 leafs 29 leafs 31 - 35 31 leafs 32 leafs 33 leafs 32 leafs 34 leafs 36 – 40 36 leafs 37 leafs 38 leafs 37 leafs 39 leafs 40 - 45 41 leafs 42 leafs 43 leafs 41 leafs 44 leafs 46 - 50 46 leafs 47 leafs 48 leafs 46 leafs 49 leafs > 51 51 leafs 70 leafs 83 leafs 52 leafs 110 leafs 1.3. Result From the above description the overall CBO used by PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP multicast protocols for a three tier hierarchical network is presented in table 2. Analyzing figure 2 and table 2 it shows that UHMP uses less control bandwidth that PIM SM and PIM DM in a three level hierarchical network for unreliable multicast data transport. When the number of leafs is small the difference in CBO overhead is not much but as the number of leafs increase there is a noticeable difference between the PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP Analyzing figure 3 and table 3 it shows that the UHMP uses less control bandwidth overhead than PIM SM and PIM DM in a four level hierarchical network for unreliable multicast data transport. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 181 Table 2: CBO cost for Unreliable data transport (PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP) for a three level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network SN RANGE OF CONNECTED LEAF PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) HMP1 CBO COST (KB) 1 1 – 5 16 24 12 2 6 – 10 216 270 162 3 11 – 15 616 770 462 4 16 – 20 1216 1501 912 5 21 – 25 1840 2544 1650 6 26 – 30 3016 3770 2262 7 31 – 35 4216 5705 3162 8 36 – 40 5616 7520 4212 9 40 – 45 8272 9495 7644 10 46 – 50 11016 12393 8754 11 > 51 15100 16300 5200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 1 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 1 5 16 – 2 0 21 – 2 5 26 – 3 0 31 – 3 5 36 – 4 0 40 – 4 5 46 – 5 0 PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) NHMP1 CBO COST (KB) Figure 2: A graph showing the comparison between PIM SM, PIM DM and HMP1 CBO cost for a three level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 182 Table 3: Comparison between CBO cost for PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP for a four level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network SN RANGE OF CONNECTED LEAF PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) HMP1 CBO COST (KB) 1 1 – 5 24 28 20 2 6 – 10 324 520 207 3 11 – 15 924 1190 616 4 16 – 20 1824 3366 1216 5 21 – 25 3024 3960 2016 6 26 – 30 4524 5916 2800 7 31 – 35 5568 7582 4216 8 36 – 40 9266 11080 5616 9 40 – 45 11703 12716 5984 10 46 – 50 12900 15651 6840 11 > 51 13936 16748 7808 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 1 – 5 6 – 1 0 1 1 – 1 5 1 6 – 2 0 2 1 – 2 5 2 6 – 3 0 3 1 – 3 5 3 6 – 4 0 4 0 – 4 5 4 6 – 5 0 > 5 1 Group range C B O c o st ( K B ) PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) NHMP1 CBO COST (KB) Figure 3 A: graph showing the comparison between PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP for a four level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 183 Table 4: Comparison between CBO cost for PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP for a five level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network SN RANGE OF CONNECTED LEAF PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) HMP1 CBO COST (KB) 1 1 – 5 16 20 12 2 6 – 10 342 432 225 3 11 – 15 896 1148 602 4 16 – 20 1900 2489 1254 5 21 – 25 3360 4416 2184 6 26 – 30 5220 6873 3364 7 31 – 35 7480 9860 4794 8 36 – 40 10140 13494 6474 9 40 – 45 13200 17292 8404 10 46 – 50 16660 22001 9856 11 > 51 20520 27108 11661 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 1 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 1 5 16 – 2 0 21 – 2 5 26 – 3 0 31 – 3 5 36 – 4 0 40 – 4 5 46 – 5 0 > 5 1 group range C B O c os t ( K B ) PIM SM CBO COST (KB) PIM DM CBO COST (KB) NHMP1 CBO COST (KB) Figure 4: A graph showing the comparison between PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP for a five level hierarchical condition where source is outside the network Analyzing figure 4 and table 4 it shows that the UHMP uses less control bandwidth overhead than PIM SM and PIM DM in a five level hierarchical network for unreliable multicast data transport. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2016) Volume 26, No 1, pp 177-184 184 1.4. Conclusion The stress level at the RPS is much for PIM SM and PIM DM than the UHMP because of the overall CBO consume / generated. The stress level at the leaf for PIM SM and PIM DM is also more than that of UHMP, but the stress level at the stub node is much for UHMP than PIM SM or PIM DM because of the CBO consumed at the stub node. The hybrid multicast protocol is recommended since it is a decentralized form of RPS multicasting thereby managing bandwidth resource in the network infrastructure. References [1] Vamsi K Paruchuri, Arjan Durresi and Raj Jain (2003), “Optimized Flooding Protocol for Ad hoc Networks”, https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0311/0311013.pdf [2] Jayanta Biswas, Mukti Barai and S. K. Nandy (2004), “Efficient hybrid multicast routing protocol for ad-hoc wireless networks”, Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’04) 0742-1303/04 [3] L. Ji, and M.S. Corson, “Differential Destination Multicast - A MANET Multicast Routing Protocol for Small Groups”, In Proceedings IEEE/INFOCOM’01, Apr, 2001.. [4] Mohammed R. BAKER, M. Ali AKCAYOL, (2011), “A Survey of Multicast Routing Protocols in Ad-Hoc Networks”, Gazi University Journal of Science GU J Sci 24(3):451-462 (2011) www.gujs.org pp. 2-3 [5] Youssef Saadi, Bouchaib Nassereddine, Soufiane Jounaidi and Abdelkrim Haqiq (2015), “Wireless Mesh Networks Capacity Improvement Using CBF”, International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 7, No. 3, Jun 2015 pp.1-2 https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0311/0311013.pdf 1. Introduction 1.1. Related Work 1.2. Materials and Methods 1.3. Result 1.4. Conclusion References