Latency Improvement in Virtual Multicasting

  • Philip Machanick
  • Brynn Andrew
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2823)


Virtual multicasting (VMC) combines some of the benefits of caching (transparency, dynamic adaptation to workload) and multicasting (reducing duplicated traffic). Virtual multicasting is intended to save bandwidth in cases of high load, resulting from unpredictable but high demands for similar traffic. However, even in cases where relatively low fractions of traffic are similar (hence offering few opportunities for VMC), introducing VMC can have a disproportionate effect on latency reduction because of the generally beneficial effect of reduction in traffic, including reduced contention. This paper presents results of a study of latency reduction across a range of workloads, illustrating the potential for VMC even in situations where the extent of overlapped traffic is light.


Multicast Group Internet Service Provider Pathological Case Latency Reduction Bandwidth Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrams, M., Standridge, C.R., Abdulla, G., Williams, S., Fox, E.A.: Caching Proxies: Limitations and Potentials [online] (December 1995), Available from
  2. 2.
    Andrew, B., Machanick, P.: The virtual multicasting approach to bandwidth conservation. In: Proc. SATNAC 2000, Somerset West, South Africa (September 2000) published on CDGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrew, B., Machanick, P.: Virtual multicasting as an example of information mass transit. South African Computer Journal (26), 252–255 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deering, S., Farinacci, D., Jacobson, V., Liu, C.-G., Wei, L.: An Architecture for Wide-Area Multicast Routing. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf. on Communications, Architecture and Protocols, pp. 126–135 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deering, S., Estrin, D.L., Farinacci, D., Jacobson, V., Liu, C.-G., Wei, L.: The PIM architecture for wide-area multicast routing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 4(2), 153–162 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deering, S.E.: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting. RFC 1054 [online] (May 1988), Available from
  7. 7.
    Deering, S.E., Cheriton, D.R.: Multicast Routing in Datagram Internetworks and Extended LANs. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8(2), 85–110 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldmann, A., Gilbert, A.C., Huang, P., Willinger, W.: Dynamics of ip traffic: a study of the role of variability and the impact of control. In: Proc. Conf. on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, pp. 301–313. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T.: Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP 1.1. RFC 2616 [online] (June 1999), Available from
  10. 10.
    Kadlecsik, J., Welte, H., Morris, J., Boucher, M., Russell, R.: The netfilter/iptables project [online] (2003), Available from (last accessed February 2003)
  11. 11.
    Levine, B.N.: A Comparison of Known Classes of Reliable Multicast Protocols. Master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma, H., Shin, K.G.: Multicast video-on-demand services. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 32(1), 31–43 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Machanick, P.: Design of a scalable video on demand architecture. In: Proc. SAICSIT 1998, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa, November 1998, pp. 211–217 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machanick, P.: Streaming vs. latency in information mass-transit. Computer Architecture News 26(5), 4–6 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pingali, S., Towsley, D., Kurose, J.F.: A comparison of senderinitiated and receiver-initiated reliable multicast protocols. In: Proc. 1994 ACM SIGMETRICS Conf. on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, Nashville, Tennessee, United States, pp. 221–230. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Postel, J., Reynolds, J.: File transfer protocol (FTP). RFC 959 [online] (October 1985), Available from
  17. 17.
    Tewari, H.M.V.R., Dahlin, M., Kay, J.S.: Beyond Hierarchies: Design Considerations for Distributed Caching on the Internet. Technical Report TR98-04, The University of Texas at Austin (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rousskov, A., Solokiev, V.: On Performance of Caching Proxies [online] (August 1998), Available from
  19. 19.
    Tanenbaum, A.S.: Computer Networks, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, B., Jamin, S., Zhang, L.: Host multicast: A framework for delivering multicast to end users. In: Proc. 21st Annual Joint Conf. of IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, New York, June 2002, vol. 3, pp. 1366–1375 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Machanick
    • 1
  • Brynn Andrew
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ITEEUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations