A comparison of ring and tree embedding for real-time group multicast

In general topology networks, routing from one node to another over a tree embedded in the network is intuitively a good strategy, since it typically results in a route length of O(logn) links, n being the number of nodes in the network. Routing from one node to another over a ring embedded in the network results in route length of O(n) links. However, in group (many-to-many) multicast, the overall number of links traversed by each packet, i.e., the networks elements on which resources must possibly be reserved, is typically O(N) for both tree and ring embedding, where N is the size of the group. The paper focuses on tree versus ring embedding for real-time group multicast in which all packets should reach all the nodes in the group with a bounded end-to-end delay. Real-time properties are guaranteed by the deployment of time-driven priority in network nodes. In order to have a better understanding of the nontrivial problem of ring versus tree embedding, we consider static, dynamic and adaptive group multicast scenarios. Tree and ring embedding are compared using different metrics. The results are interesting and counterintuitive, showing that embedding a tree is not always the best strategy. In particular, dynamic and adaptive multicast on a tree require a protocol for updating state information during operation of the group. Such a protocol is not required on the ring where the circular topology and implicit token passing mechanisms are sufficient. Moreover, the bandwidth allocation on the ring for the three multicast scenarios is O(N), while on a general tree it is O(N) for the static multicast scenario and O(N/sup 2/) for the dynamic and adaptive multicast scenarios.