Improving peer neighborhood on P2P video distribution networks using Push/Pull protocol
Authors: 
José Antonio Oliveira, Felipe Prado, Flávia M. de Lima, Marcelo Rubinstein, Alexandre SztajnbergAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 17 - 33
Abstract
Peer-to-peer architecture is used as infrastructure for video streaming on the Internet. Nodes that participate in the overlay network cooperate in the task of distributing and forwarding video chunks, making available their local resources to the network. Collectively, the sum of resources and the distribution of activities among the nodes can maintain a good-enough quality, with a more competitive cost compared to centralized solutions. In this context, nodes with uncooperative behaviors can degrade or turn infeasible video distribution with the expected quality. In this paper the behavior of uncooperative nodes with different scores is modeled and their effect on P2P networks that use the Push/Pull protocol to distribute video streams is evaluated. Based on the results, admission and dynamic neighbor selection mechanisms, which use reputation information, are proposed. The principle of these mechanisms is to improve neighborhood quality for cooperative nodes guaranteeing them good video quality, while imposing a penalty to uncooperative nodes, by connecting them to equally uncooperative nodes, as a way to encourage them to change their behavior. The proposed mechanisms were modeled and evaluated using the PeerSim simulator with P4S module. The results indicate the effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms, which impose some insulation to uncooperative nodes that will have equally uncooperative neighbors.
References
[1]
R. Rodrigues, P. Druschel, Peer-to-peer systems, Commun. ACM, 53 (2010).
[2]
R. Lo Cigno, A. Russo, D. Carra, On some fundamental properties of P2P push/pull protocols, in: Second International Conference on Communications and Electronics, ICCE 2008, Hoi An, Vietnam, June, 2008, pp. 67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCE.2008.4578935.
[3]
D. Hales, S. Patarin, Computational sociology for system in the wild: the case of BitTorrent, IEEE Distr. Syst. Online, 6 (2005).
[4]
Z. Xinyan, L. Jiangchuan, L. Bo, T.P. Yum, CoolStreaming/DONet: a data-driven overlay network for peer-to-peer live media streaming, in: IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 3, March 2005, pp. 2102-2111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2005.1498486.
[5]
M. Castro, P. Druschel, A.-M. Kermarrec, A. Nandi, A. Rowstron, A. Singh, SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments, in: ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP'03), Bolton Landing (Lake George), NY, USA, October 2003, pp. 298-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1165389.945474.
[6]
D.A. Tran, K.A. Hua, T.T. Do, A peer-to-peer architecture for media streaming, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 22 (2004) 121-133.
[7]
V. Venkataraman, K. Yoshida, P. Francis, Chunkyspread: heterogeneous unstructured peer-to-peer multicast, in: IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP '06), Santa Barbara, CA, USA, November 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNP.2006.320193.
[8]
Y.E. Sung, M.A. Bishop, S.G. Rao, Enabling contribution awareness in an overlay broadcasting system, IEEE Trans. Multimedia, 9 (2007) 1605-1620.
[9]
V. Pai, K. Kumar, K. Tamilmani, V. Sambamurthy, A.E. Mohr, Chainsaw: eliminating trees from overlay multicast, in: 4th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS '05), Ithaca, NY, USA, February 2005, pp. 127-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11558989_12.
[10]
F. Pianese, D. Perino, J. Keller, E.W. Biersack, PULSE: an adaptive, incentive-based, unstructured P2P live streaming system, IEEE Trans. Multimedia, 9 (2007) 1645-1660.
[11]
S. Sanghavi, B. Hajek, L. Massoulie, Gossiping with multiple messages, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 53 (2007) 4640-4654.
[12]
A. Habib, J. Chuang, Service differentiated peer selection: an incentive mechanism for peer-to-peer media streaming, IEEE Trans. Multimedia, 8 (2006) 610-621.
[13]
I.M. Moraes, O.C.M.B. Duarte, A lifetime-based peer selection mechanism for peer-to-peer video-on-demand systems, in: IEEE International Conference on Communications 2010 (ICC'2010), Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010, pp. 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2010.5501745.
[14]
T. Locher, R. Meier, S. Schmid, R. Wattenhofer, Push-to-pull peer-to-peer live streaming, in: Int. Symp. on Distributed Computing (DISC), Lemesos, Cyprus, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4731, September 2007, pp 388-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75142-7_30.
[15]
J. Zhang, W. Xing, Y. Wang, D. Lu, Modeling and performance analysis of pull-based live streaming schemes in peer-to-peer network, Comput. Commun., 40 (2014) 22-32.
[16]
M.R. Rahman, A Survey of Incentive Mechanisms in Peer-to-Peer Systems, Technical Report CS-2009-22, Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AP2PS.2009.15.
[17]
K. Zhang, N. Antonopoulos, Z. Mahmood, A review of incentive mechanism in peer-to-peer systems, in: 1st International Conference on Advances in P2P Systems, 2009, pp. 45-50.
[18]
X. Su, S.K. Dhaliwal, Incentive mechanisms in P2P media streaming systems, IEEE Internet Comput., 14 (2010) 74-81.
[19]
Y. Wang, A. Nakao, A.V. Vasilakos, J. Ma, P2P soft security: on evolutionary dynamics of P2P incentive mechanism, Comput. Commun., 34 (2011) 241-249.
[20]
Y. Chu, S.G. Rao, H. Zang, A case for end system multicast (keynote address), in: ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review - Special issue on Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS 2000, vol. 28(1), June 2000, pp. 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/339331.339337.
[21]
P.K. Hoong, H. Matsuo, Push-pull incentive-based P2P live media streaming system, WSEAS Trans. Commun., 7 (2008) 33-42.
[22]
M. Karakaya, İ. Körpeoğlu, Ö. Ulusoy, A connection management protocol for promoting cooperation in peer-to-peer networks, Comput. Commun., 31 (2008) 240-256.
[23]
S. Traverso, L. Abeni, R. Birke, C. Kiraly, E. Leonardi, R. Lo Cigno, M. Mellia, Neighborhood filtering strategies for overlay construction in P2P-TV systems: design and experimental comparison, IEEE/ACM Trans. Network. (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2014.2307157.
[24]
G. Ciccarelli, R. Lo Cigno, Collusion in peer-to-peer systems, Comput. Networks, 55 (2011) 3517-3532.
[25]
A. Montresor, G.P. Jesi, PeerSim: A Peer-to-Peer Simulator, 2013 <http://peersim.sourceforge.net/> (04/14).
[26]
A. Russo, R. Lo Cigno, D. Carra, P4S: P2P 4 Streaming System, 2009 <http://www.dit.unitn.it/networking/P4S-main.html> (04/14).
[27]
C.P. Costa, I.S. Cunha, A. Borges, C.V. Ramos, M.M. Rocha, J.M. Almeida, B. Ribeiro-Neto, Analyzing client interactivity in streaming media, in: 13th ACM International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, EUA, May 2004, pp. 534-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/988672.988744.
[28]
N. Carlsson, D.L. Eager, Peer-assisted on-demand streaming of stored media using BitTorrent-like protocols, in: 6th International IFIP-TC6 Conference on Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks, Next Generation Internet (NETWORKING'07), Atlanta, GA, EUA, May 2007, pp. 570-581.
[29]
P. Resnick, K. Kuwabara, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, Reputation systems, Commun. ACM, 43 (2000) 45-48.
[30]
Z. Liu, P. Dhungel, D. Wu, C. Zhang, K.W. Ross, Understanding and improving ratio incentives in private P2P communities, in: IEEE 30th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Genoa, Italy, 2010, pp. 610-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS.2010.90.
[31]
Protovis, Protovis: A Graphical Toolkit for Visualization, Stanford Visualization Group, 2010 <http://mbostock.github.com/protovis/> (04/14).
[32]
G.D. Gonçalves, A. Guimarães, A.B. Vieira, I. Cunha, J.M. Almeida, Using centrality metrics to predict peer cooperation in live streaming applications, in: 11th International IFIP TC 6 Conference on Networking - Volume Part II (IFIP'12), Prague, 2012, pp. 84-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30054-7_7.
- Improving peer neighborhood on P2P video distribution networks using Push/Pull protocol
Recommendations
Push-pull incentive-based P2P live media streaming system
Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing has become increasingly popular, accounting for as much as 70% of Internet traffic by some estimates. Recently, we have been witnessing the emergence of a new class of popular P2P applications, namely, P2P audio and video ...
An adaptive buffer-map exchange mechanism for pull-based peer-to-peer video-on-demand streaming systems
Unlike P2P live video streaming in which all the peers in a channel watch a video with tiny differences in viewing points, in P2P video on demand (VoD) streaming systems, neighbor peers may watch the same video with more different viewing points; ...
Bandwidth trading in BitTorrent-like P2P networks for content distribution
Bandwidth trading schemes give peers an incentive to provide upload bandwidth to other peers in a P2P network for fast file distribution. A popular example is the tit-for-tat strategy used in the BitTorrent protocol. Although this game theoretical ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © Elsevier B.V.
Publisher
Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Netherlands
Publication History
Published: 01 May 2015
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in