Browse Prior Art Database

Taxonomy of Communication Requirements for Large-scale Multicast Applications (RFC2729)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003324D
Original Publication Date: 1999-Dec-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 22 page(s) / 49K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

P. Bagnall: AUTHOR [+3]

Abstract

The intention of this memo is to define a classification system for the communication requirements of any large-scale multicast application (LSMA). It is very unlikely one protocol can achieve a compromise between the diverse requirements of all the parties involved in any LSMA. It is therefore necessary to understand the worst-case scenarios in order to minimize the range of protocols needed. Dynamic protocol adaptation is likely to be necessary which will require logic to map particular combinations of requirements to particular mechanisms. Standardizing the way that applications define their requirements is a necessary step towards this. Classification is a first step towards standardization.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 5% of the total text.

Network Working Group P. Bagnall

Request for Comments: 2729 R. Briscoe

Category: Informational A. Poppitt

BT

December 1999

Taxonomy of Communication Requirements

for Large-scale Multicast Applications

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

The intention of this memo is to define a classification system for

the communication requirements of any large-scale multicast

application (LSMA). It is very unlikely one protocol can achieve a

compromise between the diverse requirements of all the parties

involved in any LSMA. It is therefore necessary to understand the

worst-case scenarios in order to minimize the range of protocols

needed. Dynamic protocol adaptation is likely to be necessary which

will require logic to map particular combinations of requirements to

particular mechanisms. Standardizing the way that applications

define their requirements is a necessary step towards this.

Classification is a first step towards standardization.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Definitions of Sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1. Summary of Communications Parameters . . . . . . . . 4

3.2. Definitions, types and strictest requirements. . . . 5

3.2.1. Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2.2. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.2.1. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.2.2. Component Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2.3. Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2.4. Timeliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2.5. Session Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.2.6. Session Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

3.2.7. Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3.2.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3.2.8.1. Security Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3.2.9. Payment & Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

5. Ref...