Multimedia and streaming sharing will bring an extreme fanaticism in recent years, and especially apply to multicast application environment such as personal TV show, personal radio station, etc. Although this can easily be accomplished by using client-server models, but the building cost is very expensive in servers’ maintenances for service providers or companies. From the point of view of most users, they may want to save money, and peer-to-peer architecture provides a good solution for this in another robust way. The most fascination of using peer-to-peer architecture is that all services are free of charge, and the quality of service (QoS) impends over the client-server model can come true in a few days.
In this thesis, we construct an overlay distribution delivery tree for live streaming multicast. When selecting one appropriate serving node, not only consider the distance between the new coming node and the serving node, but also calculate the total distance from the media source to this new coming node through the serving node. The total distance between the new coming node and the media source can be obtained in two passes. In the first pass, the new coming node can receive from some selectable serving nodes the information about how far they are from the source, and in the second pass, the new coming node calculates the numbers of hops and round-trip time between each selectable serving node by itself. From these two passes, the new coming node can sum up the information and send SIP INVITE request message to the selected serving node by choosing one with least hops or RTT between.
This step is continuous until the new coming node finds a serving node that can accept the request.
For the client-server model, the system capability in term of the media servers, when the numbers of clients increase, the only way to serve the clients is to increase
the number and capability of the servers simultaneously for keeping the service qualities. Using peer-to-peer architecture, each peer serves as a client as well as a serving node at the same time, more nodes on the overlay network, more capabilities the system has. Since all clients upload contents when playing media, everyone becomes a server (or broadcaster) like the traditional media servers. Load balance and self organization are accomplished in P2P architecture.
In the future work, we will consider the bandwidth of each peer to determine its appropriate serving degrees. Because we know every peer on the Internet has different capacities, such as processing power, bandwidth, and system resources. These situations result in the different serving degrees on each node. At the same time, we may also want to let the peer with more capabilities closer to the media source to serve more nodes to reduce the transmission delay.
Reference
[1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R. Sparks, M.
Handley, E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol”, RFC 3261, June 2002.
[2] Daniel Collins, Carrier Grade Voice over IP, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.
[3] Venkata N., Padmanabhan, Helen J. Wang, Philip A. Chou, “Resilient Peer-to-Peer Streaming”, Microsoft Research, 2003.
[4] Miguel Castro, Peter Druschel, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Animesh Nandi, Antony Rowstron, Atul Singh, “SplitStream: High-Bandwidth Multicast in Cooperative Environments”, Microsoft Research, 7 J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 OFB, UK. Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-132, Houston, TX 77005, USA, 2003.
[5] Vinay Pai, Kapil Kumar, Karthik Tamilmani, Vinay Sambamurthy, Alexander E.
Mohr, “Chainsaw: Eliminating Trees from Overlay Multicast”, Department of Computer Science Stony Brook University, 2004.
[6] Xinyan Zhang, Jiangchuan Liu, Bo Li, Tak-Shing Peter Yum,
“CoolStreaming/DONet: A Data-Driven Overlay Network for Efficient Live Media Streaming”, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.
[7] Xuxian Jiang, Yu Dong, Dongyan Xu, Bharat Bhargava, “GNUSTREAM: A P2P MEDIA STREAMING PROTOTYPE”, Department of Computer Sciences, 2003 [8] Jin Li, “PeerStreaming: A Practical Receiver-Driven Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming System, One Microsoft way, Bld, 2003”
[9] Y. Chu, S. Rao, and H. Zhang, “A case for end system multicast”, in Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, 2000
[10] Yatin Chawathe, Steven McCanne, Eric Brewer, “An Architecture for Internet Content Distribution as an Infrastructure Service”, 2000.
[11] John Jannotti, David K. Gifford, Kirk L. Johnson, M. Frans Kaashoek, James W.
O’Toole, Jr, “Overcast: Reliable Multicasting with an Overlay Network”, Cisco Systems, 2000.
[12] H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. "Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Technical Report, Stanford University, August 2002.
[13] Mayank Bawa, Hrishikesh Deshpande, Hector Garcia-Molina, “Transience of Peers & Streaming media”, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.33 n.1 p.107-112, January 2003.
[14] M. Handley, V. Jacobson, “SDP: Session Description Protocol”, RFC 2327, IETF, Apr. 1998.
[15] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications”, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[16] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, “RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control”, RFC 3551, July 2003.
[17] Chun-Chao Yeh, Lin Siong Pui, “On the Frame Forwarding in Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Streaming”, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2005.
[18] “CCL SIP Protocol Stack Programmer’s Guide,” Version 1.0, April 2000 [19] “CCL SIP Protocol Stack Reference’s Guide”
[20] http://www.peercast.org
[21] D.A. Tran, K.A. Hua and T.T. Do, “A Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Media Streaming”, in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol.22, no. 1, Jan 2004