skip to main content
10.1145/863955.863967acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Robustness to inflated subscription in multicast congestion control

Published:25 August 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Group subscription is a useful mechanism for multicast congestion control: RLM, RLC, FLID-DL, and WEBRC form a promising line of multi-group protocols where receivers provide no feedback to the sender but control congestion via group membership regulation. Unfortunately, the group subscription mechanism also offers receivers an opportunity to elicit self-beneficial bandwidth allocations. In particular, a misbehaving receiver can ignoreguidelines for group subscription and choose an unfairly high subscription level in a multi-group multicast session. This poses a serious threat to fairness of bandwidth allocation. In this paper, we present the first solution for the problem of inflated subscription. Our design guards access to multicast groups with dynamic keys and consists of two independent components: DELTA (Distribution of ELigibility To Access) -- a novel method for in-band distribution of group keys to receivers that are eligible to access the groups according to the congestion control protocol, and SIGMA (Secure Internet Group Management Architecture) -- a generic architecture for key-based group access at edge routers.

References

  1. Akamai. http://www.akamai.com, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens. TCP Congestion Control. RFC 2581, April 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Ballardie and J. Crowcroft. Multicast-Specific Security Threats and Counter-Measures. In Proceedings Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, February 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Banerjee, B. Bhattacharjee, and C. Kommareddy. Scalable Application Layer Multicast. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002, August 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Byers, M. Frumin, G. Horn, M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Roetter, and W. Shaver. FLID-DL: Congestion Control for Layered Multicast. In Proceedings NGC 2000, November 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Byers, M. Luby, and M. Mitzenmacher. Fine-Grained Layered Multicast. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. W. Byers, M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, and A. Rege. A Digital Fountain Approach to Reliable Distribution of Bulk Data. In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM'98, September 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Y. Cheung and M. H. Ammar. Using Destination Set Grouping to Improve the Performance of Window-controlled Multipoint Connections. Computer Communications Journal, 19:723--736, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Y. Cheung, M. H. Ammar, and X. Li. On the Use of Destination Set Grouping to Improve Fairness in Multicast Video Distribution. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM'96, March 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S.E. Deering. Multicast Routing in a Datagram Internetwork. PhD thesis, Stanford University, December 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Ely, N. Spring, D. Wetherall, S. Savage, and T. Anderson. Robust Congestion Signaling. In Proceedings IEEE ICNP 2001, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. W. Fenner. Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2. RFC 2236, November 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Gorinsky, S. Jain, and H. Vin. Multicast Congestion Control with Distrusted Receivers. In Proceedings NGC 2002, October 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Gorinsky, K.K. Ramakrishnan, and H. Vin. Addressing Heterogeneity and Scalability in Layered Multicast Congestion Control. Technical Report TR2000-31, Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, November 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. H. W. Holbrook and D.R. Cheriton. IP Multicast Channels: EXPRESS Support for Large-Scale Single-Source Applications. In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM'99, September 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. Judge and M. Ammar. GOTHIC: A Group Access Control Architecture for Secure Multicast and Anycast. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2002, June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. Legout and E. W. Biersack. PLM: Fast Convergence for Cumulative Layered Multicast Transmission Schemes. In Proceedings ACM SIGMETRICS 2000, June 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Luby, V.K. Goyal, S. Skaria, and G.B. Horn. Wave and Equation Based Rate Control Using Multicast Round Trip Time. In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM 2002, August 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Mahajan, S. Floyd, and D. Wetherall. Controlling High-Bandwidth Flows at the Congested Router. In Proceedings IEEE ICNP 2001, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli. Receiver-driven Layered Multicast. In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM'96, August 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Mittra. Iolus: A Framework for Scalable Secure Multicasting. In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM'97, September 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. MSTAT Manual Page. http://man-pages.net/linux/man8/mstat.8.html, April 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. UCB/LBNL/VINT Network Simulator NS-2. http://www-mash.cs.berkeley.edu/ns, May 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Perrig, R. Canetti, D. Song, and D. Tygar. Efficient and Secure Source Authentication for Multicast. In Proceedings NDSS 2001, February 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. Savage, N. Cardwell, D. Wetherall, and T. Anderson. TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver. ACM Computer Communications Review, 29(5):71--78, October 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Shamir. How to Share a Secret. Communications of the ACM, 22(11):612--613, November 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Sisalem and A. Wolisz. MLDA: A TCP-friendly Congestion Control Framework for Heterogenous Multicast Environments. In Proceedings IWQoS 2000, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. L. Vicisano, L. Rizzo, and J. Crowcroft. TCP-like Congestion Control for Layered Multicast Data Transfer. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM'98, March 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Waldvogel, G. Caronni, D. Sun, N. Weiler, and B. Plattner. The VersaKey Framework: Versatile Group Key Management. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 17(9):1614--1631, September 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Robustness to inflated subscription in multicast congestion control

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCOMM '03: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
      August 2003
      432 pages
      ISBN:1581137354
      DOI:10.1145/863955

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 August 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCOMM '03 Paper Acceptance Rate34of319submissions,11%Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader