International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
Survey on A Label-Based Super node Selection Protocol Performance and Token-Based in
Peer to Peer Networks
E. Ramesh Babu #1, K. Sumalatha *2
#1
M.Tech 2nd year, Dept of CSE, AITS, Tirupati, AP, India
Assistant Professor, Dept of CSE, AITS, Tirupati, AP, India
2*
Abstract— we tend to outline drawback referred to as the
supernode choice problem that has emerged across a spread of
peer-topeer applications. Supernode choice involves choice of a
set of the peers to serve a special role. The supernodes should be
well-dispersed throughout the peer to- peer overlay network, and
should fulfill extra necessities like load balance, resource wants,
ability to churn, and heterogeneousness. Whereas the same as
dominating set and p-centers issues, the supernode choice
drawback should meet the extra challenge of operative at
intervals an enormous, unknown and dynamically ever-changing
network. We tend to describe 3 generic supernode choice
protocols we've developed for peer-toper environments: a labelbased theme for structured overlay networks, a distributed
protocol for coordinate based overlay networks, and a
negotiation protocol for unstructured overlays. We tend to
believe AN integrated approach to the supernode choice
drawback will profit the peer-to-peer community through crossfertilization of concepts and sharing of protocols.
Keywords— Networking, peer to peer networks , protocol,
Supernode
I. INTRODUCTION
This We have known a basic drawback, that we have a
tendency to decision the supernode selection drawback, that
happens across a spectrum of peer-to-peer applications,
together with file sharing systems, distributed hash tables
(DHTs); publish/subscribe architectures, and peer-to-peer
cycle sharing systems. The supernode selection drawback
conjointly shows up within the fields of sensing element
networks, ad-hoc wireless networks, and peer-based Grid
computing. Supernode selection involves the selection of a set
of the peers in a very large scale, dynamic network to serve a
distinguished role. The specially selected peers should be
usually fulfilling further necessities like load balance,
resources, access, and fault tolerance. The supernode selection
drawback is very difficult as a result of within the peer-to-peer
surroundings, and a large range of supernodes should be
selected from an enormous and dynamically dynamic network
during which neither the node characteristics nor the network
topology are known a priori. Thus, easy ways like random
selection don’t work. Supernode selection is a lot of
complicated than classic dominating set and p-centers from
graph theory, known to be NP-hared issues, as a result of it
should answer dynamic joins and leaves (churn), operate
among probably malicious nodes, and performance in
surroundings that's extremely heterogeneous. Supernode
selection shows up in several peer-to-peer and networking
applications. as an example, in peer-to- peer file sharing
systems, like Kazaa [11] and Gnutella [6], protocols were
ISSN: 2231-5381
developed for the designation of qualified supernodes (ultra
peers) to serve the standard peers for scalable content
discovery. Peer-to-peer infrastructure services need strategies
for the even handed placement of monitors/landmarks/beacons
throughout the physical network for functions of surveying,
positioning, or routing [5, 16, and 14]. In ad-hoc wireless
networks, property below extremely dynamic conditions is
achieved by characteristic a set of the nodes to function
bridging nodes. This set is made employing a distributed
dominating set protocol like in [22, 2, 2three] so each node is
inside broadcast vary of a bridging node. Inside sensing
element networks, supernodes are selected for the aim of
knowledge aggregation below the conditions that they're welldistributed among the sensors and even have sufficient
remaining battery life [three]. During this paper, we have a
tendency to demonstrate that a lot of peer-to-peer and
networking applications are seeking solutions to variations on
identical basic drawback. We have a tendency to 1st outline a
general model for the supernode selection drawback,
describing its key necessities and challenges. We have a
tendency to show however the supernode selection drawback
is related to dominating set and p-centers issues, and describe
however the supernode selection drawback is instantiated in
many well-known peer-to-peer applications. We have a
tendency to then present three general purpose supernode
selection protocols we've got developed for the three basic
sorts of overlay networks utilized by peer-to-peer
applications: structured overlay networks, coordinate-based
overlay networks, and unstructured overlay networks.
SOLE: a label-based supernode selection protocol for
applications built on a structured overlay network like will
[16], Chord [20] or Pastry [18]. SOLE exploits the regular
node labeling schemes used inside structured overlays to
distribute supernodes equally throughout the overlay, to make
sure quick access from nonsupernodes to supernodes, and to
take care of a set supernode to non-supernode ratio because
the overlay grows and shrinks dynamically.
Popcorn: a protocol for applications that use a coordinatebased overlay network exploitation systems like Vivaldi [1] or
gnu [14]. This protocol distributes a set range of supernodes
equally with relevancy the topology of the overlay network
employing a repulsion model. H20: an advertisement-based
protocol deployable in an unstructured overlay network. This
protocol are often wont to notice qualified supernodes from
among the peers such each normal peer is inside k hops of C
supernodes (multiple distance domination).
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3302
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
II. DRAWBACK DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND
We 1st describe the distinctive necessities and challenges of
the supernode selection drawback within the context of peerto-peer systems. We have a tendency to then describe
dominating set and p-centers issues from graph theory that
kind the theoretical underpinnings of the supernode selection
drawback. We have a tendency to conclude by surveying
samples of applications from peer-to-peer computing and
different networking domains that decision for scalable
supernode selection protocols.
A. THE SUPERNODE selection drawback
We have a tendency to loosely outline the supernode selection
drawback as that of choosing some set of the peers in a very
large scale peer-to-peer overlay network to require a special
role, with the selected supernodes providing service to the
non-supernodes. A probably large and undefined range of
supernodes should be selected from an unknown, large scale,
and dynamically dynamic overlay network. First, we have a
tendency to describe key topological distribution criteria that
the supernodes should fulfill relative to the non-supernodes.
Second, we have a tendency to enumerate characteristics of
peer-to-peer networks that build supernode selection
troublesome.
Supernode Distribution Criteria.
The supernodes should be distributed throughout the peer-topeer overlay network in a very topologically sensitive thanks
to meet one or a lot of the distribution criteria listed below.
Access: non-supernodes should have low latency access to 1
or a lot of supernodes. Access are often surveying in hop
counts or delay. Ant
Dispersal: supernodes should be equally distributed
throughout the overlay network; they must not be clustered
inside only a number of sub regions of the overlay.
Proportion: a pre-specified world ratio of supernodes to nonsupernodes should be maintained to satisfy applicationspecific performance necessities.
Load balance: supernodes mustn't serve over k nonsupernodes, wherever k is often designed locally supported
the resource capability of every supernode. Note that these
criteria are inter-related therein specification of necessities for
one could impact another, or a given application could need
multiple criteria.
Peer-to-Peer Factors.
the look of supernode selection protocols inside a peer-to-peer
surroundings is difficult as a result of additionally to fulfilling
the distribution necessities outlined higher than, they have to
conjointly take care of factors arising from the underlying
nature of enormous scale, highly dynamic systems.
ISSN: 2231-5381
Heterogeneity: Current large-scale peer-based systems
comprise a large range of heterogeneous nodes with differing
hardware and code resources. A node may not be eligible to
be a supernode unless it meets sure minimum qualifications.
These qualifications embrace resources, like hardware power,
disk or memory house, or battery life; stability, like uptime or
fault tolerance; communication, like information surveying or
fan-out; and safety, like trust or security.
Adaptability to churn: Peer-to-peer environments are
extraordinarily dynamic. Supernode selection protocols should
be able to handle churn and respond quickly, particularly once
supernodes leave the system. Supernode selection protocols
should even be accommodative to dynamic changes in
network traffic and overlay topology.
Resilience and fault tolerance: once a given supernode dies,
different supernodes ought to quickly take over its functions
or a replacement supernode ought to be quickly selected.
Security: Supernodes is also vulnerable to denial of service
attacks, malicious supernodes will disrupt the system by
failing to forwarded messages or by giving out wrong info.
B.DOMINATING SETS, P-CENTERS, AND LEADER
ELECTION
A wealth of analysis in graph theory, location theory, and
distributed computing provides a proper foundation the
fundamental dominating set drawback is that the drawback of
finding a lowest set of the vertices in graph G, referred to as
the dominator set, such each node is either a dominator or
adjacent to a dominator. Dominating set issues and algorithms
are described completely in [8]. Most versions are NP-hared.
Distance domination seeks to seek out a minimum size
dominating set such the gap from a capricious node to a
dominator is ≤ d. multiple (c, d)-domination needs that each
peer be inside distance d of c dominators. Colored domination
presumes that every node in graph G has an associated color
from the set c1, c2, cn. A dominating set of color ci is one
during which the dominators are all of that color. colored
domination are often wont to model heterogeneous networks
during which only sure nodes are qualified to be dominators.
A secure dominating set could be a set of vertices S such for
any vertex v not in S there exists a neighbor u of v in S such,
if we have a tendency to add v to S and take away u from S,
we have a tendency to get another secure dominating set S. A
global defensive alliance could be a variant of dominating set
wherever the set S is such each vertex v not in S contains a
neighbor in S and each vertex v in S contains a majority of its
neighbors in S. a worldwide offensive alliance is such each
vertex not in S contains a majority of its neighbors in S. A kdefensive dominating set could be a set of vertices which will
counter an attack on any k vertices wherever an attack on a
vertex should be countered by itself or by a neighbor. The pcenter drawback is applicable once inserting a set range of
supernodes in a very network. Algorithms and variations on
this NP-hared separate location drawback are found in [7].
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3303
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
The p-center drawback is that the drawback of finding a set of
p vertices in a very graph G, referred to as centers, to attenuate
the utmost (or total) distance between a non-center node and
its nearest center. Colored p-centers are often employed in a
colored graph for the matter of finding a set of pi vertices of
color ci to attenuate the higher than distance criteria. The
classic leader selected drawback from distributed computing
differs from supernode selection therein the previous assumes
all nodes vote (directly or indirectly) on the selection of every
supernode. Leader selected algorithms aren’t scalable as a
result of they need broadcasting or passing a token to all or
any nodes. the simplest known leader selected ion protocols
selecting a pacesetter (typically the node with highest ID
number) below vareied fault tolerant eventualities, like Ring,
Bully, etc. [1three]. Heuristic algorithms developed for these
classic issues aree used within the field of networking,
however their pertinency is typically restricted to smaller
scale, static networks. For the foremost half, they involve
centralized algorithms or high message passing overhead.
These algorithms weren't designed for larege scale peertopeer networks that exhibit a high degree of churn which are
dynamically heterogeneous.
B. ULTRA PEERS, LANDMARKS, AND RENDEZVOUS
POINTS
the simplest known example of supernode selection in a very
peer-to-peer application is that the gnutella protocol [6] for
selection of ultra peers—peers with sufficient information
surveying and process power to function proxies for different
peers. the employment of ultrapeers reduces network traffic
and speeds up content discovery. Any peer will choose itself
as an ultrapeer if it meets the subsequent criteria: it's been up
for a minimum of five minutes, has high information
surveying, sufficient process power, runs an OS which will
handle an a larege range of synchronous communications
protocol connections, and isn't firewalled/NATed. The
ultrapeer selection protocol dynamically adjusts the quantity
of supernodes as follows: if a leaf cannot notice an ultrapeer
with free slots, it will promote itself to be an ultrapeer. Ultra
peers conjointly downgrade themselves after they not serve
any leaf nodes, or through negotiation with close peers.
Gnutella’s super node selection (ultra peer selection) protocol
loosely meets the distribution criteria outlined higher than and
adapts dynamically to users’ wants in a very best effort
fashion. one in all gnutella’s goals is to attain a precise ratio of
ultra peers to leaf nodes, however presently there's no thanks
to management this ratio.
Security isn't self-addressed in gnutella. A canonical
super node selection drawback that has shown up as a
bootstrapping step in a very range of outstanding peer-to-peer
systems is that the designation of landmark nodes within the
web. The will [17] structured overlay is built employing a
binning technique during which fastidiously placed landmarks
are wont to construct a topologically sensitive overlay. Also,
in gross national product [14], an organization is made
ISSN: 2231-5381
exploitation landmark nodes. It’s been shown that the
accuracy of the gross national product coordinates is very
sensitive to the situation of the landmark nodes. Selected
landmark nodes boils all the way down to super node selection
for a set, tiny range of supernodes that are well-dispersed
within the physical network. The notion of equally distributed
or well-dispersed are often captured by metrics supported pair
wise distances, N-medians and N-cluster medians [14], or
distances from a center of mass. Current approaches use
manual placement of landmarks or centralized dominating set
algorithms [21]. Examples from outside peer-to-peer
computing illustrate the wide scope of the super node
selection drawback. In ad-hoc wireless networks, a distributed
dominating set protocol is employed to pick out nodes to
function intermediate routing nodes to bridge the gap between
wireless nodes that are out of broadcast vary of every different
[22, 2]. The IDMaps [5] distance map of the web used a
centralized p-centers rule to position Tracer monitors and
Boxes throughout a known network topology. Sensor
networks utilize specially placed monitor nodes as rendezvous
points to gather and combination sensing element information
[3] below access and battery life constraints.
Table one list a number of samples of the super node selection
drawback for a variety of applications, showing the
commonality and variety in super node qualifications and
super node distribution necessities.
Table 1. Supernodes Selection Examples
III. THREE NEW SUPERNODE SELECTION
PROTOCOLS
Heuristic algorithms for classical issues like dominating set
and p-center can't be applied to giant scale, dynamic peer-topeer environments. Commonplace networking techniques like
random choice of peers, or flooding-based look for
appropriate supernodes don't work. Nodes hand-picked by a
random strategy might not be qualify to be supernodes and
should be poorly dispersed. Flooding-based look for a large
variety of supernodes isn't scalable and doesn't adapt well to
dynamic changes within the network. For these reasons, we
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3304
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
tend to introduce 3 new super node choice protocols for the
three basic kinds of overlay networks: structured, coordinatebased, and unstructured. These protocols make the most of
properties of the several overlay types to higher address super
node selection. Performance analysis of those protocols is part
of our current research agenda, however outside scope of this
paper.
A. SOLE: Supernodes choice in structured overlay networks
SOLE is meant to pick out a group of supernodes during a
structured overlay network, with a goal of keeping the super
node to non-super node quantitative relation stable as peers be
a part of and leave the overlay. SOLE conjointly maintains
low access from non-supernodes to supernodes and provides
load equalization for every super node. Within the last a part
of this section, we tend to discuss however SOLE addresses
resource heterogeneousness, churn, and fault tolerance. A
DHT (Distributed Hash Table) designed on a structured
overlay network like will [16], Chord [20], and Pastry [18]
makes use of a regular, regular node label house, within which
every physical node owns a virtual subspace within the
overlay. In these structured overlay networks, a compact node
label expression will collection a (large) assortment of virtual
nodes.
SOLE exploits this notation and uses a node label expression
to designate a set of the virtual node label space as
supernodes. The super node label expression is keep within
the DHT for quick and simple operation. The quantity of
supernodes is often enlarged just by dynamic the node label
expression (see examples below). As a result of structured
overlay network maps physical nodes to virtual subspaces
during a manner that's sensitive to each density and topology,
the supernodes are equally distributed among physical nonsuper node nodes and each nonsupernode has one or a lot of
close supernodes.
Initiation of super node selection. A node initiates the super
node choice procedure for a few services by hashing info
regarding the service into the DHT: the general public key of
the initiator and therefore the super node choice policy. This
policy contains the super node label expression, the minimum
criteria for a node to be a super node, and most lifetime of a
super node. A non-super node will discover the identity of
supernodes for this service by accessing the DHT using the
service connected key to operation the super node label
expression.
Example 1: will structured overlay. Assume the will space
may be a d-dimensional house and therefore the length of the
ith dimension is di. to pick out k supernodes, the service
initiator first factors k into k1,k2,k3,. . . ,kd wherever k = 2nd
i=1 ki. The ith dimension of the super node label ought to
conform the formula (bi + n ∗ di/ki) %di, wherever may be a
random number chosen within the vary of [0, di] associated n
is a whole number. The randomness prevents totally different
service initiators from selecting identical group of supernodes.
ISSN: 2231-5381
Figure one illustrates this method for 16 supernodes during a
two-dimensional will space.
Example 2: Pastry structured overlay.
To select k supernodes, the service instigator must generate a
node label with _log2k_ don’t-care bits because the highest
Order bits (or the don’t-care bits are often distributed
randomly within the label); the remaining bits within the node
label are arbitrarily set to zero or one. For instance, if the
service instigator wants 1024 supernodes it'll use ××× . . . × 9
10_b_its nine 1001 . . . 1 _118__bits_ because the super node
labels expression.
Any node whose label matches the 118 instantiated bits may
be a potential super node. Once a message is sent towards the
super node label, the physical node with the closest node label
can receive it.
Supernodes take charge of the service. The instigator will send
a message towards the super node labels to tell the chosen
supernodes. The notification is finished via multicast within
the overlay network. Every physical node that owns a node
whose label matches the super node label expression can
receive the message and become a super node. As an
alternative, a super node takes charge upon receiving the
primary request from a non-super node.
Non-super node joins service. If a non-super node desires to
join a service, it's up the super node label expression within
the DHT. The non-super node will then find out the closest
super node within the virtual overlay per the label-based
routing protocol. The structured overlay network provides
bounded virtual routing with path length proportional to house
the gap} between labels within the label space. In will the
non-super node uses the Cartesian distance between its own
label and therefore the super node label to estimate distance.
In Pastry, the non-super node uses the bit-wise XOR operation
to work out the label distance from that it estimates the
physical distance.
Resilience and fault tolerance. SOLE should operate in things
within which supernodes depart gracefully or die suddenly. A
super node will replicate super node-related state on the
neighbor nodes which will take over the subspace covered by
its label if it fails. Supernodes failure is going to be detected
by the underlying overlay network maintenance protocol.
Gracefully capable neighbor of the unsuccessful super node
will then take over the super node role. Heterogeneousness.
Supernodes ought to be those nodes with higher capability
with relation to CPU speed, network connections, and
alternative resources. If a replacement node joins towards
associate existing super node coordinate, the new node and
therefore the existing physical node serving as a super node
will negotiate to examine that one is additional capable to
require the super node role. Finally, a close-by non-super node
can give to require over a close-by supernodes role if it's
additional capable by swapping virtual subspaces. Ability. A
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3305
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
non-super node will switch to a different super node once it's
not satisfied with the performance of its current super node. It
will confirm the space to alternative supernodes by
examination its own node label expression with the
supernodes node label expression or it will question the DHT
to examine if new supernodes are hand-picked by the
instigator. Once additional supernodes square measure
required the instigator simply expands the super node label
expression to hide additional virtual node labels. Several peerto-peer applications designed on structured overlay networks
will enjoy SOLE. For instance, SOLE are often wont to
dynamically choose supernodes to act as rendezvous points
for applications like cycle sharing, publish/subscribe, or
storage sharing. analysis in resource discovery in peer-to-peer
cycle sharing systems has shown that if rendezvous points are
wont to collect resource data and to match queries from
purchasers, the performance are going to be dramatically
improved compared with probing-based or advertisementbased resource discovery ways [24].
B. POPCORN: SUPERNODE choice ON A COORDINATEBASED OVERLAY NETWORK
Popcorn assumes associate n-dimensional geometrician
coordinate space using a web organization like NP [14] or
Vivaldi [1]. Popcorn is suited to applications that want to pick
a set set of k supernodes and distribute them equally
throughout the overlay, to perform a service like security
observation, protocol testing, or knowledge repositories.
Popcorn’s primary distribution criteria, dispersal, is achieved
by maximizing the add of inter-node distances between all
pairs of supernodes. Popcorn additionally achieves sensible
access from non supernodes to super node, and might be
simply extended to deal with heterogeneousness, ability, and
fault tolerance. The PoPCorn protocol selects k supernodes by
dispersing k tokens through the overlay coordinate house
using a repulsion model among the tokens, analogous to
forces among charged particles. Every token represents one in
all the supernodes that moves through the overlay supported
the forces exerted on that by alternative tokens. Once
equilibrium is reached, every node holding a token is chosen
as a super node.
Initial Token Placement.
The instigator sends out k tokens to random peers within the
overlay. Every peer will receive at the most one token. Any
peer that receives a token becomes a possible super node. The
instigator will distribute the tokens itself or it will ask its
neighbors to assist distribute tokens.
Token Adjustment.
The repulsion model is used to regulate the location of the
tokens. Once a node receives a token and becomes a possible
super node, it'll begin a scoped gossip mongering session with
its neighbors to inform them the coordinates of the token it
ISSN: 2231-5381
holds. Whenever a gossiping message arrives, a possible super
node can work out the combined force vector of repulsions
from near tokens. If the magnitude of the combined repulsions
exceeds a threshold TR, this potential super node can pass its
token to the neighbor whose position is highest to the
direction of the combined repulsion vector. Figure two
illustrates the repulsion model with an easy example within
which the nodes square measure equally distributed in an
exceedingly 2-dimensional Euclidean space. There are three
potential supernodes: A, B, and F. Node A receives two
repulsions RF and atomic number 37, from nodes F and B,
severally. The mixture of the two repulsions is vector R.
Among A’s neighbors, D has the littlest angle with R (_ RAD
is that the smallest). If the magnitude of R exceeds A’s
threshold, A can pass its token to node D, which can became a
replacement potential super node.
Finalization.
If the time that a token stays on one potential super node
exceeds it slow limit T, the node can mark its standing as
stable and it'll not
Participate in token migration. once the PoPCorn tokens have
stable, every node holding a token reports its position to the
PoP leader who can eventually ship the code for the PoP task
additionally because the location of the opposite tokens.
Heterogeneousness the brink operates TR for a node will be
modified per the qualifications of that node to be a super node.
Nodes that are well qualified to function supernodes have
higher threshold values, whereas poorly qualified nodes have
lower thresholds. AN unqualified node will set its threshold to
zero.
Adaptiveness and Resilience. Every token includes a
distinctive ID and nodes that hold the tokens gossip the IDs of
the tokens. Loss of a token caused by node leave or failure is
going to be noticed by missing heart beat messages from that
token. The neighbor tokens will conceive to replace this
missing token by generating a token with AN ID identical to
the missing token. They’ll place the new token within the last
according location of the missing token, then let the Popcorn
protocol alter the situation of that new token supported
repulsion forces. as an alternative, the node that discovers the
loss of a token will report back to the leader and let it decide
whether or not it has to inject a replacement token or not.
Load Balance. The brink operates within the Popcorn protocol
will be utilized in alternative inventive ways in which, as an
example, to satisfy load leveling criteria. So as to create a lot
of tokens keep in high density regions of the overlay, a
possible super node will question its neighbors and gather
native data concerning the amount of close nodes. Supported
this data, if a possible super node detects that it's in a very
high density region, it will set the next threshold that should
be overcome for the token to maneuver. Similarly, potential
supernodes in lower density regions can set a lower threshold
and can be a lot of possible to pass tokens on to alternative
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3306
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) - Volume4 Issue8- August 2013
nodes. Popcorn was designed as a parent of the CCOF
(Cluster Computing on the Fly) [12] project for peer-to-peer
cycle sharing (harnessing idle cycles throughout the Internet).
Popcorn places tasks that jointly type a distributed point-ofpresence (PoP) application into a cycle sharing overlay
network. PoP applications generally have low hardware and
moderate communication needs. Examples embody security
monitors, net menstruation monitors, and distributed protocol
testing. Compared to volunteer systems, like NETI@home,
Popcorn will higher satisfy the distribution criteria and place
tasks equally throughout the overlay.
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The challenge of the super node choice downside for peer-topeer applications lies in its ought to fulfill dissemination and
access criteria in a very method that's scalable, extremely
adaptative, fault tolerant, which respects native node
autonomy. What is more, the super node choice protocols
should deal with AN unknown, massive scale, dynamically
dynamical, and heterogeneous network. We’ve got
represented 3 super node choice protocols that agitate a
number of these challenges in distinctive ways in which.
SOLE and any protocol supported structured overlays
capitalizes on the employment the super node label expression
to expeditiously write in code the identity of all the
supernodes additionally because the distances to supernodes.
Asynchronous distributed protocols like Popcorn and H20 are
maximally versatile as a result of the supply native
management over super node choice criteria. Thus, they'll be
simply tailored to a large style of applications. However, they
need to be rigorously designed to attenuate message-passing
overhead and converge to a (reasonably) stable set of
supernodes. There are several open issues for the super node
choice downside.
(1) Algorithmic rule and protocol development.
There’s a desire for absolutely distributed algorithms for the
underlying graph speculative dominating set and p-centers
that operative under dynamic conditions. Additionally,
protocols that emphasize specific distribution criteria, or that
are tailored to categories of applications ought to be
developed. Bridging the gap between abstract algorithms and
sensible protocols is difficult.
(2) Performance analysis.
Measure the performance of a super node choice protocol
could be a laborious downside in a very massive dynamic
network. Metrics, workloads, benchmarks from peer-to-peer
computing ought to be assemble that may be wont to measure
and compare super node choice protocols in dynamic massive
scale networks. It’s not cleared nevertheless what metrics best
capture dissemination, access, proportion, and cargo balance.
ISSN: 2231-5381
(3) Security. Clearly
A large varies of queries associated with secure super node
choice stay open. These embody handling denial Of service
attacks on the supernodes, additionally as the way to observe
and neutralize malicious supernodes. We have a tendency to
believe AN integrated approach to the super node choice
downside, engineered on sturdy graph speculative foundations
and guided by realistic applications, will yield edges for the
sphere of peer-to-peer computing and on the fare side.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Dabek, R. Cox, F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris. Vivaldi: A decentralized
network coordinate system. In SIGCOMM ’04.
[2] B. Das and V. Bharghavan. Routing in ad-hoc networks using minimum
connected dominating sets. In ICC (1), pages 376–380, 1997.
[3] D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann, and S. Kumar. Next century
challenges: scalable coordination in sensor networks. In MobiCom’99.
[4] R. A. Ferreira, S. Jagannathan, and A. Grama. Enhancing locality in
structured peer-to-peer networks. In ICPADS, 2004.
[5] P. Francis, S. Jamin, V. Paxson, L. Zhang, D. Gryniewicz, and Y. Jin. An
architecture for a global Internet host distance estimation service. In
INFOCOM’99.
[6] Gnutella Protocol Development. http://www. the-gdf.org, 2005.
[7] G. Handler and P. Mirchandani. Location on Networks: Theory and
Algorithms. The MIT Press, 1979.
[8] T. Haynes, S. Hedetniemi, and P. Slater. Fundamentals of Domination in
Graphs. 1998.
[9] X. Kang, D. Zhou, D. Rao, J. Li, and V. Lo. Sequoia: A robust
communication architecture for collaborative security monitoring systems. In
Poster session, SIGCOMM’ 04.
[10] M. Karlsson, M. Mahalingam, and Z. Xu. Turning heterogeneity into an
advantage in overlay routing. In INFOCOM’ 02.
[11] Kazaa http://www.kazaa.com.
[12] V. Lo, D. Zappala, D. Zhou, Y. Liu, and S. Zhao. Cluster Computing on
the Fly: P2P scheduling of idle cycles in
the Internet. In IPTPS’04.
[13] A. Lynch. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco,
1997.
[14] T. Ng and H. Zhang. Predicting Internet network distance with
coordinates-based approaches. In INFOCOM’02.
[15] V. Paxson. End-to-end routing behavior in the Internet. In SIGCOMM
Conference on Applications, Technologies,
Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, 1996.
[16] S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker. A
scalable content addressable network. In
SIGCOMM’01.
[17] S. Ratnasamy, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker. Topologicallyaware overlay construction and server selection.
In INFOCOM’02, 2002.
[18] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Pastry: scalable, decentralized object
location, and routing for large-scale peerto- peer systems. In Proc. 18th
IFIP/ACM Int’l Conf. on Distributed Systems Platforms, Nov. 2001.
[19] C. R. Simpson, Jr., and G. F. Riley. Neti@home: A distributed approach
to collecting end-to-end network performance measurements. In 5th Passive
and Active Measurement Workshop, Apr. 2004.
[20] I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan.
Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In
Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diago, CA, Aug. 2001.
[21] V. Vazirani. Approximation Methods. Springer-Verlag,1999.
[22] P. Wan, K. Alzoubi, and O. Frieder. Distributed construction of
connected dominating set in wireless ad hoc networks. Mob. Netw. Appl.,
9(2), 2004.
[23] J. Wu, F. Dai, M. Gao, and I. Stojmenovic. On calculating power-aware
connected dominating sets for efficient routing in ad hoc wireless networks.
Journal of Communications and Networks, 4(1), March 2002.
[24] D. Zhou and V. Lo. Cluster Computing on the Fly: in a cycle sharing
peer-to-peer system. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on
Global and P2P Computing (GP2PC’04), 2004.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 3307