International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

97
www.ijete.org


Prototypical Assessment of PIM-DM, DVMRP, CTR and BST
Multicasting Modes

Shalu Sraw
1
, Gurpreet Singh
2

1,2
Department of Computer Sc. & Engg.,
Yamuna Institute of Engg. & Tech., Gadholi, Yamuna Nagar


ABSTRACT
The paper contrast a Multicasting network using PIM-
DM (Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode),
DVMRP (Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol),
CTR (Centralized Tree) and BST (Bi-Directional Shared
Tree) protocols using NS2. The networking topology is
well analyzed to record number of packets send, average
throughput, average delay, average jitter, and average
path. The simulation results mark that BST is better in
terms of packet sent as compare to others and hence has
high throughput value. It is also good in terms of
average path that is it covers less number of hops. But
when talking about average jitter and average delay it is
not considered good, in these two cases CTR works
well.

Keywords PIM-DM, DVMRP, CTR, BST, Multicasting,
NS2.

I. INTRODUCTION

Steeve Deering et al. in 1986 developed an approach in
which a single source can transmit a message to multiple
receivers simultaneously; this is called as multicast [1,
2]. He initially used MBONE to develop multicasting
between sites through the use of tunnels and further
renewed his approach to make the service available to a
wide array of end users [3].It is a stateful service in that
it requires routers to maintain state for forwarding
multicast data toward receivers [4, 15]. It is a widely
used service in todays computer networking system and
mostly used in Streaming media, Internet television,
videoconferencing and net meeting. To carry out
multicasting numbers of multicast routing protocols are
available. These protocols depend upon multicast
routing strategies. These can be easily studied with the
help of NS2 [5].

1. Multicast route computation strategies for the
wire-line network: It is the mechanism which supports
the creation of the multicast distribution tree in the
simulation. NS supports four route computation
strategies: centralized, dense mode (DM), shared tree
mode (ST), bidirectional shared tree mode (BST).This
route creation strategies are specified to the simulator
using mrtproto{} method. And to enable multicast
support in simulator following commands are required:
set ns [new Simulator -multicast on]
or
set ns [new Simulator]
$ns multicast
1.1 Dense Mode (DM): It can activate two modes which
depend on the value of DM class variable
CacheMissMode. If CacheMissMode is set to pimdm
(default), PIM-DM [6,7] like forwarding rules will be
used. Alternatively, CacheMissMode can be set to
DVMRP [8]. The main difference between these two
modes is that DVMRP maintains parentchild
relationships among nodes to reduce the number of links
over which data packets are broadcast.
1.2 Centralized multicast (CM): The centralized
multicast is a sparse mode implementation of multicast
similar to PIM-SM [9, 10] or CBT [11, 12]. In this a
Rendezvous Point (RP) rooted shared tree is built for a
multicast group. It implements two types of multicast
trees, the default one is the RPT tree with rendezvous
point (RP), the other is SPT tree that consists of a source
specific shortest path tree. The user can choose between
these two tree types depending upon application
requirements [13].
1.3 Shared Tree Mode (ST): It is a simplified sparse
mode implementation of the shared tree (with RP)
multicast protocol.
1.4 Bi-directional Shared Tree Mode: It is an
implementation of the shared tree with bidirectional
capability [14].

These different modes cover almost all types of
multicast routing protocol like DVMRP, PIMDM, CBT,
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)
Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

98
www.ijete.org

PIMSM, and Bidir-PIM etc with only minor
modifications.

II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1. Topology
A network of 20 nodes is created and UDP protocol is
used to send constant bit rate (cbr) packets. Here source
node is considered at node 1. From this node packets are
sent to particular group nodes. Types of packets
transmitted are: neighbor probe, route discover, prune
message and graft message. Neighbor probe and route
discover are black in color, prune messages has purple
color and graft messages has green color. Initially there
is no node in a multicast group and with time some
nodes join the group using join-group ns command and
some leave using leave-group. In this topology all node
are multicast capable nodes. Each node has it capacity
i.e. has well defined queue length, if this length is
exceeded then the node starts dropping packets. This
situation is as a result of increase in number of packets
in the network. We have used Fig. 1 as a common
topology to deal with all multicasting modes. Among
these modes PIMDM and DVMRP are simple routing
protocols but in case of CTR and BST there is a need of
a central node i.e. Rendezvous point (RP). For CTR RP,
is at node 5 and for BST at node 2.


Figure 1: Common Network Topology Design

2.2 PIM-DM (Protocol Independent Multicast
Dense Mode)
PIM-DM [6, 7] is a source based tree routing protocol
that uses RPF, pruning and grafting strategies for
multicasting. Its operation is like that of DVMRP;
however, unlike DVMRP, it does not depend on a
specific unicasting protocol. It assumes that the
autonomous system is using a unicast protocol and each
router has a table that can find the outgoing interface that
has an optimal path to a destination. This unicast
protocol can be a distance vector protocol or link state
protocol. It is envisioned that PIM-DM will be deployed
in resource-rich environments, such as a campus LAN
where group membership is relatively dense and
bandwidth is readily available.
PIM DM protocol works in two phases:
In the first phase, the whole network is flooded with
multicast data and this is done by propagation of packet
on all interfaces except on upstream interface. This
phase is highly inefficient because it leads to excessive
network resource usage because of its network flooding
technique.
In the second stage, unnecessary branches are cut down
by means of a Prune message. A network device, after
reception of a prune packet, terminates further
forwarding of multicast traffic on this interface and the
interface is set to be in prune state.
Command used for Configuring PIM-DM
Set group [Node allocaddr]
set mproto DM

2.3 DVMRP (Distance Vector Multicast Routing
Protocol)
The distance vector multicast routing protocol [8] is an
implementation of multicast distance vector routing. It
builds a multicast tree for each source and destination
host group. It implements the Reverse Path Multicasting
(RPM) algorithm. It is a source based routing protocol,
based on RIP, but the router never actually makes a
routing table but it uses unicast routing protocol for this
purpose. When a router receives a multicast packet it
forwards (broadcast) it. DVMRP uses a Broadcast &
Prune mechanism. That is, a broadcast tree is build from
a source by exchanging routing information. Then this
broadcast tree is changed to multicast tree by using
pruning technique. More specifically, initially multicast
datagrams are delivered to all nodes on the tree. Those
leaves that do not have any group members send prune
messages to the upstream router, noting the absence of a
group. The upstream router maintains a prune state for
this group for the given sender. A prune state is aged out
after a given configurable interval, allowing multicasts
to resume. Pruned branches are restored to a multicast
tree by sending graft messages towards the upstream
router. Graft messages start at the leaf node and travel up
the tree, first sending the message to its neighbor
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)
Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

99
www.ijete.org

upstream router. Thus it works on broadcasting, pruning
and grafting process.

Command used for Configuring DVMRP
set group [Node allocaddr]
DM set CacheMissMode dvmrp
set mproto DM

2.4 CTR mode supports mainly following two types
of multicast routing protocol.

2.4.1 PIM-SM (Protocol Independent Multicast-
Sparse Mode)
PIM-SM [9, 10] is a group-shared tree routing protocol
that has a rendezvous point (RP) as the source of the
tree. Its operation is like CBT; however, it is simpler
because it does not require acknowledgement from a join
message. In addition, it creates a backup set of RPs for
each region to cover RP failures. PIM-SM creates and
maintains unidirectional multicast trees based on explicit
Join/Prune protocol messages. PIM-SM it is designed to
support sparse groups. PIM-SM creates a shared, RP-
routed distribution tree that reaches all group members
and it authorizes the receivers to switch from a RP
(Rendezvous Point)-routed tree (RPT) to a shortest path
tree (SPT).
It works in following phases:
The phase one of the protocol formulates a distribution
tree for multicast.
The second phase of PIM-SM operation is the Register
STOP operation.
The third phase of protocol is the formation of Shortest
Path Tree (SPT).

2.4.2 CBT (Core Based Tree)
CBT [11, 12] was first proposed by Ballardie, Francis,
and Crowcroft. It floods the data or the membership
information from the multicast group address to a
particular unicast address (core address) of a router
(Core Router), and build explicit distribution trees
centered on this particular router. It has a single Core
Tree per group.

Working of CBT
1. Identification of Core Router: Selection of core should
be done carefully. A router could become a core when a
host on one of its attached subnets wishes to initiate a
group. Or in case of a single sender, the router nearest to
it could become a core.
2. Formation of tree: After the rendezvous point (core)
is selected, every router is informed of the unicast
address of the selected router. Each router then sends a
unicast join message (similar to a grafting message) to
show that it wants to join the group. This message passes
through all the routers that are located between the
sender and rendezvous router. Thus results in the
formation of a tree.
3. Sending multicast packets: After formation of the
tree, any source can send a multicast packet to all
members of the group. It simply sends the packets to the
rendezvous router; this router distributes the packets to
all the members of the group.
Commands used for configuring CTR:
set group [Node allocaddr]
set mproto CtrMcast
$mrthandle set_c_rp $n(5)
In BST simulation we have set node 2 as RP to maintain
statetable.

2.5 BST (Bidirectional Shared Tree)
BST is a multicasting protocol implemented in NS2 is in
Research mode. In BST, multicast data can travel in both
the direction of tree for each receiver [14]. When
receivers are distributed throughout the network it gives
the better result than other. Bidirectional trees offer
improved routing optimality by being able to forward
data in both directions while retaining a minimum
amount of state information. RP used in this system is
used to maintain the routing table for the upstream and
downstream receivers. All the data is sent to the RP and
RP then forwards is to the receivers using minimal path.

Commands used for configuring BST:
set group [Node allocaddr]
BST set RP_ ($group) $n(2)
$ns mrtproto BST
In BST simulation we have set node 2 as RP to maintain
state table.

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUTION

Here we have measured and compared the different
performance parameters of multicasting strategy modes
i.e. PIM-DM, DVMRP, CBT, BST in static network
with the help of NS2 and finally plotted bar and line
graphs. Performance parameters used for comparison
are:
1. Throughput: It is the rate at which packets can be
delivered successfully from one location to another in a
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)
Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

100
www.ijete.org

given amount of time. It can be represented in terms of
ratio of packets sent per unit time or in terms of ratio of
bytes sent per unit time. Time is represented in seconds.


Figure 2: Throughput (Packet/Second)

Fig. 2 and 3 shows the throughput in terms of
Packets/Second and Bytes/Second respectively for
discussed protocols in terms of line graph. This shows
that BST has better throughput as compared to others on
the other hand CTR has low throughput value.


Figure 3: Throughput (Bytes/Second)


Figure 4: Throughput (Bytes/Second)

Fig.4 shows the throughput in terms of Bytes/Second for
discussed protocols in terms of bar graph. This shows
that BST has better throughput as compared to other on
the other hand CTR has low throughput value.
2. Average Delay: It refers to the time taken for a packet
to be transmitted across a network from source to
destination.


Figure 5: Average End to End Delay

Fig. 5 shows the average end to end delay of discussed
protocols in terms of bar graph. This shows that CTR
takes less time to deliver a packet as it has less delay
value.
3. Average Jitter: It refers as a variation in delay with
respect to some definition rate or time.
0
200
400
600
800
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
a
c
k
e
t
s
Time in Seconds
Throughput
(Packets/ Second)
CTR
PIMDM
DVMRP
BST
0
50000
100000
150000
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

B
y
t
e
s
Time in Seconds
Throughput
(Bytes/Second)
CTR
PIMDM
DVMRP
BST
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
C
T
R
P
I
M
D
M
D
V
M
R
P
B
S
T
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

B
y
t
e
s

p
e
r

S
e
c
o
n
d
Multicast Protocols
Throughput
(Bytes/Second)
Throughput
(Bytes/Second)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
T
i
m
e

i
n


S
e
c
o
n
d
s
Multicast Protocols
Average End to End
Delay
Average End to
End Delay
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)
Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

101
www.ijete.org


Figure 6: Average Jitter

Fig. 6 shows the average jitter of discussed protocols in
terms of bar graph. This shows that CTR has less
variation in delay on the other hand PIMDM has more.
4. Number of Packets Send: It is simply the rate of
transmission of number of packets.


Figure 7: Number of Packets Send

Fig. 7 shows the numbers of packets send by discussed
protocols. This shows that transmission rate of BST is
better than all others on the other hand CTR has very
low transmission rate
5. Average Path: It includes the number of hops
covered for packet transmission to its destination.


Figure 8: Average Path

Fig. 8 shows the average path of discussed protocols in
terms of bar graph. This shows that BST has less number
to hops to traverse as compared to other on the other
hand PIMDM has large number of hops to cover.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

Table 1 Simulation information of PIMDM, DVMRP,
CTR, BST
Multicast
Modes PIMD
M
DVMR
P
CTR BST
Performance
Parameters
Throughput
(Bytes/Secon
d)
87491.2
5
87622.5 28245 88200
Average End
to End Delay
0.44069
2
0.41228
5
0.26177
8
0.35007
2
Average
Jitter
0.29729
5
0.28503
7
0.10103
6
0.28866
3
Number of
Packets
Send
2838 3399 1316 3921
Average
Path
6.48874
9
4.96195
3
5.60037
2
3.17559
5

This table is formulated by using NS simulator. For this
we ran the simulator for 7.5 sec for 20 nodes and for
different protocols as PIMDM, DVMRP, CTR, and
BST. The results obtained are in form of values in terms
of seconds for different parameters. On analyzing these
values we came to know that BST outperforms all these
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
T
i
m
e

i
n

S
e
c
o
n
d
s
Multicast Protocols
Average Jitter
Average Jitter
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
N
o
.

O
f

P
a
c
k
e
t
s
Multicast Protocols
Number of Packets
Send
Number of
Packets Send
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
T
i
m
e

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
Multicast Protocols
Average Path
Average Path
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)
Volume 1 Issue 4, May2014, ISSN 2348 8050

102
www.ijete.org

protocol modes. These obtained values are plotted in
terms of bar and line graph in section 3.

V. CONCLUSION

This paper compares the multicasting protocols using
NS2 simulation tool on the basis of different
performance parameters as throughput, average end to
end delay, average jitter, number of packets send and
average path. We concluded that the throughput and
number of packets send by BST network is mark ably
high and its average path is also low but when talking
about average delay and average jitter CTR outperforms
it. So on the basis of overall comparison BST performs
well for our work.

REFERENCES

[1] S.E.Deering, D.R.Cheriton, Multicast routing in
datagram internetworks and extended LANS, ACM
Transactions on Computer Systems, 8(2), 1990, 85- 110.
[2] K. Obraczka, Multicast transport protocols: A survey
and taxonomy, IEEE Communication Mag., 36, 1998,
94102.
[3] K. Almeroth, The evolution of multicast: From the
MBone to inter domain multicast to Internet2
deployment, IEEE Network, 14, 2000, 1020.
[4] S S Nagamuthu Krishnan, V Saravanan, Defending
Denial of Service: State Overload, Int. J. Advanced
Networking and Applications, 2(3), 2010, 719-722.
[5] Kevin Fall, Kannan Varadhan, The ns Manual
(formerly ns Notes and Documentation), The VINT
Project A Collaboration between researchers at UC
Berkeley, 2010, pp. 73.
[6] A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak, Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM):
Protocol Specification (Revised), IETF RFC 3973, 2005.
[7] T. Bartczak and P. Zwierzykowski, Validation of
PIM DM implementation in the NS2 simulator, ISAT,
2007, 117-127.
[8] D. Waitzman, C. Partridge, and S. Deering, Distance
vector multicast routing protocol (DVMRP), IETF, RFC
1075,1988.
[9] D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S.
Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma,
and L. Wei, Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification, IETFRFC
2117, 1997.
[10] B. Fenner, M. Handley, H. Holbrook and I.
Kouvelas, Protocol independent Multicast Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol Specification .(Revised),
IETF RFC 4601, 2006.
[11] A. J. Ballardie, P. F. Francis, and J. Crowcroft, Core
Based Trees, ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, 23(4), 1993, 8595.
[12] Weijia Jia, Wei Zhao, Dong Xuan, Gaochao Xu, An
efficient fault-tolerant multicast routing protocol with
core-based tree techniques, IEEE Transactions on
Parallel and Distributed Systems, 10(10), 984-1000.
[13] Tom Billhartz, J. Bibb Cain, Ellen Farrey-
Goudreau, Doug Fieg, and Stephen Gordon Batsell,
Performance and resource cost comparison for the CBT
and PIM multicast routing protocols, IEEE J. Selec.
Areas Commun., 15(3), 1997, 304-315.
[14] Mona A, Abou-Of,Dynamic Bi-directional
Multicast Shared Tree, High-Capacity Optical Networks
and Enabling Technologies (HONET), 2009, 274 279.
[15] Shalu Sraw, Gurpreet Singh, Amanpreet Kaur, A
Survey of Multicast Routing Protocols in MANETS, In
the proceedings 2
nd
International Conference on
Futuristic Trends in Engineering & Management 2014)
& In Online Journal International Journal of
Computer Science and Communication, pp. 220-224,
May 2014.