Design and investigation of scalable multicast recursive protocols for wired and wireless ad hoc networks



Case 2: the leaving member is the last member connected to the designated LMR and
the BNR connecting this LMR will stay a BNR after member leaving the multicast
group.

Case 3 : the leaving member is the last member connected to the designated LMR and
the BNR connecting this LMR will not be a BNR any more.

In this section these cases will be discussed in detail assuming that S is the multicast group
source node, N1 to N3 are IMRs or BNRs, M1 to M5 are LMRs and (a, b) and (x) are
receivers already joined or need to leave the multicast tree respectively.

Case 1:

In this case, Figure 4.9, the leaving member (x) sends a leaveM message to its designated
LMR (M3), M3 will know that the leaving member (x) is not the last member connected to it.
This is done by checking the entries in the Multicast Destination Table (MDT) maintained
each LMR.

Figure 4.9 Leaving process in SReM (Case 1)


Nodes

MFTs

Before x leaves

After x leaves

S (Source)

MTI | IP_V1

unchanged

V1

MTI | IP_V3 &IP_M4

unchanged

V2

MTI | IP_V3 , IP_M3, IP_M5

unchanged

V3

MTI | IP_M1 & IP_M2

unchanged

Leave message


RqM


The designated LMR (M3) will initiate a RqM0(01) message and forwards it directly to the
source. Because the S bit flag is 0, the intermediate IMRs or BNRs will not process this
message and it will take a short period of time to arrive the source. It worth noting that there
is no changing in the multicast tree because member (x) leaving the group.

70



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PRODUCTION EFFECTS OF ADOPTING GM SEED TECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF FARMERS IN ARGENTINA
4. Disentangling the Sources of Pro-social Behavior in the Workplace: A Field Experiment
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Why Managers Hold Shares of Their Firms: An Empirical Analysis
9. The name is absent
10. Firm Creation, Firm Evolution and Clusters in Chile’s Dynamic Wine Sector: Evidence from the Colchagua and Casablanca Regions