One document matched: draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2234 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2234.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-00.txt" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title>Efficient Chunk Availability Compression for PPSP
</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
<author fullname="Lingli Deng" initials='L.D.'
surname="Deng">
<organization>China Mobile</organization>
<address>
<email>denglingli@chinamobile.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Jin Peng" initials='J.P'
surname="Peng">
<organization>China Mobile</organization>
<address>
<email>pengjin@chinamobile.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Yunfei Zhang" initials='Y.Z.'
surname="Zhang">
<organization>CoolPad</organization>
<address>
<email>hishigh@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="3" month="July" year="2013" />
<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<area></area>
<workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword></keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document proposes to employ bloom filter algorithms in compressing chunk availability information in exchange
between peers and the tracker through the PPSP-TP protocol and PPSPP protocol. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>As it is pointed out by <xref target="I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement"/>, current practices often use a "bitmap" message in order to exchange chunk availability. The message is of kilobytes in size and exchanged frequently, e.g., an interval of several seconds or less. </t>
<t>To begin with, in a mobile environment with scarce bandwidth, the message size may need to be shortened or it may require more efficient methods for expressing and distributing chunk availability information, which is different from wire-line P2P streaming. </t>
<t>Even in a wire-line P2P streaming application, frequent exchange of large volume of bitmap information, is among the key factors that set a limit to the system's efficiency and scalability <xref target="P2P-limit"/>. </t>
<t>Therefore, the following requirements for PPSP protocols in terms of chunk availability exchange are stated in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement"/> :
<list style="empty">
<t> PPSP.TP.REQ-3: The tracker protocol MUST take the frequency of messages and efficient use of bandwidth into consideration, when communicating chunk availability information.</t>
<t> PPSP.PP.REQ-7: The peer protocol MUST take the frequency of messages and efficient use of bandwidth into consideration, when communicating chunk information.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t> To this end, we propose to employ bloom filter algorithms in compressing chunk availability information in exchange between peers and the tracker through the PPSP-TP protocol and PPSPP protocol, in view of its widely demonstrated high compacted data structure and low complexity and cost in storage, transportation and computation.
</t>
</section>
<section title=" Background on Bloom Filter">
<t>Bloom Filter (or BF for short) was first introduced in 1970s <xref target="BF-bloom"/>, which makes use of multiple
hashing functions to build a mapping from a set to a compact binary array, for the purpose of highly efficient member
queries with a tolerably low error rate of wrongly reported hits. Despite their extraordinary efficiency in terms of
storage reduction and query acceleration, bloom filters suffer from the fact that there is possibility that a non-member
of the set be taken as a member after the query. However, research <xref target="BF-analysis"/> shows that the odds that
a BF makes an erroneous query response can be suppressed to near zero, by tactful selection and configuration of various
system parameters, including the hash functions used, the number of hash functions to be used, and the length of the bit
array. </t>
<figure align="center" anchor="figure_1" title="Basic algorithms for BF-bitmap">
<artwork align="left">
<![CDATA[
------------------------------------------------
BF(set S, integer m, hash set H)
1 filter=allocate m bits initialized to 0;
2 for each xi in S do
3 for each hash functions hi in H do
4 filter[hi(xi)]=1;
5 return filter;
-------------------------------------------------
MT(element elm, BF filter, integar m, hash set H)
1 for each hash functions hi in H do
2 if (filter[hi(elm)]!=1)
3 return false;
4 return true;
-------------------------------------------------
]]>
</artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>More specifically, as shown in Figure 1, the BF(S,m) algorithm takes a n-membered sub-set S={x1,x2,...,xn} from a
universal set U, as input and outputs a m-bit binary array B as a compacted representation of S. In order to do that,
it makes use of k independent random hash functions, each of which maps a member to a bit in B
(i.e hj: U-> [1,m], j=1...k) by marking all the k bits mapped from each member of S. The BF algorithm is highly
efficient in the following aspects:
<list style="symbols">
<t> It is quite simple and straightforward to generate the BF representation of a set S, B=BF(S): initially, all the bits in B is set to 0; then, for each member x of the set S, mark each bit in B, to which a hash function maps x (as shown in Figure 1 as the BF algorithm). </t>
<t> It is highly efficient to check whether or not a given element x is in any BF-represented set B=BF(S): for each hash function hj, check the value of B[hj(x)] against 1. It is always safe to exclude the element x out of set S, once there is a zero-valued hash bit, otherwise it is assumed that x is a member of S (as shown in by the MT algorithm in Figure 1). </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>For instance, given a 2GB movie file, the original bitmap for a sharing peer would be 1024-bit, if using 2MB-sized chunks. By simply using 4 random hash functions and a 128-bit BF-bitmap, the possibility of erroneous hits by MT algorithm would be lower than 3%. </t>
<t>As for a simple illustration, the 4 hash functions may be established through the MD5 message-digest algorithm [RFC1321], a widely used cryptographic hash function that produces a 128-bit (16-byte) hash value from an arbitrary binary input. MD5 has been utilized in a wide variety of security applications, and is also commonly used to check data integrity. </t>
<t>Specifically, the processing of 4 hash functions is as follows: use the MD5 algorithm to turn a given chunk_ID into a 128-bit binary array, further separate the 128 bits into 4 arrays (32-bit each), and finally divide each of them using 128 to yield four integers in the range of [1,m]. </t>
</section>
<section title="BF-based Chunk Availability Exchange">
<section title="A non-BF PPSP session">
<t>We borrow the general message flow (shown in Figure 2) from [I-D.ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol] to exemplify the usage of BF-bitmap in PPSP protocols.</t>
<figure align="center" anchor="figure_2" title="A typical PPSP session for watching a streaming content.">
<artwork align="left">
<![CDATA[
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+
| Player | | Peer 1 | | Portal | | Tracker| | Peer 2|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+
| | | | |
|--Page request----------------->| | |
|<--------------Page with links--| | |
|--Select stream (MPD Request)-->| | |
|<--------------------OK+MPD(x)--| | |
|--Start/Resume->|--CONNECT(join x)------------>| |
|<-----------OK--|<----------------OK+Peerlist--| |
| | | |
|--Get(Chunk)--->|<---------- (Peer protocol) ------------->|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
| |--STAT_REPORT---------------->| |
| |<-------------------------Ok--| |
: : : : :
|--Get(Chunk)--->|<---------- (Peer protocol) ------------->|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
]]>
</artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>When a peer wants to receive streaming of a selected content (Leech mode):
<list style="numbers">
<t>Peer connects to a connection tracker and joins a swarm.</t>
<t>Peer acquires a list of other peers in the swarm from the connection tracker.</t>
<t>Peer exchanges its content availability with the peers on the obtained peer list (via peer protocol).</t>
<t>Peer identifies the peers with desired content.</t>
<t>Peer requests content from the identified peers (peer protocol).</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>When a peer wants to share streaming contents (Seeder mode) with other peers:
<list style="numbers">
<t>Peer connects to the connection tracker.</t>
<t>Peer sends information to the connection tracker about the swarms it belongs to (joined swarms).</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="A PPSP Session with BF-bitmaps">
<t>This document proposes to employ bloom filter algorithms in compressing chunk availability information in exchange between peers and the tracker through the PPSP-TP protocols and PPSPP protocol. The key modifications to the current protocols are summarized as follows: (as shown in Figure 3)</t>
<figure align="center" anchor="figure_3" title="A typical PPSP session with BF-bitmaps.">
<artwork align="left">
<![CDATA[
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+
| Player | | Peer 1 | | Portal | | Tracker| | Peer 2|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+
| | | | |
(a1) |--Page request----------------->| | |
|<----Page with links(+BF conf)--| | |
|--Select stream (MPD Request)-->| | |
|<----------OK+MPD(x)(+BF conf)--| | |
(a2) |--Start/Resume->|--CONNECT(join x)------------>| |
|<-----------OK--|<------OK(+BF conf)+Peerlist--| |
| | | |
(c1) | |<------------ HAVE(BF(S2))----------------|
(c2) |-Get(Chunk s1)->| | | |
(c3) | |------------- REQUEST(BF(s1))------------>|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
(a3) | |-STAT_REPORT(BF(ContentMap))->| |
| |<-------------------------Ok--| |
: : : : :
|--Get(Chunk)--->|<---------- (Peer protocol) ------------->|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
]]>
</artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>
<list style="letters">
<t>Integration to the base TP protocol:
<list style="symbols">
<t>(a1-a2)Configuration Setup: m, The length of the output bit array and H, the hash functions in use, are system level parameters that should be configured globally and stored at the tracker and published to a joining peer through the TP protocols. </t>
<t>(a3)Peers use the BF(S,m,H) algorithm for compressing the subset of locally stored and integrity verified chunks (set S) in terms of a given swarm-ID, whenever reporting or updating its chunk availability information with the tracker. The length of each BF-bitmap is constant (O(m)). </t>
<t>In response to a JOIN request from a peer, the tracker may accompany the returned peer list with each recommended peer's BF-formed chunk availability bitmap, as the initial guidance for the requestor to start looking for neighbors in the same swarm. The additional cost for bearing the chunk-level availability information is constant (O(m)). </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Integration to the extended TP protocol:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Peers use the BF(S,m,H) algorithm for indicating its query intention in the FIND request for a specific chunk sub set S' of the given swarm to the tracker or the other peer. The additional cost for bearing the chunk set is constant (O(m)). </t>
<t>In response to a FIND request with specific chunk set S' in need from a peer, the tracker performs the subset containment check on the query set parameter BF(S' against each registered peer's chunk availability BF(S) by three simple binary operations to decided whether or not include the peer into the peer list in return: check if "F(S) equals (BF(S) bitwise OR (BF(S) bitwise XOR BF(S'))" holds. The computation cost for each subset check is constant (O(m)).</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Integration to the peer protocol:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Peers use the BF(S,m,H) algorithm for compressing the subset of locally stored and integrity verified chunks (set S) in terms of a given swarm-ID, whenever reporting or updating its chunk availability information with another peer. The length of each BF-bitmap is constant (O(m)).</t>
<t>For a downloading peer to decide which neighbor to request for a given chunk_ID s, it uses the member query algorithm MT(s,bf,m,H) on each neighbor's BF-bitmap bf. The computation cost for this member check is constant (O(m)). </t>
</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Open Issues">
<section title="Algorithm Configuration Setup">
<t>As stated earlier, the BF scheme is based on a mutual arrangement between the information requestor and the responder of the basic settings for the hash algorithms (both the number of them and the specific ones) in use and the coded bitmap's binary length. In other words, there SHOULD be a way of configuration setup mechanism in a local system.</t>
<t>To serve as the input for further discussion, we provide two initial proposals here:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Option1: Centralized Server for Uniform Configuration: The most simple and straightforward way would be to set up a logically centralized configuration server to do the trick. For instance, the RELOAD base protocol introduces such a configuration server to synchronize the hash function for the P2P DHT before a peer/client joins in the overlay [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. The most simple and straightforward way would be to set up a logically centralized configuration server to do the trick. For instance, the RELOAD base protocol introduces such a configuration server to synchronize the hash function for the P2P DHT before a peer/client joins in the overlay [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. There are two potential ways to integrate into the base TP protocol's enrollment and bootstrap process: The Publishing and Searching Portal could serve as a configuration server and return the BF configuration information to the peer through player, either
<list style="symbols">
<t>via the page returned in response to a web page request, or</t>
<t>via the MPD(Media Presentation Description) file in response to a MPD request.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Option2: Configuration Exchange as Joining in a SWARM: In view of the interworking usage of PPSP as a generally accepted suite of protocols to bridging different P2P systems, who may differ in specific choice of hash functions and other parameters, there SHOULD be a way of parameter negotiation mechanism across different systems. Negotiation may also introduce flexibility in a single system. E.g. large files or mobile peers may prefer more compact way of exchanging this information. Therefore, the tracker could include a swarm-specific BF configuration parameters into the OK response to the JOIN request from a new-coming peer (as labeled by (a2) in Figure 3).</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>TBA</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>None.</t>
</section>
<!-- This PI places the pagebreak correctly (before the section title) in the text output. -->
<?rfc needLines="8" ?>
</middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be either in the local
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
<references title="Normative References">
<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
&RFC2119;
&RFC2234;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<!-- A reference written by by an organization not a person. -->
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement">
<front>
<title>Problem Statement and Requirements of Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP)</title>
<author initials="Y." surname="Zhang">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Zong">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-12" value="(work in progress)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="P2P-limit">
<front>
<title>Understanding the performance gap between pull-based mesh streaming protocols and fundamental limits</title>
<author initials="C." surname="Feng">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Li">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Li">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="" year="2009" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="in Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM" value="" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol" >
<front>
<title>PPSP Tracker Protocol-Base Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0)</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Cruz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Nunes">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="Y." surname="Gu">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Xia">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Taveira">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-00" value="(work in progress)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-huang-extended-tracker-protocol">
<front>
<title>PPSP Tracker Protocol-Extended Protocol</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Huang">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Zong">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Cruz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="" surname="Nunes">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Taveira">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="draft-ietf-huang-extended-tracker-protocol-02 " value="(work in progress)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="BF-bloom" >
<front>
<title>Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors.</title>
<author initials="B.H." surname="Bloom">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="" year="1970" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Communications of ACM" value="Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 422-426" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="BF-analysis" >
<front>
<title>Network applications of Bloom Filters: a survey</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Broder">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Mitzenmacher">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="" year="2004" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet Mathematics" value="Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 485–509" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC1321">
<front>
<title>RFC 1321: The MD5 message-digest algorithm</title>
<author initials="" surname="Rivest">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="" surname="Newport">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="April" year="1992" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26" value="(work in progress)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-p2psip-base">
<front>
<title>REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol</title>
<author initials="C." surname="Jennings">
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Lowekamp">
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Rescorla">
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Baset">
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne">
</author>
<date month="February" year="2013" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
<!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->
<!-- Change Log
v00 2006-03-15 EBD Initial version
v01 2006-04-03 EBD Moved PI location back to position 1 -
v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07 AH removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09 EBD Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
figure indent control. Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative
images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems). -->
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:05:52 |