Abstract

Structured peer-to-peer overlay networks such as CAN, Chord, Pastry, and Tapestry can be used to implement Internet-scale application-level multicast. There are two general approaches to accomplishing this: tree building and flooding. This paper evaluates these two approaches using two different types of structured overlay: 1) overlays which use a form of generalized hyper cube routing, e.g., Chord, Pastry and Tapestry, and 2) overlays which use a numerical distance metric to route through a Cartesian hyper-space, e.g., CAN. Pastry and CAN are chosen as the representatives of each type of overlay. To the best of our knowledge, this paper reports the first head to-head comparison of CAN-style versus Pastry-style overlay networks, using multicast communication workloads running on an identical simulation infrastructure. The two approaches to multicast are independent of overlay network choice, and we provide a comparison of flooding versus tree-based multicast on both overlays. Results show that the tree-based approach consistently outperforms the flooding approach. Finally, for tree  based multicast, we show that Pastry provides better performance than CAN.