Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 129

Heterogeneous Peers Configuration to Enhance


Cooperation in Peer-to-Peer Overlay Networks
Saira Aslam, Irum Kazmi and Muhammad Younus Javed

Abstract—This research work is based on the enhancement of Quality of Service (QoS) in Peer-to-Peer (P2P) overlay networks. It reduces
free riding by enhancement of cooperation among heterogeneous peers for the fair share of resources, as well as elevates the efficiency of in-
formation retrieval regarding a particular peer and its resources available and demanded for and from the network respectively. These re-
sources could be peer’s physical attributes such as free storage space, RAM, processor cycles, or it could be any other application based re-
sources, like media files etc. An efficient behavior of the peers in the network is retrieved by introducing cooperating groups (CG) in the
network, where cooperating peers are associated to a particular CG. CG-ID is assigned to those peers who share resources on the basis of
give and take rule. Through CGs it would be far more efficient to search an idol peer waiting for another peer so that both could share each
other’s resources. Heterogeneous Cooperating Group-based Newscast Protocol (HCGNP) has been introduced in the network which gener-
ates cooperating peers in the network. Simulations and results show that the probability of cooperation between the peers, who remain part of
the network, is very high as compared to other cooperation algorithms. Hence the current research introduces an entirely different and an ef-
ficient way of enhancing cooperation between the peers in P2P overlay networks.

Index Terms—Clusters, Cooperation,Free-riding, Resource Sharing.

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION
Peer‐to‐Peer (P2P) has become one of the most widely dis‐ scalability and fault tolerance. P2P overlay networks need 
cussed terms in information technology. The term peer‐to‐ an extensive enhancement of features like management of 
peer  refers  to  the  concept  that  it  is  a  network  of  equals  peers according to network capacity in the network where 
(peers) using appropriate information and communication  the  peers  are  joining  to  share  or  retrieve  resources  from 
systems where two or  more individuals are able to spon‐ other peers [2]. If any peer in the network has some extra 
taneously  collaborate  without  needing  central  coordina‐ resources to share with other peers, then it is quite difficult 
tion.  In  contrast  to  client/server  networks,  P2P  networks  to  create  an  environment  of  cooperation  between  the 
promise  improved  scalability,  lower  cost  of  ownership,  peers. In P2P networks, generally, the request or the avail‐
self‐organized and decentralized coordination of previous‐ ability message for a particular file or service is broadcast‐
ly underused or limited resources, greater fault tolerance,  ed  to  other  peers  in  the  network,  which  incorporates  not 
and better support for building ad hoc networks. In addi‐ only a load on the network (as every node has to pass on 
tion,  P2P  networks  provide  opportunities  for  new  user  these  messages  to  other  nodes  in  the  network)  but  also 
that  could  be  implemented  using  different  usual  ap‐ vulnerable  to  free  riding,  a  behavior  in  which  nodes  re‐
proaches [1]. All the peers in the network have portion of  ceive  messages,  but  do  not  want  to  invest  their  resources 
their resources directly available for the other peers.   for forwarding them to neighbors. Hence free riding lacks 
P2P  overlay  networks  are  distributed  systems  in  na‐ the behavior of cooperation between the peers. 
ture,  without  any  hierarchical  organization  or  centralized  In P2P overlay networks the nodes connected together 
control. Peers form self‐organizing overlay networks, that  are  enriched  with  physical  resources  to  be  shared  among 
are overlaid on the Internet Protocol (IP) networks, offer a  the  nodes,  other  than  files  and  applications,  like  RAM, 
mix  of  various  features  such  as  robust  wide‐area  routing  Extra  storage,  Processor  cycles,  etc.  The  nodes  are  con‐
architecture,  efficient  search  of  data  items,  selection  of  nected with each other, normally on the  basis of contents 
nearby peers, redundant storage, permanence, hierarchical  to be shared. But the physical resources of the nodes some‐
naming,  trust  and  authentication,  anonymity,  massive  times limit the content based file sharing, and other appli‐
cations, as the particular content might be available but its 
————————————————
physical parameters restrict the ability of sharing that con‐
 S.A, the first author of this research is a student of College of Electrical and
Mechanical Engineering, National University of Sciences & Technology,
tent efficiently. The current research emphasizes on creat‐
Islamabad, Pakistan. ing method for efficient collaboration of nodes for sharing 
 I.K is a student of College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, Na- physical resources like storage space and processor cycles. 
tional University of Sciences & Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, and This  collaboration  should  be  such  that  enhances  coopera‐
working as a lecturer at Islamic International University, Islamabad, Paki-
stan. tion among the nodes. The method currently discussed is 
 M.Y.J is the supervisor of this research and is working as an Associate based  on  formation  of  cooperating  groups  (CGs)  which 
Dean at College of Electrical and Mechanical Engieneering, National Uni- enhance  information  retrieval  between  the  nodes.  These 
versity of Sciences & Technology.
CGs are formed on the basis of the cooperation level asso‐
ciated  to  them.  By  cooperation  level  it  means  either  the 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 130

node in the network requires or demands a particular re‐ cache  of  every  node  is  traversed  and  the  cache  list  is 
source  from  the  other  node.  The  CG  formation  is  an  on‐ transmitted  to  the  neighboring  nodes  through  SEND‐
demand  procedure  depending  on  whether  the  node  is  STATE(  )  method. After  receiving  a  message  transmitted 
cooperating or not.   by a node through SENDSTATE( ), the UPDATE( ) proce‐
Hence the current research work is based on utilization  dure  mixes  this  received  view  with  the  node’s  current 
of  resources  in  P2P  overlay  networks.    The  formation  of  state view. This merged view is trimmed by the Newscast 
P2P  overlay  architecture  is  based  on  sharing  resources  to obtain the predefined ‘C’ size. Fig. 1 illustrates the pro‐
among  different  peers.  These  peers  (nodes)  join  the  net‐ cedure  adopted  by  newscast  protocol.  It  must  be  noted 
work  in  order  to  gain  benefits  from  the  network  in  the  that  the  most  ‘old’  node  descriptor  is  discarded  in  each 
cycle, thus continuously altering the node descriptor hold 
form  of  resources  like,  different  files,  applications,  band‐
for  each  node  view.  This  technique  updates  the  overlay 
width, extra storage, RAM and processor cycles. When the 
defined by a set of all node views. 
nodes with variant properties and physical resources join 
a  network,  such  a  network  is  known  as  heterogeneous 
network. Sometimes a node demands a resource which it 
has shared with other nodes previously [1].  

2 ENHANCEMENT OF COOPERATION IN P2P


OVERLAY NETWORKS
P2P Overlay Networks require a platform where different
peers collaborate with each other in order to share each
other’s resources. It is an obvious fact that the phenome-
non of resource sharing is not possible until a particular
peer is ready to share its resources like files and services.
Sharing these resources require a cooperating behavior
which should be embedded into peer configuration or
network architecture so that the problem of free riding
can be eliminated by enhancing cooperation among the
peers.
To enhance cooperation in P2P overlay networks, lot
of research has been carried out like SLAC, SLACER TO-
KEN algorithms etc. The one which would remain under Fig. 1 Newscast maintaining the updated List of neighboring nodes
discussion is SLACER. SLACER used Newscast Protocol
to generate nodes and implemented Prisoner’s Dilemma
game to improve the rate of cooperating nodes in the 2.2 SLACER Algorithm with PD-Protocol
overlay network. Similarly there is a hierarchical overlay SLACER is Selfish Link-based Adaptation for Coopera-
architecture suggested by G. Exarchakos and N. Antono- tion Excluding Rewiring which implements PD-Protocol
poulos [5], which enhances cooperation by forming ca- with difference of change in the value of bandwidth links
pacity sharing overlay architecture (CSOA). This architec- [4]. SLACER utilized network capabilities and resources
ture enables sharing of reusable resources specifically in order to gain a trend of cooperation among the nodes.
network capacity by using overlay interaction messages These network capabilities are the payoff values assigned
for publishing query for the required resources in the to the nodes which do not tend to cooperate in the initial
overlay network. The current research emphasizes on cycles of simulations. The trend of cooperation can be
enhancing cooperation in peers by implementing News- seen by expending network resources which can over
cast Protocol. Hence the detailed discussion on Newscast load the network. Apart  from  the  fact  of  overburdening 
computing, SLACER algorithm and Prisoner’s Dilemma the  network,  the  nodes  tend  to  show  cooperating  behav‐
Protocol (PD-Protocol) is elaborated below. ior  which  does  not  guarantee  cooperation  among  the 
nodes.  Hence  SLACER  developed  an  environment  in 
2.1 Newscast Protocol which the nodes can behave cooperatively, but assurance 
Newscast is a gossip-based protocol that builds and main- of  cooperation  is  not  considered.SLACER implements
tains a continuously changing random graph (or overlay). PD-Protocol with difference of change in the value of
The generated topology is very stable and provides ro- bandwidth links. This algorithm utilized network capabil-
bust connectivity. This protocol has been used successful- ities and resources in order to gain a trend of cooperation
ly to implement several P2P protocols, including broad- among the nodes. The payoff values are assigned to the
cast and aggregation. The Newscast state is represented nodes which do not tend to cooperate in the initial cycles
by a partial, fixed ‘c’ size view of node descriptors com- of simulations. Hence SLACER maintains an environment
posed by a node address and a logical time-stamp (de- in which the nodes can behave cooperatively but the level
scriptor creation time) [3]. of cooperation achieved is far less than the desired rate.
In Newscast, the neighbor selection process is execut‐
2.3 Overview of Heterogeneous Cooperting Group-
ed  randomly  using  the  SELECTPEER(  )  method.  The 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 131

based Newscast Protocol proaches  in  which  this  hierarchy  is  not  followed.  In  case 
As P2P overlay computing is a layered approach, there is of P2P overlay networks non hierarchical groups could be 
a need to maintain an architecture which should utilize developed  which  do  not  have  any  super  peer  concept  in 
network resources with minimum load over the network. the  network. As  pure  P2P  overlays  are  totally  decentral‐
Once a fine architecture has been created the throughput ized,  the  non‐hierarchical  concept  in  the  groups  or  clus‐
of the networks accelerates with the passage of time. Af- ters  would  help  the  network  to  distribute  the  resource 
ter a thorough analysis of previous researches [5] the fol- sharing  phenomena  to  every  node  participating  in  the 
lowing facts could be extracted for proposing a well de- network. Grouping of the nodes is also helpful to organ‐
fined solution: ize  P2P  overlay  network  so  that  the  requests  are  routed 
1. There  is  a  need  of  an  architecture  which  should  more  efficiently.  Hence  the  nodes  grouped  together  to 
control the peer nodes according the network ca‐ share resources in such a way that every node gains a fair 
pacities. share  of  demanded  resources  from  other  peers,  could  be 
2. The node search should be more efficient. an ideal way to eliminate nodal search which is extended 
3. The criteria for giving extra benefits to the nodes  to every single node in the network. The efficiency of the 
should depend upon the type of the network and  network  to  retrieve  information  regarding  the  files  and 
network capacity.  services  available  on  the  other  nodes  is  one  of  the  most 
4. Only those nodes should become the part of the  required  and  demanded  property  of  a  particular  P2P 
network which show cooperating behavior.  network.  The  creation  of  groups  not  only  minimizes  the 
5. Nodes that do not cooperate should be discarded  time to search the required resources but can also gives a 
from  the  network;  this  will  automatically  de‐ free hand to manage the nodes on the application level in 
crease the network load.  order  to  generate  security  protocols  like  authentication 
6. The behavior of a particular node should depend 
and to maintain network data and node level information. 
upon the capability levels of the node. 
7. These  capability  levels  should  be  according  the 
node’s physical parameters like presence of extra  3 IMPLEMENTATION OF HETEROGENEOUS
secondary storage, RAM and processing power.  COOPERATING GROUP-BASED NEWSCAST
8. The diversified behavior of a node, i.e. it may re‐ PROTOCOL
quires  a  resource  as  a  demanded  physical  pa‐
rameter or demanded capability level and anoth‐ In a heterogeneous P2P overlay network existing peers
er  resource  as  available  capability  level,  should  posses a heterogeneous nature. The heterogeneous net-
be  there  to  achieve  certain  level  of  cooperation  work is such that it has peers with different types of op-
with other nodes.  erating systems, processors, RAMs, and storage capaci-
9. This  diversified  nature  of  the  node  also  reflects  ties. Such environment in the network needs a challeng-
the  heterogeneous  nature  of  the  network  which  ing architecture to be implemented. Apart from the need
exists  with  variable  values  of  physical  parame‐ of cooperating behavior, problems related to security and
ters.  network management are required to be handled proper-
10. The  overlay  architecture  should  be  such  which  ly. The objective of P2P overlay network is to share re-
not  only  incorporates  cooperation  among  the  sources in the real time networking environment where
nodes but also handles the network with hetero‐ the nodes (peers) with the heterogeneous properties need
geneous nodal capabilities.  to collaborate with each other. The architecture should
11. The nodes which are discarded from the network  not only handle the network heterogeneity but also be
could join the network again, with some different 
able to incorporate quality of service. This research en-
capability  parameters  in  order  to  provide  a  fair 
hances the existence of heterogeneity of the peers in P2P
share gain of other’s (nodes) resources.  
overlay network and discusses different behavioral as-
12. Every  time  a  node  joins  a  network  it  becomes 
part  of  cooperating  group,  a  group  of  nodes  pects of the peers accordingly. The role of cooperating
where  every  node  is  cooperating  with  the  other  nodes in heterogeneous environment is discussed in de-
node.  tail where nodes cooperate on the basis of some benefit
13. The  approach  for  development  of  cooperating  offered in the network.
groups should be implemented as to enhance the  It has also been discussed that how cooperation can be
efficiency  of  node  search  procedure.  This  could  enhanced by development of cooperating groups in a P2P
be  true  when  the  nodes  search  the  other  nodes  overlay architecture. The nodes become part of a P2P
according to the cooperating group IDs assigned 
overlay network by becoming a part of a group with no
to  each  nodes  and  the  size  limit  of  CG  shows 
super peer which means on the other hand that there is
weather  the  nodes  are  idle  or  waiting  for  any 
no hierarchy in the network. Formation of groups en-
other nodes in the network.  
hances the cooperation by identifying the node with its
 
cooperating group ID (CG-ID). The node (peer) shows
The idea of grouping the nodes in the network is also 
cooperation by the number of times it changes the CG-ID.
very common where the nodes are clustered into groups. 
In this case a payoff value is assigned to those nodes
Mostly  the  grouping  or  clustering  approaches  have  a 
which show maximum cooperation. Through CG-ID it is
group  or  cluster  head  which  is  known  to  be  the  super 
also possible to enhance the node search where nodes
peer  of  that  group  or  cluster.  However,  there  are  ap‐
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 132

with the required resources can be searched more effi- approaches for the formation of clusters work under
ciently. some limited conditions and yet all of these approaches
give different ideas to search and share the desired file in
3.1 Cooperation in Heterogeneous Peers a purely hierarchical manner. Hence the content based
Heterogeneous peers (HP) as discussed earlier have very cluster formation requires a strong architecture where
diversified nature in the network. All the peers are virtu- content based file sharing could be enhanced on the basis
ally connected to other peers in the overlay network of node’s physical parameters. These physical parameters
where they are different in their operating systems, net- explain the existence of heterogeneous environment in
work connections, processors, RAM and memory. Hence P2P overlay network which needs to be handled before
the important aspect is to maintain an architecture in the start of file sharing procedure and also to share the
which peers can collaborate with each other without in- resources other than files on the basis of these physical
corporating free riding, malicious threats and overload to parameters.
the network. P2P systems consist of nodes that are able to 3.2 Cooperating Groups Formation for resource sharing
interact with each other and self-organize into network in Heterogeneous Peers
topologies with the purpose of sharing resources such as Grouping the peers together in P2P architecture is unique 
contents, CPU cycles, storage and bandwidth [6]. Major concept but there has been a lot of study going on in this 
application areas of these systems include distributed and dimension. Most of the work that has been done is related 
scalable computing, internet service support, database to  grouping  the  same  peers  together.  This  similarity  is 
systems, content distribution, communication and collab- mainly based on the same content that a peer has to share. 
oration. This content is related a particular file or service and the 
To support content transfer applications in heteroge- resources  that  are  needed  to  be  shared  are  normally  ap‐
neous P2P networks there is a need of following services: plication based. In different studies this grouping of peers 
 A resource discovery service is needed to search  together is termed as cluster formation. But this research 
and locate resources.  is  based  on  development  of  cooperating  groups  of  peers 
 A content distribution service is required for a re‐ with heterogeneous physical parameters in order to share 
liable  transfer  of  requested  content  to  a  set  of  physical resources as well as to improve the efficiency of 
peers.  node carrying relevant resource.  
Up till now the resource discovery mechanisms de- The  study  on  the  issues  likes  secure  clustering  and 
veloped are mostly for a semi-centralized P2P architec- grouping  of  peers  in  P2P  networks  has  also  elevated  the 
ture, where the super nodes receive the resource request importance of grouping in P2P networks. In 2007 S. Wang 
from its connected nodes and transfer it to the other super and Y. Zhang presented a reliable self clustering method‐
nodes [7]. To maintain a resource discovery mechanism in ology  by  evaluating  the  level  of  trust  between  the  nodes 
pure P2P overlay networks with heterogeneous peers which  can  maintain  the  autonomous  behavior  of  the 
where there is no centralization authority there has not nodes  by  publishing  partial  knowledge  of  the  resources 
been a precise and efficient mechanism developed. Many [13]. Similarly in 2008 M. Amad and A. Meddahi present‐
experimentations and techniques to enhance cooperation ed an optimized flooding and clustering  based approach 
suggest that heterogeneity hinders efficiency, i.e. it reduc- for lookup acceleration P2P networks [14]. This approach 
es the overall collaboration between the nodes [8]. is also based on enhancing the search of a peer according 
to the required resource where the formation of clusters is 
Clustering (grouping) the nodes together is one of the
hierarchical and message to acquire a particular resource 
methods to enhance resource discovery. Bayesian statistic
is flooded in the network with nodes having certain TTL 
analysis proposed a level of trust between the nodes for
values. This technique is scalable and practical as it deals 
file sharing [9] by cluster formation. Here the criteria for with  problem  of  disconnection  during  any  session  of  a 
changing a cluster are just based on the relevant file re- P2P  communication  but  the  overall  criteria  for  grouping 
quired by the node. Mostly clusters are formed in a hier- the  peers  together  non‐hierarchically  are  that  each  peer 
archical manner in which clusters have been developed (node)  should  participate  equally  and  there  is  no  super 
by using layered approach [10], i.e. on the top of unstruc- peer who has the entire maintenance load to manage the 
tured P2P a hybrid overlay network has been implement- cluster.  Some  cluster  formation  methods  like  Schelling 
ed where a lot of overheads and extra protocols are re- model  [15]  for  file  sharing  is  based  on  social  sciences 
quired to manage the nodes hierarchically and the re- where nodes changes their clusters if they have not been 
source sharing is content based particularly for multime- provided  by  the  relevant  resources  from  its  neighboring 
dia files. A. Yonezawa et.al [11] proposed a clustered ap- nodes.  For  this  purpose  selfless  and  selfish  clustering  is 
proach over multicast overlay networks by introducing a introduced. In selfless clustering node drop the neighbor 
cluster coefficient which is maximum physical number of if  the  neighbor  is  connected  with  the  other  nodes.  While 
hops between any two nodes. But this approach fails in selfish clustering node drop the neighbor even if it has 
when the cluster size increases. no other connected node. 
As far as nodes dealing in heterogeneous environment
3.3 Heterogeneous Cooperating Group-based Newscast
of P2P network, they can search a file by building an
Protocol
overlay network on the basis of node’s power [12]. This The  current  research  is  an  enhancement  of  our  previous 
method does not seem to be efficient enough as the file research  based  on  formation  of  clusters  in  P2P  overlay 
searching would be across the whole network. All the networks [5].  These clusters were formed on the basis of 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 133

physical parameters of the nodes, i.e. storage space, RAM,  ed to it. The size of the cache is according to the network 
processor  speed  etc,  in  such  a  way  that  cluster  ID  is  as‐ size  and  is  configurable  through  configuration  file.  In 
signed to different nodes on the basis of capability levels.  each cycle during the simulation of newscast protocol the 
These  capability  levels  are  different  metrics  values  as‐ nodes  with  minimum  time‐stamp  values  are  replaced 
signed  to  a  single  physical  parameter.    The  current  re‐ with new nodes in the network, as in the real time situa‐
search  enhances  this  formation  of  clusters  by  adding  an  tions  the  nodes  randomly  join  or  leave  the  network.  The 
environment  of  cooperation  between  the  nodes  in  a  P2P  data  structure  associated  to  each  node  has  been  imple‐
overlay  network.  This  environment  is  provided  to  each  mented accordingly. To incorporate a clustered (grouped) 
node by adding an idea of on‐demand peer configuration  approach  in  a  P2P  overlay  network  along  with  the 
over  Heterogeneous  Cluster‐based  Newscast  Protocol  achievement  of  cooperation  among  the  nodes  the  data 
(HCNP).  Peer  cluster  configuration,  to  achieve  coopera‐ structure associated to HCGNP is shown in Fig. 2. 
tion, is a procedure in which nodes join or leave a particu‐
lar  cluster  on  the  basis  of  its  available  capability  level    Node ID
(ACL)  and  demanded  capability  level  (DCL).  The  values 
of  demanded  and  available  capability  levels  decide  that 
which of the two nodes are going to cooperate with each  Time
other. Each node maintains a cache in which it holds the  Stamp
information of its neighboring nodes. In every cycle these 
caches  refresh  themselves  to  maintain  the  freshest  list  of 
A_Cap Node
the neighboring peers. This improvises the idea of main‐
Level
taining cooperation among the nodes in a network where 
nodes continuously join or leave the network.  
The basic objectives of the current research are:  D_Cap
1. To  implement  a  protocol  that  develops  non‐ Level
hierarchical cooperating groups. 
2. Enhancement of cooperation by developing coop‐ CG_ID
erating groups (CG) in P2P overlay networks in a 
heterogeneous environment. 
3. The idea of resource sharing is related to the shar‐
ing  of  files,  services  and  physical  resources,  such 
as  RAM,  free  storage  capacity,  processor  cycles,  Fig. 2 Data Structure assigned to node in HCGNP
etc. 
4. Nodes  that  become  part  of  a  cooperating  group  In HCGNP: 
have to cooperate with the other nodes in that co‐ 1. Physical parameters  to be shared among the 
operating group.  peers could be: 
5. If  a  peer  finds  its  compatible  peer  such  that  both  a. Node’s free storage space 
the  peers  share  each  other’s  resources  (storage,  b. RAM 
processor cycles, etc) simultaneously, Cooperating  c. Processor cycles, etc. 
Group ID (CG‐ID) is assigned to both the peers.  2. All  the  physical  parameters  are  extracted 
6. To find the cooperation level of peer by the rate of  implicitly  from  the  node  in  order  to  avoid 
change of its CG‐ID  false publishing of these parameters. 
7. To identify the cooperating group with maximum  3.  Assign  available  or  demanded  capability 
cooperation.  levels  to  each  physical  parameter  according 
8. To observe the rate of cooperation without giving  to its capability. 
any benefit ‘ß’ to the node.  4. A_Cap_Level:  Physical  parameter  available 
9. Categorize  the  nodes  with  maximum  rate  of  co‐ to share with other node 
operation for rewarding additional benefit.  5. D_Cap_Level: Physical parameter demanded 
10. After rewarding additional benefit rate of cooper‐ by the node 
ation is again observed.  6. Cooperating‐Group  Identifier  (CG‐ID)  is  as‐
11. To  observe  ß‐Cooperation  (cooperation  level  signed  on  the  basis  of  node’s  physical  pa‐
achieved  after  giving  benefit  to  the  nodes)  be‐ rameters.  
tween the nodes  7. Each  cluster  has  nodes  with  different  levels 
12. To  mark  Tradeoffs  between  ß‐cooperation  &  co‐ of physical parameters. 
operation according to the network capacity.  8. Physical  parameters  reflect  the  heterogene‐
13. To  compare  simulation  results  with  SLACER  al‐ ous nature of the network. 
gorithm. 
 
The data structures assigned to each peer is according  Capability level refers to the value of level assign to a
to the newscast protocol with few modifications. In news‐ node on the basis of particular physical parameter, e.g. a
cast protocol the node has been assigned a “node‐ID” and  node with free secondary storage of 40 GB (out of 110 GB
a “Time‐stamp” value which is just like TTL values asso‐ of total space) has assigned max capability level: “5”. As
ciated to any message segment. Each node maintains the  discussed earlier that through node data structure we can
information of the neighboring nodes in a cache associat‐ extract capability level of the physical parameter of a
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 134

node. On the basis of which Cooperating Group-ID is by satisfying the above mentioned conditions.  


assigned to the node. This is how the rate of cooperation between the nodes
gradually increases. The benefited value ‘ß’ assigned to
ACL is that capability level of a particular physical pa-
each node is according to the network capacity ‘x’. Hence
rameter which is available in the current node for sharing
the value of ‘ß’ is directly proportional to ‘x’.
and DCL is the demanded capability level of the same
current node which shows the required level of node for a Hence the implementation of HCGNP is based on the
particular physical parameter. If there are two nodes A formation of non-hierarchical groups in P2P overlay net-
and B then to compel them for cooperation, ACL of node works. This formation of groups is based on clusters that
A should be greater than DCL of node B (considering the were developed in our previous research [5] to share
ACL and DCL belong to same physical parameter), and physical resources but the nodes in those clusters lacked
ACL of node B is greater than DCL of node A, i.e., the behavior of cooperation. The implementation of
HCGNP required Java (jdk1.6.0) at the backend. PEER-
ACL (A) >= DCL (B) & ACL (B) >= DCL (A), if these
SIM supports Java APIs to simulate different protocols.
two conditions are true for the two nodes then these
The protocol is first implemented in Java and then re-
nodes are assigned a particular Cooperating Group-ID
quired a PEERSIM configuration file to simulate it further
(CG-ID) otherwise node B will wait for another compati-
through the simulator class files. If the implementation of
ble node in a temporary array before the start of a next
protocols in the configuration file is layered, i.e. if at the
cycle and node A will check the same condition with an-
top of node formation protocol different protocols like
other node, let say node C, in the next iteration. CG also
security protocol, cooperation protocol, etc. are imple-
enhances efficiency and scalability by quickly locating a
mented then the computational complexity of the archi-
compatible node in a particular CG after some change in
tecture will increase. Fig. 3 shows the implementation of
its ACL or DCL (as the values of ACL and DCL changes
HCGNP in layered architecture. Hence handling the con-
very frequently with the passage of time). As soon as the
figuration file in the context of computational complexity
node finds another compatible node it changes its CG-ID
and time as well as the compatibility of the configuration
accordingly. The architecture of the overlay is configured
file with the java source code should be handled accord-
to enhance cooperation because if a node does not require
ing to the simulation environment.
a resource then it should not be the part of a CG. The rate
of change in CG-ID of a particular node can make it easier
to estimate the percentage of cooperation in a particular
node. If the percentage of cooperation for a node is very
high it could be given some benefits “ß” in the network.
These benefits could be related to the physical links of the
node. The algorithm for assigning CG-ID is explained
below.
Node node, node in temp
Node neighbor, neighbor in temp
If (A_Cap_Level of node ≥ D_Cap_Level of neighbor
AND
A_Cap_Level of neighbor ≥ D_Cap_Level of node)
Assign.CG_ID to node & neighbor
else (Send node to temporary array (temp))
If (A_Cap_Level of node in temp ≥ D_Cap_Level of neighbor
in temp
AND
A_Cap_Level of neighbor in temp ≥ D_Cap_Level of node in
temp)
Assign.CG_ID to node in temp & neighbor in temp
Else (Discard node in temp and neighbor in temp)

Fig. 3 Layered archutecture showing implementation area of HCGNP


At  every  iteration  of  each  cycle,  the  number  of  nodes 
developed,  are  assigned  with  some  data  structures. 
HCGNP checks the cache of every node and compares the 
ACL  and  DCL  values  of each  node  with the  neighboring  4 SIMULATION RESULTS
node. Hence CG‐ID is assigned to only those nodes which 
follow  the  give  and  take  rule  of  HCGNP,  either  in  the  The results are based on the development of cooperating
cache of the node or in the temporary location. The nodes  groups in P2P Overlay Networks. The criteria to develop
are discarded from the network if they do not satisfy the  some comparisons between different algorithms to en-
condition  for  cooperation.  In  the  next  cycle,  when  the  hance cooperation in P2P overlay network is based on the
same  discarded  node  joins  the  network  again  with  some  tradeoff values of different parameters like network ca-
different ACL and DCL values, it can become part of a CG  pacity etc. The basic criteria to simulate a protocol in
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 135

PEERSIM are to invoke a mechanism which ensures the The  importance  of  nodal  search  in  order  to  acquire 
compatibility of the java source file and the configuration the information of the desired resources is one of the 
file. In PEERSIM the basic protocol to generate nodes is most  important  aspects  that  have  been  studied  by 
Newscast Protocol. several  researchers.  In  HCGNP  node  search  proce‐
dure  has  also  been  observed  as  the  protocol  is  also 
4.1 Protocol Simulations required to be efficient in locating the nodes carrying 
The simulations of the protocol is based on the configura- desired resources. 
tion file which defines the P2P overlay networks size, the  
protocols used to generate the nodes and the number of 3. Computational Complexity 
cycles for which the protocol is to be simulated. The for- Another  important  feature  which  plays  a  very  vital 
mation of nodes in the network is such that at each cycle role  in  evaluating  protocols  is  the  computational 
new nodes join the network and the older nodes leave the complexity  associated  to  a  particular  protocol.  The 
network. This happens by refreshing the cache list associ- current research implements a protocol that has been 
embedded in Newscast protocol to generate cooperat‐
ated to each node. As mentioned earlier the HCGNP has
ing  nodes.  Protocol  like  PD‐Protocol  that  has  imple‐
been embedded in the Newscast Protocol which implicit-
mented  SLACER  on  the  top  of  Newscast  Protocol 
ly incorporates cooperating behavior in the nodes when
proves  to  be  less  efficient  which  has  also  been  dis‐
the nodes are joining the network. This cooperating be- cussed in section below. The computational complexi‐
havior is based on the nodal resources and the physical ty associated to any implementation plays a vital role 
parameters associated to the nodes. as it proves whether the achieved results are worth to 
The simulations are also based on the benefit value be implemented in a real time environment. 
“ß” assigned to the nodes according to the network ca-  
pacity. The cooperating behavior is observed to be en-
hanced after the implementation of HCGNP. The cooper- 4.2 Output Generated
ation level of nodes is compared with PD-Protocol that The simulation results can be seen in the output file gen-
has implemented SLACER on the top of Newscast proto- erated by changing several parameters of the configura-
col. The level of cooperation has also been observed in the tion file. The number of CGs in the network show the
simulations when there is no benefit “ß” given to the cooperation rate of the nodes in a P2P overlay environ-
node. Moreover, the overall performance of HCGNP over
ment where each node possesses different physical re-
SLACER has also been observed. The following sub sec-
sources. On the basis of these resources the capability
tions will elaborate the findings of these observations.
level is assigned to that node. The formation CGs not only
The implementation of HCGNP is based on achieving
enhances the rate of cooperation in the network but also
a level of cooperation between the nodes and to improve
improves the nodal search in order to acquire the re-
the nodal search in order to retrieve information about
quired resource. The protocols developed earlier only
the relevant resources. The parameters on the basis of
enhanced cooperation among the nodes without consid-
which HCGNP has been evaluated are discussed below:
ering the network capacity and network heterogeneity
 
1. Cooperation  while HCGNP has been implemented for the network in
To  achieve  a  level  of  cooperation  in  the  nodes  there  a heterogeneous environment. The level of cooperation
should  be  a  criterion  on  which  the  node  should  be  achieved while implementing HCGNP is according to the
judged,  that  whether  it  can  cooperate  or  not.  Every  network capacity. The benefit rewarded to the nodes
single  node  participating  in  P2P  overlay  networks  which show cooperating behavior should not overload
possess  some  resource.  These  resources  could  be  a  the network.
file,  a  service,  free  storage  to  share  with  other  node, 
RAM, processor cycles etc. As there is no centralized 
4.3 Results and Comparisons
authority  in  P2P  overlay  networks  the  task  of  incor‐ Formation of CGs is one of the most important tasks,
porating cooperation among the peers depends upon  which is achieved after creating an environment of coop-
the  capability  parameters  assigned  to  the  nodes  ac‐ eration in the network. The results are accumulated by
cording to its available and demanded resources. The  making changes in the configuration file. The following
rate  of  cooperation  in  the  network  is  elevated  if  and  values have been changed in the configuration file to ob-
only if two nodes cooperate with each other simulta‐ serve enhancement in cooperation between the nodes in
neously.  This  conditional  communication  between  P2P overlay network:
the nodes in the network compels the nodes to coop‐ 1. Number of cycles to simulate HCGNP. 
erate if it has to remain the part of a network. Hence  2. Network size 
the  percentage  and  probability  of  cooperation  in  the  3. Cache length associated to each node. 
nodes communicating with each other is found to be  4. Degree size on the basis of which the cache would be 
maximum.  The  cooperating  behavior  of  the  node  refreshed in the next cycle of simulation.  
while  implementing  HCGNP  and  SLACER  has  been  5. Benefit value given to the cooperating node at every 
discussed in detail below.   cycle according to the network capacity (x). 
  The observations of the simulations can be seen in the 
  graphs below: 
2. Node Search  The  number  of  CGs  at  any  time  instance  (t)  with  dif‐
ferent  network  sizes  can  be  seen  in  Fig.  4,  where  the  in‐
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 136

crease  in  the  number  of  CGs  according  to  the  network  2. Similarly,  the  percentage  of  CNs  in  CG‐ID=46  is  ap‐
size  can  be  seen.  We  see  that  as  the  size  of  the  network  proximately 35% and the percentage of NCNs in the 
increases the number of CGs also increases. This number  same CG is approximately 65%. 
of cooperating groups is taken at a specific time instance  3. Thus, it can be seen that as the percentage of CNs in a 
(t) which can be termed mathematically as:  CG increases, the percentage of NCNs decreases and 
Number of CGs (t) = Network size/ cache length (as- vice versa.  
sociated to each node) 4. In  CGs  with  IDs  9,  32,  44,  46  and  64,  it  can  be  seen 
The nodes that join the networks become part of a CG that more than 50% of nodes are NCNs of the group. 
according to its available and demanded capability levels. 5. These nodes are termed as  NCNs because they have 
At every cycle the new nodes join the network and the not  developed  a  cooperating  pair  with  any  node  in 
older nodes leave the network, hence the nodes which do the group. 
not become the part of CG in one cycle can become the 6. Whenever  new  nodes  join  the  network,  first  they 
part of a CG in the next cycle with changed values of ca- compare  their  ACL  and  DCL  values  with  these 
pability levels. NCNs. 
7. If NCNs are not able to develop a cooperating pair in 
200
the entire cycle, they are discarded from the network. 
180 8. This  result  is  taken  when  no  benefit  is  given  to  the 
nodes  in  the  network  which  shows  that  the  average 
N O . O F C o o p e ra tin g G ro u p s (C G s )

160
percentage  of  CNs  is  greater  than  the  average  per‐
140 centage  of  NCNs  even  when  there  is  no  benefit  or 
payoff value rewarded to the nodes.  
120 9. This shows that an acceptable condition for coopera‐
tion is achieved without overloading the network.  
100
 
80 The overall network state in terms of cooperation and 
non‐cooperation among the nodes can be observed in Fig. 
60 6. Without investing any network resources in rewarding 
40 benefit, it can be seen that the percentage of CNs as com‐
pared to NCNs is always greater. Irrespective of network 
20 size,  percentage  of  optimized  cooperation  achieved  is 
higher than the percentage of non‐cooperation. Although 
0
10002000 4000 8000 12000 16000 the number of non‐cooperating nodes in the overlay net‐
NETWORKS SIZE work is not minimum, it is worth retrieving such cooper‐
ating behavior with no impact on network capacity. Net‐
Fig. 4 Number of CGs at any instant of time (t) work  capacity  being  the  vital  attribute  required  during 
the  communication  phase  of  the  nodes  in  the  network, 
90
CN should  not  be  wasted  in  rewarding  as  an  “extra  benefit 
N O N -C O O P E R A T IN G N O D E S IN E A C H C G

NCN value”  to  the  CNs.  But  if  network  capacity  allows  such 
80
implementations, it may be the best option. 
70
  60
% O F C O O P E R A T IN G &

  CN

60   NCN
  50
A N D N O N -C O O P E R A T IN G N O D E S

50  
% O F C O O P E R A T IN G

  40
40  
  30
30  
  20
20  
  10
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70  
CG (ID 1-66)  
0
Fig. 5 % of cooperating and non-cooperating node in each CG with network 10002000 4000 8000 12000 16000
size = 4000 nodes NETWORKS SIZE
Fig. 6 % of cooperating and non-cooperating nodes in each network
After the implementation of SLACER and HCGNP (ß) 
In Fig. 5 it can be seen that each CG carries number of 
with the provision of rewarded benefit value at each cycle 
nodes with different levels of cooperating nodes (CN) and 
to  the  CNs,  it  can  be  seen  in  Fig.  7  that  HCGNP  (ß)  per‐
non‐cooperating nodes (NCN). Here we can see that: 
forms far better than SLACER. This improved behavior is 
1. The  percentage  of  CNs  in  CG‐ID=8  is  approximately 
attributed  to  the  factor  that  maximum  percentage  of  co‐
85%  and  the  percentage  of  NCNs  in  the  same  CG  is 
operation  in  HCGNP  (ß)  is  achieved  within  10  cycles  of 
approximately 15%.  
simulations.  While  in  SLACER  the  maximum  percentage 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 137

of cooperation is achieved after 100 cycles of simulations.  tion  is  increased  to  68%.  And  finally  when  the  network 
It is observed that during first four cycles, the percentage  capacity is increased to 5x, the gain in cooperation is max‐
of CNs in SLACER is 9%, while the percentage of CNs in  imum (i.e. 94%). Fig .8 also shows that the highest level of 
HCGNP  (ß)  is  30%,  for  network  size  (NS)  of  1000  nodes.  cooperation  achieved  for  each  value  of  network  capacity 
This trend in cooperation is doubled within next two cy‐ takes  not  more  than  ten  cycles  to  achieve  cooperation. 
cles in HCGNP (ß), i.e. 60% cooperation is achieved, while  This also decreases the computational complexity and the 
SLACER increased its level of cooperation to 11% at that  overall percentage of cooperation remains approximately 
stage. Hence SLACER reached at maximum level of coop‐ constant after achieving its highest value. 
eration in 100 cycles. The observation adds to the fact that   
the  computational  complexity  while  implementing  100
SLACER is far greater than implementing HCGNP (ß), as 
90
to achieve the targeted value of cooperation wastes sever‐
al cycles of simulations in SLACER. But another very im‐ 80

% O F C O O P E R A T IN G N O D E S
portant  fact  is  the  wastage  of  network  resources  in  re‐
70
warding extra benefit to the CNs in SLACER as well as in 
HCGNP.  It  demands  a  thoughtful  approach  to  find  the  60
tradeoffs between the two protocols.   50
This  difference  in  the  level  of  cooperation  between 
SLACER  and HCGNP  (ß)  is  due  to  the  simplified  nature  40
of HCGNP. The node is forced to cooperate as soon as it  30
joins the network through HCGNP (ß). While in SLACER, 
two  protocols  run  one  after  the  other,  i.e.  at  the  start  20
HCGNP(ß)-NS 1000
newscast  protocol  is  configured  to  generate  nodes  with  10 HCGNP-NS 1000
Node  ID  and  TTL  value.  After  the  formation  of  whole  SLACER-NS 1000
network,  PD‐protocol  is  implemented  on  each  node.  In  0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SLACER the delay in the gain of cooperation is because of 
NO. OF CYCLES
bi‐level  protocol  handling.  The  rule  of  cooperation  im‐
plemented in HCGNP (ß) is embedded in newscast proto‐
col. Therefore the gain in cooperation is very rapid as the  Fig. 7 % of cooperation/cycle in HCGNP (ß), HCGNP (without benefit
value) & SLACER
node  is  configured  using  single  protocol.  At  the  time  of 
node  generation,  the  available  and  demanded  capability 
levels are also assigned to the nodes along with the Node‐
ID  and  TTL  value.  Hence  the  protocol  handling  of  the  100
nodes is very efficient and resourceful.  90
Now if we assume that there is no extra benefit given 
to  a  node  in  HCGNP  then  we  can  see  that  50%  of  the  80
% O F C O O P E R A T IN G N O D E S

nodes  in  the  entire  network  are  cooperating.  This  per‐


centage  of  cooperation  is  achieved  within  the  first  ten  70
cycles  of  simulation. Although  the  percentage  of  cooper‐ 60
ating  nodes  is  not  more  than  50%,  the  behavior  of  the 
nodes  is  such  that  they  are  compelled  to  cooperate  after  50
joining  the  network.  This  may  be  viewed  as  absolute  co‐
operating behavior of the nodes in the network. This kind  40
of  behavior  of  nodes  elevates  the  purpose  of  P2P  net‐ 30 Network Capacity 5x
works,  i.e.  to  utilize  maximum  resources  of  the  network 
Network Capacity 4x
without  increasing  its  workload.  Hence,  there  is  a  re‐ 20
Network Capacity 3x
quirement to decide the rewarding value of the benefit (ß)  Network Capacity 2x
10
to the nodes according to the network capacity.   Network Capacity x
     0
If  we  consider  that  the  network  capacity  is  a  variable  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
“x” we can see different levels of percentage of cooperat‐ NO. OF CYCLES
ing  nodes  according  to  network  capacities.  Fig.  8  shows 
different  levels  of  cooperation  among  the  nodes  by  re‐ Fig. 8 % of cooperation/cycle in HCGNP (ß) with different values of
network capacity (x)
warding  a  benefit  (ß)  to  the  node  in  the  network,  on  the 
basis  of  showing  cooperation  with  other  nodes  in  the 
network.  The  procedure  of  giving  reward  to  a  cooperat‐
ing  node  in  HCGNP  justifies  the  utilization  of  benefit,  7 CONCLUSION
contrary  to  SLACER  where  payoff  values  have  to  be  as‐
signed to the nodes which do not cooperate. This creates  SLACER shows that the increase in the percentage of co‐
an  unjustifiable  situation  in  the  network.  Therefore  in  operation  among  the  nodes  is  achieved  after  a  linear  in‐
HCGNP the value of “x” is linearly increased. When net‐ crease  in  the  number  of  cycles.  On  the  other  hand, 
work capacity is taken as ‘x’ the percentage of cooperation  HCGNP1 (ß)  with some benefit given to the cooperating 
is 50%. When it is taken as ‘2x’ the percentage if coopera‐ nodes  at  every  cycle  shows  a  rapid  increase  in  the  per‐
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 5, MAY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 138

centage of cooperating nodes, i.e. within 10 cycles where  [2] Eng.  K.  Lua,  J.  Crowcroft,  M.  Pias,  R.  Sharma  and  S.  Lim,  “A 
more than 90% of the nodes in the network show cooper‐ Survey  and  Comparison  of  Peer‐to  Peer  Overlay  Network 
ating behavior.  schemes”, IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorial, March 2004. 
  SLACER and HCGNP, both give some extra ben‐ [3] Spyros  Voulgaris,    M´ark  Jelasity,    Maarten  van  Steen,  “A 
efit  to  the  nodes  in  order  to  achieve  cooperation.  This  Robust  and  Scalable  Peer‐to‐Peer  Gossiping  Protocol”, 
phenomenon  seems  to  create  an  ideal  situation  in  P2P  International  workshop  on  agents  and  peer‐to‐peer  computing 
overlay  networks  to  eliminate  free  riding  and  enhance  No2,2004 , vol. 2872, pp. 47‐58, 2004. 
cooperation among the nodes. But realistically, while giv‐ [4] D. Hales, S. Arteconi and O. Babaoglu, “SLACER:Randomness 
ing some extra benefit to the nodes the network becomes  to  Cooperation  in  Peer‐to‐Peer  Networks”,  Department  of 
overloaded.  This  load  is  obviously  the  extra  share  of  Computer Science, University of Blogna, Italy, 2005 IEEE. 
bandwidth provided to the cooperating nodes in form of 
[5] Irum  Kazmi,  Saira  Asalm,  M.  Y.  Javed,  “Cluster‐based  Peers 
a  benefit  value.  The  observations  discussed  in  the  previ‐
Configuration  Using  HCNP  in  Peer‐to‐Peer  Overlay 
ous  chapter  show  that,  to  enhance  the  behavior  of  coop‐ Networks”,  CICSyn2010. 
eration in a P2P overlay network the nodes have to main‐
[6] T.  K  Madson,  Q.  Zang,  F.  Fitzek,  M.  Katz,  “Exploiting 
tain some capability level. This capability level should be 
Cooperation  for  Performance  Enhancements  and  High  Data 
such  that  it  drives  the  node  to  gain  its  desired  resource, 
Rates”, Journal of Communications, VOL. 4, NO. 3, April 2009. 
without  creating  any  congestion  in  the  network.  The  re‐
sults  also  show  that  the  level  of  cooperation  among  the  [7] Victor  O.  K.  Li,  Li  Cui,  Q.  Liu,  G.  H.  Yang,  Z.  Zhao,  “A 
nodes in any network depends upon the network capaci‐ Heterogeneous  Peer‐to‐Peer  Network  Testbed”,  ICUFN,  IEEE, 
ty  for  support.  Hence  this  parameter  proves  to  be  the  2009. 
most  important,  as  the  desired  values  of  cooperation  are  [8] S.  Schosser,  K.  Bohm,  B.  Vogt,  “Competition  and  Cooperation 
totally  dependent  on  it.  However  the  minimum  level  of  in  Heterogeneous  Structured  P2P  Systems‐Are  they  Mutually 
cooperation achieved after implementing HCGNP is also  Exclusive”, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007. 
more  than  50%  in  which  the  overall  probability  of  the  [9] S.  Wang  ,  Y.  Zhang  ,  “Reliable  Self‐Clustering  P2P  Overlay 
nodes  to  cooperate  in  the  network  is  highest.    Hence  we  Networks”, Department of Computer Science and Technology, 
can say that HCGNP proves to be more suitable protocol  Tongi University, China, COMPSAC‐IEEE‐2007. 
that  elevates  the  percentage  of  cooperation  among  the  [10] Mouna  Kacimi,  Kokou  Yétongnon,  Yinghua  Ma,  Richard 
nodes  in  a  P2P  overlay  environment  without  over  bur‐ Chbeir,  “HON‐P2P:  A  Cluster‐based  Hybrid  Overlay  Network 
dening the network and without wasting network capaci‐ for Multimedia Object Management”, ICPADS’2005, University 
ty.  Thus  the  major  advantage  of  cooperating‐groups  in  a  of Bourgogne, 2005. 
heterogeneous P2P overlay network is that nodes having 
[11] Akinori  Yonezawa,  Khaled  Ragab,  “A  Self‐organized 
varying  resources  can  cooperate  well  if  designed  on  the 
Clustering‐based  Overlay  Network  for  Application  Level 
basis of heterogeneity. Quality of service (QoS) like securi‐ Multicast”, Journal of Networks, April 2009. 
ty protocols, multicasting and network management pro‐
[12] James  Z.  Wang,  Matti  A.  Vanninen,  ʺA  Novel  Self‐
tocols like tracking the current state of a network, can also 
Configuration  Mechanism  for  Heterogeneous  P2P  Networks,ʺ 
be  implemented  using  heterogeneous  capabilities  of 
Intelligent  Agent  Technology,  IEEE  /  WIC  /  ACM  International 
nodes. 
Conference  on,  pp.  281‐287,  2004  IEEE/WIC/ACM  International 
  The  benefit  value  rewarded  to  the  nodes  is  the 
Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IATʹ04), 2004. 
extra bandwidth share. But the type of benefit value may 
vary  according  to  the  network  size,  type  of  the  network  [13] S.  Wang  ,  Y.  Zhang  ,  “Reliable  Self‐Clustering  P2P  Overlay 
and type of the network resources shared. The criteria to  Networks”, Department of Computer Science and Technology, 
reward  a  benefit  to  the  node  not  only  depend  upon  the  Tongi University, China, COMPSAC‐IEEE‐2007. 
network capacity, but also depend upon the nodal capaci‐ [14] M.  Amad,  A.  Meddahi,  “DV‐Flood”:  An  Optimized  Flooding 
ty and nodal state. The most important point needs to be  and Clustering based Approach for Lookup Acceleration in P2P 
highlighted is the maintenance of network and node state.  networks”, GET/Telecom Lille 1, France, 2008‐IEEE. 
HCGNP  requires  an  application  level  enhancement  of  [15] Atul  Singh,  Mads  Haahr,  “Decentralizing  clustering  in  pure 
certain features like a well maintained authentication pro‐ P2P  overlay  networks  using  Schelling’s  model”,  ICC’2007,  pp. 
tocol  is  required  which  authenticates  the  nodes  before  1860‐1866,2007. 
they  join  the  network.  Another  very  important  enhance‐
ment  required  in  HCGNP  is  the  improvement  in  its  dy‐
namic nature in heterogeneous environment. This can be 
done  by  expanding  the  concept  of  multiple  physical  pa‐
rameters  under  the  consideration  of  different  network 
connections and different network types.  
 

REFERENCES
[1] R. Subramanin,  B. D. Goodman,  “Peer to Peer computing: The 
evolution of a Disruptive Technology”, Idea Group Publishing, 
2005. 

Вам также может понравиться