Fault-Tolerant Broadcasting and Gossiping

in Communication Networks
Andrzej Pelc*
Departement d’lnformatique, Universite du Quebec a Hull, Hull, Quebec J8X 3x7, Canada

Broadcasting and gossiping are fundamental tasks in network communication. In broadcasting, or one-
to-all communication, informationoriginally held in one node of the network (called the source) must be
transmitted to all other nodes. In gossiping, or all-to-all communication, every node holds a message
which has to be transmitted to all other nodes. As communication networks grow in size, they become
increasingly vulnerable to component failures. Thus, capabilities for fault-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping
gain importance. The present paper is a survey of the fast-growing area of research investigating these
capabilities. We focus on two most important efficiency measures of broadcasting and gossiping algorithms:
running time and number of elementarytransmissionsrequired by the communication process. We emphasize
the unlfying thread in most results from the research in fault-tolerant communication: the trade-offs between
efficiency of communication schemes and their fault-tolerance. 0 7996 John Mey & Sons, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION rounds (rime) required. Another concern in the design of

Broadcasting and gossiping are fundamental tasks in net-
work communication. They both aim at disseminating
information among nodes. In broadcasting, also called
one-to-all communication, information originally held in
one node of the network (called the source) has to be
transmitted to all other nodes. In gossiping, or all-to-
all communication, every node holds a message (value)
which must be transmitted to all other nodes. These types
of network communication often occur in distributed
computing, e.g., in global processor synchronization and
updating distributed databases. Moreover, such communi-
cation tasks are implicit in many parallel computation
problems, where data and results are distributed among
processors. This happens, e.g., in matrix multiplication,
parallel solving of linear systems, parallel computing of
the discrete Fourier transform, or parallel sorting, cf. [ 8,
31, 531.
Two most important measures of performance of
broadcasting and gossiping algorithms are the number of
elementary transmissions ( c a l f s ) and the number of
* E-mail: pelc@uqah.uquebec.ca
communication schemes is the demand that they impose
on the underlying network. Since dense networks are dif-
ficult and costly to implement, it is important to consider
efficient broadcasting and gossiping algorithms that work
for networks as sparse as possible. Excellent accounts of
the literature on broadcasting and gossiping focusing on
the above-mentioned problems can be found in surveys
[33, 50, 511.
As communication networks grow in size, they become
increasingly vulnerable to component failures. Some links
and/or nodes of the network may fail. It becomes im-
portant to design communication algorithms in such a
way that the desired communication task be accomplished
efficiently in spite of these faults, usually without know-
ing their location ahead of time. As such, much attention
has been devoted recently to fault-tolerant broadcasting
and gossiping. The present paper, which is an extended
version of [62], surveys this rapidly growing area of
research. It has been necessary to make choices in the
large body of literature concerning fault-tolerant commu-
nication, leaving out vast and important subdomains re-
lated to the main focus of this paper. We do not cover
the issue of network reliability, as it is not immediately

NETWORKS, Vol. 28 (1996) 143-156

0 1996 John Wiley & Sons. Inc. CCC 0028-3045/96/030143-14

143
I# PELC
concerned with the efficiency of fault-tolerant communi-
cation but rather with necessary conditions for its feasibil-
ity. Another issue closely related to fault-tolerant broad-
casting and gossiping is the Byzantine Agreement. This
material has been covered in the survey [ 5 ] which also
discussed the important problem of multiprocessor system
diagnosis. We do not consider problems of the Byzantine
Agreement in this paper, although we discuss some as-
pects of broadcasting and gossiping in the presence of
Byzantine faults, pointing out differences of our approach.
Finally, we focus attention only on the two above-men-
tioned communication tasks, leaving out, e.g., the im-
portant and largely studied issue of fault-tolerant, point-
to-point routing where problems and techniques are
different from those encountered for broadcasting and
gossiping.
We focus on two most important and widely studied
efficiency measures of broadcasting and gossiping algo-
rithms: running time and number of elementary transmis-
sions used in the communication process. We also discuss
the issue of sparsity of networks supporting efficient fault-
tolerant communication schemes; schemes that work for
sparse networks are more widely applicable than are those
requiring, e g , a completely connected network. In this
survey, we emphasize the unifying thread found in most
results from research in fault-tolerant communication: the
trade-offs between efficiency of communication schemes
and their fault-tolerance.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we
discuss a variety of communication and fault models dis-
cussed in the literature. One dividing line is between
bounded and probabilistic fault models, as both the goals
and algorithm design techniques differ in each case. The
rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 3,
we survey results in the bounded fault model, while in
Section 4,random fault distribution is considered. Section
5 is devoted to the discussion of possible directions of
future research.
2. MODELS AND TERMINOLOGY
The domain of fault-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping
is a rather broad area of research. Different authors have
adopted varying approaches, both to network communica-
tion and to fault modeling. Thus, many combinations of
assumptions concerning the communication process and
the possible faults can be found, yielding a large number
of communication models and fault-tolerance solutions.
The design of algorithms and results concerning their
efficiency and robustness heavily depend on the underly-
ing model; hence, it is very important to specify the as-
sumptions in a detailed and rigorous way.
The only assumption common to all papers reviewed
in the present survey is the consideration of point-to-point
communication networks modeled as undirected graphs
whose vertices are sites of the network (e.g., processors,
computers) and whose edges are communication links
used to transmit messages from site to site. A number of
other features must be specified in order to describe the
model completely. Below, we point out the choices to be
made and fix the appropriate terminology.
2.1. Communication Mode
The communication primitive is a call taking place be-
tween two adjacent sites (or nodes) of the network and
usually lasting a unit of time. The communication mode
specifies which calls can be executed simultaneously dur-
ing one unit of time and what messages can be transmitted
in one call. In the shouting mode, also called n-porr or
fink-bound,a node can communicate with all its neighbors
during a single unit of time, while in the whispering mode,
also called I-porr or processor-bound, a node can com-
municate with at most one neighbor. Further, the commu-
nication mode can be full-duplex, when during one call
messages between communicating nodes can travel in
both directions through the (bidirectional) link joining
them, or halfduplex, when every node can only send or
only receive information in a given call. The shouting
mode models, e g , radio communication, in which a sig-
nal can be simultaneously transmitted to all receivers
within the range of the broadcasting station. The whisper-
ing mode is suitable to model wire-based communication,
such as occurs in traditional telephone networks. Like-
wise, the full-duplex mode is appropriate for telephone
conversations, while the half-duplex mode is used in
sending telegrams or letters. Several combinations and
variations of these modes have been considered, e.g., si-
multaneous sending to all neighbors but sequential receiv-
ing or the concurrent sending to one neighbor and receiv-
ing from one (possibly different) neighbor.
2.2. Size of Packets
Another important characteristic of the communication
process, significantly influencing the performance of algo-
rithms, is the size of message packets. A packet is the
amount of information that can be sent by a node to its
neighbor in one call. This parameter may dramatically
change the process of gossiping, as large packets allow
single transmission of already accumulated information.
In case of broadcasting, packet size often does not change
the algorithm design, as only one message is to be dissem-
inated throughout the network. However, even in this
case, it may play a significant role, especially if large
control messages concerning already detected faults need
to be circulated during the algorithm execution. The size
of packets can vary from unit, when each packet can
contain the value of only one node, to unbounded, when
packets are large enough to contain all values of nodes
in the network. Large bandwidth availability, such as in

optical communication networks, makes the assumption
of large, essentially unbounded packets increasingly plau-
sible.
2.3. Fault Classification
Several assumptions are made concerning aspects of
faults that can occur in the communication process. The
first concern is to specify which components are fault-
prone: only links, only nodes, or both links and nodes.
Furthermore, the nature of faults must be described. The
two most commonly studied types are crash and Byzan-
tine faults. If the fault is a crash, the faulty node does not
send or receive messages or the faulty link does not trans-
mit messages. Faulty components do not alter transmitted
messages; they fail to transmit messages at all. Such faults
are relatively benign. Although some information may be
lost, at least the information that is received can be trusted.
Byzantine faults, on the other hand, are a worst-case fault
scenario: Faulty components can behave arbitrarily (even
maliciously) as transmitters, by stopping, rerouting, or
altering transmitted messages in a way most detrimental
to the communication process. Byzantine failures that ex-
hibit all these kinds of damaging behavior rarely occur
in practice. They may be caused by a hostile agent whose
aim is to destroy the communication process. On the other
hand, the concept of Byzantine faults plays an important
role in our study, representing a worst-case assumption.
Communication algorithms that work correctly in the
presence of Byzantine faults can be used safely under any
fauI t scenario.
Another important characteristic of faults, which must
be specified, is their duration. Faults can be either p e m -
nent (i.e., the status faulty/fault-free of a component does
not change during the algorithm execution) or transient
(i.e., the status of a component may change in each unit of
time). Permanent faults usually correspond to hardware
Component failures, while transient link faults correspond
to transmission failures due, e.g., to temporary magnetic
interference. Knowledge as to which types of faults are
likely to occur is important in communication algorithm
design. Repeating attempts to transmit the same message
along the same link is useless in case of permanent faults
but may be essential if faults are of a transient nature.
2.4. Fault Distribution
One of the crucial assumptions made about faults con-
cerns their distribution. Clearly, some limitations on the
number of possibly faulty components must be imposed;
otherwise, no communication is possible. Two commonly
used fault models are the bounded model and the probabi-
listic model. In the bounded model, an upper bound k is
imposed on the number of faulty components; their worst-
case location is assumed. In the probabilistic model, faults
are assumed to occur randomly and independently of each
FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND GOSSIPING 1 6
other, with specified probability. The choice between
these two assumptions regarding fault occurrence influ-
ences the definition of the goal of broadcasting and gos-
siping in the presence of faults.
In the bounded fault model, we usually seek what is
termed k-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping. In case of
broadcasting, the source is assumed fault-free (otherwise,
no broadcasting is possible); its message must reach all
fault-free nodes provided that no more than k components
(links or nodes or both, depending on the particular sce-
nario) are faulty. In the case of gossiping, all fault-free
nodes must receive messages from all fault-free nodes,
provided that no more than k components are faulty. It
should be stressed that no agreement concerning messages
from faulty nodes is required among the fault-free nodes;
this is where fault-tolerant gossiping differs from Byzan-
tine Agreement in the case of Byzantine node failures.
In the probabilistic fault model, the communication
goal cannot be achieved with certainty, since, with some
small probability, all components may fail and preclude
any message transmission. As a result, almost safe broad-
casting and gossiping is sought. In broadcasting, all fault-
free nodes must receive the source message with probabil-
ity at least 1 - ( I / n ) (the source being fault free); in
gossiping, all fault-free nodes must receive messages
from all fault-free nodes with a specified probability. De-
signing efficient communication algorithms whose relia-
bility increases for networks of larger size is difficult for
the following reason: In small networks, it is relatively
easy to achieve fault-tolerant communication using mas-
sive redundancy; due to the small scale of the network,
resources used by such brute-force communication proce-
dures (either time or number of messages) will not be
excessive. In larger networks, however, the trade-off be-
tween reliability and efficiency becomes an important is-
sue; for such networks, highly reliable and efficient algo-
rithms are sought.
2.5. Flexibility of Algorithms
In a fault-free environment, broadcasting and gossiping
algorithms have a simple form. All calls to be carried out
in each time unit can be specified in advance, before the
algorithm execution. In the presence of faults, a distinc-
tion must be made regarding this point, which will sig-
nificantly affect the efficiency and robustness of fault-
tolerant communication. Broadcasting and gossiping al-
gorithms can be either nonadaptive, also called oblivious,
where all calls must be scheduled in advance, or adaptive,
where every node can schedule its next call based on
information currently available to it. In adaptive algo-
rithms, a node becomes aware of whether a call it at-
tempted was successful (i.e., if the called node and the
connecting link are fault-free) ; hence, different calls can
be executed depending on the success or failure of previ-
ous ones. Even in this second case, however, nodes can
146 PELC

only take advantage of locally available information; we
do not assume the existence of a central monitor supervis-
ing the overall communication process. Adaptive algo-
rithms require more local control and memory at each
node but are usually more efficient for the same fault-
tolerance level.
2.6. Models in the Literature
All the above characteristics of the communication and
fault models must be specified if results concerning fault-
tolerant broadcasting and gossiping are to be meaningful.
Many authors make some of the assumptions tacitly, and
the complete description of the model can only be inferred
from the algorithm description or from arguments con-
cerning efficiency and robustness of the communication
schemes. The interest of the research community in differ-
ent models varies; the popularity of some of the proposed
models have changed over time. An example is the choice
to be made between the bounded and probabilistic mod-
els; interest in nonadaptive vs. adaptive communication
algorithms has also varied with time. The first papers
in the area of fault-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping
favored the bounded fault model and nonadaptive algo-
case. We denote by T the minimum time of k-tolerant
broadcasting or gossiping and by C the minimum number
of calls used in such a communication process.
3.1. Permanent Link Faults
We first assume that nodes are fault free and there are at
most k permanently faulty links in the network. As such,
faults are of crash type. We assume the communication
mode is whispering.
The first results on the number of calls in this model
were proved in [ 7 1, where both the full-duplex and half-
duplex variations were considered. In case of broadcast-
ing, the exact value of C was obtained in both cases. For
the full-duplex mode,
C = r s 2( n - l ) 1 , ifksn-2, and
c= r? n1. otherwise.

rithms. This is probably due to the fact that, at first, broad- For the half-duplex mode, C = ( k + 1 )(n - 1 ).
casting and gossiping were viewed mostly as combinato- In case of gossiping, the exact value of C was obtained
rial, graph theoretic problems; communication schemes +
for the half-duplex mode: C = ( k 2 ) n - 2. However,
have a simple combinatorial formulation under the above for the full-duplex mode, only bounds on C have been
assumptions. As the domain of research has evolved, sev- established:
eral researchers pointed out that the random fault assump-
tion corresponds much better to failure Occurrence in real
networks; as a result, the probabilistic fault model gained
prominence. In addition, as local memory and computa-
tion capabilities of processors have increased, the imple-
mentation of adaptive algorithms has become more realis-
tic. At present, there is a good balance of research con- 5 C L(k
I + i ) ( n - I)], if k 5 n - 2, and
ducted in each of the above models; we can see
technological advances as well as intrinsic interest in
combinatorics influencing the choice of particular com-
munication scenarios.

2.7. Notation
We use the following notation through the rest of the s L ( k + i)n - I)], ifk 2 n - 2.
paper: We let n denote the number of nodes in the net-
work. Unless otherwise specified, the network is a com-
plete graph. An m-hypercube is the graph on 2"' nodes
It was conjectured that the exact value of C is close
labeled by binary sequences of length rn in which adjacent
to the upper bound; more precisely, that C = [ ( k + 3 ) /
nodes have labels differing in exactly one place. We de-
2 ] n - consr. This conjecture was later disproved in [ 481
note by log the logarithm with base 2 and by In the natural
under the transient fault assumption (cf. Subsection 3.4).
logarithm.
The following results concern the minimum time T
of nonadaptive, k-tolerant broadcasting in the full-duplex
3. THE BOUNDED FAULT MODEL mode:
In [ 5 6 ] ,the lower bound T 2 [log nl + k , for n - 1
In this section, we assume that there are at most k faulty > k 2 0, was proved. Moreover, the exact value of T
components in the network and their distribution is worst- was established for k = 1, 2:
 FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND GOSSIPING 147

T=rlognl+ I, i f k = 1, n > 2 , lar, the authors construct networks supporting k-tolerant

T=rlognl+2, ifk=2, n>4, n z 2 ' - 1,
T = [log nl + 3, if k = 2, n > 6, n = 2' - 1.
In [ 561, the k-tolerant broadcast function BA( n) was
defined and studied for the first time. This is the minimum
number of links in a network supporting k-tolerant broad-
casting in minimum time T. In [ 561, the following bounds
on B , ( n ) were established:
Similar upper bounds on B 2 ( n )were obtained for some
values of n. The above upper bounds on B , ( n )and B 2 ( n )
were later improved in [ 151. Sparser networks supporting
1-tolerant and 2-tolerant broadcasting in minimum time
were constructed, giving the following estimates:
n n
B,(n)s -[log nl - - + 6, for even n, and
2 2
broadcasting in minimum time, with a number of links
differing from BA(n) by at most a constant factor, for k
< Llog nl if n is even and for k 5 L2r10g''1- n + I J if
n is odd. It was also proved that
(m - 1)(2"' - 6 )
B , (2"' - 6) = , when m is even.
2
For general values of k , two upper bounds on time T
had been obtained earlier in [64]. First, it was proved
+
that T s 2k + h o g nl 4. This upper bound was also
obtained independently in [57]. For large k , e.g., linear
in n, it can be advantageous to decrease the coefficient
at k at the expense of increasing the coefficient at [log
nl . In these situations, the second upper bound from 1641
is useful:
T s (1 + $ ) k + 2 d l o g n l + d ,
for any constant c I , k s [ ( n - 1)/(8c + l ) ] - c .
and a constant d depending on c but not on n or k.
The exact values of T for arbitrarily large k were first
obtained in [37], for n being a power of 2. If n = 2"'
and k 5 n - 2, k-tolerant broadcasting schemes were
constructed that perform in the optimal possible time:

T=logn+k, ifksn-logn- 1, and

T = logn + k + 1, i f n - logn 5 k s n - 2.

for n = 0 or 1 (mod 4 ) , and
for n = 2 or 3 (mod 4 ) .
Moreover, the networks supporting these schemes have
the minimum possible number of links ( m + k)n/2,
thereby proving that B A ( n )= (m +
k)n/2, for n = 2"
and k s n - 2.
In the same paper, tighter upper bounds on T for other
values of n and k were also established. Let m = Llog nJ
and n = 2"' + j , where 0 < j 5 2"'-2. It was proved that

In [54], it was shown that

T s m + k + l +
L m - hogj
if k
l-
5
1
2"' - m - 1. and
The above results concerning the minimum values for
the time T of k-tolerant broadcasting and for the k-tolerant
broadcast function Bk(n)were extended in [42]. For all
k 5 Llog PI],the minimum time T of k-tolerant broadcast-
ing was proved to be [log nl + k or rlog(n - I )1 + k
T=sm+k+2+
L k - l
m - riogjl- 1
J,
+ 1, depending on k . As for the function &(n), it was if 2"' - m - 1 <k 5 2"' - 2.
proved in [42] to be O(n(k + log n)), whenever k
s Llog nJ. Moreover, under the additional assumption The tightness of these bounds depends on k and j. For
that n = 2'". the exact value Bk(n)= ( m + k)n/2 was small values of j , when n is close to Llog nl, and small
established. Further bounds on the function B,(n)and its values of k, close to log n , the upper bound does not
values for specific k and n can be found in [ 11. In particu- exceed log n +
k very much and thus it is fairly tight.
148 PELC
On the other hand, for large j, close to 2”’-’, the bound
becomes close to log n + 2k, which is then similar to
the bound T 5 2k + [log nl + 4 from [64]and [57]
and is far from the lower bound when k is large. The
exact values of broadcasting time for arbitrary n and k
remain unknown.
In [ 591, k-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping was
considered in the shouting mode for product graphs G
= G I X Gz.The authors derived bounds on the minimum
time and the minimum number of calls for k-tolerant
broadcasting and gossiping in G depending on these val-
ues for G , and Gz.
A different approach to broadcasting in the presence
of faults was adopted in [ 121. In the usual scenario of k-
fault-tolerance, even an adaptive algorithm does not as-
sume any a priori knowledge of fault location; this infor-
mation must be acquired by nodes during the communica-
tion process, which is usually costly in terms of time
and calls. In [ 121, fault-tolerant broadcasting in the m-
hypercube was considered, assuming that the location of
faults is a priori known to the source. Packets were as-
sumed of size O ( m ) and a variation of the whispering
mode was considered, in which each node could send
information to two neighbors in a unit of time. Finally,
it was assumed that the number of faulty links does not
exceed rm/21 - I . Under these assumptions, it was
shown that a nonadaptive broadcasting algorithm for the
m-hypercube existed working in optimal time m and using
the optimal number of 2”’ - 1 calls.
In [40], the lineur communication model was used.
In this model, the time to transmit a message of length
L is p + LT, where p is the startup time and LT is
the propagation time. Four communication modes were
considered: whispering and shouting in both the half-
duplex and full-duplex variations. Also, both transient and
permanent link failures were investigated. Under these
assumptions, the authors used Rabin’s Information Dis-
persal Algorithm (IDA) to construct fast k-tolerant broad-
casting algorithms for the hypercube. Given a file F, IDA
encodes it into n smaller files F,,. . . , F, in such a way
that F can be recovered from any subset of n - k files
F, . Broadcasting proposed in [ 401 was performed so that
one failure could only affect one file F, and, consequently,
the algorithm was k-tolerant. For each of the considered
communication modes, the execution time of this algo-
rithm was shown to be smaller than the time of broadcast-
ing using the straightforward ( k + I)-replication ap-
proach.
In [ 301, randomized broadcasting in the whispering
mode was considered. Informed nodes decide randomly
to which neighbor they transmit the message at each time
unit. (This should not be confused with deterministic
broadcasting in the presence of randomly distributed
faults, to be considered in Section 4.) If k < cn, for a
constant c < 4, random broadcasting in the presence of
at most k faulty links was proved to be completed in time
O(log n), with probability converging to 1.
3.2. Permanent Node Faults
We now assume that links are fault-free and there are at
most k permanently faulty nodes. Faults are of the crash
type; the communication mode is full-duplex whispering.
We first consider the minimum time T of k-tolerant adap-
tive broadcasting. The first results in this model were
obtained in [29]. It was proved that if there are at most
k nonadjacent faulty nodes in some chordal rin s then
adaptive broadcasting can be performed in time log nl
+
f
k. (Chordal rings are rings [ x , ) , . . . , x,,-~]with addi-
where t E S, for a fixed S
tional links [ x i , x~~+,,~,,,,~],
C ( 1, . . . , n - 1 ) .) Adaptive broadcasting in complete
networks has been recently investigated in [45]. Two
variations of the above model were considered: In the
first, called the wake-up model, only nodes that have al-
ready obtained the source information (i.e., are awake)
can attempt placing calls. In this model, the exact value
of minimum broadcasting time T = k + rlog(n - k ) l
was obtained. The second variation does not impose any
restriction on nodes placing calls. Uninformed nodes can
also place calls; this enables the algorithm to perform
preprocessing and avoid time-consuming calls from the
source to faulty nodes. In this general model, the authors
constructed a k-tolerant broadcasting algorithm working
in time O(log2 n), whenever k I an, for a constant a
< 1. It remains open if adaptive broadcasting can be done
in time O(1og n).
In [ 431, nonadaptive broadcasting in the half-duplex
whispering mode was considered, under the same as-
sumption as above: k s an,for a constant a < 1. The
authors established upper and lower bounds on T and
constructed a k-tolerant broadcasting algorithm requiring
time at most 1.73 times greater than optimal.
In [ 521. a communication mode in between whispering
and shouting was considered: Every node can transmit to
at most k other nodes in a unit of time. The authors
proposed nonadaptive k-tolerant broadcasting schemes
working for the complete n-node network in time
rlog,+,nl + 3. For k = 1 and k = 2, these schemes work
in time rlog,+,nl + 2, and if no faults are present, they
work in optimal time hog,, ,nl.
In [ 21, the goal considered was that of minimizing the
number of calls in fault-tolerant gossiping. It was assumed
that nodes fail in a Byzantine manner, but they have
diagnostic capabilities: A fault-free node can correctly
diagnose tested nodes, while faulty testers are unpredict-
able. The half-duplex whispering mode was adopted, and
the size of packets was assumed unbounded. The authors
presented an adaptive gossiping algorithm using 3n log
n + O ( n )calls and working correctly whenever the fault-
free part of the network is connected.

3.3. Permanent Link and Node Faults
We now assume that both links and nodes can fail and
that the total number of such permanent crash faults is
at most k. In [65], nonadaptive broadcasting in the m-
hypercube was considered under the assumption that
nodes can simultaneously send and receive messages and
that the number k of faults is less than m. A broadcasting
algorithm was proposed, requiring time at most m + 1 if
a node can simultaneously transmit to all neighbors and
time at most 2m if transmitting a message is possible only
to one neighbor at a time.
In [ 131, a communication mode in between whispering
and shouting was considered. The authors assumed that
each node can communicate with at most t neighbors in
a unit of time. Assuming that k < m, they proposed a
scheme for k-tolerant broadcasting in the m-hypercube
r(
requiring a time of m + k + 1 ) / t 1 . Some bounds on
the broadcasting time in the presence of a larger number
of faults that do not disconnect the hypercube were also
shown.
In [ 491, k-tolerant broadcasting in jumping nenvorks
was considered. These are n-node chordal rings in which
nodes u and u are adjacent iff u - u = 2'(mod n), for
some integer r. In the full-duplex whispering mode, the
upper bound T s [log nl + k + 2 on k-tolerant broadcast-
ing time was established under the assumption k s h o g
n l - 2.
Nonadaptive k-tolerant broadcasting in product net-
works G = GI X --- x G, was considered in [3].
The authors proposed broadcasting algorithms for such
networks using the construction of n independent span-
ning trees rooted at the source s = (sI, . . . , s,$) (the paths
from the source to any node in distinct trees are mutually
internally node-disjoint ) . These algorithms can tolerate
up to L(n - 1)/21 Byzantine faults or up to n - 1 crash
faults. The execution time t of these algorithms was de-
rived in terms of broadcasting time in the factor networks
G, ,both in the whispering and in the shouting mode. For
the whispering mode, t = 2 ZyLl' p, + on+ I , and for
the shouting mode, t = 1 + C:=, a,,where 0, and a,
denote optimal fault-free broadcasting time from s, in G, ,
in whispering and shouting mode, respectively.
In [ 321, the previously described linear communica-
tion model was used and k-tolerant broadcasting and gos-
siping algorithms were proposed for the hypercube in
both shouting and whispering modes. It was proved that
their running time is asymptotically optimal, i.e., it con-
verges to the lower bound as the length L of the messages
increases.
A different approach to broadcasting in the presence
of faults, similar to that in [ 121, was adopted in [ 631 and
[41]. In both papers, the location of faults was assumed
to be known to all nodes. The adopted mode of communi-
cation was shouting. Under these assumptions, broadcast-
ing in the m-hypercube was considered in [ 631. An algo-
FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND GOSSIPING 149
rithm was described that performs broadcasting in the
presence of up to m - 2 arbitrary node or link failures,
using the optimal time m and the optimal number of calls
2"' - I. This should be compared to the previously men-
tioned result of [ 121. obtained under different assump-
tions. In [ 121, the number of faults was smaller and only
links were fault-prone, but the location of faults was
known only to the source and the communication mode
was more restrictive, i.e., a node could communicate with
only two neighbors in a unit of time.
A similar result for the star graph was obtained in
[41]. The n-star graph S, is a graph whose nodes are
labeled by all permutations of integers 1, . . . , n and the
node u = ( u l , . . . , u,,) is adjacent to all nodes u[i]. for
i = 2, . . . ,n, where u[ i ] results from u by a transposition
of uI and u, . S, has n! nodes and the diameter D ( S , )
= L3(n - 1)/2J. The authors determined the maximum
number r ( n ) of link or node faults such that the fault-
free part of S, still has diameter D(S,). Assuming at most
r( n ) link or node faults known to all nodes, they proposed
a broadcasting algorithm for S, working in optimal time
D( S,) and using the optimal number of calls n ! - 1. In
the traditional fault-tolerant setting, i.e., in the presence of
k unknown faults, they proposed k-tolerant broadcasting
using the optimal number of ( k + 1)( n ! - 1) calls.
A variation of the broadcasting problem, called linear
broadcasting. was first considered in [ 10, 221. See also
Problem 13 by Greenberg (the Report Dispersal Prob-
lem) in [ 341. The source has an unrestricted number of
identical tokens. In any unit of time, each node that holds
tokens can send at most one token to at most one other
node. The goal is for all nodes to be visited by at least
one token. The difference from broadcasting is that tokens
may not be "multiplied" for free at any node but have
to travel to each node from the source. In [ 271, a fault-
tolerant version of linear broadcasting was considered.
Each token has a predetermined route, indicating in which
order nodes should be visited. A faulty node or link de-
stroys all tokens passing through it. A linear broadcasting
scheme consisting of token routes is k-tolerant if every
fault-free node is visited by at least one token, whenever
the total number of faults does not exceed k. The perfor-
mance measure of a k-tolerant scheme, adopted in [27],
was the number of tokens used by the scheme. For posi-
tive integers k and n , let PL( n )denote the minimum num-
ber of tokens for which there exists a k-tolerant linear
broadcasting scheme in a (n + 1)-node complete net-
work. The authors established lower bounds on P k ( n )
and showed k-tolerant schemes using few tokens. It was
proved, in particular, that the minimum number of tokens
sufficient to perform 2-tolerant linear broadcasting is
@(log log n ) and that it is 2 for 1-tolerant linear broad-
casting.
3.4. Transient Faults
We now turn attention to transient faults. Let us first
note that if a broadcasting or gossiping algorithm works
correctly assuming at most k permanent link and/or node time in O ( log n + k ) . This order of magnitude is clearly
faults then it also works correctly assuming at most k optimal. This result was subsequently strengthened in
transient link and/or node faults during the entire commu- [ 371 where the following upper bounds on T were proved:
nication process. Hence, all upper bounds on time and
the number of calls reported above for permanent faults T I rn + k, if n = 2"'. which is tight, and
still hold in the present scenario. In this subsection, we
T s r n + 3 k + 1, i f n = 2 " - ' + j < 2 " .
discuss results that use the assumption that faults are tran-
sient, i.e., the same fault cannot prevent transmission in
Moreover, the gossiping algorithm constructed in
two distinct time units, unlike in the permanent fault case.
[37], requiring a minimum time T = rn + k , when n
All results concern only link faults. We assume that
= 2", has an additional feature: It uses the minimum
nodes are fault free and links are subject to transient
number (rn + k)n/2 of calls. The scheme also improves
failures, i.e., there are at most k faulty calls during the
on the number of calls, when compared to [48] for many
communication process. Faults are of crash type, i.e., no
values of k and j. The exact value of T for this model,
message passes during a faulty call. Packets are un-
for arbitrary n and k , remains unknown.
bounded, the communication mode is whispering, and
For broadcasting in the half-duplex variation of this
algorithms are nonadaptive.
model, the following lower bounds were proved in [ 381.
The first results concerning the minimum number C
Fork = 1 and arbitrary n , T = h o g nl + 2 and C 2 2n
of calls were proved in [48]. As mentioned in Subsection
- 2. On the other hand, a l-tolerant broadcasting scheme
3.1, it was conjectured in [ 7 ] that C = [(k + 3)/2]n
was shown for which both the time and the number of
- const under the assumption of at most k permanent
calls achieve the above optimal values. For arbitrary n
link faults. This conjecture was disproved in [48] under
= 2"' > 2k, it was proved that the minimum time of k-
the stronger assumption of at most k transient link faults.
tolerant broadcasting is T = rn + 2k. Moreover, it was
The following upper bound was shown:
shown that k-tolerant broadcasting in time rn + 2k, for k
> 2"-', can be achieved in the symmetric directed rn-
C5-
nk
2
+ O ( k 6 + n log n ) . hypercube. This network has the minimum number of
links among all networks supporting k-tolerant broadcast-
ing in the optimum time rn + 2k.
In [ 481, a class of improved upper bounds for almost We now return to the full-duplex mode. The following
all k was also obtained, e.g.: variation on the assumption of at most k faulty calls was
recently considered in [MI. Since the number of call
C f(k + 8 ) ( n - 1 ) + 2k + 16. failures is likely to increase with execution time, instead
of imposing a fixed upper bound on this number, it seems
reasonable to assume-that the possible number of failures
The exact value of the minimum number of calls in k-
is proportional to the time elapsed since the beginning of
tolerant gossiping in this model is still unknown.
the algorithm execution. To make broadcasting possible
A more general measure of communication cost has
in the whispering mode, the proportion coefficient must
been considered in [ 391. Every link (i, j ) of the complete
be smaller than 1;otherwise, no message leaves the source
network on n nodes is assigned a positive cost c ( i , j ) .
in the worst case. Fix a C 1. Assume that, for any t
The total cost of a broadcasting or gossiping algorithm
> 0, at most at calls may fail in the first t time units of
is obtained by adding c ( i , j ) whenever a message travels
the algorithm execution. The following results regarding
through the link (i, j ) . [For example, the total cost is
broadcasting time in this linearly bounded transient fault
equal to the number of calls in the half-duplex mode,
model were obtained in [ 441.
when all costs c(i, j ) are equal to I.] It was proved in
If the network is an n-node chain, then
[39] that, for given costs of links, the problem of de-
termining the minimum cost of performing k-tolerant gos-
T E O ( n ) , if a < $, and
siping among n nodes is NP-hard. The authors proposed
a k-tolerant gossiping algorithm with cost at most twice
the optimal. Moreover, their gossiping scheme requires
time at most ( k + 2)n - 1 larger than optimal. In the
TE a( (A)") , if a 2 -21 .
case of broadcasting, a k-tolerant algorithm was con-
structed with cost k + 1 times larger than the cost of a If the network is an rn-hypercube then, for any a
minimum spanning tree. It was proved that this cost is < 1,
optimal among all k-tolerant broadcasting algorithms.
The first result on the time of gossiping in the full-
duplex mode with transient link faults was proved in T = L L ( r n - l)]+rn.
[48]. A k-tolerant algorithm was proposed with running 1 -a

If the network is the complete n-node graph, then, for
a n y a < 1,
1
TE-
1 -a
log n + O(l0g log n).
A similar assumption that the number of faulty trans-
missions may increase in time was addressed in [ 351. The
authors considered the shouting communication mode;
therefore, it was possible to allow a larger number of
failures per time unit. They assumed that at most k calls
may fail in each time unit for a constant k smaller than
the edge-connectivity of the network. (For larger values
of k , the network could be disconnected.) In [35], the
issue of broadcasting time in the m-hypercube was studied
for this model, where it was proved that T E m + o ( m ) .
This model was further investigated in [21] for general
networks. Let d be the diameter of the network and let k
(smaller than the edge-connectivity ) be the maximum
number of faulty calls per time unit. The following results
were proved in [ 2 11 :
For fixed d , T E O ( k d ' * - ' ) ,for arbitrary networks,
and there exist networks for which T E @ ( k ( d ' 2 - ' ) .
For fixed k , T E O(d'+ I ) , for arbitrary networks, and
there exist networks for which T E 0(d'* I ) .
For multidimensional tori, T E O( d ) . As an open prob-
lem, the authors asked whether T is linear in the diameter,
for all vertex transitive graphs.
A different way of defining fault-tolerant broadcasting
was proposed in [ 5 8 ] . Instead of demanding that a broad-
casting scheme tolerate at most k link faults in the net-
work, for a given parameter k , the requirement of fault-
tolerance was allowed to vary from node to node. Fix a
network N and a broadcasting source s. Given a node u
f s, let k, be the minimum number of links whose dele-
tion disconnects u from s. A broadcasting algorithm is
reliable for the node u, if u gets the source message when-
ever less than k,, links are subject to transient crash faults.
A broadcasting algorithm is faithful if it is reliable for
every node. In [ 581, the author investigated the trade-off
between the minimum number of calls used by a faithful
broadcasting algorithm and the maximum amount of local
memory needed in a node. The latter is called the space
complexity of the algorithm. It was proved that every
faithful broadcasting algorithm for an arbitrary network
uses at least Z,,, k,, calls. Moreover, for any network,
there exists a faithful broadcasting algorithm of linear
space complexity, using the above optimal number of
calls. On the other hand, arbitrarily large networks were
constructed for which all faithful broadcasting algorithms
using no local memory for computations at nodes use a
number of calls exponential in the size of the network.
Finally, the author characterized networks that support
faithful broadcasting using the optimal number of calls
and no local memory for computations.
FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND GOSSIPING I51
4. THE PROBABILISTIC FAULT MODEL
In this section, we assume that links fail with probability
0 s p < 1, nodes fail with probability 0 s q < 1, and
all faults are independent. The values p = 0 ( q = 0)
correspond to the assumption that links (nodes) are fault-
free. Unless explicitly stated, algorithms are deterministic
and probabilistic considerations relate only to their cor-
rectness and/or efficiency.
In most of the papers using the probabilistic fault
model, results concerning the execution time and the
number of calls used by broadcasting and gossiping algo-
rithms are of asymptotic nature, i.e., only their orders of
magnitude (up to a multiplicative constant) are mini-
mized. Using this approach, results concerning broadcast-
ing and gossiping are usually equivalent when packets
are assumed of unbounded size. indeed, a reverse of a
broadcasting algorithm can be used to gather all values
in one node; then, the total information can be broadcast
from this node to all other nodes. In this way, both the
time and number of calls are at most doubled.
In the probabilistic model, there are two natural varia-
tions for defining the performance of adaptive algorithms
in terms of time and number of calls. Both these values
are random variables, as they depend on the location of
faults which are random. Thus, we may ask about the
worst-case or the expected time and number of calls used
by the algorithm. It will be seen below that this distinction
is sometimes significant. It does not occur in the case
of nonadaptive algorithms, as all transmissions in such
algorithms are scheduled in advance and do not depend
on the random occurrence of faults.
4.1. Permanent Link and Node Faults
We first assume that all failures are permanent and of
crash type and that the communication mode is full-du-
plex whispering. First, consider the fault-free nodes sce-
nario (q = 0).in the following papers, p < 1 was as-
sumed to be constant. In [ 91, a nonadaptive, almost safe
broadcasting algorithm was proposed. It used noncon-
structive expanders and worked in time O(log n). In
[ 251, broadcasting and gossiping were studied under the
assumption of unbounded packets. A simple treelike con-
struction was applied to guarantee almost safe adaptive
broadcasting and gossiping using an expected time O( log
n ) and an expected number of calls O ( n ) . Nonadaptive
broadcasting and gossiping algorithms were proposed,
working in time O(log2n) and using O ( n log n) calls.
The order of the number of calls was proved to be optimal
for nonadaptive algorithms (cf. also [ 91). Later, the con-
struction from [25] was extended in [17] to decrease
nonadaptive broadcasting time to O ( log n),as well, under
more general assumptions. Also, in [ 171, the result from
[ 251 concerning adaptive broadcasting was strengthened.
An adaptive, almost safe broadcasting algorithm was
152 PELC
given whose worst-case time was O(1og n ) and worst-
case number of calls was O (n), both orders of magnitude
being optimal. In [ 161, almost safe broadcasting was con-
sidered for the m-hypercube. The authors constructed a
nonadaptive broadcasting algorithm requiring time
O ( m ) , whenever p 5 0.09.
In [ 661, almost safe, adaptive broadcasting was con-
sidered, assuming that link failure probability p is larger
than constant. Let p* = 1 - p denote the probability that
a link is fault free. Forp* = [w(n)log n l l n , let w ( n ) be
any function divcrging to infinity. The authors proposed
an almost safe broadcasting algorithm working in time
log n + o(log n), with probability converging to 1. Under
the slightly stronger assumption p* = ( Kln2n ) l n , where
K > 12/(ln 2), they showed an almost safe broadcasting
algorithm working in optimal time h o g nl .
These results were subsequently extended in [ 461. The
author showed almost safe broadcasting in time log n
+ d log log n , for d < 1, whenever p* = ( c In n ) l n ,
where c > 18.4. Moreover, almost safe broadcasting in
time h o g nl was shown for p * = ( c In n-log log n ) l n ,
where c > 16. In [ 361, the latter result was strengthened:
Almost safe broadcasting in time h o g nl was shown for
p * = (c In n ) l n , for some positive constant c.
In [ 471, the results from [ 461 were extended in another
way. On the one hand, almost safe broadcasting in time
h o g nl + 1 was shown for p * = (C In nslog log log n ) l
n, where c > 16. On the other hand, the author showed
almost safe broadcasting in time log n +
d log log log
n, for d < I , whenever p* = ( c In n ) l n , where c
> 18.4, thus improving required time for this probability
value.
Randomized broadcasting in the above fault model was
+
considered in [30]. Forp* = [log n w ( n ) ] / n where , tions between the size of packets and the time of fault-
w ( n ) is any function diverging to infinity, randomized
broadcasting was proved to be almost safe and work in
time O(log2 n), while for p* 2 [ ( 1 + €)log n l l n , its
running time is O ( log n ) .
In the following papers, both links and nodes were
assumed fault-prone. In [ 171, nonadaptive broadcasting
was considered for arbitrary constant fault probability val-
ues p , q < 1. The authors proposed an almost safe broad-
casting algorithm working in time O ( log n), using a tree-
like construction. This eliminated the need of noncon-
structive expanders used in [ 91, simultaneously
weakening the assumption regarding node faults (in [ 91,
nodes were assumed fault-free). In [17], an adaptive,
almost safe broadcasting algorithm was also given having
worst-case running time O(log n ) and expected number
of calls O ( n ) .It remains open whether both the running
time O(log n) and the number of calls O ( n ) can be
guaranteed in the worst case. As previously mentioned,
the authors gave a positive answer to this question assum-
ing that nodes are fault-free.
A variation of broadcasting, called waking up, was
considered in [ 191. In the beginning, only the source is
awake and has to wake up all fault-free nodes by sending
the wake-up message. The difference from classical
broadcasting is that only nodes that are awake (i.e., al-
ready have received the message) can place calls; a dor-
mant (uninformed) node cannot call to seek the source
message, as in broadcasting. This restriction has a sig-
nificant impact on the minimum number of calls of an
almost safe, waking-up algorithm, in the case when links
and nodes are fault prone. It was proved in [ 191 that every
such algorithm (even adaptive) must use an expected
number of 52( n log n ) calls. (This can be contrasted with
the above-mentioned result from [ 171, where classical
broadcasting was performed with an expected linear num-
ber of calls.) Moreover, the authors constructed an almost
safe wake up algorithm working in expected time O ( log
n), and using an expected number of O ( n log n ) calls,
both orders of magnitude being optimal. An additional
feature of the above scheme was that it worked in anony-
mous (complete) networks in which nodes do not know
their labels and execute identical algorithms.
In [ 201, nonadaptive broadcasting in the hypercube
was considered. It is well known that, in this case, almost
safe broadcasting is impossible for large fault probability
values, as the hypercube can be then disconnected with
constant positive probability. For small probabilities of
faults, satisfying the condition ( 1 - p ) ( 1 - q ) 2 0.99,
an almost safe broadcasting algorithm workmg in time
O ( m ) for the m-hypercube was constructed in [ 201.
As observed previously, for packets of unbounded size,
the above results can be immediately extended to gossip-
ing. The situation changes significantly if we consider
smaller packets. For unit-size packets, e.g., gossiping re-
quires linear time even without faults. In [28]. the rela-
tolerant broadcasting were investigated, for arbitrary fault
probability values p , 9 < 1. For packets of size b ( n ) ,the
authors constructed a nonadaptive almost safe gossiping
algorithm working in time O ( [ n l b ( n ) ]+ log n), easily
seen to be optimal. For the unbounded packet size, this
yields gossiping time O ( log n), which also follows from
[ 171, while for unit-size packets, this yields linear gossip-
ing time. The algorithm in [28] used explicitly con-
structible expanders.
It should be mentioned that in the above gossiping
algorithm, nodes do not know, a priori, whose value is
currently transmitted; thus, it is necessary to attach node
labels to values during transmissions. Since labels must
use at least log n bits, a packet of size b ( n ) , which, by
definition, must contain values of b(n) nodes, must, in
fact, contain b(n)log n bits, even for one-bit values. For
example, unit-size packets must contain O( log n ) bits.
This should be compared to the situation in [ 181 and [ 1 I],
where labels did not have to be attached and packets
could have only a constant number of bits.
In [ 141. a nonadaptive broadcasting algorithm tolerat-
ing at most m - I faults in the m-hypercube was proposed.

Its running time is (2" - 1 )m and the number of calls
is m2" - 2" + 1. In addition, the author performed
simulations showing that for fault probability p s f
all nodes become informed after an average time of less
than 5m.
Byzantine link failures under the assumption that nodes
are fault free were considered in [ 61. Link failure proba-
4;
bility was a constantp < otherwise, no reliable commu-
nication can be achieved in a Byzantine environment. The
communication mode was full-duplex whispering. Using
nonconstructive expanders, the authors proposed a non-
adaptive almost safe broadcasting algorithm working in
time O(1og n).
In [ 41, nonadaptive gossiping with unbounded packets
was considered for the m-hypercube. The authors as-
sumed that either links or nodes fail in a Byzantine way.
For fault-free links (respectively, nodes) and nodes (re-
spectively, links) failing with probability p s c / m , with
a small constant c , an almost safe gossiping algorithm
requiring time 2m was presented. For fault-free nodes and
links failing with probability p s c, with a small constant
c. almost safe gossiping in time 2m2 was shown. It re-
mains open whether almost safe gossiping with un-
bounded packets, or even almost safe broadcasting, can
be performed in the m-hypercube in time O(m)when
links fail in a Byzantine manner with a small constant
probability.
Gossiping with unit-size packets in the presence of
Byzantine faults was studied in [ 111. The authors consid-
ered strongly nonadaptive algorithms in which not only
transmission scheduling is done in advance, but it is also
predetermined which node's value is to be sent in a given
transmission. This enables the algorithm to skip the labels
of nodes during transmissions, similar to the approach in
[ 181 and unlike that in [ 28 1. Thus, if node values have
a constant number of bits, packets contain a constant
number of bits, as well. Two communication modes were
considered. In mode 1, sending was performed by shout-
ing, i.e., a node could send a packet simultaneously to all
neighbors, but receiving was sequential, i.e., a node could
receive only one packet at a time. Mode 2 was classical
whispering. These two communication modes were com-
bined with two assumptions regarding faults: ( N ) fault-
free links and nodes failing with constant probability 0
< q < and (L) fault-free nodes and links failing with
constant probability 0 < p < i. All four models yielded
by combinations of these assumptions were considered,
labeled as LI, L2, N1, and N2. For each of these models,
almost safe gossiping algorithms were constructed whose
running time T and the number of calls C were shown to
be of the smallest possible order of magnitude. In case
of models L1 and L2, T E @( n log n), C E O(n210g n )
and the algorithm achieving this performance worked for
the sparsest possible networks. In case of models N1 and
N2, T E 6 ( n ) and C E @ ( n 2 ) ,if the underlying network
FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND QOSSlPlNG 1s
is complete. For these models, gossiping algorithms
working in sparser networks were also constructed and
their performance was proved to be of the smallest possi-
ble order of magnitude among gossiping schemes working
in these networks. For example, in case of the model
Nl, an almost safe gossiping algorithm was constructed,
working in time O ( n w ( n ) )and using O ( n 2 w ( n ) )calls,
for any function w(n) -, 03. This algorithm used only
O ( n w ( n ) )links for communication. It was proved, on
the other hand, that almost safe gossiping in time 0( n )
or using O ( n 2 )calls is impossible in any network with
o ( n 2 ) links.
The results from [ 1I ] should be compared to those
from [ 281. Consider the model L2 from [ 111: whispering
with fault-free nodes and faulty links. Suppose that node
values are only 1 or 0. The lower bound T E O(n log n )
on gossiping time, proved in [ 111, remains true for crash
faults as well. This lower bound is valid for strongly
nonadaptive algorithms described above and for one-bit
packets. On the other hand, the algorithm from [28]
works for link and node crash faults. It is not strongly
nonadaptive in the above sense and works in time O ( n )
for unit-size packets. However, as previously remarked,
in [ 281, labels have to be attached to nodes; thus, unit-
size packets must, in fact, contain a logarithmic number
of bits. The following question remains open: Suppose
that links and nodes of the complete network are subject
to permanent crash faults with probabilities p < 1 and q
< 1, respectively, and that all values of nodes have a
constant number of bits. Does there exist an almost safe
gossiping algorithm using packets containing a constant
number of bits and working in linear time? A positive
answer to this question for transient link faults and fault-
free nodes was given in [ 181.
In [ 231, the linear broadcasting problem, discussed in
Section 3, was considered under the name of token dis-
persal. The authors assumed that links and/or nodes of
the (complete) network fail independently with constant
probabilities and that an attempt to send a token to a
faulty node or via a faulty link does not succeed (i.e., the
token remains at the sending node). Every fault-free node
has to be visited. The performance measure adopted in
[23] was the running time of the scheme. If only nodes
or only links can fail ( p = 0 or q = 0).then an almost
safe, token dispersal algorithm was shown with running
time O( 6). If both links and nodes can fail (p, q > 01,
then almost safe token dispersal was proposed with run-
ning time O ( G ) .In both cases, algorithms were
nonadaptive and the order of magnitude was proved to
be optimal. Other fault-tolerant aspects of the token dis-
persal problem were considered in [24].
4.2. Transient Faults
We now assume that individual calls fail with constant
probability 0 zs p < 1 and all failures, including those
of calls placed along the same link, are independent. Node
failures occur with probability 0 5 9 < I ; they are perma-
nent and independent. Faults are of crash type and packets
are of unbounded size. The communication mode is full-
duplex whispering.
In [ 601. adaptive broadcasting for the complete net-
work was considered in this model, assuming arbitrary
p , q < 1. An almost safe broadcasting algorithm requiring
expected time O(1og n ) and worst-case time O ( n log n )
was constructed. An improvement of this result follows
from [ 171, where almost safe, nonadaptive broadcasting
working in time O(log n ) was given. The result from
[ 171 holds for transient faults, as well. and thus yields
worst-case time O ( log n ) .
In the following papers, nodes were assumed fault-
free, i.e., q = 0. Under this assumption, communication
in n-node bounded degree networks of diameter D ( n )
was investigated in [ 261. It was shown that almost safe,
nonadaptive broadcasting and gossiping can be performed
in such networks in time O ( D ( n ) )using O ( n log n )
calls. Adaptive broadcasting and gossiping algorithms
also were designed, working in worst-case time O( D ( n))
and using an expected linear number of calls. All these
orders of magnitude are optimal.
A variation of this model for unit-size packets was
considered in [ 181. Under this scenario, gossiping must
take time at least linear in n , as every node must read
the value of every other node. In [18], an almost safe
nonadaptive gossiping algorithm working in time O ( n )
was constructed for the large class of networks having
spanning trees of bounded maximum degree (including,
e.g., all Hamiltonian graphs). It is worth noting that the
gossiping scheme in [ 181 was constructed in such a way
that each node knows in advance the order in which it is
going to get values of other nodes. Thus, it was not neces-
sary to append node labels to their values during transmis-
sions and, consequently, unit-size packets really meant
packets containing a constant number of bits, in the case
when values were of constant size. This should be com-
pared to the scenario in [28], described in Subsec-
tion 4.1.
The relationships between almost safe broadcasting
time and the number of links in the network were studied
in [61] for the shouting communication mode and crash
transmission faults. It was shown that the minimum time
of almost safe broadcasting in networks with e ( n ) links
is T E @(n log n l e ( n ) ) .
Byzantine transmission faults were considered in [ 551.
In this case, the assumption p < is necessary; otherwise,
no reliable communication can be guaranteed. The prob-
lem considered in [ 5 5 ] is that of the minimum time re-
quired for almost safe nonadaptive broadcasting in the n -
node chain. It follows from [26] that this time is O ( n ) ,
if faults are of crash type. On the other hand, for Byzan-
tine faults, a simple algorithm working in time O ( n log
n ) can be constructed. Diks and Pelc (see Problem 29 in
[34]) asked if there exists an almost safe broadcasting
algorithm working in time O ( n )for Byzantine faults. The
main result of [55] is the construction and analysis of
such an algorithm.
5. FUTURE RESEARCH
This survey demonstrates that although an important body
of research exists concerning fault-tolerant broadcasting
and gossiping, our understanding of the relations between
efficiency and fault tolerance of communication algo-
rithms for these tasks is still fragmentary and incomplete.
At least three groups of open problems can be specified
on the basis of already obtained research results. Research
directed toward their solution is likely to deepen the un-
derstanding of the domain and increase the potential ap-
plicability of theoretical results in practice.
The first group of problems concerns tightening the
gaps between upper and lower bounds on the minimum
time and/or the minimum number of calls in fault-tolerant
broadcasting and gossiping. In some cases, these gaps are
fairly small, and the remaining open problems are mostly
of combinatorial interest. In other situations, however,
even the exact order of magnitude of minimum time or
minimum number of calls in fault-tolerant communication
has not yet been established. Future developments may
have a significant impact on the efficiency of actually
implemented communication schemes.
The second direction for future research concerns in-
vestigating new communication and fault models arising
as a consequence of emerging technologies. Although, as
we have seen, a large number of hypotheses have already
been considered, their possible combinations yielding a
plethora of potential models, important challenges are the
study of models that faithfully describe existing patterns
of communication and the exploration of features likely
to characterize networks built in the future.
Finally, it can be seen that most of the research done
to date in the surveyed area concerns complete networks
and hypercubes. Good topological properties of these net-
works, such as symmetry and high connectivity, enable
them to support efficient and robust communication algo-
rithms. However, especially in the case of complete net-
works, they are increasingly difficult and costly to build
as the number of nodes grows. Hence, there is a need to
explore fault-tolerant capabilities of other networks, in
particular, sparser ones. Here, again, the types of networks
actually used in practice provide important and challeng-
ing research targets.
This research was supported in part by NSERC Grant OGP
0008 136.

REFERENCES
R. Ahlswede, L. Gargano, H. S. Haroutunian, and L. H.
Khachatrian, Fault-tolerant minimum broadcast net-
works. Networks 27 ( 1996) 293-307.
A. Bagchi and S. L. Hakimi, Information dissemination
in distributed systems with faulty units. IEEE Trans.
Comp. 43 (1994)698-710.
F. Bao and Y.Igarashi, Reliable broadcasting in product
networks with Byzantine faults. Proceedings of the 26th
Annual International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant
Computing ( 1996) 262-27 1.
F. Bao, Y. Igarashi, and K. Katano, Broadcasting in
hypercubes with randomly distributed Byzantine faults.
Proceedings WDAG’95, LNCS 972,21 5-229.
M. Barborak, M. Malek, and A. Dahbura, The consensus
problem in fault-tolerant computing. ACM Comput. Sun.
25 (1993)171-220.
P. Berman, K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Reliable broadcasting
in logarithmic time with Byzantine link failures. J. Alg.,
to appear.
K. A. Berman and M. Hawrylycz. Telephone problems
with failures. SIAMJ. Alg. Disc. Methods 7 ( 1986) 13-
17.
D. P. Bertsekas and J. N. Tsitsiklis, Parallel and Distrib-
uted Computation: Numerical Methods. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989).
D. Bienstock, Broadcasting with random faults. Disc.
Appl. Math. 20 (1988)1-7.
S . Bitan and S. Zaks, Optimal linear broadcast. J. Afg.
14 (1993)288-315.
D. Blough and A. Pelc, Optimal communication in net-
works with randomly distributed Byzantine faults. Net-
works 23 ( 1993)691-701.
J. Bruck, On optimal broadcasting in faulty hypercubes.
Disc. Appl. Math. 53 ( 1994) 3 - 13.
S. Carlsson, Y.Igarashi, K. Kanai, A. Lingas, K. Miura,
and 0. Peterson, Information disseminating schemes for
fault-tolerance in hypercubes. IEICE Trans. Fund. E75
(1992)255-260.
S . C. Chau. Fast and robust broadcasting in faulty hyper-
cubes. Manuscript.
S. C. Chau and A. L. Liestman, Constructing fault-toler-
ant minimal broadcast networks, J. Comb. In5 Sys. Sci.
10 (1986)1-18.
B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Optimal broadcast-
ing in faulty hypercubes. Digest of Papers, FTCS’21
(1991)266-273.
B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Sparse networks
supporting efficient reliable broadcasting. Proc.
ICALP’93, LNCS 700,388-397.
B. S . Chlebus. K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Fast gossiping with
short unreliable messages. Disc. Appl. Math. 53 (1994)
15-24.
B. S. Chlebus. K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Waking up an
anonymous faulty network from a single source. Pro-
ceedings of the 27th Annual Hawaii International Con-
ference on System Sciences 2 (Jan. 1994) 187-193.
FAULT-TOLERANT BROADCASTING AND GOSSIPING 1!%
B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Reliable broadcast-
ing in hypercubes with random link and node failures.
Combin. frob. Comput., to appear.
B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, and A. Pelc, Broadcasting in
synchronous networks with dynamic faults. Networks 27
(1996)309-318.
C. T. Chou and I. S. Gopal, Linear broadcast routing.
J. Alg. 10 (1989)490-517.
K. Diks, A. Malinowski, and A. Pelc, Reliable token
dispersal with random faults. Par. Proc. Lett. 4 (1994)
417-427.
K. Diks, A. Malinowski, and A. Pelc, Token transfer in
a faulty network. Theor. Znf: Appl. 29 (1995)383-400.
K. Diks and A. Pelc, Reliable gossip schemes with ran-
dom link failures. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Aller-
ton Conference on Communication, Control and Com-
puting. (Oct. 1990) 978-987.
K. Diks and A. Pelc, Almost safe gossiping in bounded
degree networks. SIAM J. Disc. Math. 5 (1992)338-
344.
K. Diks and A. Pelc, Fault-tolerant linear broadcasting.
Proceedings of the First Canada- France Conference on
Parallel and Distributed Computing, Theory and Prac-
tice, Montreal. Canada, LNCS 805 (May 1994) 207-
217.
K. Diks and A. Pelc, Efficient gossiping by packets in
networks with random faults. SIAM J. Disc. Math. 9
(1996)7-18.
A. Farley, Reliable minimum-time broadcast networks.
Proceedings of the 18th SE Conference on Combinato-
rics, Graph Theory and Computing. Congress. Numer.
59 (1987)37-48.
301 U. Feige, D. Peleg, P. Raghavan, and E. Upfal, Random-
ized broadcast in networks. Random Struct. Alg. 1
(1990)447-460.
G.Fox, M.Johnsson, G. Lyzenga, S . Otto, J. Salmon,
and D. Walker, Solving Problems on Concurrent Proces-
sors. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, I (1988).
P. Fraigniaud. Asymptotically optimal broadcasting and
gossiping in faulty hypercube multicomputers. IEEE
Trans. Comp. 41 (1992) 1410-1419.
P. Fraigniaud and E. Lazard, Methods and problems of
communication in usual networks. Disc. Appl. Math. 53
(1994)79-133.
P. Fraigniaud, A. L. Liestman, and D. Sotteau, Eds.,
Open problems. Par. Proc. Lett. 3 (1993)507-524.
P. Fraigniaud and C. Peyrat, Broadcasting in a hyper-
cube when some calls fail. Inf. Proc. Lett. 39 (1991)
115-1 19.
A. Frieze and M. Molloy, Broadcasting in random
graphs. Disc. Appl. Math. 54 (1994)77-80.
L. Gargano, Tighter bounds on fault-tolerant broadcast-
ing and gossiping. Networks 22 (1992)469-486.
L. Gargano, A. L. Liestman, J. Peters, and D. Richards,
Reliable broadcasting. Discr. Appl. Math. 53 (1994)
135- 148.
L 391 L. Gargano and A. A. Rescigno, Communication com-
156 PELC
plexity of fault-tolerant information diffusion. Proceed-
ings of the Fifrh IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Dis-
tributed Computing ( 1 993 ) .
[40] L. Gargano, A. A. Rescigno, and U. Vaccaro, Fault-
tolerant hypercube broadcasting via information dis-
persal. Networks 23 ( 1993) 271 -282.
[ 411 L. Gargano. A. A. Rescigno, and U. Vaccaro, Minimum
time broadcast in faulty star networks. Manuscript.
[ 421 L. Gargano and U. Vaccaro, Minimum time networks
tolerating a logarithmic number of faults. SIAM J . Disc.
Math. 5 (1992) 178-198.
[ 431 L. Gpieniec and A. Pelc, Broadcasting with a bounded
fraction of faulty nodes. Technical Report RR 95/01-1,
Universitt du Qu6bec i Hull ( 1995 ) .
[ 441 L. Gpieniec and A. Pelc, Broadcasting with linearly
bounded transmission faults. Technical Report RR 951
04-7, Universitt du Quebec i Hull ( 1995).
[ 4 5 ] L. Gpieniec and A. Pelc, Adaptive broadcasting with
faulty nodes. Par. Comput.. to appear.
[46] A. V. Gerbessiotis, Broadcasting in random graphs.
Discr. Appl. Math. 53 (1994) 149-170.
[ 471 A. V. Gerbessiotis, Close-to-optimal and near-optimal
broadcasting in random graphs. Disc. Appl. Math. 63
(1995) 129-150.
[ 481 R. W. Haddad, S. Roy, and A. A. Schaffer. On gossiping
with faulty telephone lines. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Methods
8 (1987) 439-445.
[ 491 Y.Han, Y.Igarashi, K. Kanai, and K. Miura, Broadcast-
ing in faulty binary jumping networks. J. Par. Dist. Com-
put. 23 (1994) 462-467.
[ 501 S. M. Hedetniemi, S. T. Hedetniemi. and A. L. Liestman,
A survey of gossiping and broadcasting in communica-
tion networks. Networks 18 (1988) 319-349.
[ 511 J. HromkoviE, R. Klasing, B. Monien, and R. Peine,
Dissemination of information in interconnection net-
works (broadcasting and gossiping). CombinarorialNer-
work Theory. (F. Hsu and D.-Z. Du, Eds.). Science
Press & A M S , to appear.
[ 521 Y. Igarashi, K. Kanai, K. Miura, and S.Osawa, Optimal
schemes for disseminating information and their fault-
tolerance. IEICE Trans. Inf: Syst. E75 ( 1992) 22-29.
[ 531 S. L. Johnsson and C. T. Ho, Matrix multiplication on
Boolean cubes using generic communication primitives.
Parallel Processing and Medium-Scale Multiprocessors
(A. Wouk, Ed.). SIAM (1989) 108-156.
L. H. Khachatrian and H. S. Harutounian, On optimal
broadcast graphs. Proceedings of the Fourth Interna-
tional Colloquium on Coding Theory, Armenia ( 1990)
69-77.
L. KuEera, Broadcasting through a noisy one-dimen-
sional network. Technical Report MPI-1-93- 106, Max-
Planck-Institut fur Infonnatik ( 1993).
A. L. Liestman, Fault-tolerant broadcast graphs. Net-
works 15 (1985) 159-171.
G. Maddaluno, Algorithms for the construction of fault-
tolerant networks (in Italian). Thesis, Universita di Sa-
lerno, 1987.
S. Moran, Message complexity versus space complexity
in fault tolerant broadcast protocols. Networks 19 ( 1989)
505 -5 19.
S. Ohring and D. H. Hohndel, Optimal fault tolerant
communication algorithms on product networks using
spanning trees. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Symposium
on Parallel and Distributed Processing ( 1994) 188-
195.
A. Pelc. Broadcasting in complete networks with faulty
nodes using unreliable calls. I n f . Proc. Lett. 40 ( 1991 )
169-174.
A. Pelc, Broadcasting time in sparse networks with faulty
transmissions. Par. Proc. Lett. 2 (1992) 355-361.
A. Pelc, Fast fault-tolerant broadcasting and gossiping.
Proceedings of the 2nd Colloquium on Structural Infor-
mation and Communication Complexity, SIROCC0'95,
Greece (June 1995) 159-172.
D. Peleg. A note on optimal time broadcast in faulty
hypercubes. J. Par. Dist. Comp. 26 (1995) 132-135.
D. Peleg and A. A. Schaffer, Time bounds on fault-
tolerant broadcasting. Neiworks 19 ( 1989) 803-822.
P. Ramanathan and K. G. Shin, Reliable broadcast in
hypercube multicomputers. IEEE Trans. Comp. 37
(1988) 1654-1657.
E. R. Scheinerman and J. C. Wierman, Optimal and
near-optimal broadcast in random graphs. Disc. Appl.
Math. 25 (1989) 289-297.
Received November 22, 1995
Accepted March 27, 1996