A Packet Eligible Time Calculation Mechanism for
Providing Temporal QoS for Multicast Routing
Ye Ge, Jennifer C. Hou and Hung-Ying Tyan
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210-1272
Tel: (614) 292-7290 (voice), (614) 292-7596 (fax)
E-mail: {gey,jhou,tyanh}@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a packet eligible t i m e calcula-
t i o n mechanism and its associated information update method
t o provide temporal QoS t o multicast services, in terms of de-
lay bound coupled with inter-message delay jitter bound and/or
bounded inter-destination delay jitter bound. W e assume the
availability of a multicast tree o n which the delay between a
source and a n y destination falls within the end-to-end delay
bound. W e then exploit the idea of artificially delaying trans-
mission of data packets until their eligible times [5], and model
each router as a regulator followed by a packet scheduler. A
data packet i s not eligible t o be scheduled until the current t i m e
i s greater than or equal t o its eligible time.
For each temporal QoS required, we derive the appropriate
packet eligible times. W e also devise a n information update
method t o collect/update in a decentralized manner the param-
eters needed in the calculation of packet eligible times. With
all the parameters available, a n intermediate router can calcu-
late packet eligible times and the upper bound o n the buffers
needed in order t o fulfill the &OS.Finally, we validate the pro-
posed mechanism in terms of the probability of locating feasi-
ble multicast trees and message overheads, and scalability with
event-driven simulations.
1 Introduction
Many future applications of computer networks such as
distance education, teleconference and distributed interactive
simulation, rely on the underlying networks to provide multi-
cast services with quality-of-service (QoS) guarantees. The
QoS guarantees are usually expressed in terms of the end-
to-end delay bound, the inter-message delay jitter bound,
the inter-destination delay jitter bound, and/or the minimum
guaranteed bandwidth. Depending on the nature of applica-
tions, a single QoS or a combination of several may be required.
The main intent of this paper is thus to develop a packet eligi-
ble time calculation mechanism and the associated information
update strategies to provide QoS to multicast services. This
mechanism, coupled with any multicast routing protocol that
gives the end-to-end delay bound guarantee, can provide tem-
poral QoS to the following four categories of applications:
C1: Applications with end-to-end delay bound requirements.
The work reported in this paper was supported in part by DARPA
under Contract No. N66001-97-C-8526, by NSF under Grant
No. NCR-9625064, and by the OSU Graduate School Fellowship.
Q 1999 IEEE.
0-7803-5284-X/99/$10.00 721
c2: Applications with end-to-end delay bound and inter-
message delay jitter bound requirements.
c3: Applications with end-to-end delay bound, inter-message
delay jitter bound, and inter-destination delay jitter
bound requirements.
c4: Applications which require the delay experienced by each
packet from a source node to every destination node falls
in [D- 6, D ] ,where D is the user-specified group-specific
delay bound and 6 is the user-specified group-specific de-
lay jitter bound.
We assume the availability of a multicast routing protocol
that generates multicast trees which satisfy the end-to-end de-
lay bound. (For ease of exposition, we use the QoS-enhanced
CBT protocol proposed in [3] as an example protocol.) To
fulfill the various delay jitter constraints, we then exploit the
method of artificially delaying transmission of data packets un-
til their eligible times [ 5 ] , and model each node as a regulator
followed by a packet scheduler. A data packet is not eligible to
be scheduled until the current time is greater than or equal to
its eligible time. The key issue is then to derive, with respect
to the temporal QoS requirements, appropriate packet eligible
times.
The packet eligible time under the inter-message delay
jitter constraint ((C2)) has been derived in the jitter-EDD
scheme [ 5 ] . In this paper, we focus on deriving packet eligible
times for applications in the categories of (C3) and (C4).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 ,
we first describe the network model under consideration and
formally define the four categories of applications to be sup-
ported. We present the packet eligible time calculation mech-
anism in Section 3, followed by a discussion on the associated
information update strategy in Section 4. We briefly discuss
the event-driven simulation results in Section 5 and conclude
the paper in Section 6.
2 Background Materials
2.1 Network Model
We represent a network by a weighed digraph G = (V,E )
where V denotes the set of nodes (routers and end hosts) and
E the set of arcs. The later corresponds to the set of network
communication links connecting the nodes. Without loss of
generality, we only consider digraphs in which there exists at
most one arc between a pair of nodes. Let a multicast group
M c V be a set of hosts involved in the group communication.
 Each node v E M is a group member. We consider the most
general many-to-many multicast paradigm in which each host
v E M can be a source node as well as a destination node -d-
in the multicast group. Packets originated from node v are "U
Lt.1
delivered to a set of destination nodes M - { U } .
A multicast tree T is a subgraph of G that spans all the
nodes in 1M and has no cycles. In addition, T includes relay L", LY *
routers along the path(s) in the tree from a source node to some
destination node(s). For ease of exposition, we assume that the
-
delay between an on-tree router and any group member on its LR;:#

directly attached subnet is negligible. jFrom the perspective

of data tr.ansfer, each source node U, E M may view T as a
tree rooted at itself. We denote the tree rooted at node U, as
Tu8. All the group members in the set M - { U , } are the leaf Figure 1: The internal queuing structure of an cln-tree
nodes of Tu,. We use P T ( ~ ,to
, denote
~ ) the path from a source ICUI&T. --
node vs to an on-tree router or an end host, U , on the tree Tu,
(and I PT(V,,u) I the hop count of the path). We also use 2.3 QoS-Based Multicast Routing That Pro-
D$(,,-.,,, to denote the delay which the lcth packet experiences vides End-to-End Delay Bound
- <--.-,
~ ) a Source node ' 5 to an on-tree
the path P T ( v ~ 7from The proposed packet eligible time calculation mechanism
node U. We assume that a group member may not Join/leave a assumes the availability of a QoS-driven multicast routing pro-
multicast group during the transmission of a message session, tocol that provides the end-to-end delay bound betveen a
but is otherwise free to join/leave the multicast group between node and any destination node. ~ h is, ~the t multi-
transmissions of message sessions. cast tree located by the multicast routing protocol satisfies
Eqs. (2.1). The QoS-driven CBT Protocol Proposed in [3], for
2.2 Formal Statement of Application Re-
example, is such a protocol. Due to the limited space, we refer
quirements the interested readers to [3] for a detailed account. IVe also

be formally stated as follows.

3 Packet Eligible Time Calculation
C1: Given the end-to-end delay bound D , this category of
applications requires Mechanism
3.1 Nodal Structure of On-Tree Nodes
Vk E N ,V V d E M - {vs}, and Vu, E M. The internal queuing structure of an on-tree router, nk, is
depicted in Fig. 1. When a packet leaves an on-tree router,
C2: Given the end-to-end delay bound D and the inter-
it is stamped with a holding time which indicates hcw long
message delay jitter bound 6,, this category of appli- the packet should be held in the regulator of the immediate
cations requires that downstream router before it can be scheduled. The regulator
holds the packets from its upstream link until their eligible
D$(udJd)ID, (2.2)
times (when they will be delivered to a scheduler). Ncte that
and a regulator is associated with each incoming link. If router
IG(v8,Ud) - D!r(Us,Ud)l 5 am, (2.3) n k has e on-tree outgoing links, Lzyt, 1 5 j 5 e, each of
Vk,i E N , VVd E M - { u s } , and Vu, E M. the e outgoing links, becomes the incoming link of the
C3: Given the end-to-end delay bound D , the inter- immediate downstream router at which Lzy:"is incident, and
destination delay jitter bound &, and the inter-message a regulator is equipped at that immediate downstream router.
delay jitter bound ,,a this category of applications re- A scheduler is responsible for multiplexing packe1.s from
quires that different regulators (and hence from different connectioris). We
do not specify any specific scheduling discipline here, because
D$(Ua,Ud,) 5 Dl (2.4)
the proposed mechanism is well-suited for a n y schedul ng dis-
-dD!r(Us,Ud])l
~ ~ + ( u ~ , u ~ ) I 6m, (2.5) cipline with a finite per-node delay bound. Because regula-
and tors are inserted before schedulers in the nodal structure, it
ID+(vs,vdl) - D$(Vs,Udz)l 5 'dl (2.6) suffices to consider work-conserving message schedulers with
finite per-node delay bounds.
Vk,i E N , vVdl,Vd2 E M - { U S } , and VU, E M .
To facilitate analysis, for each on-tree link Lin incident at
C4: Given the end-to-end delay bound D and the delay jitter an on-tree router n k , we define (refer to Fig. 1)
bound 6, this category of applications requires that the
delay experienced by the kth packet from a source node
U, to every destination node v d satisfies

where d z z p is the propagation delay which a packet experi-

D -6 I I
D$(u.3ud, D, (2.7) k
ences when it traverses link L p , ciski is the per-node delay
V k E N , V V d E M - { U , } , and Vu, E M . bound corresponding to the ith scheduler at router 7 i k , and
722
Figure 2: A path PT(~,,,~)
a n d the regulators a n d sched-
ulers along the path.

D F Z is equal to the value of D T n x calculated at router nkls Figure 3: Calculation of holding time for applications in
ki k+l
immediate downstream router, n k + l , that is incident at L$Yt. the category Of (c3)'
The parameter D T n x represents the maximum delay expe-
k Derivation of holding times for (C2): To provide
rienced by packets that depart from router 7 2 k - 1 to router n k ' s
multicast applications in (C2) with both the delay and inter-
downstream leaf routers.
message delay jitter guarantees, we exploit the result reported
in the jitter-EDD scheme [5], and set
3.2 Calculation of Packet Eligible Times
Let n k be the kth intermediate router along the unique HTi,Vs = ETi-l,Vs + dSk-l - fi-l,Va (3.4)
on-tree Path, PT(v,,v~)I from a Source node 21s to a destination for IC 2 1. Note that ET;-l,vs + d , , - , is the time at which the
node vd. w e first define the following terms to facilitate the ith packet is scheduled to leave router n k l l if it has experi-
calculation of packet eligible times: enced the maximum scheduling delay at all upstream routers,
1. ET;,,* is the eligible time of the ith packet (sent by a and ( E T L - I , ~4-
, d S k - l - ~ L - I , ~is ~the
) amount of time by
source node v,) at router nk.
which the ith packet arrives early at router n k from router
n k - 1 . Hence, router n k absorbs the delay jitter from router
2. GT& is the time at which the ith packet is generated at n k - l by holding the packet for ET;-^,,* + d,,-, - fL-l,v8)
a source node v,. time units.
3. dskj is the Per-node delay bound of the j t h ~ h e d u l e r Derivation of holding times for (c3):To fulfill the
Skj at router n k . If it is clear from the context which delay bound and inter-destination delay jitter bound require-
scheduler at router n k is referred to, the index j may be ments, we set the holding time for the regulator at an on-tree
dropped. router n k as
4. HTL,v8 is the holding time for the ith packet (from a
source node v,) at router n k ' s regulator.
HTL,Vs
= (ETL-l,Vs + dSk-l - f;-l,V,) + (Dn","_", - DFr)
5. is the time at which the ith packet (from a source
4(dr-dx
S k1
-l)- (3.5)
node v,) arrives at router n k . = +
( E T ; - I , ~ ~dr-xl + (DZC:l - D F T ) ,
- fi-l,va)
6. fi,u3 is the time at which the ith packet (from a source where DZC:l = maxj DFZZ and dr-zl = maxj dsk--l.j is
k-1.j
node v,) departs from router nk.
the maximum per-node scheduling bound at router n k - 1 . The
For all the four categories of applications, the relation be- first term in Eq. (3.5) enforces each packet to experience the
tween ET;,,* , GTi8, a i , v , and HT;,,* can be expressed as: maximum delay over the upstream routers. The second term
in Eq. (3.5) absorbs the difference in the delays among dif-
ET&,, = GT&, (3.2) ferent downstream interfaces (whose rationale is depicted in
Fig. 3). Suppose router n k - 1 has C outgoing on-tree links,
k - - 1 , 2 , . . .,
Lout Lout Lout
and k-l,l, k - l , e and that ~ : " _ t , , =
~ L? for some
j . Then, DZE:l = rnaxl<jSe DYZZ is the maximum delay
=d , V a + HTi,,,, (3.3) k-1,j
for k 2 1. Eqs. (3.2)-(3.3) state that the ith packet (from a between 'Outer n k - l and any Of 'Outer n k - l ' s downstream

source node v 8 ) is eligible to be scheduled at router nk only
when it has been held in the regulator for HT;,,s units of
time. In other words, derivation of ET;,v3 depends on that of
HG,,*.
Derivation of holding times for ( C l ) : Any multicast
routing protocol that renders a multicast tree which satisfies
the end-to-end delay D suffices to provide applications in the
category of (Cl) with their desired temporal &OS. For this
category of applications, the packet eligible time equals the
packet arrival time, and the holding time in the regulator at
each on-tree router is zero.
723
leaf routers. The second term in Eq. (3.5) enforces the
copies of a packet (one for each of n k - 1 ' ~ outgoing interfaces)
experience the maximum DZt:l. If a packet that
verses does not experience this maximum delay (i.e.,
DTZZ # DE::,) for some i, it is artificially held in the regu-
k-l,i
lator of the immediate downstream router n k for DP:?, - D T F
units of time. The third term in Eq. (3.5) enforces all the copies
of a packet experience the maximum per-node scheduling delay
at router n k - l .
Let DEax 5 maxVdEMnT-{,,) D!&vs,vd) be defined as the
maximum delay which the kth packet experiences between a
 source node U , and any of the on-tree destination nodes. Then,
Eq. (3.5) ensures that packets all experience the delay of D F x
between a. source node vs and any on-tree destination node.
Note that the above mechanism does not work (in the sense
that the inter-message delay jitter constraint may be violated)
if group members may join and leave during the transmission
of a message session. Hence, we impose the restriction that no
member may join/leave a multicast group during the trans-
mission of a message session (but may be otherwise free to
join/leave the multicast group between transmissions of mes-
sage sessions).
Derivation of holding times for (C4): To fulfill the
"fixe# d'elay requirement imposed in Eq. (2.7), we set the
holding time at an on-tree router nk as
sTk,ps >
HTL,,, =
{ (ETi-l,va + d s k - i -.f~-l,vs)+ssTk,v,, Isrc<
where the term (ET;-l,V, + d S k - l - fi-l,vs) enforces each packet
to experience the maximum delay over the upstream routers, and
sTk,,s is the slack time that should be absorbed at router n k in
order to make all packets arrive at their destinations D - 6 times
units after their departure from the source. sTk,vs is calculated by
evenly dividing the current total slack time among router nk and
its downstream routers. Specifically, let
Prop f d S k - l + STk-l,u,,
+ d~p-l
denote the accumulative delay the ith packet experiences on
the path from the source U , to router nk-1, Mnk-l,vsdenote
the set of router nk-1'~downstream members (with respect to
source U,), and
denote the maximum number of hops between router nk-1 and
all of router nk-1'~downstream group members. Then, STk,,,
can be expressed as
1
sTk,v, -max(D - D&(v,,nk-l)- D T F - 6,O).
Nk-i
Note thai max(D - D&(,,,nk-ll - D F F - 6,O) represents the
slack time that should be absorbed by router nk and its down-
stream routers.
4 Information Update Procedures
In this section, we first identify the parameters needed for
the eligible time calculation mechanism (which we term as the
state information). Then, we discuss how the parameters are
on-line maintained and updated by each on-tree router as the
state information.
4.1 State Information Maintained by Each
On-Tree Router
To facilitate calculation of holding times for applications in
the category of (C3), each on-tree router nk-1 should calculate
and pas:; (in the header of a packet) parameters needed for each
immediate downstream router nk to calculate the holding time.
jFrom Eq. (3.5), we know that router nk-1 has to provide to
nk the following information: (i) the amount of time by which
+
the ith packet departs early (ETL-l,v, drdXl- fL-l,ts), (ii)
On","_", , and (iii) dr-xl -dskb1. Items (i) and (iii) 'can be locally
calculated by nk-1 and passed to nk. To calculate item (ii),
each router nk-1 has to collect and update D T Z , for every
(k-l),C
outgoing interface e (as DFi:l = maxj D:.9."t ).
k-1,j
On the other hand, the third item in Eq. (3.5), DT:,
should be maintained and updated by router nk itself. Specif-
ically, recall that DYkx can be expressed as (Eq. (3.1))
E
The parameter dpr","can be collected by the underlying unicast
Lk
routing protocol, the parameter dski depends on the schedul-
k = 0, ing discipline used a t the ith scheduler of router nk and is
M ? assumed to be bounded and available, and DrEZ's
(3.6) on-line collected and updated.
k.t
have to be
Similarly, to facilitate calculation of holding tiines for
applications in the category of (C4), each on-tree router
+
nk--1 should calculate (i) (ETi-l,vs dr-zl -- fi-.l,,8), (ii)
D&ve,nk-l), and (iii) N k - 1 , and provide them (in the header
of a packet) to its immediate downstream router nk. In ad-
dition, router nk has to maintain and update D T F by itself
k = 1, using the same method as that for ((33).
k > 1, In summary, the only information to be on-line collected,
maintained, and updated by each on-tree router nl: when-
(3.7)
. .
ever group membership changes is the maximum delay, D T Z ,
which packets experience between router nkk outgoing inter-
face t? and router nk's downstream leaf nodes, Ve. In the case
of supporting applications in the category of (C4), each on-
tree router also needs to maintain and update the maximum
number, Nk, of hops between router nk and all of router nk's
downstream group members.
An intuitively straightforward (but expensive) method for
information update is for each on-tree router nk to update
DT","t's and Nk whenever a group member joins/le.ives the
k.t
multicast tree. In what follows, we present a much less expen-
(3.9) sive information update method.
4.2 Information Update in the Case of Mem-
ber Join
Consider the situation in which a join-request trzrels hop-
by-hop toward the core until it reaches an on-tree router nk.
For clarity of notation, let the path the join-request xaverses
be denoted as P = (v1,v2,v3, . . . , v j = nk). The join request
carries (in addition to the interface information) (i) 1,he accu-
mulative delay information, (ii) the per-node delay 'Jound of
the previous router, and (iii) the cumulative hop c o m t infor-
mation. When a join-request arrives a t router U ; on interface
e, it carries DE::, and N;-1. Router vi updates its
D T Z and N;, respectively, as
vi *t
When the join-request arrives at the on-tree router vj = nk ,
router nk conducts the first eligibility test (as summarized
in Section 2.3) to check whether or not the end-to-end de-
lay bound of the new member, as well as the existing guar-
antees to the other on-tree members, can be fulfilled. If the
724
Figure 4: Performance comparison between the CBT protocol and the QoS-enhanced CBT protocol with the proposed
packet eligible time calculation mechanism for applications in the category of (Cl).
join-request survives the first eligibility test, routern k then
conducts the second eligibility test and checks whether or not
the new branch P replaces some of the tree branches incident
at router nk and become the branch with the maximal delay
or the maximal hop count with respect to any of nk's incom-
ing interfaces, C;. If so, the delay information and/or the hop
count information at some on-tree nodes reachable on interface
C; may have to be updated as a result of the member join.
Take the two on-tree routers n k - 1 and nk in Fig. 3 as an
example. Suppose a new branch P = (VI, V Z ,~ 3 , ... ,Vj = nk)
joins the multicast tree at router nk through interface C' + 1.
Let DF;" = maxlSjlp D Y Z denote the maximum outgoing
k,j
delay with respect to the incoming interface L F , router nk
checks' whether or not
or 1 P I > the currently maintained value of N k , with respect
to L;I". If either case is true, router n k updates its DF;" as
d PLout
ToP
k,t'+l
+ +
d s j - l DGY or Nk as I P I, and notifies router
n k - 1 (and perhaps further upstream routers) of the member
join and the possibility of updating DFf:;,j, OFET,, and N k - 1 .
(In this case, an information-update message is composed that
contains the new values of LIT,", N k , and the per-node delay
bound d,, and forwarded upstream on interface Lin .) As in a
core-based multicast tree any group member may be a source
(i.e., many-to-many multicast paradigm), the check has to be
performed for every incoming interface of node nk's.
'in addition to the first eligibility test.
725
4.3 Information Update in the Case of Mem-
ber Leave
When a group member leaves the multicast group, if the
local router does not have downstream on-tree nodes (routers
and/or directly attached end hosts), the router sends a quit-
notification message to its parent router on the tree and deletes
the corresponding forwarding cache. The process repeats until
the quit-notification message arrives on interface C at a router
(say router nk) that has other downstream on-tree nodes (with
respect to any source). If the leaving branch is the branch with
the maximal delay (i.e., DL"."-"t= D:rX) or the maximum num-
k.L
ber of hop counts, with respect to any of nk's incoming inter-
faces Ci, router nk's upstream routers reachable on interface
should be notified of the member leave. An information-
update message is again composed that contains the new value
of D:;" = maxjge DYZ."-"t,the per-node delay bound d,, and
k,j
Nk, and forwarded upstream.
5 Simulation Results
We have developed a customized Java-integrated network
simulation tool, N e t S i m Q , to evaluate the QoS control capa-
bility for systems equipped with different admission control,
resource reservation, QoS unicast/multicast routing, and mes-
sage scheduling mechanisms [4].
Using NetSimQ , we validated the proposed mechanism by
incorporating it into the QoS-enhanced CBT protocol, and
evaluate it in terms of the probability of locating feasible mul-
ticast trees and message overheads with event-driven simula-
tions. Due to the limited space, we refer interested readers to
our technical report for detailed simulation description[2].
In the simulation, the network size varies from n = 10
to 100 routers. The network topology is generated using the
Figure 5: Performance comparison between the CBT protocol and the QoS-enhanced CBT protocol with the proposed
eligible time calculation mechanism for applications in the category of (C3).
method proposed in [6]. The size of the multicast group varies
from 4 to 16 members (with each member being both a source
and a destination). Group members and the core are randomly
picked up. The QoS requirement of each multicast session used
in the simulation is the end-to-end delay bound that varies
from 5.0 to 9.0 units of time and the end-to-end delay jitter
bound that varies from 2.0 to 4.0 units of time. The delay at
each link is uniformly distributed with mean 1unit of time, and
is collected by the underlying distance vector routing protocol.
Totally 100 multicast sessions are generated in each simulation
run. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5
The simulation results indicate that the performance gain
(in terms of locating feasible multicast trees) can be as high
as 50% for applications in the category of (C3). Although the
message overhead can be at times four times higher than that
without any QoS enhancement, it incurs mainly in the off-tree
search stage (when a join-request searches for a feasible route
to an on-tree router), rather than in the stage of conducting
eligibility tests and information update. That is, the mes-
sage overhead is contributed, in large, by the QoS-enhanced
CBT protocol, but not the information update method in the
proposed mechanism. We are currently investigating how to
further reduce the message overhead by devising alternative
off-tree search approaches for the QoS-enhanced CBT proto-
col.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we present a packet eligible time calculation
mechanism for providing temporal &OS in multicast routing.
This mechanism is well-suited for both source-based and core-
based multicast routing protocols as long as the protocol locate
multicast Crees that satisfy the end-to-end delay bound.
We model each node as a regulator followed by a packet
726
--
scheduler. Each packet is held in the regulator until its eligible
time is smaller than or equal to the current real timi:. We
identify four categories of applications that require different
levels of &OS.For each category of applications, we then derive
the packet eligible times for fulfilling the QoS requirements.
We also discuss the associated information update method.
Finally, we validate the proposed mechanism by incorpo-
rating it into the QoS-enhanced CBT protocol and evaluate its
performance using an event-driven simulation to,ol NetSimQ.
References
A. Ballardie. Core based trees (CBT Ver 3) multicast rout-
ing protocol specification. http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-idmr- cbt-spec-v3-O f . txt, August 1998.
Ye Ge, Jennifer C. Hou, and Hung-Ying T y m . A packet
eligible time calculation mechanism for provicling temporal
qos for multicast routing. Technical Report, July 1!)98.
Hung-Ying Tyan, Chao-Ju Hou, and Bin Wang. Cn pro-
viding quality-of-service control for core-based mi,lticast
routing. Proc. of I E E E 19th Int'l Conf. o n Distributed
Computing Systems, June 1999.
Hung-Ying Tyan, Bin Wang, Yi Ye, and Chao-Jii Hou.
NetSimQ: A Java-integrated network simulation t Dol for
QoS control in point-to-point high speed networks. 3rd
N A S A Research and Education Network Workshop, Au-
gust 1998.
D. C. Verma, H. Zhang, and D. Ferrari. Delay jitter control
for real-time communication in a packet switching network.
In Proc. Tracomm'91, pages 35-43, April 1991.
B. Waxman. SWSL: routing of multipoint connections.
I E E E Journal o n Selected Areas i n Communications,
6:1617-1622, December 1988.