BEMRP

AcronymDefinition
BEMRPBitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project (US Forest Service)
References in periodicals archive ?
* Impact of Network Density: For a given group size, the number of links per tree for MAODV and NR-MLPBR is about 4-15%, 8-28% and 10-35% more than that incurred with BEMRP in networks of low, moderate and high density respectively.
* Impact of Multicast Group Size: For a given level of node mobility, for smaller multicast groups (of size 2), the number of links per tree for MAODV, NR-MLPBR and R-MLPBR is about 4-7%, 8-9% and 9-14% more than that incurred for BEMRP in low, medium and high-density networks respectively.
All the three multicast routing protocols MAODV, NR-MLPBR and R-MLPBR, incur almost the same average hop count per source-receiver and it is considerably lower than that incurred for BEMRP. The hop count per source-receiver path is an important metric and it is often indicative of the end-to-end delay per multicast packet from the source to a specific receiver.
In the case of BEMRP, the impact of network density on the decrease in the hop count is relatively less as it is a bandwidth-efficient multicast routing protocol attempting to reduce the number of links in the tree.
* Impact of Multicast Group Size: For smaller multicast groups (of size 2), the hop count per source-receiver path for BEMRP can be 6-10%, 8-12% and 10-12% more than that of the other three multicast routing protocols in networks of low, moderate and high density respectively.
On the other hand, in the case of BEMRP, the decrease in the hop count per source-receiver path is relatively less, with increase in the network density.
* Impact of Multicast Group Size: For smaller multicast groups (of size 2), the hop count per source-receiver path for BEMRP can be 6-9%, 9-12% and 10-12% more than that of the other three multicast routing protocols in networks of low, moderate and high density respectively.
For larger multicast groups, BEMRP tends to perform better by virtue of its tendency to strictly minimize only the number of links in the tree.
For a given multicast group size and low node mobility, the time between successive tree discoveries in networks of moderate density (50 nodes) for MAODV and NR-MLPBR is 67-90% and for R-MLPBR and BEMRP is 73-96% of those incurred in low-density networks.
For a given multicast group size and low node mobility, the time between successive tree discoveries in networks of high density (75 nodes) is 51-80% for MAODV and NR-MLPBR and for R-MLPBR and BEMRP is 70-90% of those obtained in networks of low-density.
In low-density networks, the time between successive route discoveries for R-MLPBR and NR-MLPBR is about 10-15% more than that obtained for BEMRP for smaller multicast groups and is almost the same as that of BEMRP for moderately sized multicast groups.
For smaller group sizes, the time between successive broadcast tree discoveries for MAODV and BEMRP is respectively about 80%-90% and 85%-94% of that incurred for NR-MLPBR and R-MLPBR.