Computer Network Assignment Help

For any Assignment related queries, Call us at : - +1 678 648 4277
You can mail us at : - support@computernetworkassignmenthelp.com or
reach us at : - https://www.computernetworkassignmenthelp.com/

Problem 1. Leader Election in a Synchronous Ring

Consider a collection of n identical processes arranged in a
synchronous ring network. Each process has two sets of ports,
one to each of its immediate neighbors, with its ports to its
clockwise neighbor named left and its ports to its
counterclockwise neighbor named right. Thus, the processes have
a common sense of orientation.
The goal is for the processes to elect a single leader: exactly one
process should eventually output LEADER.

(a) First suppose that the processes are deterministic, and that
they know n (the size of the ring). Either give a correct leader
election algorithm for this case, or prove that no such
algorithm exists. If you give an algorithm, analyze its time and
message complexity.

Solution: Impossible. Suppose for contradiction that such an

algorithm exists. We can use a standard inductive symmetry
argument. Namely, prove by induction on the number r of rounds
that, after r rounds, all the processes are in identical states. Since
the algorithm must solve the leader election problem, eventually,
one process outputs LEADER. But then all processes do the same
thing, in the same round
(b) Now suppose that the processes are probabilistic (i.e.,
randomized), and that they know n. We would like an algorithm
that (a) never elects more than one leader, and (b) with probability
1, eventually elects a leader. Either give an algorithm satisfying
these properties, or prove that none exists. If you give an algorithm,
analyze its time and message complexity. Your analysis should relate
the complexity to the success probability. Specifically, for any ε, 0 <
ε < 1, you should provide bounds on the time and message
complexity that hold with probability at least 1 − ε.

Solution: Here a simple algorithm exists.

Lemma, similar to one from class: If n processes choose ids

uniformly at random, independently, from {1, . . . , n2}, then with
probability at least 1/2, the chosen numbers are all distinct.

Algorithm: The algorithm works in a series of phases. In each phase,

all processes choose random ids from a sufficiently large space,
defined as in the lemma as {1, ..., n2}. Then they all send their ids
around the ring, (say) in the clockwise direction. After exactly n
steps, every process examines the sequence of ids that it has
received. There are three cases:

1. If the maximum id in the sequence is not unique, it abandons

this phase and goes on to the next.
2. If the maximum id in the sequence is unique and is the
process’ own id, then it outputs LEADER and halts.

3. If the maximum id in the sequence is unique and is not the

process’ own id, then it just halts.

It should be clear that, at the first phase where all the processes
choose distinct ids, exactly one process elects itself the leader,
and then the algorithm halts. So certainly the algorithm never
elects more than one leader.

At each phase, with probability at least 1/2, all the chosen ids are
distinct and the algorithm terminates. Since the choices in
different phases are independent, the probability that the
algorithm finishes within h phases is at least 1 − 2 1 h . Thus, with
probability 1, it eventually finishes.

We analyze the time and message complexity. Each phase

consists of n rounds, and sends n2 (single-hop) messages.
Consider any ε, 0 < ε < 1. Choose h to be the smallest integer
such that 2 1 h ≤ ε, that is, h = ilg (1/ε)l. Then with probability at
least 1 − δh ≥ 1 − ε, the algorithm finishes within h phases, using
n · h rounds and n2 · h messages. That is, with probability at least
1 − ε, the time complexity is at most nilg (1/ε)l and the message
complexity is at most n2ilg (1/ε)l.
(c) Finally suppose that the processes are probabilistic and they
do not know n. That is, the same algorithm must work regardless
of the size of the ring in which the processes are placed. We
would again like an algorithm that (a) never elects more than one
leader, and (b) with probability 1, eventually elects a leader.
Either give an algorithm satisfying these properties, or prove that
none exists. If you give an algorithm, analyze its time and
message complexity as described in Part (b).

Solution: This is impossible. Suppose for contradiction that such

an algorithm exists. Consider the algorithm operating in a ring S
of size n, for any particular value of n. Number the processes of S
as 1, . . . , n based on their positions in the ring, counting
clockwise. Since the algorithm eventually elects a leader in ring S
with probability 1, there must be at least one execution α of S
that leads to some process j outputting LEADER. That is, there is
some particular mapping from processes to sequences of random
choices such that, in the execution α in which these choices are
made, some process j is elected leader.

Now consider a ring R of size 2n consisting of two half-rings R1

and R2, each of size n. Number the processes of R as 1, . . . , 2n.
Then there is an execution α' of R in which processes i and n + i in
R happen to make the same random choices as process i in S. In
execution α' , processes i and n+i behave exactly like process i in
execution α of S. Since process j outputs LEADER in execution α,
both processes j and n + j output LEADER in execution α' . This
contradicts problem requirement (a). Notice that this proof shows
that we can’t achieve any positive election probability ε, not just
probability 1.
Problem 2. Breadth-First Search in an Asynchronous Network

The asynchronous Breadth-First Search algorithm presented in class

involves corrections that could trigger the sending of many
messages, resulting in worst-case message complexity O(nE) and
worst-case time complexity O(diam · n · d), until all nodes’ parent
variables have stabilized to correct parents in a breadth-first
spanning tree. (We are not considering individual processes’ parent
outputs here, nor global termination. We are also ignoring local
processing time.)

This problem involves designing a better asynchronous Breadth-

First Search algorithm, one that does not make any corrections.
Thus, once a process sets its parent variable, it can output the value
since that is its final decision.
Assume that the network graph is connected and contains at least
two nodes.

(a) Describe carefully, in words, an algorithm in which the root

node v0 coordinates the construction of the tree, level by level.
Your algorithm should take time O(diam2 · d) until all the parent
variables are set.
(Hint: The root node can conduct broadcast-convergecast waves to
build the successive levels in the tree. Four types of messages
should be enough, e.g., search messages that test for new nodes,
parent(b) (b a Boolean) for parent/nonparent responses, and ready
and done messages for broadcasting and convergecasting signals on
the tree.)
Solution: Node v0 initiates successive phases of the algorithm. At
each phase d, exactly the nodes at distance d from v0 get
incorporated into the BFS tree.
At phase 1:
Node v0 sends search messages to all its neighbors. The neighbors
record v0 as their parent, record that they are new nodes, and
send parent responses back to v0. When v0 receives parent
responses from all its neighbors, it is ready to start phase 2.

At phase d, d ≥ 2:
Node v0 broadcasts ready messages down all the branches of the
tree built so far, until they reach the new nodes. Each new node
sends search messages to all its neighbors. When a node receives
a search message, if it does not already have a parent, it sets its
parent variable to the sender’s id, records that it is new, and sends
a parent response. If it already has a parent, it sends a nonparent
response.

When a new node has received responses to all its search

messages, it sends a done(b) message to its parent, where b =
TRUE if the node has received at least one parent response, =
FALSE otherwise. The done messages get convergecast up the
tree; each node sets the bit b in the message it sends to its parent
to the “or” of the bits it received from its children.

When node v0 has received done messages from all its children, it
begins phase d + 1 if any of the messages contain value 1;
otherwise it halts.
(b) Analyze the time and communication complexity of your
algorithm, and compare them to the costs of the asynchronous BFS
algorithm presented in class.

Solution: The time complexity is O(diam2 · d). Each phase takes time
O(diam · d), and there are O(diam) phases.

The message complexity is O(E + diam · n). Each edge is traversed

once in each direction with search and parent messages. The ready
and done messages traverse tree edges only, so there are O(n) of
these per phase.

Solution: If it is instructive here is some code for part (a) that we

think might help understand this problem more deeply.

Process v State variables:

Transitions:
for each v ∈ Γ(v0), send(v), a queue, initially (search) responded
⊆ Γ(v0), initially ∅ newinfo, a Boolean, initially false input
receive(search)v,v0 , v ∈ Γ(v0) Effect: add parent(false) to send(v)
input receive(parent(true))v,v0 , v ∈ Γ(v0) Effect: responded :=
responded ∪ {v} if responded = Γ(v0) then for each w ∈ Γ(v0),
add ready to send(w) responded := ∅ newinfo := false input
receive(done(b))v,v0 , b a Boolean, v ∈ Γ(v0) Effect: responded :=
responded ∪ {v} newinfo := newinfo ∨ b if responded = Γ(v0) and
newinfo then for each w ∈ Γ(v0), add ready to send(w)
responded := ∅ newinfo := false output send(m)v,v0 , m a
message, v ∈ Γ(v0) Precondition: m = head(send(v)) Effect:
remove head of send(v)
 Process u, u = v0
State variables:
parent ∈ Γ(u) ∪ {⊥}, initially ⊥ children ⊆ Γ(u), initially ∅ newnode a
Boolean, initially false for each v ∈ Γ(u), send(v), a queue, initially
empty responded ⊆ Γ(u), initially ∅ newinfo, a Boolean, initially false
Transitions:
input receive(search)v,u, v ∈ Γ(u) Effect: if parent = ⊥ then parent :=
v newnode := true add parent(true) to send(v) else add parent(false)
to send(v) input receive(parent(b))v,u, b a Boolean, v ∈ Γ(u) Effect: if
b then children := children ∪ {v} newinfo := true responded :=
responded ∪ {v} if responded = Γ(u) then add done(newinfo) to
send(parent) input receive(ready)v,u, v ∈ Γ(u) Effect: if newnode
then for each w ∈ Γ(u), add search to send(w) else for each w ∈
children, add ready to send(w) responded := ∅ newinfo := false
input receive(done(b))v,u, b a Boolean, v ∈ Γ(u) Effect: responded :=
responded ∪ {v} newinfo := newinfo ∨ b if responded = children
then add done(newinfo) to send(parent) output send(m)u,v, m a
message, v ∈ Γ(u) Precondition: m = head(send(v)) Effect: remove
head of send(v)