Proceedings 1997 International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems
DOI: 10.1109/icpads.1997.652560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An approach for mobile agent security and fault tolerance using distributed transactions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Here, more specific, the failures of agents which are currently being executed on a node are regarded. In contrast, the problem of agent failures during migration was already investigated in other work [23] and is not regarded here.…”
Section: -Node Failuresmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Here, more specific, the failures of agents which are currently being executed on a node are regarded. In contrast, the problem of agent failures during migration was already investigated in other work [23] and is not regarded here.…”
Section: -Node Failuresmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Vogler et al [23] introduce a concept for reliable migrations of mobile agents based on distributed transactions. The migration protocol is derived from known transaction protocols like the already mentioned 2PC.…”
Section: Related Work: Fault Tolerance For Mobile Agentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantage that agent technology provides in this type of environment is the flexibility and redundancy of the communication paths among agents and the ability for agents to change location. Vogler et al 28 propose a distributed transaction model using a two-phase commit protocol to verify that an agent message has been delivered. This very well known approach can provide a means of ensuring that an agent transaction has successfully or unsuccessfully completed.…”
Section: Message Support For Sporadic Network Connectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We consider the following commit-after-stage approaches: the Byzantine failures approach [45,73], Concordia [85], the exception handling approach [54], FANTOMAS [53], Fatomas [58,59], Lyu and Wong's approach [42], MAgNET [15], Mishra and Huang's ARP family of protocols [47], NAP [33], the transaction and leader-election based approaches of [68] and [5], and Vogler et al's approach [83,84].…”
Section: Commit-after-stage Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%