Download Next Generation Convergence Network Testbed and

1
차세대통합네트워크
테스트베드 및 서비스
- A Case of Mobile Internet Myungchul Kim
[email protected]
NGcN 2003
2
Contents
• All IP networks with QoS guarantee and Mobility support
• VoIP over Mobile IP
– Soonuk Seol, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "Experiments and Analysis of Voice over
Mobile IP", the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and
Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2002), Lisbon, Portugal, September 2002
• MPEG streaming over Mobile Internet
– Kyounghee Lee, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "CORP - A Method of Concatenation
and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path in Mobile Internet", IIEICE
Transaction on Communications Special Issue on Internet Technology III, Vol.
E86-B, No2, Feb. 2003
– Myungjin Lee, Kyounghee Lee, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "MPEG Streaming
over Mobile Internet", IS&T/SPIE’s 14th Annual Symposium, Electronic Imaging
2002.
NGcN 2003
3
Voice over Mobile IP
NGcN 2003
Motivation
4
• Voice over IP
– Internet telephony is one of the most promising services
– low cost, efficient bandwidth utilization, integration with data
traffic
– Support only best effort service, more obstacles to deteriorate
voice quality, e.g., delay, delay jitter, packet loss, etc.
– There are two competing approaches for VoIP
• ITU’s H.323 [1,2], IETF’s SIP [3]
• Mobility demand
– VoIP needs to support most functionalities that the current
PSTN does, especially mobility support.
• All-IP trends
– Recently, it is believed all mobility-related functionality should
be handled at the IP (network) layer [10,11,12,13].
NGcN 2003
Related Work
5
• Extensions to H.323 for mobility [8,9] :
– Additional messages and functionalities to H.323 system
– Require application to perform mobility management
• Mobility support to SIP
– Moh et al. [5]
• Address several major issues for supporting mobility on SIP
– Wedlund and Schulzrinne [6]
• An application level approach for real-time mobile
communication.
• Does not support mobility to the applications that are
independent of SIP
• Impossible to use SIP mobility in which network do not
support DHCP
• Overhead with mobile IP
– A waste of resources to keep duplicated information about the
hosts current address. (both in SIP servers and Home agents)
NGcN 2003
6
Related Work(cont.)
• In our experiments
– Need a homogeneous mobility solution support
regardless of wireless interfaces and applications.
– Depend on Mobile IP [4] for mobility management
NGcN 2003
7
What we have achieved
• Examine the feasibility of SIP over Mobile IP for
Internet telephony
– Investigate various factors that affect delay, packet loss,
and load on the network
– Experiment with encapsulation and decapsulation delay
time and interarrival time in many aspects, comparing
with normal IP.
• Find the desirable number of frames per packet in
Mobile IP as a function of packet transmission
delay and bandwidth utilization.
NGcN 2003
Backgrounds
8
• Mobile IP
– Allows a mobile node to communicate with other nodes
transparently in spite of address change due to its
mobility
– Triangular routing problem which increases delays
– Route optimization solve delay increase problem by
using binding updates.
(a)
CH
CH->MN
(c)
MN->CH
FA
HA
HA->FA CH->MN
(b)
CH->MN
MN
NGcN 2003
Backgrounds
9
• Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
– SIP allows two or more participants to establish a
session consisting of multiple media streams.
– In SIP, callers and callees are identified by SIP address.
– When making a SIP call, a caller first locates the
appropriate server and then sends a SIP request.
– SIP server can act in two different modes
• Proxy server
– requests to the next hop or user-agent within an IP cloud
• Redirect server
– informs their clients of the address of the requested server
– allow for the client to contact that server directly
NGcN 2003
10
Testbed Configuration
• Mobile IP: Dynamics, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics/
• SIP: Linphone, http://www.linphone.org, GSM codec is used
• Analysis with TCPDUMP(for capturing packets) and Ping
210.107.132.3
210.107.131.181
CH
HA
210.107.132.83
na-ep1.icu.ac.kr
210.107.132.0 net
gateway
210.107.131.0 net
210.107.132.81
210.107.143.209
Router2
na-router2.icu.ac.kr
210.107.143.208 net
210.107.143.214
210.107.143.210
FA1
i3ebs1.icu.ac.kr
FA2
i3ebs2.icu.ac.kr
210.107.143.221
210.107.143.217
210.107.143.216 net
MH
210.107.143.212 net
210.107.143.220 net
210.107.132. 66
IEEE 802.11 PC Card 11 Mbit/s
NGcN 2003
RTP packet format
Version
Length
Type of service
Total length (in byte)
Identification
Time to live (TTL)
11
Flags
Protocol
Fragment offset
Header checksum
Source IP address
Destination IP address
Option (if any)
Ver
Source port
Destination port
Datagram length
Checksum
Payload type
Sequence number
Timestamp
Synchronization source identifier
Application data
• Length of a packet : 87 bytes
– IP header : 20 bytes, IP option : 14 bytes
– UDP header : 8 bytes
– RTP message : 45 bytes ( RTP header : 8bytes, Voice data: 33 bytes)
NGcN 2003
12
Encapsulation delay
• Encapsulation and decapsulation delay : ~ 1ms
210.107.132.83
na-ep1.icu.ac.kr
HA
210.107.131.181
gateway
CH
210.107.132.3
HA
210.107.132.0 net
FA1
210.107.131.0 net
210.107.132.81
210.107.143.209
CH
Router2
na-router2.icu.ac.kr
210.107.143.208 net
210.107.143.212 net
210.107.143.210
FA1
i3ebs1.icu.ac.kr
210.107.143.217
210.107.143.216 net
210.107.132. 66
210.107.143.21
FA2
4
i3ebs2.icu.ac.kr
x
210.107.143.221
210.107.143.220 net
y (mobile IP pkt)
y’ (normal IP pkt)
2x = 3.2 ms, x=1.6 ms
x+y = 4.2 ms
y = 2.6 ms
Assuming x=y’,
y-y’ = y-x = 1ms
HA
FA1
CH
– Measure the encapsulation and decapsulation delay by
configuring the routing path between MH and CH in
mobile IP to be identical to that of not using mobile IP.
NGcN 2003
Interarrival time w/o Mobile IP
13
– Sending rate : 20 ms
– Interarrival time : 19.95 ~ 20.05 ms with 99%
confidence
– Standard deviation : 0.5 ms
– Number of samples : 700
in te ra rriva l tim e (s e c )
0.03500
0.03000
0.02500
0.02000
0.01500
0.01000
0.00500
0.00000
m a x = 0.02391
m in = 0.01611
0
100
200
300
400
500
Frequency
1000
100
600
700
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
interarrival time (ms ec)
NGcN 2003
Interarrival time with Mobile IP
14
– Sending rate : 20 ms
– Interarrival time : 19.91 ~ 20.09 ms with 99%
confidence
– Standard deviation : 0.89 ms
– Number of samples : 700
in te ra rriva l tim e (s e c )
0.03500
0.03000
0.02500
0.02000
0.01500
0.01000
0.00500
0.00000
m a x = 0.03108
m in = 0.00901
0
100
200
300
400
500
Frequency
1000
600
700
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
interarrival time (ms ec)
NGcN 2003
Interarrival time in voice
conversation(1)
15
• Bi-directional voice conversation for 60 sec.
• Average: 20ms, overall within 42ms for three cases:
(a) IP
(c) Mobile IP with 5 times of
handoffs
(b) Mobile IP without handoffs
NGcN 2003
Interarrival time in voice
conversation(2)
16
• Overall packets arrive within 42 ms. (make up with buffers)
• No many differences during the handoff time.
Mobile node
– can receive packets from the old foreign agent.
– gets a care-of address from the FA not from the DHCP
server.
c->m
CH
HA
h->F1 c->m
FA1
FA2
MH
h->F2 c->m
CH
HA
FA1
FA2
MH
NGcN 2003
Interarrival time under
background traffic
17
– five extra sessions for MN with different hosts, totally 6300 packets
(~2min) for each call
Packet losses:
5 for normal IP
6 for mobile IP
98%
interarrival time (msec)
normal IP
packets
Mobile IP packets
– The longest : Normal IP = 25 ms, Mobile IP = 30 ms
– 98% of packets = 18 ~ 22 ms
– Traditional packet loss
NGcN 2003
Total Data Size for Different
frames/pkt
18
• One-way voice data
– Totally, 297 Kbytes for 180 sec (one frame : 33 bytes)
– IP & UDP headers: add 54 bytes
– Encapsulation (from HA to FA): adds 20 bytes
one frame per packet (f/p = 1)
CH
FA
HA
.
1000
K b yte, 10 packets
basic headers
(54 bytes * 3)
800
three frames per packet (f/p = 3)
MH
CH
FA
HA
MH
voice data
header for tunneling
headers for tunneling
(33-byte
frame
*
3)
(20 bytes)
(20 bytes * 3)
voice data
basic header
(33-byte frame * 3)
(54 bytes)
headers fo r tunneling betw een H A and FA
basic headers
vo ice data
the num ber o f packets
600
400
200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
fram es / packet
NGcN 2003
The Desirable Number of Frames
19
• Mobile IP Network
– need to save the bandwidth (esp., wireless network)
lower bound of 99% confidence interval
bandwidth save
100%
120
80%
The maximum packet
transmission delay
permitted (ms)
150
90
60%
88.9 ms
60
46.1%
40%
30
20%
0
0%
-30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-60
-90
8
9
10
11
12
-20%
-40%
frames / packet
-60%
bandwidth save
• End to end delays
– Smaller than 150 ms : not perceived
– Between 150 and 400 ms : acceptable but not ideal
– If f/p=3: about 60ms’ latency to aggregate three frames. The rest
90ms (150-60) are remained for packet transfer.
NGcN 2003
Conclusion and Future work
20
• Feasibility of Mobile IP-based SIP
– Mobile IP’s encapsulation and decapsulation delay is short enough
for interactive audio applications.
– Interarrival time does not vary much.
• Desirable number of frames per packet
– Sends three frames per packet to reduce loads on the campussized network
• Future work
– Simulate SIP over Mobile IP for large scaled networks
– study various kinds of codecs in the same context and in terms of
the number of hops.
– delay-aware and/or load-aware scheme for Internet Telephony
NGcN 2003
References
21
[1] Gary A. Thom, “H.323: the Multimedia Communications Standard for Local Area Networks,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 1996.
[2] ITU-T Rec. H.323v2, “Packet Based Multimedia Communications Systems,” March 1997.
[3] M. Handley et al., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” IETF RFC 2543, March 1999.
[4] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” RFC 2002, IETF, October 1996.
[5] Melody Moh, Gregorie Berquin, and Yanjun Chen, “Mobile IP Telephony: Mobility Support of
SIP,” Eighth International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, 1999.
[6] Elin Wedlund and Henning Schulzrinne, “Mobility Support using SIP,” Proceedings of the
second ACM International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia (WoWMoM), 1999.
[7] X. Zhao, C. Castelluccia, and M. Baker, “Flexible Network Support for Mobility,” in
Proceedings of Mobicom, October 1998.
[8] ITU-T Draft Recommendation H.MMS.1, “Mobility for H.323 Multimedia Systems,” March
2001.
[9] Wanjiun Liao, “Mobile Internet Telephony: Mobile Extensions to H.323,” INFOCOM ’99.
Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
Proceedings. IEEE, June 1999.
[10] Ramachandran Ramjee, Thomas F. La Porta, Luca Salagrelli, Sandra Thuel, and Kannan
Varadhan, “IP-based Access Network Infrastructure for Next-Generation Wireless Data Networks,”
IEEE Personal Communications, August 2000.
[11] Shingo Ohmori, Yasushi Yamao, and Nobuo Nakajima, “The Future Generations of Mobile
Communications Based on Broadband Access Technologies,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
December 2000.
NGcN 2003
References (cont.)
22
[12] Ramón Cáceres and Venkata N. Padmanabhan, “Fast and Scalable Wireless Handoffs in
Supports of Mobile Internet Audio,” Mobile Networks and Applications 3, December 1998.
[13] Mihailovic, A., Shabeer, M., and Aghvami, A.H., “Multicast for Mobility Protocol (MMP) for
Emerging Internet Networks,” The 11th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor
and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2000.
[14] H. Schulzrinne and J. Rosenberg, “A Comparison of SIP and H.323 for Internet Telephony,”
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/papers.html.
[15] James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross, “Computer Networking – A Top-Down Approach
Featuring the Internet”, Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.
[16] Charles Perkins and David B. Johnson, “Route Optimization in Mobile IP,” draft-ietfmobileip-optim-11.txt (Work in progress), September 2001.
[17] David B. Johnson and Charles Perkins, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv613.txt (Work in progress), July 2001.
[18] Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP, available at http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics/index.html.
[19] Linphone – a SIP application, available at http://simon.morlat.free.fr/english/linphone.html.
NGcN 2003
23
MPEG Streaming over Mobile
Internet
NGcN 2003
24
Introduction
• General multimedia data characteristics
– Intolerant to delay and jitter variance
– Error-sensitive
• Characteristics of mobile Internet
– Frequent routing path changes due to handoffs
– Higher error rate in wireless link
• Effects on streaming multimedia data in mobile Internet
– Handoff delay
– Re-routing toward congested network  delay increment
– Higher packet loss probability due to mobility
 Significant quality degradation of streaming multimedia data
NGcN 2003
25
Introduction (cont’d)
• Popular Quality of Service (QoS) guarantee
mechanisms
– Differentiated Service (DiffServ) [2]
• Guarantees aggregated QoS for multiple flows
• Can not guarantee specific QoS requirement for each data flow
– Integrated Service (IntServ)
• Network resource reservation for specific data flow
• Strict guarantees for multimedia streams with various QoS
requirements
• Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [3]
NGcN 2003
26
Introduction (cont’d)
• Problems of RSVP in Mobile Internet
– Mobile Host (MH) handoff invalidates existing reservation paths
 overhead and delay to re-establish new RSVP session
– Movement to congested wireless cell  fail to get admission to
re-establish new RSVP session
Seamless QoS guarantees are impossible
• Existing approaches
– Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [15]
– Hierarchical Mobile RSVP (HMRSVP) [16]
– A method of Concatenation and Optimization of Reservation Path
(CORP) [10]
NGcN 2003
27
Related Work
• CORP
– Base Station (BS) takes charge of making and
managing RSVP sessions on behalf of MH
– Consists of two main processes
• Concatenation of Reservation Path (CRP) process
– Reservation path extension technique
– Current BS pre-establishes pseudo reservation path (PRP)
toward its neighboring BSs to prepare for MH’s handoff
– When MH handoffs, corresponding PRP is activated to guarantee
QoS for MH
• Optimization for Reservation Path (ORP) process
– Solves infinitely long path extension problem and
reservation path loop problem of CRP process
– Optimizes the extended reservation path
NGcN 2003
28
Related Work (cont’d)
• CRP Process
CRP inform
I.
II.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
CRP inform
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
29
Related Work (cont’d)
• CRP Process
BS_A
BS_B
I.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
II.
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
III.
BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors
BS_C
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
30
Related Work (cont’d)
• CRP Process
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
I.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
II.
III.
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors
IV.
MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
31
Related Work (cont’d)
• CRP Process
BS_A
BS_B
I.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
II.
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors
MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell
BS_C sends CRP activate message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
III.
IV.
V.
BS_C
CRP
activate
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
32
Related Work (cont’d)
CRP Process
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
I.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
II.
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
III.
IV.
V.
BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors
MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell
BS_C sends CRP activate message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through
the activated PRP
VI.
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
33
Related Work (cont’d)
CRP Process
I.
II.
III.
MH requests a new RSVP session and
BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH
BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors
BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors
MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell
BS_C sends CRP activate message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
VI. BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through
the activated PRP
VII. BS_B terminates useless PRP toward
BS_A
IV.
V.
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
34
Related Work (cont’d)
• ORP Process
I.
BS_C sends IGMP group report message
to its gateway router
IGMP
report
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
35
Related Work (cont’d)
ORP Process
BS_A
BS_B
I.
BS_C sends IGMP group report message
to its gateway router
II.
BS_C joins into the existing multicast
RSVP session
III.
BS_C sends CRP release message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
BS_C
CRP
release
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
36
Related Work (cont’d)
ORP Process
I.
II.
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
BS_C sends IGMP group report message
to its gateway router
BS_C joins into the existing multicast
RSVP session
III.
BS_C sends CRP release message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
IV.
BS_B terminates the activated PRP and
BS_C uses the newly optimized one to
deliver MPEG data stream to MH
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
37
Related Work (cont’d)
ORP Process
I.
II.
III.
IV.
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
CRP
inform
CRP
inform
BS_C sends IGMP group report message
to its gateway router
BS_C joins into the existing multicast
RSVP session
BS_C sends CRP release message to the
previous BS (BS_B)
BS_B terminates the activated PRP and
BS_C uses the newly optimized one to
deliver MPEG data stream to MH
V.
BS_B leaves the multicast RSVP session
VI.
BS_C sends CRP inform messages to its
neighbors to prepare MH’s probable
movement
CORP message
PRP
RSVP session
Activated PRP
NGcN 2003
38
Proposed Mechanism
• Motivation
– To provide QoS guarantees for MPEG video streaming services
with mobility support
• Proposed System
– Uses CORP to guarantee seamless QoS in mobile networks
– Provides MPEG-1 video streaming services over CORP
– CORP-aware video streaming server and client
– CORP-capable mobile agents (Base Stations)
NGcN 2003
39
System Design
CORP message
MPEG-1 data
• Video Server Architecture
– CORP adaptation module
handles CORP messages and
takes charge of resource
reservation process
– MPEG-1 traffic transfer
module transfers MPEG-1
stream to BS at the speed of a
reserved bandwidth
Video Server
CORP Adaptation
Module
MPEG-1 Traffic
Transfer Module
RSVP
TCP/UDP
IP
Wired Link
NGcN 2003
40
System Design (cont’d)
• Base Station Architecture
– CORP message handler
module handles CORP
messages which are generated
by neighboring BSs or a
mobile client
– traffic forward module
receives MPEG-1 streaming
data from the video server and
forwards it to a neighboring
BS or directly delivers it to the
client
CORP
CORP Message
Handler Module
Traffic
Forward Module
RSVP
TCP/UDP
IP/Mobile IP
Wired/Wireless Link
NGcN 2003
41
System Design (cont’d)
• Client Architecture
– CORP adaptation module
handles CORP messages
– Handoff detection module
detects a handoff and
determines when MH has to
request the activation of PRP
– MPEG-1 traffic receiver
module receives MPEG-1
streaming data from a current
BS
– MPEG-1 video playback
module plays the MPEG-1
video from the received stream
Client
Handoff Detection
Module
MPEG-1 Video
Playback Module
CORP Adaptation
Module
MPEG-1 Traffic
Receiver Module
TCP/UDP
Mobile IP
Wireless Link
NGcN 2003
42
System Design (cont’d)
• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP before
Handoff
Video Server
BS1
Service Request
BS2
Client
Service Request
Service Request Ack
Service Request Ack
RSVP path
RSVP resv
PRP establishment
MPEG-1 traffic
MPEG-1 traffic
Client
Handoffs
(BS1BS2)
NGcN 2003
43
System Design (cont’d)
• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP after
Handoff
Video Server
BS1
BS2
CRP Activate
Client
CRP Activate Request
Client
handoffs
(BS1BS2)
CRP Activate Ack
MPEG-1 traffic
MPEG-1 traffic
MPEG-1 traffic
ORP Request
ORP Request Ack
RSVP path
RSVP resv
MPEG-1 traffic
MPEG-1 traffic
NGcN 2003
44
Testbed Configuration
• Network Architecture
Home Agent
Video Server
Wired subnet bandwidth
10 Mbps Ethernet
Wireless subnet bandwidth
IEEE 802.11b wireless LAN with
the bandwidth of 11 Mbps
Wired Subnet_1
Wired Subnet_2
Gateway
BS1
BS2
MH
Wireless Subnet_1 Wireless Subnet_2
BS
Runs FA daemon of Mobile IP
Runs CORP daemon
Client
Runs MH daemon of Mobile IP
Runs VOD client program
Video Server
Supports CORP-aware MPEG-1
streaming service
NGcN 2003
•
Experiments
Experiment Scenarios
–
–
–
–
–
•
45
Background traffic generation:
MGEN
Maximum throughput of wired
network: 9.34 Mbps
Wired subnet_1: non-congested
Wired subnet_2: congested
• 8.2 Mbps background traffic
Movement of MH: BS1  BS2
Sample Video Clip Specification
Experiment Cases
I.
MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and
TCP
II. MPEG-1 streaming with TCP only
III. MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and
UDP
IV. MPEG-1 streaming with UDP only
Shrek
Resolution
352 X 288
Average Data Rate
(Mbps)
1.39
Frame Rate (fps)
25
Play out duration
(sec)
80
Total number of
frames
2,000
NGcN 2003
Performance Evaluation
46
• QoS Guarantee
I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCP
II. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only
80
60
Before Handoff
After Handoff
60
Before Handoff
After Handoff
50
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
70
50
40
30
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
Data receiving rate per each second (Mbps)
3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
Data receiving rate per each second (Mbps)
– Data rate is measured at client per each second while the sample
MPEG file is being delivered
– Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and
after handoff cases in (I)
– Amount of packet loss due to handoff is about 81Kbytes in (I)
– 84 percents are less than 0.3 Mbps after handoff in(II)
* 150KBps bandwidth reserved
NGcN 2003
Performance Evaluation (cont’d)
47
• QoS Guarantee (cont’d)
I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDP
II. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only
100
100
90
Before Handoff
After Handoff
80
Percentage (%)
80
Percentage (%)
90
Before Handoff
After Handoff
70
60
50
40
30
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Data receiving rate per each second (Mbps)
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Data receiving rate per each second (Mbps)
– Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and
after handoff cases in (I)
– Average data rate before handoff is significantly higher than that
after handoff in (II)
– Average packet loss rate is about 0.6 Mbps in (II)
* 200KBps bandwidth reserved
NGcN 2003
Performance Evaluation (cont’d)
48
• Quality of Streaming Video
I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCP
II. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
PSNR(dB)
PSNR (dB)
90
50
40
30
Handoff
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
Handoff
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Frame number
0
1400
1600
1800
2000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Frame number
– If Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) is less than 20 dB, the frame
can be regarded as being lost
– In (I), MPEG-1 streaming data did not suffer from loss or delay
under the congested situation
– 11 frames were lost during CRP process time in (I)
– the total number of received frames is only 1107 frames out of
2000 frames for 80 seconds in (II)
NGcN 2003
49
Performance Evaluation (cont’d)
• Quality of Streaming Video (cont’d)
II. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
PSNR (dB)
PSNR (dB)
I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDP
50
40
30
20
50
40
30
20
10
10
Handoff
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Handoff
0
1200
Frame number
1400
1600
1800
2000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Frame number
– The average PSNR is 69.6 dB before MH’s handoff and 68.6 dB
after MH’s handoff in (I)
– MH could not play back MPEG-1 video stream correctly after
handoff in (II) because of too high packet loss rate (0.6 Mbps)
NGcN 2003
50
Conclusions
• QoS guarantee for MPEG-1 streaming service in Mobile
Internet
– QoS guarantee mechanism with mobility support – CORP
– Implementation of MPEG-1 streaming service over CORP
• Streaming Video Quality Improvement
– Significantly better PSNR values in both cases of using TCP and
UDP when CORP mechanism is applied
– MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and TCP provided the highest video
quality in the experiments
• Future work
– Reduction in the packet loss during a handoff with CORP
– Reduction in the packet loss over wireless links when UDP is used
as a transport protocol
NGcN 2003
51
References
[1] B. Adamson, “The MGEN Toolset,” http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN, USA,
1999.
[2] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss, “An Architecture
for Differentiated Services,” RFC 2475, IETF, 1998.
[3] R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification,” RFC 2205, IETF, 1997.
[4] F. Cheong and R. Lai, “A study of the burstiness of combined MPEG video and audio
bitstreams,” Computer Communications, 21(10), pp. 880-888, 1998.
[5] L. deCarmo, “Core Java media framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999.
[6] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2,” RFC 2236, IETF, 1997.
[7] D. L. Gall, “MPEG: a video compression standard for multimedia applications,”
Communications of ACM, 34(4), pp. 46-58, 1991.
[8] R. Gordon, “Essential JNI: Java Native Interface,” Prentice-Hall, 1998.
[9] R. Gordon and S. Talley, “Essential JMF: Java Media Framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999.
[10] K. Lee, “A Method of Concatenation and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path
(CORP) in Mobile Internet,” M.S. Thesis, ICU, 2000.
[11] J. K. Ng, “A reserved bandwidth video smoothing algorithm for MPEG transmission,”
Journal of Systems and Software, 48, pp. 233-245, 1999.
[12] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” RFC 2002, IETF, 1996.
NGcN 2003
52
References (cont.)
[13] R. R. Pillai and M. K. Patnam, “A method to improve the robustness of MPEG video
applications over wireless networks,” Computer Communications, 24, pp. 1452-1459,
2001.
[14] S. C. Sullivan, L. Winzeler, J. Deagen, and D. Brown, “Programming with the Java
Media Framework,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.
[15] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, and A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for
an Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts,” Technical Report: DCS-TR337, Rutgers university, USA.
[16] C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: a hierarchical mobile RSVP protocol,”
Distributed Computing Systems Workshop, 2001 Int’l Conf. on, pp. 467-472, 2001.
[17] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP,” http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics, Finland, 2001.
[18] “Java Media Framework API Guide,” http://java.sun.com/products/javamedia/jmf/index.html, Sun Microsystems, USA, 1999.
[19] “Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
specifications: Higher speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,” IEEE
Standard 802.11b, IEEE, USA, 1999.
NGcN 2003