Title: Transport of RealTime Flows
1Transport of Real-Time Flows
- Bernd Girod
- Information Systems Laboratory
- Stanford University
2THE MEANING OF FREE SPEECH The acquisition by
eBay of Skype is a helpful reminder to the
world's trillion-dollar telecoms industry that
all phone calls will eventually be free . . . .
. . Ultimatelyperhaps by 2010voice may become a
free internet application, with operators making
money from related internet applications like
IPTV . . .
Economist, September 2005
3IPTV Rollout
Verizon 10M householdsby 2009
IPTV SBC18M households by 2007
IEEE Spectrum, Jan. 2005
4Why Is Real-Time Transport Hard?
Internet is a best-effort network . . .
Congestion Insufficient rate to
communicate Packet loss Impairs perceptual
quality Delay Impairs interactivity of
services Telephony one way delay ITU-T Rec. G.114 Delay
jitter Obstructs continuous media playout
5Clean Slate Internet DesignResearch Areas
6Outline of the Talk
- QoS vs. best effort
- Resource allocation for IPTV
- Rate-distortion optimized streaming
7How 1B Users Share the Internet
Rate r
TCP Throughput
RTT
maximum transfer unit
data rate
Growing congestion
p
packet loss rate
0.001
0.0001
0.1
0.01
round trip time
- Mahdavi, Floyd, 1997
- Floyd, Handley, Padhye, Widmer, 2000
8QoS vs. Best Effort
- Reservation-ism
- Voice and video need guaranteed QoS (bandwidth,
loss, delay) - Implement admission control Busy tone when
network is full - Best effort is fine for data applications
- Best Effort-ism
- Best Effort good enough for all applications
- Real-time applications can be made adaptive to
cope with any level of service - Overprovisioning always solves the problem, and
its cheaper than QoS guarantees
9Simple Model of A Shared Link
- Link of capacity C is shared among k flows
- Fair sharing each flow uses data rate C/k
- Homogeneous flows with same utility function u(.)
- Total utility
C
Breslau, Shenker, 1998
10Rigid Applications
u
- Utility u0 below of minimum bit-rate B
- Maximum total utility Uk is achieved by
admitting at most k flows
1
C/k
B
Breslau, Shenker, 1998
11Rigid Applications (cont.)
- Expected loss in total utility w/o admission
control - Gap DU is substantial when number of admissable
flows k is small - Gap DU usually disappears with growing capacity
C? Overprovisioning can solve the problem!
Breslau, Shenker, 1998
12Elastic Applications
- Elastic applications utility function u(k), such
that total utility U(k)ku(C/k) increases with k - Example u(C/k)1-aC/k
- All flows should be admitted best effort!
u
C/k
13Video Compression
- H.264 video coding for 2 different testsequences
- Video is elastic application
- Rate must be adapted to network throughput
- How to achieve rate control for stored content or
multicasting? - Utility function depends on content should use
unequal rate allocation
Good picture quality
Foreman Mobile
Bad picture quality
14Different Utility Functions
- Example uk(rk)1-akrk
- With rk0 ? Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions
(reverse water-filling) - Better than utility-oblivious fair sharing
Equal-slope Pareto condition
uk
Vilfredo Pareto 1848-1923
rk
15Distribution of IPTV over WLAN
5 Mbps
11 Mbps
2 Mbps
Home Media Gateway
courtesy van Beek, 2004
16Video Streaming Over Shared Channel
Transcoder
Decoder
0
0
Transcoder
Decoder
1
1
Receiver
Transcoder
Decoder
(Multi-Channel)
2
2
Transcoder
Decoder
3
3
Controller
Kalman, van Beek, Girod 2005
17Dynamically Changing RD Function
Scene Cut
Weighted average of last I-Frame, P-Frame and
B-Frame used for RD estimation
18Utility-Based Resource Allocation
Min-MSE Allocation
Equal Time Allocation
- Average PSNR 37.6 dB
- Average PSNR Stream 4 35.5 dB
- Average PSNR 37.5 dB
- Average PSNR Stream 4 32.9 dB
19Tx Backlog for 4 Video Streams 85 WLAN
Utilization
Kalman, van Beek, Girod 2005
20Streaming of Stored Content
Media files are already compressed How can we
nevertheless adapt to network?
100s to 1000ssimultaneous streams
DSL
Cable
wireless
Server
Network
Client
21Not All Packets are Equally Important
I
I
P
P
I
B
B
B
P
P
P
I
B
B
B
P
A
A
22Not All Packets are Equally Important
I
I
P
B
P
P
I
B
B
P
P
I
B
B
B
P
A
A
23Distortion-Aware Packet Dropping
Good Picture quality
Distortionaware
Packet dropping No retransmissions QCIF
Carphone I-P-P-P-P-P- . . .
Bad picture quality
Oblivious
Percentage of Packets Retained
Chakareski, Girod, ICME 2004
24Rate-DistortionOptimized (RaDiO) Streaming
- Decide which packets to send (and when) to
maximize picture quality while not exceeding an
average rate 2001
Server
Client
Network
25A Brief History of Media Streaming
- Media streaming w/o congestion avoidance
reckless driving 1995 - TCP-friendly rate control Limit average rate
for fair sharing with TCP 1997 - Rate-distortion optimized packet scheduling
(RaDiO) Decide which packets to send (and
when) to maximize picture quality while not
exceeding an average rate 2001 - Congestion-distortion-optimized
scheduling/routing (CoDiO) Decide which
packets to send (and when) to maximize picture
quality while minimizing network congestion.
2004
26Congestion vs. Rate
- Congestion queuing delay that packets experience
- weighted by size of the packet
- averaged over all packets in the network
- Congestion increases nonlinearly with link
bit-rate
Rmax
27Video Distortion with Self Congestion
Good Picture quality
Bad picture quality
Bit-Rate kbps
28Streaming with Last Hop Bottleneck
Random cross traffic
High bandwidth links
Video traffic
Low bandwidth last hop
Acknowledgments
29Delay distribution
- Overall delay distribution
- Queue length determines delay of last hop
pdf
delay
C
30Comparison RaDiO vs. CoDiO
50
PSNR dB
PSNR dB
Rate kbps
End-to-end delay ms
Simulations using H.263 Rate 10 fps Sequence
Foreman (32kbps,32kbps) Sequence length
60s Playout deadline 600ms
31Concluding Remarks
- Over-provisioning makes QoS superfluous
- Elastic applications dont need QoS
- Joint rate control for access bottlenecks (e.g.
IPTV, WLAN) - Media-aware congestion control (e.g. CoDiO)
-
32The End
- http//www.stanford.edu/bgirod/publications.html