Transcript tutorial5-3

MPEG Streaming over Mobile
Internet
Kyunghee Lee and Myungchul Kim
{leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr
1
NV-2003
Contents
• Introduction
• Related Work
• Proposed Mechanism
• System Design
• Testbed Configuration
• Experiments
• Performance Evaluation
• Conclusions
• References
2
NV-2003
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
3
NV-2003
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]
4
NV-2003
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]
5
NV-2003
Related Work
• Priority-based scheduling for MPEG streaming on
Mobile Internet
– Differentiated delivery service depending on the
importance of each MPEG frame data
Priority-aware
MPEG Server
CH
I
P
B
B
R1
I
congested
P
B
FA
B
P
Packet drop
: MPEG video stream
I
MPEG Client
6
MH
: Non-multimedia Traffic
NV-2003
Related Work
• Classify IP packets into two classes depending on its payload
– Class 1: containing MPEG and GOP header (priority 1)
– Class 2: containing MPEG I frame (priority 1)
– Class 3: containing MPEG B, P frame (priority 7, best-effort)
• Uses TOS field in IP packet header as a classifier
4 TOS bits
minimize maximize maximize minimize
delay
throughput reliability monetary
cost
3-bit precedence field
(currently ignored)
0
1-bit
unused
16
4-bit
4-bit
version header len. 8-bit TOS field
16-bit identification
8-bit time-to-live (TTL)
31
16-bit total length (in bytes)
3-bit flag
8-bit protocol
13-bit fragment offset
16-bit header checksum
32-bit source IP address
….
7
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
• Priority-aware MPEG streaming server
Priority-aware MPEG video streamserver
Priority setting
UDP
MPEG
video file
8
Analysis
move MPEG data
froma file to the buffer
Parse the
MPEG file
check up the data in
the buffer
make an offset
table
decide the value of
TOS field
Packetization
set the TOS
value of the
packet
MPEG
video client
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
• Mobile IP Foreign Agent (FA)
– Is the most probable spot of packet loss due to the network
congestion
– Acts as a gateway router for its own wireless subnet
– Runs mobile IP FA daemon program
– Performs priority-based CBQ scheduling for the traffic delivered
toward MH
• Mobile MPEG client
– Plays MPEG video stream from the server
• Advantages
– Simple and light-weight mechanism  suitable for
wireless/mobile networking environment
– Significant video quality improvement can be achieved though the
extra bandwidth is scarcely consumed
9
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
Experiment scenario
• Testbed configuration
R
Sample MPEG file specification
MPEG video stream
HA
File size
Playing out
Duration
1.2 Mbytes
Frame rate
30 fps
Avg. bit rate
214 Kbps
Containing
Frames
102 I, 404 P, 1010 B
Non-diffserv router
Background
traffic
FA
* Total
1516 frames
48 sec
Background traffic pattern
Priority-aware
MPEG server
8500000
8000000
Priority-based scheduling on/off
7500000
(bps)
7000000
Wireless
subnet 1
Wireless
subnet 2
6500000
6000000
MH
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
**
The bandwidth limit in the WaveLAN II
wireless link: 5.07 Mbps
10
NV-2003
(sec)
Related Work (cont’d)
• Experimental results
– Number of the received packets (at client) containing
either MPEG header or I-frame (Class 1, 2)
• Each packet size: 1024 bytes
• Total number of Class 1 or 2 packets: 151
• Number of the received packets: 151 (the proposed
mechanism), 121 (FIFO scheduling)
– Transfer rate variation of the MPEG video stream
FIFO scheduling
priority-based CBQ scheduling
200000
180000
(bps)
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
(sec)
• Transfer rate is more independent on the amount of the background traffic
( ) Class 1, 2 packets are served by the priority-based scheduling
11
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
• Experimental results (cont’d)
– PSNR value distribution
Number of frames
FIFO scheduling
Priority-based CBQ scheduling
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
78
PSNR (dB)
• Amount of the received traffic:
824 Kbytes (FIFO), 852 Kbytes (CBQ) out of total 1.2 Mbytes
• Number of frames  20 dB: 919 (FIFO), 775 (CBQ)
Out of total
1440
• Number of frames with 78 dB: 151 (FIFO), 192 (CBQ)
• 78 dB: same quality with the original image
•  20 dB: impossible to be recognized by human eyes
12
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
• 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
13
NV-2003
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
14
NV-2003
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
15
NV-2003
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
16
NV-2003
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
17
NV-2003
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
18
NV-2003
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
19
NV-2003
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
20
NV-2003
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
21
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
ORP Process
I.
II.
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
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
22
BS_C sends IGMP group report message
to its gateway router
BS_C joins into the existing multicast
RSVP session
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
ORP Process
I.
II.
III.
IV.
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
CRP
inform
CRP
inform
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
23
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
NV-2003
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)
24
NV-2003
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
25
NV-2003
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
26
NV-2003
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
27
Client
Handoff Detection
Module
MPEG-1 Video
Playback Module
CORP Adaptation
Module
MPEG-1 Traffic
Receiver Module
TCP/UDP
Mobile IP
Wireless Link
NV-2003
System Design (cont’d)
• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP before
Handoff
Video
Server
BS1
Service Request
BS
2
Client
Service Request
Service Request
Ack
RSVP path
Service Request Ack
RSVP resv
PRP establishment
MPEG-1 traffic
MPEG-1 traffic
Client
Handoffs
(BS1BS2)
28
NV-2003
System Design (cont’d)
• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP after
Handoff
Video
Server
BS1
BS
2
CRP Activate
Client
CRP Activate
Request
Client
handoff
s
(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
29
MPEG-1
traffic
NV-2003
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
30
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
NV-2003
•
Experiments
Experiment Scenarios
–
–
–
–
–
•
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
31
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
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• 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)
32
* 150KBps bandwidth reserved
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• 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
33
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• 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)
34
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• 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)
35
NV-2003
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
36
NV-2003
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.
37
NV-2003
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.
38
NV-2003
Selective Establishment of Pseudo
Reservations (SEP) for QoS Guarantees
in Mobile Internet
Kyounghee Lee and Myungchul Kim
{leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr
39
NV-2003
Introduction

Mobile Internet environments
•
•
Frequent traffic path redirection due to host mobility
Poor communication characteristics
-

General multimedia data characteristics
•
•

Higher error rate, lower bandwidth, etc.
Intolerant to delay and jitter variance
Error-sensitive
Effects on multimedia steaming in mobile Internet
•
Latency and packet loss due to handoff
Entrance toward the congested network  delay & error
increment
 Significant QoS degradation
•
40
NV-2003
Introduction (cont’d)

QoS guarantees in wired Internet
•
Resource reservation
-
•
Class-based packet scheduling
-

Focus on per-flow QoS (for the access networks)
Resource Reservation Setup Protocol (RSVP) [1]
Focus on QoS for flow aggregates (for the core networks)
Differentiated service (DiffServ) [23], Multi-protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) [24]
Mobility issues with RSVP
•
RSVP signal messages invisibility problem
-
•
Due to tunneling (packet encapsulation) between HA and FA
Reservation path invalidation
41
NV-2003
Introduction (cont’d)

Conventional approaches on RSVP with mobility support
•
•

Suffer from excessive reservation requirements due to
establishment of multiple advance reservations at all adjacent
BSs [4, 5, 8, 10, 11]
Require considerable functional modifications in the existing
Internet protocols and components [6, 7, 9]
Our goals
•
•
•
Supports seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet 
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) with mobility support
Addresses the excessive advance reservation requirements
Demands minimal changes in the current Internet environments
42
NV-2003
Related Work

RSVP tunneling [3]
•
•

Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [4, 5]
•
•

Packet re-structuring at mobile agents
RSVP signal message invisibility (O), RSVP path invalidation (X)
Passive reservations at all neighboring cells along a multicast tree
 passive reservation functions on all routers in the network
MH is required to have prior knowledge of its mobility
MRSVP extensions
•
Mahadevan’s approach [8]
-
43
Passive reservations are established between BSs
Reservation path extension  infinite extension problem
Passive reservation functions should be equipped on all gateway
routers
NV-2003
Related Work (cont’d)
 MRSVP extensions (cont’d)
• Hierarchical MRSVP [9]
- Solution for the excessive advance reservations
- Passive reservation is established only for an inter-domain handoff
- Considerable modifications on the existing Internet (RSVP tunneling &
mobile IP regional registration [12])
 Chen’s approach [7]
• Predictive reservation & temporary reservation
 Paskalis’ approach [6]
• Single contact IP address for a MH by dynamically translating between
Local Care-of-Address (LCoA) and Domain CoA (DCoA)
• Method only for the access networks
 Low latency handoff support with Layer 2 (L2) functionality
• Fast handoff mechanism [13] and Proactive handoff [14]
44
NV-2003
Proposed Mechanism

Selective Establishment of Pseudo Reservations (SEP)
•
Pseudo reservation
-
•
SEP advantages
-
-
-
•
Advance reservation in SEP
Established only between two neighboring BSs
Established in the same way as a normal RSVP session
Movement detection scheme using L2 functionality  significant
decrease in the number of required PRPs
Integrates all enhanced features into the leaf BS  fewer functional
and structural changes in the existing network components
Reservation load balancing  efficient resource management (for
future work)
Three major steps in SEP
-
45
Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP) establishment
Concatenation of Reservation path (CRP) process
Optimization for Reservation path (ORP) process
NV-2003
Overall SEP Process
1. PRP establishment
2. Path extension
CH
3. Path optimization
CH
CH
(2)
(1)
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
BS_A
(3)
BS_B
BS_C
BS_A
MH
MH
BS_B
BS_C
MH
: Inactivated Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP)
: Existing RSVP Session (1),
Activated PRP (2),
Optimized Reservation Path
: Traffic forwarding
46
NV-2003
Movement Detection
•
Movement detections in SEP
– Detects a L2 beacon arrival from a neighboring BS
– CRP_initiate message to notify the current BS of the movement
– CRP_inform message to start a PRP establishment process
47
NV-2003
CRP Process before a Handoff
•
When a MH is a sender
CH
CH
3.CRP_inform
4.RSVP path
PRP
5.RSVP resv
BS_A
BS_B
2.CRP_init
BS_C
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
1.L2 beacon
MH
MH
(a)
Reservation path
48
(b)
Inactivated PRP
CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow
NV-2003
CRP Process before a Handoff (cont’d)
•
When a MH is a receiver
CH
CH
3.CRP_inform
4.RSVP path
PRP
5.RSVP resv
BS_A
BS_B
2.CRP_init
BS_C
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
1.L2 beacon
MH
MH
(a)
Reservation path
49
(b)
Inactivated PRP
CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow
NV-2003
CORP-SEP Process after a Handoff
CH
CH
PRP
Activated PRP
1.CRP_activate
BS_A
BS_B
BS_C
(a)
MH
Reservation path & Activated PRP
CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow
50
BS_A
BS_B
(b)
BS_C
MH
Inactivated PRP
Traffic forwarding
NV-2003
ORP Process
•
ORP process can be performed
– Unicast address vs. multicast address
•
ORP process using multicast address
CH
CH
CH
Join
Optimized path
Activated PRP
BS_A
BS_B
2.Path
teardown
BS_A
BS_B
BS_A
BS_B
1.CRP_release
MH
(a)
Reservation path & Activated PRP
Traffic forwarding
51
(b)
MH
MH
(c)
CRP-SEP, RSVP & IGMP control flow
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Testbed configuration
CH
HA
R
Wired Subnet A
Wired Subnet B
SEP
RSVP
BS1
CH : Correspondent Host
R : Gateway Router
HA/FA : Home/Foreign Agent
BS : FA + AP
AP : Access Point
RA : Reservation Agent
MH : Mobile Host
: NIC (IEEE 802.3)
: NIC (IEEE 802.11b)
: Hub
: RSVP session
Mobile IP
FA Module
Routing & Traffic
Scheduling module
BS2
Wireless Subnet C
Wireless Subnet D
MH
-
52
OS: FreeBSD 4.2, Linux ker 2.2.12 & 2.2.14
Mobile IP: HUT Dynamics 0.8.1
RSVP: ISI release 4.2a4 with ALTQ 3.0
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Handoff latency in Mobile IP and SEP
(measured & estimated)
L2 beacon
arrives
MIP registration
request
Handoff
completion
Estimated MIP handoff latency
L2 roaming
( 0)
MIP solicitation &
advertising
( 0)
PRP activation
& forwarding
MIP binding
update
( 36)
Time (ms)
0
PRP establishing time
( 22)
53
( 11)
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Average data transmission rates
– 250 kbytes (2000 kbps) reserved
– 250 data packets per sec, each packet 1024 bytes
– Link capacity: 9,300 (wired) vs. 4,700 (wireless) kbps  9000 kbps
background traffic
2400
Average Data Rate (kbps)
2200
Handoff to the congested cell
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
SEP
RSVP
1000
800
Time (100 ms)
54
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Simulation environment
–
–
–
–
–
–
Simulator – NS2.1b9a
7 x 7 mesh model
Communication range of each BS: 250m
Overlapped area size: 150m
L2 beacon interval: 100ms
Host movement: random direction mobility model [21]
(0, 0)
2500
BS00
BS01
BS06
2000
1500
1000
100 150
500
BS60
0
(2600, 2600)
55
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Average PRP requirements
– 0.49 (SEP) vs. 4 (MRSVP, CORP)
– 0.11 (HMRSVP)
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
3000
2500
2000
-0.5
1500
0
0
1000
0.5
500
Number of reachable BSs
3
Simulation time (s)
* The number of reachable BSs is zero when a MH is moving around the border area of the simulation network
56
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Reservation blocking rates
– Probability for a MH to fail to make a new RSVP session
( the amount of the required advance reservations)
Reservation blocking probabilities (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
HMRSVP
SEP
MRSVP, CO RP
5
0
0.1
57
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Reservation requirements (offered load)
0.8
0.9
1
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Reservation session loss rate
– Probability for a MH to lose its reservation path after a handoff
- SEP > HMRSVP (when the offered load is high)
 Insufficient advance reservations in HMRSP
- SEP > MRSVP (when the offered load is low)
 less PRP requirements in SEP
20
18
HMRSVP
SEP
MRSVP
Session loss rates (%)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.1
58
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Reservation requirements (offered load)
0.8
0.9
1
NV-2003
Performance Evaluation
• Reservation session completion rate
Reservation session completion rates (%)
– Probability that a MH can complete a RSVP session without any
reservation blocking or session loss
• SEP outperforms HMRSVP as
- the offered load in the network increases
- the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation
session
100
90
80
70
60
50
HMRSVP(1)
SEP(1)
MRSVP(1)
HMRSVP(5)
SEP(5)
MRSVP(5)
40
30
20
10
0
59
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Reservation requirements (offered load)
0.8
0.9
1
NV-2003
Conclusions & Future Work
 SEP - seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet
• RSVP with mobility support
- pseudo reservation, reservation path extension & optimization
• Movement detection using L2 functionality
- significant decrease in the number of required PRPs
• Fewer functional & structural changes in the existing Internet
components and protocols
• SEP outperforms the conventional approaches in reservation session
loss rate and completion rates especially as
• the offered load in the network increases
• the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation session
• Efficient network resource management
- MH can choose its next BS according to the amount of available resources
in the reachable BSs
 Future Work
• Performance evaluation in SEP due to reservation load balancing
60
NV-2003
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[1]
R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification”, RFC 2205, IETF, Sep. 1997.
[2]
C. E. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support”, RFC 2002 on IETF, Oct. 1996.
[3]
A. Terzis, M. Srivastava, L. Zhang, “A Simple QoS Signaling Protocol for Mobile Hosts in the
Integrated Service Internet”, IEEE Proceedings, Vol. 3, 1999.
[4]
A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for an
Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts”, Tech report TR-337, Rutgers university.
[5]
A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “On Accommodating Mobile Hosts in an
Integrated Services Packet Network”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM), Apr. 1997.
[6]
S. Paskalis, A. Kaloxylos, and E. Zervas, “An efficient QoS Scheme for Mobile Hosts”, 26th
Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Network (LCN 2001), pp. 630-637, 2001.
[7]
W. Chen and L. Huang, “RSVP Mobility Support: A Signaling Protocol for Integrated
Services Internet with Mobile Hosts”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM), Part vol. 3, pp. 1283-1292 Vol 3, 2000.
[8]
I. Mahadevan and K. M. Sivalingam, “Architecture and Experimental Results for Quality of
Service in Mobile Networks using RSVP and CBQ”, ACM Wireless Networks 6, pp. 221-234, Jul.
2000.
[9]
C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: A Hierarchical Mobile RSVP Protocol”,
International Workshop on Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (WNMC2001), Apr. 2001.
[10] K. Lee, M. Kim, S. T. Chanson, C. Yu, J. Lee, “CORP- A Method of Concatenation and
Optimization for Resource Reservation Path in Mobile Internet”, IEICE Transactions on
Communications, pp. 479 – 489, Vol. E86-B, No. 2, Feb. 2003.
61
NV-2003
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[11] M. Lee, K. Lee, T. C. Thang, N. N. Thanh, M. Kim, Y. Ro, J. Lee, “MPEG Streaming over
Mobile Internet”, IS&T/SPIE’s 14th Annual Symposium, Electronic Imaging 2002, Jan. 2002.
[12] E. Gustafsson, A. Jonson, C. E. Perkins, “Mobile IP Regional Registration”, Internet Draft on
IETF, Oct. 2002.
[13] K. E. Malki, P. R. Calhoun, T. Hiller, J. Kempf, P. J. McCann, A. Singh, H. Soliman, S.
Thalanany, “Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4”, Internet Draft on IETF, Jun. 2002.
[14] P. Calhoun, “FA Assisted Hand-off”, Internet Draft on IETF, Mar. 2000.
[15] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2”, RFC 2236 on IETF, Nov. 1997.
[16] “WaveLAN”, http://www.agere.com/client/wlan.html
[17] “ALTQ: Alternate Queueing”, http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/kjc/software.html
[18] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP”, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics
[19] “RSVP Code rel4.2a3”, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/rsvp/release/
[20] “MGEN: The Multi-Generator Tool”, http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN/
[21] T. Camp, J. Boleng, V. Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research”,
Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol.2, no.5, 2002.
[22] “The Network simulator – NS-2”, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
[23]
S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss, “An Architecture for
Differentiated Services”, RFC 2475 on IETF, Dec. 1998.
[24] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, “Multi-protocol Label Switching Architecture”, RFC
3031 on IETF, Jan. 2001.
62
NV-2003