1 / 19

Receiver Capability Heterogeneity in the Internet

Receiver Capability Heterogeneity in the Internet. Agenda. Introduction Some proposed approaches Performance comparison Summary Discussion. Introduction. Evolution of VoD systems Video rental  Video over Internet Unicast  Multicast. 4 data streams. 1 data stream. VS.

amy
Download Presentation

Receiver Capability Heterogeneity in the Internet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Receiver Capability Heterogeneity in the Internet

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Some proposed approaches • Performance comparison • Summary • Discussion

  3. Introduction • Evolution of VoD systems • Video rental  Video over Internet • Unicast  Multicast 4 data streams 1 data stream VS 3 data streams 1 data stream

  4. Introduction • Problem created by receiver capability heterogeneity 1 Mbps 3 Mbps

  5. Introduction • Trivial solutions, we either • 1. leave video stream rate at 3 Mbps  Unable to provide real-time streaming • 2. reduce video stream rate to 1 Mbps  Video quality degradation

  6. Other Approaches • Replicated stream approach • Layering approaches • Cumulative layering approach • Non-cumulative layering approach

  7. Replicated Stream Approach • Aggregate server bandwidth: 4 Mbps Group of clients (CA) – downlink: 1 Mbps Sender Group of clients (CB) – downlink: 3 Mbps Full quality stream (3 Mbps) Low quality stream (1 Mbps)

  8. Layering Approaches • Cumulative layering • Base layer + enhancement layers • Cumulative decoding • E.g. MPEG-2 and H.263 standards • Spatial scalability, temporal scalability, data partitioning and SNR scalability • Non-cumulative layering • Independently decodable video layers • E.g. Multiple Description Coding (MDC)

  9. Layering Approaches • Aggregate server bandwidth: 3 Mbps Group of clients (CA) – downlink: 1 Mbps Sender Group of clients (CB) – downlink: 3 Mbps Enhancement layer (2 Mbps) Base layer (1 Mbps)

  10. Comparison between the Two Approaches • Common argument: • Stream replication wastes server bandwidth by stream duplication • However, no quantitative and systematic comparison has been given

  11. Some Counterarguments • Kim and Ammar [1] take into account of • Layering overhead • Protocol complexity for fair comparison [1] T. Kim, M. H. Ammar , "A comparison of layering and stream replication video multicast schemes", Proc. NOSSDAV‘ 01, Port Jefferson, NY, June 25-26, 2001.

  12. Layering Overhead • Information theory states: For the same source and same distortion, (1) layered encoding requires at least as much data rate as a non-layered encoding (2) equality requires a strict Markov condition to apply to the source

  13. Layering Overhead • Protocol and packetization overhead • Source of overhead: start codes, GOP information, picture header, macroblock header etc. • More severe at low data rates • According to literature, overhead can be as much as 20% ~ 30%

  14. Layering Overhead - Example • Aggregate server bandwidth: 3 Mbps • Take into account the overhead (e.g. 20%), data rate contributing to video data: • CA  0.83 Mbps • CB 2.5 Mbps Group of clients (CA) – downlink: 1 Mbps Sender Group of clients (CB) – downlink: 3 Mbps Enhancement layer (2 Mbps) Base layer (1 Mbps)

  15. Video Quality Degradation • Layered (2 layers with different quantizer scales) vs non-layered

  16. Protocol Complexity • In layering protocols, number of channel subscriptions >= 1, which incurs • More join / leave group messages • Better synchronization capability

  17. Summary • Three basic approaches to Internet heterogeneity problem • Superiority not always goes to layered multicast protocol

  18. Discussion • Possible applications in multicast VoD systems • Fast-forward (FF) VCR operations • Normal playback resumption after VCR operations

  19. Q & A • Thank you

More Related