1 / 19

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network . EE368C Project Presentation Sangeun Han, Athina Markopoulou 3/6/01. Project Proposal. Problem: Video transmission over the heterogeneous Internet Facts:

axl
Download Presentation

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network

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. Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network EE368C Project Presentation Sangeun Han, Athina Markopoulou 3/6/01

  2. Project Proposal • Problem: • Video transmission over the heterogeneous Internet • Facts: • Scalability: different parts of a video stream contribute unequally to the quality. • DiffServ Networks can provide service differentiation, based on the marking of packets. • Proposal • Limit the effect of loss when it happens. Prioritize information according to importance and drop packets accordingly.

  3. conditioning classification AF11 Specifics • What type of scalability? H.263+, SNR • Which DiffServ class? AF (priority dropping) EI EP EP EP EL BL I P P P

  4. Simulation scenario Main stream: Foreman (10fps) 136Kbps, BL+EL, 2min 10-20 Interfering Streams BL+EL~=136Kbps random parts of 6 different streams Single AF queue, 2 levels, 100KB 1.5Mbps H.263+ Encoder + Layering RTP Packet. for H.263 (*) Depackt. Decoding+ [Error Conceal.] (**) Marker Loss info (*) Mode A: at frame level, Total header= IP(20)+UDP(8)+RTP(12)+H.263(4)=44B Original Stream (**) Freezing previous frame

  5. Objective of the Project • Show the benefit from using Priority Dropping for Scalable Video • MUX gain • Graceful Quality Degradation • Handle short term congestion • Configuration • AF queue: • buffer management, thresholds, other parameters • Layering parameters • base layer, temporal dependence • Recommendation • To Feedback or to Drop?

  6. MUX gain Layered+PD Nonlayered

  7. FGS + data loss Graceful degradation with loss NL, no loss Layered+loss Non Layered + loss

  8. Rate Congestion EL BL time R Reaction with no delay D=0 time D D Reaction with Delay D>0 time Short Term Congestion • The source may react to congestion by adapting its transmission rate...

  9. Reaction time vs.congestion duration • Simple example: • 10 streams + 5 more in [55sec,65sec] • 10 streams react by dropping their EL in [55+D, 65+D]

  10. Heavier congestion • Heavy + non adaptive interfering traffic: • 10 streams + 10 more in [55sec,65sec] • 10 streams react by dropping their EL in [55+D, 65+D]

  11. Rate Congestion R(t) EL BL time Priority dropping vs Feedback • Feedback • is limited by delay • saves network resources • requires coordination • Priority Dropping • is like reaction in D=0, by appropriate rate decrease • may handle non adaptive sources

  12. BL - low drop precedence EL - high drop precedence Drop prob High drop Low drop 1 0 Buffer occupancy L_min L_max H_min,max Configuration of AF queue • Choices: • Thresholds for the different priorities • Buffer management: RED or DropTail? • Observations: • Not sensitive to choice of thresholds • RED inappropriate: do not use Avg Qsize, set Lmin=Lmax • Differentiation: (I) different thresholds (II) Occupancy

  13. RED worse than DropTail For all loads…. and …for all thresholds

  14. Threshold for EL(HP) • By assigning the buffer thresholds • we control the Queue Occupancy for BL, EL Threshold_HDP = 56 Threshold_HDP = 16

  15. Threshold for EL(LP) • …this way we distribute the loss among BL and EL • ….and thus the quality • Insensitive to: • RED, DropTail • BL choice • [more sensitive to load]

  16. QP(BL)=12, 1:1, (BL=64kbps:EL=74kbps) QP(BL)=15, 1:2, (BL=50kbps:EL=86kbps) QP(BL)=30, 1:4, (BL=27kbps:EL=110kbps) Same target rate: BL+EL~=136kbps Effect of BL (I): on quality degradation

  17. QP(BL)=12, 1:1, (BL=64kbps:EL=74kbps) QP(BL)=15, 1:2, (BL=50kbps:EL=86kbps) QP(BL)=30, 1:4, (BL=27kbps:EL=110kbps) Same target rate: BL+EL~=136kbps Effect of BL (II): on thresholds

  18. Transmission of Scalable Video • Use feedback + adaptation at the source to match the transmission rate with the bottleneck bandwidth, to save network resources along the path • Use Priority Dropping to handle short term congestion Quality Feedback BL2 BL1 PD Rate loss

  19. Future work • Improvements needed • realistic feedback + adaptation • >2 layers • finish FGS • New experiments needed • Delay aspect: • Loss at the playback buffer • Entire streams having different delay requirements • Multiple hops • Single wireless hop (802.11 + QoS) • Video + Data • Larger Bandwidths • Other types of scalability: FGS, Temporal, Spatial, DP

More Related