Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 13, Issue 3–4, pp 366–384 | Cite as

QoS Support for Multi-user Sessions in IP-based Next Generation Networks

  • Eduardo Cerqueira
  • Luis Veloso
  • Augusto Neto
  • Marilia Curado
  • Edmundo Monteiro
  • Paulo Mendes


A combined control of multimedia quality level, mobility and allocation of network resources is essential for the success of next generation mobile networks. In this context, this article presents the Multi-user Session Control (MUSC) solution to control the quality level of multimedia sessions shared by multiple-users, providing Quality of Service (QoS) mapping and QoS adaptation for those sessions over heterogeneous and mobile networks. MUSC uses the self-organized principle to coordinate QoS mapping and QoS adaptation mechanisms with mobility and resource allocation controllers, allowing the adaptation of a session to the current network conditions and the dynamic selection of the suitable network service class to map the session. MUSC minimizes the blocking probability, optimizes the usage of network resources and keeps sessions with an acceptable quality of experience. MUSC was evaluated in a simulation and in an experimental environment to analyze its convergence time, percentage of session blocking as well as delay, throughput, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Mean Option Scores (MOS) and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) of sessions in QoS-aware mobile scenarios.


multi-user session quality of service mobility heterogeneous networks 



This work was done at the Laboratory of Communications and Telematics of the Faculty of Science and Technology of the University of Coimbra. It is supported by DoCoMo Euro-labs, by the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and High Education, and by European Union FEDER—POSI (projects Q3M and SAPRA).


  1. 1.
    Shanableh T, Ghanabari M (2005) Multilayer transcoding with format portability for multicasting of single-layered video. IEEE Trans Multimedia 7, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babiarz J,Chan K, Baker F (2006) Configuration guidelines for DiffServ service classes. IETF RFC 4594, AugustGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson D, Perkins C, Arkko J (2004) Mobility Support in IPv6. IETF RFC 3775, JuneGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg J et al (2002) SIP: Session initiation protocol. IETF RFC 3261, JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou L, Sun Y (2006) An analysis of multicast support for mobile hosts using mobile IPv6. In: Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Wuhan, China, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerqueira E et al (2007) QoS Mapping and adaptation in next generation networks. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshop, Hiroshima, Japan, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cerqueira E et al (2007) QoS mapping and adaptation control for multi-user sessions over heterogeneous wireless networks. In: Proceedings of ACM International Mobile Multimedia Communications Conference, Nafpaktos, Greece, AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mammeri Z (2005) Approach for end-to-end QoS mapping and handling. In: Proceedings of IEEE/IFIP Wireless and Optical Communications Networks, Dubai, UAE, MarchGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben Ali R et al (2005) UMTS-to-IP QoS mapping for voice and video telephony service. IEEE Netw 19:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen J et al (2005) An integrated QoS control architecture for IEEE 802.16 broadband wireless access systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Gendy M et al (2004) Paving the first mile for QoS-dependent applications and appliances. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on QoS, Montreal, Canada, JuneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruy M et al (2006) QoS class mapping over heterogeneous networks using Application Service Map. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Networking, International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies, Washington, USA, AprilGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schantz R et al (2006) Controlling quality-of-service in distributed real-time and embedded systems via adaptive middleware: experiences with auto-adaptive and reconfigurable systems. Softw Pract Exp 36:1189–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rajan G et al (2006) Policy based QoS architecture in MUSE. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, Barcelona, Spain, AprilGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johansen S, Kim A, Perkis A (2007) Quality incentive assisted congestion control for receiver-driven multicast. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, Glasgow, UK, JuneGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim J et al (2006) Efficient video transcoding technique for QoS-based home gateway service. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 52(1):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhu P, Zeng W, Li C (2007) Joint design of source rate control and QoS-aware congestion control for video streaming over the internet. IEEE Trans Multimedia 9(2):366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cerqueira E et al (2006) A unifying architecture for publish-subscribe services in the next generation IP networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, San Francisco, USA, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cerqueira E et al (2007) Q3M: QoS architecture for multi-user mobile multimedia sessions in 4G systems. In: Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE International Conference on Management of Multimedia and Mobile Networks and Service, San Jose, USA, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cerqueira E et al (2006) Multi-user session control in the next generation wireless system. In: Proceedings of ACM International Workshop on Mobility Management and Wireless Access, Torremolinos, Spain, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hancook R et al (2005) Next step in signaling (NSIS): framework. IETF RFC 4080, JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ash J et al (2008) QoS NSLP QSPEC template. IETF internet draft, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Handley M, Jacobson V, Perkins C (2006) SDP: session description protocol. IETF RFC 4566, JulyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhattacharyya S (2003) An overview of source-specific multicast (SSM). IETF RFC 3569, JulyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moy J (1998) OSPF version 2. IETF RFC 2328, AprilGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rekhter Y, Li T, Hare S (2006) A border gateway protocol 4 (BGP-4). IETF RFC 4271, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Veloso L et al (2007) Seamless mobility of users for media distribution services. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference, New Orleans, USA, AprilGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chaskar H (2003) Requirements of a Quality of Service (QoS) Solution for Mobile IP. IETF RFC 3583, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veloso L et al (2007) Seamless Mobility of Users with QoS and Connectivity Support. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, New York, USA, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neto A et al (2008) An integrated approach to control the quality level of multi-user sessions. In: Proceedings of ACM International Workshop on the Evaluation of Quality of Service through Simulation in the Future Internet, Marseille, France, MarchGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neto A et al (2007) A resource reservation protocol supporting QoS-aware multicast trees for next generation networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, Aveiro, Portugal, JulyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ash J et al (2008) QoS NSLP QSPEC template. IETF internet draft, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendes P, Andres-Colas J, Pinho C (2005) Information model for the specification of QoS agreements among ambient networks. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, Berlin, Germany, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen X et al (2006) Supporting QoS in IEEE 802.11e Wireless LANs. IEEE Trans Wireless Commun 5(8):2217–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mendes P, Schulzrinne H, Monteiro E (2004) How to increase the efficiency of receiver-driven adaptive mechanisms in a next generation of IP networks. Comput Commun 27:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang X, Schulzrinne H (2001) Pricing network resources for adaptive applications in a differentiated services network. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference in Computer Communications, Anchorage, USA, AprilGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sanda T et al (2008) Applicability statement of NSIS protocols in mobile environments. IETF internet draft, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Di Z, Mouftah H (2001) Performance evaluation of per-hop forwarding behaviours in the DiffServ Internet. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, Antibes-Juan les Pins, France, JulyGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rose K, Regunathan S (2001) Toward optimality in scalable predictive coding. IEEE Trans Image Process 7:965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Video Traces Research Group (2007) YUV 4:2:0 video sequences. Arizona State University, September. Available at:
  41. 41.
    Ke C et al (2006) A novel realistic simulation tool for video transmission over wireless network. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing, Taichung, Taiwan, JuneGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kimura J et al (1999) Perceived quality and bandwidth characterization of layered MPEG-2 video coding. In: Proceedings of SPIE International Symposium, USA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-10 (2000) Methodology for subjective assessment of the quality of television picture.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    ANSI T1.801.03-1996 (1996) Digital transport of one-way video signals—parameters for objective performance assessmentGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISO-IEC/JTC1/SC297WG11 (1996) Evaluation methods and procedures for July MPEG-4 testsGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang Z et al (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gvozden G, Gosta M, Grgic S (2007) Comparison of H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 ASP coding techniques designed for mobile applications using objective quality assessment methods. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium ELMAR-2007 focused on Mobile Multimedia, Zadar, Croatia, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vatolin D, Moskvin A, Petrov O (2008) MSU video quality measurement tool 1.52. Available at:, accessed in March

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo Cerqueira
    • 1
  • Luis Veloso
    • 1
  • Augusto Neto
    • 1
  • Marilia Curado
    • 1
  • Edmundo Monteiro
    • 1
  • Paulo Mendes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Informatics EngineeringUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.INESC PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations