Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 413–437 | Cite as

Requirement driven prospects for realizing user-centric network orchestration

  • Thomas ZinnerEmail author
  • Tobias Hoßfeld
  • Markus Fiedler
  • Florian Liers
  • Thomas Volkert
  • Rahamatullah Khondoker
  • Raimund Schatz


The Internet’s infrastructure shows severe limitations when an optimal end user experience for multimedia applications should be achieved in a resource-efficiently way. In order to realize truly user-centric networking, an information exchange between applications and networks is required. To this end, network-application interfaces need to be deployed that enable a better mediation of application data through the Internet. For smart multimedia applications and services, the application and the network should directly communicate with each other and exchange information in order to ensure an optimal Quality of Experience (QoE). In this article, we follow a use-case driven approach towards user-centric network orchestration. We derive user, application, and network requirements for three complementary use cases: HD live TV streaming, video-on-demand streaming and user authentication with high security and privacy demands, as typically required for payed multimedia services. We provide practical guidelines for achieving an optimal QoE efficiently in the context of these use cases. Based on these results, we demonstrate how to overcome one of the main limitations of today’s Internet by introducing the major steps required for user-centric network orchestration. Finally, we show conceptual prospects for realizing these steps by discussing a possible implementation with an inter-network architecture based on functional blocks.


Quality of experience User-centric network orchestration Application requirements Network-application interface Service composition 



This work was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany (support code 01BK0917 and 01BK0935, G-Lab) and by the European FP7 Network of Excellence “Euro-NF” through the Specific Joint Research Project “PRUNO”. The authors alone are responsible for the content of the paper.


  1. 1.
    Lakshman TV, Sabnani K, Woo T Softrouter:An open extensible platform for tomorrows internet services, Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hellwagner H, Kofler I, Kuschnig R, Ransburg M (2008) Design options and comparison of in-network h.264/svc adaptation. J Vis Commun Image Represent 19(8):529–542. doi: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2008.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoßfeld T, Binzenhöfer A (2008) Analysis of skype voIP traffic in UMTS: End-to-end qos and urements. Comput Netw 52(3):650–666. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2007.10.008 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liers F, Mitschele-Thiel A, Volkert T (2012) The forwarding on gates architecture: Merging intserv and diffserv. In: Proceedings of international conference on advances in future internet (AFIN), p 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khondoker R, Mueller P, Reuther B, Siddiqui A, Schwerdel D (2010) Describing and selecting communication services in a service oriented network architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ITU-T Kleidoscope: beyond the internet?-innovations for future networks and services. India, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ITU-T Recommendation (2010) H.264: advanced video coding for generic audiovisual servicesGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abboud O, Hohlfeld O, Hoßfeld T, Tran-Gia P, Zinner T (2010) Towards QoE management for scalable video streaming. In: 21th ITC specialist seminar on multimedia applications - traffic, Performance and QoE. MiyazakiGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoßfeld T, Fiedler M, Zinner T (2011) The QoE provisioning-delivery-hysteresis and its importance for service provisioning in the future internet. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference on next generation internet networks (NGI). Kaiserslautern, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayashi T, Yamagishi K (2008) Parametric packet-layer model for monitoring video quality of iptv services. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference communication (ICC 2008), pp 110–114Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brunet D, Vrscay ER, Wang Z (2011) A class of image metrics based on the structural similarity quality index. In: Kamel M, Campilho A C (eds) ICIAR (1) of Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6753. Springer, pp 100–110Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelke U, Kusuma M, Zepernick H-J, Caldera M (2009) Reduced-reference metric design for objective perceptual quality assessment in wireless imaging. Sig Processing-Image Commun, 525–547Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luby M (2002) LT codes. In: 43rd annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoßfeld T, Plissonneau L, Biersack E, Schatz R (2012) Internet video delivery in YouTube: From traffic measurements to quality of experience. In: Ernst Biersack M M, Callegari C (eds) Data traffic monitoring and analysis: from measurement, classification and anomaly detection to quality of experience springers computer communications and networks seriesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoßfeld T, Liers F, Schatz R, Staehle B, Staehle D, Volkert T, Wamser FQuality of experience management for youTube: clouds, foG and the aquareYoum, PIK - Praxis der informationverarbeitung und -kommunikation (PIK)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krishnan SS, Sitaraman RK (2012) Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: Inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on internet measurement conference. ACM, pp 211–224Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egger S, Hoßfeld T, Hoßfeld T, Schatz R (2012) Time is bandwidth? narrowing the gap between subjective time perception and quality of experience. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), Ottawa, p 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorentzen C, Fiedler M, Johnson H, Jorstad I, Shaikh J (2010) On user perception of web login - a study on qoe in the context of security. In: Proceedings of Australasian telecommunication networks and applications conference, Auckland, pp 84–89Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lorentzen C, Fiedler M, Lorentzen P (2011) Decisive factors for quality of experience of openid authentication using eap, Advances in electronics and telecommunications. Spec issue Recent Adv Teletraffic 2(3):79–87Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khondoker R, Mueller P, Veith EM (2011) A description language for communication services of future network architectures In: Proceedings of the international conference on the network of the future, pp 68–75Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G-Lab Special Interest Group Functional Composition (2011) GAPI:A g-lab application-to-network interface. In: Proceedings of 11th Wuerzburg Workshop on IP: Joint ITG and Euro-NF Workshop EuroView2011. WuerzburgGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ganichev I, Godfey PB, Shenker S, Stoica I (2009) Pathlet routing. In: Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2009, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becke M, Mitschele-Thiel A , Osdoba M, Volkert T (2013) Multipath video streaming based on hierarchical routing management. In: Proceedings of 27th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA)IEEE. BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bouabene G, Jelger CS, Keller A, May M, Schmid S, Tschudin CF (2012) The autonomic network architectureGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Braden R, Clark D, Chiappa N, Faber T, Falk A, Katabi D, Handley M, Kulik J, Pingali V, Sollins K, Wroclawski J, Yang X (2003) Newarch: Future generation internet architecture. In: Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin D, Völker L, Zitterbart M (2011) A flexible framework for future internet design, assessment and operation. Comput Netw 55(4):910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Homepage FoGSiEm on GitHub (April 2013).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Zinner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Hoßfeld
    • 1
  • Markus Fiedler
    • 2
  • Florian Liers
    • 3
  • Thomas Volkert
    • 3
  • Rahamatullah Khondoker
    • 4
  • Raimund Schatz
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyDept. of CommunicationKarlskronaSweden
  3. 3.Technical University of IlmenauIlmenauGermany
  4. 4.University of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  5. 5.Telecommunications Research Center Vienna – FTWViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations