Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 7, pp 7977–8000 | Cite as

Analysis of YouTube’s traffic adaptation to dynamic environments

  • Javier Añorga
  • Saioa Arrizabalaga
  • Beatriz Sedano
  • Jon Goya
  • Maykel Alonso-Arce
  • Jaizki Mendizabal


The popular Internet service, YouTube, has adopted by default the HyperText Markup Language version 5 (HTML5). With this adoption, YouTube has moved to Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) as Adaptive BitRate (ABR) video streaming technology. Furthermore, rate adaptation in DASH is solely receiver-driven. This issue motivates this work to make a deep analysis of YouTube’s particular DASH implementation. Firstly, this article provides a state of the art about DASH and adaptive streaming technology, and also YouTube traffic characterization related work. Secondly, this paper describes a new methodology and test-bed for YouTube’s DASH implementation traffic characterization and performance measurement. This methodology and test-bed do not make use of proxies and, moreover, they are able to cope with YouTube traffic redirections. Finally, a set of experimental results are provided, involving a dataset of 310 YouTube’s videos. The depicted results show a YouTube’s traffic pattern characterization and a discussion about allowed download bandwidth, YouTube’s consumed bitrate and quality of the video. Moreover, the obtained results are cross-validated with the analysis of HTTP requests performed by YouTube’s video player. The outcomes of this article are applicable in the field of Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) management. This is valuable information for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), because QoS management based on assured download bandwidth can be used in order to provide a target end-user’s QoE when YouTube service is being consumed.


YouTube Dash Streaming Bandwidth Video quality 


  1. 1.
    Akhshabi S, Begen AC, Dovrolis C (2011) An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems, In, pp 157–168Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhshabi S, Narayanaswamy S, Begen AC, Dovrolis C (2012) An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptive video players over HTTP. Signal Process Image Commun 27(4):271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alcock S, Nelson R (2011) Application flow control in YouTube video streams. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 41:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexa Corporation The top 500 sites on the web Available: Accessed 2015
  5. 5.
    Ameigeiras P, Ramos-Munoz JJ, Navarro-Ortiz J, Lopez-Soler JM (2012) Analysis and modelling of YouTube traffic. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 23:360–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Añorga J, Arrizabalaga S, Sedano B, Alonso-Arce M, Mendizabal J (2015) YouTube’s DASH implementation analysis. In: 19th International Conference on Circuits, Systems, Communications and Computers, (CSCC 2015), July 16–20, 2015, Zakynthos Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balan DG, Potorac DA (2009) Linux htb queuing discipline implementations. In: first international conference on networked digital Technologies, 2009. NDT'09. Pp. 122-126Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basso S, Servetti A, Masala E, De Martin JC (2014) Measuring DASH streaming performance from the end users perspective using neubot. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM multimedia systems conference, pp. 1-6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casas P, Sackl A, Egger S, Schatz R (2012) YouTube & facebook quality of experience in mobile broadband networks. In: 2012 I.E. Globecom workshops (GC Wkshps), pp. 1269-1274Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casas P, Fiadino P, Sackl A, D'Alconzo A (2014) YouTube in the move: understanding the performance of YouTube in cellular networks. In: wireless days (WD), 2014 IFIP, pp. 1-6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casas P, D'Alconzo A, Fiadino P, Bar A, Finamore A, Zseby T (2014) When YouTube does not work—analysis of QoE-relevant degradation in Google CDN traffic. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag 11:441–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen L, Tesng H, Liao I (2015) Information and communication technology trend analysis using YouTube video based on latent Dirichlet allocation model. In: recent researches in applied informatics, pp. 158-166, SalernoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen Y, Wu K, Zhang Q (2015) "from QoS to QoE: a tutorial on video quality assessment," communications surveys & tutorials. IEEE 17:1126–1165Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Enache A, Boiangiu C (2013) Adaptive video streaming using residue hypercubes. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on circuits, systems, Electronics, Control & Signal Processing (CSECS'13), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 173-179, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finamore A, Mellia M, Munafò MM, Torres R, Rao SG (2011) YouTube everywhere: impact of device and infrastructure synergies on user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement conference, pp. 345-360Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Google YouTube, Engineering and Developers Blog: YouTube now defaults to HTML5. Available: Accessed 2016
  17. 17.
    Hoßfeld T, Egger S, Schatz R, Fiedler M, Masuch K, Lorentzen C (2012) Initial delay vs. interruptions: between the devil and the deep blue sea. In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp. 1-6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ito MS, Antonello R, Sadok D, Fernandes S (2014) Network level characterization of adaptive streaming over HTTP applications. In: 2014 I.E. symposium on computers and communication (ISCC), pp. 1-7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ITTF (2014) Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH). Tech Rep ISO/IEC 23009Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelley S (n.d.) Dnsmasq - network services for small networks. Available: Accessed 2015
  21. 21.
    Krishnappa DK, Bhat D, Zink M (2013) DASHing YouTube: an analysis of using DASH in YouTube video service. In: 2013 IEEE. In: 38th conference on local Computer networks (LCN), pp, pp 407–415Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lederer S, Müller C, Timmerer C (2012) Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset. In: Proceedings of the 3rd multimedia systems conference, pp. 89-94Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu C, Bouazizi I, Gabbouj M (2011) Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems, In, pp 169–174Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Li F, Guo L, Shen B, Chen S (2013) A comparative study of android and iOS for accessing internet streaming services. In Passive and Active Measurement, pp. 104-114, 2013Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mok RK, Chan EW, Chang RK (2011) Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In: 2011 IFIP/IEEE international symposium on integrated network management (IM), pp. 485-492Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Müller C, Lederer S, Timmerer C (2012) An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on mobile video, pp. 37-42Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plissonneau L, Biersack E, Juluri P (2012) Analyzing the impact of YouTube delivery policies on user experience. In Proceedings of the 24th international Teletraffic congress, pp. 28Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sieber C, Heegaard P, Hoßfeld T, Kellerer W (2016) Sacrificing efficiency for quality of experience: YouTube’s redundant traffic behavior. In: the IFIP NETWORKING 2016 conference (NETWORKING 2016), pp. 503, may, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sodagar I (2011) The mpeg-dash standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE Multimedia 18:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Timmerer C, Müller C (2010) HTTP streaming of MPEG media. Streaming DayGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Torres R, Finamore A, Kim JR, Mellia M, Munafo MM, Rao S (2011) Dissecting video server selection strategies in the youtube cdn. In: 2011 31st international conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS), pp. 248-257Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wamser F, Casas P, Seufert M, Moldovan C, Tran-Gia P, Hossfeld T (2016) Modeling the YouTube stack: from packets to quality of experience. Computer NetworksGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yetgin Z, Utku S, Seyyedrahmani Z (2015) Playing rate adaptation for increased QoE over streaming services. In: recent researches in applied Computer science, pp. 75-82, KonyaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    YouTube. YouTube player API reference for iframe Embeds | YouTube IFrame player API | Google Developers Available: Accessed 2016
  35. 35.
    YouTube. Search: list | YouTube Data API | Google Developers Available:;. Accessed 2016
  36. 36.
    Zink M, Suh K, Gu Y, Kurose J (2009) Characteristics of YouTube network traffic at a campus network–measurements, models, and implications. Comput Netw 53:501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ceit and Tecnun (University of Navarra)San SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations