Advertisement

Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 783–794 | Cite as

Modeling and comparative analysis of Forward Error Correction in the context of multipath redundancy

  • Rolando HerreroEmail author
Article

Abstract

In recent years mobile devices have shown increased computational power as well as simultaneous access to multiple wireless networks that combined with advanced modulation schemes that make better use of the available bandwidth has resulted in faster transmission rates. These facts are the bases that allow for efficient mechanisms to provide more reliable communications; namely through both, Forward Error Correction and the Multipath Real-Time Protocol. In this paper, a mathematical model that accounts for the playback success of media in the context of Real Time Communications is presented. The analytical model relies on a two-state Markov process that is typical of impaired wireless environments subjected to fading. Moreover, the model is validated through an experimental framework that emulates the different loss, latency and burstiness conditions introduced in the Markov process. Specifically both, theoretical and experimental, probabilities of successful playback are compared and contrasted against media quality scores.

Keywords

RTC Multipath RTP Wireless FEC Markov 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    ITU-T Recommendation P.501. (2009). Test signals for use in telephonometry. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    3GPP: Ts 26.071 : Mandatory speech codec speech processing functions; amr speech codec; general description. Tech. Rep. TS 26.071, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (2008).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    3GPP: Ts 26.190 : Speech codec speech processing functions; adaptive multi-rate - wideband (amr-wb) speech codec; transcoding functions. Tech. Rep. TS 26.190, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (2008).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    3GPP2: C.s0014-a : Enhanced variable rate codec, speech service option 3 for wideband spread spectrum digital systems. Tech. Rep. C.S0014-A, 3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 (2004).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barton, M., Lemberg, H., Sarraf, M., & Hamilton, C. (2010). Performance analysis of packet loss concealment in mobile environments with a two-state loss model. In: Communications Quality and Reliability (CQR), 2010 IEEE International Workshop Technical Committee on (pp. 1–6). doi: 10.1109/CQR.2010.5619908.
  7. 7.
    Chong, H.M., & Matthews, H.S. (2004). Comparative analysis of traditional telephone and voice-over-internet protocol (voip) systems. In: Electronics and the Environment, 2004. Conference Record. 2004 IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 106–111). doi: 10.1109/ISEE.2004.1299697.
  8. 8.
    Chu, W. C. (2003). Speech Coding Algorithms: Foundation and Evolution of Standardized Coders (1st ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ecotronics: Kapanga softphone. http://www.kapanga.net.
  10. 10.
    Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., & Bonaventure, O. (2013). TCP extensions for multipath operation with multiple addresses. RFC 6824, IETF. doi: 10.17487/RFC6824. https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6824.txt. ISSN 2070-1721.
  11. 11.
    Gonia, K. (2004). Latency and QoS for Voice over IP. SANS Institute: Tech. rep.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herrero, R. (2016). Integrating hec with circuit breakers and multipath rtp to improve rtc media quality. Telecommunication Systems (pp. 1–11). doi: 10.1007/s11235-016-0169-z.
  13. 13.
    Herrero, R., & Cadirola, M. (2014). Effect of fec mechanisms in the performance of low bit rate codecs in lossy mobile environments. In: Principles, Systems and Applications of IP Telecommunications, IPTComm ’14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU-T: G.711 : Pulse code modulation (pcm) of voice frequencies. Tech. Rep. G.711, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva (2006).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ITU-T recommendation P.863: Tech. rep., International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, A. (2007). RTP payload format for generic forward error correction. RFC 5109 (Proposed Standard).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsuzono, K., Detchart, J., Cunche, M., Roca, V., & Asaeda, H. (2010). Performance analysis of a high-performance real-time application with several al-fec schemes. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 35th Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN ’10 (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ribadeneira, A.F. (2007). An analysis of the MOS under conditions of delay, jitter and packet loss and an analysis of the impact of introducing piggybacking and Reed Solomon FEC for VOIP. Master’s thesis, Georgia State University, USA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., & Schooler, E. (2002). SIP: Session initiation protocol. RFC 3261 (Proposed Standard) (2002). Updated by RFCs 3265, 3853, 4320, 4916, 5393, 5621, 5626, 5630, 5922, 5954, 6026, 6141, 6665.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stewart, R. (2007). Stream control transmission protocol. RFC 4960 (Internet Standard).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salami, R., Laflamme, C., Bessette, B., & Adoul, J. (1997). Description of itu-t recommendation g.729 annex a: Reduced complexity 8 kbit/s cs-acelp codec. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP ’97)-Volume 2, ICASSP ’97 (pp. 775). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh, V. (2015). Multipath RTP (MPRTP). Internet-Draft draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-10, IETF Secretariat.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh, V., Ahsan, S., & Ott, J. (2013). MPRTP: Multipath considerations for real-time media. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, MMSys ’13 (pp. 190–201). ACM, New York, NY. doi: 10.1145/2483977.2484002.
  24. 24.
    Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., & Xie, Q. (2007). RTP payload format and file storage format for the adaptive multi-rate (AMR) and adaptive multi-rate wideband (AMR-WB) audio Codecs. RFC 4867 (Proposed Standard).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valin, J., Vos, K., & Terriberry, T. (2012). Definition of the Opus Audio Codec. RFC 6716 (Proposed Standard).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xie, Q., & Kapoor, R. (2007). Enhancements to RTP payload formats for EVRC family Codecs. RFC 4867 (Proposed Standard).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations