Differentiated Services Based Priority Dropping and Its Application to Layered Video Streams

  • Markus Fidler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2345)

Abstract

In this paper we report on an implementation and evaluation of Internet priority dropping schemes and their application to layered video transmissions. The incremental decoding of each of the different layers of such an hierarchical video stream leads to an enhancement of the video quality, whereas the absence of a layer renders the receipt of higher layers useless. Thereby the layers have a specific order of precedence, which reflects their importance on the video quality and on the decoding process. We accommodate this hierarchy by mapping the video layers on different traffic classes implemented in a Differentiated Services network. We present a thorough evaluation of these schemes and we demonstrate the performance gain, if different Quality of Service classes for the transmission of the different layers are applied. Further on we address the interaction between non-responsive video flows and responsive streams and show how fairness can be supported by this approach.

References

  1. 1.
    Allman, M., Paxson, V., Stevens, W.: TCP Congestion Control. RFC 2581 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bajaj, S., Breslau, L., Shenker, S.: Uniform versus Priority Dropping for Layered Video. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, M., Wang, Z., Weiss, W.: An architecture for Differentiated Services. RFC 2475 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Côté, G., Erol, B., Gallant, M.: H.263+: Video Coding at Low Bit Rates. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 8, no. 7 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferrari, T., Chimento, P.: A Measurement-based Analysis of Expedited Forwarding PHB Mechanisms. Proceedings of IWQoS (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fidler, M.: Transmission of Layered Video Streams in a Differentiated Services Network. Proceedings of AI PDCN (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floyd, S., Jacobson, V.: Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 1, no. 4 (1993), pp. 397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handley, M., Padhye, J., Floyd, S.: TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification. Internet Draft draft-ietf-tsvwg-tfrc-03.txt (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinanen, J., Finland, D., Baker, F., Weiss, W., Wroclawski, J.: An Assured Forwarding PHB. RFC 2597 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinanen, J., Guerin, R.: A single rate three color marker. RFC 2697 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heinanen, J., Guerin, R.: A two rate three color marker. RFC 2698, (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, V., Nichols, K., Poduri, K.: An Expedited Forwarding PHB. RFC 2598, (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koenen, R. (Editor): Overview of the MPEG-4 Standard. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/ WG11 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurose, J., Ross, K.: Computer Networking-A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet. Addison Wesley (2001) p. 80Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leon, D., Varsa, V.: RTP retransmission framework. Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rtp-selret-03 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCanne, S., Jacobson, V., Vetterli, M.: Receiver-driven Layered Multicast. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDysan, D.: QoS & Traffic Management in IP & ATM. McGraw-Hill (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyazaki, A. et al.: RTP Payload Formats to Enable Multiple Selective Retransmission. Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rtp-selret-03 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polk, J.: RTP Header Extension for Communications Resource Priority. Internet Draft draft-polk-avt-rtpext-res-pri-00 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., Black, D.: The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rejaie, R., Handley, M., Estrin, M.: Quality Adaptation for Congestion Controlled Video Playback over the Internet. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H.: An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction. RFC 2733 (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sander, V., Fidler, M.: Evaluation of a Differentiated Services based Implementation of a Premium and an Olympic Service. Submitted to IWQoS (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., Jacobson, V.: RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications. RFC 1889 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan, W., Zakhor, A.: Video Multicast using Layered FEC and Scalable Compression. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech., vol. 11, no. 3 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teitelbaum, B.: Future Priorities for Internet2 QoS. http://www.internet2.edu/qos/wg/papers/qosFuture01.pdf (2001)
  27. 27.
    Wang, X., Schulzrinne, H.: Comparison of Adaptive Internet Multimedia Applications. IEICE Transactions on Communications June (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Fidler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Computer Science IVRWTH AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations