A Unicast Rate-Based Protocol for Video Streaming Applications over the Internet

  • G.-A. Lusilao ZodiEmail author
  • T. Ankome
  • J. Mateus
  • L. Iiyambo
  • J. Silaa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 29)


This paper presents a unicast rate-based transport protocol that regulates transmission rate for video streaming over best-effort networks such as the Internet. The protocol runs on top of the Real-time Transport Protocol and relies on the feedbacks reports of its sister protocol Real-time Transport Control Protocol to control congestion. The proposed protocol uses the square increase multiplicative decrease rules to alter its transmission rate and operates in a TCP-friendly way towards TCP flows. In addition, the protocol includes two control criteria: the cumulative jitter and the delay factor to allow incipient congestion detection prior to loss of video packets. With the addition of these criteria, the transmission rate is adjusted in a way that anticipates loss of video packets. Network parameters such as packet loss ratio and Round-Trip Time as well as the TCP-friendly shared throughput are computed at the receiver, and the results sent back to the sender using in the receiver packet report. Upon reception of the feedback information, the sender adjusts the sending rate to match the network’s available capacity. The performance evaluation results using both network related metrics and video quality measurement show a performance improvement in terms of frame loss rate and peak signal to noise ratio, providing the receiver with an image of better visual quality than the classical TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) protocol.


  1. 1.
    Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J.: A comparison of equation based and AIMD congestion control. In: ACIRI, pp. 1–12, May 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobson, V.: Congestion avoidance and control. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 314–329, August 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Floyd, S., Fall, K.: Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE Transactions in Networking, pp. 458–472, May 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sterca, A., Hellwagner, H., Boian, F., Vancea, A.: Media-friendly and TCP-friendly rate control protocols for multimedia streaming. Proc. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 26(8), 1516–1531 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Talaat, M.A., Attiya, G.M., Koutb, M.A.: Enhanced TCP-friendly rate control for supporting video traffic over the Internet. Can. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 36(3), 135–140 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balan, V., Eggert, L., Niccolini, S., Brunner, M.: An experimental evaluation of voice quality over the datagram congestion control protocol. In: Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2007, Anchorage, AK, pp. 2009–2017, May 2007 [DCCP]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ito, D., Niibori, M., Kamada, M.: Real-time web-cast system by multihop WebRTC communications. Int. J. Grid Util. Comput. 9(4), 345–356 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, Y., Mao, S., Midkiff, S.F.: A control-theoretic approach to rate control for streaming videos. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 11(6), 1072–1081 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., Holmer, S., Mascolo, S.: Congestion control for web real-time communication. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 25(5), 2629–2642 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nor, S.A., Hassan, S., Ghazali, O., Omar, M.H.: Enhancing DCCP congestion control mechanism for long delay link. Int. Symp. Telecommun. Technol. 2012, 313–318 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rejaie, R., Handley, M., Estrin, D.: RAP: end to end rate-based congestion control mechanism for real-time streams in the Internet. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1337–1345, March 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lusilao-Zodi, G.A., Dlodlo, M.E., De Jager, G., Ferguson, K.L.: RRB-SIMD: RTP rate-based SIMD protocol for media streaming applications over the Internet. In: Annual Communication Networks and Services Research Conference, pp. 69–76 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouras, C., Gkamas, A., Kiomourtzis, G.: Adaptive smooth multicast protocol for multimedia data transmission. In: International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, pp. 269–276 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sivarajah, J., Armitage, D.W., Allinson, N.M.: New TCP-friendly, rate-based transport protocol for media streaming applications. Proc. IEEE Commun. 151(3), 280–286 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hartanto, F., Sirisena, H.R.: Cumulative Inter-ADU Jitter concept and its application. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, USA, pp. 531–534 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lusilao-Zodi, G.A., Dlodlo, M.E., De Jager, G., Ferguson, K.L.: Round-Trip time estimation in telecommunication networks using composite expanding and fading memory polynomials. In: 15th IEEE Mediterranean Electro-technical Conference (MELECON 2010), pp. 1581–1585, April 2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., Jacobson, V.: RTP: a transport protocol for real-time application. RFC3550, July 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klaue, J., Rathke, B., Wolisz, A.: Evalvid: a framework for video transmission and quality evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 13th International conference on modelling techniques and tools for computer performance evaluation, Illinois, pp. 255–272 (2003) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.-A. Lusilao Zodi
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. Ankome
    • 1
  • J. Mateus
    • 1
  • L. Iiyambo
    • 1
  • J. Silaa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNamibia University of Science and TechnologyWindoekNamibia

Personalised recommendations