Advertisement

Abstract

In this paper, we present an analysis of the impact of using media–dependent Forward Error Correction (FEC) in VoIP flows over the Internet. This error correction mechanism consists of piggy-backing a compressed copy of the contents of packet n in packet n+i (i being variable), so as to mitigate the effect of network losses on the quality of the conversation. To evaluate the impact of this technique on the perceived quality, we propose a simple network model, and study different scenarios to see how the increase in load produced by FEC affects the network state. We then use a pseudo–subjective quality evaluation tool that we have recently developed in order to assess the effects of FEC and the affected network conditions on the quality as perceived by the end–user.

Keywords

Packet Loss Packet Size Forward Error Correction Packet Loss Rate Network Load 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Claypool, M., Tanner, J.: The effects of jitter on the perceptual quality of video. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia Conference (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohamed, S., Cervantes, F., Afifi, H.: Integrating networks measurements and speech quality subjective scores for control purposes. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2001, Anchorage, AK, USA, pp. 641–649 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohamed, S., Rubino, G.: A study of real–time packet video quality using random neural networks. IEEE Transactions On Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 12, 1071–1083 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohamed, S., Rubino, G., Varela, M.: Performance evaluation of real-time speech through a packet network: a random neural networks-based approach. Performance Evaluation 57, 141–162 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU-T Recommendation P.800: (Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beerends, J., Stemerdink, J.: A perceptual speech quality measure based on a psychoacoustic sound representation. Journal of Audio Eng. Soc. 42, 115–123 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Voran, S.: Estimation of perceived speech quality using measuring normalizing blocks. In: IEEEWorkshop on Speech Coding For Telecommunications Proceeding, Pocono Manor, PA, USA, pp. 83–84 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ITU-T Recommendation G.107: (The E-model, a computational model for use in transmission planning) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang, W.: Enhanced Modified Bark Spectral Distortion (EMBSD): an Objective Speech Quality Measrure Based on Audible Distortion and Cognition Model. PhD thesis, Temple University Graduate Board (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rix, A.: Advances in objective quality assessment of speech over analogue and packet-based networks. In: The IEEE Data Compression Colloquium, London, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beerends, J.: Improvement of the p.861 perceptual speech quality measure. ITU-T SG12 COM-34E (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, T.A.: Objective speech quality measures for Internet telephony. In: Voice over IP (VoIP) Technology, Proceedings of SPIE, Denver, CO, USA, vol. 4522, pp. 128–136 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    London, U.C.: Robust Audio Tool website, http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/rat/index.html
  14. 14.
    IETF Network Working Group: RTP payload for redundant audio data, RFC 2198 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolot, J.C., Fosse-Parisis, S., Towsley, D.: Adaptive FEC–based error control for Internet telephony. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM 1999, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1453–1460 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman, E., Barakat, C., Ramos R., V.M.: On the utility of FEC mechanisms for audio applications. In: Smirnov, M., Crowcroft, J., Roberts, J., Boavida, F. (eds.) QofIS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2156, p. 45. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altman, E., Barakat, C., R., V.M.R.: Queueing analysis of simple FEC schemes for IP telephony. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM 2001, pp. 796–804 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yajnik, M., Moon, S., Kurose, J., Towsley, D.: Measurement and modeling of the temporal dependence in packet loss. In: Proccedings of IEEE INFOCOM 1999, pp. 345–352 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hands, D., Wilkins, M.: A study of the impact of network loss and burst size on video streaming quality and acceptability. In: Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services Workshop (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fomenkov, M., Keys, K., Moore, D., Claffy, K.: Longitudinal study of Internet traffic in 1998-2003, CAIDA, San Diego Super Computing Center, University of California San Diego (2003), http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2003/nlanr/nlanroverview.pdf
  21. 21.
    Fraleigh, C., Moon, S., Lyles, B., Cotton, C., Kahn, M., Moll, D., Rockell, R., Seely, T., Diot, C.: Packet-level traffic measurements from the sprint ip backbone. IEEE Network 17, 6–17 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Various Authors: Discussion on the e2e mailing list: Queue size for routers?, http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-January/002643.html
  23. 23.
    Claffy, K., Miller, G., Thompson, K.: The nature of the beast: Recent traffic measurements from an Internet backbone. In: INET 1998, Geneva, Switzerland (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerardo Rubino
    • 1
  • Martín Varela
    • 1
  1. 1.Irisa – INRIA/RennesCampus universitaire de BeaulieuRennes CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations