Selecting the QoS Parameters for Multicast Applications Based on User Profile and Device Capability

  • Khalil El-Khatib
  • Gregor v. Bochmann
  • Yu Zhong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2158)


Most adaptive multimedia multicast applications require the source to select the number of streams to transmit as well as the QoS parameters for each stream. If the receivers have different bandwidth limits for their devices and have various preferences for the quality of the data, selecting the QoS parameters that generate the best average satisfaction for all receivers is a challenging problem. In this paper, we developed a selection algorithm that is based on the user profiles and the device capabilities. Receivers are required to send their profiles and the bandwidth limitation on their devices to the source once before the session starts. To avoid the implosion problem and have a constant running time for the selection algorithm, we partition the receivers according to the bandwidth limit of their devices into classes and use a virtual representative for each class of receivers.


User Profile Multicast Group Ideal Preference Bandwidth Limit Enhancement Layer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    XU, X. R., Myers, A. C, Zhang, H. and Yavatkar, R., “Resilient multicast support for continuous-media applications,” Proceedings ofNOSSDAV’97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Floyd, V. Jacobson, S. McCanne, C. Liu, and L. Zhang, “A Reliable multicast framework for light-weight sessions and application level framing,” in Proceeding of SIGCOMM, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Grossglausser “Optimal deterministic timeouts for reliable scalable multicast,” IEEE Journal on Selected Area in Communications, vol. 15, no. 3, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Bolot, T. Turletti, and I. Wakeman, “Scalable feedback control for multicast video distribution in the Internet,” in Proc. Of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 58–67, August 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Yavatkar, J. Griffoen, and M. Sudan, “A reliable dissemination protocol for interactive collaborative applications,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Jiang, M. Ammar, E. Zegura, “Inter-Receiver fairness: A Novel performance measure for Multicast ABR sessions,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS’98, Madison, Wisconsin, June 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Jiang, E. Zegura, M. Ammar, “Inter-Receiver Fair Multicast Communication over the Internet,” in Proc. ofNOSSDAV99, June 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli, “Receiver-driven layered multicast,” in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 117–130, August 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Wu, R. Sharma and B. Smith, “Thin streams: An architecture for multicasting layered video,” in Proc. of NOSSDAV’97, St.Louise, Missouri, May 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Yan Cheung, Mostafa H. Ammar, and Xue Li, “On the use of destination set grouping to improve fairness in multicast video distribution,” in Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM’96, March 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brett J. Vickers, Célio Albuquerque and Tatsuya Suda, “Source-adaptive multi-layered multicast algorithms for real-time video distribution,’ in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Assunção and M. Ghanbari, “Multi-Casting of MPEG-2 Video with Multiple Bandwidth Constraints,“ in Proc. of the 7 th Int’l Workshop on Packet Video, pp. 235–238, March 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. v. Bochmann and Z. Yang, “Quality of service management for teleteaching applications using the MPEG-4/DMIF,” in Intern. Workshop on Interactive Distr. Multimedia Systems and Telecom. Services, Toulouse, Oct. 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Elkhatib, G. v. Bochmann, “Selecting communication quality for mobile users based on device capabilities and user preferences,” Technical report. U of Ottawa, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Richards, G. Rogers, V. Witana, and M. Antoniades, “Mapping user level QoS from a single parameter,” in Second IFIP/IEEE International Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and Services, Versailles, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michael J. Donahoo and Sunila R. Ainapure, “Scalable multicast representative member selection”, INFOCOM 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. DeLucia, K. Obraczka, “Multicast feedback suppression using representatives,” in Proceedings of IEEE Infocom’97.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. El-Khatib, X. He, G. v. Bochmann, “Quality of service negotiation based on device capabilities and user preferences,” Technical report. U. of Ottawa, Canada. May 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khalil El-Khatib
    • 1
  • Gregor v. Bochmann
    • 1
  • Yu Zhong
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology & EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations