Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Real Time ML-Based QoE Adaptive Approach in SDN Context for HTTP Video Services

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the high dynamism of network conditions, operators and service providers are facing the challenge of providing satisfactory user experience during a real-time video streaming session where clients are often suffering from frequent interruptions and significant visual quality degradation. Video parameters such as playback quality, rate switching amplitude/frequency, occupancy, overflow/underflow buffer are the main key factors responsible for affecting the user experience’s quality. Recently, adaptive streaming protocols over HTTP have become widely adopted for providing continuous video streaming services to users with their different heterogeneous devices under dynamic network conditions. In this paper, we leverage the emerging paradigm of software defined networking SDN. Our contribution consists in developing some scenarios on SDN helping to adapt video streaming to the network state. The current work proposes to experience ML algorithms in order to predict user QoE over SDN networks. We present an approach that collects MOS score from users under varying network parameters as well as objective parameters such as SSIM, VQM and PSNR. The MOS scores are collected by playing videos to actual users in an SDN environment. We design an architecture which could use the measured MOS values under varying network conditions to predict the expected MOS based on machine learning algorithms. This work provides an outlook of experiments done for demonstration, by describing SDN environment deployment, detailing the realized scenarios and finally giving the results and values. We highlight, at the end of this paper, the perspectives of our proposition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim, W., Sharma, P., Lee, J., Banerjee, S., Tourrilhes, J., Lee, S.-J., et al. (2010). Automated and scalable QoS control for network convergence. In Proceedings of USENIX INM/WREN, San Jose, CA.

  2. Matias, J., Jacob, E., Katti, N., & Astorga, J. (2011). Towards neutrality in access networks: A NANDO deployment with OpenFlow. In Proceedings of IARIA international conference on access networks, Luxembourg.

  3. Yiakoumis, Y., Yap, K.-K., Katti, S., Parulkar, G., & McKeown, N. (2011). Slicing home networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop on HomeNets, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  4. What’s software-defined networking (SDN). https://www.sdxcentral.com/resources/sdn/what-the-definition-of-software-defined-networking-sdn. Accessed Oct 28, 2016.

  5. Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Definition (Online article). https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-resources/sdn-definition. Accessed Oct 28, 2016.

  6. Kaur, K., Singh, J., & Ghumman, N. S. (2014). Mininet as software defined networking testing platform. In International conference on communication, computing & systems, Chennai, India.

  7. Ruckert, J., Blendi, J., & Hausheer, D. (2013). RASP: Using OpenFlow to push overlay streams into the underlay. In Proceedings of 2013 IEEE thirteenth international conference on peer-to-peer computing (P2P), Trento, Italy.

  8. Noghani, K. A., & Sunay, M. O. (2014). Streaming multicast video over software-defined networks. In IEEE 11th international conference on mobile ad hoc and sensor systems (MASS 2014), Philadelphia, PA, USA (pp. 551–556). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MASS.2014.125.

  9. Jarschel, M., Wamser, F., Hohn, T., Zinner, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2013). SDN-based application-aware networking on the example of youtube video streaming. In 2013 Second European workshop on software defined networks (EWSDN 2013), Berlin, Germany (pp. 87–92). http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/EWSDN.2013.21.

  10. Hu, F., Hao, Q., & Bao, K. (2014). A survey on software-defined network and OpenFlow: From concept to implementation. Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16(4), 2181–2206. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2326417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kreutz, D., Ramos, F. M. V., Esteves Verissimo, P., Esteve Rothenberg, C., Azodolmolky, S., & Uhlig, S. (2015). Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103(1), 14–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2014.2371999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta, M., Sommers, J., & Barford, P. (2013). Fast, accurate simulation for SDN prototyping. In 2nd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on hot topics in software defined networking, Hong Kong. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2491185.2491202.

  13. Scott-Hayward, S., O’Callaghan, G., & Sezer, S. (2013). SDN security: A survey. In Proceedings of IEEE SDN for future networks and services (SDN4FNS 2013), Trento, Italy (pp. 1–7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SDN4FNS.2013.6702553.

  14. de Oliveira, R. L. S., Shinoda, A. A., Schweitzer, C. M., & Rodrigues, P. L. (2014). Using mininet for emulation and prototyping software-defined networks. In IEEE Communications and Computing (COLCOM 2014), Bogota, Colombia (pp. 1–6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ColComCon.2014.6860404.

  15. Keti, F., & Askar, S. (2015). Emulation of software defined networks using mininet in different simulation environments. In 6th international conference on IEEE intelligent systems, modelling and simulation (ISMS 2015), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (pp. 205–210). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMS.2015.46.

  16. Azizi, M., Benaini, R., & Ben, Mamoun M. (2015). Delay measurement in OpenFlow-enabled MPLS-TP network. Modern Applied Science. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v9n3p90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Panwaree, P., Kim, J., & Aswakul, C. (2014). Packet delay and loss performance of streaming video over emulated and real OpenFlow networks. In: The 29th international technical conference on circuit/systems computers and communications (ITC-CSCC), Phuket, Thailand.

  18. Megyesi, P., Botta, A., Aceto, G., Pescapè, A., & Molnár, S. (2016). Available bandwidth measurement in software defined networks. In SAC 2016, Pisa, Italy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2851613.2851727.

  19. Lantz, B., Heller, B., & McKeown, N. A. (2010). Network in a laptop: Rapid prototyping for software-defined networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop on hot topoics in networks.

  20. Marcondes, C. A. C., Santos, T. P. C., Godoy, A. P., Viel, C. C., & Teixeira, C. A. C. CastFlow: clean-slate multicast approach using in advance path processing in programmable networks. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE symposium on computers and communications (ISCC), Cappadocia, Turkey (pp. 94–101).

  21. Dobrian, F., Sekar, V., Awan, A., Stoica, I., Joseph, D., Ganjam, A., et al. (2011). Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM.

  22. Paasch, C., Ferlin, S., Alay, O., & Bonaventure, O. (2014). Experimental evaluation of multipath TCP schedulers. In ACM SIGCOMM capacity sharing workshop (CSWS). Chicago, IL: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2630088.2631977.

  23. Allman, M., Eddy, W. M., & Ostermann, S. (2003). Estimating loss rates with TCP. SIGMETRICS, 31, 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blanton, E., & Allman, M. (2005). On the impact of bursting on TCP performance. In PAM (pp. 1–12).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mok, R., Chan, E., & Chang, R. (2011). Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In IFIP (pp. 485–492).

  26. Kim, T., & Ammar, M. (2006). Receiver buffer requirement for video streaming over TCP. In Proceedings of SPIE (pp. 422–431).

  27. Wang, B., Kurose, J., Shenoy, P., & Towsley, D. (2008). Multimedia streaming via TCP: An analytic performance study. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 4(2), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hands D., & Wilkins, M. A. (1999). Study of the impact of network loss and burst size on video streaming quality and acceptability. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 45–57).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Verscheure, O., Frossard, P., & Hamdi, M. (1998). MPEG-2 video services over packet networks: Joint effect of encoding rate. In Proceedings of NOSSDAV.

  30. Huynh-Thu, Q., & Ghanbari, M. (2008). Temporal aspect of perceived quality in mobile video broadcasting. IEEE Transaction on Broadcasting, 54(3), 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huynh-Thu, Q., & Ghanbari, M. (2009). No-reference temporal quality metric for video impaired by frame freezing artefacts. In Proceedings of ICIP.

  32. Wang, Z., et al. (2003). Study streaming video quality: from an application point of view. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM international conference on multimedia, Berkeley, CA, USA, (pp. 327–330).

  33. Myers, M. B. (2000). Predicting and measuring quality of service for mobile multimedia. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international symposium on personal, indoor & mobile radio communication (PIMRC 2000), London, UK (pp. 1032–1036).

  34. Winkler, S., & Dufaux, F. (2003). Video quality evaluation for mobile application. In Proceedings of SPIE/IS&T, visual communication and imaging processing, Lugano, Switzland (Vol. 5150, pp. 593–603).

  35. Masry, M., Hemami, S. S., & Sermadevi, Y. (2006). A scalable wavelet-based video distortion metric and applications. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 16(2), 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, Z., Lu, L., & Bovik, A. C. (2004). Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 19, 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Muller, C., Lederer, S. & Timmerer, C. (2012). An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments. In Workshop on mobile video.

  38. Tian G., & Liu, Y. (2012). Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In International conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies.

  39. Van der Hooft, J., Petrangeli, S., Claeys, M., Famaey, J., & De Turck, F. (2015). A learning-based algorithm for improved bandwidth-awareness of adaptive streaming clients. In 2015 IFIP/IEEE international symposium on integrated network management (IM). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/inm.2015.7140285.

  40. Seufert, M., Egger, S., Slanina, M., Zinner, T., Hobfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2014). A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(1), 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Balachandran, V., Sekar, A., Akella, S., Seshan, I., & Zhang, H. (2013). Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference on SIGCOMM, ser. SIGCOMM ‘13 (pp. 339–350). New York, NY: ACM.

  42. Menkovski, A. L. V., & Exarchakos, G. (2010). Online learning for quality of experience management. In Proceedings of 19th machine learning conference of Belgium and The Netherlands.

  43. Begen, A., Akgul, T., & Baugher, M. (2011). Watching video over the web: Part 1. Streaming protocols. IEEE Internet Computing, 15(2), 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stockhammer, T. (2011). Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: Standards and design principles. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 133–144).

  45. Zhou Chao, C., Lin, W., & Guo, Z. (2016). mDASH: A Markov decision based rate adaptation approach for dynamic HTTP streaming. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 1–1.

  46. Akhshabi, S., Begen, A. C., & Dovrolis, C. (2011). An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 169–174).

  47. Zhou, B., Wang, J., Zou, Z., & Wen, J. (2012). Bandwidth estimation and rate adaptation in HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computing network communication (pp. 734–738).

  48. Cicco, L. D., Mascolo, S., & Palmisano, V. (2011) Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 145–156).

  49. Huang, T.-Y., Johari, R., McKeown, N., Trunnell, M., & Watson, M. (2014). A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (pp. 187–198).

  50. Hoßfeld, T., et al. (2011). Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on multimedia (pp. 494–499).

  51. Mok, R. K. P., Luo, X., Chan, E. W. W., & Chang, R. K. C. (2012). QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 11–22).

  52. Huang, T.-Y., Johari, R., & McKeown, N. (2013). Downton abbey without the hiccups: Buffer-based rate adaptation for http video streaming. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop future human-centric multimedia network (pp. 9–11).

  53. Garcia, S., Cabrera, J., & Garcia, N. (2015). Quality-control algorithm for adaptive streaming services over wireless channels. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics Signal Processing, 9(1), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hu, S., Sun, L., Gui, C., Jammeh, E., & Mkwawa, I. (2014). Content-aware adaptation scheme for QoE optimized DASH applications. In Global communications conference (GLOBECOM) (pp. 1336–1341). IEEE.

  55. Zhao, S., Medhi, D. (2017). SDN-Assisted adaptive streaming framework for tile-based immersive content using MPEG-DASH. In IEEE conference on network function virtualization and software defined networks (NFV-SDN).

  56. Zhao, S. (2017). Application-aware network design using software-defined networking for application performance optimization for big data and video streaming. A Dissertation in Telecommunications and Computer Networking and Computer Science.

  57. Zhao, S., Chandrashekar, M., Lee, Y., & Medhi, D. (2015). Real-time network anomaly detection system using machine learning. In 11th international conference on the design of reliable communication networks (DRCN).

  58. Watson, A. B., & Malo, J. (2002). Video quality measurement based on the standard spatial observer. In Proceedings of ICIP (pp. 24–28).

  59. Nemčić, O., Vranješ, M., & Rimac-Drlje S. (2007). Comparison of H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 part 2 coded video. IEEE Xplore, ELMAR. https://doi.org/10.1109/elmar.2007.4418796.

  60. Lambrecht, C. J. B., et al. (1999). Quality assessment of motion rendition in video coding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 9(5), 766–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ong, E. P., et al. (2004). Visual distortion assessment with emphasis on spatially transitional regions. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 14(4), 559–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pinson, M. H., & Wolf, S. (2004). A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Transaction on Broadcasting, 50(3), 312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out during a project done with some SUPCOM students. The research behind this paper, which led to these results, was conducted by a group of students who helped to install simulations environment and experiments. The author would like to thank them sincerely.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MEDIATRON Laboratory, SUPCOM, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia

    Asma Ben Letaifa

Authors
  1. Asma Ben Letaifa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asma Ben Letaifa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben Letaifa, A. Real Time ML-Based QoE Adaptive Approach in SDN Context for HTTP Video Services. Wireless Pers Commun 103, 2633–2656 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-018-5952-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-018-5952-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation