1 nv-2003 mpeg streaming over mobile internet kyunghee lee and myungchul kim {leekhe,

1 NV-2003

MPEG Streaming over Mobile Internet

Kyunghee Lee and Myungchul Kim{leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr

2 NV-2003

Contents• Introduction

• Related Work

• Proposed Mechanism

• System Design

• Testbed Configuration

• Experiments

• Performance Evaluation

• Conclusions

• References

3 NV-2003

Introduction• General multimedia data characteristics

– Intolerant to delay and jitter variance– Error-sensitive

• Characteristics of mobile Internet– Frequent routing path changes due to handoffs– Higher error rate in wireless link

• Effects on streaming multimedia data in mobile Internet– Handoff delay– Re-routing toward congested network delay increment – Higher packet loss probability due to mobility Significant quality degradation of streaming multimedia data

4 NV-2003

Introduction (cont’d)

• Popular Quality of Service (QoS) guarantee mechanisms

– Differentiated Service (DiffServ) [2]• Guarantees aggregated QoS for multiple flows• Can not guarantee specific QoS requirement for each data flow

– Integrated Service (IntServ)• Network resource reservation for specific data flow• Strict guarantees for multimedia streams with various QoS

requirements• Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [3]

5 NV-2003


• Problems of RSVP in Mobile Internet– Mobile Host (MH) handoff invalidates existing reservation paths overhead and delay to re-establish new RSVP session– Movement to congested wireless cell fail to get admission to

re-establish new RSVP sessionSeamless QoS guarantees are impossible

• Existing approaches– Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [15]– Hierarchical Mobile RSVP (HMRSVP) [16]– A method of Concatenation and Optimization of Reservation

Path (CORP) [10]

6 NV-2003

Related Work• Priority-based scheduling for MPEG streaming on

Mobile Internet– Differentiated delivery service depending on the

importance of each MPEG frame data

R1

FA

CH

IB

B

PI

BP B

I

P

Priority-awarePriority-awareMPEG ServerMPEG Server

MHMH

: : MPEG video streamMPEG video stream

: : Non-multimedia TrafficNon-multimedia Traffic

Packet dropPacket drop

MPEG ClientMPEG Client

congestedcongested

7 NV-2003

• Classify IP packets into two classes depending on its payload– Class 1: containing MPEG and GOP header (priority 1)– Class 2: containing MPEG I frame (priority 1)– Class 3: containing MPEG B, P frame (priority 7, best-effort)

• Uses TOS field in IP packet header as a classifier

….

4-bitversion

4-bitheader len. 8-bit TOS field 16-bit total length (in bytes)

16-bit identification 3-bit flag 13-bit fragment offset

8-bit time-to-live (TTL) 8-bit protocol 16-bit header checksum

32-bit source IP address

00 1616 3131

3-bit precedence field(currently ignored)

minimizedelay

maximizethroughput

maximizereliability

minimizemonetary

cost

1-bitunused

4 TOS bits

Related Work

8 NV-2003

Related Work (cont’d)

• Priority-aware MPEG streaming server

MPEGvideo file

Analysis Packetization

Priority setting

MPEGvideo client

UDP

Priority-aware MPEG video stream server

Parse theMPEG file

make an offsettable

move MPEG datafrom a file to the buffer

check up the data inthe buffer set the TOS

value of thepacket

decide the value ofTOS field

9 NV-2003


• Mobile IP Foreign Agent (FA)– Is the most probable spot of packet loss due to the network congestion– Acts as a gateway router for its own wireless subnet– Runs mobile IP FA daemon program– Performs priority-based CBQ scheduling for the traffic delivered

toward MH• Mobile MPEG client

– Plays MPEG video stream from the server• Advantages

– Simple and light-weight mechanism suitable for wireless/mobile networking environment

– Significant video quality improvement can be achieved though the extra bandwidth is scarcely consumed

10 NV-2003


• Testbed configuration

Non-diffserv routerNon-diffserv routerR

HA FA

MH

BackgroundBackgroundtraffictraffic

Priority-awarePriority-awareMPEG serverMPEG server

MPEG video streamMPEG video stream

Priority-based scheduling on/offPriority-based scheduling on/off

WirelessWirelesssubnet 1subnet 1

WirelessWirelesssubnet 2subnet 2

Experiment scenarioSample MPEG file specification

Background traffic pattern

File size 1.2 MbytesPlaying out

Duration 48 sec

Frame rate 30 fps

Avg. bit rate

214 Kbps

ContainingFrames 102 I, 404 P, 1010 B

* * Total Total 1516 frames 1516 frames

****The bandwidth limit in the WaveLAN II The bandwidth limit in the WaveLAN II wireless link: wireless link: 5.07 Mbps5.07 Mbps

11 NV-2003


• Experimental results– Number of the received packets (at client) containing either

MPEG header or I-frame (Class 1, 2)• Each packet size: 1024 bytes• Total number of Class 1 or 2 packets: 151• Number of the received packets: 151 (the proposed mechanism), 121

(FIFO scheduling)

– Transfer rate variation of the MPEG video stream

• Transfer rate is more independent on the amount of the background traffic ( ) Class 1, 2 packets are served by the priority-based scheduling

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 (sec)

(bps

)

FIFO scheduling priority-based CBQ scheduling

12 NV-2003


• Experimental results (cont’d)– PSNR value distribution

• Amount of the received traffic: 824 Kbytes (FIFO), 852 Kbytes (CBQ) out of total 1.2 Mbytes

• Number of frames 20 dB: 919 (FIFO), 775 (CBQ)• Number of frames with 78 dB: 151 (FIFO), 192 (CBQ)• 78 dB: same quality with the original image 20 dB: impossible to be recognized by human eyes

050

100

150200250300

350400450

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 78PSNR (dB)

Num

ber

of fr

ames

FIFO scheduling Priority-based CBQ scheduling

Out of total1440

13 NV-2003


• CORP– Base Station (BS) takes charge of making and managing RSVP

sessions on behalf of MH– Consists of two main processes

• Concatenation of Reservation Path (CRP) process– Reservation path extension technique– Current BS pre-establishes pseudo reservation path (PRP) toward its

neighboring BSs to prepare for MH’s handoff – When MH handoffs, corresponding PRP is activated to guarantee QoS for

MH• Optimization for Reservation Path (ORP) process

– Solves infinitely long path extension problem and reservation path loop problem of CRP process

– Optimizes the extended reservation path

14 NV-2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A

I. MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH

II. BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors

CRP inform

CRP inform

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

15 NV-2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

16 NV-2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors

IV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

17 NV-2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighborsIV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell

CRPactivate

V. BS_C sends CRP activate message to the previous BS (BS_B)

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

18 NV-2003


CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighborsIV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cellV. BS_C sends CRP activate message to the

previous BS (BS_B)VI. BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through

the activated PRP

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

19 NV-2003


CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighborsIV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cellV. BS_C sends CRP activate message to the

previous BS (BS_B)VI. BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through

the activated PRPVII. BS_B terminates useless PRP toward

BS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

20 NV-2003


• ORP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

I. BS_C sends IGMP group report message to its gateway router

IGMPreport

21 NV-2003


ORP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP


II. BS_C joins into the existing multicast RSVP session

CRPrelease

III. BS_C sends CRP release message to the previous BS (BS_B)

22 NV-2003


ORP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP




IV. BS_B terminates the activated PRP and BS_C uses the newly optimized one to deliver MPEG data stream to MH

23 NV-2003


ORP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP




IV. BS_B terminates the activated PRP and BS_C uses the newly optimized one to deliver MPEG data stream to MH

V. BS_B leaves the multicast RSVP sessionCRPinform

CRPinform

VI. BS_C sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors to prepare MH’s probable movement

24 NV-2003

Proposed Mechanism

• Motivation– To provide QoS guarantees for MPEG video streaming services

with mobility support

• Proposed System– Uses CORP to guarantee seamless QoS in mobile networks– Provides MPEG-1 video streaming services over CORP – CORP-aware video streaming server and client– CORP-capable mobile agents (Base Stations)

25 NV-2003

System Design

• Video Server Architecture– CORP adaptation module

handles CORP messages and takes charge of resource reservation process

– MPEG-1 traffic transfer module transfers MPEG-1 stream to BS at the speed of a reserved bandwidth

Video Server

RSVP

TCP/UDP

IP

Wired Link

CORP AdaptationModule

MPEG-1 TrafficTransfer Module

CORP messageMPEG-1 data

26 NV-2003

System Design (cont’d)

• Base Station Architecture– CORP message handler

module handles CORP messages which are generated by neighboring BSs or a mobile client

– traffic forward module receives MPEG-1 streaming data from the video server and forwards it to a neighboring BS or directly delivers it to the client

CORP

RSVP

TCP/UDP

IP/Mobile IP

Wired/Wireless Link

CORP MessageHandler Module

TrafficForward Module

27 NV-2003


• Client Architecture– CORP adaptation module

handles CORP messages– Handoff detection module

detects a handoff and determines when MH has to request the activation of PRP

– MPEG-1 traffic receiver module receives MPEG-1 streaming data from a current BS

– MPEG-1 video playback module plays the MPEG-1 video from the received stream

Client

TCP/UDP

Mobile IP

Wireless Link

CORP AdaptationModule

MPEG-1 TrafficReceiver Module

Handoff DetectionModule

MPEG-1 VideoPlayback Module

28 NV-2003


• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP before Handoff

Video Server

BS1 ClientBS2

Service Request

Service Request Ack

Service Request

Service Request Ack

RSVP path

RSVP resv

MPEG-1 trafficMPEG-1 traffic

PRP establishment

ClientHandoffs

(BS1BS2)

29 NV-2003


• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP after Handoff

Video Server

BS1 ClientBS2Client

handoffs

CRP Activate Request

CRP Activate

CRP Activate AckMPEG-1 traffic MPEG-1 traffic MPEG-1 traffic

ORP Request

ORP Request Ack

RSVP path

RSVP resv

MPEG-1 trafficMPEG-1 traffic

(BS1BS2)

30 NV-2003

Testbed Configuration• Network Architecture

Wired subnet bandwidth10 Mbps Ethernet

Wireless subnet bandwidthIEEE 802.11b wireless LAN with the bandwidth of 11 Mbps

BSRuns FA daemon of Mobile IPRuns CORP daemon

ClientRuns MH daemon of Mobile IPRuns VOD client program

Video ServerSupports CORP-aware MPEG-1 streaming service

MH

BS2

Gateway

BS1

Video Server

Wireless Subnet_1

Wireless Subnet_2

Wired Subnet_1 Wired Subnet_2

Home Agent

31 NV-2003

Experiments• Experiment Scenarios

– Background traffic generation: MGEN– Maximum throughput of wired network:

9.34 Mbps– Wired subnet_1: non-congested– Wired subnet_2: congested

• 8.2 Mbps background traffic– Movement of MH: BS1 BS2

• Experiment CasesI. MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and TCPII. MPEG-1 streaming with TCP onlyIII. MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and UDPIV. MPEG-1 streaming with UDP only

Shrek

Resolution 352 X 288

Average Data Rate (Mbps) 1.39

Frame Rate (fps) 25

Play out duration (sec) 80

Total number of frames 2,000

Sample Video Clip Specification

32 NV-2003

Performance Evaluation• QoS Guarantee

– Data rate is measured at client per each second while the sample MPEG file is being delivered

– Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and after handoff cases in (I)– Amount of packet loss due to handoff is about 81Kbytes in (I)– 84 percents are less than 0.3 Mbps after handoff in(II)

I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCP II. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3

Data receiving rate per each second (Mbps)

Per

cent

age

(%)

Before HandoffAfter Handoff

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3


Per

cent

age

(%)


* 150KBps bandwidth reserved

33 NV-2003

• QoS Guarantee (cont’d)

– Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and after handoff cases in (I)

– Average data rate before handoff is significantly higher than that after handoff in (II)

– Average packet loss rate is about 0.6 Mbps in (II)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2


Per

cent

age

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2


Per

cent

age

(%)


I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDP II. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only

* 200KBps bandwidth reserved

Performance Evaluation

34 NV-2003

• Quality of Streaming Video

– If Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) is less than 20 dB, the frame can be regarded as being lost

– In (I), MPEG-1 streaming data did not suffer from loss or delay under the congested situation

– 11 frames were lost during CRP process time in (I)– the total number of received frames is only 1107 frames out of 2000 frames

for 80 seconds in (II)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PSN

R (d

B)

Handoff0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PSN

R(d

B)

Handoff

I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCP II. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only


35 NV-2003

• Quality of Streaming Video (cont’d)

– The average PSNR is 69.6 dB before MH’s handoff and 68.6 dB after MH’s handoff in (I)

– MH could not play back MPEG-1 video stream correctly after handoff in (II) because of too high packet loss rate (0.6 Mbps)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PSN

R (d

B)

Handoff0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PSN

R (d

B)

Handoff

I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDP II. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only


36 NV-2003

Conclusions• QoS guarantee for MPEG-1 streaming service in Mobile

Internet– QoS guarantee mechanism with mobility support – CORP– Implementation of MPEG-1 streaming service over CORP

• Streaming Video Quality Improvement– Significantly better PSNR values in both cases of using TCP and UDP

when CORP mechanism is applied– MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and TCP provided the highest video

quality in the experiments

• Future work– Reduction in the packet loss during a handoff with CORP– Reduction in the packet loss over wireless links when UDP is used as a

transport protocol

37 NV-2003

References[1] B. Adamson, “The MGEN Toolset,” http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN, USA, 1999.[2] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss, “An Architecture for

Differentiated Services,” RFC 2475, IETF, 1998.[3] R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol

(RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification,” RFC 2205, IETF, 1997.[4] F. Cheong and R. Lai, “A study of the burstiness of combined MPEG video and audio bitstreams,”

Computer Communications, 21(10), pp. 880-888, 1998.[5] L. deCarmo, “Core Java media framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999.[6] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2,” RFC 2236, IETF, 1997.[7] D. L. Gall, “MPEG: a video compression standard for multimedia applications,” Communications

of ACM, 34(4), pp. 46-58, 1991.[8] R. Gordon, “Essential JNI: Java Native Interface,” Prentice-Hall, 1998.[9] R. Gordon and S. Talley, “Essential JMF: Java Media Framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999.[10] K. Lee, “A Method of Concatenation and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path (CORP) in

Mobile Internet,” M.S. Thesis, ICU, 2000.[11] J. K. Ng, “A reserved bandwidth video smoothing algorithm for MPEG transmission,” Journal of

Systems and Software, 48, pp. 233-245, 1999.[12] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” RFC 2002, IETF, 1996.

38 NV-2003

References (cont.)

[13] R. R. Pillai and M. K. Patnam, “A method to improve the robustness of MPEG video applications over wireless networks,” Computer Communications, 24, pp. 1452-1459, 2001.

[14] S. C. Sullivan, L. Winzeler, J. Deagen, and D. Brown, “Programming with the Java Media Framework,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.

[15] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, and A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for an Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts,” Technical Report: DCS-TR-337, Rutgers university, USA.

[16] C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: a hierarchical mobile RSVP protocol,” Distributed Computing Systems Workshop, 2001 Int’l Conf. on, pp. 467-472, 2001.

[17] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP,” http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics, Finland, 2001.[18] “Java Media Framework API Guide,”

http://java.sun.com/products/java-media/jmf/index.html, Sun Microsystems, USA, 1999.[19] “Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)

specifications: Higher speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,” IEEE Standard 802.11b, IEEE, USA, 1999.

39 NV-2003

Selective Establishment of Pseudo Reservations (SEP) for QoS Guarantees

in Mobile Internet

Kyounghee Lee and Myungchul Kim{leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr

40 NV-2003

Introduction

Mobile Internet environments• Frequent traffic path redirection due to host mobility• Poor communication characteristics

- Higher error rate, lower bandwidth, etc.

General multimedia data characteristics• Intolerant to delay and jitter variance• Error-sensitive

Effects on multimedia steaming in mobile Internet• Latency and packet loss due to handoff• Entrance toward the congested network delay & error

increment Significant QoS degradation

41 NV-2003


QoS guarantees in wired Internet• Resource reservation

- Focus on per-flow QoS (for the access networks)- Resource Reservation Setup Protocol (RSVP) [1]

• Class-based packet scheduling- Focus on QoS for flow aggregates (for the core networks)- Differentiated service (DiffServ) [23], Multi-protocol Label Switching

(MPLS) [24]

Mobility issues with RSVP• RSVP signal messages invisibility problem

- Due to tunneling (packet encapsulation) between HA and FA

• Reservation path invalidation

42 NV-2003

Conventional approaches on RSVP with mobility support• Suffer from excessive reservation requirements due to

establishment of multiple advance reservations at all adjacent BSs [4, 5, 8, 10, 11]

• Require considerable functional modifications in the existing Internet protocols and components [6, 7, 9]

Our goals• Supports seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet

Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) with mobility support• Addresses the excessive advance reservation requirements • Demands minimal changes in the current Internet environments


43 NV-2003

Related Work

RSVP tunneling [3]• Packet re-structuring at mobile agents• RSVP signal message invisibility (O), RSVP path invalidation (X)

Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [4, 5]• Passive reservations at all neighboring cells along a multicast tree

passive reservation functions on all routers in the network• MH is required to have prior knowledge of its mobility

MRSVP extensions • Mahadevan’s approach [8]

- Passive reservations are established between BSs- Reservation path extension infinite extension problem- Passive reservation functions should be equipped on all gateway

routers

44 NV-2003

MRSVP extensions (cont’d)• Hierarchical MRSVP [9]

- Solution for the excessive advance reservations- Passive reservation is established only for an inter-domain handoff- Considerable modifications on the existing Internet (RSVP tunneling &

mobile IP regional registration [12])

Chen’s approach [7]• Predictive reservation & temporary reservation

Paskalis’ approach [6]• Single contact IP address for a MH by dynamically translating between

Local Care-of-Address (LCoA) and Domain CoA (DCoA)• Method only for the access networks

Low latency handoff support with Layer 2 (L2) functionality• Fast handoff mechanism [13] and Proactive handoff [14]


45 NV-2003

Proposed Mechanism Selective Establishment of Pseudo Reservations (SEP)

• Pseudo reservation- Advance reservation in SEP- Established only between two neighboring BSs- Established in the same way as a normal RSVP session

• SEP advantages- Movement detection scheme using L2 functionality significant

decrease in the number of required PRPs- Integrates all enhanced features into the leaf BS fewer functional

and structural changes in the existing network components- Reservation load balancing efficient resource management (for

future work)

• Three major steps in SEP- Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP) establishment- Concatenation of Reservation path (CRP) process- Optimization for Reservation path (ORP) process

46 NV-2003

Overall SEP Process

1. PRP establishment 2. Path extension 3. Path optimization

BS_CBS_BBS_A

MH

CH

BS_CBS_BBS_A

MH

CH

BS_CBS_BBS_A

MH

CH

(1)(2)

(3)

: Existing RSVP Session (1), Activated PRP (2), Optimized Reservation Path: Inactivated Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP)

: Traffic forwarding

47 NV-2003

Movement Detection

• Movement detections in SEP– Detects a L2 beacon arrival from a neighboring BS– CRP_initiate message to notify the current BS of the movement– CRP_inform message to start a PRP establishment process

48 NV-2003

CRP Process before a Handoff • When a MH is a sender

BS_C

3.CRP_inform

Reservation path Inactivated PRP CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow

(a)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

1.L2 beacon

2.CRP_init

4.RSVP path

5.RSVP resv

BS_C

(b)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

PRP

49 NV-2003

CRP Process before a Handoff (cont’d)

• When a MH is a receiver

BS_C

3.CRP_inform

Reservation path Inactivated PRP CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow

(a)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

1.L2 beacon

2.CRP_init

4.RSVP path

5.RSVP resv

BS_C

(b)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

PRP

50 NV-2003

CORP-SEP Process after a Handoff

BS_C

Reservation path & Activated PRP Inactivated PRPCRP-SEP & RSVP control flow

(a)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

BS_C

(b)

BS_BBS_A

MH

CH

Activated PRPPRP

1.CRP_activate

Traffic forwarding

51 NV-2003

ORP Process• ORP process can be performed

– Unicast address vs. multicast address

• ORP process using multicast address

1.CRP_release

2.Path teardownBS_B

(a)

BS_A

MH

CH

Activated PRP

Join

BS_B

(b)

BS_A

MH

CH

BS_B

(c)

BS_A

MH

CH

Optimized path

Reservation path & Activated PRP CRP-SEP, RSVP & IGMP control flowTraffic forwarding

52 NV-2003

Performance Evaluation• Testbed configuration

- OS: FreeBSD 4.2, Linux ker 2.2.12 & 2.2.14- Mobile IP: HUT Dynamics 0.8.1- RSVP: ISI release 4.2a4 with ALTQ 3.0

CH

R

BS2

CH : Correspondent HostR : Gateway RouterHA/FA : Home/Foreign AgentBS : FA + APAP : Access PointRA : Reservation AgentMH : Mobile Host : NIC (IEEE 802.3) : NIC (IEEE 802.11b) : Hub : RSVP sessionSEP

Mobile IPFA Module

Routing & TrafficScheduling module

BS1

Wired Subnet A

MH

Wired Subnet B

Wireless Subnet C Wireless Subnet D

HA

RSVP

53 NV-2003

• Handoff latency in Mobile IP and SEP (measured & estimated)

L2 beaconarrives

( 36) Time (ms)

0

L2 roamingMIP solicitation & advertising MIP binding

update

MIP registrationrequest

Handoffcompletion

( 0)

Estimated MIP handoff latency

( 0)

PRP establishing time( 22)

PRP activation& forwarding

( 11)


54 NV-2003

• Average data transmission rates– 250 kbytes (2000 kbps) reserved– 250 data packets per sec, each packet 1024 bytes– Link capacity: 9,300 (wired) vs. 4,700 (wireless) kbps 9000 kbps

background traffic

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Time (100 ms)

Ave

rage

Dat

a R

ate

(kbp

s)

SEP

RSVP

Handoff to the congested cell


55 NV-2003

• Simulation environment– Simulator – NS2.1b9a– 7 x 7 mesh model– Communication range of each BS: 250m– Overlapped area size: 150m– L2 beacon interval: 100ms– Host movement: random direction mobility model [21]

BS00

(0, 0)

(2600, 2600)

BS01 BS06

BS60

100 150

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500


56 NV-2003

• Average PRP requirements– 0.49 (SEP) vs. 4 (MRSVP, CORP)– 0.11 (HMRSVP)

* The number of reachable BSs is zero when a MH is moving around the border area of the simulation network

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Simulation time (s)

Num

ber o

f rea

chab

le BS

s


57 NV-2003

• Reservation blocking rates– Probability for a MH to fail to make a new RSVP session ( the amount of the required advance reservations)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Reservation requirements (offered load)

Rese

rvat

ion b

lockin

g pr

obab

ilities

(%)

HMRSVPSEPMRSVP , CORP


58 NV-2003

• Reservation session loss rate– Probability for a MH to lose its reservation path after a handoff

- SEP > HMRSVP (when the offered load is high) Insufficient advance reservations in HMRSP- SEP > MRSVP (when the offered load is low) less PRP requirements in SEP


59 NV-2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Reservation requirements (offered load)

Rese

rvat

ion

sess

ion

com

plet

ion

rate

s (%

)

HMRSVP(1)SEP(1)MRSVP(1)HMRSVP(5)SEP(5)MRSVP(5)

• Reservation session completion rate– Probability that a MH can complete a RSVP session without any

reservation blocking or session loss• SEP outperforms HMRSVP as

- the offered load in the network increases- the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation

session


60 NV-2003

Conclusions & Future Work SEP - seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet

• RSVP with mobility support- pseudo reservation, reservation path extension & optimization

• Movement detection using L2 functionality- significant decrease in the number of required PRPs

• Fewer functional & structural changes in the existing Internet components and protocols• SEP outperforms the conventional approaches in reservation session

loss rate and completion rates especially as• the offered load in the network increases • the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation session

• Efficient network resource management- MH can choose its next BS according to the amount of available resources

in the reachable BSs

Future Work• Performance evaluation in SEP due to reservation load balancing

61 NV-2003

References• [1] R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol

(RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification”, RFC 2205, IETF, Sep. 1997.• [2] C. E. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support”, RFC 2002 on IETF, Oct. 1996.• [3] A. Terzis, M. Srivastava, L. Zhang, “A Simple QoS Signaling Protocol for Mobile Hosts in

the Integrated Service Internet”, IEEE Proceedings, Vol. 3, 1999.• [4] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for an

Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts”, Tech report TR-337, Rutgers university.• [5] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “On Accommodating Mobile Hosts in an

Integrated Services Packet Network”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Apr. 1997.

• [6] S. Paskalis, A. Kaloxylos, and E. Zervas, “An efficient QoS Scheme for Mobile Hosts”, 26th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Network (LCN 2001), pp. 630-637, 2001.

• [7] W. Chen and L. Huang, “RSVP Mobility Support: A Signaling Protocol for Integrated Services Internet with Mobile Hosts”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Part vol. 3, pp. 1283-1292 Vol 3, 2000.

• [8] I. Mahadevan and K. M. Sivalingam, “Architecture and Experimental Results for Quality of Service in Mobile Networks using RSVP and CBQ”, ACM Wireless Networks 6, pp. 221-234, Jul. 2000.

• [9] C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: A Hierarchical Mobile RSVP Protocol”, International Workshop on Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (WNMC2001), Apr. 2001.

• [10] K. Lee, M. Kim, S. T. Chanson, C. Yu, J. Lee, “CORP- A Method of Concatenation and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path in Mobile Internet”, IEICE Transactions on Communications, pp. 479 – 489, Vol. E86-B, No. 2, Feb. 2003.

62 NV-2003

References• [11] M. Lee, K. Lee, T. C. Thang, N. N. Thanh, M. Kim, Y. Ro, J. Lee, “MPEG Streaming over

Mobile Internet”, IS&T/SPIE’s 14th Annual Symposium, Electronic Imaging 2002, Jan. 2002.• [12] E. Gustafsson, A. Jonson, C. E. Perkins, “Mobile IP Regional Registration”, Internet Draft

on IETF, Oct. 2002.• [13] K. E. Malki, P. R. Calhoun, T. Hiller, J. Kempf, P. J. McCann, A. Singh, H. Soliman, S.

Thalanany, “Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4”, Internet Draft on IETF, Jun. 2002.• [14] P. Calhoun, “FA Assisted Hand-off”, Internet Draft on IETF, Mar. 2000.• [15] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2”, RFC 2236 on IETF, Nov.

1997.• [16] “WaveLAN”, http://www.agere.com/client/wlan.html• [17] “ALTQ: Alternate Queueing”, http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/kjc/software.html• [18] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP”, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics• [19] “RSVP Code rel4.2a3”, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/rsvp/release/• [20] “MGEN: The Multi-Generator Tool”, http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN/• [21] T. Camp, J. Boleng, V. Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network

Research”, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol.2, no.5, 2002.

• [22] “The Network simulator – NS-2”, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/• [23] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss, “An Architecture for

Differentiated Services”, RFC 2475 on IETF, Dec. 1998.• [24] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, “Multi-protocol Label Switching Architecture”, RFC

3031 on IETF, Jan. 2001.

1 nv-2003 mpeg streaming over mobile internet kyunghee lee and myungchul kim {leekhe,

Documents