1 ngcn 2003 차세대통합네트워크 테스트베드 및 서비스 - a case of mobile internet -...

1

NGcN 2003

차세대통합네트워크 테스트베드 및 서비스

- A Case of Mobile Internet -

Myungchul Kim

[email protected]

2

NGcN 2003

Contents• All IP networks with QoS guarantee and Mobility support

• VoIP over Mobile IP

– Soonuk Seol, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "Experiments and Analysis of Voice over

Mobile IP", the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and

Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2002), Lisbon, Portugal, September 2002

• MPEG streaming over Mobile Internet

– Kyounghee Lee, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "CORP - A Method of Concatenation

and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path in Mobile Internet", IIEICE

Transaction on Communications Special Issue on Internet Technology III, Vol.

E86-B, No2, Feb. 2003

– Myungjin Lee, Kyounghee Lee, Myungchul Kim, and et al., "MPEG Streaming

over Mobile Internet", IS&T/SPIE’s 14th Annual Symposium, Electronic Imaging

2002.

3

NGcN 2003

Voice over Mobile IP

4

NGcN 2003

Motivation• Voice over IP

– Internet telephony is one of the most promising services– low cost, efficient bandwidth utilization, integration with data traffic– Support only best effort service, more obstacles to deteriorate voice quality, e.g.,

delay, delay jitter, packet loss, etc.– There are two competing approaches for VoIP

• ITU’s H.323 [1,2], IETF’s SIP [3]

• Mobility demand– VoIP needs to support most functionalities that the current PSTN does,

especially mobility support.

• All-IP trends– Recently, it is believed all mobility-related functionality should be handled at the

IP (network) layer [10,11,12,13].

5

NGcN 2003

Related Work• Extensions to H.323 for mobility [8,9] :

– Additional messages and functionalities to H.323 system– Require application to perform mobility management

• Mobility support to SIP– Moh et al. [5]

• Address several major issues for supporting mobility on SIP

– Wedlund and Schulzrinne [6]• An application level approach for real-time mobile communication.• Does not support mobility to the applications that are independent of SIP• Impossible to use SIP mobility in which network do not support DHCP• Overhead with mobile IP

– A waste of resources to keep duplicated information about the hosts current address. (both in SIP servers and Home agents)

6

NGcN 2003

Related Work(cont.)

• In our experiments– Need a homogeneous mobility solution support

regardless of wireless interfaces and applications.

– Depend on Mobile IP [4] for mobility management

7

NGcN 2003

What we have achieved

• Examine the feasibility of SIP over Mobile IP for Internet telephony – Investigate various factors that affect delay, packet loss,

and load on the network– Experiment with encapsulation and decapsulation delay

time and interarrival time in many aspects, comparing with normal IP.

• Find the desirable number of frames per packet in Mobile IP as a function of packet transmission delay and bandwidth utilization.

8

NGcN 2003

Backgrounds• Mobile IP

– Allows a mobile node to communicate with other nodes transparently in spite of address change due to its mobility

– Triangular routing problem which increases delays

– Route optimization solve delay increase problem by using binding updates.

FA HA

CH

HA- >FA CH- >MN

CH- >MN

CH- >MN

MN- >CH

MN

(a)

(b)

(c)

9

NGcN 2003

Backgrounds• Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

– SIP allows two or more participants to establish a session consisting of multiple media streams.

– In SIP, callers and callees are identified by SIP address. – When making a SIP call, a caller first locates the

appropriate server and then sends a SIP request.– SIP server can act in two different modes

• Proxy server – requests to the next hop or user-agent within an IP cloud

• Redirect server– informs their clients of the address of the requested server– allow for the client to contact that server directly

10

NGcN 2003

Testbed Configuration• Mobile IP: Dynamics, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics/ • SIP: Linphone, http://www.linphone.org, GSM codec is used

• Analysis with TCPDUMP(for capturing packets) and Ping

Router2

FA1

210.107.132.81 210.107.143.209

210.107.143.210

210.107.143.217

na-router2.icu.ac.kr

HA

210.107.132.83

na-ep1.icu.ac.kr

i3ebs1.icu.ac.kr

210.107.132.3

MH 210.107.132. 66

CH

210.107.131.181

gateway

210.107.131.0 net 210.107.132.0 net

210.107.143.208 net

FA2

210.107.143.214

210.107.143.221

i3ebs2.icu.ac.kr

210.107.143.212 net

210.107.143.216 net 210.107.143.220 net

IEEE 802.11 PC Card 11 Mbit/s

11

NGcN 2003

RTP packet format

• Length of a packet : 87 bytes– IP header : 20 bytes, IP option : 14 bytes– UDP header : 8 bytes– RTP message : 45 bytes ( RTP header : 8bytes, Voice data: 33 bytes)

Version Length Type of service Total length (in byte)

Identification Fragment offset

Time to live (TTL) Header checksum

Source IP address

Destination IP address

Source port Destination port

Datagram length Checksum

Ver Payload type Sequence number

Protocol

Flags

Timestamp

Synchronization source identifier

Application data

Option (if any)

12

NGcN 2003

Encapsulation delay• Encapsulation and decapsulation delay : ~ 1ms

– Measure the encapsulation and decapsulation delay by configuring the routing path between MH and CH in mobile IP to be identical to that of not using mobile IP.

Router2

FA1

210.107.132.81

210.107.143.209

210.107.143.210

210.107.143.217

na-router2.icu.ac.kr

HA

210.107.132.83

na-ep1.icu.ac.kr

i3ebs1.icu.ac.kr

210.107.132.3

210.107.132. 66

CH

210.107.131.181 gateway

210.107.131.0 net

210.107.132.0 net

210.107.143.208 net

FA2

210.107.143.21

4

210.107.143.221

i3ebs2.icu.ac.kr

210.107.143.212 net

210.107.143.216 net 210.107.143.220 net

x

y (mobile IP pkt) y’ (normal IP pkt)

2x = 3.2 ms, x=1.6 ms x+y = 4.2 ms y = 2.6 ms Assuming x=y’, y-y’ = y-x = 1ms

FA1 HA

CH

FA1 HA

CH

13

NGcN 2003

Interarrival time w/o Mobile IP– Sending rate : 20 ms– Interarrival time : 19.95 ~ 20.05 ms with 99%

confidence– Standard deviation : 0.5 ms– Number of samples : 700

interarrival time (sec)

max = 0.02391

min = 0.01611

0.000000.005000.010000.01500

0.020000.025000.030000.03500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

1

10

100

1000

0 10 20 30 40

interarrival time (msec)

Fre

que

ncy

14

NGcN 2003

Interarrival time with Mobile IP– Sending rate : 20 ms– Interarrival time : 19.91 ~ 20.09 ms with 99%

confidence– Standard deviation : 0.89 ms– Number of samples : 700

interarrival time (sec)

max = 0.03108

min = 0.00901

0.00000

0.005000.01000

0.01500

0.02000

0.025000.03000

0.03500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

1

10

100

1000

0 10 20 30 40

interarrival time (msec)F

req

uenc

y

15

NGcN 2003

Interarrival time in voice conversation(1)

• Bi-directional voice conversation for 60 sec.• Average: 20ms, overall within 42ms for three cases:

(a) IP

(b) Mobile IP without handoffs

(c) Mobile IP with 5 times of handoffs

16

NGcN 2003

Interarrival time in voice conversation(2)

• Overall packets arrive within 42 ms. (make up with buffers)• No many differences during the handoff time.

Mobile node – can receive packets from the old foreign agent.– gets a care-of address from the FA not from the DHCP server.

FA1

HA CH

FA2

h->F1 c->m

c->m

h->F2 c->m

MH

FA1

HA CH

FA2

MH

17

NGcN 2003

Interarrival time under background traffic

– five extra sessions for MN with different hosts, totally 6300 packets (~2min) for each call

– The longest : Normal IP = 25 ms, Mobile IP = 30 ms– 98% of packets = 18 ~ 22 ms– Traditional packet loss

normal IP packets

Mobile IP packets

Packet losses: 5 for normal IP 6 for mobile IP

interarrival time (msec) 98%

18

NGcN 2003

Total Data Size for Different frames/pkt

• One-way voice data– Totally, 297 Kbytes for 180 sec (one frame : 33 bytes)

– IP & UDP headers: add 54 bytes

– Encapsulation (from HA to FA): adds 20 bytes

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12frames / packet

Kbyt

e, 1

0 pa

cket

s

. headers for tunneling between HA and FAbasic headersvoice datathe number of packets

FA HA CH MH FA HA CH MH

one frame per packet (f/p = 1) three frames per packet (f/p = 3)

basic headers(54 bytes * 3)

voice data(33- byte frame * 3)

basic header(54 bytes)

header for tunneling(20 bytes)

headers for tunneling (20 bytes * 3)

voice data(33- byte frame * 3)

19

NGcN 2003

The Desirable Number of Frames• Mobile IP Network

– need to save the bandwidth (esp., wireless network)

• End to end delays– Smaller than 150 ms : not perceived– Between 150 and 400 ms : acceptable but not ideal– If f/p=3: about 60ms’ latency to aggregate three frames. The rest 90ms (150-60) are remained

for packet transfer.

88.9 ms

46.1%

-90

-60

-30

0

30

60

90

120

150

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

frames / packet

The

ma

xim

um p

ac

ket

tran

sm

iss

ion

de

lay

per

mitt

ed

(ms)

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

bandwidth save

lower bound of 99% confidence interval bandwidth save

20

NGcN 2003

Conclusion and Future work• Feasibility of Mobile IP-based SIP

– Mobile IP’s encapsulation and decapsulation delay is short enough for

interactive audio applications.

– Interarrival time does not vary much.

• Desirable number of frames per packet

– Sends three frames per packet to reduce loads on the campus-sized network

• Future work

– Simulate SIP over Mobile IP for large scaled networks

– study various kinds of codecs in the same context and in terms of the number of

hops.

– delay-aware and/or load-aware scheme for Internet Telephony

21

NGcN 2003

References[1] Gary A. Thom, “H.323: the Multimedia Communications Standard for Local Area Networks,” IEEE

Communications Magazine, December 1996.[2] ITU-T Rec. H.323v2, “Packet Based Multimedia Communications Systems,” March 1997.[3] M. Handley et al., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” IETF RFC 2543, March 1999.[4] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” RFC 2002, IETF, October 1996.[5] Melody Moh, Gregorie Berquin, and Yanjun Chen, “Mobile IP Telephony: Mobility Support of SIP,”

Eighth International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, 1999.[6] Elin Wedlund and Henning Schulzrinne, “Mobility Support using SIP,” Proceedings of the second

ACM International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia (WoWMoM), 1999.[7] X. Zhao, C. Castelluccia, and M. Baker, “Flexible Network Support for Mobility,” in Proceedings of

Mobicom, October 1998.[8] ITU-T Draft Recommendation H.MMS.1, “Mobility for H.323 Multimedia Systems,” March 2001. [9] Wanjiun Liao, “Mobile Internet Telephony: Mobile Extensions to H.323,” INFOCOM ’99. Eighteenth

Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings. IEEE, June 1999.

[10] Ramachandran Ramjee, Thomas F. La Porta, Luca Salagrelli, Sandra Thuel, and Kannan Varadhan, “IP-based Access Network Infrastructure for Next-Generation Wireless Data Networks,” IEEE Personal Communications, August 2000.

[11] Shingo Ohmori, Yasushi Yamao, and Nobuo Nakajima, “The Future Generations of Mobile Communications Based on Broadband Access Technologies,” IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2000.

22

NGcN 2003

References (cont.)

[12] Ramón Cáceres and Venkata N. Padmanabhan, “Fast and Scalable Wireless Handoffs in Supports of Mobile Internet Audio,” Mobile Networks and Applications 3, December 1998.

[13] Mihailovic, A., Shabeer, M., and Aghvami, A.H., “Multicast for Mobility Protocol (MMP) for Emerging Internet Networks,” The 11th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2000.

[14] H. Schulzrinne and J. Rosenberg, “A Comparison of SIP and H.323 for Internet Telephony,” http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/papers.html.

[15] James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross, “Computer Networking – A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet”, Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.

[16] Charles Perkins and David B. Johnson, “Route Optimization in Mobile IP,” draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-11.txt (Work in progress), September 2001.

[17] David B. Johnson and Charles Perkins, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-13.txt (Work in progress), July 2001.

[18] Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP, available at http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics/index.html.

[19] Linphone – a SIP application, available at http://simon.morlat.free.fr/english/linphone.html.

23

NGcN 2003

MPEG Streaming over Mobile Internet

24

NGcN 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

25

NGcN 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]

26

NGcN 2003

Introduction (cont’d)

• 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 session

Seamless 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]

27

NGcN 2003

Related Work• 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

28

NGcN 2003

Related Work (cont’d)

• 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

29

NGcN 2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A



III. BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

30

NGcN 2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A




IV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

31

NGcN 2003


• CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A




IV. MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cellCRPactivate

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

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

32

NGcN 2003


CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A






VI. BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through the activated PRP

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

33

NGcN 2003


CRP Process

BS_CBS_BBS_A






VI. BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through the activated PRP

VII. BS_B terminates useless PRP toward BS_A

CORP message

RSVP session

PRP

Activated PRP

34

NGcN 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

35

NGcN 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)

36

NGcN 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

37

NGcN 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 session

CRPinform

CRPinform

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

38

NGcN 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)

39

NGcN 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 message

MPEG-1 data

40

NGcN 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

41

NGcN 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

42

NGcN 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)

43

NGcN 2003


• MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP after Handoff

Video Server BS1 ClientBS2Client

handoffs

CRP Activate RequestCRP Activate

CRP Activate Ack

MPEG-1 traffic MPEG-1 traffic MPEG-1 traffic

ORP Request

ORP Request Ack

RSVP path

RSVP resv

MPEG-1 trafficMPEG-1 traffic

(BS1BS2)

44

NGcN 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 IP

Runs CORP daemon

ClientRuns MH daemon of Mobile IP

Runs 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

45

NGcN 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

46

NGcN 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)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

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

(%)

Before Handoff

After Handoff

* 150KBps bandwidth reserved

47

NGcN 2003

Performance Evaluation (cont’d)

• 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


Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)


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


Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)


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

* 200KBps bandwidth reserved

48

NGcN 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

PS

NR

(dB

)

Handoff0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PS

NR

(dB

)

Handoff

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

49

NGcN 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

PS

NR

(dB

)

Handoff0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Frame number

PS

NR

(dB

)

Handoff

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

50

NGcN 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

51

NGcN 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.

52

NGcN 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.

1 ngcn 2003 차세대통합네트워크 테스트베드 및 서비스 - a case of mobile internet -...

Documents