Coordinated Real-time Monitoring based Network-Adaptive Hop-to-End FEC for

Video Streaming over Multi-hop Wireless Networks

2010.4.12

Koh Choi

Networked Media LaboratoryDept. of Information & Communications

Gwangju Institute of Science & Technology (GIST)

1

2

Problem Space(1/2)

Assumption Static Multi-hop Wireless Networks Coordinator can monitor per-hop delay and packet loss Exist delay-constraint for video streaming buffer Available bandwidth can be measure in E2E path Sending rate R does not exceed available bandwidth RS Coding based packet-level FEC

Video Server Video Receiver

Coordinator

Multi-hop channel diversity

Coordinator operate control signal and receive network information

Which point support FEC operation?

Minimize packet loss Reduce complexity and overhead (from HbH FEC)

3

Problem Space(2/2)

Problems Network-Adaptive Hop-to-End(NAHTE) FEC

How to apply NAHTE-FEC in practical environment? We design analytical model to apply NAHTE-FEC in practical

environment. But, analytical model does not provide enough practical model. How to solve this problem?

How to validate NAHTE-FEC in multi-hop wireless testbeds?

FEC enabled Video Streaming Depend on network status in streaming path. How to detect network

status? (we design coordinated real-time monitoring)

4

Contribution point

Proposed CRM based NAHTE-FEC scheme for Video Streaming over Multi-hop Wireless Networks Design and implement NAHTE(Network-Adaptive Hop-to-End)-

FEC and CRM(Coordinated Real-time Monitoring). Validate CRM based NAHTE-FEC through Experimental approach

Find experiment scenario of best performance

It need many experiments in various experimental environments

5

Experiment scenario(1/3)

Identify characteristic of built multi-hop wireless testbeds Basic performance of video streaming with and without background

Packet loss rate, delay

FEC-enabled Video streaming in testbeds Variable n (fixed k), hop count, packet loss (delay, recovery ratio)

Background traffic

Background traffic

Background traffic

Find optimal solution based on experimental approach

6

Experiment scenario(2/3)

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

Background traffic

E2E-FEC

HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC

HbH-FEC

Single bottleneck link

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

Background traffic

E2E-FEC

HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC

HbH-FEC

Background trafficDiscontinuous bottleneck link

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

Background traffic

E2E-FEC

HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC HbH-FEC

HbH-FEC

Continuous bottleneck link

Recovery ratio of lost packet loss, Transport delay.

7

Experiment scenario(3/3)

Validate NAHTE-FEC algorithm Coordinator

Store FEC-enabled video streaming effect(variable n)

• Packet loss and FEC recovery ratio (Practical case)

Adaptation policy Conjugate analytical model FEC operation point is fair? (we can control network status by using

background traffic)