Network Adaptive Video Streaming Over Wireless Mesh Networks 3200

8/4/2019 Network Adaptive Video Streaming Over Wireless Mesh Networks 3200

1/21

DEPT. OF INFO. & COMM.,GIST

Network-Adaptive Video Streaming

over Wireless Mesh Networks

SangHoon Park

October 25th, 2007

Networked Media Laboratory, Department of Information andCommunication

School of Information & MechatronicsGwangju Institute of Science & Technology (GIST)

[email protected]

http://nm.gist.ac.kr/~shpark

Lab Seminar
mailto:[email protected]:jongwon%[email protected]:jongwon%[email protected]:[email protected]


2/21


Presentation Outline

Introduction & Motivation

Problem Description

Proposed System Architecture & Scheme

Implementation

Experimental Results

Conclusions & Future Work


3/21


Video Streaming over Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs)

WMNs

A cheap and efficient method for providing network connectivity

Providing real-time multimedia service over WMNs

VoD (Video on Demand) or Video broadcasting services in WMNs-based ubiquitous

environment

Video receivers: Multimedia communication with Internet servers

VoD Server

Video

broadcastingserver

Video receivers


4/21


Challenges in Video Streaming over WMNs

Higher bit error rate (BER) than that in wired-line links Packet losses caused by many reasons

Congestion, Random channel error, Route change/break,

Scarce and time-varying network available bandwidth

Dynamic channel capacity due to various kinds of interference

As increasing hop-count, end-to-end throughput is severely degraded

Lack of QoS support mechanism

e.g., IEEE 802.11 has serious deficiencies in multi-hop environment due to hidden

terminal effects and contention from neighbor traffic

< Link-throughput > < End-to-end throughput >


5/21


Considerable Solution Approaches

To handle the impact of channel error

Efficient and resilient video coding and protection (e.g., FEC, delay-constrained ARQ, link-layer

retransmission, )

To handle scarce and dynamic network available bandwidth

Scalable video transmission using scalable video coding

Network-adaptive video rate control using network monitoring

Multi-path video transmission

QoS-supporting in layer MAC-layer service differentiation (e.g., IEEE 802.11e)

Cross-layer approach (Cross-layer optimization or interaction)

Jointly consider different layers, including multimedia application, routing and transporting protocol, link

layer scheduling, and physical layer power control

We are focusing on the problem: Scarce and dynamic network available

bandwidth

How to effectively dynamically adapt video stream?

End-to-end video quality improvement


6/21


Problem Description

Basic Assumptions

A video flow can be transmitted in scalable fashion (e.g., temporal scalability)

Base layer: l1, enhancement layers: l2, l3, , ln

After video rate adaptation,k video layers are transmitted

A video flow use a single path in WMNs

S RN1 N2 N3

N5

N7N6

N4

Source video stream

3l

2l

1l

nl

1

l

2l

kl

Adapted video stream

Video

adaptation


7/21


Problem Description (Cont.)

Interference due to competing flow

Network available bandwidth for video flow is fluctuating

Arbitrary Intra-/Inter-background flow

For the given assumptions,

How to adapt scalable video according to time-varying network available bandwidth toimprove end-to-end video quality?

Assumption: There is no greedy background flow. To cover this issue, multiple flow scheduling

algorithm or congestion control is required

S RN1 N2 N3

B1

Be

video flow

background flow

time-varying network available bandwidth


8/21


Video Adaptation: End-to-End Vs

Hop-by-Hop Rate Adaptation

End-to-end Video Rate Adaptation

End-to-end statistics (e.g., loss rate, quality) monitoring at receiver

Sender adapt video based on feedback from receiver

Main drawbacks

Reliability of feedback will be decreased as the congestion is increased

To guarantee reliable feedback, an additional back channel for feedback is needed

Delay of feedback makes that video adaptation reacts slowly to time-varying channel

condition

S RN1 N2 N3

end-to-end feedback

videoadaptation


9/21


Video Adaptation: End-to-End Vs

Hop-by-Hop Rate Adaptation

Hop-by-hop Video Rate Adaptation

Link statistics monitoring (e.g., MAC-layer loss rate) at each intermediate hop

Intermediate hop adapt video based on own monitoring information

Advantages

The problems raised in the end-to-end approach can be solved

Overhead & Challenges Cross-layer design is required

Monitoring & rate adaptation module should be deployed at each intermediate hop

Prioritized packetization at sender is needed

S RN1 N2 N3

monitoring

& adaptation

monitoring

& adaptation

monitoring

& adaptation


10/21


Proposed System Architecture:

Preliminary Design

Internet

video

streams

Access pointMesh routers

< WMN Backbone> < WLAN>

Video Server

WMN gateway

Videoreceiver

Real-timeparsing &prioritized

packetization

Intermediate node QoS control

playoutPlayout

buffering

Gateway architecture Video receiver architectureIntermediate node architecture

Packetdroppingfor rate

adaptation

Wirelesschannel

monitoring

Packet

discarding

Networkmonitoring

(multiple flow)

Cross-layer design


11/21


Prioritized Packetization for Temporal

Scalability

NOL= number of layers

TS

packet

RTP

header

TS

packet

TS

packet

TS

packet

TS

packet

TS

packet

TS

packet

Priority

field

188*7=1316 12

1500

1

NOL+2

NOLRate

profile

Current

layer

1NOL

We assume

Profile: MPEG-2 TS over RTP

Priority field

Each RTP packet contain additional fields in application layer

Frame indexing (may not need)

Priority (layering information)


12/21


Experimental Results: WMN Testbed

Deployed in GIST DIC 2nd floor

1 Gateway (N1), 6 Intermediate

nodes (N2~N7)

IEEE 802.11a-based

Single Interface

< Base-line throughput test (static routing): N1->N6>

Link-throughput End-to-end throughput

N1 (gateway)

N2

KOREN

N3

N4

N5

N6N7

static routing pathfor throughput test


13/21


Video format

MPEG-2 TS

Resolution: 30fps 720x480

Bitrate: 4Mbps CBR

GOP: IBBPBB

Interference by background traffic

N3 -> N2: 2~4Mbps Pareto UDP traffic





Single video streaming service

N1 -> N2 -> N3 -> N4 -> N5 -> N6 -> video

receiver using static routing

N1 (gateway)

N2

KOREN

N3

N4

N5

N6 N7

video receiver

video traffic

background traffic

Experimental Setup


14/21


Temporal scalability of experimental video

stream

Clip length: 2 minutes

GOP: IBBPBB, 30fps, 4Mbps

4 Temporal layers (l1, l2, l3, l4)

Rate profile of each temporal layer

l1: 1.52Mbps, l2: 0.86Mbps, l3: 0.8Mbps, l4: 0.8Mbps

Frame rate profile of each temporal layer

l1: 5fps, l2: 5fps, l3: 10fps, l4: 10fps

< Source video stream

traffic characteristic >

I0 B1 B2 P3 B5 B6Original GOP

I0

B1

B2

P3

B5

B6

l1: Base layer

l2

l3

l4

Enhancement

layers

< Temporal layering of experimental video stream>

Experimental Video Specification

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Kbps

3800

3850

3900

3950

4000

4050


15/21


Experimental Results: Preliminary Results

< Background traffic pattern >

Experiment 1: 10 times According to the background traffic load

< Background traffic characteristic:

2M pareto >

Experiment

Index

Dst->Src Traffic

pattern

Peak

sending

rate

1 N3->N2 Pareto 2M

2 N3->N2 Pareto 3M

3 N3->N2 Pareto 4M

4 N4->N3 Pareto 2M

5 N4->N3 Pareto 3M

6 N4->N3 Pareto 4M

Time(s)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Bitrate

0.0

5.0e+5

1.0e+6

1.5e+6

2.0e+6

2.5e+6


16/21


Experimental Results

Methodology for end-to-end video quality measurement

Receiving stage: Received packet ratio per frame, Discarded frame ratio

Displayed Frame rate

Discontinuity, Variance of Discontinuity (VoD), Autocorrelation of

Discontinuity (AoD)

Demuxing Decoding RenderingReceiving < th

Y

Frame discarding


17/21


Preliminary Experimental Results:

N4->N3 background flow


18/21


Preliminary Experimental

Results with No Background


19/21


Conclusions & Future Work

Network-Adaptive

End-to-End Vs Hop-by-hop Video Adaptation in WMNs

Preliminary Architecture & Scheme are proposed

Future Work

Performance Evaluation through extensive experiments

Hop-by-hop scheme needed to be improved

There is still video distortion before video adaptation starting due to

reactive reponse

To solve this problem, error recovery and adaptive playout can be

incorporated (preliminary idea!)


20/21


References

[1] J. Jun and M. L. Sichitiu, The nominal capacity of wireless mesh networks, IEEE WirelessCommunications Magazine, Oct. 2003.

[2] Q. Zhang, Video delivery over wireless multp-hop networks, in Proc. ISPCS, Dec. 2005


21/21


Thanks !Q & A

Network Adaptive Video Streaming Over Wireless Mesh Networks 3200

Documents

Transcript of Network Adaptive Video Streaming Over Wireless Mesh Networks 3200