1 / 15

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network. EE368C Project Proposal Sangeun Han, Athina Markopoulou 1/30/01. References - Motivation. Scalable Video Coding & Transmission U.Horn & B. Girod, “Scalable video transmission for the Internet”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 1997.

iona
Download Presentation

Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transmitting Scalable Video over a DiffServ network EE368C Project Proposal Sangeun Han, Athina Markopoulou 1/30/01

  2. References - Motivation • Scalable Video Coding & Transmission • U.Horn & B. Girod, “Scalable video transmission for the Internet”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 1997. • M. van der Schaar & H.Radha, “A hybrid temporal-SNR FGS for the Internet video”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. • J.Kimura & F.Tobagi, “Perceived quality and bandwidth characterization of layered MPEG-2 video encoding”, SPIE 1999. • S.McCanne, N.Vetterli & V.Jacobson, “Low complexity video coding for receiver -driven layered multicast”, JSAC 1997. • Differentiated Services • http://www.ietf.org/html-charters/diffserv-charter.html • RFC 2475, RFC 2597 • Software • NS simulator: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ • ITU-T Recommendation H.263 (Annex O)

  3. Overview • Scalable video coding: • MPEG-2, H.263: SNR, Spatial, Temporal, • MPEG-4, H.26L: FGS • Transmission over the network: • In general • DiffServ • Our scenario • Simulation setup • Issues

  4. Scalable Video Coding

  5. BW variation FGST FGST FGST FGST Fine-Granularity Scalability • Notes • Problems: limited scalability, error propagation • Standards: MPEG-4, H.26L • FGS advantages: transmission over networks w/ BW variation, error resilience

  6. Network Server Receiver Transmission Loss • Small loss translates into drastic quality degradation(loss of important data + temporal dependence) • Transmission over the Internet is lossy • Need to use the available bandwidth to send the most important data

  7. Solutions • Feedback + adapt transmission rate to variations • Disadvantages: complexity, granularity of BW adjustments, delay in feedback, overhead, inappropriate for multicast or high variability • Receiver Driven Layered Multicast • Problems: overhead, delay, granularity of BW • Smoothing + Admission control • Idea: limit stream and load variability. • Disadvantages: complexity, overhead, delay, model • Loss happens – control its effect by dealing with it intelligently: • Unequal error protection • Priority dropping Use the available bandwidth for the most important data

  8. Drop prob High drop Low drop 1 Important Less Important 0 Buffer occupancy Priority Dropping • Loss is inevitable. Limit its effect when it happens. Prioritize information according to importance (contribution to quality) • Drop packets according to their priority Advantages: simple sender, handles heterogeneous receivers + short term congestion

  9. 2 1 2 Best Effort Integrated Services 3 Differentiated Services QoS architectures for the Internet • Best effort: no guarantees • Integrated Services (IntServ): Per-flow guarantees • Differentiated Services (DiffServ): Per aggregate guarantees

  10. conditioning classification Example of a DiffServ node • Packet are marked (DSCP) • Each packet is treated according to this marking AF11

  11. Drop prob AFx3 AFx2 AFx1 AFx1 AFx3 AFx2 AFx1 AFx3 1 0 Buffer occupancy AF class • IETF DiffServ WG in RFC 2597 defines 4 “Assured Forwarding” (AF) classes • Each AFx class: marking with AFx1, AFx2, AFx3 • Minimum BW guaranteed for the AFx aggregate. • 3 dropping priorities (1,2,3).

  12. Scalable video in DiffServ • Use a particular AF Class for Video • Mark different layers with different AF dropping priorities • Define mechanisms to be used for the Video AF Class • Give rationale on how to create layers to work together with AF

  13. Approach • Simulation & trying scenarios Playback buffer H.263+ Encoder + Layering RTP Packet. Depackt. Decoding + [Error Conceal.] DiffServ Network Marker (Packet Loss) Layered video Layered video RTP Transport

  14. Issues • Purpose: show benefit of combining layering and priority dropping • Network point of view: Provide recommendations for DiffServ standardization: • How many priorities are really needed? • How to configure AF class? • How to choose the layering parameters? • Coding point of view: Explore benefit of layering/FGS: • under Internet loss scenarios • E.g., Tradeoff between motion smoothness and quality of pictures under buffer loss, or mix with bursty data • Significance of fine granularity for real scenarios

  15. Suggestions..?

More Related