1 / 32

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast. Paper by- Steven McCanne, Van Jacobson and Martin Vetterli – ACM SIGCOMM 1996 Presented By – Manoj Sivakumar. Overview. Introduction Approaches to Rate-Adaptive Multimedia Issues and challenges RLM - Details Performance Evaluation Conclusions.

vail
Download Presentation

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast

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. Receiver-driven Layered Multicast Paper by- Steven McCanne, Van Jacobson and Martin Vetterli – ACM SIGCOMM 1996 Presented By – Manoj Sivakumar

  2. Overview • Introduction • Approaches to Rate-Adaptive Multimedia • Issues and challenges • RLM - Details • Performance Evaluation • Conclusions

  3. Introduction • Consider a typical streaming Application • What rate should the source send data at ? Receiver Source Internet 128 Kb/s X Kb/s

  4. Approaches to Rate-Adaptive Multimedia • Rate Adaptation at Source – based on available network capacity • Works well for a Unicast environment • How about multicast ? Receiver 1 X1 Kb/s source Receiver 2 128 Kb/s X2 Kb/s Receiver 3 X3 Kb/s

  5. Example of Heterogeneity

  6. Issues and Challenges • Optimal link utilization • Best possible service to all receivers • Ability to cope with Congestion in the network • All this should be done with just best effort service on the internet

  7. Layered Approach • Rather than sending a single encoded video signal the source sends several layers of encoded signal – each layer incrementally refining the quality of the signal • Intermediate Routers drop higher layers when congestion occurs

  8. Layered Approach • Each layer is sent to one multicast group • If a receiver wants higher quality – subscribes to all higher level layer multicast groups

  9. Issue in Layered Approach • No framework for explicit signaling between the receivers and routers • A mechanism to adapt to both static heterogeneity and dynamic variations in network capacity is not present • Solution - RLM

  10. RLM – Network Model • Works with IP Multicast • Assume • Best effort (packets may be out of order, lost or arbitrarily delayed) • Multicast (traffic flows only along links with downstream recipients) • Group oriented communication (senders do not know of receivers and receivers can come and go) • Receivers may specify different senders

  11. RLM - Video Streams • One channel per layer • Layers are additive • Adding more channels gives better quality • Adding more channels requires more bandwidth

  12. RLM Sessions • Each session composed of layers, with one layer per group • Layers can be separate (i.e. each layer is higher quality) or additive (add all to get maximum quality) • Additive is more efficient

  13. Router Mechanisms • Dropping of packets • Drop less preferential packets first

  14. RLM - Protocol • Abstraction • on congestion, drop a layer • on spare capacity, add a layer

  15. RLM – Adding and Dropping layers • Drop layer when packet loss • Add does not have counter-part signal • Need to try adding at well-chosen times • Called join experiment

  16. RLM – Adding and Dropping layers • If join experiment fails • Drop layer, since causing congestion • If join experiment succeeds • One step closer to operating level • But join experiments can cause congestion • Only want to try when might succeed

  17. RLM – Join Experiments • Get lowest layer and start timer for next probe • Initially timer small • If higher level fails then increase timer duration else proceed to next layer and start time for the layer above it • Repeat until optimum

  18. RLM Join Experiment • How to know is join experiment succeeded • Detection time

  19. Detection Time • Hard to estimate • Can only be done experimentally • Initially start with a large value • Progressively update the detection time based on actual values

  20. RLM - Issues with Joins • Is this Scalable • What if each node does join experiments and the same time for different layers • Wrong info to node that requests lower layer if the other node had requested higher layer • Solution – Shared Learning

  21. RLM – Shared Learning • Each node broadcasts its intent to the group • Adv’s – other nodes can learn from the result of this node’s experiment • Reduction in simultaneous experiments • Is this still foolproof ??

  22. RLM - Evaluation • Simulations performed in NS • Video modeled as CBR • Parameters • Bandwidth: 1.5 Mbps • Layers: 6, each 32 x 2m kbps (m = 0 … 5) • Queue management :Drop Tail • Queue Size (20 packets) • Packet size (1 Kbytes) • Latency (varies) • Topology (next slide)

  23. RLM - Evaluation • Topologies • 1 – explore latency • 2 – explore scalability • 3 – heterogeneous with two sets • 4 – large number of independent sessions

  24. RLM – Performance Metrics • Worse-case lost rate over varying time intervals • Short-term: how bad transient congestion is • Long-term: how often congestion occurs • Throughput as percent of available • But will always be 100% eventually • So, look at time to reach optimal • Note, neither alone is ok • Could have low loss, low throughput • High loss, high throughput • Need to look at both

  25. RLM – Performance Results • Latency Results

  26. RLM – Performance Results • Latency Results

  27. RLM – Performance Results • Session Size

  28. RLM – Performance Results • Convergence rate

  29. RLM – Performance Results • Bandwidth Heterogeneity

  30. Conclusions • Possible Pitfalls • Shared Learning assumes only multicast traffic • Is this valid ?? • Is congestion produced by Multicast traffic alone • Simulation does not other traffic requests!!

  31. Conclusions • Overall – a nice architecture and mechanism to regulate traffic and have the best utilization • But still needs refinement

  32. References • S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli, "Receiver-driven layered multicast," in Proc. SIGCOMM'96, ACM, Stanford, CA, Aug. 1996, pp. 117--130.

More Related