Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jimmy
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services

play fullscreen
1 / 32
Download Presentation
Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services
241 Views
Download Presentation

Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. 1/32 Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services Meeyoung Cha, Gagan Choudhry, Jennifer Yates, Aman Shaikh and Sue Moon Presented by Yuanbin Shen March 25, 2009

    2. 2/32

    3. 3/32 Overview of IPTV Architecture

    4. 4/32 IPTV Traffic Type Broadcast TV: realtime VoD download: non-realtime download to VHOs Realtime VoD: realtime Characteristics Uni-directional and high-bandwidth VoD traffic: highly variable Multicast for broadcast TV / unicast for VoD

    5. 5/32 Design Options Technology: layer1 (optical) v.s. layer3 (IP/MPLS) Topology: hub-and-spoke v.s. meshed

    6. 6/32 Design Options (contd)

    7. 7/32 Model 1: Integrate With Existing IP Backbone Backbone links are shared and access links are dedicated Rapid deployment: using existing infrastructure High resource utilization: share bandwidth between applications Drawback: IPTV quality easily impacted by Internet traffic

    8. 8/32 Model 2: Dedicated Overlay Use common backbone routers to construct dedicated IPTV overlay Easy for performance management: links are dedicated Overhead to construct the overlay

    9. 9/32 Model 3: Flat IP (No backbone) Services routers (SR) directly connected using point-to-point links over dense wavelength division multiplexors (DWDMs) Connect geographically close VHOs into regional rings Inter-connect rings with long super links No existing infrastructure used

    10. 10/32 Model 4: Integrate with switched optical network Multicast capabilities at optical nodes (new technology) SHOs establish multicast trees, VHO receiving single best stream Failure recovery: rapid switch between different paths How to find physically-diverse paths from SHOs to each VHO? ? NP-hard ? use IP-based approach to create trees

    11. 11/32 Design Instances

    12. 12/32 Evaluation - Cost (capital) comparison of multicast and unicast Multicast is much more economical than unicast Optical network is more economical than IP network

    13. 13/32 Evaluation - Cost (capital) comparison across design instances Optical networks are more economical than IP networks Total cost is dominated by access cost (except for IP flat design) Ring access is good of multicast; dual-homed access is good for unicast(VoD) For backbone cost, the flat IP model is the most expensive

    14. 14/32 Conclusion Explore potential IPTV designs in backbone network Comparison across different design architectures Significant benefits of using multicast for broadcast TV Optical design more economical than IP designs Ring access attractive for broadcast TV; dual-homed access attractive for VoD

    15. 15/32 When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services? Yin-Farn Chen, Yennun Huang, Rittwik Jana, Hongbo Jiang, Michael Rabinovich, Bin Wei and Zhen Xiao Presented by Yuanbin Shen March 25, 2009

    16. 16/32 Introduction Problems in providing IPTV: high deployment and maintenance cost Server bandwidth limits One solution ? using P2P technology Does P2P technology always works well for IPTV? When is it beneficial? Network models Cloud model: overestimate P2P benefits Physical model: more practical Provide three incentive models to encourage P2P sharing in IPTV under a physical model

    17. 17/32 Cloud Model Simple for modeling Does not consider the constraints of the underlining service infrastructure

    18. 18/32 Physical Model

    19. 19/32 P2P Sharing within a Community

    20. 20/32 P2P Sharing within a Community

    21. 21/32 P2P Sharing across Communities

    22. 22/32 Simulation Setup

    23. 23/32 Simulation Setup

    24. 24/32 Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -1

    25. 25/32 Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -2

    26. 26/32 Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -3

    27. 27/32 Cost-Benefic Analysis Maximum Profit for Conventional IPTV Pnop2p = rN Enop2p P2P Incentive Models Built-in Model: Pb = rN Enop2p tN r: fee paid by a viewer N: number of viewers tN: P2P installation expense

    28. 28/32 Cost-Benefic Analysis Flat-reward Model: Pf = rN Enop2p twN dwN w: percent of viewers sign up for P2P d: reward per P2P user Usage-based Model Ps = rN Enop2p tN qbuTN u: average video rate T: program length q: credit per bit b: percent of viewers download data from peers

    29. 29/32 Profit Per Unit Time

    30. 30/32 Simulation Results (Using MediaGrid Algorithm)

    31. 31/32 Conclusion Studied when P2P is beneficial for IPTV Cloud model may overstate P2P benefits ? use physical model Different incentive strategies lead to different profits ? choose a proper one for specific application.

    32. 32/32 References M. Cha, G. Choudhury, J. Yates, A. Shaikh, and S. Moon, Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services, In Proc. of International Workshop on Internet Protocol TV Services over World Wide Web, May 2006 M. Cha, G. Choudhury, J. Yates, A. Shaikh, and S. Moon, Slides: http://an.kaist.ac.kr/~mycha/docs/mycha_www_iptv06.ppt Y. Chen, Y. Huang, R. Jana, H. Jiang, M. Rabinovich, B. Wei, and Z. Xiao, When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services, ACM NOSSDAV, June 2007. Meng-Ting Lu, Slides: When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services, http://nslab.ee.ntu.edu.tw/OESeminar/slides/When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services.ppt