1 / 32

Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services

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. Introduction. Nation-wide TV broadcast Satellite-based Terrestrial-based (typically over IP networks → IPTV)

mallorie
Download Presentation

Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services

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. 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. Introduction • Nation-wide TV broadcast • Satellite-based • Terrestrial-based (typically over IP networks → IPTV) • IPTV architectural design • Integrate IPTV services with existing IP backbone • Construct a dedicated overlay network on top of IP • Construct a direct interconnected flat IP network • Integrate with an existing switched optical network What is the best architecture for supporting IPTV?

  3. Overview of IPTV Architecture

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

  6. Design Options (cont’d) • Access connections Failure working path • Failure recovery Src Dst working path Failure Src Dst protection path switching IP layer fast-reroute (FRR) Optical layer SONET protection

  7. 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. 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. 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 SHO SHO VHO Long super links

  10. 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 SHO SHO L1 network VHO

  11. Design Instances model.1 model.2 model.3 model.4

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

  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cloud Model • Simple for modeling • Does not consider the constraints of the underlining service infrastructure

  18. Physical Model B2S B1N B1S

  19. P2P Sharing within a Community B2S B1N B1S Bottleneck Not beneficial

  20. P2P Sharing within a Community B2S B1N B1S Bottleneck Beneficial

  21. P2P Sharing across Communities B2S B1N B1S or Bottleneck Not beneficial

  22. Simulation Setup B2S: 10 Gbps Content server (1000 programs, 120 mins, 6 Mbps)

  23. Simulation Setup 20 communities Content server (1000 programs, 120 mins, 6 Mbps) B1S B2S: 10 Gbps B1N: 0.622 Gbps

  24. Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -1 Links across communities are heavily utilized. Limited by B1N Total # of peers: 20*community size

  25. Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -2 Don’t consider the bandwidth in the cloud Traffic across communities increases Limited by B2S Total # of peers: 10000 Community size: 500

  26. Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -3 Serves all active viewers Limited by B1N Limited by B1N, traffic across communities reduces the bandwidth Total # of peers: 10000 Community size: 500

  27. 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. 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. Profit Per Unit Time

  30. Simulation Results (Using MediaGrid Algorithm) When system is sufficiently utilized When system is under utilized • More peers → more benefits from P2P • Large differences among incentive models • Build-in model is the best under this setup • non-P2P may be better than P2P

  31. 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. 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”

More Related