P2P Media Streaming - Amir H. Payberah · 2020-04-15 · 4/118 ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27...

Preview:

Citation preview

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 1/118

P2P Media Streaming

Amir H. Payberah (amir@sics.se)

2/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 3/118

Introduction

4/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Media Streaming

•Media streaming is a multimedia that is sent over a network and played as it is being received by end users.

•Users do not need to wait to download all the media.

•They can play it while the media is delivered by the provider.

5/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Media Streaming

•Live Media Streaming The streams are only available at one particular time.

•Video on Demand (VoD) The streams are stored on a server and are available to be transmitted 

at a user's request.

It provides a large subset of VCR functionality, e.g., pause, fast forward, fast rewind and ...

6/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Media Streaming Trend

Cisco's global consumer Internet traffic forecast

7/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

 Solutions for Media Streaming

•Client­Server solution

8/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Client – Server

9/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Client – Server

•What is the problem of Client-Server model? [d]

10/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Client – Server

•What is the problem of Client-Server model?

•Scalability•Single point of failure

11/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Client – Server

•What is the problem of Client-Server model?

•Scalability•Single point of failure

•Providing a scalable service, which is resistant to failure is very expensive.

12/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Client – Server

Distributed serversContent Delivery Network (CDN)

13/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

 Solutions for Media Streaming

•Client­Server solution

•Peer­to­Peer solution

14/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Peer­to­Peer

•The peers can help each other.

•The peers who have parts of the data can forward it to other requesting peers.

•The capacity increases with the number of peers.

15/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 16/118

P2P Media Streaming

17/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

P2P Media Streaming Challenges

• Data should be received with respect to certain timing constraints. A negligible startup delay Smooth playback A negligible playback latency (only for Live Streaming)

18/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

P2P Media Streaming Challenges

• Data should be received with respect to certain timing constraints. A negligible startup delay Smooth playback A negligible playback latency (only for Live Streaming)

• Nodes join, leave and fail continuously. Called churn

19/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

P2P Media Streaming Challenges

• Data should be received with respect to certain timing constraints. A negligible startup delay Smooth playback A negligible playback latency (only for Live Streaming)

• Nodes join, leave and fail continuously. Called churn

• Network capacity changes.

20/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

P2P Media Streaming Challenges

• Data should be received with respect to certain timing constraints. A negligible startup delay Smooth playback A negligible playback latency (only for Live Streaming)

• Nodes join, leave and fail continuously. Called churn

• Network capacity changes.

• Free­riding problem.

21/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

P2P Media Streaming Challenges

• Data should be received with respect to certain timing constraints. A negligible startup delay Smooth playback A negligible playback latency (only for Live Streaming)

• Nodes join, leave and fail continuously. Called churn

• Network capacity changes.

• Free­riding problem.

• Connectivity Problem. NAT problem.

22/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Main Questions

•What overlay topology is built for data dissemination?

•What algorithm is used for data dissemination?

•How to construct and maintain this overlay?

23/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Main Questions

•What overlay topology is built for data dissemination?

•What algorithm is used for data dissemination?

•How to construct and maintain this overlay?

24/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Data Dissemination Overlay

•What overlay topology is built to distribute data messages.

• It could be: Single tree Multiple tree Mesh

25/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Single Tree Structure

• Build a single multicast tree, in which the root is the media source and the interior nodes and leaves are peers.

Media Source

26/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Single Tree Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

27/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Single Tree Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage The short latency of data delivery. Easy to implement.

•Disadvantage The fragility of the tree structure upon the failure of nodes close to the 

root.  All the traffic is only forwarded by the interior nodes.

28/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Multiple­Tree Structure

• The media source splits the stream into a set of sub­streams.

• A single tree is created for each sub­stream.

• A peer to receive the whole media should join all trees.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 3

Media Server

5

2 4 6

29/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Multiple­Tree Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

30/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Multiple­Tree Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Resilient to node failure. Good load balancing

•Disadvantage Difficult to implement. If a node fails, the sub­tree rooted at that node does not receive data, 

while they rejoin the system again.

31/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Mesh­based Structure

• The media source into small blocks.

• Nodes are connected in a mesh­network.

• Nodes periodically exchange their buffer maps.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1

3

5

2

46

Media Server

32/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Mesh Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

33/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Mesh Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Resilient to node failure Good load balancing Easy to implement

•Disadvantage Unpredictable latencies due to the frequent exchange of notifications 

and requests.

34/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Main Questions

•What overlay topology is built for data dissemination?

•What algorithm is used for data dissemination?

•How to construct and maintain this overlay?

35/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Data Dissemination Algorithms

•How to distribute data messages.

• It could be: Push­based Pull­base Push­Pull­based

36/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Push­based Data Dissemination

•A node actively pushes a received block to its neighbours.

•Mostly used in tree­based overlays.

•What about mesh­based overlays? [d]

37/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Push­based Data Dissemination

•A node actively pushes a received block to its neighbours.

•Mostly used in tree­based overlays.

•What about mesh­based overlays? Redundant messages: a node might blindly push a block to a node 

already has that block.

38/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Pull­based Data Dissemination

•Nodes periodically exchange data availability (buffer maps).

•After receiving a buffer map, a node can decide and schedule to pull which block from which node.

•Mostly used in mesh­based overlays.

39/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Pull­based Data Dissemination

•Nodes periodically exchange data availability (buffer maps).

•After receiving a buffer map, a node can decide and schedule to pull which block from which node.

•Mostly used in mesh­based overlays.In order

Rarest firstHybrid

40/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Push­Pull­based Data Dissemination

• Usually blocks are pushed through the tree and missed blocks are pulled from the mesh neighbours.

Media Source

41/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Main Questions

•What overlay topology is built for data dissemination?

•What algorithm is used for data dissemination?

•How to construct and maintain this overlay?

42/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Overlay Construction and Maintenance

•How to build and maintain the data distribution overlay.

•Using the control messages for this purpose.

• It could be: Centralized Hierarchical DHT­based Control flooding Gossip­based

43/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Centralized Method

Media Server Central Server

1

2

3

4

New Node

44/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Centralized Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

45/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Centralized Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Fast Easy to apply optimization methods. Easy to implement.

•Disadvantage Not scalable Single point of failure

46/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Hierarchical Method

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 1

1

2

4

New Node

3

47/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Hierarchical Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

48/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Hierarchical Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Scalable. No single point of failure.

•Disadvantage Slow convergence Difficult to implement

49/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

DHT­based Method

Media Server

New Node

1

2

3

4

50/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

DHT­based Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

51/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

DHT­based Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Scalable. No single point of failure.

•Disadvantage Difficult to implement

52/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Controlled Flooding Method

New node

ttl=2

ttl=1

ttl=1

OK

53/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Flooding Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

54/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Flooding Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Scalable. No single point of failure.

•Disadvantage No guarantee to find supplier node Slow convergence

55/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Gossip­based Method

OK

• Peers periodically send their data availability to their neighbours.

Request / Reply

56/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Gossip­based Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage [d]

57/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Gossip­based Advantage/Disadvantage?

•Advantage/Disadvantage

•Advantage Scalable. No single point of failure. Easy to implement

•Disadvantage No guarantee to find supplier node in time

58/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 59/118

Classification of P2P Streaming Solutions

60/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Related Work

• SplitStream• DONet/Coolsteraming• CoopNet• Orchard• Bullet• Prime• Pulsar• NICE• Zigzag• DirectStream• MeshCast

• mtreeBone• PULSE• GnuStream• SAAR• ChainSaw• ChunkySpread• BulkTree• ForestCast• AnySee• DagStream• Climber

• CollectCast• HyMoNet• GridMedia• Promise• Yoid• Zebra• Tribler• CliqueStream• GradienTv• Sepidar• GLive

61/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Two Main Classifications

•Data dissemination overlay and its construction.

•How to manage data messages.

62/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Two Main Classifications

•Data dissemination overlay and its construction.

•How to manage data messages.

63/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Data Dissemination Overlay

•Data dissemination: Push – Single­tree Push – Multiple­tree Pull – Mesh Push­Pull

•Overlay maintenance: Centralized Hierarchical DHT­based Control flooding Gossip­based

20 different combinations

64/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Data Dissemination Overlay 

Push (Single Tree) Push (Multiple-tree) Pull (Mesh) Push-Pull

CoopnetForestCast

ZebraSpliStream

SAAROrchard

ChunkySpread

DirectedStreamHyMoNet

YoidNice

ZigZagClimberSAAR

SepidarGradienTv

PrimePulsar

CliqueStreamBullet

NewCoolStreamingMtreeboneGridMedia

GLiveBulkTree

CollectCastPromiseSAAR

GnuStreamCoolStreaming

PulseChainsawMeshCast

TriblerDagstream

65/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Overlay Construction and Maintenance Methods

Centralized

Hierarchical

DHT-based

Flooding

Gossip-based

DirectedStream, HyMoNet, Yoid, CoopNetForestCast, Zebra, Prime

GLive, Sepidar, GradienTv, Orchard, ChunkySpread, CoolStreaming, Pulse, ChainsawMeshCast, Tribler, DagStream, Bullet, mTreebone, GridMedia

NICE, ZigZag, Climber, BulkTree, Prime

SAAR, SplitStream, CollectCast, Promise, CliqueStream, Pulsar

GnuStream

66/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

All Together

Push (Single tree) Push (Multiple-tree) Pull (Mesh) Push-Pull

Centralized

Hierarchical

DHT-based

Flooding

Gossip-based

Glive - CoolStreaming – Pulse - Chainsaw – MeshCast - Tribler -

DagStream

Sepidar - GradienTvBullet - mTreebone

GridMedia

CoopnetForestCast

Zebra

DirectedStreamHyMoNet

Yoid

Prime

Prime

PulsarCliqueStream

OrchardChunkySpread

NICEZigZagClimber

SAAR SAARSplitStream

SAARCollectCast

Promise

GnuStream

BulkTree

67/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Two Main Classifications

•Data dissemination overlay and its construction.

•How to manage data messages.

68/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Managing Data Messages 

•Source­driven approach

•Receiver­driven approach

•Data­driven approach

69/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Source­driven Approach

•Use tree(s) rooted at the source to distribute data messages.

•Data messages are pushed. 

70/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Receiver­driven Approach

•Use tree(s) rooted at the receivers.

•Receivers organizes resources (other nodes) that they can obtain the stream.

•Data messages are pushed or pulled from the other nodes.

71/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Data­driven Approach

•Nodes exchange their buffer maps.

•Data messages are pulled from the other nodes.

72/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

All Together

Source-driven

Receiver-driven

Data-driven

PeerCast, Narada, ZigZag, Nice

Sepidar, gradienTv, Promise, CollectCast, SplitStream, PeerStreaming, PALS, CoopNet, NewCoolStreaming, ChunkySpread

Glive, CoolStreaming, ChainSaw, Pulse

73/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 74/118

Connectivity Problem

75/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Connectivity Problem

• In the Internet, a large fraction of the nodes are behind NAT.

76/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Connectivity Problem

• In the Internet, a large fraction of the nodes are behind NAT.

77/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Solutions

•Hole punching

•Relaying

78/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Hole Punching

• Enables two nodes to establish a direct connection over intermediary NATs with the help of a third party rendezvous server. STUN (UDP) and STUNT (TCP)

[B. Ford – RFC 5128]

79/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Relaying

•Relaying can be used either where hole punching techniques do not succeed or where hole punching takes too long to complete. TURN

[B. Ford – RFC 5128]

80/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 81/118

Security in P2P Streaming Systems

82/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Forgery and Repudiation attacks Forgery: fabricating or tampering data stream. Repudiation: denying the received data stream or to acknowledge with 

false information.

83/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Forgery and Repudiation attacks Forgery: fabricating or tampering data stream. Repudiation: denying the received data stream or to acknowledge with 

false information.

• Pollution attacks Mixing or substituting junk data into the stream.

84/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Forgery and Repudiation attacks Forgery: fabricating or tampering data stream. Repudiation: denying the received data stream or to acknowledge with 

false information.

• Pollution attacks Mixing or substituting junk data into the stream.

•Membership and Eclipse attacks Compromising the underlying overlay or membership protocol, e.g., the 

routing mechanism.

85/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Neighbour selection attacks Controlling the neighbour selection mechanism of some nodes.

86/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Neighbour selection attacks Controlling the neighbour selection mechanism of some nodes.

• Sybil attacks Used when the reputation mechanism established in a P2P system. Creating a large number of entities, which bear the same disguised 

identifier.

87/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Neighbour selection attacks Controlling the neighbour selection mechanism of some nodes.

• Sybil attacks Used when the reputation mechanism established in a P2P system. Creating a large number of entities, which bear the same disguised 

identifier

• DoS attacks Sending excessive amount of requests and ...

88/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Common Attacks in P2P Streaming Systems

• Neighbour selection attacks Controlling the neighbour selection mechanism of some nodes.

• Sybil attacks Used when the reputation mechanism established in a P2P system. Creating a large number of entities, which bear the same disguised 

identifier

• DoS attacks Sending excessive amount of requests and ...

• Omission attacks Not sending the data according to the protocol. Other extreme than DoS attack.

89/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Free­riding Problem

• Free­riders are the nodes that uses the resources in the system, without contributing in data distribution.

• Incentivzing mechanism Tit­for­tat Transitive auditing

90/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Collusion

• Each of the presented attacks can exacerbate by collusion.

• A collection of nodes conduct correlated attack.

91/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Outline

• Introduction

•P2P media streaming

•Classification of P2P streaming systems

•Connectivity problem

•Security in P2P streaming systems

•Sepidar – a P2P streaming system

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 92/118

Sepidar

93/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Problem Description (1/3)

• Building an overlay network, such that: Nodes with higher upload bandwidth are positioned closer to the media source. Nodes with similar upload bandwidth become neighbours.

• Results: Reduces the average number of hops from nodes to the media source. Reduces the probability of streaming disruptions. Reduces the playback latency.

Similar upload bandwidth

94/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Problem Description (1/3)

• Building an overlay network, such that: Nodes with higher upload bandwidth are positioned closer to the media source. Nodes with similar upload bandwidth become neighbours.

• Results: Reduces the average number of hops from nodes to the media source. Reduces the probability of streaming disruptions. Reduces the playback latency.

Similar upload bandwidth

95/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Problem Description (2/3)

• A node can create a bounded number of download connections, and accept a bounded number of upload connections.

• A parent node pushes data block from its upload connection, and a child node receives it from its download connection.

Parent

Child

Download slot

Upload slot

96/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Problem Description (3/3)

• Problem: How to assign upload slots to download slots?

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 97/118

The Naïve Solution

98/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Multiple­tree Overlay

• Split the main stream into a set of sub­streams, and divides each sub­stream into a number of blocks.

• In case of having 2 stripes: Sub­stream 0: 0, 2, 4, 6, … Sub­stream 1: 1, 3, 5, 7, …

• Construct one tree for each stripe: Multiple­tree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 3 5

2 4 6

99/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

How to Assign Upload Slots to Download Slots?

• This can be modelled as an assignment problem.

• We use a market­based approach to construct the overlay trees. Inspired by auction algorithms.

• Centralized solution: Needs global knowledge. Possible for small system sizes.

100/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

How to Assign Upload Slots to Download Slots?

• This can be modelled as an assignment problem.

• We use a market­based approach to construct the overlay trees. Inspired by auction algorithms.

• Centralized solution: Needs global knowledge. Possible for small system sizes.

• Distributed solution: Each node knows only a small number of nodes in the system (partial view). The nodes of partial view are selected randomly. We used Cyclon in our implementation.

101/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Node Properties

• Currency: The the number of upload slots at a node.

• Price: The price of a node that has an unused upload slot is zero, otherwise the node’s price equals the lowest currency of its already connected children.

• Cost: The length of its path to the root. 

102/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Streaming Overlay Construction

• Our market model is based on minimizing costs through nodes iteratively bidding for upload slots.

• The depth of a node in each tree is inversely proportional to its currency.

103/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Market Model – Child Side

Currency: 3Cost: 5

Q:  Price: 1      Cost: 4

N:  Price: 2      Cost: 6

M:  Price: 5      Cost: 4

X:  Price: 3      Cost: 5

P

104/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Market Model – Child Side

Currency: 3Cost: 5

Q:  Price: 1      Cost: 4

N:  Price: 2      Cost: 6

M:  Price: 5      Cost: 4

X:  Price: 3      Cost: 5

P

105/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Market Model – Parent Side

Q

Request

P

Price: 1

Currency: 2 Currency: 3 Currency: 3 Currency: 1

106/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Market Model – Parent Side

Q

P

107/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Constructed Streaming Overlay

• Constructed 2­tree overlay.• Darker nodes have more upload capacity than lighter ones.

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 108/118

Optimization

109/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Node Discovery

• Naïve solution: nodes in partial views are selected randomly from all the nodes.

• Optimization: nodes use the Gradient overlay to construct and maintain their partial view of the system.

110/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

The Gradient Overlay

• The Gradient overlay is a class of P2P overlays that arranges nodes using a local utility function at each node, such that nodes are ordered in descending utility values away from a core of the highest utility nodes.

• Rather than have nodes explore the whole system for better parents, the Gradient enables nodes to limit exploration to the set of nodes with asimilar number of upload slots.

The Gradient overlay

111/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Partial Views Using The Gradient Overlay

Similar­view pointer

Finger pointer

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 112/118

Handling Free­riders

113/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Handling Free­riders

114/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

Handling Free­riders

• After detecting a node as a free-rider, the parent node p decreases its own price (p's price) to zero and as a punishment considers the free-rider node q as its child with the lowest currency.

• On the next bid from another node, p replaces the free-rider node with the new node.

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 115/118

DONE!

116/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

A Page To Remember

• Media Streaming Live VoD

• Client-Server model Expensive

• P2P model The peers can help each other and the capacity increases with the number of

peers.

• Challenges Time constraint Churn Connectivity Security

• Main questions What overlay topology? What algorithm for data dissemination? How to construct the topology

ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011 117/118

Question?

118/118ID2210 - P2P Media Streaming – 27 April 2011

References

• [1] W. -P. Ken Yiu, Xing Jin, and S. -H. Gary Chan. 2007. Challenges and Approaches in Large-Scale P2P Media Streaming. IEEE MultiMedia 14, 2 (April 2007), 50-59.

• [2] Y. Liu, Y. Guo, and C. Liang, A survey on peer-to-peer video streaming systems, in Journal of Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, by Springer New York, Feburary, 2008.

• [3] Thomas Silverston and Olivier Fourmaux. 2006. Source vs Data-driven Approach for Live P2P Streaming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Networking, International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies (ICNICONSMCL '06). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 99-.

• [4] G. Gheorghe, R. Lo Cigno, A. Montresor, Security and privacy issues in P2P streaming systems: A survey, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications (on-line 23 April 2010), Springer.

• [5] Amir H. Payberah, Fatemeh Rahimian, Seif Haridi, Jim Dowling, Sepidar: Incentivized Market-Based P2P Live-Streaming on the Gradient Overlay Network, ism, pp.1-8, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on

Multimedia, 2010.

Recommended