View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245229809
Presentation CCNC 2011 delta v5
Data · July 2013
CITATIONS
0READS
20
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
H2020 Wi-5 (What to do With the Wi-Fi Wild West) View project
Wi-5: What to do With the Wi-Fi Wild West View project
Jose Saldana
University of Zaragoza
97 PUBLICATIONS 376 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Julian Fernandez Navajas
University of Zaragoza
127 PUBLICATIONS 640 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Saldana on 16 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Presentación
Jose Saldana
Jenifer Murillo
Julián Fernández Navajas
José Ruiz Mas
Eduardo Viruete Navarro
José I. Aznar
O M U N I C A C I O N E S
TRUPO DE
CECNOLOGÍAS
GDE LAS
CPS - University of Zaragoza, Spain
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Index
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
3
Introduction
The use of Internet for multimedia transmission is growing as bandwidth increases.
Services with hard real-time
requirements:
- VoIP: Voice over IP
- Videoconferencing
- Online Gaming
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
4
RTP packet overhead
VoIP packet with 2 G.729a samples
Efficiency: 33% for IPv4
IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
8 bytes20 bytes 12 bytes 10 bytes 10 bytes
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
5
Two possible improvements Improvement 1: RTP compression schemes:
- CRTP: RFC 2508, February 1999
- ECRTP: RFC 3545, July 2003: Enhanced CRTP for scenarios with packet loss, packet reordering and long delays.
- ROHCv2: RFC 5225, April 2008
They use the repeatability of IP/UDP/RTP headers to compress them.
Problem: Only hop-by-hop. Solution: tunneling.
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
6
Increasing the number of samples
Improvement 2: More samples in a single packet. If different flows share the same path (voice trunking)
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
7
Increasing the number of samples
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
8
IP header UDP header RTP header
IP header L2TP
Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample
PPP PPPMux PPPMux PPPMux
TCRTP: Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP
(RFC 4170)
- Header compression: ECRTP (40 to 5 bytes)
- Multiplexing: PPPMux
- Tunneling: L2TPv3
Reducing overhead, bandwidth saving
Real scale
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
9
IP header UDP header RTP header
IP header L2TP
Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample
PPP PPPMux PPPMux PPPMux
TCRTP: Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP
(RFC 4170)
- Header compression: ECRTP (40 to 5 bytes)
- Multiplexing: PPPMux
- Tunneling: L2TPv3
Reducing overhead, bandwidth saving
Real scale
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
10
IP header UDP header RTP header
IP header L2TP
Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample
PPP PPPMux PPPMux PPPMux
TCRTP: Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP
(RFC 4170)
- Header compression: ECRTP (40 to 5 bytes)
- Multiplexing: PPPMux
- Tunneling: L2TPv3
Reducing overhead, bandwidth saving
Real scale
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
11
IP header UDP header RTP header
IP header L2TP
Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample
PPP PPPMux PPPMux PPPMux
TCRTP: Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP
(RFC 4170)
Real scale
- Header compression: ECRTP (40 to 5 bytes)
- Multiplexing: PPPMux
- Tunneling: L2TPv3
Reducing overhead, bandwidth saving
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
12
Disadvantages:
- New added delays (small)
- Processing charge
Increasing packet size: Good or bad?
Real scale
IP header UDP header RTP header
IP header L2TP
Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample IP header UDP header RTP header Sample Sample
RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample RH Sample Sample
PPP PPPMux PPPMux PPPMux
TCRTP: Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
13
Influence of the router
- Packet loss can be modified with the change of packet size, depending on the policy of the router’s buffer.
- The amount and size distribution of background traffic will affect the real-time traffic.
- We will use R-factor for comparatives. Takes into account delay and packet loss.
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
14
Buffer size and buffer policies - We will compare
- High-capacity buffer
- Time-limited buffer (80 ms)
IP network
MUX DEMUX .
.
.
.
.
.
RTP RTP multiplexing RTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
15
High capacity buffer - 1Mbps shared. 15 flows
60
65
70
75
80
85
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R
background traffic (kbps)
R factor15 RTP
15 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
16
High capacity buffer - 1Mbps shared. 15 flows
60
65
70
75
80
85
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R
background traffic (kbps)
R factor15 RTP
15 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Step-like graphs. When the bandwidth is not enough, the quality falls
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
17
High capacity buffer - 1Mbps shared. 15 flows
60
65
70
75
80
85
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R
background traffic (kbps)
R factor15 RTP
15 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Bandwidth saving allows a bigger amount of background traffic
TCRTP Packet size: 550 bytes 172 kbps
Native RTP Packet size: 60 bytes 432 kbps
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
18
Time-limited buffer - 1Mbps shared. 20 flows
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor20 RTP
20 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Effect of Bandwidth saving
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
19
Time-limited buffer - 1Mbps shared. 20 flows
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor20 RTP
20 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Non step-like graphs. The bigger the packet size, the bigger the slope
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
20
Time-limited buffer - 1Mbps shared. 20 flows
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor20 RTP
20 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Native RTP Packet size: 60 bytes 576 kbps
TCRTP Packet size: 550 bytes 225 kbps
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
21
Time-limited buffer - Is it better to use only one tunnel or to
group calls into a number of tunnels?
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
R
background traffic (kbps)
R factor
20 RTP
20 TCRTP
2x10 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
22
Motivation of this work
- Study the influence of different TCRTP multiplexing schemes on the perceived quality, depending on buffer policies.
- We will use 40 RTP flows sharing the same path, but divided on:
- l tunnels of k flows (l x k = 40)
- 1 tunnel of 40 flows 5 tunnels of 8 flows
- 2 tunnels of 20 flows 8 tunnels of 5 flows
- 4 tunnels of 10 flows 40 RTP flows
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Index
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
24
General Scheme - Use of a testbed
Traffic
Generation
RouterTraffic
Capture
Real Traffic in a testbed
Network
delays
+
Dejitter
buffer
Offline post-processing
Traffic
Trace
Final
Results
VoIP
Background
Buffer
policies
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
25
Traffic generation - Background traffic
- 50% 40 bytes
- 10% 576 bytes
- 40% 1500 bytes
- Only UDP, in order to avoid flow control: always the same background traffic.
- Different rates to saturate the access router: 2Mbps.
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Index
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
27
High capacity buffer
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
28
High capacity buffer
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Step-like graphs
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
29
High capacity buffer
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
The bigger the bandwidth saving, the better the behaviour
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
30
Time-limited buffer
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
No mux
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
31
Time-limited buffer
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
No mux
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
The graphs present a slope
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
32
Time-limited buffer
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
No mux
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Not ordered by the bandwidth saving
4th
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
33
Time-limited buffer
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
R-f
acto
r
background traffic (kbps)
R-factor1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
No mux
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Not ordered by the bandwidth saving
1st
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
34
Time-limited buffer
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Pac
ket
Loss
(%
)
background traffic (kbps)
Percentage of Background Traffic Packet Loss1x40 TCRTP
2x20 TCRTP
4x10 TCRTP
5x8 TCRTP
8x5 TCRTP
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Ordered by bandwidth saving
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Index
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
36
Asymptotic bandwidth relationship
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
X
k
Bandwidth Saving X for p = 0.95 S=10 bytes
Xrh S=10
S=20 bytes
Xrh=20
S=30 bytes
Xrh S=30
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
BW compressed/BW native
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
37
Asymptotic bandwidth relationship
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
X
k
Bandwidth Saving X for p = 0.95 S=10 bytes
Xrh S=10
S=20 bytes
Xrh=20
S=30 bytes
Xrh S=30
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
BW compressed/BW native
Bandwidth saving increase
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
38
Linear packet size increase
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
byte
s
k
Packet sizeRTP S=10 bytes
RTP S=20 bytes
RTP S=30 bytes
TCRTP S=10 bytes
TCRTP S=20 bytes
TCRTP S=30bytes
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
39
Linear packet size increase
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
byte
s
k
Packet sizeRTP S=10 bytes
RTP S=20 bytes
RTP S=30 bytes
TCRTP S=10 bytes
TCRTP S=20 bytes
TCRTP S=30bytes
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Packet size increase
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
40
Linear packet size increase
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Pa
cke
t siz
e (
byte
s)
Bandwidth (kbps)
Packet size vs Bandwidth 1x40
2x20
4x10
5x8
8x5
40 RTP
1 tunnel of 40 flows
2 tunnels of 20 flows
4 tunnels of 10 flows
5 tunnels of 8 flows
8 tunnels of 5 flows
40 native RTP flows
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
41
Linear packet size increase
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Pa
cke
t siz
e (
byte
s)
Bandwidth (kbps)
Packet size vs Bandwidth 1x40
2x20
4x10
5x8
8x5
40 RTP
Packet size increase
Bandwidth decrease
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas Influence of the Distribution of TCRTP Multiplexed flows on VoIP
42
Conclusions - The decision of the number of tunnels has
an influence on R-factor.
- The buffer policy has to be taken into account in order to take the correct decision. Previous measurements.
- The increase of packet size may increase packet loss, so it could be better to have a number of tunnels.
- Asymptotic behaviour.
INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Presentación
Jose Saldana
Jenifer Murillo
Julián Fernández Navajas
José Ruiz Mas
Eduardo Viruete Navarro
José I. Aznar
O M U N I C A C I O N E S
TRUPO DE
CECNOLOGÍAS
GDE LAS
CPS - University of Zaragoza, Spain View publication statsView publication stats
Recommended