P. 1
Receiver-Driver Layered Multicast

Receiver-Driver Layered Multicast

4.0

|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by abhro1234

More info:

Published by: abhro1234 on Jul 26, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

Receiver-driver Layered Multicast

Steven McCanne Van Jacobson Martin Vetterli ACM SIGCOMM ‘96

1

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

2

Introduction
 For streaming video, it is important to offer

QoS control to maximize video quality.
 However, because of heterogeneity and scale

over the Internet, it’s difficult to make multipoint communication with good QoS control.

3

Introduction (con’t.)

4

Introduction (con’t.)
 Application-Layer QoS Control  Congestion Control
 

Source-based Rate Control Receiver-based Rate Control

Error Control

5

Introduction (con’t.)
 Source-based rate-adaptation performs

poorly in a heterogeneous multicast environment.
There is no single target rate.  All receivers cannot be simultaneously satisfied with one transmission rate.  Overload of streaming server.

6

Introduction (con’t.)
 This paper proposed a framework for

multicast video stream with a protocol called Receiver-driven Layered Multicast (RLM).
 Receivers implicitly define the multicast

distribution trees by expressing their interest in receiving flows.

7

Introduction (con’t.)
 Two crucial points of RLM :

Layered compression algorithm must by applied to video streams.  The system must have mechanisms for determining, communicating, and executing the selective forwarding of subflows along all the links.

8

9

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

10

The Network Model
Assumptions:
 Only best-effort, multipoint packet delivery, e.g.,

without guarantees for packet ordering, minimum bandwidth, etc.
 The delivery efficiency of IP Multicast, i.e., that traffic

flows only along links with downstream recipients.

11

The Network Model (con’t.)

group-oriented communication: receivers can dynamically join and leave the communication group in an efficient and timely manner.

12

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

13

The RLM Protocol

14

The RLM Protocol

(con’t.)

 Conceptually, each receiver runs the

following simple control loop:
on congestion, drop a layer;  on spare capacity, add a layer.

 Under this scheme, a receiver searches for

the optimal level of subscription.

15

The RLM Protocol

(con’t.)

 In order to probe the network conditions, a

“joint-experiment” methods is introduced.
 Joint-experiment is to carry out active

experiments by spontaneously adding layers at “well chosen” times.

16

4

X

X X

T4 T3 T2 T1

Layer#

3 2 1

Time

Ti : joint-timer of each layer

Detection-time

17

RLM Adaptation
 Main concept is to do join-experiments infrequently

when they are likely to fail, but readily when they are likely to succeed.
 Detection-time are used to represent the time it

takes for a local layer change to be fully established and for the resulting impact to be detected back at the receiver.

18

RLM Adaptation (con’t.)
 If a join-experiment lasts longer than the detection-

time without congestion occurring, then we deem the experiment successful.

19

Shared Learning
 As the session membership grows, the

aggregate frequency of join-experiments increases.

 Network is congested due to join-experiments

increases.

 Experiments tend to interfere with each other.

20

Shared Learning (con’t.)
 “Shared learning”: Before a receiver conducts a join-

experiment, it notifies the entire group by multicasting a message identifying the experimental layer.
 Thus all receivers can learn from other receivers'

failed join-experiments.

21

Shared Learning (con’t.)
(Layer2, T2)

4

R5

3

R4

(Layer2, T2)

S

X X

R3 Layer2, T2

2

(Layer2, T2) R2

1

If congestion occurs, receivers who detect packet lost learn together that layer2 is problematic. Ts : start time of layer s

R1

(Layer2, T2)

1

22

Shared Learning (con’t.)
(Layer2, T2)

?

4

R5

3

X
R4

(Layer2, T2)

S

Layer4, T4

(Layer2, T2) R2 (Layer2, T2)

? ?

R3

2

1

?

R1

(Layer2, T2)

1

Ts : start time of layer s
23

Shared Learning (con’t.)
(Layer4, T4)

4

R5

3

R4

(Layer4, T4)

S Layer3, T3

R3

2

(Layer4, T4) R2 R1 (Layer4, T4)

ok

1

(Layer4, T4)

1

Ts : start time of layer s
24

Join-timers Decrease the jointimer Subscribe to the next layer

Detection-timer
Drop the current layer and increase Tj.

25

RLM state and parameters

26

RLM state and parameters (con’t.)

Tjk <- min ( α Tjk , Tjmax ) Tjk <- max (β Tjk , Tjmin )

27

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

28

Simulations and Results
 ns simulator is used  main fixed parameter:

α= 2 ; β= 2/3  Tjmin = 5 sec ; Tjmax=600sec
  

Tjk are chosen randomly from density function. TD is initialized with a large value, and adapt it according congestion conditions.
29

Simulation 1
Latency Scalability

30

Results 1.1

31

Results 1.2

Measurement window
32

Simulation 2
Session Scalability

33

Results 2.1
Session-size Scalability

34

Results 2.1
Rate of Convergence

35

Simulation 3
Bandwidth Heterogeneity

36

Results 3
Bandwidth Heterogeneity

37

Simulation 4
Superposition

38

Results 4
Superposition

39

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

40

Network Implications
 Receiver-consensus  Group Maintenance  Fairness

41

Outline
 Introduction  The Network Model  The RLM protocol  Simulations and Results  Network Implications  Conclusion and Comments

42

Conclusions
 This paper proposed a framework for the

transmission of layered signals over heterogeneous networks using receiver-driven adaptation.
 The performance of RLM through simulation showed

that it exhibits reasonable loss and convergence rates under several scaling scenarios.

43

Comments
 Receiver-driven mechanism with layered

compression technique may be one of the tendency of multimedia communication in the future.
 With adaptive error control algorithm, the mechanism

proposed here would be more powerful on bandwidth utilization and server resource allocation.
 However, there are still disadvantages of this

mechanism. Ex: fairness..
44

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->