Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1
**AVPF vs AVP RTCP Intevals**

2
AVP and AVPF Interop Whe AVP and AVPF is interoperating one must choose certain parameters correctly. In trying to determine the most suitable based on the timing rules a AVPF timing issue was found that is problematic for interop. Based on simulations of the algorithm There might be bugs in the simulation

3
**AVPF vs AVP Problems avg_rtcp_size:200 bytes RR: 500 bps RS: 1000 bps**

Senders: 1 Members: 2 We_sent: FALSE Trr-int:5 Tmin:5 (AVP only) AVPF vs AVP Problems Simulated distributions of RTCP transmission interval Tn is AVPF sending rules without suppression or reconsideration, i.e. Td*rand(0.5,1.5) AVPF(TN no supp) is with reconsideration AVP is RFC 3550 including reconsideration When Td calculation becomes close to, but below Trr-int AVPF suppression pushes transmissions interval distribution upwards and uneven in distribution

4
**Td << Trr-int avg_rtcp_size:200 bytes RR: 10000 bps RS: 1000 bps**

Senders: 1 Members: 2 We_sent: FALSE Trr-int:5 Tmin:5 (AVP only) Td << Trr-int Here the RTCP bandwidth portion the calculation uses has been increased from 500 to 10k bps, i.e. 20 times Reduces Td Therefore both Tn and AVPF without suppression are all ending up in the s range As can be seen the AVPF distribution are mostly uniform in the range *Trr-int, with a little bit of tail However, still longer tail than AVP

5
**Td>Trr-Int avg_rtcp_size:200 bytes RR: 500 bps RS: 1000 bps**

Senders: 1 Members: 4 We_sent: FALSE Trr-int:5 Tmin:5 (AVP only) Td>Trr-Int Same RR as the problem slide 500 bps, but now with 4 members, i.e. 3 receivers sharing RR As can be seen here only a little bit of suppression happens at the s range, i.e *Trr-int. That suppression do show up as bit of long tail above 12.5 seconds

6
**Question: What gives best interop?**

So how does an AVPF user set his parameters to best interoperate from a perspective of avoiding accidental timeout: The Regular RTCP transmission distribution is one factor which is depending on: Trr-int that sets suppression The Td deciding values: Members Senders RR and RS Average RTCP packet size The other is when AVPF times out AVP participants 5*Trr-Int given that Trr-int != 0 Thus we must combine Trr-int large enough so that an AVPF particpant do not time out AVP participants At the same time AVPF regular RTCP transmission interval should not be so long that AVP times out How many consecutive packet losses are needed before timeout happens?

7
Td parameterization When using AVPF one should try to avoid setting RR and RS so that Td in the given session are close to Trr-int. The tail in the AVPF RTCP interval distribution is at its extreme at 1.5*Trr-int + 1.5*Td/ Worst case Td = Trr-int: 2.73*Trr-int Td should preferably be less than 1/4th of Trr-Int That gives us max tail length of: 1.5*Trr-int + 1.5*Trr-int/(4* ) ≈ 1.81 Trr-int AVP’s tail ends at 1.5*Tmin/ = 1.231*Tmin Given that Td is less than Tmin Otherwise replace Tmin with Td

8
Equalizing the tails If we would like to have equally values for the extreme randomization intervals given that Td is less than Tmin and Trr-int: Trr-int = 1.231/1.81*Tmin 1.81 (following the Td < 1/4th Trr-int recommendation) Tmin = 5 s => Trr-int = 3.40 s This ensures that no AVPF session participant is more likely to time out than an AVP one. However, the reverse is not true.

9
**Timing out AVP participants**

An AVPF participant will timeout an participant at 5*Trr-int, Equivalent of AVP participants using a Trr-int as a factor for number of intervals before timing out. This assumes Tmin=5s and Td<Tmin

10
**Finding the optimal both ways**

So what is the point of least decrease in timeout robustness performance: Given that Tmin = 5 s and Td < Tmin AVPF intervals before AVP timeout(target): 5*Tmin/(Trr-int) AVPF intervals before AVP timeout(1/4 * Trr-int): 5*Tmin/(Trr-int*1.81) AVPF Intervals before AVP timeout (1/10 * Trr-int): 5*Tmin/(Trr-int*1.623) AVP intervals before AVPF timeout (target): 5*Trr-int/5 AVP intervals before AVPF timeout (worst case): 5*Trr-int/(1.231*Tmin)

11
**Number of Reporting Intervals given Trr-int**

12
Recommendations Based on these findings it appears that the following recommendations for AVPF vs AVP interop should be given: RR and RS sufficiently large that Td becomes less than ¼ of Trr-int Trr-int should be chosen as 4.0

13
Future Work? Do the Suppression algorithms bad behavior needs to be addressed?

Similar presentations

OK

Image Contrast Enhancement Based on a Histogram Transformation of Local Standard Deviation Dah-Chung Chang* and Wen-Rong Wu, Member, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS.

Image Contrast Enhancement Based on a Histogram Transformation of Local Standard Deviation Dah-Chung Chang* and Wen-Rong Wu, Member, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on cross-site scripting attack Ppt on normalization Ppt on chapter natural resources 360 degree customer view ppt on iphone Ppt on animal cell and plant cell Ppt on zener diode polarity Ppt on spiritual leadership model Ppt on social contract theory hobbes Ppt on rbi reforms Ppt on multiple myeloma