Receiver Capability Heterogeneity in the Internet
Agenda Introduction Some proposed approaches Performance comparison Summary Discussion
Introduction Evolution of VoD systems Video rental Video over Internet Unicast Multicast 3 data streams1 data stream 4 data streams1 data stream VS
Introduction Problem created by receiver capability heterogeneity 3 Mbps 1 Mbps
Introduction Trivial solutions, we either 1. leave video stream rate at 3 Mbps Unable to provide real-time streaming 2. reduce video stream rate to 1 Mbps Video quality degradation
Other Approaches Replicated stream approach Layering approaches Cumulative layering approach Non-cumulative layering approach
Replicated Stream Approach Aggregate server bandwidth: 4 Mbps Sender Group of clients (C A ) – downlink: 1 Mbps Group of clients (C B ) – downlink: 3 Mbps Full quality stream (3 Mbps) Low quality stream (1 Mbps)
Layering Approaches Cumulative layering Base layer + enhancement layers Cumulative decoding E.g. MPEG-2 and H.263 standards Spatial scalability, temporal scalability, data partitioning and SNR scalability Non-cumulative layering Independently decodable video layers E.g. Multiple Description Coding (MDC)
Layering Approaches Aggregate server bandwidth: 3 Mbps Enhancement layer (2 Mbps) Base layer (1 Mbps) Sender Group of clients (C A ) – downlink: 1 Mbps Group of clients (C B ) – downlink: 3 Mbps
Comparison between the Two Approaches Common argument: Stream replication wastes server bandwidth by stream duplication However, no quantitative and systematic comparison has been given
Some Counterarguments Kim and Ammar [1] take into account of Layering overhead Protocol complexity for fair comparison [1] T. Kim, M. H. Ammar, "A comparison of layering and stream replication video multicast schemes", Proc. NOSSDAV‘ 01, Port Jefferson, NY, June 25-26, 2001.
Layering Overhead Information theory states: For the same source and same distortion, (1)layered encoding requires at least as much data rate as a non-layered encoding (2)equality requires a strict Markov condition to apply to the source
Layering Overhead Protocol and packetization overhead Source of overhead: start codes, GOP information, picture header, macroblock header etc. More severe at low data rates According to literature, overhead can be as much as 20% ~ 30%
Layering Overhead - Example Aggregate server bandwidth: 3 Mbps Take into account the overhead (e.g. 20%), data rate contributing to video data: C A 0.83 Mbps C B 2.5 Mbps Enhancement layer (2 Mbps) Base layer (1 Mbps) Sender Group of clients (C A ) – downlink: 1 Mbps Group of clients (C B ) – downlink: 3 Mbps
Video Quality Degradation Layered (2 layers with different quantizer scales) vs non-layered
Protocol Complexity In layering protocols, number of channel subscriptions >= 1, which incurs More join / leave group messages Better synchronization capability
Summary Three basic approaches to Internet heterogeneity problem Superiority not always goes to layered multicast protocol
Discussion Possible applications in multicast VoD systems Fast-forward (FF) VCR operations Normal playback resumption after VCR operations
Q & A Thank you