skip to main content
10.1145/1943552.1943559acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Effects of internet path selection on video-QoE

Published:23 February 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents large scale Internet measurements to understand and improve the effects of Internet path selection on perceived video quality. We systematically study a large number of Internet paths between popular video destinations and clients to create an empirical understanding of location, persistence and recurrence of failures. We map these failures to perceptual quality by reconstructing video clips obtained from the trace to quantify both the perceptual degradations from these failures as well as the fraction of such failures that can be recovered.

We then investigate ways to recover from QoE degradation by choosing one-hop detour paths that preserve application specific policies. We seek simple, scalable path selection strategies without the need for background path monitoring or apriori path knowledge of any kind. To do this, we deployed five measurement overlays: one each in the US, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and two spread across the globe. We used these to stream IP-traces of a variety of clips between source-destination pairs while probing alternate paths for an entire week. Our results indicate that a source can recover from upto 90% of the degradations by attempting to restore QoE with any five randomly chosen nodes in an overlay. We argue that our results are robust across datasets.

Finally, we design and implement a prototype packet forwarding module called source initiated frame restoration (SIFR). We deployed SIFR on PlanetLab nodes, and compared the performance of SIFR with the default Internet routing. We show that SIFR outperforms IP-path selection by providing higher on-screen perceptual quality.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

110223_26192_06_acm.mp4

mp4

192.2 MB

References

  1. D. G. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, M. F. Kaashoek, R. Morris, "Resilient Overlay Networks", Proc. 18th ACM Symp. on Operating System Principles (SOSP), Banff, Canada, pp. 131--145. Oct 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", IETF RFC# 2475. Dec. 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. Calyam, M. Sridharan, W. Mandrawa, and P. Schopis, "Performance Measurement and Analysis of H.323 Traffic", Passive and Active Measurements (PAM), Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France, pp. 137--146. April 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Cha, P. Rodriguez, J. Crowcroft, S. Moon, and X. Amatriain, "Watching television over an IP network", Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), Vouliagmeni, Greece, pp. 71--84. Oct. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. K. Chen, C. Wu, Y. Chang, and C. Lei, "A Crowdsourceable QoE Evaluation Framework for Multimedia Content",. ACM Multimedia (MM), Beijing, China, pp. 491--500. Oct. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cisco White Paper, "Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2008--2013", Cisco Inc. Available: www.cisco.com. July 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Czumaj and V. Stemann, "Randomized Allocation Processes", Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, Miami, FL. Oct. 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Eager, E. Lazowska, and J. Zahorjan, "Adaptive load sharing in homogeneous distributed systems", IEEE Trans. on Software Engg., vol. 12(5), pp. 747--760. May 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Greengrass, J. Evans, and A. C. Begen, "Not All Packets Are Equal, Part I: Streaming Video Coding and SLA Requirements", IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 13(1), pp. 70--75. March 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Greengrass, J. Evans, and A. C. Begen, "Not All Packets Are Equal, Part II: The Impact of Network Packet Loss on Video Quality", IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 13(2), pp. 74--82. March 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Goodman, "Internet Video Forecast: Broadband Emerges as an Alternative Channel for Video Distribution" Yankee group, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. K. Gummadi, H. Madhyastha, S. Gribble, H. Levy, and D. Wetherall, "Improving the reliability of internet paths with one-hop source routing", Proc. Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), San Fransico, CA, pp. 13--26. Dec. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. International Telecommunication Union, "Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications", Rec. ITU-T P.910, Sept. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Jain, "Quality of Experience", IEEE Multimedia, vol. 11(1), pp. 95--96, March 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Jannotti, D. Gifford, K. Johnson, M. F. Kaashoek, and J. O'Toole, "Overcast: Reliable Multicasting with an Overlay Network", Proc. Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), San Diego, CA, pp. 14--27. Oct. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Kanumuri, P. C. Cosman, A. R. Reibman, and V. A. Vaishampayan, "Modeling packet-loss visibility in MPEG-2 video", IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, vol. 8(2), pp. 341--355, April 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Labovitz, R. Malan, and F. Jahanian, "Internet Routing Instability", IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, vol. 6(5), pp. 515--528, Oct. 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Labovitz, R. Malan, and F. Jahanian, "Internet Routing Instability", IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, vol. 6(5), pp. 515--528, Oct. 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. Lumezanu, D. Levin, and N. Spring, "PeerWise Discovery and Negotiation of Faster Paths", ACM HotNets, Atlanta, GA. Nov. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. V. Paxson, "End-to-end routing behavior in the Internet", IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, 5(5), pp. 601--615, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. H. Pinson and S. Wolf, "A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality", IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 50(3), pp. 312--322. Sept 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. S. Savage et. al., "Detour: A Case for informed internet routing and transport", IEEE Micro, vol. 19(1), pp. 50--59. Jan. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Siller and J. Woods, "QoS arbitration for improving the QoE in multimedia transmission", Proc. Intl. Conf. on Visual Information Engineering (VIE), Guildfor, UK, pp. 238--241. July 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. L. Subramanian, S. Agarwal, J. Rexford, and R. H. Katz, "Characterizing the Internet hierarchy from multiple vantage points", IEEE Infocom, New York, NY, pp. 618--627. June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. L. Subramanian, I. Stoica, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Katz, "OverQoS: An Overlay Based Architecture for Enhancing Internet QoS", Usenix Network System Design and Implementation (NSDI), San Fransisco, CA, pp. 4--17. March 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Tasaka, H. Yoshimi, A. Hirashima, and T. Nunome, "The Effectiveness of a QoE-Based Video Output Scheme for Audio-Video IP Transmission", ACM Multimedia (MM), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 259--268. Oct. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Akamai Inc., http://www.akamai.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ineoquest Singulus G1-T Equipment. www.ineoquest.com/singulus-family.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. PlanetLab Consortium. http://www.planet-lab.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. VLC Media Player, http://www.videolan.org/vlcGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Video Clips and PlanetLab Vantage points used in this paper. http://sites.google.com/site/anonqoe/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Effects of internet path selection on video-QoE

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      MMSys '11: Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems
      February 2011
      294 pages
      ISBN:9781450305181
      DOI:10.1145/1943552

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 February 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate176of530submissions,33%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader