The Path from QoS- to QoE-centric Management of Modern Communication Systems Jiri Hosek, Ph.D. Youth School-Seminar, DCCN 2016 RUDN University, Moscow, November 24, 2016 *These slides are intended for educational purposes and include material published by WISLAB group as well as available openly on the Internet.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Path from QoS- to QoE-centric Managementof Modern Communication Systems
Jiri Hosek, Ph.D.
Youth School-Seminar, DCCN 2016
RUDN University, Moscow, November 24, 2016
*These slides are intended for educational purposes and include materialpublished by WISLAB group as well as available openly on the Internet.
Lecture’s Content
• Definition of network quality
• Quality of Service (QoS)
• Quality of Experience (QoE)
• Subjective evaluation of modern mobile applications
Evaluation of Service Quality
• Two main approaches how to measure the network service quality
• Objective
• View from the network perspective
• Measuring of traffic parameters and their comparison with pre-defined values
• Different services (applications) have different requirements
• Subjective (Relative)
• View of the end user
• Difficult and time-consuming
• MOS (Mean Opinion Score)
• Substitution of subjective evaluation by mathematical model
MOS Scale
• Used especially for multimedia transmissions
• Numerical expression of the human user’s view on the quality of the network service
Key Network Traffic Parameters
• Dominant measurable parameters of network traffic
• Packet delay
• How long the transmission takes
• Packet delay variation (jitter)
• Difference between the delay of two consequent packets
• Packet loss
• How many packets are lost during the transmission
• Throughput
• Transmission speed (b/s)
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Uniform Network Traffic Treatment
• As default option in all older network technologies
• Seemingly fair approach
• Each data unit is of the same priority
• No possibility to prefer or defer any type of traffic
• “Best-effort” treatment
• No guarantees, just try
Differentiated Network Traffic Treatment
• Characteristic for modern network technologies
• Traffic classes
• Different requirements on transmission parameters
• Efficient operation of network services
• Identification of data units of different services/flows
• Guarantee of adequate treatment
• 2 basic QoS support mechanisms
• Integrated Service – IntServ
• Differentiated Services – DiffServ
Differentiated Services – DiffServ
• Offers different transmission parameters for different service types
• Every data packet is processed individually
• Fixed network resource sharing
• QoS functions implemented in each router
• Service guarantees
• Service-class based
DiffServ – Traffic Classification and Policing
• Traffic classification into an appropriate category
• Usually based on fields of IP and TCP/UDP header
• Differentiated Service CodePoint (DSCP) field in the IP packet header
• Relative priorities
• Identifies service classes
• Traffic policing
• Ensures, that the incoming traffic satisfies the declared parameters
• Service Level Agreement – SLA
• Network operator / end-user obligations
DiffServ – Packet Scheduling Techniques
• Main packet scheduling mechanisms
• First In First Out – FIFO queuing
• No QoS prioritization
• Priority Queuing – PQ
• Fair Queuing – FQ
• Weighted Fair Queuing – WFQ
FIFO
Priority Queuing
Application of DiffServ Mechanism
• Each network node (router) is performing QoSfunctions individually
• DiffServ routers
• Edge router
• Core router
Subjective Evaluation of Network Services• Customers are demanding constantly increasing quality
of mobile services
• Modern mobile (multimedia) applications are highlydiverse
• Specific requirements and user expectations
• QoS-based evaluation and network control is not enough anymore
• New investments for increasing network quality at all levels.
• Quality of (user) Experience (QoE)
• User eXperience (UX)
• Influenced by many factors
• Technical, socioeconomical, etc.
QoE Key Questions and Goals(from network operator point of view)• How the key network parameters affect the
quality of mobile service perceived by an end user?
• How the type of application affects user‘sevaluation?
• How long are end users willing to wait for specific mobile service and being still satisfied?
• What are the “premium quality” and saturation thresholds for the specific service?
• How to setup and control the mobile network to avoid the over-provisioning?
Experimental Study of QoE in Mobile Networks
• The impact of following variables were investigated:
• End-user device:
• Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Nexus
• Tablet Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 inch
• Applications
• Web browsing, file download (DL), file upload (UL)
• YouTube video streaming
• Network and content parameters
• Bit rates (BR) in the range of 32kb/s to 16 Mb/s
• Initial loading delay (connection establishment) in the range of 0 to 11seconds
• YouTube video resolution in the range of 320x180 to 1280x720
• Stalling effects with different duration and repetition
• More than 200 test scenarios evaluated by almost 300 test participants
Experimental Study of QoE in Mobile Networks– Methodology• Laboratory environment
• Completely controllable system
• Test Methods: (rec. ITU-T P.800)
• Absolute Category Rating (ACR):
• Scaling: 5 grade MOS scale:
• 1: Bad
• 5: Excellent
• Acceptability rating:
• Question: Were you satisfied with tested quality?
• Binary answer: YES or NO
Mobile QoE – Automatic Assessment Tool – UserInterface
Questionnaire:Demographic data:Briefing phase:
Web: Sample Results – Quality Rating
• Web browsing, tablet
Web: Sample Results – Acceptability Rating
• Web browsing, smartphone
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Acc
ep
tab
ility
[%
]
BR [kbps]
0s 1s 3s 5s 7s 11s
Mobile Web QoE – Quality Thresholds
• We specified 3.7 MOS as a quality threshold for “premium quality” service.
• The saturation threshold refers to BR with zero initial loading delay and where quality rating is not more increasing or achieved maximum quality rating or 4.5 MOS.
• This is very practical output in order to avoid quality overprovisioning.
Scenario Notebook Smartphone
Web 256 kbps 256 kbps
File DL 4 Mbps 4 Mbps
File UL 1 Mbps 1 Mbps
Scenario Notebook Smartphone
Web 512 kbps 256 kbps
File DL 4 Mbps 8 Mbps
File UL 4 Mbps 1 Mbps
Youtube: Sample Results (1)
• Quality rating vs. Resolution
• The subjective premium quality threshold (3.7 MOS)
• Resolution [pixels]: 640 x 360
• Saturation threshold (4.5 MOS)
• Resolution [pixels]: 854 x 480
Overprovisioning area
Youtube: Sample Results (2)
• CDF of task’s leaving for infinity loading delay
50 % users wait
more than
104 / 44
seconds
Youtube: Sample Results (3)
• Acceptability rating results vs. single stalling duration – smartphone
1st level
quality
reduction
2nd level quality reduction
Youtube: Sample Results (4)
• Quality rating results vs. multiple stalling – smartphone
1st level
quality
reduction
2nd level quality reduction
Web: Analytical User Experience Prediction
• We need an adequate QoE prediction models based on given results of extensive QoE assessment.
• Analytical tools (regression analysis)
• Calculation of QoE value (MOS) for mobile data services based on input parameters:
• Initial loading delay
• Throughput (bit rate)
ac
cBRc
abMOS
D
2
10
~)(~1
)(
YouTube: Analytical User Experience Prediction
MOS 𝐷, 𝑅 =2,7
1+9,5𝑒0,1𝐷+
10,7
(0,01𝑅)2
𝑒−𝑁0,6𝑆0,2+1
Summary
• Future-generation mobile services are more user- / service-oriented
• QoS-centric evaluation and control of modern wireless networks is not enough
• User-centric / application-centric approach needs to be implemented
• Complex evaluation from network- and user-perspective as well
• QoE modelling is very demanded research topic nowadays
• Not easy task due to high heterogeneity of modern applications and their constant development
• Models need to be updated as users’ expectations are growing
• Standardization in QoE assessment for new mobile services is highly required