IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS

IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS

December 05, 2012

S.M. Hasibur RahmanDepartment of Information Technology and Media

Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden

IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS 2

Overview• Overall Aim• Introduction• Method• Simple Model• Random Model• Results• Conclusions• Future Work• Q & A

2012-12-05


Overall Aim• Since spectrum is wasted in wireless broadcasting TV

distribution, multicasting would offer better spectrum management. Moreover, two of the most important aspects of wireless networks are coverage probability and efficient management of spectrum. The objective of this thesis, therefore, is to study the efficient management of spectrum in different proposed schemes and to increase the coverage probability in order to reduce the outage probability.

2012-12-05


Motivation• The idea of using IP multicasting over DVB-T

and DSFN was proposed by Magnus Eriksson

at Mid Sweden University in the year 1997• A thesis work on the same title was carried

out by Muhammad Ashfaq Malik last year (2011) at Mid Sweden University

2012-12-05


Introduction• Macro-Diversity• SFN vs. MFN• DSFN• PARPS• DVB-T• e-MBMS

2012-12-05


Macro-Diversity

2012-12-05


SFN vs. MFN

2012-12-05


DSFN

2012-12-05


PARPS

• To manage these DSFNs, a special algorithm called PARPS is suggested

2012-12-05


PARPS

• Two algorithms have been proposed namely optimized and heuristic algorithm

2012-12-05


DVB-T

2012-12-05


eMBMS• Stands for evolved Multimedia Broadcast Multicast

Service• eMBMS utilizes sesssion set-up scenario; resembles

NCT-DSFN• eMBMS may transmit over SFN for multicasting or

broadcasting by using the OFDMA radio resources; known as MBSFN

2012-12-05


MBSFN

2012-12-05


Concrete and Verifiable Goals• Different schemes of distributing TV over wireless medium will

be designed and analyzed– Scheme A: Unicasting over MFN– Scheme B: Broadcasting over MFN– Scheme-C: IP Multicasting over MFN– Scheme-D: Broadcasting over SFN– Scheme-E: IP Multicasting over CT-DSFN– Scheme-F: IP Multicasting over NON-SFN DCA and– Scheme-G: IP Multicasting over NCT-DSFN

2012-12-05


Contributions• This work is an extension to the work done by Muhammad

Ashfaq Malik and the author has the following new results and methods:– Scheme-E: IP Multicasting over CT-DSFN– Scheme-F: IP Multicasting over NON-SFN DCA– Scheme-G: IP Multicasting over NCT-DSFN– Fading model– Heterogeneous channel selection model

2012-12-05

16

Zipf-law• This law has been employed for the channel

selection model• The law is as follows

IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS2012-12-05


Mathematical formulas• SINR for MFN:

• Where

• SINR for SFN:

• A receiver is in outage state if: Г < Г0

2012-12-05


• System Spectral Efficiency

• Where,

• Mutliuser System Spectral Efficiency,

• Where,

2012-12-05


Simple Model• NTx = Number of transmitters (4)

• NRx = Number of receivers (9)

• NCh = Number of channels (varies)

• CRx = Covered receivers (varies for SFN and MFN)

• Npro = Total number of TV programs (6)

• NPrj= Number of programs requested within a single SFN or cell j

• Г0 = required SINR (10)• α = Propagation path loss constant (4)

2012-12-05


Scheme A: Unicasting over MFN• A point-to-point scheme where each transmitter operates on

different frequencies• Example: Traditional TV on cell phone,YouTube, Internet TV• Each receiver requires a dedicated channel• Coverage probability is calculated as

• Number of channel required would be equal to the number of receivers available inside the coverage and calculated as below:

2012-12-05

IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS 212012-12-05


Scheme B: Broadcasting over MFN • Each transmitter transmits all the available TV programs• Example: Traditional TV, DVB-T over MFN• Each transmitter would require separate channel for each

program; results in high number of channel requirement• This scheme does not increase the coverage area• Number of channel required can be calculated as:

2012-12-05



Scheme C: IP Multicasting over MFN • This point-to-multipoint system implies that each

transmitter would transmit only those programs for which currently receiver(s) exist

• Example: simple MBMS/eMBMS• The coverage area still remains the same for this scheme• Number of channel required can be calculated as

2012-12-05



Scheme D: Broadcasting over SFN• This scheme utilizes the concept of SFN meaning all the

transmitter transmit same signal using same frequency at the same time

• Example: DVB-T over SFN• This scheme significantly increases the coverage area• This scheme would need single channel for a particular

program• Therefore, number of channel required can be calculated

as

2012-12-05



Scheme E: IP Multicasting over CT-DSFN

• DSFN is used in this scheme; the term dynamic implies that transmitters would be grouped together to form zones

• CT-DSFN implies that all the transmitter would be operating all the time at full transmitter power

• For a system consisting of 4 transmitters, 15 possible combinations possible i.e. 15 resource plans

• Example: The idea is new and proposed applications are DVB-T, eMBMS

2012-12-05



• In PARPS, resource plan to timeslot assignment can be

defined according to:

• Queue is formed by placing a program p into the queue of one of the zones z of resource plan r, if maximum numbers of the receivers that are watching that program (and have joined that multicast group) are covered by that zone. Queue is a 3-D matrix and defined as:

2012-12-05


• After the Queue formation, task is to assign program to

timeslot• This is accomplished by

• Finally, program to timeslot and zone assignment matrix is defined as

• And, number of channel required is calculated as

2012-12-05



• Queue for resource plan, 9 is:

• Resource plan to timeslot is:

• Program to timeslot is:

• Program to timeslot and zone is:

2012-12-05


Scheme F: IP Multicasting over NON-SFN DCA

• In this scheme, no SFN is formed i.e. transmitter grouping is not considered. Maximum one transmitter is used in each zone

• In this scheme, some transmitters can be switched off in some resource plans

• Assignment of resource plan to timeslot, program to timeslot, and program to timeslot and zone are the same as described in scheme E

• However, a zone was sufficient for a single program in scheme E, this scheme might need more than a zone for a single program2012-12-05





• Resource plan to timeslot assignment is:

• Program to timeslot assignment is:

• Program to timeslot and zone assignment schedule is:

2012-12-05


Scheme G: IP Multicasting over NCT-DSFN

• This scheme can be described as union of scheme E and scheme F

• For a 4 transmitter system, this scheme gives a total of 51 possible reource plans

• Assignment of resource plan to timeslot, program to timeslot, and program to timeslot and zone are the same as described in scheme E

• A single zone is sufficent for a single program for this scheme like scheme E

2012-12-05





• Resource plan to timeslot is:

• Program to timeslot is:

• Program to timeslot and zone is:

2012-12-05


Coverage Probability

2012-12-05


Random Model• Assumptions,

– NTx = Number of transmitters (4)– NRx = Number of receivers (100)– NCh = Number of channels (varies)– CRx = Covered receivers (varies for SFN and MFN)– Npro = Total number of TV programs (30)

2012-12-05


Homogeneous Case

2012-12-05


Heterogenous Case

2012-12-05


Fading

2012-12-05


Results

2012-12-05


Coverage Probability

2012-12-05


2012-12-05


System Spectral Efficiency

2012-12-05



Multiuser System Spectral Efficiency

2012-12-05



Resource Plan Vs. SSE of Scheme G

2012-12-05


Scheme E (15 RP) vs. Scheme G (11 RP)

2012-12-05


Scheme E vs. Scheme B and DSSE MSSE

Scheme B vs Scheme E

Scheme D vs Scheme E

Scheme B vs Scheme E

Scheme D vs Scheme E

Homogeneous (non-fading)

740% 37% 805% 37%

Heterogeneous (non-fading)

629% 29% 757% 29%

Homogeneous (fading)

736% 62% 756% 62%

Heterogeneous (fading)

592% 50% 695% 50%

2012-12-05


Scheme G vs. Scheme C and FSSE MSSE

Scheme C vs Scheme G

Scheme F vs Scheme G

Scheme C vs Scheme G

Scheme F vs Scheme G

Homogeneous (non-fading)

316% 56% 339% 68%

Heterogeneous (non-fading)

279% 50% 320% 66%

Homogeneous (fading)

345% 57% 355% 61%

Heterogeneous (fading)

425% 90% 442% 97%

2012-12-05


Conclusions• IP multicasting over DSFN is possible• And, PARPS is the algorithm for scheduling• Seven schemes have been designed and analyzed• Broadcasting is not efficient in terms of spectrum management,

IP multicasting is therefore provides better efficiency for the same amount of TV programs

• The SFN further improves the coverage probability, SSE and MSSE allowing more TV programs to be transmitted

• Dynamic SFN with transmitter shut off gives further gain in SSE and MSSE

• The SFN can either give better coverage probability or higher data rate compared to the MFN

• Although dynamic SFN with transmitter shut off gives better gain, but feasibility of this scheme for DVB-T/H is a question for further research

• However, this scheme can be adapted to the eMBMS with current infrastructure. Scheduling might raise a question

2012-12-05


Future work• Number of transmitters• Real world values• Power control• Larger system• Scheme G feasibility• Different PARPS algorithm• Scheme H: Unicasting over SFN

2012-12-05


Q & A!

2012-12-05

IP Multicasting over DVB-T/H and e-MBMS

Science