Receiver-driven Layered Multicast Paper by- Steven McCanne, Van Jacobson and Martin Vetterli – ACM SIGCOMM 1996 Presented By – Manoj Sivakumar.

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast

Paper by- Steven McCanne, Van Jacobson and Martin Vetterli – ACM SIGCOMM 1996

Presented By – Manoj Sivakumar

Overview

Introduction Approaches to Rate-Adaptive

Multimedia Issues and challenges RLM - Details Performance Evaluation Conclusions

Introduction

Consider a typical streaming Application

What rate should the source send data at ?

Internet ReceiverSource128 Kb/s X Kb/s

Approaches to Rate-Adaptive Multimedia

Rate Adaptation at Source – based on available network capacity Works well for a Unicast environment How about multicast ?

source Receiver 2128 Kb/s X2 Kb/s

Receiver 1

Receiver 3

X1 Kb/s

X3 Kb/s

Example of Heterogeneity

Issues and Challenges

Optimal link utilization Best possible service to all receivers Ability to cope with Congestion in the

network All this should be done with just best

effort service on the internet

Layered Approach

Rather than sending a single encoded video signal the source sends several layers of encoded signal – each layer incrementally refining the quality of the signal

Intermediate Routers drop higher layers when congestion occurs

Layered Approach

Each layer is sent to one multicast group

If a receiver wants higher quality – subscribes to all higher level layer multicast groups

Issue in Layered Approach

No framework for explicit signaling between the receivers and routers

A mechanism to adapt to both static heterogeneity and dynamic variations in network capacity is not present Solution - RLM

RLM – Network Model

Works with IP Multicast Assume

Best effort (packets may be out of order, lost or arbitrarily delayed)

Multicast (traffic flows only along links with downstream recipients)

Group oriented communication (senders do not know of receivers and receivers can come and go)

Receivers may specify different senders

RLM - Video Streams

One channel per layer Layers are additive Adding more channels gives better

quality Adding more channels requires more

bandwidth

RLM Sessions

Each session composed of layers, with one layer per group

Layers can be separate (i.e. each layer is higher quality) or additive (add all to get maximum quality) Additive is more efficient

Router Mechanisms

Dropping of packets Drop less preferential packets first

RLM - Protocol

Abstraction on congestion, drop a layer on spare capacity, add a layer

RLM – Adding and Dropping layers

Drop layer when packet loss Add does not have counter-part signal Need to try adding at well-chosen

times Called join experiment

RLM – Adding and Dropping layers

If join experiment fails Drop layer, since causing congestion

If join experiment succeeds One step closer to operating level

But join experiments can cause congestion Only want to try when might succeed

RLM – Join Experiments

Get lowest layer and start timer for next probe Initially timer small If higher level fails then increase timer

duration else proceed to next layer and start time for the layer above it

Repeat until optimum

RLM Join Experiment

How to know is join experiment succeeded Detection time

Detection Time

Hard to estimate Can only be done experimentally Initially start with a large value Progressively update the detection

time based on actual values

RLM - Issues with Joins

Is this Scalable What if each node does join experiments

and the same time for different layers Wrong info to node that requests lower

layer if the other node had requested higher layer

Solution – Shared Learning

RLM – Shared Learning

Each node broadcasts its intent to the group Adv’s – other nodes can learn from the

result of this node’s experiment Reduction in simultaneous experiments

Is this still foolproof ??

RLM - Evaluation

Simulations performed in NS Video modeled as CBR Parameters

Bandwidth: 1.5 Mbps Layers: 6, each 32 x 2m kbps (m = 0 … 5) Queue management :Drop Tail Queue Size (20 packets) Packet size (1 Kbytes) Latency (varies) Topology (next slide)

RLM - Evaluation

Topologies 1 – explore latency 2 – explore

scalability 3 – heterogeneous

with two sets 4 – large number of

independent sessions

RLM – Performance Metrics

Worse-case lost rate over varying time intervals Short-term: how bad transient congestion is Long-term: how often congestion occurs

Throughput as percent of available But will always be 100% eventually So, look at time to reach optimal

Note, neither alone is ok Could have low loss, low throughput High loss, high throughput

Need to look at both

RLM – Performance Results

Latency Results

RLM – Performance Results

Latency Results

RLM – Performance Results

Session Size

RLM – Performance Results

Convergence rate

RLM – Performance Results

Bandwidth Heterogeneity

Conclusions

Possible Pitfalls Shared Learning assumes only multicast

traffic Is this valid ?? Is congestion produced by Multicast

traffic alone Simulation does not other traffic

requests!!

Conclusions

Overall – a nice architecture and mechanism to regulate traffic and have the best utilization

But still needs refinement

References

S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli, "Receiver-driven layered multicast," in Proc. SIGCOMM'96, ACM, Stanford, CA, Aug. 1996, pp. 117--130.