Jose Saldana, Jenifer Murillo, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Ruiz-Mas, Eduardo Viruete, Jose I. Aznar. "Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP Conversation Quality" . In Proc. CCNC 2011- 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Digital Entertainment, Networked Virtual Environments, and Creative Technology, pp 1147-1151, Las Vegas. Jan. 2011. ISBN 9781424487882.
1. Presentación
Jose Saldana
Jenifer Murillo
Julián Fernández Navajas
G RUPO DE
T ECNOLOGÍAS DE LAS
COMUNICACIONES
CPS - University of Zaragoza, Spain
José Ruiz Mas
Eduardo Viruete Navarro
José I. Aznar
4. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
Introduction
The use of Internet for multimedia
transmission is growing as bandwidth
increases.
Services with hard real-time
requirements:
- VoIP: Voice over IP
- Videoconferencing
- Online Gaming
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
4
5. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
Introduction
- The use of best-effort networks for these
services is a problem for the experienced
quality
- Used protocols:
- Signaling: SIP, H.323
- Media transport: RTP, simple UDP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
5
6. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
Introduction
Real-time requirements force us to divide the
information into small pieces, and send it
using a small time period, and small packets.
This implies an overhead, as every packet
needs the IP, UDP and maybe RTP headers
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
6
7. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
RTP packet
RTP packets’ overhead
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
20 bytes
8 bytes
12 bytes
10 bytes
10 bytes
VoIP packet with 2 G.729a samples
Efficiency: 33% for IPv4
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
7
8. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
Scenarios where many multimedia flows
share a path. Does it represent an advantage?
Data
centre
Office
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
8
9. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
R-FACTOR
Scenarios where many multimedia flows
share a path. Does it represent an advantage?
Internet
café
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
9
10. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
10
R-FACTOR
Two possible improvements
Improvement 1: RTP compression schemes:
- CRTP: RFC 2508, February 1999
- ECRTP: RFC 3545, July 2003: Enhanced CRTP
for scenarios with packet loss, packet
reordering and long delays.
- ROHCv2: RFC 5225, April 2008
They use the repeatability of IP/UDP/RTP
headers to compress them.
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
11. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
11
R-FACTOR
RTP compression
- The two extremes share a context.
- Every packet carries a CID
- Some fields are avoided, other are
compressed (delta compression, etc.) or
inferred from lower layers
Problems:
- Only hop-by-hop usage
- Synchronization of the context
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
12. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
12
R-FACTOR
Increasing the number of samples
Improvement 2: More samples in a single
packet. If they belong to the same flow:
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
13. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
13
R-FACTOR
Increasing the number of samples
If different flows share the same path (voice
trunking) the packet frequency can be the
same. Added delays?
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
15. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
15
R-FACTOR
Increasing the number of samples
Maximum added delay: Packet period.
Independent of the number of flows
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
16. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
16
R-FACTOR
RTP multiplexing
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
IP header
Sample
Sample
IP header
L2TP
RH
PPP
PPPMux
Sample
UDP header
Sample
RH
PPPMux
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
RH
PPPMux
IP header
Sample
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
Real scale
Combines header compression and
multiplexing a number of flows. Advantages:
- Reducing overhead, bandwidth saving
- Reducing packets per second
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
17. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
17
R-FACTOR
RTP multiplexing
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
IP header
Sample
Sample
IP header
L2TP
RH
PPP
PPPMux
Sample
UDP header
Sample
RH
PPPMux
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
RH
IP header
Sample
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Real scale
Disadvantages:
- New added delays
- Processing charge
Increasing packet size: Good or bad?
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
18. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
18
R-FACTOR
Influence of the router
- The amount and size distribution of
background traffic will affect the real-time
traffic.
- Packet loss can be modified with the
change of packet size, depending on the
policy of the router’s buffer.
- Routers have a pps limitation.
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
19. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
19
R-FACTOR
Motivation of this work
- Study the influence of buffer policies and
multiplexing schemes on the perceived
quality, for real-time services.
- Service used: VoIP. Representative.
- Real-time requirements
- Wide-deployed service
- Existence of scenarios where many flows
share the same path
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
20. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
RTP COMPRESSION
RTP MULTIPLEXING
ROUTER
20
R-FACTOR
R-factor
-
Defined by ITU G.107 (E-Model)
Ranges from 0 (bad quality) to 100 (good)
Acceptable for R > 70
Dependence on delay and packet loss
Widely accepted quality estimator for VoIP
services
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
22. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
22
BUFFER POLICIES
RTP multiplexing proposals
- Different proposals. We will consider:
- TCRTP (RFC 4170): Tunneling Multiplexed
Compressed RTP.
- Sze: «A Multiplexing Scheme for H.323 VoIP
Applications», IEEE J. Selected Areas Comm.,
Sep 2002.
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
23. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
23
BUFFER POLICIES
TCRTP
- It does not define a new protocol.
Combines some of them.
samples
samples
ECRTP
...
ECRTP
RTP
UDP
IP
PPP Mux
PPP
L2TP
IP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
24. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
24
BUFFER POLICIES
TCRTP
- Different Reduced Header sizes (ECRTP)
- The use of the L2TP tunnel makes it
possible to use ECRTP end-to-end
Example: 3 RTP packets with 2 samples per packet:
IP header
L2TP
RH
PPP
Sample
PPPMux
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Sample
RH
PPPMux
Sample
Sample
RH
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
25. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
25
BUFFER POLICIES
Sze
- Includes many RTP packets into a UDP one
- Different Reduced Header sizes
- Need of some tables at the origin and
destination. Non standard
Exampe: 3 RTP packets with 2 samples per packet:
IP header
UDP header
R
H
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Sample
Sample
R
H
Sample
Sample
RH
Sample
Sample
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
26. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
26
BUFFER POLICIES
Packet size comparative
3 multiplexed packets
RTP
TCRTP
IP header
UDP header
L2TP
RH
PPP
Sze
IP header
RTP header
Sample
PPPMux
IP header
UDP header
R
H
Sample
Sample
Sample
Real scale
IP header
RH
Sample
UDP header
Sample
RH
PPPMux
Sample
Sample
R
H
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Sample
Sample
RH
Sample
Sample
5 multiplexed packets
RTP
IP header
TCRTP
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
IP header
RH
PPP
Sze
L2TP
Sample
PPPMux
UDP header
R
H
Sample
Sample
Sample
RH
IP header
Sample
UDP header
Sample
PPPMux
Sample
Sample
R
H
Sample
RH
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Sample
R
H
Sample
RH
Sample
IP header
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Sample
R
H
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Sample
UDP header
RH
Sample
RTP header
Sample
Sample
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
IP header
UDP header
RTP header
Sample
Sample
Sample
PPPMux
Sample
RH
Sample
Sample
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
27. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
27
BUFFER POLICIES
RTP multiplexing uses
- Bandwidth relationship
Bandwidth Saving X for = 0.95
BW compressed/BWpnative
S=10 bytes
Xrh S=10
S=20 bytes
0,9
Xrh=20
S=30 bytes
0,8
Xrh S=30
X
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
k
- Packets per second: reduced by k
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
28. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
28
BUFFER POLICIES
RTP multiplexing uses
- Packet size increase
Packet size
RTP S=10 bytes
800
RTP S=20 bytes
RTP S=30 bytes
TCRTP S=10 bytes
700
TCRTP S=20 bytes
TCRTP S=30bytes
600
bytes
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
k
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
29. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
29
BUFFER POLICIES
Buffer size and buffer policies
- «Rule of the thumb»: Bandwidth-delay
product.
- «Stanford model»: Division by sqrt(N)
(N:number of TCP flows).
- Other proposal: time-limited buffer.
Interesting for this work. Limits OWD. But
penalizes big packets
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
30. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
30
BUFFER POLICIES
Buffer size and buffer policies
- Multiplexing tradeoffs
R-factor
Added delays
Bandwidth
saving
Multiplexing
Packet loss
reduction
R-factor
Packet loss
increase
R-factor
Background
traffic
Bigger packet
size
Buffer
policy
Reduced pps
Router
limitation
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Packet loss
reduction
R-factor
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
31. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
MULTIPLEXING PROPOSALS
TEST METHODOLOGY
MULTIPLEXING USES
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
31
BUFFER POLICIES
Buffer size and buffer policies
- We will compare
- Dedicated buffer: Only VoIP
- High-capacity buffer
- Time-limited buffer
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
33. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
33
SYSTEM DELAYS
General Scheme
- Use of a testbed
Real Traffic in a testbed
Offline post-processing
Buffer
policies
VoIP
Network
delays
+
Dejitter
buffer
Background
Router
Traffic
Generation
Traffic
Capture
Traffic
Trace
Final
Results
- Generator: D-ITG: Statistics of packet size
and inter packet delay.
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
34. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
34
SYSTEM DELAYS
Traffic generation
- Background traffic
- 50% 40 bytes
- 10% 576 bytes
- 40% 1500 bytes
- Only UDP, in order to avoid flow control:
always the same background traffic.
- Different rates to saturate the access
router
- Network does not loose packets
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
35. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
35
SYSTEM DELAYS
Traffic generation
- Multiplexed VoIP traffic
- Three header sizes:
- COMPRESSED_RTP
- COMPRESSED_UDP
- FULL_HEADER
97.3%
2.6%
0.0033% (negligible)
- Packet size: Binomial k, p=0.973
- Used for TCRTP and Sze.
- 400 seconds of traffic. First and last 20 are
discarded
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
36. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
36
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays
- Packetization delay: G.729a.
- 15, 25 or 35 ms
- Retention time at the mux: Packet period
- Process: 5ms
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
37. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
37
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays
- Packetization delay: G.729a.
- 15, 25 or 35 ms
- Retention time at the mux: Packet period
- Process: 5ms
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
38. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
38
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays
- Packetization delay: G.729a.
- 15, 25 or 35 ms
- Retention time at the mux: Packet period
- Process: 5ms
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
39. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
39
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays (2)
- Queuing delay
- Network delay
- Fixed: 20ms
- Lognormal: avg 20ms. Variance 5
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
40. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
40
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays (2)
- Queuing delay
- Network delay
- Fixed: 20ms
- Lognormal: avg 20ms. Variance 5
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
41. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
GENERAL SCHEME
TRAFFIC GENERATION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
41
SYSTEM DELAYS
System delays (3)
- De-jitter buffer: adds delays and packet
losses:
- loss de-jitter buffer ~ P { l > bg}
- delay de-jitter buffer : number of samples
- Buffer size: maximize R-factor. Static.
Tpacketization Tretention Tprocess
Tqueue
Tnetwork
Tprocess
Tdejitter
IP network
.
.
.
MUX
RTP
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
DEMUX
RTP multiplexing
.
.
.
RTP
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
43. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
43
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Dedicated buffer
- 200 kbps only for VoIP
R-factor
RTP
82
TCRTP
Sze
81
R-factor
80
79
78
77
76
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Number of multiplexed calls k
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
44. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
44
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Dedicated buffer
- 200 kbps only for VoIP
R-factor
RTP
82
Effect of added delays
TCRTP
Sze
81
R-factor
80
79
Effect of bandwidth saving
78
77
76
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Number of multiplexed calls k
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
45. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
45
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
High capacity buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 5 flows
R factor
1 RTP
5 RTP
85
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
80
R-factor
75
70
65
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
46. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
46
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
High capacity buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 5 flows
R factor
1 RTP
5 RTP
85
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
80
75
R-factor
Step-like graphs. When the
bandwidth is not enough, the
quality falls
70
65
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
47. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
47
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
High capacity buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 10 flows
R-factor
1 RTP
10 RTP
10 TCRTP
10 Sze
85
80
R-factor
75
70
65
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
48. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
48
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
High capacity buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 15 flows
R factor
1 RTP
15 RTP
85
15 TCRTP
15 Sze
80
R
75
70
65
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
49. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
49
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
High capacity buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 20 flows
1 RTP
20 RTP
20 TCRTP
20 Sze
R factor
85
80
The bigger the number of flows,
the bigger the bandwidth saving
R
75
70
65
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
50. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
50
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 5 flows
1 RTP
5 RTP
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
R-factor
76
74
72
70
68
66
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
51. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
51
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 5 flows
1 RTP
5 RTP
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
Time-limited buffer: slope instead
of step-like
R-factor
76
74
72
70
68
66
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
52. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
52
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 5 flows
1 RTP
5 RTP
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
Native RTP behaves better than
multiplexing schemes
R-factor
76
74
72
70
68
66
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
53. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
53
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 10 flows
1 RTP
10 RTP
10 TCRTP
10 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
R-factor
76
74
72
70
68
66
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
54. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
54
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 10 flows
1 RTP
10 RTP
10 TCRTP
10 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
R-factor
76
74
0.5% worse
72
70
Gaining zone
68
66
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
55. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
55
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
Background Traffic Packet Loss
1 RTP
10 RTP
10 TCRTP
10 Sze
20
Packet Loss (%)
15
The bigger the bandwidth saving,
the smaller the packet loss
10
5
0
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
56. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
56
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 15 flows
1 RTP
15 RTP
15 TCRTP
15 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
76
R-factor
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
57. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
57
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
- 1Mbps shared. 20 flows
1 RTP
20 RTP
20 TCRTP
20 Sze
R-factor
82
80
78
76
R-factor
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
58. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
DEDICATED BUFFER
HIGH CAPACITY BUFFER
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
58
TIME-LIMITED BUFFER
Time-limited buffer
5 TCRTP
5 Sze
10 TCRTP
10 Sze
15 TCRTP
15 Sze
20 TCRTP
20 Sze
% R-factor improvement
25
% R-factor improvement
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
60. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
60
Conclusions
- Comparison of multiplexing schemes
- Service used: VoIP
- New delays added: small. The bandwidth
saving is significant
- R-factor
- improvement up to 20%
- impairment 1%
- Packet size is important, depending on
buffer policies
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
61. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
61
Conclusions
- Is it better to use only one tunnel or to
group calls into a number of tunnels?
R factor
20 RTP
85
20 TCRTP
2x10 TCRTP
80
75
R
70
65
60
55
50
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
62. INTRODUCTION
RELATED WORKS
TEST METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
62
Conclusions
- Is it better to use only one tunnel or to
group calls into a number of tunnels?
R factor
20 RTP
85
20 TCRTP
2x10 TCRTP
80
75
R
70
65
60
55
50
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
background traffic (kbps)
CCNC January 9-11, 2011. Las Vegas
Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP
63. Presentación
Jose Saldana
Jenifer Murillo
Julián Fernández Navajas
G RUPO DE
T ECNOLOGÍAS DE LAS
COMUNICACIONES
CPS - University of Zaragoza, Spain
José Ruiz Mas
Eduardo Viruete Navarro
José I. Aznar