Problem Statement of Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) IETF76@Hiroshima Draft-zhang-ppsp-problem-statement-05 Yunfei Zhang Ning Zong Gonzalo Camarillo James Seng Richard Yang Richard Alimi Hirold Liu Alberto J. Gonzalez

Agenda Why Streaming? Why P2P streaming? Why Standards? PPSP Scope Open efforts related to PPSP Co-efforts in other standard bodies Conclusion

Why Streaming? Source：Technology Trends, June 2008,Morgan Stanley Research Morgan Stanley View: Video streaming is the main contributor for global IP traffic growth in the following years, accounting for 50% of the total traffic. The Compound Annual Growth Rates of Internet video streaming to PC and TV are 56% and 97% .

Why P2P Streaming Scalability Robustness Each consumer is also a supplier Robustness

P2P Streaming Success Real-world examples PPLive 110m users, 600+ channels 2 million concurrent peers/6 million altogether in China’s 60 Anniversary National Day live broadcasting 20%-30% outside of China (10-15% in US), >200 countries PPstream 70m users, 340+ channels 6 million concurrent peers/10 million altogether in China’s 60 Anniversary National Day live broadcasting UUSee 4-5 million concurrent online peers during Olympic Games 2~3 million concurrent online peers in China’s 60 Anniversary National Day live broadcasting CNN (OctoShape) Obama inauguration ~300K concurrent peers by OctoShape 5

Why Standards in P2P Streaming? Technical feasibility: strong similarity among major systems Tracker-based architecture Similar tracker and peer communication process, and inter-peer communication process (See survey and measurement draft) Standards => focusing on key issues, not reinventing the wheel Algorithms/policies: piece scheduling algorithms, peer connections, cache updating, etc Parameters: cache/memory size, piece size, etc

Why Standards in P2P Streaming? User desire: “… broadcasters from the BBC to Germany’s ARD just seem to love the idea of ditching their proprietary platforms.” -- Johan Pouwelse, scientific director of P2P Next “UUSee will start to build an open platform and would like to participate in open protocols to cooperate with content providers, operators and many more participants for a better p2p streaming service.” -- Zhu Li, CEO of UUSee “The biggest feature of Mobile Market is its openness. We welcome more participants involved in the Mobile market development with standards.” ---Jianzhou Wang, President of China Mobile

How Standards Helps: Use Case (1) P2P streaming vendors often use CDN to alleviate peak pressure and achieve better QoS Target: CDN nodes can act as Super- peers, which interact with trackers and peers seamlessly Integration with multiple CDNs is easy with standard protocols

How Standards Helps? Use Case (2) Network operators deploying open and competitive Internet streaming service Operator can run its own streaming service or cooperate with P2P streaming vendors User convenience: unified peer/client software In particular, for mobile devices Service can be deployed based on 3rd party components (e.g., CDN offerings)

Problem Lack of open and standard protocols Open set of P2P streaming protocols is needed: PPSP

Abstracts of Current Practice Tracker New Peer Peer peer request peer report buffer map exchange Peer<->Tracker peer report Peer<->Peer referring to survey slides

Features of P2P Streaming Systems Scale to a magnitude of up to millions of nodes Real time Timely and continuous streaming delivery Limited start-up delay and transmission delay Handles demanding scenarios 1.5Mbps for TV quality 400kbps in current Internet

P2P Streaming Layer Architecture Overview Application Layer Play-out Layer Start Pause Stop Information Layer Publish Report Statistics Communication Layer Bootstrap Neighbor Communication Tracker Communication Transport Layer

PPSP Scope Develop new protocols; existing standards (e.g., HTTP) will be re- used as appropriate Starting Point: Communication layer Tracker Communication peers registration to the system peer list request from or peer information report to the tracker/ Neighbor Communication peers exchange data availability and gossip for more peers chunk description for transferring data amongst peers Secondary Specifications: Information Layer Report peers report information to the tracker. peer inbound and outbound traffic, amount of neighbor peers, video quality parameters. Publish publish contents to streaming provider content description, type, creation time, source location, advertisement policies, etc..

Out of Scope Play-out layer (e.g. Start, Stop, Pause) Defining new data transport protocol

Open efforts related to PPSP(1) UUSee: One of the largest p2p streaming vendors worldwide Just several days ago, its CEO expressed intention to make an open p2p streaming platform in 2009 China Internet conference Meet with its CTO, Hirold Liu about the PPSP work. Liu stated that UUSee was looking for the standards of P2P streaming, esp. in mobile environments Different peer capacity evaluation Different network environment description New peer information message

Open efforts related to PPSP(2) CoolRuc: Audiovisual Live Streaming based on P2P Project:TRILOGY: fuTuRe Internet technoLOGY in Europe Prierd:2007 – 2009 Participants: i2CAT, UPC, UPF, URL Aim: Standardization

PPSP & CoolRuc CoolRuc Protocol standarization points: Rendezvous communication (signaling) Retrieval of channels which are resources to be published and discovered over the network Tracker Communication (signaling)  Tracker protocol Retrieval of initial list of peers Peers communication (signaling)  Peer Protocol Exchange of Buffer Map Chunk exchange (transference) Statistics Log messages More requirements are added in the requirement draft 18

Open efforts related to PPSP(3) Goalbit-Open source tracker-based p2p streaming system Developed in 2009 Goalbit Transport Protocol is well suit with PPSP scope(Paper published in Sep.2009) Peer and tracker communication Peer and Peer communication “It would be great for us, to help in defining a standardized PPSP.”--- Pablo Rodríguez-Bocca,Chief of Goalbit Project

Open efforts related to PPSP(4) China Mobile-DSN, Distributed Services Network One part of DSN is for open p2p streaming service platform and protocols Participants (Streaming): China Mobile, ForceTech,Huawei DSN is both an open project and an ongoing ITU standard for NGN

Co-efforts in other standard bodies ITU:Q:DSN in SG13 Period:2009~2012 Scenarios, Requirements and Architecture of DSN Related to PPSP: The streaming scenarios, requirements and architecture 3GPP: IMS based P2P CDS in SA1 Period: 2009~2010 Study p2p streaming service in mobile/WLAN environment Related to PPSP: PPSP can act as the enabler protocols once 3GPP identifies interfaces between components

Conclusion PPSP is necessary PPSP can be standardized by starting with Tracker protocol: Peer and tracker communication Peer protocol: Peer communication PPSP is supported and to be supported by some participants who are willing to take part in the PPSP standards

Thanks for your attention! Q&A?

Appendix 1: UUSee-Advanced P2P+CDN network Platform Architecture User can receive data from both CDN node and other peers Super Node layer: Tranditional CDN Node or P2P Super Node System Manage layer: CMS/Storage/P2P Tracker 24 24

Appendix 2: CoolRuc Basic Operation Discovery of peers: Mesh-based network (CoolStreaming based) Adapted for MDC and SVC transmission Media Distribution Data-driven Pull-based Peers are grouped into “channels” Discovery of peers: 1st) Contact Rendezvous peer (centralized node) Get Channel List (specifies tracker peers of each channel) 2nd) Contact Tracker peer for a specific channel Is the same peer as the source node Provides an initial list of peers joining the same channel (random list) 3rd) Discovery of new peers by gossiping protocol (“stady state” operation) 25 25

Appendix 3:NAPA-WINE European research project: Network Aware P2P Application over WIse NEtworks (NAPA-WINE, EU FP7 STREP, http://www.napa-wine.eu) Study and predict the impact of massive usage of P2P-streaming on the Internet Algorithms and prototype for a “network aware” P2P video streaming application, with optimization based on measurements between peers and external guidance (IETF ALTO)

YouTube daily net loss is $0.48~$1.28 million Why P2P Streaming? YouTube daily net loss is $0.48~$1.28 million Why? C/S streaming has bottleneck in scalability Server capacity Bandwidth consumption Yry: Argue for scalability and robustness and availability, not sure about cost Source: RampRate Website 27