Doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 1 IEEE 802.11 TGT Streaming Media Apps Notice: This document has been prepared.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /0001r0 Submission January 2009 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 Writing a Coexistence Assurance Document Notice: This document has.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /0256r0 Submission February 2007 A. Centonza, D. StephensonSlide 1 Limitations on the Use of EBR Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /0247r1 Submission March 2005 Atsushi FujiwaraSlide 1 Advantages of multiple channel usage in 11s WLAN Mesh network Notice: This document.
Doc.: IEEE /90r0 Submission Nov., 2012 NICTSlide b NICT Proposal IEEE P Wireless RANs Date: Authors: Notice: This document.
Doc.: IEEE /0930r0 Submission July 2006 Nancy Cam-Winget, Cisco Slide 1 Editor Updates since Jacksonville Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /0024r0 Submission May 2006 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 Discussion of Coexistence Scenarios Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /0094r0 Submission November 2009 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 Comments on PAR Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /tbd Submission March/2006 Pertti Visuri, Airgain, Inc. Over the Air Testing - Comparing Systems with Different Antennas Notice: This.
Doc.: IEEE /0907r0 Submission September 2005 Peter Ecclesine, Cisco SystemsSlide 1 dot1AM management plane Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /0322r0 Submission March 2006 Royce Fernald - Intel CorporationSlide 1 Video Use Cases Notice: This document has been prepared to assist.
Doc.: IEEE /0644r2 Submission May 2006 Päivi Ruuska, NokiaSlide 1 Measurement Pilot Transmission Information as optional information in Probe.
Doc.: IEEE /0534r0 Submission May 2005 Steve Shellhammer, Intel CorporationSlide 1 Thoughts on Modifications of the TGn Functional Requirements.
Doc.: IEEE /0651r0 Submission May 2006 Royce Fernald - Intel CorporationSlide 1 Video Delivery vs. Attenuation in a Conducted Environment Notice:
Doc.: IEEE /0072r0 Submission January 2009 Slide 1 Proxy ARP Issue for Direct Link Setup Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE.
Doc.: IEEE /0723r0 Submission July 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 1 Data-oriented Usages Proposal for TGT Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE /0569r0 Submission April 2006 Tomoko Adachi, Toshiba CorporationSlide 1 Performance evaluation of 40MHz transmission - regarding CCA.
Doc.: IEEE /1212r0 Submission TGT and MEF Liaison Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for.
Doc.: IEEE /86r2 Submission March, 2010 Gabor BajkoSlide 1 Location Proxy Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is.
Doc.: IEEE /0039r1 Submission January 2007 Larry Green, Ixia Slide 1 TCP Parameters and Settings Notice: This document has been prepared to assist.
Doc.: IEEE /0028r0 Submission January 2005 Eleanor Hepworth, Siemens Roke ManorSlide 1 Definitions and Terminology Notice: This document has been.
Doc.: IEEE /0197r0 Submission March 2005 Nancy Cam-Winget et alSlide 1 TAP & JIT Merge Process Notice: This document has been prepared to assist.
Doc.: IEEE /2112r1 Submission Peter Loc, MarvellSlide 1 TGn LB97 Frame Format Ad Hoc San Francisco, July 2007 Notice: This document.
Doc.: IEEE /0652r1 Submission May 2007 Emily Qi, Intel CorporationSlide 1 TGv Redline D0.12 Insert and Deletion Notice: This document has been.
[ Interim Meetings 2006] Date: Authors: July 2005
Document Framework Section
TGT Terminology and Concepts
Document Framework Section
LB73 Noise and Location Categories
LB73 Noise and Location Categories
Waveform Generator Source Code
March 2014 Election Results
Attendance and Documentation for the March 2007 Plenary
Attendance and Documentation for the March 2007 Plenary
3GPP Extended Date: Authors: July 2005 July 2005
Document Framework Section
[ Policies and Procedure Summary]
Motion to accept Draft p 2.0
Protected SSIDs Date: Authors: March 2005 March 2005
[place presentation subject title text here]
(Presentation name) For (Name of group) (Presenter’s name,title)
TGp Closing Report Date: Authors: March 2006 Month Year
On Coexistence Mechanisms
[Comparison between CDMA Code and Contention-based Access]
TGu-changes-from-d0-02-to-d0-03
Contribution on Location Privacy
On Coexistence Mechanisms
TGp Closing Report Date: Authors: March 2006 Month Year
Reflector Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year
TGv Redline D0.07 Insert and Deletion
TGv Redline D0.06 Insert and Deletion
Experimental DTV Sensor
Solution for comment 32 Date: Authors: July, 2008
TGu-changes-from-d0-01-to-d0-02
LB73 Noise and Location Categories
TGy draft 2.0 with changebars from draft 1.0
TGv Redline D0.10 Insert and Deletion
WAPI Position Paper Sept 2005 Sept 2005 IEEE WG
Redline of draft P802.11w D2.2 Date: Authors:
Leader based Multicast
Off-channel selection
TGu-changes-from-d0-02-to-d0-03
[ Policies and Procedure Summary]
Draft P802.11s D1.03 WordConversion
Questions to the Contention-based Protocol (CBP) Study Group
EC Motions – July 2005 Plenary
TGu-changes-from-d0-04-to-d0-05
for video transmission, Status
TGu-changes-from-d0-03-to-d0-04
TGu Motions Date: Authors: May 2006 May 2006
WAPI Position Paper Sept 2005 Sept 2005 IEEE WG
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 1 IEEE TGT Streaming Media Apps Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at. Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 2 Introduction From a user perspective, the performance of data applications can be clearly represented in terms of primary metrics (e.g. measured throughput, rate etc.) over various ranges. Performance of streaming media applications is more complex – e.g. throughput alone is not a sufficient measure. The performance of streaming media apps may be expressed in terms of: –Instantaneous, min, max, average throughput; forwarding rate, etc. –Packet loss, errors, retransmissions, etc. –Buffer overflow, average queue length, queue service rate, etc. –Available bandwidth for background data traffic –Audio/video quality –Range –Bit Rate, Media Content –Some combination of the above –All of the above

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 3 Performance of Streaming Media Apps Directly Observe User Perceived Video Quality Measure Secondary Metrics (Throughput, Packet loss, etc.) Assign Numerical Value to Observations Perform Correlation to User Experience Output: Performance of Streaming Media Apps Choose Streaming Media Content and Test Setup A combination of measurements may be considered Models for Correlation

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 4 Agenda We will discuss some measurement methodologies to show the impact of various metrics on the performance of streaming media apps. Measurement Methodology and Implications – –Single AP, Single STA Instantaneous throughput Packet loss or buffer overruns over range Average throughput over range User perceived video quality over range –Single Access Point, Multiple STAs Available bandwidth for background traffic User perceived video quality QoS –Conclusion

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 5 Measurement Methodology: Single AP, Single STA Access Points: D-Link DWL7000 AP – Ch 52, Ch 11 D-Link DWL7100 AP – Ch 52, Ch 11 Host: Dell Latitude D600 Client: Dell Latitude D600 Video quality in terms of throughput –Measure instantaneous throughput –Measure throughput (average, minimum and maximum) –Perform correlation to perceived video quality – actual video quality not measured –Client device is within close range of AP – range variation is not considered

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 6 Impact of Throughput on Streaming Media Apps D-Link DWL7000 AP a Average:22.3 Mbps Maximum:27.0 Mbps Minimum: 0.2 Mbps D-Link DWL7100 AP a Average:26.5 Mbps Maximum:29.5 Mbps Minimum: 0.5 Mbps RESULT: Second AP has better throughput performance. But we cannot be sure about the performance of streaming media content. For a SDTV Video stream of 6Mbps, the first AP might have better performance due to smaller dips in instantaneous throughput. SDTV HDTV Dropped Frames HDTV SDTV

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 7 Measurement Methodology: Single AP, Single STA Access Points: D-Link DWL7000 AP – Ch 52, Ch 11 D-Link DWL7100 AP – Ch 52, Ch 11 Host: Dell Latitude D600 Client: Dell Latitude D600 Video quality in terms of packet loss or buffer overruns over range –Generate TCP stream with a target bit rate of 6 Mbps (SDTV) –Count the number of re-transmission or buffer overruns (1 sec buffer) –Perform correlation to perceived video quality – actual video quality not observed

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 8 Impact of Packet Loss on Streaming Media RESULT: Performance of Card 2 is better than Card 1 because of: Lower percentage of dropped frames (evaluated by counting the number of TCP re-transmission) Better penetration through walls – better range Note: We need to cover the scenario of real-time streaming (no buffering) Better Worse

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 9 Measurement Methodology: Single AP, Single Client Video quality in terms of throughput over range –Measure average throughput for two different video clients –Repeat measurements at various location in indoor environment Video Server Access Point Network Switch QCheck Server QCheck Client Video Client

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 10 Available Throughput at Various Locations RESULT: Client 1 has better data throughput for various locations. Client 1 should be able to provide better performance for streaming media applications. HDTV

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 11 Measurement Methodology: Single AP, Single Client Video quality in terms of throughput over range –Stream video and note perceived video quality at each video client –Repeat measurements at various location in indoor environment –Add background data and note user perceived video quality Video Server Access Point Network Switch QCheck Server QCheck Client Video Client

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 12 User Perceived Video Quality RESULT: Both clients 1 and 2 have perfect video quality without any background traffic. Client 1 has better performance in the presence of background data traffic. User Perceived Video Quality Guide: 5 – Perfect video quality, Perfect audio synchronization 4 – Slight visible blur/blockiness, Perfect audio synchronization 3 – Jerkiness or blockiness, Perfect audio synchronization 2 – Greater jerkiness, Perfect audio synchronization 1 – Greater jerkiness, out of sync audio 0 – Unable to display video Unacceptable Acceptable Off-the-air HDTV content encoded in dvr-ms format

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 13 Measurement Methodology: Single AP, Multiple STAs Video Server Access Point Network Switch Chariot Server Chariot Client Video Client 1 Video Client 2 Video Client 3 Video quality in terms of available bandwidth for background data –Measure throughput with and without actual video streams (6 Mbps) –Stream multiple video streams with and without QoS prioritization –Note the impact on perceived video quality –All clients are within close range of AP – range variation is not considered

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 14 Impact of Background Data on Streaming Media Apps RESULT: The perceived quality of video is only acceptable when QoS is enabled Note: There is available bandwidth even when QoS is disabled, but the perceived video quality is unacceptable. Unacceptable video performance Background Average Throughput

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 15 Impact of Background Data on Streaming Media Apps RESULT: The perceived quality of video is acceptable for both EDCA and HCCA QoS. Background Average Throughput

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 16 Streaming Media Applications – Issues The goal for TGT is to determine the performance metrics that capture the impact of these issues: User Perceived Performance: The level of user perceived performance required to say that a certain media stream can “run” successfully. Throughput and Packet Loss Single/multiple media streams can run if certain throughput or packet loss thresholds are met Range Single/multiple media streams can run within “x” meters. Without background traffic With background traffic Impact of QoS Prioritization Single/multiple media streams can run with background traffic QoS enabled versus QoS disabled EDCA versus HCCA – which mechanism provides better bandwidth utilization

doc.: IEEE /0178r0 Submission March 2005 Fahd Pirzada - DellSlide 17 Conclusions The “streaming media applications” usage case is unique from “data applications” usage cases. We need to quantify the end-user experience using primary and secondary metrics. –The choice of primary and secondary metrics should tackle the various issues unique to streaming media applications. –In some instances the primary metrics may be measured directly. –In other instances, the Primary metrics may not be measured directly. Secondary metrics may be measured Primary metrics may be derived using correlation and models There is a strong correlation between streaming media performance evaluated in a wide variety of controlled indoor environments. We need further correlation between different environments.