1. Network Support for Multimedia Applications in Mobile Networks Major Area Exam Kimaya Sanzgiri MOMENT Lab Computer Science Dept., UCSB

2. Motivation Growing popularity of multimedia applications Streaming music/videos Internet telephony Media-rich messaging Growing popularity of mobile wireless networks Infrastructured Multi-hop (ad hoc) Increasing support for multimedia content on wireless devices

3. Characteristics of Real-time Multimedia Applications Sensitive to end-to-end delay and jitter Many applications can tolerate some packet loss Different needs from other types of applications, such as bulk data transfers

4. Network Support Due to diverse needs, packets belonging to different types of applications need to be handled differently by the network Network needs to offer different qualities of service Availability of sufficient resources must be ensured in order to meet application requirements

5. Characteristics of Wireless Networks Shared nature of medium Resource availability influenced by activities of neighboring nodes Mobility and dynamic topology Resource constrained devices Higher error rates No defined network boundary Lack of central authority

6. Supporting Multimedia Applications Solutions have been proposed for both wired and wireless networks that operate at different levels of the network stack In this talk, we focus on network layer solutions At the end, we will mention some proposed solutions at other layers

7. QoS support at the Network layer QoS-aware routing Admission control Resource reservation Packet classification and QoS-sensitive packet forwarding Monitoring/Policing

8. Wired Network Solutions Often not directly applicable to wireless networks due to the inherent difference in characteristics Provide insight into the problem Are a good starting point to address the problem in the wireless environment

9. Prominent Network-layer QoS Solutions for Wired Networks IP Precedence and TOS Integrated Services (IntServ) Differentiated Services (DiffServ)

10. IP Precedence and Type of Service (TOS) Field in the IPv4 header Indicates that the need for QoS support was recognized since the early days of the Internet The TOS field can be used to specify a precedence value (0-7) or a TOS (delay/throughput/reliability/cost) for each IP packet Interpretation of this field was left ambiguous Field remained largely unused

11. Integrated Services Attempt to modify Internet service model to support diverse application requirements Any data flow that desires better than best-effort delivery requests and reserves resources at routers along the path RSVP is the recommended reservation protocol If insufficient resources are available, the flow is denied admission into the network

12. Integrated Services (cont.) Each router Maintains reservation state for each flow Classifies every packet and decides forwarding behavior Monitors the flow to ensure that it does not consume more than the reserved resources Advantages Enables fine-grained QoS and resource guarantees Disadvantages Not scalable, harder to administer

13. Differentiated Services Moves admission control and flow monitoring to the edge of the network Edge nodes classify and mark packets to receive a particular type of service Diff Serv Code Point (DSCP) Finite set of DSCPs defined Interior nodes determine the type of service for forwarded packets based on their DSCP values

14. Differentiated Services (cont.) Advantages More scalable No per-flow state Easier to administer Disadvantages Cannot provide the same per-flow guarantees as IntServ

15. QoS support at the Network layer QoS-aware routing Admission control Resource reservation Packet classification and QoS-sensitive packet forwarding Monitoring/Policing

16. Applicability of Wired Approaches to Wireless Networks Some ideas may be applicable directly, while some need modification and others may be inapplicable Additional challenges in wireless networks that are not encountered in wired networks have to be addressed

17. Applicability of Wired Approaches to Wireless Networks IntServ Effectiveness of reservations in highly dynamic environment questionable Per-flow state and monitoring may be resource exhaustive (depends on traffic) DiffServ DSCP idea may be useful With dynamic topology and no defined network boundary, some admission control/monitoring may be necessary at each node

18. Admission Control in Wireless Networks Determining available bandwidth at a wireless node is a complex task due to the nature of the wireless medium Wireless medium is shared among multiple nodes Bandwidth is affected by transmissions of nodes that are not within transmission range Each node potentially has a different view of the medium

19. Bandwidth is affected by nodes that are not within transmission range A Interference/ Carrier-Sensing Range Transmission Range B C C’s transmissions affect bandwidth at A

20. Different views of the wireless medium at different nodes Y X Z P R S Q Carrier-Sensing Range of X Carrier-Sensing Range of Q

21. Making an Admission Control Decision Y X Z P R S Q T 400 kbps Total bandwidth = 1 Mbps If X admits a 400 kbps flow to Z, the medium will get congested at Q ?

22. Contention-Aware Admission Control Protocol (CACP) [Yang 2003] Each node senses the medium to determine the fraction of time that the medium is idle Local bandwidth availability is determined from the idle fraction Further, each node queries all nodes within its carrier sensing range for their local bandwidths. The minimum of these is the neighborhood available bandwidth Admission control decisions are based on the neighborhood available bandwidth

23. CACP Admission Control Y X Z P R S Q T 400 kbps Total bandwidth = 1 Mbps Neighborhood available bandwidth at X is 200 kbps, so X will not admit the 400 kbps flow ?

24. Issues with CACP approach How does a node communicate with its carrier- sensing neighbors? High power transmissions May increase collisions Local multi-hop flood May reach nodes that are outside CS range May not reach some nodes in CS range Considering neighborhood bandwidth as defined by CACP may sometimes be overly conservative and prevent spatial reuse

25. Y X Z P R S Q T 700 kbps ? Preventing Spatial Reuse Total bandwidth = 1 Mbps Neighborhood available bandwidth at X is 700 kbps, so X will not admit the 400 kbps flow, although it could be admitted

26. Bandwidth Availability Determination Other approaches have been proposed Different trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency Perceptive Admission Control (PAC) [Chakeres 2004] reduces overhead and improves spatial reuse compared to CACP However, even PAC could be overly conservative in some situations Open Question: How can bandwidth availability be determined more accurately with low overhead?

27. Multi-hop Admission Control In a multi-hop route, there could be interference between multiple hops B C X D E U P Q R S Y T A F CS Range of XCS Range of Y

28. Multi-hop Admission Control Due to the interference between multiple hops, the bandwidth required at a node is some multiple of that requested by the application The exact value depends on the Contention Count at the node Contention Count at a node is the number of other nodes on the route that are contending with this node for medium access

29. Multi-hop Admission Control Contention Count at a node is determined by the number of nodes on the route that are within the nodes carrier-sensing range B C X D E U P Q R S Y T A F Contention Count at X = 5Contention Count at Y = 7 V

30. Determining Contention Count Node must know the identities of its carrier- sensing neighbors CACP does either high power periodic broadcasts or multi-hop broadcasts - Collision, overhead and inaccuracy problems Node must know the identities of all other nodes on any route Requires source routing or path accumulation in routing packets – overhead Open Questions: Is there a better way? Can approximations be made that could reduce overhead?

31. QoS Routing Several QoS routing protocol have been proposed. Each exhibits one or more of the following features Extend a corresponding best-effort routing protocol (AODV/DSR/DSDV) Find one or more QoS-satisfactory paths between source and destination Admission control may be integrated with route discovery Resource reservations may be established along the route

32. QoS-sensitive extensions of AODV S D RREQ RREP QoS information is added to the RREQ packet Intermediate nodes forward the RREQ only if they have sufficient resources to meet the QoS requirement Resource information is updated in the RREQ by intermediate nodes Destination sends resource information back to source in the RREP message

33. Other Challenges for QoS Routing and Admission Control X RS P Q Simultaneous Intersecting Requests Simultaneous Parallel Requests

34. QoS Monitoring Resource availability may change over time due to mobility and changing topology There is a need for monitoring and renegotiation of QoS parameters Monitoring can be performed in various ways

35. QoS Monitoring Approaches INSIGNIA [Lee 2000] uses in-band signalling QoS parameters added to every data packet using IP options in the IP header Intermediate nodes appropriately set the values for the parameters based on their current resource availability Destination gathers the information from the data packets and gives feedback to the source

36. QoS Monitoring Approaches SWAN [Ahn 2002] does monitoring at intermediate nodes and uses Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to regulate flow AQOR [Xue 2003] does no monitoring at intermediate nodes. Destination does the monitoring based on the received data characteristics and gives feedback to the source Open Questions: Can these approaches be used in combination for an effective solution? Is there a better new approach?

37. Hybrid Network Internet Gateway Mobile Network

38. Hybrid networks A hybrid network is formed when the mobile network extends the wired Internet To run multimedia applications in hybrid networks, QoS needs to be ensured in both the wired and wireless parts of the network QoS mechanisms in wired and wireless networks can be very different Open Question: How can this be addressed? Network layer QoS gateways? Needs exploration

39. Solutions at other layers MAC layer Priority-based medium access Transport layer QoS monitoring, rate control Application layer Adaptive streaming, layering techniques Open Question: How do mechanisms at different layers interact?

40. Other Open Questions Most of the proposed QoS solutions have been validated through simulations or analytical models. Do the observations and results hold true in real deployments? Can special characteristics of wireless networks, such as mobility, be leveraged in any way to improve QoS?

41. Conclusions Multimedia applications require QoS support from the network This is particularly difficult in wireless networks owing to their special characteristics Several solutions have been proposed at the network layer for admission control, QoS routing and monitoring in wireless networks Many open questions still remain and there is significant scope for further research

42. Thank you! Questions/Comments?