1. 1 NV-2003 MPEG Streaming over Mobile Internet Kyunghee Lee and Myungchul Kim {leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr

2. 2 NV-2003 Contents Introduction Related Work Proposed Mechanism System Design Testbed Configuration Experiments Performance Evaluation Conclusions References

3. 3 NV-2003 Introduction General multimedia data characteristics –Intolerant to delay and jitter variance –Error-sensitive Characteristics of mobile Internet –Frequent routing path changes due to handoffs –Higher error rate in wireless link Effects on streaming multimedia data in mobile Internet –Handoff delay –Re-routing toward congested network  delay increment –Higher packet loss probability due to mobility  Significant quality degradation of streaming multimedia data

4. 4 NV-2003 Introduction (cont’d) Popular Quality of Service (QoS) guarantee mechanisms –Differentiated Service (DiffServ) [2] Guarantees aggregated QoS for multiple flows Can not guarantee specific QoS requirement for each data flow –Integrated Service (IntServ) Network resource reservation for specific data flow Strict guarantees for multimedia streams with various QoS requirements Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [3]

5. 5 NV-2003 Introduction (cont’d) Problems of RSVP in Mobile Internet –Mobile Host (MH) handoff invalidates existing reservation paths  overhead and delay to re-establish new RSVP session –Movement to congested wireless cell  fail to get admission to re-establish new RSVP session  Seamless QoS guarantees are impossible Existing approaches –Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [15] –Hierarchical Mobile RSVP (HMRSVP) [16] –A method of Concatenation and Optimization of Reservation Path (CORP) [10]

6. 6 NV-2003 Related Work Priority-based scheduling for MPEG streaming on Mobile Internet –Differentiated delivery service depending on the importance of each MPEG frame data R1 FA CH I B B P I B P B I P Priority-aware MPEG Server MH : MPEG video stream : Non-multimedia Traffic Packet drop MPEG Client congested

7. 7 NV-2003 Classify IP packets into two classes depending on its payload –Class 1: containing MPEG and GOP header (priority 1) –Class 2: containing MPEG I frame (priority 1) –Class 3: containing MPEG B, P frame (priority 7, best-effort) Uses TOS field in IP packet header as a classifier …. 4-bit version 4-bit header len. 8-bit TOS field 16-bit total length (in bytes) 16-bit identification 3-bit flag13-bit fragment offset 8-bit time-to-live (TTL)8-bit protocol16-bit header checksum 32-bit source IP address 01631 3-bit precedence field (currently ignored) minimize delay maximize throughput maximize reliability minimize monetary cost 1-bit unused 4 TOS bits Related Work

8. 8 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) Priority-aware MPEG streaming server

9. 9 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) Mobile IP Foreign Agent (FA) –Is the most probable spot of packet loss due to the network congestion –Acts as a gateway router for its own wireless subnet –Runs mobile IP FA daemon program –Performs priority-based CBQ scheduling for the traffic delivered toward MH Mobile MPEG client –Plays MPEG video stream from the server Advantages –Simple and light-weight mechanism  suitable for wireless/mobile networking environment –Significant video quality improvement can be achieved though the extra bandwidth is scarcely consumed

10. 10 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) Testbed configuration Non-diffserv router R HA FA MH Backgroundtraffic Priority-aware MPEG server MPEG video stream Priority-based scheduling on/off Wireless subnet 1 Wireless subnet 2 Experiment scenario Sample MPEG file specification Background traffic pattern File size1.2 Mbytes Playing out Duration 48 sec Frame rate30 fps Avg. bit rate214 Kbps Containing Frames 102 I, 404 P, 1010 B * Total 1516 frames 1516 frames ** The bandwidth limit in the WaveLAN II wireless link: 5.07 Mbps

11. 11 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) Experimental results –Number of the received packets (at client) containing either MPEG header or I-frame (Class 1, 2) Each packet size: 1024 bytes Total number of Class 1 or 2 packets: 151 Number of the received packets: 151 (the proposed mechanism), 121 (FIFO scheduling) –Transfer rate variation of the MPEG video stream Transfer rate is more independent on the amount of the background traffic (  ) Class 1, 2 packets are served by the priority-based scheduling

12. 12 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) Experimental results (cont’d) –PSNR value distribution Amount of the received traffic: 824 Kbytes (FIFO), 852 Kbytes (CBQ) out of total 1.2 Mbytes Number of frames  20 dB: 919 (FIFO), 775 (CBQ) Number of frames with 78 dB: 151 (FIFO), 192 (CBQ) 78 dB: same quality with the original image  20 dB: impossible to be recognized by human eyes Out of total 1440

13. 13 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CORP –Base Station (BS) takes charge of making and managing RSVP sessions on behalf of MH –Consists of two main processes Concatenation of Reservation Path (CRP) process –Reservation path extension technique –Current BS pre-establishes pseudo reservation path (PRP) toward its neighboring BSs to prepare for MH’s handoff –When MH handoffs, corresponding PRP is activated to guarantee QoS for MH Optimization for Reservation Path (ORP) process –Solves infinitely long path extension problem and reservation path loop problem of CRP process –Optimizes the extended reservation path

14. 14 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors CRP inform CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

15. 15 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors III.BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

16. 16 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors III.BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors IV.MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

17. 17 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors III.BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors IV.MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell CRP activate V.BS_C sends CRP activate message to the previous BS (BS_B) CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

18. 18 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors III.BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors IV.MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell V.BS_C sends CRP activate message to the previous BS (BS_B) VI.BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through the activated PRP CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

19. 19 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) CRP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A I.MH requests a new RSVP session and BS_B makes it on behalf of the MH II.BS_B sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors III.BS_B makes PRP to its neighbors IV.MH handoffs toward BS_C’s cell V.BS_C sends CRP activate message to the previous BS (BS_B) VI.BS_B forwards MPEG-1 video through the activated PRP VII.BS_B terminates useless PRP toward BS_A CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP

20. 20 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) ORP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP I.BS_C sends IGMP group report message to its gateway router IGMP report

21. 21 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) ORP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP I.BS_C sends IGMP group report message to its gateway router II.BS_C joins into the existing multicast RSVP session CRP release III.BS_C sends CRP release message to the previous BS (BS_B)

22. 22 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) ORP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP I.BS_C sends IGMP group report message to its gateway router II.BS_C joins into the existing multicast RSVP session III.BS_C sends CRP release message to the previous BS (BS_B) IV.BS_B terminates the activated PRP and BS_C uses the newly optimized one to deliver MPEG data stream to MH

23. 23 NV-2003 Related Work (cont’d) ORP Process BS_CBS_BBS_A CORP message RSVP session PRP Activated PRP I.BS_C sends IGMP group report message to its gateway router II.BS_C joins into the existing multicast RSVP session III.BS_C sends CRP release message to the previous BS (BS_B) IV.BS_B terminates the activated PRP and BS_C uses the newly optimized one to deliver MPEG data stream to MH V.BS_B leaves the multicast RSVP session CRP inform CRP inform VI.BS_C sends CRP inform messages to its neighbors to prepare MH’s probable movement

24. 24 NV-2003 Proposed Mechanism Motivation –To provide QoS guarantees for MPEG video streaming services with mobility support Proposed System –Uses CORP to guarantee seamless QoS in mobile networks –Provides MPEG-1 video streaming services over CORP –CORP-aware video streaming server and client –CORP-capable mobile agents (Base Stations)

25. 25 NV-2003 System Design Video Server Architecture –CORP adaptation module handles CORP messages and takes charge of resource reservation process –MPEG-1 traffic transfer module transfers MPEG-1 stream to BS at the speed of a reserved bandwidth CORP message MPEG-1 data

26. 26 NV-2003 System Design (cont’d) Base Station Architecture –CORP message handler module handles CORP messages which are generated by neighboring BSs or a mobile client –traffic forward module receives MPEG-1 streaming data from the video server and forwards it to a neighboring BS or directly delivers it to the client

27. 27 NV-2003 System Design (cont’d) Client Architecture –CORP adaptation module handles CORP messages –Handoff detection module detects a handoff and determines when MH has to request the activation of PRP –MPEG-1 traffic receiver module receives MPEG-1 streaming data from a current BS –MPEG-1 video playback module plays the MPEG-1 video from the received stream

28. 28 NV-2003 System Design (cont’d) MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP before Handoff Video Server BS1ClientBS 2 Service Request Service Request Ack Service Request Service Request Ack RSVP path RSVP resv MPEG-1 traffic PRP establishment Client Handoffs (BS1  BS2)

29. 29 NV-2003 System Design (cont’d) MPEG-1 Service Procedure over CORP after Handoff Video Server BS1ClientBS 2 Client handoff s CRP Activate Request CRP Activate CRP Activate Ack MPEG-1 traffic ORP Request ORP Request Ack RSVP path RSVP resv MPEG-1 traffic (BS1  BS2)

30. 30 NV-2003 Testbed Configuration Network Architecture Wired subnet bandwidth 10 Mbps Ethernet Wireless subnet bandwidth IEEE 802.11b wireless LAN with the bandwidth of 11 Mbps BS Runs FA daemon of Mobile IP Runs CORP daemon Client Runs MH daemon of Mobile IP Runs VOD client program Video Server Supports CORP-aware MPEG-1 streaming service MH BS2 Gateway BS1 Video Server Wireless Subnet_1Wireless Subnet_2 Wired Subnet_1Wired Subnet_2 Home Agent

31. 31 NV-2003 Experiments Experiment Scenarios –Background traffic generation: MGEN –Maximum throughput of wired network: 9.34 Mbps –Wired subnet_1: non-congested –Wired subnet_2: congested 8.2 Mbps background traffic –Movement of MH: BS1  BS2 Experiment Cases I.MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and TCP II.MPEG-1 streaming with TCP only III.MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and UDP IV.MPEG-1 streaming with UDP only Shrek Resolution352 X 288 Average Data Rate (Mbps) 1.39 Frame Rate (fps)25 Play out duration (sec) 80 Total number of frames 2,000 Sample Video Clip Specification

32. 32 NV-2003 Performance Evaluation QoS Guarantee –Data rate is measured at client per each second while the sample MPEG file is being delivered –Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and after handoff cases in (I) –Amount of packet loss due to handoff is about 81Kbytes in (I) –84 percents are less than 0.3 Mbps after handoff in(II) I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCPII. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only * 150KBps bandwidth reserved

33. 33 NV-2003 QoS Guarantee (cont’d) –Not much difference in data rate distribution between before and after handoff cases in (I) –Average data rate before handoff is significantly higher than that after handoff in (II) –Average packet loss rate is about 0.6 Mbps in (II) I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDPII. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only * 200KBps bandwidth reserved Performance Evaluation

34. 34 NV-2003 Quality of Streaming Video –If Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) is less than 20 dB, the frame can be regarded as being lost –In (I), MPEG-1 streaming data did not suffer from loss or delay under the congested situation –11 frames were lost during CRP process time in (I) –the total number of received frames is only 1107 frames out of 2000 frames for 80 seconds in (II) I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and TCPII. MPEG-1 Streaming with TCP only Performance Evaluation

35. 35 NV-2003 Quality of Streaming Video (cont’d) –The average PSNR is 69.6 dB before MH’s handoff and 68.6 dB after MH’s handoff in (I) –MH could not play back MPEG-1 video stream correctly after handoff in (II) because of too high packet loss rate (0.6 Mbps) I. MPEG-1 Streaming with CORP and UDPII. MPEG-1 Streaming with UDP only Performance Evaluation

36. 36 NV-2003 Conclusions QoS guarantee for MPEG-1 streaming service in Mobile Internet –QoS guarantee mechanism with mobility support – CORP –Implementation of MPEG-1 streaming service over CORP Streaming Video Quality Improvement –Significantly better PSNR values in both cases of using TCP and UDP when CORP mechanism is applied –MPEG-1 streaming with CORP and TCP provided the highest video quality in the experiments Future work –Reduction in the packet loss during a handoff with CORP –Reduction in the packet loss over wireless links when UDP is used as a transport protocol

37. 37 NV-2003 References [1] B. Adamson, “The MGEN Toolset,” http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN, USA, 1999. [2] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss, “An Architecture for Differentiated Services,” RFC 2475, IETF, 1998. [3] R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification,” RFC 2205, IETF, 1997. [4] F. Cheong and R. Lai, “A study of the burstiness of combined MPEG video and audio bitstreams,” Computer Communications, 21(10), pp. 880-888, 1998. [5] L. deCarmo, “Core Java media framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999. [6] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2,” RFC 2236, IETF, 1997. [7] D. L. Gall, “MPEG: a video compression standard for multimedia applications,” Communications of ACM, 34(4), pp. 46-58, 1991. [8] R. Gordon, “Essential JNI: Java Native Interface,” Prentice-Hall, 1998. [9] R. Gordon and S. Talley, “Essential JMF: Java Media Framework,” Prentice-Hall, 1999. [10] K. Lee, “A Method of Concatenation and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path (CORP) in Mobile Internet,” M.S. Thesis, ICU, 2000. [11] J. K. Ng, “A reserved bandwidth video smoothing algorithm for MPEG transmission,” Journal of Systems and Software, 48, pp. 233-245, 1999. [12] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” RFC 2002, IETF, 1996.

38. 38 NV-2003 References (cont.) [13] R. R. Pillai and M. K. Patnam, “A method to improve the robustness of MPEG video applications over wireless networks,” Computer Communications, 24, pp. 1452-1459, 2001. [14] S. C. Sullivan, L. Winzeler, J. Deagen, and D. Brown, “Programming with the Java Media Framework,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. [15] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, and A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for an Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts,” Technical Report: DCS-TR- 337, Rutgers university, USA. [16] C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: a hierarchical mobile RSVP protocol,” Distributed Computing Systems Workshop, 2001 Int’l Conf. on, pp. 467-472, 2001. [17] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP,” http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics, Finland, 2001. [18] “Java Media Framework API Guide,” http://java.sun.com/products/java- media/jmf/index.html, Sun Microsystems, USA, 1999. [19] “Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Higher speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,” IEEE Standard 802.11b, IEEE, USA, 1999.

39. 39 NV-2003 Selective Establishment of Pseudo Reservations (SEP) for QoS Guarantees in Mobile Internet Kyounghee Lee and Myungchul Kim {leekhe, mckim}@icu.ac.kr

40. 40 NV-2003 Introduction  Mobile Internet environments Frequent traffic path redirection due to host mobility Poor communication characteristics - Higher error rate, lower bandwidth, etc.  General multimedia data characteristics Intolerant to delay and jitter variance Error-sensitive  Effects on multimedia steaming in mobile Internet Latency and packet loss due to handoff Entrance toward the congested network  delay & error increment  Significant QoS degradation

41. 41 NV-2003 Introduction (cont’d)  QoS guarantees in wired Internet Resource reservation - Focus on per-flow QoS (for the access networks) - Resource Reservation Setup Protocol (RSVP) [1] Class-based packet scheduling - Focus on QoS for flow aggregates (for the core networks) - Differentiated service (DiffServ) [23], Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) [24]  Mobility issues with RSVP RSVP signal messages invisibility problem - Due to tunneling (packet encapsulation) between HA and FA Reservation path invalidation

42. 42 NV-2003  Conventional approaches on RSVP with mobility support Suffer from excessive reservation requirements due to establishment of multiple advance reservations at all adjacent BSs [4, 5, 8, 10, 11] Require considerable functional modifications in the existing Internet protocols and components [6, 7, 9]  Our goals Supports seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet  Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) with mobility support Addresses the excessive advance reservation requirements Demands minimal changes in the current Internet environments Introduction (cont’d)

43. 43 NV-2003 Related Work  RSVP tunneling [3] Packet re-structuring at mobile agents RSVP signal message invisibility (O), RSVP path invalidation (X)  Mobile RSVP (MRSVP) [4, 5] Passive reservations at all neighboring cells along a multicast tree  passive reservation functions on all routers in the network MH is required to have prior knowledge of its mobility  MRSVP extensions Mahadevan’s approach [8] - Passive reservations are established between BSs - Reservation path extension  infinite extension problem - Passive reservation functions should be equipped on all gateway routers

44. 44 NV-2003  MRSVP extensions (cont’d) Hierarchical MRSVP [9] -Solution for the excessive advance reservations -Passive reservation is established only for an inter-domain handoff -Considerable modifications on the existing Internet (RSVP tunneling & mobile IP regional registration [12])  Chen’s approach [7] Predictive reservation & temporary reservation  Paskalis’ approach [6] Single contact IP address for a MH by dynamically translating between Local Care-of-Address (LCoA) and Domain CoA (DCoA) Method only for the access networks  Low latency handoff support with Layer 2 (L2) functionality Fast handoff mechanism [13] and Proactive handoff [14] Related Work (cont’d)

45. 45 NV-2003 Proposed Mechanism  Selective Establishment of Pseudo Reservations (SEP) Pseudo reservation - Advance reservation in SEP - Established only between two neighboring BSs - Established in the same way as a normal RSVP session SEP advantages - Movement detection scheme using L2 functionality  significant decrease in the number of required PRPs - Integrates all enhanced features into the leaf BS  fewer functional and structural changes in the existing network components - Reservation load balancing  efficient resource management (for future work) Three major steps in SEP - Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP) establishment - Concatenation of Reservation path (CRP) process - Optimization for Reservation path (ORP) process

46. 46 NV-2003 Overall SEP Process 1. PRP establishment2. Path extension3. Path optimization BS_CBS_BBS_A MH CH BS_CBS_BBS_A MH CH BS_CBS_BBS_A MH CH (1) (2) (3) : Existing RSVP Session (1), Activated PRP (2), Optimized Reservation Path : Inactivated Pseudo Reservation Path (PRP) : Traffic forwarding

47. 47 NV-2003 Movement Detection Movement detections in SEP –Detects a L2 beacon arrival from a neighboring BS –CRP_initiate message to notify the current BS of the movement –CRP_inform message to start a PRP establishment process

48. 48 NV-2003 CRP Process before a Handoff When a MH is a sender BS_C 3.CRP_inform Reservation pathInactivated PRPCRP-SEP & RSVP control flow (a) BS_BBS_A MH CH 1.L2 beacon 2.CRP_init 4.RSVP path 5.RSVP resv BS_C (b) BS_BBS_A MH CH PRP

49. 49 NV-2003 CRP Process before a Handoff (cont’d) When a MH is a receiver BS_C 3.CRP_inform Reservation pathInactivated PRPCRP-SEP & RSVP control flow (a) BS_BBS_A MH CH 1.L2 beacon 2.CRP_init 4.RSVP path 5.RSVP resv BS_C (b) BS_BBS_A MH CH PRP

50. 50 NV-2003 CORP-SEP Process after a Handoff BS_C Reservation path & Activated PRPInactivated PRP CRP-SEP & RSVP control flow (a) BS_BBS_A MH CHBS_C (b) BS_BBS_A MH CH Activated PRPPRP 1.CRP_activate Traffic forwarding

51. 51 NV-2003 ORP Process ORP process can be performed –Unicast address vs. multicast address ORP process using multicast address 1.CRP_release 2.Path teardown BS_B (a) BS_A MH CH Activated PRP Join BS_B (b) BS_A MH CH BS_B (c) BS_A MH CH Optimized path Reservation path & Activated PRP CRP-SEP, RSVP & IGMP control flow Traffic forwarding

52. 52 NV-2003 Performance Evaluation Testbed configuration -OS: FreeBSD 4.2, Linux ker 2.2.12 & 2.2.14 -Mobile IP: HUT Dynamics 0.8.1 -RSVP: ISI release 4.2a4 with ALTQ 3.0 CH R BS2 CH : Correspondent Host R : Gateway Router HA/FA : Home/Foreign Agent BS : FA + AP AP : Access Point RA : Reservation Agent MH : Mobile Host : NIC (IEEE 802.3) : NIC (IEEE 802.11b) : Hub : RSVP session SEP Mobile IP FA Module Routing & Traffic Scheduling module BS1 Wired Subnet A MH Wired Subnet B Wireless Subnet CWireless Subnet D HA RSVP

53. 53 NV-2003 Handoff latency in Mobile IP and SEP (measured & estimated) L2 beacon arrives (  36) Time (ms) 0 L2 roaming MIP solicitation & advertising MIP binding update MIP registration request Handoff completion (  0) Estimated MIP handoff latency (  0) PRP establishing time (  22) PRP activation & forwarding (  11) Performance Evaluation

54. 54 NV-2003 Average data transmission rates –250 kbytes (2000 kbps) reserved –250 data packets per sec, each packet 1024 bytes –Link capacity: 9,300 (wired) vs. 4,700 (wireless) kbps  9000 kbps background traffic Handoff to the congested cell Performance Evaluation

55. 55 NV-2003 Simulation environment –Simulator – NS2.1b9a –7 x 7 mesh model –Communication range of each BS: 250m –Overlapped area size: 150m –L2 beacon interval: 100ms –Host movement: random direction mobility model [21] BS00 (0, 0) (2600, 2600) BS01BS06BS60 100150 Performance Evaluation

56. 56 NV-2003 Average PRP requirements –0.49 (SEP) vs. 4 (MRSVP, CORP) –0.11 (HMRSVP) * The number of reachable BSs is zero when a MH is moving around the border area of the simulation network Performance Evaluation

57. 57 NV-2003 Reservation blocking rates –Probability for a MH to fail to make a new RSVP session (  the amount of the required advance reservations) Performance Evaluation

58. 58 NV-2003 Reservation session loss rate –Probability for a MH to lose its reservation path after a handoff -SEP > HMRSVP (when the offered load is high)  Insufficient advance reservations in HMRSP -SEP > MRSVP (when the offered load is low)  less PRP requirements in SEP Performance Evaluation

59. 59 NV-2003 Reservation session completion rate –Probability that a MH can complete a RSVP session without any reservation blocking or session loss SEP outperforms HMRSVP as -the offered load in the network increases -the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation session Performance Evaluation

60. 60 NV-2003 Conclusions & Future Work  SEP - seamless QoS guarantees in mobile Internet RSVP with mobility support -pseudo reservation, reservation path extension & optimization Movement detection using L2 functionality -significant decrease in the number of required PRPs Fewer functional & structural changes in the existing Internet components and protocols SEP outperforms the conventional approaches in reservation session loss rate and completion rates especially as the offered load in the network increases the average number of handoffs increases during a reservation session Efficient network resource management -MH can choose its next BS according to the amount of available resources in the reachable BSs  Future Work Performance evaluation in SEP due to reservation load balancing

61. 61 NV-2003 References [1] R. Branden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) – Version 1 Functional Specification”, RFC 2205, IETF, Sep. 1997. [2] C. E. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support”, RFC 2002 on IETF, Oct. 1996. [3] A. Terzis, M. Srivastava, L. Zhang, “A Simple QoS Signaling Protocol for Mobile Hosts in the Integrated Service Internet”, IEEE Proceedings, Vol. 3, 1999. [4] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “MRSVP: A Reservation Protocol for an Integrated Service Packet Network with Mobile Hosts”, Tech report TR-337, Rutgers university. [5] A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, A. Acharya, “On Accommodating Mobile Hosts in an Integrated Services Packet Network”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Apr. 1997. [6] S. Paskalis, A. Kaloxylos, and E. Zervas, “An efficient QoS Scheme for Mobile Hosts”, 26th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Network (LCN 2001), pp. 630-637, 2001. [7] W. Chen and L. Huang, “RSVP Mobility Support: A Signaling Protocol for Integrated Services Internet with Mobile Hosts”, in proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Part vol. 3, pp. 1283-1292 Vol 3, 2000. [8] I. Mahadevan and K. M. Sivalingam, “Architecture and Experimental Results for Quality of Service in Mobile Networks using RSVP and CBQ”, ACM Wireless Networks 6, pp. 221-234, Jul. 2000. [9] C. Tseng, G. Lee, and R. Liu, “HMRSVP: A Hierarchical Mobile RSVP Protocol”, International Workshop on Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (WNMC2001), Apr. 2001. [10] K. Lee, M. Kim, S. T. Chanson, C. Yu, J. Lee, “CORP- A Method of Concatenation and Optimization for Resource Reservation Path in Mobile Internet”, IEICE Transactions on Communications, pp. 479 – 489, Vol. E86-B, No. 2, Feb. 2003.

62. 62 NV-2003 References [11] M. Lee, K. Lee, T. C. Thang, N. N. Thanh, M. Kim, Y. Ro, J. Lee, “MPEG Streaming over Mobile Internet”, IS&T/SPIE’s 14th Annual Symposium, Electronic Imaging 2002, Jan. 2002. [12] E. Gustafsson, A. Jonson, C. E. Perkins, “Mobile IP Regional Registration”, Internet Draft on IETF, Oct. 2002. [13] K. E. Malki, P. R. Calhoun, T. Hiller, J. Kempf, P. J. McCann, A. Singh, H. Soliman, S. Thalanany, “Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4”, Internet Draft on IETF, Jun. 2002. [14] P. Calhoun, “FA Assisted Hand-off”, Internet Draft on IETF, Mar. 2000. [15] W. Fenner, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2”, RFC 2236 on IETF, Nov. 1997. [16] “WaveLAN”, http://www.agere.com/client/wlan.html [17] “ALTQ: Alternate Queueing”, http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/kjc/software.html [18] “Dynamics – HUT Mobile IP”, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics [19] “RSVP Code rel4.2a3”, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/rsvp/release/ [20] “MGEN: The Multi-Generator Tool”, http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN/ [21] T. Camp, J. Boleng, V. Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research”, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol.2, no.5, 2002. [22] “The Network simulator – NS-2”, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ [23] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss, “An Architecture for Differentiated Services”, RFC 2475 on IETF, Dec. 1998. [24] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, “Multi-protocol Label Switching Architecture”, RFC 3031 on IETF, Jan. 2001.