Omer Boyaci, Andrea Forte and Henning Schulzrinne 1 December - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
omer boyaci
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Omer Boyaci, Andrea Forte and Henning Schulzrinne 1 December - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 05, 2022 326 likes •616 views

Omer Boyaci, Andrea Forte and Henning Schulzrinne 1 December 16,2009 Performance of video chat applications under congestion Residential area networks (DSL and cable) Limited uplink speeds (around 1Mbit/s) Big queues in the

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Omer Boyaci, Andrea Forte and Henning Schulzrinne

December 16,2009

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

 Performance of video chat applications under congestion

 Residential area networks (DSL and cable)

 Limited uplink speeds (around 1Mbit/s)  Big queues in the cable/DSL modem(600ms to 6sec)  Shared more than one user/application

 Investigate applications’ behavior under congestion

 Whether they are increasing the overall congestion  Or trying to maintain a fair share of bandwidth among

flows

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

 Skype  Windows Live Messenger  X-Lite free softphone  Eyebeam

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

 Step functions

 10 steps [1kbit/s-1024kbit/s] [10 sec in each step]  2 steps [1kbits-1024kbit/s] [10 sec in each step]

 Cross traffic

 File transfer to mediafire  Bittorrent

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

 9MB file to uploaded to mediafire  If there is no cross traffic file upload fully utilizes the

link

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

 Ubuntu 9.04 and Elephants Dream are shared  If there is no cross traffic bittorrent fully utilizes the link

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Experiment 5. Random Loss

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Conclusion

 We analyzed the behavior of Skype, Live Messenger, X-Lite and

Eyebeam.

 Skype behaved the best by adapting its codec parameters based not

  • nly on packet loss but also on RTT and jitter. This allowed Skype to

closely follow the changes in bandwidth without causing any packet loss.

 Eyebeam performed the worst with high fluctuations in the

transmission speed of its video traffic and with poor adaptation to bandwidth fluctuations.

 Due to limited upstream bandwidth, video clients must have

bandwidth adaptation mechanisms and must be able to differentiate between wireless losses and congestion losses.