Towards Detecting Differential QoE David Choffnes, Northeastern - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

towards detecting differential qoe
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Towards Detecting Differential QoE David Choffnes, Northeastern - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Towards Detecting Differential QoE David Choffnes, Northeastern (joint work with SBU) Supported by a Google Grant Traffic differentiation 2 Traffic differentiation selectively changing the performance of network traffic Reasons for


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Supported by a Google Grant

Towards Detecting Differential QoE

David Choffnes, Northeastern
 (joint work with SBU)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Traffic differentiation

2

Traffic differentiation selectively changing the performance of network traffic

Reasons for differentiation:

¤ traffic engineering ¤ bandwidth management ¤ business reasons

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Traffic differentiation

2

Traffic differentiation selectively changing the performance of network traffic

Reasons for differentiation:

¤ traffic engineering ¤ bandwidth management ¤ business reasons

Do certain types of network traffic receive better (or worse) QoE?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Motivation: Differentiation in the wild

3

Tested in early 2015

ISP

YouTube Netflix Spotify Verizon

m m m

Tmobile

  • ATT

m m m

Sprint

m m m

Boost

m m m

BlackWireless

60%

  • H2O

37% 45% 65%

SimpleMobile

36%

  • NET10

p p p

  • m: content modified on the fly
  • p: translucent proxies change

connection behavior

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Motivation: Differentiation in the wild

3

Tested in early 2015

ISP

YouTube Netflix Spotify Verizon

m m m

Tmobile

  • ATT

m m m

Sprint

m m m

Boost

m m m

BlackWireless

60%

  • H2O

37% 45% 65%

SimpleMobile

36%

  • NET10

p p p

  • m: content modified on the fly
  • p: translucent proxies change

connection behavior

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Motivation: Differentiation in the wild

3

Tested in early 2015

ISP

YouTube Netflix Spotify Verizon

m m m

Tmobile

  • ATT

m m m

Sprint

m m m

Boost

m m m

BlackWireless

60%

  • H2O

37% 45% 65%

SimpleMobile

36%

  • NET10

p p p

  • m: content modified on the fly
  • p: translucent proxies change

connection behavior

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Motivation: Differentiation in the wild

3

Tested in early 2015 Again in late 2015: No observed differences

ISP

YouTube Netflix Spotify Verizon

m m m

Tmobile

  • ATT

m m m

Sprint

m m m

Boost

m m m

BlackWireless

60%

  • H2O

37% 45% 65%

SimpleMobile

36%

  • NET10

p p p

  • m: content modified on the fly
  • p: translucent proxies change

connection behavior

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Key Questions

4

What do you test for differentiation?

¤ How do you generate traffic? ¤ What triggers differentiation?

How can you tell if there is differentiation?

¤ How do you do a controlled experiment? ¤ How do you rule out other reasons for differential service?

What is the impact on QoE?

¤ How do you map observed degradation to QoE? ¤ How do you scale this to arbitrary applications?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

How do you test for differentiation?

5

What triggers differentiation?

¤ We don’t know

They might trigger on

¤ IP addresses ¤ ports ¤ payload signatures ¤ total number of connections ¤ total bandwidth ¤ time of day

(This is consistent with online manuals for DPI boxes)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

How do you test for differentiation?

6

What triggers differentiation?

¤ We tested using carrier-grade DPI boxes

They might trigger on

¤ IP addresses ¤ ports ¤ payload signatures ¤ total number of connections ¤ total bandwidth ¤ time of day

slide-11
SLIDE 11

What triggers differentiation?

7

HTTP

¤ Host: and GET fields, typically regex ¤ Examples: youtube, facebook, netflix

HTTPS

¤ Server cert is sent in plaintext ¤ Searches on SNI, CN fields

Other protocols

¤ Can identify Skype using some knowledge of handshake format ¤ Open question: how to reverse engineer classifiers?

What is not important

¤ IP addresses don’t seem to matter!

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Triggering differentiation

8

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Triggering differentiation

8

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record: Replay:

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record: Replay:

end user

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record: Replay:

end user Replay server

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

VPN TUNNEL

Replay:

end user Replay server

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

VPN TUNNEL

Replay:

end user Replay server

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

VPN TUNNEL

Replay:

end user Replay server

Shaper

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

VPN TUNNEL

Replay:

end user Replay server

Shaper

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Triggering differentiation

8

end user

VPN TUNNEL

VPN proxy

Record:

VPN TUNNEL

Replay:

end user Replay server

VPN TUNNEL Shaper

slide-27
SLIDE 27

How to tell if there is differentiation?

9

Developed and validated new detection technique

¤ Back-to-back tests of same trace ¤ Includes VPN and random payload (but not ports) ¤ Send only at recorded rate (this is not a speed test) ¤ Statistical tests to reliably find differentiation

slide-28
SLIDE 28

How to tell if there is differentiation?

9

Developed and validated new detection technique

¤ Back-to-back tests of same trace ¤ Includes VPN and random payload (but not ports) ¤ Send only at recorded rate (this is not a speed test) ¤ Statistical tests to reliably find differentiation

KS Test statistic Throughput (KB/s) CDF

slide-29
SLIDE 29

How to tell if there is differentiation?

9

Developed and validated new detection technique

¤ Back-to-back tests of same trace ¤ Includes VPN and random payload (but not ports) ¤ Send only at recorded rate (this is not a speed test) ¤ Statistical tests to reliably find differentiation

Area Test = a/w Throughput (KB/s) CDF w a KS Test statistic Throughput (KB/s) CDF

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Mapping to QoE

10

Currently measure throughput, loss, delay, jitter

¤Some clear mappings to video streaming bitrate ¤Fairly clear mapping to VoIP ¤… but unclear how it impacts user-perceived performance

Key challenge: Applications are adaptive, servers dynamic

¤Users may not perceive impairment

Current focus: Expose QoE metrics

¤YouTube does this, Netflix does not ¤What is the right format? ¤How do we know if users notice?

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Summary

11

Differentiation and its impact on QoE important to solve Detecting differentiation requires care

¤ What you send (trigger it), how you send it (avoid it) ¤ Detection approach should be resilient to noise

Need a deeper understanding of impact on QoE

¤ Adaptive applications pose a challenge ¤ Potential approach is combination of ¤Exposing more QoE data from applications ¤Building better models to map QoS to QoE

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Questions?
 http://dd.meddle.mobi Check out our app!