Multicast for Video Streaming

EE290T Spring 2002 Puneet Mehra [email protected]

IP Multicast Overview

Semantics

Approach

1 -> Many or Many -> Many

Build tree connecting source and receivers on

Current Infrastructure in Net [1]

Group Addressing provides flexibility Packets delivered throughout tree. Dynamic changes to tree

Receivers/senders unaware of each other

Challenges

Uses UDP so no reliability

New Receiver -> graft path onto tree Receiver leaving -> pruning path from tree

Efficient routing of data to receivers

Video Multicast Over Net[1]

Issues in Multicast over Best Effort

Fixed Frame Rate regardless of delay/jitter Losses degradation, possibly ungraceful Heterogeneity of receivers

Approaches to Multicast

QoS resource reservation for Multicast Adaptive Rate Control

Techniques for Rate Adaptation

Single Stream Video Multicast Replicated Stream Video Multicast Layered Video Multicast

Single Stream Video Multicast

Only send 1 stream to all receivers. Pros:

Cons:

Easy To Implement

INRIA Video Conferencing System

Ignores Receiver Heterogeneity Feedback Implosion

Feedback Problem handled through probabilistic receiver response Tradeoff granularity of control vs B/W efficiency

Efficiency Tradeoff in Single Stream Approach

Replicated-Stream Video Multicast

Destination Set Group (DSG)

Pros:

Small # of video streams of varying quality sent to different multicast groups Intra-stream Rate control to adjust stream rate by receivers Inter-stream protocol used by receivers to switch streams
deals with heterogeneity more fair Scalable since receiver-driven

Cons: Network carries redundant info

Layered Video Multicast

Receiver-Driven Layered Multicast (RLM)

Send different layers to multicast groups, and receiver subscribes as needed -> scalable solution Congestion -> layer dropping Spare B/W -> layer adding Receivers conduct group join experiments and share info with others.

Layered Video Multicast Cont.

Layered Video Multicast with Retrans. (LVMR)

Improve reception w/in a layer by retransmission Deal w/ congestion using Hierarchical Rate Control
Congestion info distributed at both sender/receivers Intelligent partitioning of info -> concurrent experiments w/ less overhead Use hierarchy to only inform those who need to know about an experiment affected regions Collaborative layer drop better approach to congestion

Hierarchical Rate Control (HRC)

Error Control in Video Multicast

Pure FEC ARQ From LVMR

Local Recovery - designated receivers at each level in tree help w/ rtx. of pkts -> lower latency Dont rtx packets past deadline Receivers can trade reliability/latency by picking parent with desired attributes

Multicast Routing [2,3]

Routing construct efficient tree from source to receivers Theoretical Results [3]

Steiner Tree minimize total cost of a multicast tree. NP-Complete. So use heuristics to provide a good approx. to Steiner Tree. Constrained Steiner Tree impose b/w delay constraints on links to receivers. Also NPComplete. So must use heuristics All practical algorithms based on shortest path tree minimize sum of weights on links along each path from source to receiver

Intra-Domain Routing

Source-based Routing

Tree rooted at source Dense-mode routing works best when topology densely populated with receivers Select a Rendezvous Point (RP) to root the tree Sparse Mode Routing More efficient than dense mode when few, wide-spread receivers

Core-based Approach

Dense Mode Protocols

Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol

Uses broadcast & prune technique to build reverse shortest path trees (RSP) Steps:

Multicast extensions to OSPF

A lot of state info kept in ALL routers in net.

Src bcasts pkt on Lan. Local router fwds pkt on all ifaces If pkt received on RPF iface, then it is forwarded. Leaf routers send prune toward src if no attached receivers Prune message forwarded to source, and send own prune if receive prune message on all ifaces.

PIM-DM

Uses IGMP locally, then floods info along with link state to net. Less complex than DVMRP since no RPF check is done. More inefficient as a result

Tree Construction in DVMRP[3]

S = Source. Black Circles = Receivers Periodically flood net w/ datagrams Leaf routers send prune toward source if there are no group members on leaf subnet Final Tree is shown in (d).

Core-Based Routing

General Approach

Examples

A core, or rendezvous point (RP) is configured for a multicast group Info about the RP & mapping from group to RP is discovered by routers using bootstrap protocol (also finds alternate RP in case of failure) Receivers explicitly join tree -> contact RP Src sends data to RP which sends down tree More efficient since state only kept in routers on path from src/receivers to RP. CBT Core-Based Trees PIM-SM Protocol Independent Multicast/Sparse Mode

Tree construction in CBT

The Join Process for a new node Receiver Contacts Local Router Router sends JOIN_REQUEST to the core router

When msg reaches on-tree router, a JOIN_ACK is sent back

every router receiving JOIN_ACK updates state information

Periodically send echo-request to parent router. If echo not received in time, then router sends quit-notification upstream and deletes state information.

Inter-Domain Routing

Probs w/ multicast described

Large flat topology -> complexity and instability since no BGP-like protocol No mechanism to build hierarchical mcast routing Introduce Hierarchy multi-protocol extensions to BGP (MBGP)

Solution Immediate Future

Each router only knows topology of its own domain & how to reach other domains Used to determine next hop for a host

Inter-Domain Routing Cont.

What if you have a src in one domain & receivers in others? Multicast Source Discovery Protocol

When src registers w/ RP -> a source active (SA) msg is sent to MSDP peers Prevent loops w/ per-RPF flooding (ie: if msg received on correct iface -> flood) If MSDP is aware of local group members (use IGMP), then it will send a join to the src

Long-Term Inter-Domain Proposals

Border Gateway Multicast Protocol

Bidirectional shared trees between domains with single root. Need strict allocation of addresses among domains. Address Allocation Protocols

Multi Address Set Claim Helps allocate addresses dynamically across domains GLOP a glop of addresses statically allocated among domains

Problems Deploying IP Multicast [4]

Complexity

Cant put it in core routers Hardware more difficult to manage (probs w/ firewalls)
disrupts ISP router migration model (routers generally migrate from core to edge) ISPs dont want to rely on remote RPs Dont want to be RP for non-customers

Makes old routers useless

Domain Independence

Security anyone can send/listen Address Allocation anyone can pick a class D addr.

References

[1] Video Multicast over the Internet. Xue Li et al. IEEE Network. 1999. [2] The Evolution of Multicast: From the MBone to Interdomain Multicast to Internet2 Deployment. Kevin Almeroth. IEEE Network. 2000. [3] Multicast Routing and Its QoS Extension: Problems, Algorithms, and Protocols. Bin Wang and Jennifer C. Hou. IEEE Network. 2000. [4] Deployment Issues for the IP Multicast Service and Architecture. Christophe Diot et Al. IEEE Network. 2000.