Advertisement

Real Time ML-Based QoE Adaptive Approach in SDN Context for HTTP Video Services

  • Asma Ben Letaifa
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Due to the high dynamism of network conditions, operators and service providers are facing the challenge of providing satisfactory user experience during a real-time video streaming session where clients are often suffering from frequent interruptions and significant visual quality degradation. Video parameters such as playback quality, rate switching amplitude/frequency, occupancy, overflow/underflow buffer are the main key factors responsible for affecting the user experience’s quality. Recently, adaptive streaming protocols over HTTP have become widely adopted for providing continuous video streaming services to users with their different heterogeneous devices under dynamic network conditions. In this paper, we leverage the emerging paradigm of software defined networking SDN. Our contribution consists in developing some scenarios on SDN helping to adapt video streaming to the network state. The current work proposes to experience ML algorithms in order to predict user QoE over SDN networks. We present an approach that collects MOS score from users under varying network parameters as well as objective parameters such as SSIM, VQM and PSNR. The MOS scores are collected by playing videos to actual users in an SDN environment. We design an architecture which could use the measured MOS values under varying network conditions to predict the expected MOS based on machine learning algorithms. This work provides an outlook of experiments done for demonstration, by describing SDN environment deployment, detailing the realized scenarios and finally giving the results and values. We highlight, at the end of this paper, the perspectives of our proposition.

Keywords

Quality of service (QoS) Quality of experience (QoE) Machine learning (ML) Video streaming services QoE enforcement Software defined networking (SDN) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out during a project done with some SUPCOM students. The research behind this paper, which led to these results, was conducted by a group of students who helped to install simulations environment and experiments. The author would like to thank them sincerely.

References

  1. 1.
    Kim, W., Sharma, P., Lee, J., Banerjee, S., Tourrilhes, J., Lee, S.-J., et al. (2010). Automated and scalable QoS control for network convergence. In Proceedings of USENIX INM/WREN, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matias, J., Jacob, E., Katti, N., & Astorga, J. (2011). Towards neutrality in access networks: A NANDO deployment with OpenFlow. In Proceedings of IARIA international conference on access networks, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yiakoumis, Y., Yap, K.-K., Katti, S., Parulkar, G., & McKeown, N. (2011). Slicing home networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop on HomeNets, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    What’s software-defined networking (SDN). https://www.sdxcentral.com/resources/sdn/what-the-definition-of-software-defined-networking-sdn. Accessed Oct 28, 2016.
  5. 5.
    Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Definition (Online article). https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-resources/sdn-definition. Accessed Oct 28, 2016.
  6. 6.
    Kaur, K., Singh, J., & Ghumman, N. S. (2014). Mininet as software defined networking testing platform. In International conference on communication, computing & systems, Chennai, India.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruckert, J., Blendi, J., & Hausheer, D. (2013). RASP: Using OpenFlow to push overlay streams into the underlay. In Proceedings of 2013 IEEE thirteenth international conference on peer-to-peer computing (P2P), Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noghani, K. A., & Sunay, M. O. (2014). Streaming multicast video over software-defined networks. In IEEE 11th international conference on mobile ad hoc and sensor systems (MASS 2014), Philadelphia, PA, USA (pp. 551–556). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MASS.2014.125.
  9. 9.
    Jarschel, M., Wamser, F., Hohn, T., Zinner, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2013). SDN-based application-aware networking on the example of youtube video streaming. In 2013 Second European workshop on software defined networks (EWSDN 2013), Berlin, Germany (pp. 87–92). http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/EWSDN.2013.21.
  10. 10.
    Hu, F., Hao, Q., & Bao, K. (2014). A survey on software-defined network and OpenFlow: From concept to implementation. Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16(4), 2181–2206.  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2326417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreutz, D., Ramos, F. M. V., Esteves Verissimo, P., Esteve Rothenberg, C., Azodolmolky, S., & Uhlig, S. (2015). Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103(1), 14–76.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2014.2371999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta, M., Sommers, J., & Barford, P. (2013). Fast, accurate simulation for SDN prototyping. In 2nd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on hot topics in software defined networking, Hong Kong. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2491185.2491202.
  13. 13.
    Scott-Hayward, S., O’Callaghan, G., & Sezer, S. (2013). SDN security: A survey. In Proceedings of IEEE SDN for future networks and services (SDN4FNS 2013), Trento, Italy (pp. 1–7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SDN4FNS.2013.6702553.
  14. 14.
    de Oliveira, R. L. S., Shinoda, A. A., Schweitzer, C. M., & Rodrigues, P. L. (2014). Using mininet for emulation and prototyping software-defined networks. In IEEE Communications and Computing (COLCOM 2014), Bogota, Colombia (pp. 1–6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ColComCon.2014.6860404.
  15. 15.
    Keti, F., & Askar, S. (2015). Emulation of software defined networks using mininet in different simulation environments. In 6th international conference on IEEE intelligent systems, modelling and simulation (ISMS 2015), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (pp. 205–210). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMS.2015.46.
  16. 16.
    Azizi, M., Benaini, R., & Ben, Mamoun M. (2015). Delay measurement in OpenFlow-enabled MPLS-TP network. Modern Applied Science.  https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v9n3p90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panwaree, P., Kim, J., & Aswakul, C. (2014). Packet delay and loss performance of streaming video over emulated and real OpenFlow networks. In: The 29th international technical conference on circuit/systems computers and communications (ITC-CSCC), Phuket, Thailand.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Megyesi, P., Botta, A., Aceto, G., Pescapè, A., & Molnár, S. (2016). Available bandwidth measurement in software defined networks. In SAC 2016, Pisa, Italy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2851613.2851727.
  19. 19.
    Lantz, B., Heller, B., & McKeown, N. A. (2010). Network in a laptop: Rapid prototyping for software-defined networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop on hot topoics in networks.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marcondes, C. A. C., Santos, T. P. C., Godoy, A. P., Viel, C. C., & Teixeira, C. A. C. CastFlow: clean-slate multicast approach using in advance path processing in programmable networks. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE symposium on computers and communications (ISCC), Cappadocia, Turkey (pp. 94–101).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dobrian, F., Sekar, V., Awan, A., Stoica, I., Joseph, D., Ganjam, A., et al. (2011). Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paasch, C., Ferlin, S., Alay, O., & Bonaventure, O. (2014). Experimental evaluation of multipath TCP schedulers. In ACM SIGCOMM capacity sharing workshop (CSWS). Chicago, IL: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2630088.2631977.
  23. 23.
    Allman, M., Eddy, W. M., & Ostermann, S. (2003). Estimating loss rates with TCP. SIGMETRICS, 31, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blanton, E., & Allman, M. (2005). On the impact of bursting on TCP performance. In PAM (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mok, R., Chan, E., & Chang, R. (2011). Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In IFIP (pp. 485–492).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, T., & Ammar, M. (2006). Receiver buffer requirement for video streaming over TCP. In Proceedings of SPIE (pp. 422–431).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, B., Kurose, J., Shenoy, P., & Towsley, D. (2008). Multimedia streaming via TCP: An analytic performance study. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 4(2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hands D., & Wilkins, M. A. (1999). Study of the impact of network loss and burst size on video streaming quality and acceptability. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 45–57).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verscheure, O., Frossard, P., & Hamdi, M. (1998). MPEG-2 video services over packet networks: Joint effect of encoding rate. In Proceedings of NOSSDAV.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huynh-Thu, Q., & Ghanbari, M. (2008). Temporal aspect of perceived quality in mobile video broadcasting. IEEE Transaction on Broadcasting, 54(3), 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huynh-Thu, Q., & Ghanbari, M. (2009). No-reference temporal quality metric for video impaired by frame freezing artefacts. In Proceedings of ICIP. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, Z., et al. (2003). Study streaming video quality: from an application point of view. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM international conference on multimedia, Berkeley, CA, USA, (pp. 327–330).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers, M. B. (2000). Predicting and measuring quality of service for mobile multimedia. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international symposium on personal, indoor & mobile radio communication (PIMRC 2000), London, UK (pp. 1032–1036).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winkler, S., & Dufaux, F. (2003). Video quality evaluation for mobile application. In Proceedings of SPIE/IS&T, visual communication and imaging processing, Lugano, Switzland (Vol. 5150, pp. 593–603).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Masry, M., Hemami, S. S., & Sermadevi, Y. (2006). A scalable wavelet-based video distortion metric and applications. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 16(2), 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, Z., Lu, L., & Bovik, A. C. (2004). Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 19, 121–132.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muller, C., Lederer, S. & Timmerer, C. (2012). An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments. In Workshop on mobile video.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tian G., & Liu, Y. (2012). Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In International conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van der Hooft, J., Petrangeli, S., Claeys, M., Famaey, J., & De Turck, F. (2015). A learning-based algorithm for improved bandwidth-awareness of adaptive streaming clients. In 2015 IFIP/IEEE international symposium on integrated network management (IM). IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/inm.2015.7140285.
  40. 40.
    Seufert, M., Egger, S., Slanina, M., Zinner, T., Hobfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2014). A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(1), 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Balachandran, V., Sekar, A., Akella, S., Seshan, I., & Zhang, H. (2013). Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference on SIGCOMM, ser. SIGCOMM ‘13 (pp. 339–350). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Menkovski, A. L. V., & Exarchakos, G. (2010). Online learning for quality of experience management. In Proceedings of 19th machine learning conference of Belgium and The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Begen, A., Akgul, T., & Baugher, M. (2011). Watching video over the web: Part 1. Streaming protocols. IEEE Internet Computing, 15(2), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stockhammer, T. (2011). Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: Standards and design principles. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 133–144).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhou Chao, C., Lin, W., & Guo, Z. (2016). mDASH: A Markov decision based rate adaptation approach for dynamic HTTP streaming. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 1–1.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Akhshabi, S., Begen, A. C., & Dovrolis, C. (2011). An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 169–174).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou, B., Wang, J., Zou, Z., & Wen, J. (2012). Bandwidth estimation and rate adaptation in HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computing network communication (pp. 734–738).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cicco, L. D., Mascolo, S., & Palmisano, V. (2011) Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 145–156).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Huang, T.-Y., Johari, R., McKeown, N., Trunnell, M., & Watson, M. (2014). A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (pp. 187–198).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hoßfeld, T., et al. (2011). Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on multimedia (pp. 494–499).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mok, R. K. P., Luo, X., Chan, E. W. W., & Chang, R. K. C. (2012). QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia system (pp. 11–22).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Huang, T.-Y., Johari, R., & McKeown, N. (2013). Downton abbey without the hiccups: Buffer-based rate adaptation for http video streaming. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM workshop future human-centric multimedia network (pp. 9–11).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garcia, S., Cabrera, J., & Garcia, N. (2015). Quality-control algorithm for adaptive streaming services over wireless channels. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics Signal Processing, 9(1), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hu, S., Sun, L., Gui, C., Jammeh, E., & Mkwawa, I. (2014). Content-aware adaptation scheme for QoE optimized DASH applications. In Global communications conference (GLOBECOM) (pp. 1336–1341). IEEE.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhao, S., Medhi, D. (2017). SDN-Assisted adaptive streaming framework for tile-based immersive content using MPEG-DASH. In IEEE conference on network function virtualization and software defined networks (NFV-SDN).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhao, S. (2017). Application-aware network design using software-defined networking for application performance optimization for big data and video streaming. A Dissertation in Telecommunications and Computer Networking and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhao, S., Chandrashekar, M., Lee, Y., & Medhi, D. (2015). Real-time network anomaly detection system using machine learning. In 11th international conference on the design of reliable communication networks (DRCN).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Watson, A. B., & Malo, J. (2002). Video quality measurement based on the standard spatial observer. In Proceedings of ICIP (pp. 24–28).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nemčić, O., Vranješ, M., & Rimac-Drlje S. (2007). Comparison of H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 part 2 coded video. IEEE Xplore, ELMAR.  https://doi.org/10.1109/elmar.2007.4418796.
  60. 60.
    Lambrecht, C. J. B., et al. (1999). Quality assessment of motion rendition in video coding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 9(5), 766–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ong, E. P., et al. (2004). Visual distortion assessment with emphasis on spatially transitional regions. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 14(4), 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pinson, M. H., & Wolf, S. (2004). A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Transaction on Broadcasting, 50(3), 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MEDIATRON Laboratory, SUPCOMUniversity of CarthageTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations