Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 87–103 | Cite as

QoS guarantee for multimedia traffic in smart homes

  • Ibrahim KamelEmail author
  • Cuneyt Akinlar
  • Hesham El-Sayed
Article

Abstract

With the advent of home networking and widespread deployment of broadband connectivity to homes, a wealth of new services with real-time Quality of Service (QoS) requirements have emerged, e.g., Video on Demand (VoD), IP Telephony, which have to co-exist with traditional non-real-time services such as Web browsing and file downloading over the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). The co-existence of such real-time and non-real-time services demands the residential gateway (RG) to employ bandwidth management algorithms to control the amount of non-real-time TCP traffic on the broadband access link from the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to the RG so that the bandwidth requirements of the real-time traffic are satisfied. In this paper we propose an algorithm to control the aggregate bandwidth of the incoming non-real-time TCP traffic at the RG so that QoS requirements of the real-time traffic can be guaranteed. The idea is to limit the maximum data rates of active TCP connections by dynamically manipulating their flow control window sizes based on the total available bandwidth for the non-real-time traffic. We show by simulation results that our algorithm limits the aggregate bandwidth of the non-real-time TCP traffic thus granting the real-time traffic the required bandwidth.

Keywords

Multimedia systems QoS Smart spaces Smart home VoD 

References

  1. 1.
    Akinlar C, Elbassioni K, Kamel I (2002) QoS management in residential gateways. The IEEE International Conference on Wireless LANs and Home Networking (ICWLHN 2002), Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allman M (1998) On the generation and use of TCP acknowledgements. ACM Computer Communication ReviewGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azuma K, Hasegawa G, Murata M (2006) A study on a receiver-based management scheme of access link resources for QoS-controllable TCP connections. Int J Commun Syst 19(7):751–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett JCR, Zhang H (1996) Wf2q: worst-case fair weighted fair queuing. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breslau L et al (2000) Advances in network simulation. IEEE Computer 33(5):59–67Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clevenot F, Nain P, Ross KW (2005) Multiclass P2P networks: static resource allocation for bandwidth for service differentiation and bandwidth diversity. Proceedings of Performance 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crovella M, Barford P (1998) The network effects of prefetching. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crowcroft J, Oechslin P (1998) Differentiated end-to-end internet services using a weighted proportional fair sharing TCPGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong Y, Rohit R, Zhang Z (2002) A practical technique to support controlled quality assurance in video streaming across the internet in packet videoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floyd S, Handley M, Padhye J, Widmer J (2000) Equation based congestion control for unicast applications. ACM SIGCOMMGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gnutella [Online]. Available: http://gnufu.net, visited Feb 2009
  12. 12.
    Gupta M, Ammar M (2003) Service differentiation in peer-to-peer networks utilizing reputation. Proceedings of ACM Fifth International Workshop on Networked Group CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawng W, Tseng P (2005) A QoS-aware residential gateway with bandwidth management. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol 51, No. 3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoe J (1998) Improving the start-up behavior of a congestion control scheme for TCP. ACM SIGCOMMGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsiao PH, Kung H, Tan KS (2001) Active Delay Control for TCP. Proceedings of IEEE GlobeconGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang T, Zeadally S, Chilamkurti N, Shieh C (2009) Design, implementation, and evaluation of programmable bandwidth agrregation system for home networks. Journal of Networks and Computer Applications, vol 32, Issue 3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobson V (1988) Congestion avoidance and control. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM. Stanford, CA, pp 314–329Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jain M, Prasad R, Dovrolis C (2003) The TCP bandwidth-delay product revisited: network buffering, cross traffic, and socket buffer auto-sizing. Technical Report GIT-CERCS-03-02, College of Computing, Georgia TechGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    KaZaA [Online]. Available: http://www.kazaa.com, visited Feb 2009
  20. 20.
    Kuzmanovic KE (2003) TCP-LP: a distributed algorithm for low priority data transfer. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu S, Vojnovic M, Gunawardena D (2007) Competitive and considerate congestion control for bulk data transfers. The 15th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service, Evanston, IL, pp 21–22Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ma RTB, Lee SCM, Lui JCS, Yau DKY (2004) A game theoretic approach to provide incentive and service differentiation in P2P networks. Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS/PerformanceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mehra P, Zakhor A, Vleeschouwer CD (2003) Receiver-driven bandwidth sharing for TCP. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mehra P, Vleeschouwer C, Zakhor A (2005) Receiver-driven bandwidth sharing for TCP and its application to video streaming. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol 7, No. 4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Napster [OnLine]. Available: http://www.napster.com, visited Oct 2008
  26. 26.
    Padhye J, Firoiu V, Towsley D, Kurose J (1996) Modeling TCP throughput: a simple model and its empirical validation. ACM SIGCOMMGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Postel JB (1981) Transmission control protocol, RFC 793. Information Sciences InstituteGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Semke J, Mahdavi J, Mathis M (1998) Automatic TCP buffer tuning. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp 315–323Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spring NT, Chesire M, Berryman M, Sahasranaman V, Anderson T, Bershad BN (2000) Receiver based management of low bandwidth access links. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stevens W (1996) TCP/IP Illustrated, vol 1. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stoica I, Shenker S, Zhang H (1998) Core-stateless fair queuing: achieving approximately fair bandwidth allocations inhigh speed networks. Proceedings of ACM SigcommGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tanenbaum (1994) Computer networks, 3rd edn. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsugawa T, Hasegawa G, Murata M (2006) Background TCP data transfer with inline network measurement. IEICE Trans Commun E89-B(8):2152–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    UCB/LBNL/VINT Network Simulator ns2.1, http://www.mash.cs.berkeley.edu/ns
  35. 35.
    Venkataramani RK, Dahlin M (2002) TCP nice: a mechanism for background transfers. Proceedings of Operating Systems Design and ImplementationGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Venkataramani PY, Kokku R, Sharif S, Dahlin M (2002) The potential costs and benefits of long term prefetching for content distribution. Comput Commun J 25(4):367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wu C, Li B (2007) Diverse: application-layer service differentiation in peer-to-peer communications. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 25(1):222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ibrahim Kamel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cuneyt Akinlar
    • 2
  • Hesham El-Sayed
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringAnadolu UniversityEskişehirTurkey
  3. 3.College of Information TechnologyUAE UniversityAl AinUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations