Ims content distributionnetworks
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Ims content distributionnetworks

  • 581 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
581
On Slideshare
581
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. P2P Content Distribution forMultimedia Services inIMS-based Telco Environments
    Alex Bikfalvi, Jaime Garcia, Ivan Vidal, Francisco Valera
  • 2. Overview: P2P and IMS?
    Peer-to-peer Technologies
    … what is P2P (very brief)?
    … why P2P?
    … what content?
    … how?
    Next Generation Networks
    … IMS & NGN?
    … what is NGN/IMS?
    … why IMS?
    … how?
    February 3, 2009
    2
    Multimedia Services
    Does make sense combining P2P and NGN (IMS) technologies?
    How can we do this?
    What services can benefit from P2P content distribution?
    What are the advantages for the telcos? But for the users?
  • 3. Outline
    (I) Multimedia services in today’s Internet
    (II) IMS – a multimedia service platform
    (III) P2P for multimedia content
    (IV) A content distribution service for IMS
    February 3, 2009
    3
  • 4. Part I: Multimedia Services
    Multimedia services in today’s Internet
    February 3, 2009
    4
  • 5. The Internet... in 2004
    P2P traffic was 60% and rising
    ISPs identified P2P as a major challenge in network design
    It affects the QoS for all users
    Mostly, file-sharing: BitTorrent, eDonkey, Kad, Gnutella
    February 3, 2009
    5
    Source: Cache Logic “P2P in 2005”
  • 6. The Internet… in 2007
    Lately… the HTTP traffic is gaining the share back
    … in terms of percentage of total traffic (not absolute value)
    February 3, 2009
    6
    Source: Magid Media Futures survey
  • 7. The Internet… in 2007 and beyond
    More than a third of the HTTP traffic is video streaming
    YouTube is the most popular; counts for around 20%
    That’s about 10% of all Internet traffic
    February 3, 2009
    7
    Source: Magid Media Futures survey
    The (near)future…
    Internet video, the new broadband “killer”application?
    More“***Tube” service providers?
    User generated content and commercial content
  • 8. Video content distribution
    Growing user demand
    Increases bandwidth costs for the service providers
    YouTube: ≈ 25 PB / month ≈ 1.2 M$ / month
    Increases bandwidth demands for the ISPs
    Consequences
    (Popular) Service providers expect an increase in costs at the same quality of service
    Deploying/contracting CDN capacity
    ISPs need to provision new capacity to meet the demand
    Only selling capacity is not a good business plan for telcos
    February 3, 2009
    8
    Service Provider
    Content Distribution Network
    Internet Service/Access Provider
    (Telco)
    Internet Service/Access Provider
    (Telco)
    Internet Service/Access Provider
    (Telco)
  • 9. Part II: IMS & NGN
    IMS as a multimedia service platform for Next Generation Networks
    February 3, 2009
    9
  • 10. The next generation…
    … service oriented architectures
    Telco keywords
    Triple-play packages: voice & TV & Internet
    Telcos don’t make most $$$ by selling bandwidth
    Telcos -> intermediary entities for service providers
    Convergence: legacy networks -> next generation (IP)
    February 3, 2009
    10
    Telco
    (Internet Access Provider)
    End-User
    Service Provider
    IP Core Network
    Common Management & Service & Control Functions
    xDSL
    PSTN
    Cable
    Cable
    GSM/3G
    PSTN
    xDSL
    GSM/3G
  • 11. IP Multimedia Subsystem
    A platform for IP multimedia services
    Initially designed by 3GPP as an evolution of GSM/UMTS
    Currently extended to many more access networks
    Core of a Next Generation Network (TISPAN)
    February 3, 2009
    11
    Service Providers
    IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem
    Service Layer
    Transport Control Functions
    Transport Layer
    IMS Gateways
    Legacy terminals
    Other Networks
    Core Network
    Access Networks
    3GPPterminals
    IMS terminals
    Telco
  • 12. IMS: the basics
    Functional entities connected by standardized interfaces
    Main purpose: creation of sessions to multimedia sessions
    Most of them handle the signaling not the media
    February 3, 2009
    12
    Conferencing AS
    Application
    Servers
    IPTV AS
    Voice AS
    Service Layer
    (Applications)
    VoD AS
    P-CSCF
    Call Session Control Functions
    P-CSCF
    S-CSCF
    HSS
    P-CSCF
    Service Layer (IMS)
    I-CSCF
    UE
    UE
    Access Networks
    Access Networks
    UE
    UE
    User Equipments
    Core Network
    UE
    Access Networks
    UE
    Access Networks
    Transport Layer
    UE
    UE
    UE
    UE
  • 13. IMS: session signaling
    IMS uses SIP for session signaling
    Like a handshake between parties, before multimedia data can be exchanged
    Independent on transport layer (uses URIs to identify resources)
    SIP network elements
    User agents
    Servers: proxies, registrars, redirect servers
    In IMS the Call Session Control Functions are SIP servers
    Proxy-CSCF: the local proxy server for an User Equipment
    Interrogating-CSCF: the role of the registrar
    Serving-CSCF: proxy server performing session control
    February 3, 2009
    13
  • 14. IMS: session signaling example
    A SIP example:
    February 3, 2009
    14
    alice@atlanta.com @ 10.0.0.45
    bob@biloxi.com @ 130.4.1.45
    alice@atlanta.com
    10.0.0.45
    bob@biloxi.com
    130.4.1.45
    atlanta.com
    10.0.0.1
    biloxi.com
    130.4.1.1
    DNS
    DNS Query: SRV _sip.biloxi.com
    DNS Response: 130.4.1.1
    INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com
    INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com
    Request Message
    Status Message
    200 OK
    200 OK
    ACK sip:bob@biloxi.com
    ACK sip:bob@biloxi.com
  • 15. IMS: session signaling example
    Session description protocol (SDP)
    February 3, 2009
    15
    alice@atlanta.com
    bob@biloxi.com
    Session Negotiation
    INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com
    SDP: IP, port, codec
    INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com
    SDP: IP, port, codec
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: IP, port, codec
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: IP, port, codec
    200 OK
    200 OK
    ACK sip:bob@biloxi.com
    ACK sip:bob@biloxi.com
  • 16. IMS: session signaling example
    In IMS each users has a dedicated SIP server:
    In the access (visited) network: the P-CSCF
    In the home network: the S-CSCF
    Each network has a I-CSCF (the role of the registrar)
    February 3, 2009
    16
    visited1.com
    atlanta.com
    biloxi.com
    visited2.com
    alice@atlanta.com
    pcscf.visited1.com
    scscf.atlanta.com
    biloxi.com
    scscf.biloxi.com
    pcscf.visited2.com
    bob@biloxi
    UE
    P-CSCF
    S-CSCF
    I-CSCF
    S-CSCF
    P-CSCF
    UE
    INVITE
    INVITE
    INVITE
    INVITE
    INVITE
    INVITE
    200 OK
    200 OK
    200 OK
    200 OK
    200 OK
    200 OK
  • 17. IMS applications
    The S-CSCF perform service control based on user’s service profile
    Used to implement application servers
    Example: IPTV application server
    February 3, 2009
    17
    srv.atlanta.com:5999
    RTSP/UDP
    alice@atlanta.com
    pcscf.atlanta.com
    scscf.atlanta.com
    iptv.atlanta.com
    UE
    P-CSCF
    S-CSCF
    AS
    INVITE iptv@atlanta.com
    INVITE iptv@atlanta.com
    INVITE iptv@atlanta.com
    Service Control
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: srv.atlanta.com:5999
    RTSP/UDP
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: srv.atlanta.com:5999
    RTSP/UDP
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: srv.atlanta.com:5999
    RTSP/UDP
  • 18. Part III: P2P Multimedia Content Distribution
    P2P technologies for multimedia content
    The architecture of an IMS content distribution service
    February 3, 2009
    18
  • 19. Content distribution technologies
    What are IMS/NGN advantages?
    Multiple transport technologies
    Use of broadband and quality-of-service
    Separated service and transport functions
    Generalized mobility
    However… media (especially video) streaming is extremely expensive
    Applications target a lot of receivers
    We need support at the transport layer
    What are the options?
    IP multicast
    Content distribution network
    Peer-to-peer
    February 3, 2009
    19
    Media Server
    IMS
    IMS Terminals (set-top boxes)
  • 20. Case study: video streaming
    What are IMS/NGN advantages?
    Multiple transport technologies
    Use of broadband and quality-of-service
    Separated service and transport functions
    Generalized mobility
    However… media (especially video) streaming is extremely expensive
    Applications target a lot of receivers
    We need support at the transport layer
    What are the options?
    IP multicast
    Content distribution network
    Peer-to-peer
    February 3, 2009
    20
    Media Server
    IMS
    IMS Terminals (set-top boxes)
  • 21. Case study: video streaming
    What are IMS/NGN advantages?
    Multiple transport technologies
    Use of broadband and quality-of-service
    Separated service and transport functions
    Generalized mobility
    However… media (especially video) streaming is extremely expensive
    Applications target a lot of receivers
    We need support at the transport layer
    What are the options?
    IP multicast
    Content distribution network
    Peer-to-peer
    February 3, 2009
    21
    Media Server
    IMS
    IMS Terminals (set-top boxes)
  • 22. Case study: video streaming
    What are IMS/NGN advantages?
    Multiple transport technologies
    Use of broadband and quality-of-service
    Separated service and transport functions
    Generalized mobility
    However… media (especially video) streaming is extremely expensive
    Applications target a lot of receivers
    We need support at the transport layer
    What are the options?
    IP multicast
    Content distribution network
    Peer-to-peer
    February 3, 2009
    22
    Media Server
    IMS
    IMS Terminals (set-top boxes)
  • 23. P2P issues
    P2P looks fine… but:
    Peers may have an unpredictable behavior
    Resources (bandwidth, delay) may not be adequate
    We need uplink resources as well
    February 3, 2009
    23
    However,in NGN/IMS:
    Some peers may be considered stable (e.g. set-top boxes)
    Resources are known and reserved
    Once reserved, they are guaranteed
    Fan-out: 3
    Fan-out: 2
    Fan-out: 2
  • 24. Trees vs. meshes
    Trees
    Mimic multicast
    Each peer selects a parent peer
    The content/stream can be divided and sent across several trees
    Meshes
    A peer obtains pieces from any available peer
    There is not a strict relationship: child-parent
    Instead peers can collaborate in sharing pieces
    February 3, 2009
    24
  • 25. Where P2P?
    P2P media vs. P2P signaling
    Until now we discussed P2P in media plane
    What is P2P signaling?
    Discovery of other peers using a P2P protocol
    For trees: a structured protocol (DHT) to find a parent
    For meshes: an unstructured protocol to find other peers
    With P2P signaling
    The functionality is distributed
    No need of a central entity
    February 3, 2009
    25
  • 26. Part IV: A P2P Content Distribution Service for IMS
    (work in progress)
    February 3, 2009
    26
  • 27. Incentives for P2P
    IMS network capabilities
    Smart IMS devices as peers: residential gateways, set-top boxes
    Transport: quality of service, resource reservation
    Telco policies: using capacity that is physically available but not paid for by the user
    Advantages
    All advantages of IMS: AAA, mobility, QoS
    Performance improvement goals
    Reduce load on core network / service provider
    Keep most of the traffic in the access network
    The telco controls the network
    P2P in a managed environment -> optimizations
    Business model
    Service providers -> Telco -> Users
    February 3, 2009
    27
  • 28. Why such a service?
    Video content may be the new killer app, but…
    … other services can benefit from P2P too (conferencing, software distribution)
    … even video may have different requirements (IPTV ≠ VoD)
    Content Distribution Service Provider
    Intermediary between the Multimedia Content Service Provider and IMS + transport layer
    Makes the content distribution transparent for the MCS
    Hides the specifics of the media content to the IMS/transport
    February 3, 2009
    28
    The Content Distribution Service is intended as an adaptation layer between the multimedia content and the mechanism (P2P or otherwise) used for content distribution
  • 29. The idea
    February 3, 2009
    29
    Multimedia Services
    Content Distribution Service
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    IMS
    Transport Network
    UE
    UE
    UE
    UE
    UE
    UE
  • 30. The idea: IPTV simple example
    IPTV client
    Needs the address, port of a host delivering the video
    We call this host the content serving host
    February 3, 2009
    30
    UE alice@atlanta.com
    IPTV client
    CDS client
    cds.atlanta.com
    INVITE cds@atlanta.com
    SDP: provider=iptv3, ch=5
    connect(ch5)
    AS
    INVITE cds@atlanta.com
    SDP: provider=iptv3, ch=5
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: peer IP, port, protocol, codec
    183 Session Progress
    SDP: peer IP, port, protocol, codec
    200 OK
    200 OK
    return IP, port, …
    ACK cds@atlanta.com
    ACK cds@atlanta.com
  • 31. The infrastructure
    Different topologies for P2P
    P2P between UEs (same/different access networks)
    P2P between Edge Servers/Distribution servers
    February 3, 2009
    31
    Content Distribution Service
    IMS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    Multimedia Services
    Edge/Distribution Servers
    P2P
    P2P
    P2P
    P2P
    User Equipment (IMS terminals)
  • 32. Business model
    February 3, 2009
    32
    Third Party Service Providers
    Trust Relationship
    Pays for the services retaining a %
    IMS
    CDS Provider
    Service Packager
    Transport Provider
    P2P streaming enabled network
    User-Network Interface
    Pay for data transport and third-party services
    Set-top
    boxes
    Users
    Telco
  • 33. Case Study: IPTV
    Content: TV channels
    Number of pieces of content: relatively low (hundreds)
    Requirements
    Access time very important (channel switching)
    Low delay of live content (limited caching)
    Constant streaming (no interruptions)
    Design criteria
    P2P signaling not an option: latency too large
    Fast discovery of the content serving host (centralized, AS-based)
    The edge server may improve performance – maybe P2P signaling is an option here?
    February 3, 2009
    33
  • 34. Case Study: Video-on-Demand
    Content: published clips / user generated content
    Number of pieces of content: high (very high)
    Requirements
    Initial access time not critical
    Distributed content: caching/storage part of design
    Constant streaming after video started
    Design criteria
    P2P signaling could be essential (a lot of content to index)
    Redundancy
    P2P protocol can be optimized (no tit-for-tat)
    February 3, 2009
    34
  • 35. …other applications
    Other endeavors … telcos might pursuit
    Distributed computing
    Distributed storage
    Delay tolerant transfers
    Content distribution with social networking
    February 3, 2009
    35
  • 36. Conclusions
    February 3, 2009
    36
  • 37. Conclusions
    P2P content distribution in IMS = P2P in a managed network
    Does it make sense?
    Bulk of the Internet traffic: P2P and video
    Telcos don’t make money from selling bandwidth
    IMS/NG is the right platform for telcos
    P2P in the transport layer could be a cost-effective approach
    TISPAN began working in this direction (first draft Nov ‘08)
    But
    Although 3GPP is pushing IMS standardization…
    … deployment in near future is uncertain
    February 3, 2009
    37
  • 38. February 3, 2009
    38
  • 39. February 3, 2009
    39