An Application Gateway to Deploy High-quality Video Communications in Various Network Environments

895 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
895
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I would like to present our paper entitled “ An Application Gateway to Deploy High-quality Video Communications in Various Network Environments ” アクセント注意 Res pe ctively Video con ference ex pe riments
  • An Application Gateway to Deploy High-quality Video Communications in Various Network Environments

    1. 1. An Application Gateway to Deploy High-quality Video Communications in Various Network Environments Takashi Kishida Kaori Maeda Eitaro Kohno Yoshiaki Kakuda
    2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Feature of PTGATE </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
    3. 3. Background <ul><li>Video communication is being popular by spreading broadband networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teleconference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distance learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Telemedicine </li></ul></ul><ul><li>IPv6 infrastructure is being deployed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Japan Gigabit Network is provided by National Institute of Information and Communications Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Japan’s government announced the plan to be going to shift the system to IPv6 by 2008. </li></ul></ul>Video communication is one of important applications even in deploying IPv6
    4. 4. Problems <ul><li>On Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most of commercial videoconference systems do not work in IPv6 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>On Network Transition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IPv6 is not available in many commercial and school networks in Japan at this point </li></ul></ul>To solve both problems at the same time is the most ideal goal Any transition solution is required
    5. 5. Purpose <ul><li>Our goal of this research is to realize video communications in various situations even in the transition period not to fail to promote IPv6 </li></ul>Development of a gateway system called as PTGATE to use the current resources for videoconference for smooth transition to IPv6.
    6. 6. Features of PTGATE <ul><li>PTGATE solves transition problems even with current videoconference systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PTGATE uses IP-in-IP encapsulation </li></ul></ul>Videoconference systems Error recovery Port aggregation Multicast tunneling IPv6/IPv4 tunneling PTGATE PTGATE
    7. 7. Outline of the system process Router B Router A Internet Sender Receiver Port aggregation IPv6/IPv4 tunneling FEC encoding Decapsulation FEC decoding The Sender and the Receiver are videoconference systems PTGATEs are located in the same subnet of the Sender and the Receiver, respectively. The default gateway of the Sender is set to PTGATE A All packets from the Sender are sent to PTGATE A PTGATE checks the destination PTGATE A PTGATE B IP UDP PTGW IP Payload IP UDP PTGW IP Payload
    8. 8. Implementation <ul><li>Development environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Userland application --- Easy installation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Confirmation of implementation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vine Linux 2.6, 3.0, 3.1(kernel 2.4.28) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Debian (kernel 2.4.18) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fedora core 2 (kernel 2.6.9) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Redhat Linux 8.0, 9.0(kernel 2.4.28) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knoppix 3.6(kernel 2.4.27) (using USB memory stick) </li></ul></ul>1GB Memory Pentium 4 3.2GHz CPU Fedora core 2 (kernel 2.6.9) Redhat Linux 8.0 (kernel 2.4.28) OS
    9. 9. Available videoconference systems with PTGATE <ul><li>VIC/RAT </li></ul><ul><li>VideoLAN </li></ul><ul><li>DVTS </li></ul><ul><li>Robst </li></ul><ul><li>Netmeeting (H.323) </li></ul><ul><li>GnomeMeeting(H.323) </li></ul><ul><li>Polycom Viewstation (H.323) </li></ul><ul><li>Sony PCS-1 (H.323) </li></ul><ul><li>Victor DM-NE300/ND300 </li></ul><ul><li>OKI Visualcast-SS </li></ul>Confirmed systems H.323 systems commercial videoconference systems
    10. 10. Evaluation <ul><li>Practical Experiments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multicast tunnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IPv6/IPv4tunnel and error recovery function </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FEC performance measurement </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Throughput </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RTT and Jitter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overhead of FEC </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Practical Experiments I - Multicast tunnel audio conferencing system MRAT(128kbps) Multicast Hiroshima Univ. Hiroshima City Univ. Saga Univ. Multicast Multicast Multicast Not supporting multicast Interoperability problems misconfigured routers
    12. 12. Practical Experiments I - Multicast tunnel Hiroshima Univ. Hiroshima City Univ. Saga Univ. Multicast Multicast Multicast audio conferencing system MRAT(128kbps) Multicast PTGATE PTGATE PTGATE : Multicast Tunnel
    13. 13. Practical Experiments II - IPv6/IPv4tunnel JGNv6 Network   RIBB2 Network Hiroshima City Univ. Yamanashi Toyama Kochi Sapporo IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 encapsulation IPv4 decapsulation Receiver Receiver Receiver Sender Sapporo Snow Festival PTGATE PTGATE PTGATE PTGATE Multicast IPv6 Multicast IPv6
    14. 14. Practical Experiments II – Receivers result 1.1396 0.8750 1.1020 Jitter (ms) 0.0033 0.0034 0.0032 Packet loss rate [%] (After an error recovery) 0.4504 0.4504 0.4493 Packet loss rate [%] (Before an error recovery) 438 446 429 Lost packets (After an error recovery) 59738 59737 59694 Lost packets (Before an error recovery) Yamanashi Kochi Toyama
    15. 15. Performance Evaluation - Experimental environment Host A Host B Router AT AR450s PTGW B PTGW A Subnet A Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 100baseTX 100baseTX Iperf (payload1400byte Transmitting time 60 sec) 384MB 1024MB 1024MB 512MB Memory PentiumⅢ 1GHz Pentium4 3.2GHz Pentium4 3.2GHz PentiumⅢ 1GHz CPU Fedora core 3 Fedora core2 RedHat 8.0 VineLinux 3.1 OS Host B PTGW B PTGW A Host A  
    16. 16. Performance Evaluation - UDP Throughput Host A Host B Router AT AR450s PTGW B PTGW A Subnet A Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 100baseTX 100baseTX Iperf (payload1400byte Transmitting time 60 sec) UDP: 95.0 Mbps UDP: 92.7 Mbps Not using PTGATE Using PTGATE - 2.3 Mbps
    17. 17. Performance Evaluation - The growth rate of the bandwidth <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ip (IP header : 20byte) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>udp (UDP header : 8byte) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ptgate (PTGATE header : 8byte) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.026 times (payload 1400byte) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2.3Mbps is almost equals to the calculated value </li></ul></ul>36byte   payload ptgate udp ip Bt   payload
    18. 18. Performance Evaluation - RTT Host A Host B Router AT AR450s PTGW B PTGW A Subnet A Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 100baseTX 100baseTX RTT: 1.6 ms RTT: 2.3 ms Ping ICMP payload length : 1400 bytes Transmitting time : 240 sec Not using PTGATE Using PTGATE +0.7 ms
    19. 19. Performance Evaluation - Jitter Host A Host B Router AT AR450s PTGW B PTGW A Subnet A Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 100baseTX 100baseTX Jitter: 0.04 ms Jitter: 0.11 ms Iperf Bandwidth : 8 Mbps Payload length : 1400 byte Transmission time : 60 sec Not using PTGATE Using PTGATE +0.07 ms
    20. 20. Performance Evaluation - Overhead of FEC 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Sending data rate (Mbps) Receiving data rate (Mbps) RS(15,14) RS(15,13) RS(15,12) No FEC CPU: Pentium4 3.2GHz 1.108 times 1.193 times 1.293 times 42.4 Mbps 36.0 Mbps 26.1 Mbps The growth rate of the bandwidth
    21. 21. Conclusion <ul><li>Development and Evaluation of a gateway system called as PTGATE </li></ul><ul><li>By using this system, current resources such as videoconference systems and IPv4 networks are available even in the combination of IPv4 and IPv6. </li></ul><ul><li>Future Works </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More practical experiments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate the availability of PTGATE in actual networks </li></ul></ul>PTGATE realizes video communications in various situations even in the transition period not to fail to promote IPv6
    22. 22. Thank you for listening! <ul><li>PTGATE is opened </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.v6.ipc.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/projects/ptgate/index.php </li></ul></ul>

    ×