International Journal of Applied Engineering Research

ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 22 (2014) pp. 16109-16112

Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video

Transmission with DCF and EDCA
1John Petearson Anzola A and 2Andrs Camilo Jimnez A
1 Professor Faculty of Engineering, Electronics Engineering
Fundacion Universitaria Los Libertadores, Bogota Colombia
Email:jpanzolaa@libertadores.edu.co
2 Professor Faculty of Engineering, Electronics Engineering
Fundacion Universitaria Los Libertadores, Bogota Colombia
Email:acjimeneza@libertadores.edu.co

Abstract
In this article, video traffic H.264/SVC and evaluation QoS metrics analyzed by Delay
and Throughput in relation to the number of jumps performed by the AODV protocol in
an ideal environment (without traffic) and no Ideal with DCF and EDCA traffic.
Particularly QoE obtain advantages from the point of view of the user, by encoding,
transmitting and decoding video in a simulation environment as NS2, by evaluating the
video framework myEvalSVC illustrated. In this way we can analyze the impact of the
transmission and retrieval of video in uncontrolled environments, such as Ad Hoc
networks with QoS and without QoS.
Key Words: H264/SVC, QoS, QoE, DCF, EDCA

1. INTRODUCTION
With the increase of video streaming on demand and in real time, with the proliferation of
video services over the Internet and with the exponential growth of mobile devices capable
of processing multimedia content, the wireless video communication is become an attractive
market niche, which is receiving attention from industry and academy as applications of
wireless video transmission every day are easier to implement and integrate multiple devices
with Wi-Fi.
Applications in Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN), support video
streaming technologies (VoIP, IPTV, etc.). Their study is attractive due to mobility and
portability that wireless ad hoc networks offer as an alternative to infrastructure

16110

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

networks, since the delivery of real time video imposes strict requirements on time and
bandwidth, emerging many problems as a Quality of Service (QoS) means.
This article describes how the basic medium access mechanism Distributed
Coordination Function (DCF) and Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA),
H.264/SVC and scalability analysis of jumps that presents the protocol Ad hoc
On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), in order to obtain a quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the behavior of the video in Ad hoc networks, through simulations with the
framework built into NS2 myEvalSVC.
The myEvalSVC [1] framework to estimate the quality of video transmissions
H.264/SVC in NS2, supported on three main processes: encoding, transmission and
decoding video. For analysis of the observations QoS time constraints presented
metrics Throughput Delay and used. As for Quality of Experience (QoE) is concerned,
the visual comparison of the transmitted video regarding the received video and
quantification of Video Quality Metrics through the Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio
(PSNR) is analyzed.

2. QOS IN AD HOC NETWORK

The transmission of video streaming usually has time constraints and QoS requirements
sensitive to unpredictable changes which may occur in the network. Traditional networks
deliver Best Effort traffic and can not guarantee resource reservation or priority traffic,
treating all packets with the same priority, as in the case of DCF in wireless networks.
2.1. Distributed Coordination Function - DCF
DCF is a technique for media access control for the IEEE 802.11 standard for wireless local
area networks, which uses the CSMA / CA method with a random delay algorithm called
"Backoff". In this algorithm, when a node wishes to transmit must listen in the first instance
channel status. If the node finds that the channel is idle for a time interval DCF Interframe
Space (DIFS), the node can start transmitting packets. If the channel is busy during the DIFS
time interval, the node must defer packet transmission to find free channel [2].
Once the transmitter/source node finds the channel free, it must send a request to initiate
transmission Request To Send (RTS). Destination/target node receives the RTS request and
waits for a time interval Short Interframe Spaces (SIFS), until the channel is free. If the
channel is free, the target node must respond with a Clear To Send (CTS) or RxBusy, if you
are receiving data from other nodes in the network. Once the transmitter/source node receives
the CTS packet, it must wait a SIFS time interval prior to transmitting the data to the
destination/target node. When the target node receives the data, wait a SIFS time interval and
proceeds to transmit the Acknowledgement (ACK) or not received anything transmitted
negative acknowledgment (NAK) to the transmitting node/source [3].
It is noteworthy that during this process, the transmitter/source node and
destination/target only must wait SIFS time intervals for their communication processes,
while neighboring nodes must wait for DIFS time and contend for the channel making
requests transmission.
If the channel is busy during the DIFS time interval, the nodes that want to initiate the
transmission will have to postpone it. If multiple nodes contend for the channel, detect that the

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16111

channel is busy performing a request repeatedly until a node finds that the channel is free and
as a result of the above process collisions occur. DCF, in order to avoid such collisions
specifies a random Backoff, forcing a node to defer its access to the channel for additional
time interval determined by the following expression [4]:
Backoff Tiempo = Random (0,CW) x Slot_Time
where CW is contention window.

(1)

2.2. Enhanced distributed channel access - EDCA

EDCA is an access mechanism providing QoS based on traffic prioritization. This
prioritization is obtained introducing four Access Categorie (AC), which, classify the
traffic associated with the priorities of the user traffic or the network. Similarly the
IEEE 802.1D [1] standard is defined. In Table 1 the relative priorities between 802.1D
and 802.11e access categories is summarized [5].
Tabla 1. Relacin entre Prioridad y Categora de Acceso.
Priority Priority Description 802.1D Access Categorie Description 802.11e
802.1D
802.11e
Less
1
Background
AC_BK
Best Effort
2
AC_BK
Best Effort
0
Best Effort
AC_BE
Best Effort
3
Excellent Effort
AC_BE
Test Video
4
Controlled Load
AC_BI
Video
5
Video
AC_BI
Video
6
Voice , Video
AC_BO
Voice
Higher
7
Signaling Network
AC_BO
Voice

Each access category has its own transmit queue characterized by the parameters
of network traffic. The prioritization between different categories of access is obtained
by suitably configuring traffic parameters in each queue. A scheme operating system
access categories shown in Figure 1, the parameters of interest are:
Arbitrary Inter-Frame Space Number (AIFSN): It is the minimum time interval
since the physical medium is detected as empty or available until the transmission
begins [6].
AIFS [ AC ] SIFS AIFSN [ AC ] slot _ time

(2)

Contention Window (CW): Is a random number generated in the range to launch

the timeout mechanism (backoff).
Transmit Opportunity (TXOP): The maximum duration of a time interval in which
the QSTA (Station with QoS) can be transmitted after the transmission opportunity
limit has elapsed.

16112

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

Fig. 1: Working model of 802.11e MAC layer

At the time that the data packets arrive at the MAC Service Access Point (SAP),
the MAC layer handles 802.11e properly classify incoming traffic, sending them to the
appropriate queue of the MAC Service Data Unit (MSDU) layer. Each of these units of
the different queues AC (Access Category) competes internally by the TXOP.
The algorithm internal struggle calculates the backoff timeout independently for
each AC line, according AIFSN, CW parameters and a random number. The timeout
mechanism is similar to DCF and tail with the lowest backoff win in the internal
competition.
The AC queue winner externally compete for access to the wireless medium. The
algorithm external strife no significant changes compared with DCF, DCF except that
the Backoff and timeouts are fixed, in contrast to 802.11e, which are variable and are
properly configured according to the corresponding AC queue.
Through proper setting of the parameters of the AC queue, traffic performance is
tight and can be achieved by prioritizing traffic. This requires a QoS Capable Access
Points (QAP) to maintain a common set of parameters in the queues and guarantee fair
access between the different stations that compose the QoS Enabled Basic Service Set
(QBSS) network. Similarly, in order to adjust the asymmetry between upstream
traffic/incoming qsta to the QAP and down/outgoing to QSTA QAP, a separate set of
EDCA parameters defined exclusively for the QAP [7]. Figure 2 compared the medium
access mechanism EDCA referring to DCF.

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16113

Fig. 2: Comparison of model performance in DCF and EDCA

3. SCALABLE VIDEO CODING (SVC)
The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard provides a scalable extension called H.264/SVC
[5], considered the first standard that defines the multidimensional scalability.
H.264/SVC achieves a significant compression performance and reduce the complexity
of processing and acceptability in the applications or services, as perceived subjectively
the end user, presenting a high Quality of Experience (QoE) [8] .
The H.264/SVC schemes are known for the dissemination of video streaming services
in low resolution and multicast applications to suit different abilities depending on the
receptor and the ability to image retrieval in proportion to the variation of bandwidth
[9]. H.264/SVC reuses the main features of H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding
and other techniques used to provide scalability extensions and improve coding gain.

16114

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

Fig. 3: Diagrammatic representation of SVC scalabilities

Overall SVC can provide three types of scalability: temporal, spatial and SNR
quality, allowing multiple video representations thus adapting to the speed and quality
levels for streaming video.

Fig. 4: H.264 SVC Stream

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16115

In SVC, the bitstream is divided into a base layer and one or more enhancement
layers. The base layer is considered more important than the enhancement layers, as in
this layer needs less transmission bandwidth and the minimum acceptable contains
video information. Enhancement layers require more bandwidth for the definition and
enhancement of details that enhance its quality. Figure 3 is a schematic representation
of scalabilities SVC and Figure 4 shows the H.264/SVC Layered Structure.
Spatial scalability refers to the ability to represent the same video in different
resolutions and screen sizes, including: QCIF, CIF and 4CIF. In general, the spatially
encoded scalable video using images in the space used by the lower layers as a
prediction of the higher layers in order to further improve coding efficiency.
Temporal scalability refers to the possibility of representing the same video at
different temporal resolutions and frame rates, ie, the number of frames contained in the
first second of the video allow the video to be played at different frame rates. Usually
done using temporary sample images from a lower layer as a top layer prediction.
Quality scalability, also called scalability of signal to noise ratio (SNR), refers to
the possibility of representing the same video at different levels of perceptual quality.
The SNR scalable encoding coefficients quantized Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) at
different levels of accuracy by using different quantization parameters.

3. myEvalSVC
myEvalSVC is a framework for evaluating H.264/SVC built into NS2, based on
Scalable Video-streaming Evaluation Framework (SVEF) [10], which allows evaluating
network topologies, architectures and routing protocols realistically. myEvalSVC
process starts by encoding YUV video format, in which you can set encoding
parameters (temporal, spatial, or combined SNR). Once selected encoding parameters,
we proceed to pass the video modules BitStreamExtractor which is developed by JSVM
and developped by FN Stamp SVEF, in order to generate a trace file NALU [11].
With the trace file NALU is necessary to create a compatible file in NS2, for this a
filter developed by myEvalSVC prepare_sendtrace.awk, which delivers a trace is used
completely compatible and integrated in the simulator. For reading and use of this
traceis necessary declare a myEvalSVC agent, which allows to design and evaluate the
performance of the SVC transmission topologies, protocols, and network architectures.
Within the simulator must be configured myEvalSVC_Sink their Agent, which is
used to receive packets SVC that record the time, the packet size, number of frame in a
trace file output. With the information in this trace file can be extracted by creating
filters awk calculate different network metrics. At this point can be evaluated QoS and
performance of any scenario that video transport.
To evaluate QoE from the point of view of the user, myEvalSVC decode the video
that came on the receiver or target node, it is necessary to begin the process of decoding.
The decoding process starts by filtering the trace file using the filter
prepare_receivedtrace1.awk and prepare_receivedtrace2.exe, both developed by
myEvalSVC. The resulting file is processed by the SVEF module, which generates a
trace file that deletes NALU packets that arrived too late and could not be decoded.
After filtering the NALU trace output file is sent to BitStreamExtractor module, which

16116

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

generates a trace of H.264, which is then filtered by the JSVM decoder that generates a
file YUV video output. At this point QoE can be evaluated through the comparison of
input PSNR and output PSNR and by reconstructing the video [1].

Fig. 5: Framework myEvalSVC

4. PERFORMANCE METRICS
Inside the transmission of streaming video are the most important constraints related to
time and bandwidth, therefore, the Delay and Throughput is highlighted as measures
overall performance, which analyze the behavior of video within Ad Hoc networks. The
metric to be analyzed are:
4.1. Average end-to-end delay
The Average end-to-end delay [12] is defined as the time difference between the instant
when a packet is received by the destination node and the instant of time that has been
sent by a source node. Within the video transmission applications must comply with the
standard QoS and packet delay must be limited and decreased for high performance
transmission. The Average end-to-end delay has been calculated as shown in Equation
3:

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

Nr

H
TAVG

i
r

H ti

i 1

16117

(3)

Nr

where, H ti represents the transmission instant of package i, H ri represents reception

instant of package i, N r is the total number of packets received.
4.2. Throughput
The Throughput [13] is defined as the number of bits successfully received on the target
node divided by the total transmission time in seconds, also interpreted as the ratio of
successfully Transmitted data per second, emphasizing that the minimum bandwidth
restrictions are required in a video stream to satisfy QoS requirements. The throughput
is calculated as shown in Equation 4:
T

LC
R f ( )
L

(4)

LC
R f is the payload transmission rate, R is the Binary transmission rate
L
in bits/seconds and f ( ) is the packet success rate defined as the probability of
receiving a packet correctly. This probability is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio
( ) .
where,

5. SETTING THE SIMULATION

This section describes the methodology used in the simulation and evaluation metrics
Delay and Throughput described considering a scenario described in Table 1. The
scenario considers the transmission of H.264/SVC between the pair of source/target
with UDP and TCP traffic backgraund between 16 nodes (8 nodes transmitting and
receiving nodes 8) to a uniform and constant velocity nodes. The main interest of this
paper is to analyze the metrics of delay and throughput in terms of hops (1-5 hops), as
displayed in Figure 6 between the pair of source/target nodes in ideal conditions (no
traffic background) and in environments where all nodes have a DCF and EDAC
mechanism for providing access QoS.

16118

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

Table 1. configuration parameters of the simulation
Short Interframe Space (SIFS)
Time slot
DCF Interframe Space (DIFS)
CWmin
CWmax
Physical Header
MAC Header
ACK
Data rate
Basic rate
Sending rate of CBR flow 1
Sending rate of CBR flow 2
Play-out delay
Size of the simulation area
Antenna coverage
Total of nodes
Protocol
Constant speed (nodes)

10us
20us
50us
32
1024
192bits
224bits
112bits
1Mbps
1Mbps
0.2Mbps
0.3Mbps
5s
1000m x 1000m
250m
50
AODV
6m/s

The test sequence used corresponds to video file "Foreman" [15] YUV CIF
(352X288) with 300 frames and encoded by JSVM where temporal scalability to the
results presented in this article is enable.

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16119

Fig. 6: Scenarios Employees

6. SIMULATION RESULTS: EVALUATION OF QoE

Fig. 7: Video received DCF and EDCA

One of the main features of myEvalSVC lies video recovery in the target node,
appreciating the initial delay that causes the network. In case of packet loss
myEvalSVC replaces the lost image of the last image who arrived correct package.
The Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) may be considered as a QoE metric,
since the quality of the received image is evaluated. In a video stream H.264/SVC base
layer is transmitted and sometimes finds that packet loss can be lost enhancement
layers. Although to the naked eye many of these losses are not significant, the PSNR
provides a quantitative measure of the quality of video that is being perceived. This
paper provides the results for a jump is shown by the high number of simulations.

16120

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

Fig. 8: PSNR original video with DCF and EDCA traffic for a traffic jump
Background.

The routing protocol used for the assessment is Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV), used by all mobile nodes in the proposed network, which offers the
following features [14]:

Rpida adaptation to changes in dynamic link

Bajo processing and memory overhead

Baja use of network resources

Determinacin route unicast destination

AODV uses destination sequence numbers to ensure lasos routing traffic,
preventing problems like counting to infinity associated with classical distance vector
protocols.

7. SIMULATION RESULTS: EVALUATION OF QoS

The following simulation results show the characterization of video traffic H.264/SVC
in ad hoc networks for the scenario described in Figure 6, by analyzing the Delay vs. the
number of hops and throughput vs the number of hops, as observed in Figure 9 and 10.

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16121

Fig. 9: Delay vs Jumps

Fig. 10: Throughput vs Jumps

The above results show a proportional increase between the number of hops and
delay for a constant speed of 6m/s, finding that 90% of the video is encoded for the same
scenarios or less than two jumps.
For scenarios equal to or greater than the three top video decoding than 10% and
therefore higher packet loss, which is reflected in the persepcion QoE is presented.
In the figure 10 shown throughput metrics and evaluation of network performance
at a constant speed and end to end delay is analyzed, noting that traffic packets to

16122

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

transmit video H.264SVC a DCF mechanism in his first two jumps delay is low and
adapts its throughput to Best Effort traffic because all packets in DCF are treated with
the same priority.
By contrast, when the video traffic is transmitted in a H.264SVC EDCA
mechanism allows prioritize packets Best Effort traffic and traffic with a lower priority
Background, giving precedence first to the voice traffic and secondly to traffic video.
Therefore, EDCA may reach rates of less than 10ms delay obtaining a bandwidth of
0.6Mbps and a jump two 0.26Mbps obtained jumps where video packet loss H.264SVC
less than 10% (with traffic Best Effort and Background) network ensure proper
decoding at the target node.
However, the ideal traffic (no Background and Best Effort traffic) in DCF is
comparable to the results obtained with EDCA traffic.
Figure 8 shows PSNR values for different access methods. The upper curve
represents the ideal values of PSNR NALU lossless (original video), the other two
curves correspond to the transmission of video using EDCA and DCF, noting that DCF
has less video Quality of EDCA, this interpretation traduciendoce QoE for user.

8. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, QoS and QoE evaluated in providing video H.264SVC in WLANs through
the DCF and EDCA mechanisms, assessing the quality of streaming video, five primary
scenarios were simulated by highlighting the number of jumps performed by the AODV
protocol to deliver video to a target node. The results showed that reducing the
throughput depending on the number of hops decreases the available bandwidth while
maintaining the video until the third and fourth jump with only EDCA mechanism,
except that the DCF mechanism with the same throughput is maintained until the third
and fourth jump, but lost 10% superiosres video, making the video encoding is not
complete with myEvalSVC Framework.
These results show that the transmission H.264/SVC on EDCA can achieve better
PSNR values of the transmission through DCF, illustrating how the throughput and
delay as a function of the number of hops can be percevida by the end user, through the
effects visual myEvalSVC the Framework allows for the recostruir video lens or
receiving node. This feature is one that highlights the myEvalSVC Framework as a tool
for evaluation of QoE, for an end user, which can visually compare the performance of
the video in a different network topologies.
Increasing delay and throughput decrease with increasing number of hops,
concludes that the video can be decoded H.264SVC rates 10% lower losses in the case
of DCF, EDCA provides QoS while Ad Hoc Network 3 and 4 hops for the particular case
of 50 nodes that maintain a constant speed of 6m / s and with 8 nodes act as traffic
sources with their respective target nodes/receiver.

Evaluation of QoS and QoE for H.264/SVC Video Transmission

16123

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]

C. H. Ke, " myEvalSVC: an Integrated Simulation Framework for Evaluation of

H.264/SVC Transmission ", KSII Transactions on Internet and Information
Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 378-393, Jan. 2012 (SCI).
[2] Vardakas, J.S.; Papapanagiotou, I; Logothetis, M.D.; Kotsopoulos, S.A, "On the
End-to-End Delay Analysis of the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination
Function," Internet Monitoring and Protection, 2007. ICIMP 2007. Second
International Conference on , vol., no., pp.16,16, 1-5 July 2007. doi:
10.1109/ICIMP.2007.29.
[3] Saadia, R.; Qayum, A, "Performance analysis of transport layer protocols for
MPEG4 video traffic in IEEE 802.11e ad-hoc wireless networks," Applied
Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), 2014 11th International Bhurban Conference
on , vol., no., pp.504,507, 14-18 Jan. 2014
doi: 10.1109/IBCAST.2014.6778197.
[4] Lei, X., & Rhee, S. H. (2014). Enhancing IEEE 802.11 MAC via a
Sender-Initiated Reservation. Wireless Personal Communications, 75(4),
2399-2409.
[5] Touil, H., & Fakhri, Y. (2014). QoS-Aware MAC Protocols Based on the IEEE
802.11 e for Wireless Multimedia Sensor Networks. International Review on
Computers and Software (IRECOS), 9(3), 440-449.
[6] Poonguzhali, A. (2014). Performance Evaluation Of IEEE 802.11 e MAC Layer
Using Cell Processor. International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research, 3(1).
[7] Achary, R., Vaithiyanathan, V., Raj, P., & Nagarajan, S. (2014, February).
Performance enhancement of IEEE 802.1 le WLAN by dynamic adaptive
contention window. In Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2014
16th International Conference on (pp. 447-452). IEEE.
[8] Reiter, U., Brunnstrm, K., De Moor, K., Larabi, M. C., Pereira, M., Pinheiro, A.,
... & Zgank, A. (2014). Factors Influencing Quality of Experience. In Quality of
Experience (pp. 55-72). Springer I nternational Publishing.
[9] Wang, R. J., Fang, J. T., Jiang, Y. T., & Chang, P. C. (2014).
Quantization-Distortion Models for Interlayer Predictions in H. 264/SVC Spatial
Scalability.
[10] Wang, Z., Wang, W., Xia, Y., Wan, Z., Wang, J., Li, L., & Cai, C. (2014). Visual
Quality Assessment after Network Transmission Incorporating NS2 and Evalvid.
The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
[11] Meng, S., Sun, J., Duan, Y., & Guo, Z. (2014, May). An efficient method for
no-reference H. 264/SVC bitstream extraction. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1981-1985).
IEEE.
[12] Jain, M., & Dovrolis, C. (2002, August). End-to-end available bandwidth:
Measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. In ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 295-308).
ACM.

16124

John Petearson Anzola A and Andrs Camilo Jimnez A

[13] Li, J., Blake, C., De Couto, D. S., Lee, H. I., & Morris, R. (2001, July). Capacity of
ad hoc wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 7th annual international
conference on Mobile computing and networking (pp. 61-69). ACM.
[14] Klein-Berndt, L. (2001). A quick guide to AODV routing. Wireless
Communications Technologies Group, NIST (http://w3. antd. nist.
gov/wctg/aodv_kernel/).
[15] Video Traces Research Group. (2007). YUV 4: 2: 0 Video Sequences. Arizona
State University, Available online at: http://trace. eas. asu. edu/yuv/index. html.
Paulo Mendes.