Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services

Meeyoung Cha, Gagan Choudhry, Jennifer Yates, Aman Shaikh and Sue Moon

Presented by Yuanbin Shen March 25, 2009

1/32

Introduction

Nation-wide TV broadcast

Satellite-based Terrestrial-based (typically over IP networks IPTV)

IPTV architectural design

Integrate IPTV services with existing IP backbone Construct a dedicated overlay network on top of IP Construct a direct interconnected flat IP network Integrate with an existing switched optical network

What is the best architecture for supporting IPTV?

2/32

Overview of IPTV Architecture

3/32

IPTV Traffic

Type

Broadcast TV: realtime VoD download: non-realtime download to VHOs Realtime VoD: realtime

Characteristics

Uni-directional and high-bandwidth VoD traffic: highly variable Multicast for broadcast TV / unicast for VoD
4/32

Design Options

Technology:

layer1 (optical) v.s. layer3 (IP/MPLS) hub-and-spoke v.s. meshed

Topology:

5/32

Design Options (contd)

Access connections

Failure recovery Failure working path Src protection path IP layer fast-reroute (FRR) Dst

Failure working path Src

Dst

switching Optical layer SONET protection

6/32

Model 1: Integrate With Existing IP Backbone

Backbone links are shared and access links are dedicated Rapid deployment: using existing infrastructure High resource utilization: share bandwidth between applications Drawback: IPTV quality easily impacted by Internet traffic
7/32

Model 2: Dedicated Overlay

Use common backbone routers to construct dedicated IPTV overlay Easy for performance management: links are dedicated Overhead to construct the overlay

8/32

Model 3: Flat IP (No backbone)

SHO

SHO

VHO

Long super links

Services routers (SR) directly connected using point-to-point links over dense wavelength division multiplexors (DWDMs) Connect geographically close VHOs into regional rings Inter-connect rings with long super links No existing infrastructure used

9/32

Model 4: Integrate with switched optical network SHO

SHO

L1 network

VHO

Multicast capabilities at optical nodes (new technology) SHOs establish multicast trees, VHO receiving single best stream Failure recovery: rapid switch between different paths How to find physically-diverse paths from SHOs to each VHO? NP-hard use IP-based approach to create trees

10/32

Design Instances
Design Int-IP-HS model.1 Int-IP-HS-FRR Int-IP-Ring Int-IP-Ring-FRR Ded-IP-HS model.2 Layer IP .. .. .. IP .. .. .. Link-Capacity Shared .. .. .. Dedicated .. .. .. Access Type Dual-homed .. Ring .. Dual-homed .. Ring .. Fast-failover SONET links Fast re-route SONET links Fast re-route SONET links

Ded-IP-HS-FRR Ded-IP-Ring Ded-IP-Ring-FRR

Fast re-route
SONET links Fast re-route

model.3 P2P-DWDM IP P2P-DWDM-FRR .. model.4 Opt-Switched Optical

Dedicated ..
Time-divisioned

None ..
Dual-homed

SONET links
Fast re-route Disjoint paths
11/32

Evaluation - Cost (capital) comparison of multicast and unicast

Multicast is much more economical than unicast Optical network is more economical than IP network

12/32

Evaluation - Cost (capital) comparison across design instances

Optical networks are more economical than IP networks Total cost is dominated by access cost (except for IP flat design) Ring access is good of multicast; dual-homed access is good for unicast(VoD) For backbone cost, the flat IP model is the most expensive

13/32

Conclusion

Explore potential IPTV designs in backbone network Comparison across different design architectures Significant benefits of using multicast for broadcast TV Optical design more economical than IP designs Ring access attractive for broadcast TV; dual-homed access attractive for VoD

14/32

When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services?

Yin-Farn Chen, Yennun Huang, Rittwik Jana, Hongbo Jiang, Michael Rabinovich, Bin Wei and Zhen Xiao

Presented by Yuanbin Shen March 25, 2009

15/32

Introduction

Problems in providing IPTV:

high deployment and maintenance cost Server bandwidth limits

One solution using P2P technology Does P2P technology always works well for IPTV? When is it beneficial?
Network models

Cloud model: overestimate P2P benefits Physical model: more practical

Provide three incentive models to encourage P2P sharing in IPTV under a physical model

16/32

Cloud Model

Simple for modeling Does not consider the constraints of the underlining service infrastructure

17/32

Physical Model

B2S B1N B1S

18/32

P2P Sharing within a Community

B2S B1N B1S

Bottleneck
Not beneficial

19/32

P2P Sharing within a Community

B2S B1N Bottleneck B1S

Beneficial

20/32

P2P Sharing across Communities

B2S B1N or B1S

Bottleneck

Not beneficial

21/32

Simulation Setup

B2S: 10 Gbps

Content server (1000 programs, 120 mins, 6 Mbps)

22/32

Simulation Setup
Content server (1000 programs, 120 mins, 6 Mbps)

20 communities

B1S

B2S: 10 Gbps

B1N: 0.622 Gbps

23/32

Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -1

Links across communities are heavily utilized.

Limited by B1N

Total # of peers: 20*community size

24/32

Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -2

Dont consider the bandwidth in the cloud
Traffic across communities increases

Limited by B2S

Total # of peers: 10000 Community size: 500

25/32

Results: cloud model v.s. physical model -3

Serves all active viewers

Limited by B1N Limited by B1N, traffic across communities reduces the bandwidth

Total # of peers: 10000 Community size: 500

26/32

Cost-Benefic Analysis

Maximum Profit for Conventional IPTV

Pnop2p = rN Enop2p
Built-in Model:

P2P Incentive Models

Pb = rN Enop2p tN r: fee paid by a viewer N: number of viewers tN: P2P installation expense

27/32

Cost-Benefic Analysis

Flat-reward Model:

Pf = rN Enop2p twN dwN w: percent of viewers sign up for P2P d: reward per P2P user
Ps = rN Enop2p tN qbuTN u: average video rate T: program length q: credit per bit b: percent of viewers download data from peers

Usage-based Model

28/32

Profit Per Unit Time

29/32

Simulation Results (Using MediaGrid Algorithm)

When system is sufficiently utilized

More peers more benefits from P2P Large differences among incentive models Build-in model is the best under this setup

When system is under utilized non-P2P may be better than P2P

30/32

Conclusion

Studied when P2P is beneficial for IPTV Cloud model may overstate P2P benefits use physical model Different incentive strategies lead to different profits choose a proper one for specific application.

31/32

References

M. Cha, G. Choudhury, J. Yates, A. Shaikh, and S. Moon, Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services, In Proc. of International Workshop on Internet Protocol TV Services over World Wide Web, May 2006 M. Cha, G. Choudhury, J. Yates, A. Shaikh, and S. Moon, Slides: http://an.kaist.ac.kr/~mycha/docs/mycha_www_iptv06.ppt Y. Chen, Y. Huang, R. Jana, H. Jiang, M. Rabinovich, B. Wei, and Z. Xiao, When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services, ACM NOSSDAV, June 2007. Meng-Ting Lu, Slides: When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services, http://nslab.ee.ntu.edu.tw/OESeminar/slides/When is P2P Technology Beneficial for IPTV Services.ppt

32/32