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)

Topology:

hub-and-spoke v.s. meshed

5/32

Design Options (contd)

Access connections

Failure
working path

Failure recovery

Src
Dst

working path
Failure
Src

Dst
protection path

IP layer fast-reroute (FRR)

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

Layer

Link-Capacity

Access Type

Fast-failover

IP
..
..
..

Shared
..
..
..

Dual-homed
..
Ring
..

SONET links
Fast re-route
SONET links
Fast re-route

IP
..
..
..

Dedicated
..
..
..

Dual-homed
..
Ring
..

SONET links

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

Fast re-route
SONET links
Fast re-route

Dedicated
..

None
..

SONET links
Fast re-route

Time-divisioned

Dual-homed

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

20 communities

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

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

P2P Incentive Models

Built-in Model:

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

Usage-based Model

Ps = rN Enop2p tN qbuTN
u: average video rate
T: program length
q: credit per bit
b: percent of viewers download data from peers

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