RTP Media Congestion Avoidance D. Hayes, Ed.
Techniques University of Oslo
Internet-Draft S. Ferlin
Intended status: Experimental Simula Research Laboratory
Expires: January 2, 2016 M. Welzl
University of Oslo
July 1, 2015
Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP
Media.
draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-01
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data
flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics
that are calculated by a data receiver based on continuous
measurements and regularly fed to a grouping algorithm that runs
wherever the knowledge is needed. This mechanism complements the
coupled congestion control mechanism in draft-welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. The signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Packet Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3. Path Lag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Parameters and their Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Recommended Parameter Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Key metrics and their calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Mean delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. Skewness Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3. Variability Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.4. Oscillation Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.5. Packet loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Flow Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1. Flow Grouping Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2. Using the flow group signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Removing Noise from the Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1. PDV noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2. Oscillation noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.3. Clock skew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Reducing lag and Improving Responsiveness . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.1. Improving the response of the skewness estimate . . . 16
3.4.2. Improving the response of the variability estimate . . 16
4. Measuring OWD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Time stamp resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
1. Introduction
In the Internet, it is not normally known if flows (e.g., TCP
connections or UDP data streams) traverse the same bottlenecks. Even
flows that have the same sender and receiver may take different paths
and share a bottleneck or not. Flows that share a bottleneck link
usually compete with one another for their share of the capacity.
This competition has the potential to increase packet loss and
delays. This is especially relevant for interactive applications
that communicate simultaneously with multiple peers (such as multi-
party video). For RTP media applications such as RTCWEB,
[I-D.welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc] describes a scheme that combines the
congestion controllers of flows in order to honor their priorities
and avoid unnecessary packet loss as well as delay. This mechanism
relies on some form of Shared Bottleneck Detection (SBD); here, a
measurement-based SBD approach is described.
1.1. The signals
The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to
which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from
whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described
here currently utilises packet loss and packet delay, but is not
restricted to these.
1.1.1. Packet Loss
Packet loss is often a relatively rare signal. Therefore, on its own
it is of limited use for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary
measure when it is more prevalent.
1.1.2. Packet Delay
End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along
the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck
device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip
time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay
(OWD).
Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender
and receiver clocks to be synchronised. However, since the
statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative
OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant
over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2
for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in
circumstances where it is significant, Section 3.3.3 outlines a way
of adjusting the calculations to cater for it.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
Each packet arriving at the bottleneck buffer may experience very
different queue lengths, and therefore different waiting times. A
single OWD sample does not, therefore, characterize the path well.
However, multiple OWD measurements do reflect the distribution of
delays experienced at the bottleneck.
1.1.3. Path Lag
Flows that share a common bottleneck may traverse different paths,
and these paths will often have different base delays. This makes it
difficult to correlate changes in delay or loss. This technique uses
the long term shape of the delay distribution as a base for
comparison to counter this.
2. Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Acronyms used in this document:
OWD -- One Way Delay
PDV -- Packet Delay Variation
MAD -- Mean Absolute Deviation
RTT -- Round Trip Time
SBD -- Shared Bottleneck Detection
Conventions used in this document:
T -- the base time interval over which measurements are
made.
N -- the number of base time, T, intervals used in some
calculations.
sum_T(...) -- summation of all the measurements of the variable
in parentheses taken over the interval T
sum(...) -- summation of terms of the variable in parentheses
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
sum_N(...) -- summation of N terms of the variable in parentheses
sum_NT(...) -- summation of all measurements taken over the
interval N*T
E_T(...) -- the expectation or mean of the measurements of the
variable in parentheses over T
E_N(...) -- the expectation or mean of the last N values of the
variable in parentheses
E_M(...) -- the expectation or mean of the last M values of the
variable in parentheses, where M <= N.
max_T(...) -- the maximum recorded measurement of the variable in
parentheses taken over the interval T
min_T(...) -- the minimum recorded measurement of the variable in
parentheses taken over the interval T
num_T(...) -- the count of measurements of the variable in
parentheses taken in the interval T
num_VM(...) -- the count of valid values of the variable in
parentheses given M records
PC -- a boolean variable indicating the particular flow
was identified as experiencing congestion in the
previous interval T (i.e. Previously Congested)
skew_est -- a measure of skewness in a OWD distribution.
var_est -- a measure of variability in OWD measurements.
freq_est -- a measure of low frequency oscillation in the OWD
measurements.
p_l, p_f, p_pdv, p_mad, c_s, c_h, p_s, p_d, p_v -- various
thresholds used in the mechanism
M and F -- number of values related to N
2.1. Parameters and their Effect
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
T T should be long enough so that there are enough packets
received during T for a useful estimate of short term mean
OWD and variation statistics. Making T too large can limit
the efficacy of PDV and freq_est. It will also increase the
response time of the mechanism. Making T too small will make
the metrics noisier.
N & M N should be large enough provide a stable estimate of
oscillations in OWD and average PDV. Usually M=N, though
having M<N may be beneficial in certain circumstances. M*T
needs to be long enough provide stable estimates of skewness
and MAD (if used).
F F determines the number of intervals over which statistics
are considered to be equally weighted. When F=M recent and
older measurements are considered equal. Making F<M can
increase the responsiveness of the SBD mechanism. If F is
too small, statistics will be too noisy.
c_s c_s is the threshold in skew_est used for determining whether
a flow is experiencing congestion or not. It should be
slightly negative so that a very lightly loaded path does not
give a false indication. Setting c_s more negative makes the
SBD mechanism less sensitive to transient and light
congestion episodes.
c_s c_h adds hysteresis to the congestion determination. It
should be large enough to avoid constant switching in the
determination, but low enough to ensure that grouping is not
attempted when there is no congestion and the delay and loss
signals cannot be relied upon.
p_v p_v determines the sensitivity of freq_est to noise. Making
it smaller will yield higher but noisier values for freq_est.
Making it too large will render it ineffective for
determining groups.
p_* Flows are separated when the skew_est|var_est|freq_est
measure is greater than p_s|p_f|p_d|(p_pdv|p_mad). Adjusting
these is a compromise between false grouping of flows that do
not share a bottleneck and false splitting of flows that do.
Making them larger can help if the measures are very noisy,
but reducing the noise in the statistical measures by
adjusting T and N|M may be a better solution.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
2.2. Recommended Parameter Values
Reference [Hayes-LCN14] uses T=350ms, N=50, p_l = 0.1. The other
parameters have been tightened to reflect minor enhancements to the
algorithm outlined in Section 3.3: c_s = -0.01, p_f = p_s = p_d =
0.1, p_pdv = 0.2, p_v = 0.2 (or p_mad=0.1, p_v=0.7). M=50, F=25, and
c_h = 0.3 are additional parameters defined in the document. These
are values that seem to work well over a wide range of practical
Internet conditions.
3. Mechanism
The mechanism described in this document is based on the observation
that the distribution of delay measurements of packets that traverse
a common bottleneck have similar shape characteristics. These shape
characteristics are described using 3 key summary statistics:
variability (estimate var_est, see Section 3.1.3)
skewness (estimate skew_est, see Section 3.1.2)
oscillation (estimate freq_est, see Section 3.1.4)
with packet loss (estimate pkt_loss, see Section 3.1.5) used as a
supplementary statistic.
Summary statistics help to address both the noise and the path lag
problems by describing the general shape over a relatively long
period of time. This is sufficient for their application in coupled
congestion control for RTP Media. They can be signalled from a
receiver, which measures the OWD and calculates the summary
statistics, to a sender, which is the entity that is transmitting the
media stream. An RTP Media device may be both a sender and a
receiver. SBD can be performed at either a sender or a receiver or
both.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
+----+
| H2 |
+----+
|
| L2
|
+----+ L1 | L3 +----+
| H1 |------|------| H3 |
+----+ +----+
A network with 3 hosts (H1, H2, H3) and 3 links (L1, L2, L3).
Figure 1
In Figure 1, there are two possible cases for shared bottleneck
detection: a sender-based and a receiver-based case.
1. Sender-based: consider a situation where host H1 sends media
streams to hosts H2 and H3, and L1 is a shared bottleneck. H2
and H3 measure the OWD and calculate summary statistics, which
they send to H1 every T. H1, having this knowledge, can determine
the shared bottleneck and accordingly control the send rates.
2. Receiver-based: consider that H2 is also sending media to H3, and
L3 is a shared bottleneck. If H3 sends summary statistics to H1
and H2, neither H1 nor H2 alone obtain enough knowledge to detect
this shared bottleneck; H3 can however determine it by combining
the summary statistics related to H1 and H2, respectively. This
case is applicable when send rates are controlled by the
receiver; then, the signal from H3 to the senders contains the
sending rate.
A discussion of the required signalling for the receiver-based case
is beyond the scope of this document. For the sender-based case, the
messages and their data format will be defined here in future
versions of this document. We envision that an initialization
message from the sender to the receiver could specify which key
metrics are requested out of a possibly extensible set (pkt_loss,
var_est, skew_est, freq_est). The grouping algorithm described in
this document requires all four of these metrics, and receivers MUST
be able to provide them, but future algorithms may be able to exploit
other metrics (e.g. metrics based on explicit network signals).
Moreover, the initialization message could specify T, N, and the
necessary resolution and precision (number of bits per field).
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
3.1. Key metrics and their calculation
Measurements are calculated over a base interval, T. T should be long
enough to provide enough samples for a good estimate of skewness, but
short enough so that a measure of the oscillation can be made from N
of these estimates. Reference [Hayes-LCN14] uses T = 350ms and
N=M=50, which are values that seem to work well over a wide range of
practical Internet conditions.
3.1.1. Mean delay
The mean delay is not a useful signal for comparisons between flows
since flows may traverse quite different paths and clocks will not
necessarily be synchronized. However, it is a base measure for the 3
summary statistics. The mean delay, E_T(OWD), is the average one way
delay measured over T.
To facilitate the other calculations, the last N E_T(OWD) values will
need to be stored in a cyclic buffer along with the moving average of
E_T(OWD):
mean_delay = E_M(E_T(OWD)) = sum_M(E_T(OWD)) / M
where M <= N. Generally M=N: setting M to be less than N allows the
mechanism to be more responsive to changes, but potentially at the
expense of a higher error rate (see Section 3.4 for a discussion on
improving the responsiveness of the mechanism.)
3.1.2. Skewness Estimate
Skewness is difficult to calculate efficiently and accurately.
Ideally it should be calculated over the entire period (M * T) from
the mean OWD over that period. However this would require storing
every delay measurement over the period. Instead, an estimate is
made over M * T based on a calculation every T using the previous T's
calculation of mean_delay.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
The skewness is estimated using two counters, counting the number of
one way delay samples (OWD) above and below the mean:
skew_base_T = sum_T(OWD < mean_delay) - sum_T(OWD > mean_delay)
where
if (OWD < mean_delay) 1 else 0
if (OWD > mean_delay) 1 else 0
and mean_delay does not include the mean of the current T
interval.
skew_est = sum_MT(skew_base_T)/num_MT(OWD)
where skew_est is a number between -1 and 1
Note: Care must be taken when implementing the comparisons to ensure
that rounding does not bias skew_est. It is important that the mean
is calculated with a higher precision than the samples.
3.1.3. Variability Estimate
Packet Delay Variation (PDV) ([RFC5481] and [ITU-Y1540]) is used as
an estimator of the variability of the delay signal. We define PDV
as follows:
PDV = PDV_max = max_T(OWD) - E_T(OWD)
var_est = E_M(PDV) = sum_M(PDV) / M
This modifies PDV as outlined in [RFC5481] to provide a summary
statistic version that best aids the grouping decisions of the
algorithm (see [Hayes-LCN14] section IVB).
Generally the maximum is sampled well during congestion, though it is
more sensitive to path and operating system noise. The use of PDV =
PDV_min = E_T(OWD) - min_T(OWD) would be less sensitive to this
noise, but is not well sampled during congestion at the bottleneck
and therefore not recommended.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
3.1.4. Oscillation Estimate
An estimate of the low frequency oscillation of the delay signal is
calculated by counting and normalising the significant mean,
E_T(OWD), crossings of mean_delay:
freq_est = number_of_crossings / N
where we define a significant mean crossing as a crossing that
extends p_v * var_est from mean_delay. In our experiments we
have found that p_v = 0.2 is a good value.
Freq_est is a number between 0 and 1. Freq_est can be approximated
incrementally as follows:
With each new calculation of E_T(OWD) a decision is made as to
whether this value of E_T(OWD) significantly crosses the current
long term mean, mean_delay, with respect to the previous
significant mean crossing.
A cyclic buffer, last_N_crossings, records a 1 if there is a
significant mean crossing, otherwise a 0.
The counter, number_of_crossings, is incremented when there is a
significant mean crossing and decremented when a non-zero value is
removed from the last_N_crossings.
This approximation of freq_est was not used in [Hayes-LCN14], which
calculated freq_est every T using the current E_N(E_T(OWD)). Our
tests show that this approximation of freq_est yields results that
are almost identical to when the full calculation is performed every
T.
3.1.5. Packet loss
The proportion of packets lost is used as a supplementary measure:
pkt_loss = sum_NT(lost packets) / sum_NT(total packets)
Note: When pkt_loss is small it is very variable, however, when
pkt_loss is high it becomes a stable measure for making grouping
decisions..
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
3.2. Flow Grouping
3.2.1. Flow Grouping Algorithm
The following grouping algorithm is RECOMMENDED for SBD in the RMCAT
context and is sufficient and efficient for small to moderate numbers
of flows. For very large numbers of flows (e.g. hundreds), a more
complex clustering algorithm may be substituted.
Since no single metric is precise enough to group flows (due to
noise), the algorithm uses multiple metrics. Each metric offers a
different "view" of the bottleneck link characteristics, and used
together they enable a more precise grouping of flows than would
otherwise be possible.
Flows determined to be experiencing congestion are successively
divided into groups based on freq_est, var_est, and skew_est.
The first step is to determine which flows are experiencing
congestion. This is important, since if a flow is not experiencing
congestion its delay based metrics will not describe the bottleneck,
but the "noise" from the rest of the path. Skewness, with proportion
of packets loss as a supplementary measure, is used to do this:
1. Grouping will be performed on flows where:
skew_est < c_s
|| ( skew_est < c_h && PC )
|| pkt_loss > p_l
The parameter c_s controls how sensitive the mechanism is in
detecting congestion. C_s = 0.0 was used in [Hayes-LCN14]. A value
of c_s = 0.05 is a little more sensitive, and c_s = -0.05 is a little
less sensitive. C_h controls the hysteresis on flows that were
grouped as experiencing congestion last time.
These flows, flows experiencing congestion, are then progressively
divided into groups based on the freq_est, PDV, and skew_est summary
statistics. The process proceeds according to the following steps:
2. Group flows whose difference in sorted freq_est is less than a
threshold:
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
diff(freq_est) < p_f
3. Group flows whose difference in sorted E_N(PDV) (highest to
lowest) is less than a threshold:
diff(var_est) < (p_pdv * var_est)
The threshold, (p_pdv * var_est), is with respect to the highest
value in the difference.
4. Group flows whose difference in sorted skew_est or pkt_loss is
less than a threshold:
if pkt_loss < p_l
diff(skew_est) < p_s
otherwise
diff(pkt_loss) < (p_d * pkt_loss)
The threshold, (p_d * pkt_loss), is with respect to the
highest value in the difference.
This procedure involves sorting estimates from highest to lowest. It
is simple to implement, and efficient for small numbers of flows (up
to 10-20).
3.2.2. Using the flow group signal
A grouping decisions is made every T from the second T, though they
will not attain their full design accuracy until after the N'th T
interval.
Network conditions, and even the congestion controllers, can cause
bottlenecks to fluctuate. A coupled congestion controller MAY decide
only to couple groups that remain stable, say grouped together 90% of
the time, depending on its objectives. Recommendations concerning
this are beyond the scope of this draft and will be specific to the
coupled congestion controllers objectives.
3.3. Removing Noise from the Estimates
The following describe small changes to the calculation of the key
metrics that help remove noise from them. Currently these "tweaks"
are described separately to keep the main description succinct. In
future revisions of the draft these enhancements may replace the
original key metric calculations.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
3.3.1. PDV noise
Usually during congestion the max_T(OWD) is quite well sampled as the
delay distribution is skewed toward the maximum. However max_T(OWD)
is subject to delay noise from other queues along the path as well as
the host operating system. Min_T(OWD) is less prone to noise along
the path and from the host operating system, but is not well sampled
during congestion (i.e. when there is a bottleneck). Flows with very
different packet send rates exacerbate the problem.
An alternative delay variation measure that is less sensitive to
extreme values and different send rates is Mean Absolute Deviation
(MAD). It can be implemented in an online manner as follows:
var_base_T = sum_T(|OWD - E_T(OWD)|)
where
|x| is the absolute value of x
E_T(OWD) is the mean OWD calculated in the previous T
var_est = MAD_MT = sum_MT(var_base_T)/num_MT(OWD)
For calculation of freq_est p_v=0.7 (MAD is a smaller number than
PDV)
For the grouping threshold p_mad=0.1 instead of p_pdv (MAD is less
noisy so the test can be tighter)
Note that the method for improving responsiveness of MAD_MT is the
same as that described in Section 3.4.1 for skew_est.
3.3.2. Oscillation noise
When a path has no congestion, var_est will be very small and the
recorded significant mean crossings will be the result of path noise.
Thus up to N-1 meaningless mean crossings can be a source of error at
the point a link becomes a bottleneck and flows traversing it begin
to be grouped.
To remove this source of noise from freq_est:
1. Set the current PDV to PDV = NaN (a value representing an invalid
record, i.e. Not a Number) for flows that are deemed to not be
experiencing congestion by the first skew_est based grouping test
(see Section 3.2.1).
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
2. Then var_est = sum_M(PDV != NaN) / num_VM(PDV)
3. For freq_est, only record a significant mean crossing if flow is
experiencing congestion.
These three changes will remove the non-congestion noise from
freq_est. A similar adjustment can be made for MAD based var_est.
3.3.3. Clock skew
Generally sender and receiver clock skew will be too small to cause
significant errors in the estimators. Skew_est is most sensitive to
this type of noise. In circumstances where clock skew is high,
making M < N can reduce this error.
A better method is to estimate the effect the clock skew is having on
the summary statistics, and then adjust statistics accordingly. A
simple online method of doing this based on min_T(OWD) will be
described here in a subsequent version of the draft.
3.4. Reducing lag and Improving Responsiveness
Measurement based shared bottleneck detection makes decisions in the
present based on what has been measured in the past. This means that
there is always a lag in responding to changing conditions. This
mechanism is based on summary statistics taken over (N*T) seconds.
This mechanism can be made more responsive to changing conditions by:
1. Reducing N and/or M -- but at the expense of having less accurate
metrics, and/or
2. Exploiting the fact that more recent measurements are more
valuable than older measurements and weighting them accordingly.
Although more recent measurements are more valuable, older
measurements are still needed to gain an accurate estimate of the
distribution descriptor we are measuring. Unfortunately, the simple
exponentially weighted moving average weights drop off too quickly
for our requirements and have an infinite tail. A simple linearly
declining weighted moving average also does not provide enough weight
to the most recent measurements. We propose a piecewise linear
distribution of weights, such that the first section (samples 1:F) is
flat as in a simple moving average, and the second section (samples
F+1:M) is linearly declining weights to the end of the averaging
window. We choose integer weights, which allows incremental
calculation without introducing rounding errors.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
3.4.1. Improving the response of the skewness estimate
The weighted moving average for skew_est, based on skew_est in
Section 3.1.2, can be calculated as follows:
skew_est = ((M-F+1)*sum(skew_base_T(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*skew_base_T(F+1:M)))
/ ((M-F+1)*sum(numsampT(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*numsampT(F+1:M)))
where numsampT is an array of the number of OWD samples in each T
(i.e. num_T(OWD)), and numsampT(1) is the most recent; skew_base_T(1)
is the most recent calculation of skew_base_T; 1:F refers to the
integer values 1 through to F, and [(M-F):1] refers to an array of
the integer values (M-F) declining through to 1; and ".*" is the
array scalar dot product operator.
3.4.2. Improving the response of the variability estimate
The weighted moving average for var_est can be calculated as follows:
var_est = ((M-F+1)*sum(PDV(1:F)) + sum([(M-F):1].*PDV(F+1:M)))
/ (F*(M-F+1) + sum([(M-F):1])
where 1:F refers to the integer values 1 through to F, and [(M-F):1]
refers to an array of the integer values (M-F) declining through to
1; and ".*" is the array scalar dot product operator. When removing
oscillation noise (see Section 3.3.2) this calculation must be
adjusted to allow for invalid PDV records.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
4. Measuring OWD
This section discusses the OWD measurements required for this
algorithm to detect shared bottlenecks.
The SBD mechanism described in this draft relies on differences
between OWD measurements to avoid the practical problems with
measuring absolute OWD (see [Hayes-LCN14] section IIIC). Since all
summary statistics are relative to the mean OWD and sender/receiver
clock offsets should be approximately constant over the measurement
periods, the offset is subtracted out in the calculation.
4.1. Time stamp resolution
The SBD mechanism requires timing information precise enough to be
able to make comparisons. As a rule of thumb, the time resolution
should be less than one hundredth of a typical path's range of
delays. In general, the lower the time resolution, the more care
that needs to be taken to ensure rounding errors do not bias the
skewness calculation.
Typical RTP media flows use sub-millisecond timers, which should be
adequate in most situations.
5. Acknowledgements
This work was part-funded by the European Community under its Seventh
Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet Transport Latency
(RITE) project (ICT-317700). The views expressed are solely those of
the authors.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RFC 3550 [RFC3550], RFC 4585
[RFC4585], and RFC 5124 [RFC5124] are expected to apply.
Non-authenticated RTCP packets carrying shared bottleneck indications
and summary statistics could allow attackers to alter the bottleneck
sharing characteristics for private gain or disruption of other
parties communication.
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
8. Change history
Changes made to this document:
WG-00->WG-01 : Moved unbiased skew section to replace skew
estimate, more robust variability estimator, the
term variance replaced with variability, clock
drift term corrected to clock skew, revision to
clock skew section with a place holder, description
of parameters.
02->WG-00 : Fixed missing 0.5 in 3.3.2 and missing brace in
3.3.3
01->02 : New section describing improvements to the key
metric calculations that help to remove noise,
bias, and reduce lag. Some revisions to the
notation to make it clearer. Some tightening of
the thresholds.
00->01 : Revisions to terminology for clarity
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[Hayes-LCN14]
Hayes, D., Ferlin, S., and M. Welzl, "Practical Passive
Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary
Statistics", Proc. the IEEE Local Computer Networks
(LCN) p150-158, September 2014, <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/
davihay/
hayes14__pract_passiv_shared_bottl_detec-abstract.html>.
[I-D.welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc]
Welzl, M., Islam, S., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
control for RTP media", draft-welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc-04
(work in progress), October 2014.
[ITU-Y1540]
ITU-T, "Internet Protocol Data Communication Service - IP
Packet Transfer and Availability Performance Parameters",
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
Series Y: Global Information Infrastructure, Internet
Protocol Aspects and Next-Generation Networks ,
March 2011,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-201103-I/en>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
July 2006.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
December 2012.
Authors' Addresses
David Hayes (editor)
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
Oslo, N-0316
Norway
Phone: +47 2284 5566
Email: davihay@ifi.uio.no
Simone Ferlin
Simula Research Laboratory
P.O.Box 134
Lysaker, 1325
Norway
Phone: +47 4072 0702
Email: ferlin@simula.no
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SBD for CCC with RTP Media July 2015
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
Oslo, N-0316
Norway
Phone: +47 2285 2420
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Hayes, et al. Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 20]