Guidelines for Implementing Digital Video Broadcasting - IPTV (DVB-IPTV) Application-Layer Hybrid Forward Error Correction (FEC) Protection
RFC 6683
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (August 2012; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ali Begen , Thomas Stockhammer | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-begen-fecframe-dvb-al-fec | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6683 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Martin Stiemerling | ||
| IESG note | Greg Shepherd (gjshep@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Begen
Request for Comments: 6683 Cisco
Category: Informational T. Stockhammer
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nomor Research
August 2012
Guidelines for Implementing Digital Video Broadcasting - IPTV (DVB-IPTV)
Application-Layer Hybrid Forward Error Correction (FEC) Protection
Abstract
Annex E of the Digital Video Broadcasting - IPTV (DVB-IPTV) technical
specification defines an optional Application-Layer Forward Error
Correction (AL-FEC) protocol to protect the streaming media
transported using RTP. The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol uses two layers
for FEC protection. The first (base) layer is based on the 1-D
interleaved parity code. The second (enhancement) layer is based on
the Raptor code. By offering a layered approach, the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC
protocol offers good protection against both bursty and random packet
losses at a cost of decent complexity. This document describes how
one can implement the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol by using the 1-D
interleaved parity code and Raptor code that have already been
specified in separate documents.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6683.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Base-Layer FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Enhancement-Layer FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Hybrid Decoding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Session Description Protocol (SDP) Signaling . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
In 2007, the IP Infrastructure (IPI) Technical Module (TM) of the
Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) consortium published a technical
specification [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] through the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] covers several areas related to the
transmission of MPEG2 transport stream-based services over IP
networks.
Annex E of [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] defines an optional protocol for
Application-Layer Forward Error Correction (AL-FEC) to protect the
streaming media for DVB-IP services transported using RTP [RFC3550].
In 2009, DVB updated the specification in a new revision that is
available as [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]. Among others, some updates and
modifications to the AL-FEC protocol have been made. This document
describes how one can implement the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol by using
the 1-D interleaved parity code [RFC6015] and Raptor code
specifications [RFC6681] [RFC6682].
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol uses two layers for protection: a base
layer that is produced by the 1-D interleaved parity code (also
simply referred to as "parity code" in the remainder of this
document), and an enhancement layer that is produced by the Raptor
code. Whenever a receiver supports the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol, the
decoding support for the base-layer FEC is mandatory while the
decoding support for the enhancement-layer FEC is optional. Both the
interleaved parity code and the Raptor code are systematic FEC codes,
meaning that source packets are not modified in any way during the
FEC encoding process.
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol considers protection of single-sequence
source RTP flows only. In the AL-FEC protocol, the source stream can
only be an MPEG-2 transport stream. The FEC data at each layer are
generated based on some configuration information, which also
determines the exact associations and relationships between the
source and repair packets. This document shows how this
configuration may be communicated out-of-band in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566].
In DVB-IPTV AL-FEC, the source packets are carried in the source RTP
stream and the generated FEC repair packets at each layer are carried
in separate streams. At the receiver side, if all of the source
packets are successfully received, there is no need for FEC recovery
and the repair packets may be discarded. However, if there are
missing source packets, the repair packets can be used to recover the
missing information.
The block diagram of the encoder side for the systematic DVB-IPTV
AL-FEC protection is described in Figure 1. Here, the source packets
are fed into the parity encoder to produce the parity repair packets.
The source packets may also be fed to the Raptor encoder to produce
the Raptor repair packets. Source packets as well as the repair
packets are then sent to the receiver(s) over an IP network.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
+--------------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ --> | Systematic | -> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |FEC Protection| +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--------------+
| Parity | -> +==+ +==+ +==+
| Encoder | +==+ +==+ +==+
+--------------+
| Raptor | -> +~~+ +~~+
| Encoder | +~~+ +~~+
+--------------+
Source Packet: +--+
+--+
Base-layer Repair Packet: +==+
+==+
Enhancement-layer Repair Packet: +~~+
+~~+
Figure 1: Block Diagram for the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Encoder
The block diagram of the decoder side for the systematic DVB-IPTV
AL-FEC protection is described in Figure 2. This is a minimum
performance decoder since the receiver only supports decoding the
base-layer repair packets. If there is a loss among the source
packets, the parity decoder attempts to recover the missing source
packets by using the base-layer repair packets.
+--------------+
+--+ X X +--+ --> | Systematic | -> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ |FEC Protection| +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--------------+
+==+ +==+ +==+ --> | Parity |
+==+ +==+ +==+ | Decoder |
+--------------+
Lost Packet: X
Figure 2: Block Diagram for the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Minimum Performance
Decoder
On the other hand, if the receiver supports decoding both the base-
layer and enhancement-layer repair packets, a combined (hybrid)
decoding approach is employed to improve the recovery rate of the
lost packets. In this case, the decoder is called an enhanced
decoder. Section 2.3 outlines the procedures for hybrid decoding.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
+--------------+
+--+ X X X --> | Systematic | -> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ |FEC Protection| +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--------------+
+==+ +==+ +==+ --> | Parity |
+==+ +==+ +==+ | Decoder |
+--------------+
+~~+ +~~+ --> | Raptor |
+~~+ +~~+ | Decoder |
+--------------+
Lost Packet: X
Figure 3: Block Diagram for the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Enhanced Decoder
2. DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Specification
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol comprises two layers of FEC protection:
1-D interleaved parity FEC for the base layer and Raptor FEC for the
enhancement layer. The performance of these FEC codes has been
examined in detail in [DVB-A115].
2.1. Base-Layer FEC
The 1-D interleaved parity FEC uses the exclusive OR (XOR) operation
to generate the repair symbols. In a group of D x L source packets,
the XOR operation is applied to each group of D source packets whose
sequence numbers are L apart from each other to generate a total of L
repair packets. Due to interleaving, this FEC is effective against
bursty packet losses up to burst sizes of length L.
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol requires that the D x L block of the
source packets protected by the 1-D interleaved FEC code be wholly
contained within a single source block of the Raptor code, if both
FEC layers are used.
Originally, the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol had adopted the 1-D
interleaved FEC payload format from [SMPTE2022-1] in
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1]. However, some incompatibilities with RTP
[RFC3550] have been discovered in this specification. These issues
have all been addressed in [RFC6015] (for details, refer to Section 1
of [RFC6015]). Some of the changes required by [RFC6015] are,
however, not backward compatible with the existing implementations
that were based on [SMPTE2022-1].
In a recent liaison statement from the IETF AVT WG to DVB TM-IPI, it
has been recommended that DVB TM-IPI define a new RTP profile for the
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
AL-FEC protocol since in the new profile, several of the issues could
easily be addressed without jeopardizing the compliance to RTP
[RFC3550].
At the writing of this document, it was not clear whether or not a
new RTP profile would be defined for the AL-FEC protocol. DVB TM-IPI
attempted to address some of the issues in the updated specification
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]; however, there are still outstanding issues.
The following is a list of the exceptions that need to be considered
by an implementation adopting [RFC6015] to be compliant with the DVB-
IPTV AL-FEC protocol as specified in [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1].
o SSRC (synchronization source)
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol requires that the SSRC fields of the
FEC packets be set to zero.
This requirement conflicts with RTP [RFC3550]. Unless signaled
otherwise, RTP uses random SSRC values with collision detection.
An explicit SSRC signaling mechanism is currently defined in
[RFC5576] and can be used for this purpose.
o CSRC (contributing source)
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol does not support the protection of
the CSRC entries in the source packets. Thus, in an
implementation compliant to DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol, the source
stream must not have any CSRC entries in its packets, and
subsequently the CC fields of the source RTP packets will be zero.
Note that if there are no RTP mixers used in a system running the
DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol, the CC field of the source RTP packets
will be zero and this is no longer an issue. Thus, if defined,
the new RTP profile for the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol should forbid
the use of any RTP mixers.
o Timestamp
In the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol, the timestamp fields of the FEC
packets are ignored by the receivers.
o Payload Type
The DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol sets the PT fields of the FEC packets
to 96.
A static payload type assignment for the base-layer FEC packets is
outside the scope of [RFC6015]. If defined, the new RTP profile
for the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol may assign 96 as the payload type
for the base-layer FEC packets.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
In implementations that are based on [RFC6015] and are willing to be
compliant with the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol as specified in
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1], all these exceptions must be considered as
well; however, in this case, the sender does not have to select a
random initial sequence number for the FEC stream as suggested by
[RFC3550].
Note that neither [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] nor [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]
implements the 1-D interleaved parity code as specified in [RFC6015].
Thus, the payload format registered in [RFC6015] must not be used by
the implementations that are compliant with the
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] or [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1] specification.
2.2. Enhancement-Layer FEC
The Raptor code is a fountain code where as many encoding symbols as
needed can be generated by the encoder on-the-fly from source data.
Due to the fountain property of the Raptor code, multiple enhancement
layers may also be specified, if needed.
The details of the Raptor code are provided in [RFC6681]. The FEC
scheme for the enhancement layer SHALL be the Raptor FEC scheme for a
Single Sequenced Flow with FEC encoding ID 5. The RTP payload format
for Raptor FEC is specified in [RFC6682].
It is important to note that the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol in the
latest specification [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1] allows both UDP-only and
RTP-over-UDP encapsulations for the enhancement-layer FEC stream.
The initial specification [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] exclusively permits
UDP-only encapsulation for the enhancement-layer FEC stream.
When SDP is used for signaling, the transport protocol identifier
indicates whether an RTP-over-UDP or UDP-only encapsulation is used.
In case of any other signaling framework, the differentiation of the
protocol for the enhancement-layer stream is achieved either
explicitly through a protocol identifier or implicitly by the version
number of the DVB IPTV Handbook. If none of the above signaling is
provided, the receiver shall concur from the packet size of the
repair packets if RTP-over-UDP or UDP-only encapsulation is used.
2.3. Hybrid Decoding Procedures
The receivers that support receiving and decoding both the base- and
enhancement-layer FEC perform hybrid decoding to improve the repair
performance. The following steps may be followed to perform hybrid
decoding:
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
1. Base-layer (Parity) Decoding: In this step, the repair packets
that are encoded by the parity encoder are processed as usual to
repair as many missing source packets as possible.
2. Enhancement-layer (Raptor) Decoding: If there are still missing
source packets after the first step, the repair packets that are
Raptor encoded are processed with the source packets already
received and the source packets that are recovered in the first
step.
3. Hybrid Decoding: If there are still missing source packets after
the second step, the unprocessed base-layer (parity) repair
packets are converted to a form in which they can be added to the
Raptor decoding process. With this additional information,
Raptor decoding may potentially recover any remaining missing
source packet.
The procedure that should be followed to benefit from the base-layer
repair packets in the Raptor decoding process is explained in detail
in Annex E.5.2 of [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1].
3. Session Description Protocol (SDP) Signaling
This section provides an SDP [RFC4566] example for
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]. The example uses the FEC grouping semantics
[RFC5956].
In the example, we have one source video stream (mid:S1), one FEC
repair stream (mid:R1) that is produced by the 1-D interleaved parity
FEC code, as well as another FEC repair stream (mid:R2) that is
produced by the Raptor FEC code. We form one FEC group with the
"a=group:FEC-FR S1 R1 R2" line. The source and repair streams are
sent to the same port on different multicast groups. The source,
base-layer FEC, and enhancement-layer FEC streams are all
encapsulated in RTP.
Due to the exceptions described in Section 2.1, a
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]-compliant implementation must not use the RTP
payload format defined in [RFC6015]. Instead, it may use the payload
format that has been registered by DVB TM-IPI for
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1].
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Example
t=0 0
a=group:FEC-FR S1 R1 R2
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
a=mid:S1
m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 96
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/127
a=rtpmap:96 vnd.dvb.iptv.alfec-base/90000
a=mid:R1
m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 111
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.3/127
a=rtpmap:111 vnd.dvb.iptv.alfec-enhancement/90000
a=mid:R2
Note that in the example above, the payload type has been chosen as
96 for the base-layer FEC stream and there is no "a=fmtp:" line to
specify the format parameters. Due to the lack of the format
parameters for "vnd.dvb.iptv.alfec-base", it is not possible to learn
the FEC parameters from the SDP description.
4. Security Considerations
This specification adds no new security considerations to the DVB-
IPTV AL-FEC protocol.
5. Acknowledgments
This document is based on [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] and
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]. Thus, the authors would like to thank the
editors of [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] and [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]. The
authors also would like to thank those who reviewed earlier versions
of this document.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1]
ETSI TS 102 034 V1.3.1, "Transport of MPEG 2 TS Based DVB
Services over IP Based Networks", October 2007.
[ETSI-TS-102-034v1.4.1]
ETSI TS 102 034 V1.4.1, "Transport of MPEG 2 TS Based DVB
Services over IP Based Networks", August 2009.
[RFC6015] Begen, A., "RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity
Forward Error Correction (FEC)", RFC 6015, October 2010.
[RFC6681] Watson, M., Stockhammer, T., and M. Luby, "Raptor FEC
Schemes for FECFRAME", RFC RFC6681, August 2012.
[RFC6682] Watson, M., Stockhammer, T., and M. Luby, "RTP Payload
Format for Raptor Forward Error Correction (FEC)",
RFC 6682, August 2012.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5956] Begen, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
the Session Description Protocol", RFC 5956,
September 2010.
6.2. Informative References
[DVB-A115]
"DVB Application Layer FEC Evaluations (DVB Document
A115)", May 2007, <http://www.dvb.org/technology/
standards/a115.tm3783.AL-FEC_Evaluation.pdf>.
[SMPTE2022-1]
SMPTE 2022-1-2007, "Forward Error Correction for Real-Time
Video/Audio Transport over IP Networks", 2007.
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6683 Guidelines for DVB AL-FEC Protocol August 2012
Authors' Addresses
Ali Begen
Cisco
181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
Canada
EMail: abegen@cisco.com
Thomas Stockhammer
Nomor Research
Brecherspitzstrasse 8
Munich, 81541
Germany
EMail: stockhammer@nomor.de
Begen & Stockhammer Informational [Page 11]