X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (lvmr): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1998.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....In unirate multicast, the sender transmits data at a rate requested by the slowest receiver in the multicast group. In this paper we concern ourselves with multirate multicast. In multirate multicast, a receiver can adapt its rate based on the congestion level solely on the path. Layered video [13] multicast is one such application. We address the issue of congestion control in networks where resources are shared by unicast and multirate multicast sessions. In networks with only unicast sessions, the total flow rate through a link is the sum of the rate of the unicast sessions. However, if ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, New York, NY, June 1998.

....under IP multicast. As a result, there is no explicit basis to determine how receivers should be organized into repair trees or groups [91] Consequently, complex and inac 87 curate methods have been used to infer the network topology [44, 150] Alternatively, manual building of repair trees [97, 78] and manual configuration of networks [67] have been proposed, with the drawback of requiring a priori knowledge of the set of receivers, the network topology, and requiring administrative privileges to all participating networks. Due to high cost and complexity, multicast retransmissions are ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVRM): Evaluation of error control scheme. In Proc. IEEE NOSSDAV '97, pp. 161--72, New York, NY., May 1997.

.... bit stream that allows decoding at multiple rates [134, 85, 68, 129] Under layered multicast, di#erent layers of a scalable video are carried in di#erent multicast groups so that receivers can individually subscribe or unsubscribe to the appropriate multicast groups to achieve rate control [84, 114, 135, 140, 139, 76]. Thus, the more layers to which a receiver subscribes, the higher the quality of the received video. Generally, producing an embedded bit stream for scalable compression results in lower compression e#ciency than its non scalable counterpart at the same bit rates [27] Nevertheless, layered ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In Proc. IEEE Infocom '98, volume 3, pp. 1062--72, San Francisco, CA., March 1998.

....learning have become of great interest. They require large network bandwidth for real time multicast, and efficient adjustment of network operation is inevitable for supporting heterogeneous receivers. The layered multicast approach such as RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 1] LVMR [2], and RMLP [3] has been widely recognized as an efficient mechanism to handle receiver heterogeneity. In the layered multicast, a sender encodes video streams into several cumulatively separated layers with layer encoding scheme, and multicasts them with different multicast group address. Then, a ....

....these problems, two approaches are proposed: the priority dropping scheme to guarantee delivering more prioritized layer, and the agent based network state sharing scheme to prevent conducting the joinexperiment of high probability of congestion beforehand. The agent based state management scheme [2] resolves the stability and scalability problem of RLM. An elected agent maintains information about the result of join experiments of receivers in its local network or its children. With this information, the agent can infer the local network state and possible result of a join experiment ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

X. Li, M. Ammar and S. Paul, Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. Proc. IEEE Infocom, March 1998.

....instead of initiating their own. Currently, extra capacity is only estimated in RLM. The low level network feedback can aid the receivers in measuring precisely the available capacity. Hence, this scheme will benefit if network layer feedback is used. Layered video multicast with retransmission [17] is another method which uses layered video. The issue of inter session fairness and scalable feedback control of layered video is discussed in [18] 4 3.3 Rate Shaping Rate shaping techniques are reactive and attempt to adjust the rate of traffic generated by the video encoder according to the ....

X.Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M.H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery. In Proc. NOSSDAV'97, May 1997.

....organized into an acknowledgment tree structure with the source as the root. This structure is scalable because the acknowledgments are aggregated along the tree in a bottom up fashion and also allows local recovery and repair of data losses. Protocols like RMTP [18] TMTP [23] STORM [20] LVMR [14] and Lorax [13] construct this structure using TTL scoped network layer multicast as a primitive. In contrast, LMS [17] uses an additional mechanism, called directed subcast, to construct its data recovery structure. Our work differs from of all these above approaches in two key aspects. First, ....

.... NAKs High (for high High with global scope network losses) STORM [20] Lorax [13] Network multicast Reactive NAKs Low Moderate on ack tree LMS [17] Network multicast Reactive NAKs Low Moderate and directed subcast on ack tree RMTP [18] Network multicast Reactive periodic Low Moderate LVMR [14] ACKs with local scope TMTP [23] Network multicast Reactive NAKs and Low Moderate periodic ACKs with local scope Parity based [16] Network multicast Reactive NAKs and Moderate Moderate (APES [21] and directed subcast) FEC based repairs FEC based Network multicast Proactive FECs High Low ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM): Evaluation of error recovery schemes. In Proc. NOSSDAV, 1997.

....a client is unable to reconstruct the portion of the object that is needed to begin playing the media until after receiving most or all of the data needed to reconstruct the entire object. Furthermore, other recent approaches for reliable live or scheduled broadcast delivery of streaming media [35, 13, 7, 21, 36, 23, 4, 20, 32, 9] do not address the problem of providing scalable on demand delivery. Recently proposed protocols for scalable on demand media streaming, such as periodic broadcast protocols [34, 1, 17, 19, 14, 24, 16] patching [8, 18, 6, 15, 30] and bandwidth skimming [12] do not address the issue of ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar, \Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes", Proc. NOSSDAV '97, St. Louis, MO, May 1997.

....stored video. In this paper we focus on the remaining two techniques, i.e. dding dropping layers and switching versions . Adding dropping layers has been proposed by many researchers as an effective scheme that provides both rate adaptation and error resilience in video communications [5, 3, 1, 9]. In the adding dropping layers scheme, the video stream is partitioned into several layers. It is composed of a base layer, which contains the most essential information for the reconstruction of the video, and results in low but generally acceptable quality, and one or several enhancement layers ....

X. et al. Li. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes. In G. Parulkar, editor, NO$$DAV '97. Springer, Berlin, May 1997.

....gateway transcodes an input video stream encoded using some scheme into a video stream encoded using another scheme with lower bandwidth, and forwards this stream down to the congested link which is a part of a multicast tree. More efficient approach is layered multicast with layered source coding[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. In layered multicast, a sender of a session encodes an original stream into a base layer and several enhancement layers. A base layer has the highest priority and higher enhancement layer has lower priority. Then, a sender transmits each layer on a separate IP multicast group. Receivers join ....

....rate control must assure fair bandwidth allocation among competitive sessions at a congested link. Note that fairness in this paper is defined as max min fairness for layered multicast[6, 11] In general, rate control for layered multicast is classified into two classes; receiver driven scheme[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] and network supported scheme[10] In receiver driven rate control, each receiver makes decisions to add or drop an enhancement layer. On the other hand, in network supported rate control, some of internal nodes such as routers or switches adopt priority dropping mechanism which drops lower ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proc. oflEEE INFOCOM'98, Mar. 1998.

....QoS by a single parameter is not adequate because of the heterogeneous nature of the receivers. We argue that a multi criteria approach should be used in the case of multicast distribution of multi layered applications [5] A number of works have already dealt with QoS issues in such architectures [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The receiver driven layered multicast (RLM) 11] is a rate adaptive protocol for the distribution of layered video using multiple IPmulticast groups where the receivers subscribe to the number of layers they want. Nevertheless, they are limited to the layers the source decides to transmit. The ....

....is a rate adaptive protocol for the distribution of layered video using multiple IPmulticast groups where the receivers subscribe to the number of layers they want. Nevertheless, they are limited to the layers the source decides to transmit. The Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVRM) [12] has been proposed for the distribution of layered video over the Internet. LVRM deploys an error recovery scheme using retransmissions to adapt to network congestion and to heterogeneity using a hierarchical rate control mecha This work has been supported by CAPES, COFECUB, UFRJ, UVSQ, UPS, ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar, \Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control," in IEEE Infocom, (San Francisco, CA, USA), Mar. 1998.

....As a consequence, new approaches such as adaptive applications [1] QoS routing [2] 3] and Di erentiated Services [4] 5] are currently being developed. In the case of adaptive applications, di erent schemes are emerging to improve quality and fairness of multi layered video applications [6] [7], 8] 9] 10] 11] 12] 13] 14] In the context of unicast, as an example, Rejaie et al. 8] 9] propose an adaptation scheme in which the perceived video quality at the receiver is more stable even in the presence of uctuations in the available network bandwidth. In this scheme, the ....

....video transmission. In RLM, each video layer is sent out on a di erent multicast group. Based on congestion control information, receivers can subscribe to a number of layers that can be supported by their individual path from the source. The Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR) [7] employs a hierarchical rate control to manage the adding and dropping of video layers by receivers. Furthermore, LVMR deploys an error recovery mechanism using retransmissions to adapt to network congestion. Despite the quality adaptation being provided by the schemes cited above, receivers are ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar, \Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control," in IEEE INFOCOM'98, (San Francisco, CA), pp. 1062-1072, Apr. 1998.

....data at different rates. This is accomplished by layering data among several multicast groups and allowing each receiver to determine the subset of layers (i.e. multicast groups) it joins. Protocols have used a layered approach to support multicast applications ranging from live multimedia [1] [10], 11] 13] to reliable data transfer [4] 16] 24] These protocols have the appealing property that the transmission rate to each receiver is constrained only by the bandwidth availability on the receiver s own data path from the data source, and is not limited by other receivers rate ....

....has never been studied directly. We show that increased link overuse leads to a decrease in the level of max min fairness, to a decrease in the number of fairness properties that hold for the max min fair allocation, and, usually, to a decrease in receivers fair rates. We study how the ideas in [10], 13] 24] that coordinate joins of receivers within a session, significantly reduce the negative effects of link overuse. The study is performed via analytical modeling and simulation of max min fair congestion control protocols in which receivers join and leave layers based on congestion ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM'99, New York, NY, March 1999.

....a given deadline. There has also been recent interest in providing resilient multicast service for real time data, where retransmissions occur only if data can be delivered before the real time deadline. Two protocols that are designed to provide resilient multicast are STORM [XMZ97] and LVMR [LPA99] Both approaches form virtual trees with the source as the root and receivers as internal and leaf nodes. Recovery is implemented by sending all repair requests and retransmissions via unicast along this tree. Low latency repairs often can be performed provided that they do not need to traverse ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM'99, New York, NY, March 1999.

....Multicast sessions can all have the same rates or di erent rates. Due to the diverse characteristics and requirements of the di erent receivers within a multicast group, it is desirable to have multicast sessions in which di erent receivers receive data at di erent rates. Layered video (see [12]) multicast is one such application. There are multirate reception protocols proposed for the reception of layered video ( 14] These do not deal with the issue of a uni ed congestion control mechanism which is fair to all the unicast and the multicast sessions. In [2] the authors have ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR). Proceedings of IEEE Infocom'98, March 1998.

....services on an as needed basis. Active packets or capsules can carry programs to be executed at each node along their path, providing the basis of the network control. The RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 6] protocol pioneered the study of the layered video transmission. Many proposals [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] explore or attempt to improve the properties of RLM, but neither of them exploits the Internet interactivity nor capabilities provided by active networks. Moreover, these proposals share the following weaknesses. First, each video layer is sent out on a di erent multicast address. To o er more ....

....Transit Stubs Stubs Stub Intermediate node Fig. 5. Network topology used in simulations. The transit stub topology represented in Fig. 5 was used to evaluate the performance of the fusion mechanism. Link capacities are 10 Mbps. Each link delay was randomly chosen uniformly on the interval [1, 10] ms. The timeout interval of the fusion timer was set to 100 ms. The connection time of each receiver was randomly chosen uniformly on the interval [0, 10] s. Each simulation was run for 100 seconds. All simulation results have a con dence interval of 90 . 92 92.5 93 93.5 94 94.5 95 95.5 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar, \Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control," in IEEE INFOCOM'98, (San Francisco, CA), pp. 1062-1072, Apr. 1998.

....fairness by having the receivers subscribe to a fair number of layers. This idea have not been cultivated very systematically. The two well known network protocols for layered transmission, RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 7] and LVMR (Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions)[5] do not handle inter session fairness very well[6] A scheme for fair resource allocation for multi session layered video multicast has been proposed in [6] The authors present empirical evidence that the scheme improves inter session fairness for networks with multiple video sessions sharing ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998

....to the fair layer allocation problem. Likewise, utility can be any other function of bandwidth as well. We review related work in this area. Well known network protocols for layered transmission, RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 13] and LVMR (Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions)[10] do not handle fairness among sessions very well, when there are multiple ses Submitted to IEEE Transactions on Control Theory 5 sions competing for bandwidth[11] An alternative layer allocation scheme has been proposed in [11] There is empirical evidence that this scheme improves fairness ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998

....are characterized by the transmission of a fixed bandwidth video signal to homogeneous receivers. Aside from the signal tonoise ratio available at each receiver, all receivers experience the same video quality. On the other hand, video distribution over the Internet has distinct characteristics [1, 2, 3]. First, video information is packetized and packets are routed hop by hop from source to receivers. Second, the network bandwidth is dynamically shared by several concurrent applications. Finally, receivers differ in processing capacities and This work was supported by UFRJ, FUJB, CNPq, CAPES, ....

....of different priorities. The highest priority layer, called base layer, provides a basic level of quality. To refine incrementally this quality, enhancement layers with progressively lower priorities are encoded. A variety of proposals for multicasting layered video can be found in the literature [1, 4, 5]. It has recently been proposed a novel paradigm to network architectures, called active networks [6, 7, 8, 9, 10] An active network is an intelligent network that supports dynamic modification of its behavior as seen by users. Applications can perform customized computations into the network by ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. IEEE INFOCOM '98, San Francisco, California, pages 10621072, 1998.

....well as compression into multiple versions encoded at different bit rates are both well suited for stored video transmission. 113 Layered encoding has been proposed by several papers as an effective scheme that provides both rate adaptation and error resilience in stored video communication [29][26][4] A base layer is formed that contains information required for achieving the minimum required level of quality. One or multiple enhancement layers are created that provide additional information and enhance the quality of the decoded stream. To mitigate packet loss in the Internet and attain ....

X. et al. Li. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes. In G. Parulkar (Ed.), editor, NOSSDAV '97. Springer, Berlin, May 1997.

.... is used instead of single rate transmission and have presented a centralized algorithm for computing the maxmin fair rates[14] Well known network protocols for multirate multicast transmission, RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 13] and LVMR (Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions)[11] do not provide fairness among sessions[12] Li et al. proposes a scheme for fair resource allocation for multi session layered video multicast which strives to rectify this defect in RLM and LVMR[12] The authors present empirical evidence that the scheme improves fairness among sessions for ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, March ####

....that level may have to be excluded. To accommodate different users requirements, two types of approaches have been proposed: i) A multicast source may vary the transmission rate by using rate adaptive coding [58] or combining a layered compression algorithm with a layered transmission scheme [59, 7, 60, 61, 62]. In the latter approach, multimedia data are encoded into a number of layers that can be incrementally combined to provide progressive refinement. Lower layers encode coarse information while high layers encode details. The different layers of the data are striped across multicast groups and ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVMR): evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM'98, March 1998.

....is an extension of these latter methods. Still others use signal processing FEC for error control [36, 37, 38, 39, 40] for which rate distortion optimization is still a research topic [41] Some papers have investigated the problem of error control using retransmission based protocols, e.g. [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48]. However, with the exception of those works listed in the previous paragraph, to our knowledge, none are rate distortion optimized. Finally, a few papers suggest the use of multiple qualities of service (e.g. diffserv) to support more cost effective media transmission at a higher quality [49, ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. H. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVMR). In Proc. Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV), St. Louis, MO, May 1997.

....a parallel approach similar to Ammar s scheme [9, 25] except each band in the video stream is multicast on a different address. Thus, slow receivers tune into low frequency image bands, whereas receivers with a fast connection tune into all bands thereby receiving the highest quality image. Li [59, 60] presents the layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM) protocol which extends RLM with retransmission based error control and hierarchical rate control. 2.4. Distributed Multicast Transport Protocols 17 2.4 Distributed Multicast Transport Protocols The protocols discussed in Sections ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Panch, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Heirarchical Rate Control. In Proc. IEEE Infocom '98, San Francisco, Ca., March 1998.

....a parallel approach similar to Ammar s scheme [9, 25] except each band in the video stream is multicast on a different address. Thus, slow receivers tune into low frequency image bands, whereas receivers with a fast connection tune into all bands thereby receiving the highest quality image. Li [59, 60] presents the layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM) protocol which extends RLM with retransmission based error control and hierarchical rate control. 2.4. Distributed Multicast Transport Protocols 17 2.4 Distributed Multicast Transport Protocols The protocols discussed in Sections ....

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Panch, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes. In Seventh International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audiovisual (NOSSDAV '97), May 1997.

....to changes in the network s available bandwidth. If the background traffic is particularly bursty, the receivers may not be able to adapt appropriately, resulting in degraded utilization and video quality. Extensions and variants of RLM (namely, Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR) [20], and TCP like Congestion Control for Layered Data [29] have recently been proposed to ameliorate some of these weaknesses. Another potential solution to the multicast of video to receivers with heterogeneous bandwidth constraints although it is not sender driven or receiver driven is ....

Li X., Paul S., and Ammar M. (1998) Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. Proc. of IEEE Infocom.

....encoding real time signals. In this approach, a signal is encoded into a number of layers that can be incrementally combined to provide progressive refinement. Every layer is transmitted as a separate multicast group and receivers adapt to congestion by joining and leaving these groups. Refer to [11] and [12] for internet protocols for adding and dropping layers. This layered transmission scheme have been used for both audio [4] and video[19] transmissions over the internet and has potentials for use in ATM networks as well [8] Note that in multirate multicast transmission, there is no ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, March 1998

....Layered Multicast [MJV96] Optional Readings: 1. Feedback Control Mechanisms for Real Time Multipoint Video Services [VLS97] 2. TCP like Congestion Control for Layered Multicast Data Transfer [VC98] 3. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions: Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control [LPA98] 5 Week 11: November 17, 1998 Topic: Active Networks Assigned Readings: 1. A Survey of Active Network Research [TSS 97] 2. Introducing New Internet Services: Why and How [DWG98] 3. An Active Service Framework and its Application to Real time Multimedia Transcoding [AMK98] Optional ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. Proc. of IEEE Infocom, pages 1062--1072, April 1998.

.... in presence of layered transmission (transcoding) provisions have not been cultivated very systematically, until recently[24] There are two well known network protocols for layered transmission, RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 22] and LVMR (Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions)[17]. The goal of these approaches is to achieve improved fairness among members of the same session. However, as [18] points out, neither handles fairness among members of different sessions very well, when there are multiple sessions competing for bandwidth. A scheme for fair allocation of layers ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998

....rate of transmission per session on account of network heterogenity. 9] advocates simulcast, but that is bandwidth ine#cient. There are two well known network protocols for layered transmission, RLM (Receiver driven Layered Multicast) 24] and LVMR (Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions)[19]. The goal of these approaches is to achieve improved intra session fairness. However, as [20] points out, neither handles inter session fairness very well, when there are multiple sessions competing for bandwidth. A scheme for fair allocation of layers for multi session layered video multicast ....

X. Li, S. Paul and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical rate control, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom' 98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (lvmr): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1998.

....same group must be loosely synchronized, i.e. they must perceive approximately the same progress of the multimedia session even at the expense of losing low priority packets. In related work, a layered multicast approach has been proposed for multicasting prioritized data streams [1] 2] 3] [4]. Essentially, the approach is to decompose the multiresolution data stream into component single resolution streams, establish a distinct multicast group for each component stream using standard IP multicast, and let each receiver decide which multicast groups it wants to join based on the ....

....rate on the tunnel. 3. PERFORMANCE RESULTS We have tested the performance of MHPF using ns simulator. In this section, we summarize the major ndings from the performance comparison of MHPF with RLM (receiverdriven layered multicast) 1] Performance comparison with the later enhancements to RLM [2, 3, 4] is an on going work. Let us consider a network topology shown in Figure 4. The one way link latency was set to 10 msec for all the links, and the operation parameters of RLM were adopted from [1] We used 2.2 Mbps synthetic data ow with three priority levels with the ratio of high:medium:low at ....

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. IEEE INFOCOM, March 1998.

....long as there are other members within a certain administrative region. The monitor will then configure its join leave thresholds to result in a forced leave once there are no group members within the region it is monitoring. Layer Addition in Layered Video Multicast: With layered video multicast [13, 12] video is transmitted from a source to a set of heterogeneous receivers over multiple multicast streams. Each stream is sent to a different multicast address. One stream carries a must receive base video layer and others carry one enhancement layer each. Receivers join the group on which the base ....

X. Li, M. Ammar, S. Paul, and P. Pancha. Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVRM): Evaluation of error recovery schemes. In Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video, pages 171--182, May 1997.

No context found.

X. Li et al. Layered video multicast with retransmission (lvrm): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In INFOCOM'97, 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M.H. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (lvrm): Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In INFOCOM'97, 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, "Layered video multicast with retransmission (MVLR): evaluation of hierarchical rate controlt't', IEEE Infocom, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, \Layered video multicast with retransmission (MVLR): evaluation of hierarchical rate control, IEEE Infocom, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV), 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pages 1062--1072, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, "Layered video multicast with retransmission (MVLR): evaluation of hierarchical rate controlt't', IEEE Infocom, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV), 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, pages 1062--1072, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul and M. Ammar, "Layered video multicast with retransmission (MVLR): evaluation of hierarchical rate controlt't', IEEE Infocom, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM): Evaluation of error recovery schemes. In Proc. NOSSDAV, 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM): Evaluation of error recovery schemes. In Proc. NOSSDAV, 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, and M. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmissions (LVRM): Evaluation of error recovery schemes. In Proc. NOSSDAV, 1997.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. H. Ammar. Layered video multicast with retransmission (LVMR):Evaluation of hierarchical rate control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, CA, 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Ammar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proceedings of INFOCOM'98, San Francisco, CA, March 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Aremar. Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control. In Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM'98, Mar. 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, and M. Aremar, Layered Video Multicast with Retransmissions (LVMR): Evaluation of Hierarchical Rate Control, Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM'98, Mar. 1998.

No context found.

X. Li, S. Paul, P. Pancha, M. Ammar, Layered Video Multicast with Retransmission (LVMR): Evaluation of Error Recovery Schemes, Proceedings of NOSSDAV' 97, St. Louis. MO, May

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC