Cross Layer Design 1

CROSS LAYER DESIGN
CMPT 820: Multimedia Systems

Kaushik Choudhary
Outline
• Problem Definition
• Motivation for Optimal Strategy
• Categorization of Cross Layer Solutions
• MAC Layer Retransmission Limit Adaptation
• Joint Application-MAC Cross Layer
Optimization
• Impact of Cross Layer Strategies
• Conclusion
Problem Definition
• Define problem as an optimization to select a

joint strategy across multiple OSI layers (PHY,
MAC and APP)
• One-hop wireless network where network and

transport layers play less important roles.
Problem Definition
Autonomous Wireless Stations (WSTAs) = M,
Available wireless resources = R ∈ R+,
Channel condition experienced by WSTA i = SNRi,
Video source characteristics = ξi,
Current state information (private information) of WSTA
i = xi = (SNRi, ξi)
Resource allocation = T(R) = [t1,……,tM] ∈ R+M
Time allocation by resource coordinator to WSTA i = ti
(0 <= ti <= tSI) (PCF or other contention)
Problem Definition
• Given the above constraints, the cross layer

design problem may be formulated as an
optimization with objectives like maximizing
goodput or minimizing consumed power etc.
• If si is the cross layer strategy available to WSTA i

from a set Si then given xi and ti, si will result in a
utility ui(ti,si,xi)
Problem Definition
• The optimal cross layer strategy can be found
by maximizing the video quality in terms of
perceived quality or PSNR
• Mathematically,
siopt = arg max ui(ti,si,xi)
s ∈ S
i i
such that Delay(ti,si,xi) <= Delayimax

Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
Motivation for Optimal Strategy
• The above functions ui(ti,si,xi) and Delay(ti,si,xi) are

non-deterministic, non-linear, complex and multi-
variate optimization.
• The strategies to solve them must take into account

different practical considerations like buffer sizes,
modulation schemes etc. and should be procedurally
grouped and ordered for cross layer optimization.
Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
Categorization of Cross Layer Solutions
• Possible solutions based on the order in which

cross layer optimization is performed:
– Top-down approach
– Bottom-up approach
– Application-centric approach
– MAC-centric approach
– Integrated approach
Top-down approach
• Higher layer protocols optimize their
parameters and strategies at the next lower
layer.
• Very widely used for example in systems

where APP dictates MAC parameters and MAC
selects optimal PHY parameters.
Bottom-up approach
• Lower layers try to insulate higher layers from
losses and bandwidth variations.
• Not optimal due to incurred delays and

throughput reductions.
Application-centric approach
• APP layer optimizes parameters of lower
layers one at a time in either top-down or
bottom-up manner.
• Not optimal since APP layer operates on

slower timescales and coarser data
granularities.
MAC-centric approach
• MAC layer decides which APP layer packets

should be transmitted with which delay along
with selecting PHY layer parameters.
• MAC layer is unable to perform adaptive

source channel coding
Integrated approach
• Strategies are determined jointly across
various protocols.
• Complex and introduces delays.

Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
MAC Layer Retransmission Limit Adaptation
• To maximize video quality, minimize the MAC

packet loss rate (PLR).
• MAC packet losses occur due to:
– Link erasures
– Buffer overflows
• Define a strategy to optimally select
retransmission limit R that minimizes the
overall MAC packet loss.
•
Packet loss probability = P,
• Buffer overflow rate = pB,
• Link packet erasure rate = pL = PR+1 ,
• Service rate of link = C,
• Effective utilization factor of link ρ may be
defined as ρ(P) = λ/C(1−P)
• Overall loss rate = pT(R,P) = pB(R,P) + pL(R,P) =
+ PR+1 (1)
•
• Treating R as a continuous variable and

differentiating (1) with respect to R we get,
R = logP (1 – ) – 1 (2)
Fig 1: MAC PLR under fixed- and RTRO-based retransmission strategies.

• From Fig 1 we note that the optimal R is

located at the point where pB(R) = pL(R)
(intersection)
• Thus, optimal R = arg minR |pB(R) - pL(R)| (3)

• Li et. al. [2] performed empirical analysis using

M/G/1 queuing model and proposed real-time
retransmission limit optimization (RTRO)
algorithm:
1. The network queue and the MAC layer monitor
the overflow rate pB(R) and the packet error rate
pL(R).
2. If pB <pL, then R is increased; if pB >pL, then R
should be decreased
Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
Joint Application-MAC Cross Layer Optimization
• By associating different retransmission limits

to different priority packets the MAC-layer
RTRO optimization can be jointly optimized by
the APP layer.
Joint Application-MAC Cross Layer
Optimization
• Tolerable MAC packet loss rates of all video
layers = PV = [PV1 PV2 … PVN]
• Video quality = Q
• To maximize Q Unequal Error Protection (UEP)
must be provided.
• To provide UEP multiple priority queues are
maintained with a common absolute Priority-
Queuing (PQ) discipline.
Optimization
• Incoming
rate of packets into priority queue i
= ci
• Total available link capacity = C
• Perceived link capacity of queue j in the worst
case:
Cj = max{0,C - } (4)
• As long as cj < Cj , queue j will have few
overflow losses.
Optimization
• The above model can be further extended to

include a multiqueue system based on which a
systematic retry-limit configuration method
for MAC can be determined to optimize video
quality.
Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
Impact of Cross Layer Strategies
Deployed Strategies Visual Score
No optimization at MAC and application 1.4
MAC-layer optimization (RTRO) 1.9
Application layer optimization 3.8
Joint application-MAC cross-layer 4.6
optimization
Table 1: Subjective video quality experiment.
Very Annoying Slightly Perceptible Imperceptib

Annoying annoying but not le
annoying
1 2 3 4 5
Table 2: Decoding the visual scores in Table 1.

Outline
Optimization
• Conclusion
Conclusion
• Cross layer design can be modeled as a multivariate
optimization problem expressed in the form of
various strategies to maximize perceived quality and
improve user experience.
• Cross layer solutions can be categorized into various
approaches based on a layer dictating strategies and
parameters for other layers.
• MAC-layer optimization yields improved video quality.
• MAC-APP layer optimization performs even better.
References
1. P. A. Chou and M. van der Schaar.
“Multimedia over IP and Wireless Networks”,
Academic Press, ISBN 10: 0-12-088480-1, pp.
351-360, 2007.
2. Q. Li and M. van der Schaar. “Providing
Adaptive QoS to Layered Video over Wireless
Local Area Networks through Real-Time Retry
Limit Adaptation,” IEEE Trans. on Multimedia,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 278–290, April 2004.

Cross Layer Design 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cross Layer Design 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross Layer Design 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CROSS LAYER DESIGN

CMPT 820: Multimedia Systems

• Define problem as an optimization to select a

• One-hop wireless network where network and

• Given the above constraints, the cross layer

• If si is the cross layer strategy available to WSTA i

such that Delay(ti,si,xi) <= Delayimax

• The above functions ui(ti,si,xi) and Delay(ti,si,xi) are

• The strategies to solve them must take into account

• Possible solutions based on the order in which

• Very widely used for example in systems

• Not optimal due to incurred delays and

• Not optimal since APP layer operates on

• MAC layer decides which APP layer packets

• MAC layer is unable to perform adaptive

• Complex and introduces delays.

• To maximize video quality, minimize the MAC

• Treating R as a continuous variable and

Fig 1: MAC PLR under fixed- and RTRO-based retransmission strategies.

• From Fig 1 we note that the optimal R is

• Thus, optimal R = arg minR |pB(R) - pL(R)| (3)

• Li et. al. [2] performed empirical analysis using

• By associating different retransmission limits

• The above model can be further extended to

Table 1: Subjective video quality experiment.

Very Annoying Slightly Perceptible Imperceptib

Table 2: Decoding the visual scores in Table 1.

You might also like