Data diet pills: in-network video quality control system for traffic usage reduction

Traffic reduction for bandwidth-hungry video streaming services, such as YouTube, benefits not only subscribers struggling to avoid going over their contracted data limit, but also service providers when the number of people who use video streaming services increase. Because not all stakeholders who want to reduce traffic usage are willing to conduct cumbersome operations, e.g., manually setting lower resolution, we argue here that network operators should introduce a traffic pacer for providing traffic reduction services as an optional plan for subscribers. This paper proposes NetPacer, an in-network traffic pacing system for reducing traffic usage by degrading the video quality. NetPacer has two features. The first is relative pacing, which degrades the video quality relative to the initial quality by traffic shaping, thus enabling flexible quality control. The second is in-network timely video quality identification via encrypted traffic analysis by using machine learning. Through experiments, we demonstrate that NetPacer successfully reduces traffic by 30.8% by degrading the resolution by one level while keeping the QoE (i.e., Mean Opinion Score (MOS)) degradation below 0.268 points on average for 50 YouTube videos.

[1]  Neeraj Namdev,et al.  Recent Advancement in Machine Learning Based Internet Traffic Classification , 2015, KES.

[2]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Inferring Streaming Video Quality from Encrypted Traffic , 2019, Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst..

[3]  Lea Skorin-Kapov,et al.  In-Network QoE and KPI Monitoring of Mobile YouTube Traffic: Insights for Encrypted iOS Flows , 2018, 2018 14th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM).

[4]  Michael Seufert,et al.  Application-layer monitoring of QoE parameters for mobile YouTube video streaming in the field , 2016, 2016 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE).

[5]  Hua Wu,et al.  Towards QoE assessment of encrypted YouTube adaptive video streaming in mobile networks , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 24th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS).

[6]  Rémi Houdaille,et al.  Shaping HTTP adaptive streams for a better user experience , 2012, MMSys '12.

[7]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  Internet traffic classification demystified: myths, caveats, and the best practices , 2008, CoNEXT '08.

[8]  Grenville J. Armitage,et al.  A survey of techniques for internet traffic classification using machine learning , 2008, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[9]  Katherine Guo,et al.  Requet: real-time QoE detection for encrypted YouTube traffic , 2019, MMSys.

[10]  Nick McKeown,et al.  Neutral Net Neutrality , 2016, SIGCOMM.

[11]  Phuoc Tran-Gia,et al.  Poster: Understanding YouTube QoE in Cellular Networks with YoMoApp: A QoE Monitoring Tool for YouTube Mobile , 2015, MobiCom.

[12]  Pablo César,et al.  Modeling Stability and Bitrate of Network-Assisted HTTP Adaptive Streaming Players , 2015, 2015 27th International Teletraffic Congress.

[13]  Rittwik Jana,et al.  VideoNOC: assessing video QoE for network operators using passive measurements , 2018, MMSys.

[14]  Jorge Navarro-Ortiz,et al.  Characteristics of mobile youtube traffic , 2014, IEEE Wireless Communications.

[15]  Jorge Navarro-Ortiz,et al.  Analysis and modelling of YouTube traffic , 2012, Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol..

[16]  Phuoc Tran-Gia,et al.  YoMoApp: A tool for analyzing QoE of YouTube HTTP adaptive streaming in mobile networks , 2015, 2015 European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC).

[17]  Eric Rescorla,et al.  The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1 , 2006, RFC.

[18]  Alan Mislove,et al.  A large-scale analysis of deployed traffic differentiation practices , 2019, SIGCOMM.

[19]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  Net neutrality: the technical side of the debate: a white paper , 2007, CCRV.

[20]  Christoph Dietzel,et al.  The Lockdown Effect: Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Internet Traffic , 2020, Internet Measurement Conference.

[21]  Fan Yang,et al.  The QUIC Transport Protocol: Design and Internet-Scale Deployment , 2017, SIGCOMM.

[22]  Stefan Valentin,et al.  From click to playback: a dataset to study the response time of mobile YouTube , 2019, MMSys.

[23]  Yury A. Ushakov,et al.  WebRTC based Platform for Video Conferencing in An Educational Environment , 2019, 2019 IEEE 13th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT).

[24]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[25]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  A Survey on Bitrate Adaptation Schemes for Streaming Media Over HTTP , 2019, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[26]  Feng Li,et al.  Silhouette: Identifying YouTube Video Flows from Encrypted Traffic , 2018, NOSSDAV.

[27]  Stanley E. McHann Grid analytics: How much data do you really need? , 2013, 2013 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC).

[28]  Subhabrata Sen,et al.  CSI: inferring mobile ABR video adaptation behavior under HTTPS and QUIC , 2020, EuroSys.

[29]  Dario Rossi,et al.  KISS: Stochastic Packet Inspection Classifier for UDP Traffic , 2010, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[30]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Inferring Streaming Video Quality from Encrypted Traffic: Practical Models and Deployment Experience , 2019, SIGMETRICS Perform. Evaluation Rev..

[31]  Judith Kelner,et al.  A Survey on Internet Traffic Identification , 2009, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[32]  Guang Cheng,et al.  QoE Assessment of Encrypted YouTube Adaptive Streaming for Energy Saving in Smart Cities , 2018, IEEE Access.

[33]  Nick Sullivan,et al.  The Security Impact of HTTPS Interception , 2017, NDSS.

[34]  Jonathan Kua,et al.  A Survey of Rate Adaptation Techniques for Dynamic Adaptive Streaming Over HTTP , 2017, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[35]  Zubair Shafiq,et al.  Real-time Video Quality of Experience Monitoring for HTTPS and QUIC , 2018, IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications.