iShare Media Sharing Platform

1
iShare Media Sharing Platform
Dr. James Z. Lei lei_at_astri.org (O) 3406-2748
ASTRI Enterprise Consumer Electronics Group
2
Talk Outline

• Market Opportunities
• Problems and Challenges
• Solutions and Technologies
• Interesting short-term projects

3
Disruptive Technology Makes History
Broadcasting
Storage Compression
Networking Advanced Codec
P2P Network Broadband
PVR/DVR
HMC
iShare
Broadcast TV
Time-Shift Viewing
Theater
Place-Shift Viewing
Peer-to-peer Internet TV
Choice of place Choice of time Choice of show Any
Network
Choice of place Choice of time Choice of show
Fixed place - theater Fixed time Fixed show
Fixed place - home Fixed time Choice of show
Fixed place - home Choice of time Choice of show
TiVo
Sling
TV
TV 2.0
4
Digital Video Distribution Value Chain
Content Provider
Distribution
CE Devices
Consumers
User Generated Content
5
Internet Video Distribution Market

• 1.65B infrastructure investment since 2002 to
  deliver streaming media (exclude storage, hosting
  and applications) AccuStream, 2006
• Commercial CDN market (backhaul, retail
  contracts) estimated at 635 million for 2006
• CDN servers in deployment rose 50, streaming
  media servers by 74 in 2006
• Streaming bandwidth services market grow at 33
  rate in 2007
• Large investment required in distribution
  infrastructure
• Video data huge and real-time nature in streaming
  (video quality)
• Average cost to deliver a DVD movie is 0.75, or
  37.6 of net revenue (after licensing fees, and
  before operating expenses) HD DVD can be 16x of
  that
• Bandwidth billing 60 - 80 of the total costs on
  delivering streaming content (among storage,
  global edge delivery, DRM wrappers, VIP tech
  support, encoding and backend integration
  services)
• Opportunities and challenges
• How to alleviate bandwidth drain and support more
  video streaming?
• How to utilize existing infrastructure for more
  video?
• In addition to serve its own purpose, each CE
  node added to the network improves overall system
  performance, instead of drain more resource

6
Challenges for Bringing TV Experience to Internet
Platform

• Commercially viable platform - stability,
  usability, applicability, cost deployment
  feasibility
• Internet best effort unstructured / bandwidth
  unpredictable to deliver QoS service
• Connectivity complexity hinges utilizing Internet
  as a means for broadcasting to the mass e.g.,
  various broadband connection, firewalls, proxies,
  home Wi-Fi routers etc.
• Dynamic delivery condition some peers may have
  higher connection whereas others have less need
  efficient and flexible codec together with
  innovative P2P streaming technologies
• Content related - protection and security,
  content coordination (under new P2P environment),
  multi-streaming (to support ads etc.)
• Key challenges under P2P network environment
• Deliver quality video
• TV-like experience for stable delivery wait
  time, channel switch, content surf, VoD etc.
• Realize efficient streaming for broadcasting
  content to the mass
• Serve very broad and diversified audience
• Support versatile devices (PC, TV, mobile, CE
  devices)
• Easy content creation and delivery

iShare overcome these challenges and realize
Internet based mass media vision
7
iShare - Distributed, Coordinated, Embedded P2P

• Embedded P2P versus PC platform (cost, stability,
  protection, virus, performance, power, .)
• Tight control over embedded device
• Resilience to malicious user circumventing
  digital right protection
• Anti-tampering mechanism
• Disable installation of unauthorized or modified
  software
• Streaming quality over PC based P2P solution
• Reduce Free Rider who just receive content
  without contributing CPU/bandwidth
• Coordination between source peers
• Adaptation of RPs into optimal SP peer group
• Automatic video quality adjustment (codec level)
• Backbone peer nodes provide QoS and content
  security
• Enhance stability and reduce latency
• Both real time broadcast and VoD
• Video quality supported from CIF to SD, and even
  HD content

8
ASTRI HMC PlatformPowerful CE Platform for
Generating Streaming Media One-on-one
Remote PVR
Streaming over Internet Deal with bandwidth
variation
H.264/AAC based codec Key for real-time IP
video app. Break the 300K quality barrier
Internet /Intranet
TV Anywhere
Living Room
ADSL Modem
Remote House
Other Rooms
Versatile Client Devices
Wi-Fi
HMC
HMC
Internet /Intranet
USB
TV Tuner
A/V
RF
IR
Bluetooth
Real-time Streaming Sharing
DVD/Cam
iPod/PSP
Versatile client support Extensible hardware
peripherals
Getting video in/out of Home As easy as a few
clicks
Personal Media Store
9
Application Setup
10
iShare Overview Architecture
Client
Source
iShare
Home Network
HMC
Broadband Network
HMC
HMC
Laptop
HMC
WiFi Network
PC
Portable Devices
Other CE for streaming
Internet
3G/GPRS Network
TV on Mobile
PDA
11
Demo Setup
HMC SP1
HMC SP2
Network
Wi-Fi
PDA
HMC RP1
HMC RP2
PC RP1
PC RP2
SP Source Provider RP Receive Peer
12
Distributed, Coordinated, Embedded iShare Platform

• Video distribution on a large scale
• - Embedded P2P
• Fast, flexible, and stable networking
• coordinated, fail over, scalable platform

Data goes thru home environment -TCP
NAT/Firewall Traversal -UPnP Library -iDNS server
Distributed, Coordinated, Embedded iShare
Platform

• Delivery client / Reception Tech.
• Player technology web widget
• multi-streaming
• low-cost hardware module

• TV-quality media over Internet
• source-channel joint optimization underP2P
• smooth quality/resolution/bandwidth shift
• TV experience (channel switch, wait time)

13
Fast Stable Connection Failover Recovery

• When 1st time connect to iShare
• How to quickly reach stable channel (like
  power-on TV)
• How to choose which peer group to join to
  optimize (bw, group performance, stability etc.)
• During streaming, recover from failing SP
• Reduce delay from recovery

CDCS

Tune to Channel 1
Tune to Channel N
X
Tune to Channel 2
Standby nodes pool
X

bandwidth

X

• P2P TV streaming with anchor HMC nodes
• Multiple HMCs streaming the same source content
• Content resides on different nodes, and
  coordinated

Channel 1 peer group
Channel N peer group
Channel 2 peer group
bandwidth
14
Content Directory/Collaboration Server

• Operation
• High performance
• Highly scalable
• Administration
• Easy web GUI configuration, simple interface
• Remote monitor the performance using web browser
• Management
• Content (TV channels and media files)
• Source provider
• Receiving peer
• User
• Friend group

Manager Daemon
Database
Source Info.
Peer Info.
Media info.
15
Content Discovery and Share Friends/Family
Network Built over eP2P HMC
iDNS Server by same or diff. vendor/SP
Public Network
Content Directory and Collaboration Server
2. Lookup Content
1. Publish Content
Content Directory Collaboration Server
ROUTER
ROUTER
HMC
HMCPlayer
3. Make connection
4. Share Content

• iDNS server and CDCS server owners
• Content discovery, register, and sharing
• Content resides on different nodes, and
  coordinated
• Resource contribution (storage, uplink, and
  streaming computation)

5. Lookup Content
6. Make connection
6. Make connection
7. Share Content
7. Share Content
ROUTER
HMCPlayer
16
Potential Short Term Projects (I)

• Multi-player module
• System Integration of 3rd party P2P client (e.g.
  bit-torrent)
• Application Multiple playing/downloading window
  interface
• Application DirectShow adaptor for player/GUI
• Analysis performance monitoring/analysis for
  multi-player P2P setting

17
Potential Short Term Projects (II)

• P2P streaming application
• Chat client integration
• File/image sharing /network
• CDCS server side
• CDCS server portal
• CDCS server optimization
• Server load and statistics

18
Potential Longer Term Projects

• NAT traversal related techniques
• P2P streaming performance enhancement
• Dynamic tree/mesh modeling and analysis
• Peer discovery/update protocol
• Performance analysis
• System stability/scalability related study

19
NAT Traversal Problem
Problem Devices attached to the Internet via NAT
boxes can make outbound connections to non-NATed
devices, but typically cannot receive inbound
connections.

• Approaches
• One peer NATed
• Non-NATed peer establish connection (e.g. Kazaa,
  LimeWire, ICE)
• Both peers NATed
• UPnP Manual Port Mapping (e.g. BitTorrent,
  ASTRI HMC)
• Relay (e.g. Groove, ICE)
• Push Proxy (Route TCP through non-NATed
  computers) (e.g. Skype)
• TCP over UDP (e.g. Newrong)
• TCP Hole Punching

20
TCP NAT Traversal Issues

• OS
• Simultaneous TCP open Implementation
• System Privilege
• NAT behaviors
• TCP Seq Change
• Hairpin Behavior
• Blindly Payloads Modification
• Cone NAT and Symmetric NAT
• Port Prediction (random vs. predictable)
• Race Condition
• Internet Service Providers
• perform ingress filtering to prevent spoofed
  packets from entering their networks

(Quoted from Characterization and Measurement of
TCP Traversal through NATs and Firewalls)
21
TCP NAT Traversal Success Rate
(Quoted from Characterization and Measurement of
TCP Traversal through NATs and Firewalls)
22
Thank you