[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-sarker-rmcat-cellular-eval-test-cases) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Network Working Group                                          Z. Sarker
Internet-Draft                                              I. Johansson
Intended status: Informational                               Ericsson AB
Expires: August 30, 2020                                          X. Zhu
                                                                   J. Fu
                                                                  W. Tan
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              M. Ramalho
                                                           AcousticComms
                                                       February 27, 2020


  Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless
                                Networks
                   draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-09

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is a common transport choice
   for interactive multimedia communication applications.  The
   performance of these applications typically depends on a well-
   functioning congestion control algorithm.  To ensure a seamless and
   robust user experience, a well-designed RTP-based congestion control
   algorithm should work well across all access network types.  This
   document describes test cases for evaluating performances of
   candidate congestion control algorithms over cellular and Wi-Fi
   networks.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2020.







Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Cellular Network Specific Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Varying Network Load  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.1.  Network Connection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.2.  Simulation Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Bad Radio Coverage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.1.  Network connection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.2.  Simulation Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  Desired Evaluation Metrics for cellular test cases  . . .  10
   4.  Wi-Fi Networks Specific Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Bottleneck in Wired Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.1.  Network topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.2.  Test setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.1.3.  Typical test scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.1.4.  Expected behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Bottleneck in Wi-Fi Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.1.  Network topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.2.  Test setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.3.  Typical test scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.2.4.  Expected behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  Other Potential Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.3.1.  EDCA/WMM usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.3.2.  Effect of heterogeneous link rates  . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


1.  Introduction

   Wireless networks (both cellular and Wi-Fi [IEEE802.11]) are an
   integral and increasingly more significant part of the Internet.
   Typical application scenarios for interactive multimedia
   communication over wireless include from video conferencing calls in
   a bus or train as well as live media streaming at home.  It is well
   known that the characteristics and technical challenges for
   supporting multimedia services over wireless are very different from
   those of providing the same service over a wired network.  Although
   the basic test cases as defined in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] have
   covered many common effects of network impairments for evaluating
   RTP-based congestion control schemes, they remain to be tested over
   characteristics and dynamics unique to a given wireless environment.
   For example, in cellular networks, the base station maintains
   individual queues per radio bearer per user hence it leads to a
   different nature of interactions between traffic flows of different
   users.  This contrasts with the wired network setting where traffic
   flows from all users share the same queue.  Furthermore, user
   mobility patterns in a cellular network differ from those in a Wi-Fi
   network.  Therefore, it is important to evaluate the performance of
   proposed candidate RTP-based congestion control solutions over
   cellular mobile networks and over Wi-Fi networks respectively.

   The draft [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria] provides the guideline for
   evaluating candidate algorithms and recognizes the importance of
   testing over wireless access networks.  However, it does not describe
   any specific test cases for performance evaluation of candidate
   algorithms.  This document describes test cases specifically
   targeting cellular and Wi-Fi networks.

2.  Terminologies

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Cellular Network Specific Test Cases

   A cellular environment is more complicated than its wireline
   counterpart since it seeks to provide services in the context of
   variable available bandwidth, location dependencies and user
   mobilities at different speeds.  In a cellular network, the user may
   reach the cell edge which may lead to a significant amount of
   retransmissions to deliver the data from the base station to the
   destination and vice versa.  These radio links will often act as a



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   bottleneck for the rest of the network and will eventually lead to
   excessive delays or packet drops.  An efficient retransmission or
   link adaptation mechanism can reduce the packet loss probability but
   there will remain some packet losses and delay variations.  Moreover,
   with increased cell load or handover to a congested cell, congestion
   in the transport network will become even worse.  Besides, there
   exist certain characteristics that distinguish the cellular network
   from other wireless access networks such as Wi-Fi.  In a cellular
   network --

   o  The bottleneck is often a shared link with relatively few users.

      *  The cost per bit over the shared link varies over time and is
         different for different users.

      *  Leftover/unused resources can be consumed by other greedy
         users.

   o  Queues are always per radio bearer hence each user can have many
      such queues.

   o  Users can experience both Inter and Intra Radio Access Technology
      (RAT) handovers (see [HO-def-3GPP] for the definition of
      "handover").

   o  Handover between cells or change of serving cells (as described in
      [HO-LTE-3GPP] and [HO-UMTS-3GPP]) might cause user plane
      interruptions which can lead to bursts of packet losses, delay
      and/or jitter.  The exact behavior depends on the type of radio
      bearer.  Typically, the default best-effort bearers do not
      generate packet loss, instead, packets are queued up and
      transmitted once the handover is completed.

   o  The network part decides how much the user can transmit.

   o  The cellular network has variable link capacity per user.

      *  It can vary as fast as a period of milliseconds.

      *  It depends on many factors (such as distance, speed,
         interference, different flows).

      *  It uses complex and smart link adaptation which makes the link
         behavior ever more dynamic.

      *  The scheduling priority depends on the estimated throughput.





Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   o  Both Quality of Service (QoS) and non-QoS radio bearers can be
      used.

   Hence, a real-time communication application operating over a
   cellular network needs to cope with a shared bottleneck link and
   variable link capacity, events like handover, non-congestion related
   loss, abrupt changes in bandwidth (both short term and long term) due
   to handover, network load and bad radio coverage.  Even though 3GPP
   has defined QoS bearers [QoS-3GPP] to ensure high-quality user
   experience, it is still preferable for real-time applications to
   behave in an adaptive manner.

   Different mobile operators deploy their own cellular networks with
   their own set of network functionalities and policies.  Usually, a
   mobile operator network includes 2G, EDGE, 3G and 4G radio access
   technologies.  Looking at the specifications of such radio
   technologies it is evident that only the more recent radio
   technologies can support the high bandwidth requirements from real-
   time interactive video applications.  The future real-time
   interactive application will impose even greater demand on cellular
   network performance which makes 4G (and beyond) radio technologies
   more suitable for such genre of application.

   The key factors in defining test cases for cellular networks are:

   o  Shared and varying link capacity

   o  Mobility

   o  Handover

   However, these factors are typically highly correlated in a cellular
   network.  Therefore, instead of devising separate test cases for
   individual important events, we have divided the test case into two
   categories.  It should be noted that the goal of the following test
   cases is to evaluate the performance of candidate algorithms over the
   radio interface of the cellular network.  Hence it is assumed that
   the radio interface is the bottleneck link between the communicating
   peers and that the core network does not introduce any extra
   congestion along the path.  Consequently, this draft has kept as out
   of scope the combination of multiple access technologies involving
   both cellular and Wi-Fi users.  In this latter case the shared
   bottleneck is likely at the wired backhaul link.  These test cases
   further assume a typical real-time telephony scenario where one real-
   time session consists of one voice stream and one video stream.

   Even though it is possible to carry out tests over operational
   cellular networks (e.g., LTE/5G), and actually such tests are already



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   available today, these tests cannot in general be carried out in a
   deterministic fashion to ensure repeatability.  The main reason is
   that these networks are controlled by cellular operators and there
   exist various amounts of competing traffic in the same cell(s).  In
   practice, it is only in underground mines that one can carry out near
   deterministic testing.  Even there, it is not guaranteed either as
   workers in the mines may carry with them their personal mobile
   phones.  Furthermore, the underground mining setting may not reflect
   typical usage patterns in an urban setting.  We, therefore, recommend
   that a cellular network simulator is used for the test cases defined
   in this document, for example -- the LTE simulator in [NS-3].

3.1.  Varying Network Load

   The goal of this test is to evaluate the performance of the candidate
   congestion control algorithm under varying network load.  The network
   load variation is created by adding and removing network users a.k.a.
   User Equipments (UEs) during the simulation.  In this test case, each
   user/UE in the media session is an endpoint following RTP-based
   congestion control.  User arrivals follow a Poisson distribution
   proportional to the length of the call, to keep the number of users
   per cell fairly constant during the evaluation period.  At the
   beginning of the simulation, there should be enough time to warm-up
   the network.  This is to avoid running the evaluation in an empty
   network where network nodes are having empty buffers, low
   interference at the beginning of the simulation.  This network
   initialization period should be excluded from the evaluation period.

   This test case also includes user mobility and some competing
   traffic.  The latter includes both the same types of flows (with same
   adaptation algorithms) and different types of flows (with different
   services and congestion control schemes).  The investigated
   congestion control algorithms should show maximum possible network
   utilization and stability in terms of rate variations, lowest
   possible end to end frame latency, network latency and Packet Loss
   Rate (PLR) at different cell load level.

3.1.1.  Network Connection

   Each mobile user is connected to a fixed user.  The connection
   between the mobile user and fixed user consists of a cellular radio
   access, an Evolved Packet Core (EPC) and an Internet connection.  The
   mobile user is connected to the EPC using cellular radio access
   technology which is further connected to the Internet.  At the other
   end, the fixed user is connected to the Internet via wired connection
   with sufficiently high bandwidth, for instance, 10 Gbps, so that the
   system bottleneck is on the cellular radio access interface.  The
   wired connection to in this setup does not introduce any network



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   impairments to the test; it only adds 10 ms of one-way propagation
   delay.

   The path from the fixed user to the mobile users is defined as
   "Downlink" and the path from the mobile users to the fixed user is
   defined as "Uplink".  We assume that only uplink or downlink is
   congested for mobile users.  Hence, we recommend that the uplink and
   downlink simulations are run separately.


                             uplink
            ++)))        +-------------------------->
            ++-+      ((o))
            |  |       / \     +-------+     +------+    +---+
            +--+      /   \----+       +-----+      +----+   |
                     /     \   +-------+     +------+    +---+
             UE         BS        EPC        Internet    fixed
                         <--------------------------+
                                  downlink

                       Figure 1: Simulation Topology

3.1.2.  Simulation Setup

   The values enclosed within "[ ]" for the following simulation
   attributes follow the same notion as in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test].
   The desired simulation setup is as follows --

   1.  Radio environment:

       A.  Deployment and propagation model: 3GPP case 1 (see
           [HO-deploy-3GPP])

       B.  Antenna: Multiple-Input and Multiple-Output (MIMO), [2D, 3D]

       C.  Mobility: [3km/h, 30km/h]

       D.  Transmission bandwidth: 10Mhz

       E.  Number of cells: multi-cell deployment (3 Cells per Base
           Station (BS) * 7 BS) = 21 cells

       F.  Cell radius: 166.666 Meters

       G.  Scheduler: Proportional fair with no priority

       H.  Bearer: Default bearer for all traffic.




Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


       I.  Active Queue Management (AQM) settings: AQM [on,off]

   2.  End-to-end Round Trip Time (RTT): [40ms, 150ms]

   3.  User arrival model: Poisson arrival model

   4.  User intensity:

       *  Downlink user intensity: {0.7, 1.4, 2.1, 2.8, 3.5, 4.2, 4.9,
          5.6, 6.3, 7.0, 7.7, 8.4, 9,1, 9.8, 10.5}

       *  Uplink user intensity : {0.7, 1.4, 2.1, 2.8, 3.5, 4.2, 4.9,
          5.6, 6.3, 7.0}

   5.  Simulation duration: 91s

   6.  Evaluation period: 30s-60s

   7.  Media traffic:

       1.  Media type: Video

           a.  Media direction: [Uplink, Downlink]

           b.  Number of Media source per user: One (1)

           c.  Media duration per user: 30s

           d.  Media source: same as defined in Section 4.3 of
               [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]

       2.  Media Type: Audio

           a.  Media direction: Uplink and Downlink

           b.  Number of Media source per user: One (1)

           c.  Media duration per user: 30s

           d.  Media codec: Constant Bit Rate (CBR)

           e.  Media bitrate: 20 Kbps

           f.  Adaptation: off

   8.  Other traffic models:





Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


       *  Downlink simulation: Maximum of 4Mbps/cell (web browsing or
          FTP traffic following default TCP congestion control
          [RFC5681])

       *  Unlink simulation: Maximum of 2Mbps/cell (web browsing or FTP
          traffic following default TCP congestion control [RFC5681])

3.2.  Bad Radio Coverage

   The goal of this test is to evaluate the performance of candidate
   congestion control algorithm when users visit part of the network
   with bad radio coverage.  The scenario is created by using a larger
   cell radius than that in the previous test case.  In this test case,
   each user/UE in the media session is an RMCAT compliant endpoint.
   User arrivals follow a Poisson distribution proportional to the
   length of the call, to keep the number of users per cell fairly
   constant during the evaluation period.  At the beginning of the
   simulation, there should be enough amount of time to warm-up the
   network.  This is to avoid running the evaluation in an empty network
   where network nodes are having empty buffers, low interference at the
   beginning of the simulation.  This network initialization period
   should be excluded from the evaluation period.

   This test case also includes user mobility and some competing
   traffic.  The latter includes the same kind of flows (with same
   adaptation algorithms).  The investigated congestion control
   algorithms should result in maximum possible network utilization and
   stability in terms of rate variations, lowest possible end to end
   frame latency, network latency and Packet Loss Rate (PLR) at
   different cell load levels.

3.2.1.  Network connection

   Same as defined in Section 3.1.1

3.2.2.  Simulation Setup

   The desired simulation setup is the same as the Varying Network Load
   test case defined in Section 3.1 except the following changes:

   1.  Radio environment: Same as defined in Section 3.1.2 except the
       following:

       A.  Deployment and propagation model: 3GPP case 3 (see
           [HO-deploy-3GPP])

       B.  Cell radius: 577.3333 Meters




Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


       C.  Mobility: 3km/h

   2.  User intensity = {0.7, 1.4, 2.1, 2.8, 3.5, 4.2, 4.9, 5.6, 6.3,
       7.0}

   3.  Media traffic model: Same as defined in Section 3.1.2

   4.  Other traffic models:

       *  Downlink simulation: Maximum of 2Mbps/cell (web browsing or
          FTP traffic following default TCP congestion control
          [RFC5681])

       *  Unlink simulation: Maximum of 1Mbps/cell (web browsing or FTP
          traffic following default TCP congestion control [RFC5681])

3.3.  Desired Evaluation Metrics for cellular test cases

   The evaluation criteria document [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]
   defines the metrics to be used to evaluate candidate algorithms.
   Considering the nature and distinction of cellular networks we
   recommend that at least the following metrics be used to evaluate the
   performance of the candidate algorithms:

   o  Average cell throughput (for all cells), shows cell utilizations.

   o  Application sending and receiving bitrate, goodput.

   o  Packet Loss Rate (PLR).

   o  End-to-end Media frame delay.  For video, this means the delay
      from capture to display.

   o  Transport delay.

   o  Algorithm stability in terms of rate variation.

4.  Wi-Fi Networks Specific Test Cases

   Given the prevalence of Internet access links over Wi-Fi, it is
   important to evaluate candidate RTP-based congestion control
   solutions over test cases that include Wi-Fi access links.  Such
   evaluations should highlight the inherently different characteristics
   of Wi-Fi networks in contrast to their wired counterparts:

   o  The wireless radio channel is subject to interference from nearby
      transmitters, multipath fading, and shadowing.  These effects lead




Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


      to fluctuations in the link throughput and sometimes an error-
      prone communication environment.

   o  Available network bandwidth is not only shared over the air
      between concurrent users but also between uplink and downlink
      traffic due to the half-duplex nature of the wireless transmission
      medium.

   o  Packet transmissions over Wi-Fi are susceptible to contentions and
      collisions over the air.  Consequently, traffic load beyond a
      certain utilization level over a Wi-Fi network can introduce
      frequent collisions over the air and significant network overhead,
      as well as packet drops due to buffer overflow at the
      transmitters.  This, in turn, leads to excessive delay,
      retransmissions, packet losses and lower effective bandwidth for
      applications.  Note further that the collision-induced delay and
      loss patterns are qualitatively different from those caused by
      congestion over a wired connection.

   o  The IEEE 802.11 standard (i.e., Wi-Fi) supports multi-rate
      transmission capabilities by dynamically choosing the most
      appropriate modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the given
      received signal strength.  A different choice in the MCS Index
      leads to different physical-layer (PHY-layer) link rates and
      consequently different application-layer throughput.

   o  The presence of legacy devices (e.g., ones operating only in IEEE
      802.11b) at a much lower PHY-layer link rate can significantly
      slow down the rest of a modern Wi-Fi network.  As discussed in
      [Heusse2003], the main reason for such anomaly is that it takes
      much longer to transmit the same packet over a slower link than
      over a faster link, thereby consuming a substantial portion of air
      time.

   o  Handover from one Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) to another may lead to
      excessive packet delays and losses during the process.

   o  IEEE 802.11e has introduced the Enhanced Distributed Channel
      Access (EDCA) mechanism to allow different traffic categories to
      contend for channel access using different random back-off
      parameters.  This mechanism is a mandatory requirement for the Wi-
      Fi Multimedia (WMM) certification in Wi-Fi Alliance.  It allows
      for prioritization of real-time application traffic such as voice
      and video over non-urgent data transmissions (e.g., file
      transfer).

   In summary, the presence of Wi-Fi access links in different network
   topologies can exert different impact on the network performance in



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   terms of application-layer effective throughput, packet loss rate,
   and packet delivery delay.  These, in turn, will influence the
   behavior of end-to-end real-time multimedia congestion control.

   Unless otherwise mentioned, the test cases in this section choose the
   PHY- and MAC-layer parameters based on the IEEE 802.11n Standard.
   Statistics collected from enterprise Wi-Fi networks show that the two
   dominant physical modes are 802.11n and 802.11ac, accounting for 41%
   and 58% of connected devices.  As Wi-Fi standards evolve over time --
   for instance, with the introduction of the emerging Wi-Fi 6 (based on
   IEEE 802.11ax) products -- the PHY- and MAC-layer test case
   specifications need to be updated accordingly to reflect such
   changes.

   Typically, a Wi-Fi access network connects to a wired infrastructure.
   Either the wired or the Wi-Fi segment of the network can be the
   bottleneck.  The following sections describe basic test cases for
   both scenarios separately.  The same set of performance metrics as in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]) should be collected for each test case.

   We recommend to carry out the test cases as defined in this document
   using a simulator, such as [NS-2] or [NS-3].  When feasible, it is
   encouraged to perform testbed-based evaluations using Wi-Fi access
   points and endpoints running up-to-date IEEE 802.11 protocols, such
   as 802.11ac and the emerging Wi-Fi 6, so as to verify the viability
   of the candidate schemes.

4.1.  Bottleneck in Wired Network

   The test scenarios below are intended to mimic the setup of video
   conferencing over Wi-Fi connections from the home.  Typically, the
   Wi-Fi home network is not congested and the bottleneck is present
   over the wired home access link.  Although it is expected that test
   evaluation results from this section are similar to those as in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test], it is still worthwhile to run through
   these tests as sanity checks.

4.1.1.  Network topology

   Figure 2 shows the network topology of Wi-Fi test cases.  The test
   contains multiple mobile nodes (MNs) connected to a common Wi-Fi
   access point (AP) and their corresponding wired clients on fixed
   nodes (FNs).  Each connection carries either a RTP-based media flow
   or a TCP traffic flow.  Directions of the flows can be uplink (i.e.,
   from mobile nodes to fixed nodes), downlink (i.e., from fixed nodes
   to mobile nodes), or bi-directional.  The total number of
   uplink/downlink/bi-directional flows for RTP-based media traffic and
   TCP traffic are denoted as N and M, respectively.



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


                                   Uplink
                             +----------------->+
            +------+                                       +------+
            | MN_1 |))))                             /=====| FN_1 |
            +------+    ))                          //     +------+
                .        ))                        //         .
                .         ))                      //          .
                .          ))                    //           .
            +------+         +----+         +-----+        +------+
            | MN_N | ))))))) |    |         |     |========| FN_N |
            +------+         |    |         |     |        +------+
                             | AP |=========| FN0 |
           +----------+      |    |         |     |      +----------+
           | MN_tcp_1 | )))) |    |         |     |======| FN_tcp_1 |
           +----------+      +----+         +-----+      +----------+
                 .          ))                 \\             .
                 .         ))                   \\            .
                 .        ))                     \\           .
           +----------+  ))                       \\     +----------+
           | MN_tcp_M |)))                         \=====| FN_tcp_M |
           +----------+                                  +----------+
                            +<-----------------+
                                    Downlink

              Figure 2: Network topology for Wi-Fi test cases

4.1.2.  Test setup

   o  Test duration: 120s

   o  Wi-Fi network characteristics:

      *  Radio propagation model: Log-distance path loss propagation
         model (see [NS3WiFi])

      *  PHY- and MAC-layer configuration: IEEE 802.11n

      *  MCS Index at 11: 16-QAM 1/2, Raw Data Rate at 52Mbps

   o  Wired path characteristics:

      *  Path capacity: 1Mbps

      *  One-Way propagation delay: 50ms.

      *  Maximum end-to-end jitter: 30ms

      *  Bottleneck queue type: Drop tail.



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


      *  Bottleneck queue size: 300ms.

      *  Path loss ratio: 0%.

   o  Application characteristics:

      *  Media Traffic:

         +  Media type: Video

         +  Media direction: See Section 4.1.3

         +  Number of media sources (N): See Section 4.1.3

         +  Media timeline:

            -  Start time: 0s.

            -  End time: 119s.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Type of sources: long-lived TCP or CBR over UDP

         +  Traffic direction: See Section 4.1.3

         +  Number of sources (M): See Section 4.1.3

         +  Congestion control: Default TCP congestion control [RFC5681]
            or constant-bit-rate (CBR) traffic over UDP.

         +  Traffic timeline: See Section 4.1.3

4.1.3.  Typical test scenarios

   o  Single uplink RTP-based media flow: N=1 with uplink direction and
      M=0.

   o  One pair of bi-directional RTP-based media flows: N=2 (i.e., one
      uplink flow and one downlink flow); M=0.

   o  One pair of bi-directional RTP-based media flows: N=2; one uplink
      on-off CBR flow over UDP: M=1 (uplink).  The CBR flow has ON time
      at t=0s-60s and OFF time at t=60s-119s.

   o  One pair of bi-directional RTP-based media flows: N=2; one uplink
      off-on CBR flow over UDP: M=1 (uplink).  The CBR flow has OFF time
      at t=0s-60s and ON time at t=60s-119s.



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   o  One RTP-based media flow competing against one long-live TCP flow
      in the uplink direction: N=1 (uplink) and M = 1(uplink).  The TCP
      flow has start time at t=0s and end time at t=119s.

4.1.4.  Expected behavior

   o  Single uplink RTP-based media flow: the candidate algorithm is
      expected to detect the path capacity constraint, to converge to
      the bottleneck link capacity, and to adapt the flow to avoid
      unwanted oscillations when the sending bit rate is approaching the
      bottleneck link capacity.  No excessive oscillations in the media
      rate should be present.

   o  Bi-directional RTP-based media flows: the candidate algorithm is
      expected to converge to the bottleneck capacity of the wired path
      in both directions despite the presence of measurement noise over
      the Wi-Fi connection.  In the presence of background TCP or CBR
      over UDP traffic, the rate of RTP-based media flows should adapt
      promptly to the arrival and departure of background traffic flows.

   o  One RTP-based media flow competing with long-live TCP flow in the
      uplink direction: the candidate algorithm is expected to avoid
      congestion collapse and to stabilize at a fair share of the
      bottleneck link capacity.

4.2.  Bottleneck in Wi-Fi Network

   The test cases in this section assume that the wired segment along
   the media path is well-provisioned whereas the bottleneck exists over
   the Wi-Fi access network.  This is to mimic the application scenarios
   typically encountered by users in an enterprise environment or at a
   coffee house.

4.2.1.  Network topology

   Same as defined in Section 4.1.1

4.2.2.  Test setup

   o  Test duration: 120s

   o  Wi-Fi network characteristics:

      *  Radio propagation model: Log-distance path loss propagation
         model (see [NS3WiFi])

      *  PHY- and MAC-layer configuration: IEEE 802.11n




Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


      *  MCS Index at 11: 16-QAM 1/2, Raw Data Rate at 52Mbps

   o  Wired path characteristics:

      *  Path capacity: 100Mbps.

      *  One-Way propagation delay: 50ms.

      *  Maximum end-to-end jitter: 30ms.

      *  Bottleneck queue type: Drop tail.

      *  Bottleneck queue size: 300ms.

      *  Path loss ratio: 0%.

   o  Application characteristics:

      *  Media Traffic:

         +  Media type: Video

         +  Media direction: See Section 4.2.3.

         +  Number of media sources (N): See Section 4.2.3.

         +  Media timeline:

            -  Start time: 0s.

            -  End time: 119s.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Type of sources: long-lived TCP or CBR over UDP.

         +  Number of sources (M): See Section 4.2.3.

         +  Traffic direction: See Section 4.2.3.

         +  Congestion control: Default TCP congestion control [RFC5681]
            or constant-bit-rate (CBR) traffic over UDP.

         +  Traffic timeline: See Section 4.2.3.







Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


4.2.3.  Typical test scenarios

   This section describes a few test scenarios that are deemed as
   important for understanding the behavior of a candidate RTP-based
   congestion control scheme over a Wi-Fi network.

   a.  Multiple RTP-based media flows sharing the wireless downlink:
       N=16 (all downlink); M = 0.  This test case is for studying the
       impact of contention on the multiple concurrent media flows.  For
       an 802.11n network, given the MCS Index of 11 and the
       corresponding link rate of 52Mbps, the total application-layer
       throughput (assuming reasonable distance, low interference and
       infrequent contentions caused by competing streams) is around
       20Mbps.  A total of N=16 RTP-based media flows (with a maximum
       rate of 1.5Mbps each) are expected to saturate the wireless
       interface in this experiment.  Evaluation of a given candidate
       scheme should focus on whether the downlink media flows can
       stabilize at a fair share of the total application-layer
       throughput.

   b.  Multiple RTP-based media flows sharing the wireless uplink:N = 16
       (all downlink); M = 0.  When multiple clients attempt to transmit
       media packets uplink over the Wi-Fi network, they introduce more
       frequent contentions and potential collisions.  Per-flow
       throughput is expected to be lower than that in the previous
       downlink-only scenario.  Evaluation of a given candidate scheme
       should focus on whether the uplink flows can stabilize at a fair
       share of the total application-layer throughput.

   c.  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows: N = 16 (8 uplink
       and 8 downlink); M = 0.  The goal of this test is to evaluate the
       performance of the candidate scheme in terms of bandwidth
       fairness between uplink and downlink flows.

   d.  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows with on-off CBR
       traffic over UDP: N = 16 (8 uplink and 8 downlink); M = 5
       (uplink).  The goal of this test is to evaluate the adaptation
       behavior of the candidate scheme when its available bandwidth
       changes due to the departure of background traffic.  The
       background traffic consists of several (e.g., M=5) CBR flows
       transported over UDP.  These background flows are ON at time
       t=0-60s and OFF at time t=61-120s.

   e.  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows with off-on CBR
       traffic over UDP: N = 16 (8 uplink and 8 downlink); M = 5
       (uplink).  The goal of this test is to evaluate the adaptation
       behavior of the candidate scheme when its available bandwidth
       changes due to the arrival of background traffic.  The background



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


       traffic consists of several (e.g., M=5) parallel CBR flows
       transported over UDP.  These background flows are OFF at time
       t=0-60s and ON at times t=61-120s.

   f.  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows in the presence of
       background TCP traffic: N=16 (8 uplink and 8 downlink); M = 5
       (uplink).  The goal of this test is to evaluate how RTP-based
       media flows compete against TCP over a congested Wi-Fi network
       for a given candidate scheme.  TCP flows have start time at t=40s
       and end time at t=80s.

   g.  Varying number of RTP-based media flows: A series of tests can be
       carried out for the above test cases with different values of N,
       e.g., N = [4, 8, 12, 16, 20].  The goal of this test is to
       evaluate how a candidate scheme responds to varying traffic load/
       demand over a congested Wi-Fi network.  The start times of the
       media flows are randomly distributes within a window of t=0-10s;
       their end times are randomly distributed within a window of
       t=110-120s.

4.2.4.  Expected behavior

   o  Multiple downlink RTP-based media flows: each media flow is
      expected to get its fair share of the total bottleneck link
      bandwidth.  Overall bandwidth usage should not be significantly
      lower than that experienced by the same number of concurrent
      downlink TCP flows.  In other words, the behavior of multiple
      concurrent TCP flows will be used as a performance benchmark for
      this test scenario.  The end-to-end delay and packet loss ratio
      experienced by each flow should be within an acceptable range for
      real-time multimedia applications.

   o  Multiple uplink RTP-based media flows: overall bandwidth usage by
      all media flows should not be significantly lower than that
      experienced by the same number of concurrent uplink TCP flows.  In
      other words, the behavior of multiple concurrent TCP flows will be
      used as a performance benchmark for this test scenario.

   o  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows with dynamic
      background traffic carrying CBR flows over UDP: the media flows
      are expected to adapt in a timely fashion to the changes in
      available bandwidth introduced by the arrival/departure of
      background traffic.

   o  Multiple bi-directional RTP-based media flows with dynamic
      background traffic over TCP: during the presence of TCP background
      flows, the overall bandwidth usage by all media flows should not
      be significantly lower than those achieved by the same number of



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


      bi-directional TCP flows.  In other words, the behavior of
      multiple concurrent TCP flows will be used as a performance
      benchmark for this test scenario.  All downlink media flows are
      expected to obtain similar bandwidth as each other.  The
      throughput of each media flow is expected to decrease upon the
      arrival of TCP background traffic and, conversely, increase upon
      their departure.  Both reactions should occur in a timely fashion,
      for example, within 10s of seconds.

   o  Varying number of bi-directional RTP-based media flows: the test
      results for varying values of N -- while keeping all other
      parameters constant -- is expected to show steady and stable per-
      flow throughput for each value of N.  The average throughput of
      all media flows is expected to stay constant around the maximum
      rate when N is small, then gradually decrease with increasing
      value of N till it reaches the minimum allowed rate, beyond which
      the offered load to the Wi-Fi network exceeds its capacity (i.e.,
      with a very large value of N).

4.3.  Other Potential Test Cases

4.3.1.  EDCA/WMM usage

   The EDCA/WMM mechanism defines prioritized QoS for four traffic
   classes (or Access Categories).  RTP-based real-time media flows
   should achieve better performance in terms of lower delay and fewer
   packet losses with EDCA/WMM enabled when competing against non-
   interactive background traffic such as file transfers.  When most of
   the traffic over Wi-Fi is dominated by media, however, turning on WMM
   may degrade performance since all media flows now attempt to access
   the wireless transmission medium more aggressively, thereby causing
   more frequent collisions and collision-induced losses.  This is a
   topic worthy of further investigation.

4.3.2.  Effect of heterogeneous link rates

   As discussed in [Heusse2003], the presence of clients operating over
   slow PHY-layer link rates (e.g., a legacy 802.11b device) connected
   to a modern network may adversely impact the overall performance of
   the network.  Additional test cases can be devised to evaluate the
   effect of clients with heterogeneous link rates on the performance of
   the candidate congestion control algorithm.  Such test cases, for
   instance, can specify that the PHY-layer link rates for all clients
   span over a wide range (e.g., 2Mbps to 54Mbps) for investigating its
   effect on the congestion control behavior of the real-time
   interactive applications.





Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria] and the
   relevant congestion control algorithms apply.  The principles for
   congestion control are described in [RFC2914], and in particular, any
   new method MUST implement safeguards to avoid congestion collapse of
   the Internet.

   The evaluations of the test cases are intended to carry out in a
   controlled lab environment.  Hence, the applications, simulators and
   network nodes ought to be well-behaved and should not impact the
   desired results.  It is important to take appropriate caution to
   avoid leaking non-responsive traffic with unproven congestion
   avoidance behavior onto the open Internet.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Tomas Frankkila, Magnus Westerlund,
   Kristofer Sandlund, Sergio Mena de la Cruz, and Mirja Kuehlewind for
   their valuable inputs and review comments regarding this draft.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [HO-deploy-3GPP]
              TS 25.814, 3GPP., "Physical layer aspects for evolved
              Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA)", October 2006,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/
              archive/25_series/25.814/25814-710.zip>.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]
              Singh, V., Ott, J., and S. Holmer, "Evaluating Congestion
              Control for Interactive Real-time Media", draft-ietf-
              rmcat-eval-criteria-11 (work in progress), February 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]
              Sarker, Z., Singh, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test
              Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals", draft-ietf-rmcat-
              eval-test-10 (work in progress), May 2019.







Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   [IEEE802.11]
              IEEE, "Standard for Information technology--
              Telecommunications and information exchange between
              systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
              requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
              (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 2012.

   [NS3WiFi]  "Wi-Fi Channel Model in ns-3 Simulator",
              <https://www.nsnam.org/doxygen/
              classns3_1_1_yans_wifi_channel.html>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [Heusse2003]
              Heusse, M., Rousseau, F., Berger-Sabbatel, G., and A.
              Duda, "Performance anomaly of 802.11b", in Proc. 23th
              Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
              Communications Societies, (INFOCOM'03), March 2003.

   [HO-def-3GPP]
              TR 21.905, 3GPP., "Vocabulary for 3GPP Specifications",
              December 2009, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/
              archive/21_series/21.905/21905-940.zip>.

   [HO-LTE-3GPP]
              TS 36.331, 3GPP., "E-UTRA- Radio Resource Control (RRC);
              Protocol specification", December 2011,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/
              archive/36_series/36.331/36331-990.zip>.

   [HO-UMTS-3GPP]
              TS 25.331, 3GPP., "Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol
              specification", December 2011,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/
              archive/25_series/25.331/25331-990.zip>.



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
              Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements
              for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
              requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014.

   [NS-2]     "ns-2", December 2014,
              <http://nsnam.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>.

   [NS-3]     "ns-3 Network Simulator", <https://www.nsnam.org/>.

   [QoS-3GPP]
              TS 23.203, 3GPP., "Policy and charging control
              architecture", June 2011, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/
              archive/23_series/23.203/23203-990.zip>.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zaheduzzaman Sarker
   Ericsson AB
   Laboratoriegraend 11
   Luleae  97753
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 107173743
   Email: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com


   Ingemar Johansson
   Ericsson AB
   Laboratoriegraend 11
   Luleae  97753
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 10 7143042
   Email: ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com


   Xiaoqing Zhu
   Cisco Systems
   12515 Research Blvd., Building 4
   Austin, TX  78759
   USA

   Email: xiaoqzhu@cisco.com



Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          RMCAT Wireless Test Cases          February 2020


   Jiantao Fu
   Cisco Systems
   771 Alder Drive
   Milpitas, CA  95035
   USA

   Email: jianfu@cisco.com


   Wei-Tian Tan
   Cisco Systems
   510 McCarthy Blvd
   Milpitas, CA  95035
   USA

   Email: dtan2@cisco.com


   Michael A. Ramalho
   AcousticComms Consulting
   6310 Watercrest Way Unit 203
   Lakewood Ranch, FL  34202-5211
   USA

   Phone: +1 732 832 9723
   Email: mar42@cornell.edu

























Sarker, et al.           Expires August 30, 2020               [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/