Next Article in Journal
Ultralow Voltage FinFET- Versus TFET-Based STT-MRAM Cells for IoT Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Embedded System-Based Sticky Paper Trap with Deep Learning-Based Insect-Counting Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Keyframe Insertion: Enabling Low-Latency Random Access and Packet Loss Repair
Article

Cross-Protocol Unfairness between Adaptive Streaming Clients over HTTP/3 and HTTP/2: A Root-Cause Analysis

1
Graduate School of Engineering and Science, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo 135-8548, Japan
2
Department of Information and Communications Engineering, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo 135-8548, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Manuel Perez Malumbres, Carlos Tavares Calafate and Glenn Van Wallendael
Electronics 2021, 10(15), 1755; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10151755
Received: 7 June 2021 / Revised: 13 July 2021 / Accepted: 20 July 2021 / Published: 21 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multimedia Content Delivery over Mobile Networks)
With the introduction of HTTP/3, whose transport is no longer the traditional TCP protocol but the novel QUIC protocol, research for solutions to the unfairness of Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (HAS) has become more challenging. In other words, because of different transport layers, the HTTP/3 may not be available for some networks and the clients have to use HTTP/2 for their HAS applications instead. Therefore, the scenario in which HAS over HTTP/3 (HAS/3) competes against HTTP/2 (HAS/2) must be considered seriously. However, there has been a shortage of investigations on the performance and the origin of the unfairness in such a cross-protocol scenario in order to produce proper solutions. Therefore, this paper provides a performance evaluation and root-cause analysis of the cross-protocol unfairness between HAS/3 and HAS/2. It is concluded that, due to differences in the congestion control mechanisms of QUIC and TCP, HAS/3 clients obtain larger congestion windows, thus requesting higher video bitrates than HAS/2. As the problem lies in the transport layer, existing client-side ABR-based solutions for the unfairness from the application layer may perform suboptimally for the cross-protocol case. View Full-Text
Keywords: adaptive streaming; HTTP/3; QUIC; cross-protocol; unfairness; congestion control adaptive streaming; HTTP/3; QUIC; cross-protocol; unfairness; congestion control
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Tran, C.M.; Nguyen Duc, T.; Tan, P.X.; Kamioka, E. Cross-Protocol Unfairness between Adaptive Streaming Clients over HTTP/3 and HTTP/2: A Root-Cause Analysis. Electronics 2021, 10, 1755. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10151755

AMA Style

Tran CM, Nguyen Duc T, Tan PX, Kamioka E. Cross-Protocol Unfairness between Adaptive Streaming Clients over HTTP/3 and HTTP/2: A Root-Cause Analysis. Electronics. 2021; 10(15):1755. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10151755

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tran, Chanh M., Tho Nguyen Duc, Phan X. Tan, and Eiji Kamioka. 2021. "Cross-Protocol Unfairness between Adaptive Streaming Clients over HTTP/3 and HTTP/2: A Root-Cause Analysis" Electronics 10, no. 15: 1755. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10151755

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop