This application is the U.S. National Phase application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2008/066836, filed Dec. 4, 2008, and claims the benefit of French Patent Application No. 0708544, filed Dec. 7, 2007, all of which are incorporated by reference herein. The International Application was published on Jun. 11, 2009 as WO 2009/071644.
The invention relates to a method and a device making it possible to protect data against errors, in a transmission system.
It is used notably in the transmission of multimedia data. It also applies in the transmission of data by packets having a compressed header.
In the field of data transmissions, the data may be marred by errors due to the transmission channel itself. Transmission in wireless channels, such as for example the use of UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System), WiFi technology, or else WiMAX, or the solutions employed on High Frequency (HF) channels etc. gives rise to errors which may disturb the decoding of the data on reception.
To combat the risk that these errors may disturb transmission, it is known to a person skilled in the art to use solutions of data retransmission type, for example, the technique of automatic retransmission of data better known by the abbreviation ARQ (Automatic Request), or its offshoot hybrid-ARQ. These solutions are in general applied at the network level.
There also exist solutions relying on the introduction of redundancy (FEC: Forward Error Correction) at the radio access level, that is to say at the level of the physical layer of the transmission system directly.
It is also known to employ standard compressed headers with a more significant error corrector coding at the level of the physical layer or the use of retransmissions.
The main drawback of the solutions present in the state of the art is that, in general, the protection is afforded at the level of the header plus data as a whole, without differentiation and with deletion of the packet in the case of corruption, whereas one might possibly wish to receive partially corrupted payloads if in fact their header remains correct.
An additional drawback to retransmission techniques is that they assume the presence of a duplex link, this not always being possible, notably in the case of broadcasting applications.
Another drawback of the prior art techniques is that they give rise to a high level of redundancy at the physical level, under the network layer. This can cause on the one hand, an incompatibility with the standard used (if no provision has been made for such a protection level, or the use of the codes that one wishes to use) and on the other hand, generally leads to an increase in the protection level on the packet as a whole in an undifferentiated manner, thus turning out to be more expensive in terms of bandwidth.
The idea of the invention relies on a new approach which consists notably in protecting the header of the packet to be transmitted without this involving also protecting the useful data in the event that the data transmission is operating normally.
The subject relates to a method for transmitting data in a transmission system, the data being transmitted in the form of packets comprising at least one header field and one data field and according to a format suited to the transmission system characterized in that it comprises at least the following steps:
Other characteristics and advantages will become apparent on reading the detailed description given by way of nonlimiting example which follows in relation to appended drawings which represent:
In order to better elucidate the method according to the invention, the description which follows is given within the framework of an application for protecting IP headers, in particular when they have been compressed, for example by means of the ROHC (Robust Header Compression) standard standardized by the IETF committee in RFC 3095 and related RFCs.
The idea consists notably in applying a protection mechanism to a relevant compressed header by applying an error corrector code, so as to protect the packet header. Indeed, the loss of the header generally gives rise to the loss of the packet. Now, in the given example, the reception of the source data (that is to say the data useful at the application level) even partially corrupted at the transport or application level is preferable to a loss of the corresponding packets. This typically involves transmissions for which it has been possible to implement mechanisms for protection, correction or masking at the application or transport level, such as for example, audio or video transmissions: in this case, the elimination of a packet from the protocol stack (for example at the link or network level) on account of the corruption of its header is deleterious.
The method implements for example the following steps:
The RCH (robust compressed header) mechanism applies naturally also in the case where the header is not in fact compressed, this being for example the case when employing the uncompressed mode “UNCOMPRESSED” of the ROHC protocol, knowing that it then turns out to be more expensive to put into practice since the part of the data packet to be protected is more consequent.
The RCH mechanism can be integrated directly into the application of the conventional header compression mechanism, thereby simplifying the transmission of the identification of the compressed header part from the useful-data part to the RCH module in the first step.
The RCH mechanism can also be extended to the protection of all or part of the useful data, by adapting the error corrector coding mechanism so as to make it pertain to all or part of the useful data, and this will involve the need to also add the corresponding RCH information to the link header. In practice, this will be beneficial only if the headers are better protected than the useful-data part.
The data to be transmitted are for example of multimedia type.
The implementation of the RCH, which relies on the three steps set forth previously, is illustrated hereinafter in the case of the application to a radio access of type 802.11.
In practice, the 802.11 standard [1] defines the format of the frames exchanged as follows:
More precisely, the header splits up notably according to the following fields:
wherein are indicated in particular the “type” and the “sub-type” of the frame considered, the fields which make it possible to separate the management type (corresponding to the association requests and to the access point announcement messages), control type (which identifies the requests for authorization of access to the medium so as to send traffic) and data type (which corresponds to the data frames). The sub-type makes it possible to distinguish from among the various types the exact nature of the frame considered:
The RCH solution according to the invention corresponds to introducing error corrector coding on the compressed IP header, but also to letting through packets whose useful data may be corrupted. Therefore it is necessary to reduce the scope of the checksum field and to make it pertain only to the header, and no longer to the header and the body of the frame as is conventionally done.
An exemplary definition of new sub-types, from among the reserved values, for identifying the RCH streams (and optionally the ROHC stream) is given in the following chart 3:
10
1000
Data
ROHC
10
1001
Data
RCH
mode
1
10
1010
Data
RCH
mode
2
10
1011
Data
RCH
mode
3
The values used in this example for the RCH protection according to the invention are 1001 for mode 1, 1010 for mode 2 and 1011 for mode 3.
By way of illustration, three cases can be proposed for conveying the RCH data frames:
“mode 1”, the simplest, corresponds to a type that is entirely predefined, for example as a function of the application, for which the RCH parameters are not provided by the frame, since they are assumed to be known to the sender and to the receiver. In this case, the frame check field is unchanged with respect to the standard, and only the scope of the checksum field has to be modified, so as to pertain to the header only (30 bytes in the example considered),
The proposed extensions are given by way of example, and the mechanism remains the same if one were to choose a different distribution of the extension bits between code considered and header length.
In the left part of
The invention makes it possible notably to improve the transmission of the packets of header type before transmission on a wireless network.
It does not make it necessary to modify the radio access solution adopted except at the level of the header, insertion of the RCH information, modification of the checksum, and this may be authorized in the case of a standard, and that it is less expensive in terms of throughput used than retransmission.
By being inserted into the link header, the solution will be clearly identified, and this may allow a receiver not implementing the invention to detect the frames which employ it and to reject them as not relevant, without uploading erroneous data to the higher layers.
By modifying the scope of the checksum to make it pertain solely to the link header, the loss of the frame for an erroneous payload is avoided, while ensuring that the link header is correct (validated by its checksum), and that the header of the network packet is protected (by the error corrector code and optionally the checksum of the header compression mechanism).
This therefore avoids systematic recourse to ARQ or FEC on the whole of the packet and enhances throughput, and the solution can be applied to mono- and bi-directional links.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
07 08544 | Dec 2007 | FR | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2008/066836 | 12/4/2008 | WO | 00 | 10/27/2010 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2009/071644 | 6/11/2009 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5410754 | Klotzbach et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5717689 | Ayanoglu | Feb 1998 | A |
6477669 | Agarwal et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6791944 | Demetrescu et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6819658 | Agarwal et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6882637 | Le et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
7069495 | Soderberg et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7415041 | Harris | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7430617 | Walsh et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7443814 | Agarwal et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7558882 | Walsh et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7738391 | Melpignano et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
8233462 | Walton et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
20020071432 | Soderberg et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20050135284 | Nanda et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135295 | Walton et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135318 | Walton et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160184 | Walsh et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050265383 | Melpignano et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060146757 | Harris | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060198393 | Lamy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20080279532 | Shimazaki et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080320171 | Walsh et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20110032917 | Lamy-Bergot et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20120263137 | Walton et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1533930 | May 2005 | EP |
1710942 | Oct 2006 | EP |
0069139 | Nov 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report from PCT/EP2008/066836 issued Apr. 1, 2009. |
Written Opinion from PCT/EP2008/066836 issued Apr. 1, 2009. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability from PCT/EP2008/066836 issued May 7, 2010. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110032917 A1 | Feb 2011 | US |