The present disclosure relates generally to a scheme for retransmission-based repair and fast stream join for Internet Protocol (IP) based media streams.
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and its related standards define a retransmission packet format and a way to give feedback via Negative ACKnowledgment (NACK) packets that data has been lost. The following standards RTP (RFC3550), RTP Retransmission (RFC4588), RTCP Feedback (RFC4585), and RTCP with SSM Sessions (draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-11.txt) are all incorporated by reference and describe unicast feedback and retransmission for unicast sessions, and unicast feedback with multicast retransmission for multicast sessions.
However, the RTP protocol suite has limitations when used with certain types of Internet Protocol (IP) media transmissions, such as transmitting streaming video to different endpoints. For example, neither RTP, nor any other common media transmission protocol, can perform unicast repair of multicast media streams or quickly and efficiently switch among different multicast media streams without loss of data.
A Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)-based unicast repair scheme is used for repairing errors in RTP multicast streams. By modeling the joining of a new media stream as a repair operation, the repair scheme is extended to also rapidly join media channels. It should be noted that the terms channel and stream are used interchangeably below.
Referring to
The media stream receivers 24 can be any device that receives and stores or renders the multicast media stream 14. For example, the media stream receivers 24 could be Set Top Boxes (STB), Digital Video Recorders (DVR), computer terminals, Personal Computers (PCs), televisions with IP interfaces, Voice over IP (VoIP) phones, cell phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), etc. The retransmission system 18 can be any type of media server that caches and retransmits portions of the multicast media stream 14. The media stream source 12 and retransmission system 18 are shown as separate devices but could reside in the same physical location and be connected together via a Local Area Network (LAN) or other backplane connectivity.
In one embodiment, a Source Specific Multicast (SSM) multicast session is established for transmitting the multicast media stream 14 between the media stream source 12 and one or more of the media stream receivers 24. The media stream source 12 knows the IP addresses and ports to use for transmitting a particular media stream. The retransmission system 18 knows what IP addresses and ports to use for receiving the media stream and what address and port to use for sending retransmissions. The media stream receivers 24 know what IP address and port to listen for the media stream and the retransmissions, and where to send retransmission requests. All of this address and port information can be described using Session Description Protocol (SDP), but other media description schemes could be used.
The feedback target IP address 16 is used by the media stream receivers 24 as a destination address for requesting retransmissions for portions of the multicast media stream 14. For example, packets from the media stream 14 may not successfully arrive at particular media stream receivers, or may be received in a corrupted state.
The media stream receivers 24 send retransmission requests 28 to the retransmission system 18 associated with the feedback target IP address 16 that includes information 30 identifying the lost media packets. In one example, retransmission requests 28 are unicast Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) Negative ACKnowledge (NACK) packets that use the feedback target address 16 as a destination address 29. Sending the unicast RTCP NACK packet 28 to the retransmission system 18 dynamically instantiates a unicast RTP repair session from the retransmission system to the requesting receiver, if one does not already exist.
The retransmission system 18 includes a media cache 22 that caches the recent history of packets from the multicast media stream 14. During the unicast RTP repair session, lost packets for media stream 14 are identified in lost packet information 30 of the retransmission request 28. The retransmission system 18 identifies the packets in media cache 22 corresponding to the lost or corrupted packet information 30 in retransmission request 28.
The identified media packets in media cache 22 are sent as unicast media repair packets 34 back to the requesting media stream receiver 28. The media stream receiver 24 then inserts the received unicast media repair packets 34 into corresponding lost packet locations in the media stream 14. Thus, in one embodiment, a repair session uses unicast NACK packets 28 and unicast media repair packets 34 for repairing a multicast media session.
The media configuration shown in
In this example, only the unicast repair function ceases when the retransmission system 18 fails. Higher performance may also be provided since the retransmission system 18 only receives and caches the multicast media stream 14 and does not also have to retransmit the media stream 14 to the media stream receivers 24. Thus, by only providing media stream repair, the constant work factor for the retransmission system 18 is halved.
In the lookaside mode, the retransmission system 18 is distinguished from the media stream source 12 by using a feedback target address 16 for the retransmission system 18 that is different from the source IP address associated with the SSM media stream source 12.
IP Anycast Addressing
Referring to
To explain in more detail, message 40 identifies a single IP anycast address 46 for multiple different retransmission systems 18A and 18B available for repairing the multicast media stream 14. This SDP is provided to both the retransmission systems 18A and 18B, as well as to the receivers so that they will direct their retransmission requests to that anycast feedback address. Both retransmission system 18A and 18B cache the media stream 14 and are available for retransmitting lost packets to any of the media stream receivers 24A-24D.
Both of the retransmission systems 18A and 18B share the same IP anycast source address 46 identified in message 40. An IP anycast address refers to a unicast IP address that is used as a destination address simultaneously by multiple network processing devices. In this example, the network processing devices sharing IP address 46 include retransmission systems 18A and 18B.
The retransmission systems 18A and 18B and the media stream receivers 24 operate in substantially the same manner as described above in
Any of the media stream receivers 24A-24D may detect lost or corrupted packets or frames from the multicast media stream 14. In response, the receiver 24 sends out a unicast NACK retransmission request message 44. For explanation purposes, each of the media stream receivers 24A-24D in
Each of the retransmission request messages 44A-44D includes the same IP anycast destination address 46 along with the associated media stream receiver source address 48A-48D, respectively. The retransmission request messages 44A-44D also include lost packet information identifying which of the packets were lost from the multicast media stream 14.
Routers 42 and 44 in the IP network 10 use internal routing metrics to select which of the retransmission systems 18A or 18B has the cheapest IP routing cost for routing the messages 44A-44D. Since the IP anycast address 46 is shared by two different network processing devices 18A and 18B, the conventional routing metrics in the routers 42 and 43 will automatically select one of the two devices 18A or 18B for forwarding any messages 44A-44D. In this example, router 42 determines that retransmission system 18A has the shortest routing path for the retransmission request messages 44A and 44B received from receivers 24A and 24B, respectively. Alternatively, router 43 determines that retransmission system 18B has the shortest routing path for the retransmission request messages 44C and 44D received from receivers 24C and 24D, respectively.
Retransmission system 18A receives unicast NACK retransmission request messages 44A and 44B and retransmission system 18B receives unicast NACK retransmission request messages 44C and 44D. The retransmission system 18A responds back by sending unicast media repair packets from its cache of multicast media stream 14 back to receivers 24A and 24B. For example, retransmission system 18A sends unicast media repair packets 34 back to the media stream receiver 24B identified in message 44B. Retransmission system 18B responds to retransmission request messages 44C and 44D by sending unicast media repair packets from its cache of multicast media stream 14 back to receivers 24C and 24D, respectively.
This distributed routing of retransmission requests 44A-44D increases both availability and load sharing capacity while using substantially the same repair scheme described above in
For example, one or more retransmission systems 50 can be specifically designated to provide media packet repair for a particular multicast media stream 54. The feedback target IP anycast address identified in the Source Specific Multicast (SSM) multicast session for multicast media stream 54 is used as the source address for each of the retransmission systems 50. Similarly, one or more retransmission systems 52 can be designated to provide media packet repair support for a different multicast media stream 56. The feedback target IP anycast source address identified in the SSM multicast session for the multicast media stream 56 is used as the source address for each of retransmission systems 52.
In this example, media stream receiver 24B is receiving packets for multicast media stream 54. If any of the multicast packets are lost, media stream receiver 24B sends a unicast NACK retransmission request message 58 to the IP anycast destination address X associated with multicast media stream 54. The routers in the IP infrastructure (not shown) automatically route the retransmission request message 58 to one of the retransmission systems 50 which then sends back unicast media repair packets containing the identified lost packets.
Thus, different retransmission systems can be associated with different media streams to further increase the repair scheme scalability. However, in other embodiments, a retransmission system 50 may provide repair support for more than one media stream.
The retransmission source 70A caches the original media stream 14 in media cache 22A and if necessary “re-sources” the received media stream 14, operating as a legal RTP mixer/translator according to the RTP specifications. Similarly, retransmission source 70B retransmits the original media stream 14 cached in media cache 22B as multicast media stream 64.
In the source mode, the retransmission sources 70A and 70B still receive unicast NACK retransmission request messages 44 from the media stream receivers 24 when multicast media stream packets are lost. The retransmission sources 70 accordingly send back unicast media repair packets 34 containing the requested lost media.
In one embodiment, the two retransmission sources 70A and 70B also still share the same IP source address 46. This common IP source address 46 for the feedback target can again be identified for the multicast media session using out-of-band or in-band messaging. The messages 60 exchanged between the media stream source 12, retransmission sources 70, and the media stream receivers 24, associate media stream 14 with feedback target IP anycast address 46.
Sharing the same IP destination address 46 provides high availability and load sharing for the repair scheme similar in a similar manner as described above in
For example, retransmission source 70A re-originates media stream 14 as multicast media stream 62 and retransmission source 70B re-originates media stream 14 as multicast media stream 64. The multicast packets 72 for multicast media stream 62 and the multicast packets 74 from multicast media stream 64 each use the same source IP address 46.
Any routers 42 in the IP network 10 receiving both media streams 62 and 64 with the same source address automatically drop packets for one of the two streams according to a basic characteristic of multicast routing known as “reverse path forwarding”. For packets being forwarded on a multicast tree, only those received from the upstream branch leading to the source IP address at the root of the tree are accepted for forwarding. In this example, the router 42 drops the multicast packets 74 for media stream 64 and only routes the multicast packets 72 for media stream 62 to the media stream receiver 24.
If retransmission source 70A is ever disabled, the router 42 will re-compute internal routing metrics and then automatically start routing the multicast packets 74 for media stream 64 to media stream receiver 24. Accordingly, using the shared IP anycast address 46 and the SSM source address also provides redundancy and load sharing for the multicast media stream source.
The shared IP source address 46 still increases retransmission repair redundancy and load balancing as described above in
Extension of Repair Scheme for Fast Stream Join
Several observations can be made with respect to a stream join as compared with a media stream repair operation. A media stream receiver joining a new RTP session may have no idea what packets are needed to render the current stream. Also since multicast video sessions may be involved, the media stream receiver is in all likelihood “behind” the multicast stream in time and may need to “catch up”. This is important because the media stream receiver may not be able to render the media stream until it receives an intra-coded frame that may have passed by shortly before the media stream receiver attempts to join the multicast session.
Referring to
A media stream receiver 24 detects a request to join a new multicast media stream and sends a unicast request 96 to the retransmission system 86 specifying the new channel which the receiver wishes to receive. A channel join request may detected, for example, by a set top box that detects a user using user interface 94 to select a new or different multicast media channel.
The unicast channel join request 96 in one embodiment is substantially the same RTCP NACK retransmission request message described above in
The channel join request 96 is sent by the media stream receiver 24 to the feedback target address 100 for the retransmission system 86 associated with the identified new media stream 102. It is worth noting that initiation of the fast channel/stream join scheme is similar to the repair scheme described above since it exploits the same NACK and retransmission machinery.
Referring to both
In operation 112, the retransmission system 86 uses the cached video information for the selected media stream to extract from the cache all the elements the receiver 24 may need to “prime” its decoder 97. This may include a Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) Program Association Table (PAT) and Program Map Table (PMT) elements, Encryption Control Messages (ECMs) and possibly other non-video data needed by the decoder 97. The retransmission system 86 in operation 114 constructs a Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) APPlication-specific (APP) decoder packet 88 and in operation 116 sends the decoder priming packet 88 to the media stream receiver 26 that requested the channel join.
In operation 118, the retransmission system 86 references back into media cache 87 for the RTP data containing the most recent cached intra-coded frame (I-frame). In operation 120, the retransmission system 86 sends the cached RTP packets containing the I-frame and all subsequent frames 90 up to a current cache time to the media stream receiver 24. The identified frames 90 are burst to the receiver 24 at a much faster speed than what the media in the packets is actually rendered by receiver 24 (i.e., faster than real-time). This speeds up the channel join process by allowing the receiver to render video going back to the previous I-frame.
The portions of the stream sent back are not necessary to simply join the new stream. The receiver can join the stream just by knowing the SDP for the media stream and performing a conventional IGMP join operation without asking for channel join. The burst of the cached data back from the prior I-frame allows the receiver to start rendering before the join completes and the next I-frame arrives. If the data were not burst faster than real-time, the receiver would not be able to “catch up” with the multicast stream, which is ahead of the receiver in time. Thus, the burst frames are essentially “back filling” to the previous I-frame so the receiver is able to render media prior to when the next I-frame arrives on the multicast stream.
The decoder 97 in the receiver 24 is primed with the information from the decoder packet 88 and media frames 90. After being primed and receiving the burst, the receiver 24 can join the multicast group for the new stream and can start rendering any subsequent media from the joined multicast media stream 82N.
As with the basic packet repair operations, the fast channel join scheme can exploit any of the anycast-based availability and load sharing features provided either by the look aside mode scheme in
It is also worth noting that the media repair and channel join schemes are essentially stateless. They maintain no state about individual receivers except during a repair or channel join operation. This allows the system to scale much better than a system in which permanent or semi-permanent state is kept in the retransmission system about each receiver potentially wishing to request repair or channel join operations. The normal routing states in the routers in the IP network provide any knowledge required for ensuring retransmission requests or channel join requests are directed to operational retransmission systems 18. The routing metrics in the IP network routers also, as a by-product, provide a degree of load balancing.
Thus, the media source, retransmission systems, and media stream receivers associated with a media stream are not required to keep track of which media stream sources or which retransmission systems are operational, or which media stream receivers are currently connected to which media streams.
The RTP unicast repair scheme also does not require the retransmission systems to remember what repair or channel join packets have been previously received or sent to media stream receivers. Each retransmission or channel join request can be a single unitary request that is answered with a single response or group of responses by the retransmission system with no required state knowledge of what other repair operations have been previously performed for the requesting receiver.
Thus, the use of RTP protocol machinery with the above described extensions allows the creation of a unified technique for both retransmission-based media stream repair and fast channel joining (i.e., stream joining). Operation in either the lookaside mode or source mode can use anycast-based feedback addressing to improve scalability, robustness, and performance. Separate operations are unified with common mechanisms and low protocol, state, and computational overhead.
The system described above can use dedicated processor systems, micro controllers, programmable logic devices, or microprocessors that perform some or all of the operations. Some of the operations described above may be implemented in software and other operations may be implemented in hardware.
For the sake of convenience, the operations are described as various interconnected functional blocks or distinct software modules. This is not necessary, however, and there may be cases where these functional blocks or modules are equivalently aggregated into a single logic device, program or operation with unclear boundaries. In any event, the functional blocks and software modules or features of the flexible interface can be implemented by themselves, or in combination with other operations in either hardware or software.
Having described and illustrated the principles of the invention in a preferred embodiment thereof, it should be apparent that the invention may be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles. I/We claim all modifications and variation coming within the spirit and scope of the following claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/561,237 filed Nov. 17, 2006, titled “RETRANSMISSION-BASED STREAM REPAIR AND STREAM JOIN”, which is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/825,268 filed Sep. 11, 2006, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3840862 | Ready | Oct 1974 | A |
4291196 | Spaniol | Sep 1981 | A |
4426682 | Riffe | Jan 1984 | A |
4802085 | Levy | Jan 1989 | A |
4811203 | Hamstra | Mar 1989 | A |
5155824 | Edenfield | Oct 1992 | A |
5307477 | Taylor | Apr 1994 | A |
5444718 | Ejzak et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5483587 | Hogan | Jan 1996 | A |
5524235 | Larson | Jun 1996 | A |
5551001 | Cohen | Aug 1996 | A |
5600366 | Schulman | Feb 1997 | A |
5600663 | Ayanoglu et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5636354 | Lear | Jun 1997 | A |
5673253 | Shaffer | Sep 1997 | A |
5729687 | Rothrock | Mar 1998 | A |
5734861 | Cohn | Mar 1998 | A |
5784362 | Turina | Jul 1998 | A |
5828844 | Civanlar | Oct 1998 | A |
5870763 | Lomet | Feb 1999 | A |
5914757 | Dean et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5926227 | Schoner | Jul 1999 | A |
5933195 | Florencio | Aug 1999 | A |
5933593 | Arun | Aug 1999 | A |
5963217 | Grayson | Oct 1999 | A |
5974028 | Ramakrishnan | Oct 1999 | A |
6003116 | Morita | Dec 1999 | A |
6031818 | Lo et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6034746 | Desai | Mar 2000 | A |
6065050 | DeMoney | May 2000 | A |
6119205 | Wicki | Sep 2000 | A |
6137834 | Wine | Oct 2000 | A |
6141324 | Abbott | Oct 2000 | A |
6151636 | Schuster | Nov 2000 | A |
6236854 | Bradshaw, Jr. | May 2001 | B1 |
6278716 | Rubenstein | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289054 | Rhee | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301249 | Mansfield et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6332153 | Cohen | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6445717 | Gibson et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6501739 | Cohen | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6516435 | Tsunoda | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6532562 | Chou et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6567929 | Bhagavath | May 2003 | B1 |
6570926 | Agrawal | May 2003 | B1 |
6594798 | Chou et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6608820 | Bradshaw, Jr. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6608841 | Koodli | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6624841 | Buchner | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6643496 | Shimoyama | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6650652 | Valencia | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6671262 | Kung | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675216 | Quatrano | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6677864 | Khayrallah | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6711128 | Ramakrishnan | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721290 | Kondylis | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6735572 | Landesmann | May 2004 | B2 |
6744785 | Robinett | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6766418 | Alexander | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6771644 | Brassil | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775247 | Shaffer | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782490 | Maxemchuk | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6792047 | Bixby | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6804244 | Anandakumar | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816469 | Kung | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6823470 | Smith | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839325 | Schmidl et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6865157 | Scott | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6865540 | Faber | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6876734 | Summers | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6909718 | Aramaki et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6910148 | Ho | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6925068 | Stanwood | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6931001 | Deng | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931113 | Ortel | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6937569 | Sarkar | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6947417 | Laursen | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6956828 | Simard | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6959075 | Cutaia | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6976055 | Shaffer | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6989856 | Firestone | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996097 | Chou et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003086 | Shaffer | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7007098 | Smyth | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7024609 | Wolfgang et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7084898 | Firestone | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7114002 | Okumura | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7127487 | Wang | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7164680 | Loguinov | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7180896 | Okumura | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7224702 | Lee | May 2007 | B2 |
7234079 | Cheng | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7257664 | Zhang | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7263075 | Roh | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7296205 | Curcio | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7324527 | Fraas | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7333439 | Itoh et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7366172 | Chou et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7373413 | Nguyen | May 2008 | B1 |
7376880 | Ichiki et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7379653 | Yap | May 2008 | B2 |
7392424 | Ho | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7397759 | Tan | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7532621 | Birman | May 2009 | B2 |
7562277 | Park | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7599363 | Jang et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7676591 | Chan et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7681101 | Oran et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7697514 | Chou et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707303 | Albers | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7711938 | Wise | May 2010 | B2 |
7747921 | DaCosta | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7801146 | Aramaki et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7870590 | Jagadeesan | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7877660 | VerSteeg | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7886073 | Gahm | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7889654 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7921347 | Kim et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7937531 | Mitra | May 2011 | B2 |
7940644 | Oran | May 2011 | B2 |
7940777 | Asati | May 2011 | B2 |
7965771 | Wu | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8031701 | Oran | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8218654 | Cheng | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8245264 | Toebes | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8462847 | Wu et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
20010000540 | Cooper | Apr 2001 | A1 |
20020004841 | Sawatari | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020006137 | Rabenko et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010938 | Zhang | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020087976 | Kaplan | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020114332 | Apostolopoulos | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020126711 | Robinett | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020163918 | Cline | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030025786 | Norsworthy | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030025832 | Swart | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030076850 | Jason, Jr. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030101408 | Martinian | May 2003 | A1 |
20030158899 | Hughes | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030198195 | Li | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030231863 | Eerenberg | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236903 | Piotrowski | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040057449 | Black | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040071128 | Jang | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078624 | Maxemchuk | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040100937 | Chen | May 2004 | A1 |
20040114576 | Itoh | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040143672 | Padmanabham | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040165527 | Gu | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040165710 | DelHoyo | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040196849 | Aksu | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199659 | Ishikawa | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040213152 | Matuoka | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040244058 | Carlucci | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255328 | Baldwin | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050058131 | Samuels | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069102 | Chang | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050074007 | Samuels | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050078171 | Firestone | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050078698 | Araya et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050081244 | Barrett | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050099499 | Braunstein | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138372 | Kajihara | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050169174 | Apostolopoulos et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050198367 | Ettikan | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204242 | Chou et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050207406 | Reme | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050244137 | Takashima | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050249231 | Khan | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050259803 | Khartabil | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265346 | Ho | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289623 | Midani | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020995 | Opie | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060048193 | Jacobs | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060072596 | Spilo et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075084 | Lyon | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075443 | Eckert | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060083263 | Jagadeesan | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085551 | Xie | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060104458 | Kenoyer | May 2006 | A1 |
20060120378 | Usuki | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060126667 | Smith | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143669 | Cohen | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060159093 | Joo | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060187914 | Gumaste | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060188025 | Hannuksela | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060189337 | Farrill | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200842 | Chapman et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060242240 | Parker | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242669 | Wogsberg | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259755 | Kenoyer | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060279437 | Luby | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070008934 | Balasubramanian | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070009235 | Walters et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070044130 | Skoog | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070076703 | Yoneda et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070098079 | Boyce | May 2007 | A1 |
20070110029 | Gilmore, II | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123284 | Schliwa-Bertling | May 2007 | A1 |
20070133435 | Eneroth | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070200949 | Walker | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204320 | Wu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070214490 | Cheng | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070268899 | Cankaya | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070277219 | Toebes | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080062990 | Oran | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080189489 | Mitra | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080192839 | Gahm | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080225850 | Oran | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080253369 | Oran | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256409 | Oran | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080267078 | Farinacci | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080310435 | Cagenius | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090034627 | Rodriguez | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090034633 | Rodirguez | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049361 | Koren | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055540 | Foti | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090119722 | VerSteeg | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150715 | Pickens | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090201803 | Filsfils | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090201805 | Begen | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090213726 | Asati | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090217318 | Versteeg et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100005360 | Begen | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100036962 | Gahm | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20110131622 | Wu et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120189007 | Oran et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1490976 | Apr 2004 | CN |
1643857 | Jul 2005 | CN |
1947399 | Apr 2007 | CN |
1271953 | Jan 2003 | EP |
1553735 | Jul 2005 | EP |
1581005 | Sep 2005 | EP |
1608116 | Dec 2005 | EP |
1670252 | Jun 2006 | EP |
2008728919 | Feb 2008 | EP |
7814245.2 | May 2009 | EP |
2007814246 | Jun 2009 | EP |
8731381.3 | Nov 2009 | EP |
2220845 | Aug 2010 | EP |
9718637 | May 1997 | WO |
0019693 | Apr 2000 | WO |
0035201 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0076113 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0161909 | Aug 2001 | WO |
2005048519 | May 2005 | WO |
2006031925 | Mar 2006 | WO |
2006057606 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2006107424 | Oct 2006 | WO |
2008000289 | Jan 2008 | WO |
2008033644 | Mar 2008 | WO |
2008033645 | Mar 2008 | WO |
2008112465 | Sep 2008 | WO |
2009058645 | May 2009 | WO |
2008100725 | Aug 2009 | WO |
2009099847 | Aug 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Lehman et al., Active Reliable Multicast (ARM), 1998, IEEE, pp. 581-589. |
Turner, Jonathan S., “WDM Burst Switching” www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/4j/4j—3.htm, 1999. |
Byers, John W. et al., Accessing Multiple Mirror Sites in Parallel: Using Tornado Codes to Speed Up Downloads, IEEE 1999. |
Liang et al., Feedback suppression in reliable multicast protocol, 2000, IEEE, pp. 1436-1439. |
Nguyen, Thinh et. al., Protocols for Distributed Video Streaming, IEEE ICIP 2002. |
Schulzrinne, et al., RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications, Network Working Group, 2003, pp. 1-92. (RFC 3550). |
Weaver, et al. Reducing the Soft-Error Rate of a High-Performance Microprocessor, Article, 2004, pp. 30-37, IEEE Computer Society. |
Cisco Systems, Converge IP and DWDM Layers in the Core Network, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/prod—white—paper0900aecd80395e03.html, 2007. |
Cisco Systems, Cisco Visual Quality Experience: Product Overview, www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/prod/collateral/video/ps7191/ps7126/product—data—sheet0900aecd8057f446.html, 2009. |
Silver Peak Systems, Inc., “Data Center Class WAN Optimization: Latency & Loss Mitigation”, www.silver-peak.com/Technology/latency—loss—mitigation.htm., 2010. |
Handley, M. et al., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol”, RFC 2543, Mar. 1999. |
Rajamoni, Ramakrishnan, R. Bhagavathula, and R. Pendse. “Timing analysis of block replacement algorithms on disk caches.” 43rd IEEE Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Proceedings, Aug. 8-11, 2000. |
Lee, Jung-Hoon, J.S. Lee, and S.D. Kim. “A selective temporal and aggressive spatial cache system based on time interval.” 2000 International Conference on Computer Design (IEEE), Proceedings, Sep. 17-20, 2000. |
Rosenberg, J., et al., “Registration of parityfec MME types”, RFC 3009, Nov. 2000, 11 pgs. |
Approach Inc., “Streaming Media Technical Analysis”, Nov. 2000. |
Ott, “Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)” draft-ieft-av-rtcp-feedback-01-txt., Nov. 21, 2001. |
Duffy, “Riverstone Recasts Multicast Video”, 2 pages, Aug. 5, 2002, Network World Inc., www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2002/0805edge.html. |
Luby, M., et al., “Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block”, RFC 3452, Dec. 2002, 16 pages. |
Nguyen, Thinh and Avideh, Protocols for Distributed Video Streaming, Image Processing, 2002 Proceedings. 2002 Int, Dec. 10, 2002, vol. 3, 185-188, ISBN: 0-7803-7622-6. |
Degalahal, et al., Analyzing Soft Errors in Leakage Optimized SRAM Design, Article, Jan. 2003, pp. 1-7, 16th International Conference on VLSI Design. |
GossamerThreads, “Channel Change Speed”, www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post—view—flat;post=13776, Sep. 12, 2003. |
T. Friedman, “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)”, RFC 3611, Nov. 2003. |
Luby, M., et al., “Compact Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes”, RFC 3695, Feb. 2004, 14 pages. |
Li, et al., Soft Error and Energy Consumption Interactions: A Data Cache Perspective, Article, Aug. 9, 2004, pp. 1-6, ISLPED '04. |
Ott, J., et al., “Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)”,RFC 4585; draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11, Aug. 10, 2004, 52 pages. |
Adamson et al., Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Building Blocks (RFC 3941), Nov. 2004, RFC 3941 (IETF, ORG), pp. 1-37. |
Zhang, Computing Cache Vulnerability to Ransietn Errors and It's Implication, Article, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-9, IEEE Computer Society. |
Pendleton, et al., Session Initiation Protocol Package for Voice Quality Reporting Event draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary-01, Telchemy Incorporated, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ieft-sippin-rtcp-summaryy-01.txt, pp. 1-24, Feb. 2006. |
Watson, M., “Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes”, draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-02, Mar. 3, 2006, 17 pages. |
Chesterfield, J., et al., “RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions”, draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-11, Mar. 6, 2006, 67 pages. |
Rey, J., et al., “RTP Retransmission Payload Format”, RFC 4588, Jul. 2006, 24 pages. |
Begen, Ali C., Enhancing the Multimedia Experience in Emerging Network, A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty; Dec. 2006; available at http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-11062006-002415/; Dec. 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/561,237, filed Nov. 17, 2006—Prosecution History. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,930, filed Apr. 16, 2007—Prosecution History. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/736,463, filed Apr. 17, 2007—Prosecution History. |
International Search Report for PCT/US08/55837; Date of mailing Jul. 3, 2008. |
USPTO, PCT International Search Report for PCT/US07/76264, Jul. 7, 2008, 3 pgs. |
USPTO, PCT International Search Report for PCT/US08/52907, Jul. 7, 2008, 3 pgs. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US08/52907; Mailing Date Jul. 7, 2008. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US07/76264; Mailing date Jul. 7, 2008. |
International Search Report for PCT/US07/76265 ; Mailing date Aug. 20, 2008. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US07/76265; Aug. 20, 2008. |
International Search Report for PCT/US09/032305; Date of mailing Oct. 5, 2009. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US09/032305; Date of mailing Oct. 5, 2009. |
Supplementary European Search Report for EP08731381, Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pages. |
European Search Report for EP08728919; Aug. 19, 2010; 11 pgs. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US08/55837; Date of mailing Jul. 3, 2008. |
P. A. Chou and Z. Miao, “Rate-distortion optimized streaming of packetized media,” Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-35, Feb. 2001. |
Zhang, Computing Cache Vulnerablity to Ransietn Errors and It's Implication, Article, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-9, IEEE Computer Society. |
Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP, Listing of Related Cases for 2705-1118; Mar. 5, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/561,237, filed Nov. 17, 2006, Retransmission-Based Stream Repair and Stream Join. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,321, filed Mar. 14, 2007, Unified Transmission Scheme for Media Stream Redundancy. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/736,463, filed Mar. 17, 2007, Monitoring and Correcting Upstream Packet Loss. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, filed Feb. 12, 2007, Fast Channel Change on a Bandwidth Constrained Network. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/364,152, filed Feb. 27, 2006, Method and Apparatus for Immediate Display of Multicast IPTV Over a Bandwidth Constrained Network. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/371,987, filed Mar. 8, 2006, Method for Reducing Channel Change Startup Delays for Multicast Digital Video Streams. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,930, filed Apr. 16, 2007, Hybrid Corrective Scheme for Dropped Packets. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,381, filed Apr. 16, 2007, Regularly Occurring Write Back Scheme for Cache Soft Error Reduction. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, filed Apr. 11, 2008, Forward Error Correction Based Data Recovery With Path Diversity. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/442,500, filed May 26, 2006, Methods and Systems to Reduce Channel Selection Transition Delay in a Digital Network. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12,188,718, filed Aug. 8, 2008, Systems and Methods of Reducing Media Stream Delay. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/705,193, filed Nov. 10, 2003, Recyclable, Digital One Time Use Video Camera. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,772, filed Jul. 7, 2008, Importance-Based FED-Aware Error-Repair Scheduling. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,631, filed Feb. 26, 2008, Loss-Free Packet Networks. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/381,906, filed Jul. 31, 2007, Non-Enhancing Media Redundancy Coding for Mitigating Transmission Impairments. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/969,113, filed Oct. 20, 2004, System and Method for Fast Start-up of Live Multicast Streams Transmitted Over a Packet Network. |
Schulzrinne, H., “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” RFC 3550, Jul. 2003, 89 pgs. |
Rey et al., “RTP Retransmission Payload Form—RFC 4588”, Jul. 1, 2006, 29 pgs. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US09/032305 mailed Oct. 5, 2009, 17 pgs. |
Chinese First Office Action dated Aug. 3, 2010 cited in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 16 pgs. |
Chinese Second Office Action dated May 20, 2011 cited in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 11 pgs. |
Chinese First Office Action dated Jul. 4, 2011 for Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 11 pgs. |
European Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2011 cited in Appl. No. 08 728 919.5 6 pgs. |
Chinese Third Office Action dated Oct. 28, 2011 cited in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 9 pgs. |
Chinese Fourth Office Action dated Feb. 22, 2012 cited in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 7 pgs. |
Chinese Second Office Action dated Jul. 2, 2012 for Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2010 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 30 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Dec. 21, 2010 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 23 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2012 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 38 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2009 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, 45 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 26, 2010 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, 41 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2011 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, 36 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Sep. 27, 2011 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,772, 17 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2012 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,772, 15 pgs. (not M&G case). |
U.S. Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2012 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 13/435,431, 25 pgs. |
Chinese Third Office Action dated cited in Dec. 3, 2012 Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 8 pgs. |
Brassil, Jack, et al., “Structuring Internet Media Streams with Cueing Protocols,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, IEEE/ACM New York, NY, vol. 10, No. 4, Aug. 2002, XP011077174; Abstract Only. |
Castro H., et al., “Monitoring Emerging IPv6 Wireless Access Networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, vol. 12, No. 1, Feb. 2005, XP011127719. |
International Search Report for PCT/US08/80882 dated Mar. 30, 2009, 3 pgs. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability (1 pg.) and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (6 pgs.) for PCT/US08/80882 dated May 4, 2010. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jan. 2, 2013 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 13/016,773, 36 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Jan. 7, 2013 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 26 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Apr. 16, 2013 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 13/435,431, 18 pgs. |
European Search Report dated Mar. 7, 2013 cited in Appl. No. 07814246.0, 9 pgs. |
Wonyong Yoon et al., “A Combined Group/Tree Approach for Scalable Many-to-many Reliable Multicast,” Proceedings IEEE Infocom., vol. 3, Jun. 23, 2002, pp. 1336-1345. |
Victor O.K. Li et al., “Internet Multicast Routing and Transport Control Protocols,” Proceedings of IEEE, vol. 90, No. 3, Mar. 1, 2002, pp. 360-391. |
Hrishikesh Gossain et al., “Multicast: Wired to Wireless,” IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE Service Center, vol. 40, No. 6, Jun. 1, 2002, pp. 116-123. |
A. Erramilli et al., “A Performance Analysis of Protocols for Multicast Communication in Broadband Packet Networks,” XP010077385, Jun. 13, 1988, pp. 222-226. |
Chinese Fourth Office Action dated Mar. 25, 2013 cited in Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2013 U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 25 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110161765 A1 | Jun 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60825268 | Sep 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11561237 | Nov 2006 | US |
Child | 13043437 | US |