Cross-protocol unfairness between adaptive streaming clients over http/3 and http/2: A root-cause analysis

Chanh Minh Tran, Tho Nguyen Duc, Phan Xuan Tan, Eiji Kamioka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1755
JournalElectronics (Switzerland)
Volume10
Issue number15
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021 Aug 1

Keywords

  • Adaptive streaming
  • Congestion control
  • Cross-protocol
  • HTTP/3
  • QUIC
  • Unfairness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Control and Systems Engineering
  • Signal Processing
  • Hardware and Architecture
  • Computer Networks and Communications
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cross-protocol unfairness between adaptive streaming clients over http/3 and http/2: A root-cause analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this