Small‐block interleaving for low‐delay cross‐packet forward error correction over burst‐loss channels

Abstract

SUMMARY By adding the redundant packets into source packet block, cross‐packet forward error correction (FEC) scheme performs error correction across packets and can recover both congestion packet loss and wireless bit errors accordingly. Because cross‐packet FEC typically trades the additional latency to combat burst losses in the wireless channel, this paper presents a FEC enhancement scheme using the small‐block interleaving technique to enhance cross‐packet FEC with the decreased delay and improved good‐put. Specifically, adopting short block size is effective in reducing FEC processing delay, whereas the corresponding effect of lower burst‐error correction capacity can be compensated by deliberately controlling the interleaving degree. The main features include (i) the proposed scheme that operates in the post‐processing manner to be compatible with the existing FEC control schemes and (ii) to maximize the data good‐put in lossy networks; an analytical FEC model is built on the interleaved Gilbert‐Elliott channel to determine the optimal FEC parameters. The simulation results show that the small‐block interleaved FEC scheme significantly improves the video streaming quality in lossy channels for delay‐sensitive video. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interleaved coding and sequential transmission scheme for packet‐level forward error correction over burst loss channels

“…Applying Equation 8 to the illustrative example shown in Figure 1, the expected delay is equal to (8 × T in + 10 × T out + T prog ), given transmission system parameters {T in , T out , T prog }.…”

“…Thus, data recovery schemes such as forward error correction (FEC) are essential in achieving a robust data transmission performance. [6][7][8] In other words, byte-level FEC and packet-level FEC are designed mainly to recover transmission errors within the packet and occasional packet losses, respectively. Typically, the number of redundant data items added to the source block determines the data recovery capacity (ie, the number of lost source data items that can be recovered).…”

“…8,[28][29][30] For applications with stringent delay constraints such as real-time video streaming, the FEC interleaving technique may therefore be infeasible because such applications typically regard late packets as lost packets, and hence, the video will not be played in time due to the long delay caused by the interleaving process. 8,[28][29][30] For applications with stringent delay constraints such as real-time video streaming, the FEC interleaving technique may therefore be infeasible because such applications typically regard late packets as lost packets, and hence, the video will not be played in time due to the long delay caused by the interleaving process.…”

Sliding‐window forward error correction using Reed‐Solomon code and unequal error protection for real‐time streaming video

“…However, the efficiency of FEC is governed not only by the allocation rate, but also by the coding window size. Given the same ratio of FEC data to video data within the FEC window (ie, a constant FEC allocation rate), a larger window results in a higher error correction capacity than a smaller window, although at the expense of a greater coding complexity and a larger memory space …”

“…Given the same ratio of FEC data to video data within the FEC window (ie, a constant FEC allocation rate), a larger window results in a higher error correction capacity than a smaller window, although at the expense of a greater coding complexity and a larger memory space. 5,8 Reviewing the literature shows that frame-level FEC, expanding-window FEC and sliding-window FEC are 3 well-known schemes employed for real-time video streaming, because all of these perform the FEC process on a frame-by-frame basis. In frame-level FEC, each coding window contains a single video frame and its corresponding FEC redundancies.…”