Soldani Huawei Bridgingqoeandqos

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
Security Level:
47pt
www.huawei.com
Bridging QoE and QoS
for Mobile Broadband
Networks
Dr. David Soldani
VP Huawei European Research Centre
21-22 September 2010
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/NewsandEvents/QoSQoEUserExperience.aspx
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. Page 2
Curriculum Vitae Dr. David Soldani
15 years in ICT industry
2009 present: Huawei Technology Dsseldorf
- VP European Research Centre
- Head of IP Transformation Research Centre (IPTRC)
2007 2009: Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN)
- Head of Solutions & Services Innovation
- Head of Customer Networks & Solutions (CTO office)
1997 2007: Nokia (Finland and Italy)
- Various technical & research management positions
1995 1997: Military Navy, Sirti SpA, Rohde & Schwarz
- Various technical positions
Areas of Expertise (not exhaustive)
Lead R&D and Customer Services organizational units
Unit/area strategy formulation and implementation
Technology and Innovation Management for ICT industry
Conduct lectures at Universities, Military Academy and ICT Companies
Perform advanced research in the fields of own expertise
Provide consulting functions to profit and nonprofit organizations
Supervise any type of R&D deliverables
Published/presented many international papers
Editor in chief and one of the main contributors to several books
Holder of several international patents
Relevant Experience (not exhaustive) Professional Background
Solutions for Traffic Management in Mobile Broadband Networks
Mobile Broadband Networks (TETRA, GSM, EDGE, WCDMA, HSPA,
LTE/SAE and WiMAX)
E2E QoS, QoE and Policy Based Management Solutions
E2E Service and Network Performance, Network Planning,
Optimization and Automation
Transport Network Layer Technologies (IP/MPLS/Ethernet)
Fixed Broadband Networks (xDSL, xPON)
Dr. David Soldani
VP European Research Centre
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
Riesstr. 25, D - 3.0G, 80992 Munich, Germany
Tel: +49-89-1588344095
Fax: +49-89-1588344446
Mobile: +49-1622047695
E-mail: david.soldani@huawei.com www.huawei.com
Outline
Definitions and industry trends
Objectives of monitoring QoE indicators
Solution layered architecture
Reference case
Conclusions
Definition: Quality of Experience (QoE)
Measurement of how well that
network is satisfying the end
user's requirements
Includes the complete end-to-
end system effects (client,
terminal, network, services
infrastructure, etc.)
QoE is also a consequence of
a users internal state (e.g.
expectations), the
characteristics of the
designed system (e.g.
functionality) and the context
(or the environment) within
which the interaction occurs
5.
Excellent
4.
Good
3.
Fair
2.
Poor
1.
Bad
The overall acceptability of an application or
service, as perceived subjectively by the end-user.
by ITU-T P.10/G.100
QoS and QoE parameters Mapping Model
Subjective
Measurements
Objective
Measurements
QoS QoE
SQoS
(Network based)
e.g. Packet Error Loss Ratio
ESQoS
(Service based)
e.g. Web Page Loading Time
MOS
(Mean Opinion Score)
Objective
evaluation
Subjective
evaluation
Viable solution
SQoS = System QoS
ESQoS = E2E Service QoS
2020 Global Broadband Revenues Forecast
Source: Mobile, Fixed and Wholesale Broadband Business Models, Telco 2.0, June 2010
Increase of 52% in revenue and more than half the revenue growth will come from
wholesale and two-sided fees for improved access capacity and quality
Current forecast expects mobile data traffic to grow by 300x to 500x over the next 10
years: mobile broadband will be worth $138bn (32% of total broadband revenues)
New upstream customers are forecast to generate over $90 billion in broadband
revenues globally by 2020
1. Offloading to WiFi
2. Offloading to Femtocell
3. Radio network enhancements
1. Signaling management
2. Macro network offload
3. Radio packet scheduling and prioritization
4. Compression, adaptation and transcoding
Compression
Rate-adaptation
Network-sharing
5. Device-based traffic management techniques
6. Contention management & tuning TCP/IP
7. Deep packet inspection, policy-based traffic shaping & differential
charging
8. End-to-end service assurance and monitoring
9. Caching, multicast & CDNs
10. Congestion APIs
Key Technologies for Mobile Broadband
Traffic Management
Source: Disruptive Analysis, June 2010
In many operators,
there is often no
single individual who
"owns" the issue of
data traffic, who can
develop a holistic
solution
In many operators,
there is often no
single individual who
"owns" the issue of
data traffic, who can
develop a holistic
solution
8. End-to-end service assurance and monitoring
QoE/QoS aspects addressed by all important
standardization bodies
Mobile
Voice
VOIP MTV IPTV Data
Framework
E2E Service
metrics
System
metrics
Measurement
Method
GB934 GB938
TR 26.944
TS 102 250 -3/4
TS 101 329 - 5
P.NAMS PEVQ
G.1070
P.861-862 P.563
G.107seriers
Y.1541
E.800
TS 32.410
TR 32.814
MDI
Y.1541
TS 32.425
Improving QoE of RT
Communication Services
ETSI Specialist Task Force 354
UE satisfaction criteria
TS 102 250-2
KQI for PS services
ETSI STQ
TR-126
EG 202 670
Audio QoE: the state of art
P.564
G.107
E-Model
1996 1998 2002
ETSI ETR 250
TS 101 329-5
P.861
PSQM
P.862
PESQ
P.563
ITU P.800
P.562
P.561
P.OLQA
P.CQO
2005
PESQ: intrusive method that compares the degraded signal to the original signal
P.563: non-intrusive method and does not need the original signal
P.564: model for assessing voice over IP transmission quality
E-Model: non-intrusive method and its extensions in under study (2009-2012)
P.OLQA: evolution of PESQ and it is still under research (2009-2010)
P.CQO: new model based on P.561, P.563, P.564 and E-Model currently under study (2009-2012)
PESQ: intrusive method that compares the degraded signal to the original signal
P.563: non-intrusive method and does not need the original signal
P.564: model for assessing voice over IP transmission quality
E-Model: non-intrusive method and its extensions in under study (2009-2012)
P.OLQA: evolution of PESQ and it is still under research (2009-2010)
P.CQO: new model based on P.561, P.563, P.564 and E-Model currently under study (2009-2012)
E-Model is supported by Huawei SQM/QoE products
E-Model is supported by Huawei SQM/QoE products
E-Model
Extension
Video QoE: the state of art
Reduced
Reference
Non Reference Full Reference Subjective
Estimation
Image
resolution
ITU-T J.246
ITU-T J.147
ITU-T J.249
VQEG:
MM Project
VQEG:
RRNR-TV
HDTV ITU-T SG12:
P.NAMS
P.NBAMS
G.OMVAS
ITU-T P.910
ITU-T P.911
ITU-R BT.500
ITU-T J.140
ITU-T J.245
QCIF
CIF
VGA
HDTV
SDTV
ITU-T J.247
ITU-T J.144
ITU-R BT.1683
Completed Ongoing projects
P.NAMS (from packet header) and P.NBAMS (from payload information): non-reference
multimedia, audio and video quality estimation methods
G.OMVAS defines a Quality Planning Tool (E-Model) for IPTV services (by 2011)
ITU-T also has several IPTV QoE projects, such as G.IPTV_MMRP, G.IPTV_PMP.
P.NAMS (from packet header) and P.NBAMS (from payload information): non-reference
multimedia, audio and video quality estimation methods
G.OMVAS defines a Quality Planning Tool (E-Model) for IPTV services (by 2011)
ITU-T also has several IPTV QoE projects, such as G.IPTV_MMRP, G.IPTV_PMP.
Huawei has a non-reference video quality estimation method, called MOS-V, it is a contribution to
P.NAMS, and it is supported by Huawei SQM/QoE products
Huawei has a non-reference video quality estimation method, called MOS-V, it is a contribution to
P.NAMS, and it is supported by Huawei SQM/QoE products
IEEE special issue on QoE
- March 2010 -
IEEE Network Special Issue on Improving Quality of
Experience for Network Services
Guest Editors
Dr. Jahan A. Hassan
University of New South, Wales, Australia
Prof. Sajal K. Das
University of Texas at Arlington, USA
Prof. Mahbub Hassan,
University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Chatschik Bisdikian
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, USA
Dr. David Soldani
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd., Germany
http://dl.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/public/2010/mar/index.html
Outline
Reference case
Conclusions
Operators challenges
Very little work available on end user perception of the
services, especially from Internet, that are being offered
Gaps between network measured quality and user
perceived experience
Mechanisms, procedures and tools to continuously
monitor, operate and report QoE indicators
B
a
n
d
w
i
d
t
h
End to End
Effects!
1
Cause!
User plane
Control plane
2
Main objectives
1. QoE monitoring as support for strategic
company decisions
2. QoE monitoring for network optimization,
supervision and operation
3. Support for business and customer intelligence
processes
Outline
Reference case
Conclusions
Functional architecture
Access
node
Access
node
Core Network
node
Core Network
node
Aggregation
node
Aggregation
node
Terminal
device
Terminal
device
Embedded
Agents
Network Elements
and Interfaces Probes
Network Elements
PM and FM Data
Core
node
Core
node
Service core
node
Service core
node
Data Acquisition Data Acquisition
Layer Layer
Data Analysis Data Analysis
Layer Layer
Data Presentation Data Presentation
Layer Layer
Data Query, Filtering, Refinement,
Correlation and Processing
System QoS, Alarms
and Events
Network Model, Configuration
and Topology
E2E Service QoS
and Events
Data Collection Data Collection
Layer Layer
MBB QoE Indicator
reports
MBB QoE Network
Optimization, Supervision
and Operation
Customer and Business
Intelligence
Functional Functional
Objectives/Use Cases Objectives/Use Cases
Data Visualization and Report Generation
Mediation layer
Mediation layer (Optional)
Network Based Network Based
Approach Approach
Terminal Based Terminal Based
Approach Approach
Functional elements (layers)
Data acquisition layer
All relevant information related to QoE monitoring and measuring
Network and Terminal based approaches
Data collection layer
Storage for vertical solutions with continuous monitoring
Real time (seldom) and periodic monitoring
Scale of samples across network and customers
Data analysis layer
Format and data conversion required for different data sources
Data query, filtering, refinement, correlation and processing
Data aggregation, correlating and processing layer
Storage for horizontal solution
Presentation layer
Tools for visualization and report generation
Continuous tracking of mobile broadband experience
Customer experience as a combination of network indicators
Solution segmentation
Services Services
Web surfing
Streaming
File DL/UL
E-mail

Network Scope Network Scope
Whole Network
Per region
Per NE/Cell
Per RAN Vendor
Device Device
All devices
Device class
Device type
Device group

Technology Technology
All technologies
2G
3G

Customer Customer
All customers
Segment
Tariff

Filtering based on all possible combinations
Layered approach

Throughput of
service C of user X,
Packet drop ratio,
Throughput of
service B of user X,
Packet drop ratio,
Streaming
etc
VoIP
Email Session
Setup Success Ratio
Email Session
Setup time
Email
Session Setup
Success Ratio
Active Session
Throughput
FTP download
Web Page
Loading Time
Active Session
Throughput
SDU Throughput, SDU Error Ratio,

SDU Transfer Delay
Per User,
QoS class, etc.
Look at the pipe
(a PDP context)
Monitored Parameters Segmentation / Granularity
Gross and net throughput at each interface (cell, Iub, ),
Wide band received and transmitted power (cell), etc.
Per Cell, Itf,
NE, etc.
Look at the
infrastructure
Throughput of
service A for user X,
Packet drop ratio,
Per service,
User, etc.
Look shallowly
into the pipe
Web Browsing
Service
Quality
Look deeply
into the pipe
Pipe = Bearer service
Mobile Broadband Network
Huawei Solution for 3GPP Packet
Switched Networks
Backhaul
MS
BTS
NodeB RNC
SGSN
Internet/
Intranet
HLR
Iub Iu-PS
Gn
Gi
Gr
Gb
Datacard
eNB
eNB
X2
S1-MME
S1-U
S4
S5 S6a
S7
S11
S3
SGi
LTE UE
Uu
Data acquisition from NE & OSS
FM / PM and 3GPP NE
embedded probes
Data acquisition from Interface
Data acquisition from transport NE
Transport NE embedded
and interface probes
Data acquisition from Terminal
Device
manager
Service Quality Manager
3r party
Backbone
GGSN
MME
Serving GW PDNGW HSS
PCU
PCRF
Abis
Outline
Reference case
Conclusions
User and service satisfaction criteria
Gold, Silver and Bronze users G, S, B
User active throughput >
User_BW AND
Session success rate >
User_Target_SSR
User
bandwidth
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
QoS class*
(i)
Air interface (IP) packet error
loss rate < User_PELR(i) AND
98-percentile delay <
User_PDB(i) 20 ms AND
Active throughput >
User_target_rate(i) AND
Video (Buffered Streaming), TCP-based
(e.g., www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing,
progressive video, etc.)
Voice, Video (Live Streaming), Interactive
Gaming
Non-GBR
Video (Buffered Streaming), TCP-based
(e.g., www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing,
progressive video, etc.)
IMS Signalling
Non-Conversational Video (Buffered
Streaming)
Real Time Gaming
Conversational Video (Live Streaming)
GBR
Conversational Voice
Air interface (IP) packet loss
error rate < User_PELR(i) AND
98-percentile delay <
User_PDB(i) 20 ms AND
Example Services and Users Satisfaction criterion Resource
Type
10. 0
Mb/s
*) Unique combination of QoS parameters identifying the bearer or service data flows, e.g. DSCP
Target performance
8
7
6
4
3
2
5
1
QoS class*
(i)
< 384 kb/s,
< 64 kb/s
4-13 kb/s,
< 384 kb/s,
< 60 kb/s
< 384 kb/s,
< 128 kb/s
4-13 kb/s
20-384 kb/s
60 kb/s, 30
kb/s
32-384 kb/s
4-25 kb/s
Data Rate
(DR)
Video (Buffered Streaming),
TCP-based (e.g., www, e-mail, chat,
ftp, p2p file
sharing, progressive video, etc.)
10
-6
300 ms
Voice,
Video (Live Streaming),
Interactive Gaming
10
-3
100 ms
Non-GBR
Video (Buffered Streaming),
TCP-based (e.g., www, e-mail, chat,
ftp, p2p file sharing, progressive
video, etc.)
10
-6
300 ms
IMS Signalling
10
-6
100 ms
Non-Conversational Video (Buffered
Streaming)
10
-6
300 ms
Real Time Gaming, Telemetry
10
-3
50 ms, 250 ms
Conversational Video (Live
Streaming)
10
-3
150 ms
GBR
Conversational Voice
10
-2
100 ms
Example Services Packet Error
Loss Rate (PERL)
b
Packet Delay
Budget (PDB)
a
Resource
Type
a) PDB (radio) = PDB (BS-PCEF) - 20 ms (Delay Correction BS-PCEF)
b) PERL (non congested BS-PCEF) = 0
*) Unique combination of QoS parameters identifying the bearer or service data flows, e.g. DSCP
Reference [3GPP TS 23.203, TS 22.105]
Relationship between QoE and QoS
1. Constant optimal QoE
E.g. x1 (sharp threshold) is the
boundary below which a user
feels the system reacting
instantaneously
2. Sinking QoE
The higher the QoE the higher the
impact of a certain additional QoS
disturbance on QoE
3. Unacceptable QoE
E.g. Reached x2 (user-
dependent threshold) the
transmission might become
unacceptably bad in quality
o
|
+ =
~
c
c
=
QoS
e QoE
QoE
QoS
QoE
QoS f QoE
) (
) (
VoIP: Internet low bit rate codec as
used by Skype
Voice quality affected by loss, jitter and reordering
Type-p reordered ratio is used to quantify the jitter
98
th
percentile delay < 100 ms PERL < 10
-2
Web Browsing: perceived quality
QoS in terms of response and download times
Web session: (a) requesting a search page; (b) typing and
submitting a query; and (c) retrieving the results
Web page loading time < 4s
User throughput > 64 kb/s
Example of Video clips: quality
affected by packet loss
QoE scores of a video clip repaired with two loss concealment
schemes at various packet loss rates
PELR < 10-6 PELR < 10-6
Encoder H.264 with one IP packet = 7 188 Bytes
With 100 kb/s and PERL 10
-6
PLF = 1.2x10
-4
Example of video quality of IPTV
Services: quality affected by packet loss
Example of service satisfaction criteria
Web Service
Web Paging Loading Time AND
Active Session Throughput
Video Streaming
Streaming Mean Active Throughput AND
Streaming Media Active Transport Jitter AND
Streaming Media Loss
Video via HTTP
Active Session Throughput
VoIP
Call Setup Success Ratio AND
Call Setup Time AND
Call Cut-off Ratio AND
Speech Quality
Satisfaction estimation using Fuzzy Logic
0
1
a
b a
KPI
Truth (KPI)

0
1
Truth (WPLT)
0
1
Truth (WPLT)
Air Interface Packet Error Rate (%) 98th-Percentile of Delay (ms)
Truth (PD) Truth (PELR)
1 100
Satisfaction = min [Truth (Air Interface Packet Loss Error Rate), Truth (98th-Percentile of Delay )]
Truth Value of a KPI (denoted by
weight) is given by
Maximum of truth values, if logical OR is used
Minimum of truth values, if logical AND is used
Example for VoIP:
Generic Truth function of
a QoS parameter:
Ex. Truth value (weight) of QoE for Web Browsing:
0.9 384 Active Session Throughput (kb/s)
0.3 0.3 3 Web Page Loading Time (s)
Weight (Satisfaction) Truth Value KPI
QoE = o Exp(-| QoS) +
Satisfaction = min [Truth (Web Paging Loading Time), Truth (Active Session Throughput)]
Configurable parameters: o, |, , x1 and x2
Needs to be
normalized
Outline
Reference case
Conclusions
Service quality differentiated G/S/B portfolio
33
Service Quality Differentiation in Mobile Broadband portfolio
Service Quality Differentiation in Mobile Broadband portfolio
Bronze Tariff A
Silver Tariff B
Gold Tariff C
Ultimate
(e.g. HD Video)
Best for Social Media
(e.g. facebook, youtube etc.)
Best for Surf & Chat
Service Quality Differentiation
Max Mbps DL/Mbps UL
Avg. Mbps DL/ Mbps UL
FUP / SSD
Montly fee
Bandwidth levels
(In loaded networks, e.g., throttling of Streaming and/or HD Video services for Bronze will make it possible to allocate the freed
capacity to Gold, or Silver, so that a higher priority will enable a better user experience.)
Empty network
Bronze Silver Gold
Bronze Silver Gold
Streaming Surfing HD video Allocated capacity:
Tariff
Speed
Tariff
Speed
Loaded network Empty network
Bronze Silver Gold
Bronze Silver Gold
Streaming Surfing HD video Allocated capacity:
Tariff
Speed
Tariff
Speed
Loaded network
(1) Surfing
(2) http Streaming
(3) RTP Streaming
(4) E-Mail
(5) File DL
(6) Other
Example of
Mapping for Gold:
QoS benefits
Dissatisfied
Users (%)
Traffic
(variable)
10%
With QoS
on (at cost X)
All on BE (no QoS,
with Resources R1)
QoS Gains = T2-T1 (at cost X,
for paying the QoS features,
with resources R1)
Traffic = T2
Traffic mix = Tm
(held constant)
0%
Traffic = T1
Worst
performing
service
Satisfied Users
(%)
Resource
(variable)
90%
Over
provisioning
Additional Resources R2, at
cost Y, for accommodating
the same traffic as with QoS
on, satisfactorily
Traffic = T2
(both held constant)
Traffic mix = Tm
0%
Profit = Y-X > 0
Over provisioning = R2-R1
Worst
performing
service
Total profit Total profit
1) Benefit of radio, transport and
gateway QoS functions for HSPA and
LTE/SAE
2) Corresponding cost savings
with respect to over provisioning
+ additional
revenues!
RNC
SGSN&
GGSN
Web/Streaming/
E-mail/FTP/MMS
server
Traffic
Generator
Downlink
traffic
Node B
Traffic Mix
70% 30%
Without QoS
60% 30% 10%
With QoS
Bronze Silver Gold User Mix
35% 5% 3% 7% 15% 35%
Other
File
downloads
e-mail RTP
streaming
http
streaming
Surfing
Service Mix
User satisfaction criteria for HSPA
NA NA NA Web page
delay <
10s
128
kb/s
Bronze
Throughput
> GBR
Throughput >
90 kb/s
PDL < 300 ms
PERL < 10
-3
Throughput
> 192 kb/s
Web page
delay <
8s
256
kb/s
Silver
Throughput
> GBR
Throughput >
90 kb/s
PDL < 300 ms
PERL < 10
-6
Throughput
> 384 kb/s
Web page
delay <
4s
512
kb/s
Gold
File
downloads
RTP
streaming
http
streaming
Web
Surfing
Av.
Speed
(GBR*)
User
Type
*) Minimum target rate
Without QoS - RTP Streaming

RTP streaming: % of
Satisfied users
Number
of users
Threshold = 90%
A = 3300
0
20
40
60
80
100
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
G
S
With QoS - RTP Streaming
G = (B-A)/A = 30%

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
RTP streaming: % of
Satisfied users
Number
of users
Threshold = 90%
20
40
60
80
100
G
S
B = 4300
Gains in terms of % of satisfied users
The more users that can be satisfied, at a given offered load, the more
efficiently the spectrum is utilized by the operator
Limit = 90%
BS1
BS2
BS3
Traffic volume
(kb/s)
Offered traffic
(Held constant)
% Satisfied users
BS = Bearer Service
Fitness
Fitness = |QoE Actual - QoE Target|
Example: QoS optimization for 5
traffic mixes
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 10 100
Iteration
B
e
s
t

f
i
t
n
e
s
s
Too much
traffic
Too low
traffic
Target
Traffic volume:
optimisation
really effective!
Outline
Reference case
Conclusions
What could be standardized?
QoE as a combination of QoS parameters (e.g. ETSI TS 102
250-2) and truth functions (fuzzy logic)
NGBR and GBR bearer satisfaction criteria and user
satisfaction criteria as a function of them
Call Detail Records (CDR) for service data flows and relevant
interfaces / elements, which shall support those
Requirements for embedded probes and terminal agents for
multi-vendor support
References
1. D. Soldani, M. Li and R. Cuny, QoS and QoE Management in UMTS Cellular Networks, John Wiley
& Sons (2006)
2. ITU-T Recommendation P.10/G.100 (incl. Amendment 2), Vocabulary for performance and quality
of service, July 2006 (2008)
3. A. Takahashi, K. Yamagishi, G. Kawaguti, Recent Activities of QoS/QoE Standardization in ITU-T
SG12, NTT white paper, 2008.
4. ETSI TS 102 250-2 V1.7.1 QoS aspects for popular services in GSM and 3G networks; Part 2:
Definition of Quality of Service parameters and their computation, October 2009
5. ETSI EG 202 670 V1.1.1 Human factors (HF); user experience guidelines for real-time
communication services expressed in quality of service terms, March 2010
6. P. Brooks, B. Hestnes, Being objective and quantitative about user measurements of QoE, IEEE
Network Comm. Magazine, March 2010
7. M. Fiedler, T. Hossfeld and Phuoc Tran-Gia, A generic quantitative relationship between quality of
experience and quality of service, IEEE Network Comm. Magazine, March 2010.
8. Kuan-Ta Chen, et al., Quadrant of Euphoria: a crowd sourcing platform for QoE assessment,
IEEE Network Comm. Magazine, March 2010
9. K. Yamagishi, T. Hayashi, Parametric packet-layer model for monitoring video quality of IPTV
services, IEEE, ICC, 2008
10. D. Soldani, Hou Xiao Jun, B. Lck, Strategies for mobile broadband growth: traffic segmentation
for better customer experience, IEEE VTC Spring 2011 (submitted)
Thank you
www.huawei.com

Soldani Huawei Bridgingqoeandqos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soldani Huawei Bridgingqoeandqos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

SDU Throughput, SDU Error Ratio,

You might also like