Simulation of VoIP over UDP with Bandwidth on Demand Analysis
Sandeep Kamra, Kunal Gupta
Amity University, Noida
Abstract
This paper analyses resource provisioning for
enterprise Voice-over-IP (VoIP) networks.
Simulation and analytical methods are used to
enhance the provisioning process, which ultimately
aims to provide the Bandwidth and its availability.
This paper defines simple guidelines for network
dimensioning in a multimedia environment in terms
of end-to-end delay for the voice traffic, and in
terms of throughput and packet loss for TCP data
traffic. A realistic environment is modelled and
simulated using ns-2. The model consists of a
prioritized network in which intermediate routers
perform priority scheduling to provide
differentiation of Internet services.
1. Introduction
The increase in both popularity and capacity of
the Internet has led to the increasing need to
provide real-time voice and video services to the
network. While the potential benefits of these
services are enormous, the process of adapting the
connectionless data-oriented design of IP networks
to real-time traffic is rather slow. Recently, we
have seen two major trends in the area of
communications. First, IEEE 802.11 WLANs have
been widely deployed in the world. Second, due to
the growth of Internet bandwidth, real-time audio
and video applications have become more mature
and popular. The combined effect has made VoIP
(voice over IP) over WLANs possible. Although
VoIP involves the transmission of digitized voice
in packets, the telephone itself may be analog or
digital. The voice may be digitized and encoded
either before or concurrently with packetization.
2. G.711
G.711 is an ITU-T standard for audio
companding. It is primarily used in telephony. The
standard was released for usage in 1972. Its formal
name is Pulse code modulation (PCM) of voice
frequencies. It is required standard in many
technologies, for example in H.320 and H.323
specifications. It can also be used for fax
communication over IP networks (as defined in
T.38 specification). G.711, also known as Pulse
Code Modulation (PCM), is a very commonly used
waveform codec. G.711 uses a sampling rate of
8,000 samples per second, with the tolerance on
that rate 50 parts per million (ppm). Non-uniform
(logarithmic) quantization with 8 bits is used to
represent each sample, resulting in a 64 kbit/s bit
rate.
G.711 fax passthrough does not distinguish
between a G.711 voice call and a fax call, treating
both the same way and not doing anything in
particular to address the problems of packet loss,
jitter and delay. The fax message is carried in its
entirety in-band over the voice call. This is a
technique that is tried by many businesses to send
faxes over the Internet since all they need is the
same G.711 standard support that they already have
for VoIP calls. G.711 passthrough works over
LANs or networks that do not suffer packet losses
or excessive delays. It does not work reliably over
the open Internet. Some customers‟ mistake G.711
passthrough for all VoIP techniques, which often
has them, staying away from Internet fax due to
lower reliability. G.711 is a voice standard, but
G.711 passthrough is not a fax standard.
3. G.729
With the low rate of 8 kbps, G.729 is the lowest
bit rate ITU-T standard with toll quality, offering
opportunities for significant increases in bandwidth
utilization in existing telephony and wireless
applications.
G.729 operates on 10-ms frames, allowing
moderate transmission delays, so applications such
Sandeep Kamra et al, International Journal of Computer Science & Communication Networks,Vol 2(2), 284-287
284
ISSN:2249-5789
as teleconferencing or visual telephony, where
quality, delay and bandwidth are all important, will
benefit substantially from this codec.
4. Bandwidth
Bandwidth is interchangeably used with
connection speed, although technically they are not
exactly the same. Bandwidth is in fact a range of
frequencies through which data is transmitted. The
same principles apply for radio, TV and data
transmission. A large bandwidth „range‟ means that
more data are transmitted at one point in time, and
thus at greater speed. Technically, bandwidth is not
connection speed, although they are used
interchangeably by most Internet users. I will do so
as well, to put you at ease.
When calculating bandwidth, one can't assume
that every channel is used all the time. Normal
conversation includes a lot of silence, which often
means no packets are sent at all. So even if one
voice call sets up two 64 Kbit RTP streams over
UDP over IP over Ethernet (which adds overhead),
the full bandwidth is not used at all times.
A codec that sends a 64kb stream results in a
much larger IP network stream. The main cause of
the extra bandwidth usage is IP and UDP headers.
VoIP sends small packets and so, many times, the
headers are actually much larger than the data part
of the packet.
5. CALCULATING BANDWIDTH
CONSUMPTION FOR VOIP
Calculating the bandwidth for a VoIP call is not
difficult once you know the method and the factors
to include. The chart below, "Calculating one-way
voice bandwidth," demonstrates the overhead
calculation for 20 and 40 byte compressed voice
(G.729) being transmitted over a Frame Relay
WAN connection. Twenty bytes of G.729
compressed voice is equal to 20 ms of a word.
Bandwidth is defined as the ability to transfer data
(such as a VoIP telephone call) from one point to
another in a fixed amount of time. The bandwidth
needed for VoIP transmission will depends on a
few factors: the compression technology, packet
overhead, network protocol used and whether
silence suppression is used.
Voice digitization and compression:
1. G .711: 64,000 bps or 8000 bytes per second
2. G.729: 8000 bps or 1000 bytes per second
Protocol packet overhead:
1. IP = 20 bytes, UDP = 8 bytes, RTP =12
bytes
Total: 40 bytes
Packet voice transmission requirements
(Bits per second per voice channel)
Codec Voice
bit rate
Sample
time
Voice
payload
Packets
per second Ethernet
PPP or
Frame Relay
RTP cRTP
G.711 64
Kbps 20 msec 160 bytes 50
87.2
Kbps
82.4
Kbps
68.0
Kbps
G.711 64
Kbps 30 msec 240 bytes 33.3
79.4
Kbps
76.2
Kbps
66.6
Kbps
G.711 64
Kbps 40 msec 320 bytes 25
75.6
Kbps
73.2
Kbps
66.0
Kbps
G.729A 8 Kbps 20 msec 20 bytes 50 31.2
Kbps
26.4
Kbps
12.0
Kbps
G.729A 8 Kbps 30 msec 30 bytes 33.3 23.4
Kbps
20.2
Kbps
10.7
Kbps
G.729A 8 Kbps 40 msec 40 bytes 25 19.6
Kbps
17.2
Kbps
10.0
Kbps
6. Simulation
The VoIP is simulated over the UDP. The Fedora
OS is used to run the Simulating Software NS2
(Network Simulator 2) version 2.35 for the
performance evaluation. The QoS is measured in
terms of Throughput and Latency of the codecs
under the analysis.
Sandeep Kamra et al, International Journal of Computer Science & Communication Networks,Vol 2(2), 284-287
285
ISSN:2249-5789
7. Results
Latency – Delay analysis of G711 and G729
Figure 1: Latency Comparison G711
Figure 2: Latency Comparison G729
The latency comparison shows that the G711 has a
better performance than the G729 codec for the
VoIP.
Throughput Analysis of G711 and G729
Figure 3: Throughput Comparison G711
Figure 4: Throughput Comparison G729
The throughput of the G729 is far better than
of the G711 hence QoS will be far better than
the G711 codec. The QoS bandwidth
regulations are easily satisfied by the G729
Sandeep Kamra et al, International Journal of Computer Science & Communication Networks,Vol 2(2), 284-287
286
ISSN:2249-5789
and can be termed as the better suited for VoIP
QoS.
References
[1] Y. Hiwasaki, “ITU-T G.711.1: extending G.711 to higher-
quality wideband speech,” IEEE, 2009.
[2] Y. Hiwasaki, “A wideband speech and audio coding
candidate for ITU-T G.711WBE standardization,” IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing, 2008. ICASSP 2008. , 2008.
[3] R. Cox, “Standardization and Characterization of G.729,”
IEEE, 1997.
[4] R. Salami, “Description of ITU-T Recommendation G.729
Annex A: reduced complexity 8 kbit/s CS-ACELP codec,”
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing, 1997. ICASSP-97., 1997, 1997.
[5] X. Kong, “Implementation of G.729 Codec Based on
DaVinci Technology,” International Conference on
MultiMedia and Information Technology, 2008. MMIT '08.,
2008.
[6] R. Salami, “ITU-T G.729 Annex A: reduced complexity 8
kb/s CS-ACELP codec for digital simultaneous voice and
data,” IEEE, 1997.
[7] J. Li, “The QoS Research of VoIP over WLAN,” 2006
International Conference on Communications, Circuits and
Systems Proceedings, 2006.
[8] N. El-fishawy, “Capacity estimation of VoIP transmission
over WLAN,” National Radio Science Conference, 2007,
2007.
Sandeep Kamra et al, International Journal of Computer Science & Communication Networks,Vol 2(2), 284-287
287
ISSN:2249-5789