A Model-Based Analytic Approach for Evaluating End-to-End Error Correction with Interleaving in IP Networks

Abstract

This paper outlines a model-based analytic approach designed to evaluate the effectiveness of End-to-End Error Correction (EEEC) coding combined with interleaving in mitigating packet losses within IP networks. It introduces a recursive procedure for precisely assessing packet-loss statistics and integrates a discrete-time Markov chain (DTMC) to account for interleaving effects. The framework supports both single-session and complex multiple-session scenarios, offering a unified approach to explore tradeoffs between key coding parameters like interleaving depths, channel coding rates, and block lengths. The aim is to facilitate optimal coding strategy selection for diverse multimedia application with varying Quality of Service(Qos) requirements.

Introduction

• Modern packet-switched networks, like IP networks, are prone to packet loss due to congestion, buffer overflow, and link errors.

• This unreliability severely impacts real-time and multimedia applications, where retransmissions introduce unacceptable delays.

• Therefore, forward error correction (FEC) methods, especially End-to-End Error Correction (EEEC), are necessary to recover data without retransmission.

2. EEEC and the Role of Redundancy

• EEEC adds redundant check bits to the original data, enabling the receiver to detect and correct errors.

• However, too much redundancy can increase network load and worsen packet loss. Thus, careful optimization is essential.

3. Interleaving for Burst Error Mitigation

• Burst errors affect multiple consecutive bits or packets, often causing irrecoverable loss.

• Interleaving spreads data bits across packets, converting burst errors into isolated, correctable errors.

• Example:

  • Without interleaving: "aaaabbbbcccc" → burst loss → severe impact.

  • With interleaving: "abcabcabcabc" → burst loss is scattered and recoverable.

4. EEEC Coding Techniques

• Block Coding (e.g., Reed-Solomon): Works on fixed-size data blocks.

• Convolutional Coding: Operates on continuous streams.

5. Proposed System Architecture

A model-based analytic system is introduced to evaluate EEEC and interleaving performance. Key components:

1. EEEC Encoder: Converts text to binary, applies EEEC, adds redundancy (Java Swing interface).

2. Interleaver: Rearranges bits to protect against burst errors.

3. Queue (Simulated Network): Introduces random packet loss to emulate real network behavior.

4. De-Interleaver: Restores original packet order.

5. EEEC Decoder: Uses check bits to correct errors and reconstruct original data.

6. Performance Evaluation: Measures system effectiveness under various coding settings.

6. Advantages and Applications

• High Reliability: Maintains data integrity in lossy environments.

• Reduced Need for Retransmissions: Minimizes latency and overhead.

• Improved Error Control: Effective in high-latency systems (e.g., satellite, military, and ATM networks).

7. Evaluation and GUI

• Visual interface components include:

  • Source GUI

  • Encoding/Interleaving GUI

  • Queue Simulation GUI

These interfaces assist in testing, simulation, and visualizing system performance.

Conclusion

The model-based analytic approach presented provides a valuable framework for understanding and evaluating the efficacy of EEEC coding combined with interleaving in combating packet losses in IP networks. By offering insights into the interplay of key coding parameters and supporting different session scenarios, this work contributes to the design of more robust and reliable communication systems for multimedia and other critical applications. The ability to adapt coding strategies to dynamic network conditions remains a key area for future development.

References

[1] A Model-Based Approach to Evaluation of the Efficacy of EEEC Coding in Combating Network Packet Losses IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 16, NO. 3, JUNE 2008 [2] O. J. Boxma, “Sojourn times in cyclic queues—The influence of the slowest server,” n Proc. 2nd Int. MCPR Workshop on Computer Performance and Reliability, Rome, Italy, May 1988. YU et al.: [3] D. Y. Eun and N. B. Shroff, “Network decomposition: Theory and practice,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 526–539, Jun. 2005. [4] J. Bolot, “End-to-end delay and loss behavior in the Internet,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 1993, San Francisco, CA, Sep. 1993, pp. 289–298. [5] N. Shacham and P. Mckenney, “Packet recovery in high-speed networks using coding and buffer management,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 1990, San Francisco, CA, Jun. 1990, vol. 1, pp. 124–131. [6] I. Cidon, A. Khamisy, and M. Sidi, “Analysis of packet loss processes in high-speed networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 98–108, Jan. 1993. [7] R. Kurceren, “Joint source-channel coding approach to transport of digital video on lossy networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY, May 2001. [8] R. Kurceren and J. W. Modestino, “Optimum EEEC coding rate allocation for video transport over ATM networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Information Theory (ISIT 1998), Cambridge, MA, Aug. 1998, p. 251

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Hayath Ali, Dr. Girish Kumar D, Mrs. Vagga Gowthami, Prof. Subhashree D C, Prof. M M Harshitha. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.