As part of a broader organisational restructure, data networking research at Swinburne University of Technology has moved from the Centre for Advanced Internet Architecture (CAIA) to the Internet For Things (I4T) Research Lab.

Although CAIA no longer exists, this website reflects CAIA's activities and outputs between March 2002 and February 2017, and is being maintained as a service to the broader data networking research community.


This page is part of the GENIUS project.

Two Active Web Cameras Traffic Results

The following graphs represent the inter-packet arrival times and packet lengths when two web cameras, between Computer 1 and Computer 2, transmitted and received video with movement in front of the web cameras.

Inter-packet Arrival Results

Figures 5.1 to 5.4 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 1 and Figures 5.5 to 5.8 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 2.


Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show that just over 23% of inter-packet arrival times were around 0ms. We can see that there are also smaller inter-packet arrival time peaks around 40ms, between 60 and 70ms and around 90ms. Under 63% of packets had an inter-arrival time between 35 and 100ms.

Figure 5.3 and 5.4 show that less than 52% of packet-inter arrival times were around 0ms. It also shows that an average of over 6% of packet inter-arrival times were 2ms. There are minor peaks between 35 and 100ms accounting for over 31% of all inter-arrival times, the majority of which occured between 60 and 70 ms.


Figure 5.5

Figure 5.6

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.8

Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the inter-packet arrival times from Computer 2 with Web Camera 2 to Computer 1 for Web Camera 2's traffic flow. We can see that there is a peak of almost 50% in inter-packet arrival times around 0ms. Another peak shows that just under 5% of packets had an inter-packet arrival time of 2ms. Again, small peaks occur around 40ms, 60 to 70ms and 90ms. There are minor peaks between 35 and 100ms accounting for over 34% of all inter-arrival times, the majority of which occured between 60 and 70 ms. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 closely resemble Figures 5.3 and 5.4.

When the traffic flow occured from Computer 1 to Computer 2 with Web Camera 2, we see that Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show similar characteristics to Figures 5.1 and 5.2. There is a large peak indicating that almost 16% of inter-arrival times were 0ms and further peaks around approximately 40ms between 60 and 70ms and around 90ms can be seen. The minor peaks between 35 and 100ms account for almost 65% of all inter-arrival times




Packet Length Results

Figures 5.9 to 5.12 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 1 and Figures 5.13 to 5.16 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 2.


Figure 5.9

Figure 5.10

Figure 5.11

Figure 5.12

We can see in Figures 5.9 and 5.10 the Web Camera 1 ACK 46 byte packets transmitted from Computer 2 to Computer 1. They account for just over 92% of all packet sizes. The remaining almost 8% of packets were 52 bytes long.

Figure 5.11 shows that almost 52% of packets from Computer 1 to Computer 2 were 1500 bytes long and over 8% were 64 bytes long. The remaining packet sizes were widely distributed, resulting in the gradual cumulative slope as seen in Figure 5.12.


Figure 5.13

Figure 5.14

Figure 5.15

Figure 5.16

Figures 5.13 to 5.16 show the same behaviour occuring for the Web Camera 2 flow, as did with the Web Camera 1 flow. Figures 5.13 and 5.14 show that just less than 50% of packets were 1500 bytes long and almost 8% of packets being transmitted by Computer 2 were 64 bytes long.

Figures 5.15 and 5.16 show almost 100% of all packets transmitted from Computer 1 to Computer 2 were 46 byte ACK messages.





Swinburne Homepage Site Map Search Index
 

Swinburne Copyright and disclaimer Privacy Feedback

Last Updated: Monday 10-May-2004 16:40:51 AEST
URL:
Maintained by: Ana Pavlicic apavlicic@groupwise.swin.edu.au
Authorised by: Grenville Armitage garmitage@swin.edu.au

IndexSearchSite MapSwinburne Home Page