Test Description     ADAMANTIUM VoIP services     ADAMANTIUM IPTV services

ADAMANTIUM Measurable Results

• Initial conditions and alarm thresholds

Through a first set of tests, the VoIP service is degraded with different intensities.
E.g., the relation between PQoS and experienced packet losses for G.711 codec is shown in next figures. ADAMANTIUM is initially configured to launch warning procedures (codec adaptations) at MOS=3 threshold and red alarms (network adaptations) are generated at MOS=2 threshold.

The lower figure shows the evolution of the experienced packet loss, while the upper one shows how the perceived quality evolves with ADAMANTIUM capabilities disabled (blue) and enabled (red).

Under these circumstances, users are asked to assess when they would require the Warning and Red Alarms to be launched.

	Average PQoS (MOS)	Average packet loss
Warning Alarm	3.26	4%
Red Alarm	2.16	7.63%

• ADAMANTIUM enhancements in terms of media quality

Once established the specific thresholds for the considered VoIP service, users are required to evaluate the service experience under different conditions with ADAMANTIUM capabilities leading to automated adaptation actions.

Service Condition	Average PQoS over all users
Non-degraged service	4.29
Degraded network: service-level adaptations	4.26
Degraded network: network-level adaptations	4.13

In this case, both adaptation alternatives achieve good quality levels.

• ADAMANTIUM capabilities in terms of response time

First of all, users are required to assess the service experience due to the initial delay in the communication. This measure allows us to evaluate the impact of the deployed IMS infrastructure itself due to the required signalling procedures.

Afterwards, users are required to evaluate the response time of the system when service-level adaptations are performed. As can be seen, the impact on users’ satisfaction is very similar to the previous case, so the impact of the additional MCMS/AEM logic is limited.

Finally, users are asked to evaluate the perceived response time of the system when severe degradations are introduced and network adaptations are required to mitigate the problem. As can be observed, the perceived adaptation latency is lower in this case.

        More information: D5.3