Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Analytical Comparison of Fairness Principles for Resource Sharing in Packet-Based Communication Networks

Analytical Comparison of Fairness Principles for Resource Sharing in Packet-Based Communication Networks

Ratings: (0)|Views: 322|Likes:
Published by ijcsis
Current Internet users are enormously increased and application that they are using is magnificently bandwidth devoured. With this manner, Internet is no longer a fair and protective environment. The diversity in the Internet applications required a reconsideration of the mechanisms used to deliver each packet pass through a router in order to provide better fairness and more protective place. Furthermore, the observer of the Internet packet could easily identify the purpose of the delay which is indeed caused by the queuing in the output buffer of the router. Therefore, to reduce such delay for those sensitive applications such as real-time applications, scholars develop many fairness principle which by turn could improve the QoS and hence the fairness and the protection aspect. This study highlight most famous fairness principles used in the literature and some other novel ideas in the concept of fairness. The analytical comparison of these principles shows the weakness and the strength of each principle. Furthermore, it illuminates which fairness principle is more appropriate in which environment.
Current Internet users are enormously increased and application that they are using is magnificently bandwidth devoured. With this manner, Internet is no longer a fair and protective environment. The diversity in the Internet applications required a reconsideration of the mechanisms used to deliver each packet pass through a router in order to provide better fairness and more protective place. Furthermore, the observer of the Internet packet could easily identify the purpose of the delay which is indeed caused by the queuing in the output buffer of the router. Therefore, to reduce such delay for those sensitive applications such as real-time applications, scholars develop many fairness principle which by turn could improve the QoS and hence the fairness and the protection aspect. This study highlight most famous fairness principles used in the literature and some other novel ideas in the concept of fairness. The analytical comparison of these principles shows the weakness and the strength of each principle. Furthermore, it illuminates which fairness principle is more appropriate in which environment.

More info:

Published by: ijcsis on Aug 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

08/12/2010

pdf

text

original

 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No.
4
 , July 2010
Analytical Comparison of Fairness Principles forResource Sharing in Packet-Based CommunicationNetworks
 
Yaser Miaji and Suhaidi Hassan
 
 InterNetWorks Research Group, UUM College of Arts and SciencesUniversiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, MALAYSIA
ymiaji@internetworks.my suhaidi@ieee.org
A
BSTRACT
 
Current Internet users are enormously increased andapplication that they are using is magnificently bandwidthdevoured. With this manner, Internet is no longer a fair andprotective environment. The diversity in the Internetapplications required a reconsideration of the mechanismsused to deliver each packet pass through a router in order toprovide better fairness and more protective place.Furthermore, the observer of the Internet packet could easilyidentify the purpose of the delay which is indeed caused bythe queuing in the output buffer of the router.Therefore, to reduce such delay for those sensitiveapplications such as real-time applications, scholars developmany fairness principle which by turn could improve theQoS and hence the fairness and the protection aspect. Thisstudy highlight most famous fairness principles used in theliterature and some other novel ideas in the concept of fairness. The analytical comparison of these principles showsthe weakness and the strength of each principle.Furthermore, it illuminates which fairness principle is moreappropriate in which environment.
 Keywords-components; Fairness, max-min, proportional  fairness, balanced, max-min charge
1. I
NTRODUCTION
 Internet utilization in public and private sector ismagnificently growing with extraordinary manner. Theoccupation of the World Wide Web is unpredictable overtime frame. Daily usage of the Internet resources withcurrent scrambles in network access is hard to be estimatedand hence the distribution of these resources is dynamic.This dynamic behavior leads to vagueness in constructingthe essential principle of fairness for resource utilization.Furthermore, not only the dynamic attitude of theresource utilization is an issue, the behavior and thecharacteristics of the application itself also, play apotential responsibility in structuring the fairness principle.Some applications require more sensitive pamper and caresuch as voice and interactive application such as videoconversation and so forth. The sensitivity of theseapplications significantly involved in fairness principle.Moreover, providing Quality of Service (QoS) is onebig dimension which should be achieved if not fully atleast to the large extent. QoS requirements rhyme heavilywith user and application requirements. Even though,Service Providers (SP) is one potential dimension whichtighten fairness principle, their requirements is highlydepend on financial matters.Fairness principle is indeed, applied in routers or tobe more specific in the process of scheduling thetransmission of the packets over a shared link. Fairnessprinciple should provide three primary function selection,promptness, and QoS consideration. Selection is thebasically which packet deserves to be transmitted.Promptness means when the selected packet will betransmitted. QoS requires considering the delay, loss anderror of overall network performance.Scholars, since the discovery of the sensitive andbandwidth hanger applications, dedicate their research inproviding superior fairness and larger protection for theseapplications over others less sensitive. This paperdemonstrates most available and used fairness principles inscheduling packets depending on application sensitivityand user usage. The rest of the paper is organized asfollowing. Next section gives the state diagram of theliterature and brief information about the evolution of thefairness principle. This is followed by thorough conceptualand analytical illustration of five fairness definitionnamely; max-min fairness, proportional fairness, utilityfairness, balanced fairness, and max-min charge fairness.Section four compares and contrasts all six principles andfinally the conclusion and future works are drawn.
149http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No.
4
 , July 2010
2. M
IND
-M
AP OF
F
AIRNESS
L
ITERATURE
 In this section, related works to the fairness is presented instate diagram or min-map diagram to correlate and track the evolution of fairness principle. Exhibit 2.1 shows themind-map diagram which explains the evolution of fairness principle. In 1967, Kleinrock [1] published hisarticle in sharing one common resource. Although thearticle is primarily designed for addressing this specificissue from processor sharing prospective, it opened sites indiscussing fairness in networks since process sharingenvironment shares some similarity with resource sharingin the Internet or networks. Kleinrock then wrote his book which consists of two volume in queuing systems [2, 3]. Inthis book the essential ideas and explanation of max-minfairness principle is been demonstrated with the aid of mathematic. Jaffe [4] incorporates the max-min fairnessprinciple explicitly in network resource sharing. Thisconcept is been presented in data networks book written byBertsekas et al. [5].Nevertheless, the concept and regulations which rulemax-min fairness and lead to its result are not convenienceand does not provide the efficient fairness from Kellypoint of view [6, 7]. Consequently, he proposed analternative fairness principle named as proportionalfairness. This concepts is further developed by Massoulieand Roberts [8]. Bothe principles; max-min andproportional are further compared and thoroughlyanalyzed by Denda et al. [9]. However, the advocates of proportional fairness has comprehensively illustrate theprinciple in [10].Despite the success of the most famous principles;max-min and proportional, they have some weaknesseswhich are discovered by Bonald and Proutiere [11].Balanced fairness is their proposal which is inspired byErlang [12] ideas, has different approaches. All threeprinciples; max-min, proportional and balanced fairnessare presented in Bonland et al. paper [13]. Bonland hasprovided some comparison using analytical demonstration.Another fairness view is called utility fairness introducedby Cao and Zegura [14]. Utility fairness has adopted theconcept of utility proposed in [15]. All the abovementioned fairness definition have been presented in [16]by Hosaagrahara.However, these four principles; max-min,proportional, balanced and utility fairness are in principlecorrelated and based on bandwidth allocation withdifferent approaches in determining the proper algorithmto chose the next packet in line. The entire principle of bandwidth allocation has been criticized in Briscoe article[17]. Therefore, Miaji and Hassan in [18] proposed a newvision of fairness by providing the principle of chargeallocation rather than bandwidth allocation and it named asmax-min charge. Max-min charge is a new fairnessprinciple based on charge allocation instead of conventional bandwidth allocation. Next sectionpresents all the above mentioned five fairness principlesconceptually and analytically.Exhibit 2.1: Mind-map literature of fairnessprinciples3. P
RINCIPLES OF
F
AIRNESS
 Approaching an optimum fairness in shared elasticenvironment such as the Internet is complicated andfrustrated. As a consequence, different proposals havebeen drawn to accomplish the mission in severalprospective. This section provides rigorous knowledge inthe most five adopted fairness notions. Thiscomprehensive illustration will reach the conceptual andanalytical approach of each o these five notions. Nextsection compares and contrasts these five principles.Before the explanation of the five notions mentionedearlier, a scenario of shared resource is been assumed. So,let consider the following scenario. Consider a contendeduser n with demands

variesfrom one user to another. Those users are sharing the oneresource R. Additionally, each user is allocated a specificportion
    
of theresource R according to a policy P. There are two mainstipulations for such allocation;a.The resource which is allocated is finite and limited.
150http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No.
4
 , July 2010
b.
There is no resource feedback from users’ side.
 Consequently, any policy abides by these twoconditions is said to be active and defined as follows
[61]
:
 Definition 3.1: The policy P is said to be active if, for all possible demands D, it results in an allocation A suchthat:
1.
 
  
 2.
 

 Now, let establish the investigation in the five fairnessprinciples.
3.1 Max-min Fairness
Let first simplify the principle of ma-min fairness be thefollowing example. Let assume that there are bucketswhich are corresponding to the demand
 
of the users.Moreover, let assume that all buckets share the same tabwhich corresponds to the resource R. Therefore, since theresource is limited and the buckets cannot, indeed, provideany resource enhancement which there is no other resourceexcept the one which is shared as seen in exhibit 3.1.Exhibit 3.1: Users Share the same resourceAccording to max-min principle no user will obtainmore than its demand and also, all not fully served userswill be equally allocated in term of the resource.Therefore, user 1, 2, and 3 will take exactly what theydemand since their demands is the lowest. In comparison,user 4 and 5 will take equal resource allocation no matterwhat they demand for.Additionally, any user attempts to increase itsallocation will result in decrease in the resource allocatedto another. Furthermore, it could be obviously seen that theattempts to increase the demand will not influence thedecision of allocation [16].Exhibit 3.1 provides us with much information whichhas not been illustrated yet. The essential inspiration of max-min fairness is the Pareto superiority as well as Paretoefficiency which were suggested by Pareto [19, 20]. In fact,Pareto proposed his notion in political economic and it hastwo main concept; superiority and efficiency for twoactive allocation. Firstly, if we have to allocate
 
 to two different resources
 
,
is consideredas Pareto superior with respect to
if 
expands theallocation of at least one entity while not reducing theallocation of any other entity; for instance, at least one userprefers
over
. In the case of exhibit 3.1, user 4prefers to obtain 40 units over 50 units and no other userrequest it. This preference will affect other users [21].Secondly, an allocation is considered as Paretooptimal if it is active and Pareto superior to all other activeallocations. Indeed, Max-Min fairness shows its Paretooptimality and hence it is unique since it is the only notionwhich meets the conditions of the Pareto optimality [22].Now, let take the analytical vision of the notion of Max-Min fairness. So, let presume that
is theallocation dedicated for
with demand
in flow
 and
is the allocation specified for
 
with demand
.If we assume the
then the following theoremcould be deduced;Theorem 3.1:The Max-Min fairness is unique.Proof:Let
and
two users with demands
and
 respectively and the resource allocated for them is
 
respectively as well. So, if 
then theallocation results could be;
 
 Only first one is possible since the remaining two arenot Max-Min fair.
151http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->