## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**` Thomas Bonald, Alexandre Proutiere
**

France Telecom R&D ´ ´ also afﬁliated with Ecole Normale Superieure

**{thomas.bonald,alexandre.proutiere}@francetelecom.com
**

Tutorial of Performance 2005 October 2005

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 1

Teletrafﬁc theory

•

**Born with the developing telephone network and exempliﬁed by the Erlang formula (1917):
**

B=

AC C! A2 2 + ...

1+A+

+

AC C!

where

B = blocking rate C = number of phone lines A = trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 2

Teletrafﬁc theory

•

**Born with the developing telephone network and exempliﬁed by the Erlang formula (1917):
**

B=

AC C! A2 2 + ...

1+A+

+

AC C!

where

B = blocking rate C = number of phone lines A = trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs

•

More generally, any capacity – demand – performance relationship

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 2

**The insensitivity property
**

•

The Erlang formula does not depend on the distribution of call durations (beyond the mean)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 3

**The insensitivity property
**

• •

The Erlang formula does not depend on the distribution of call durations (beyond the mean) It only requires Poisson call arrivals

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 3

**The insensitivity property
**

• • •

The Erlang formula does not depend on the distribution of call durations (beyond the mean) It only requires Poisson call arrivals The key to simple and robust engineering rules

1917

→

2005

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 3

**Flow-level modeling of the Internet
**

•

**Proposed in 1998 by Massoulié & Roberts:
**

1 D= C −A

where

D = mean per-bit delay C = link capacity in bit/s A = trafﬁc intensity in bit/s

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 4

**Flow-level modeling of the Internet
**

•

**Proposed in 1998 by Massoulié & Roberts:
**

1 D= C −A

where

D = mean per-bit delay C = link capacity in bit/s A = trafﬁc intensity in bit/s

•

Based on fair sharing assumption (so-called processor-sharing model)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 4

**Flow-level modeling of the Internet
**

•

**Proposed in 1998 by Massoulié & Roberts:
**

1 D= C −A

where

D = mean per-bit delay C = link capacity in bit/s A = trafﬁc intensity in bit/s

• •

Based on fair sharing assumption (so-called processor-sharing model) Insensitive to all trafﬁc characteristics (beyond the trafﬁc intensity)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 4

Trafﬁc characteristics

flows think−times

•

Flows are generated within sessions

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 5

Trafﬁc characteristics

flows think−times

• •

Flows are generated within sessions Sessions typically arrive as a Poisson process

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 5

Trafﬁc characteristics

flows think−times

• • •

Flows are generated within sessions Sessions typically arrive as a Poisson process Deﬁnition of trafﬁc intensity − ﬂow arrival rate × mean ﬂow size (bit/s) − like telephone trafﬁc

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 5

**Some key results
**

Loss networks (call blocking) Erlang, 1917 Engset, 1916 Bandwidth sharing (rate adaptation) Telatar & Gallager, 1995 Heyman et al, 1997 Roberts & Massoulié, 1998 Stamatelos & Koukoulidis, 1997 B & Virtamo, 2005

Gimpelson, 1965 Kaufman, 1981 Roberts, 1981 Brockmeyer et al, 1948 B & P, 2003 B, Massoulié, P & Virtamo, 2005 Kelly, 1986 Ross, 1995

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 6

Outline

•

Part 1: A single link − Processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 7

Outline

Part 1: A single link − Processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 7

Outline

A brief reminder − The multiclass PS queue − Kelly networks − Whittle networks • Part 1: A single link − Processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 8

**The multiclass PS queue
**

2 classes • Poisson arrivals of intensities λ1 , λ2

• • •

**Exponential service requirements of parameters µ1 , µ2 PS service discipline
**

n1 n2 φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = , φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = n1 + n 2 n1 + n 2

n2

•

**A reversible Markov process
**

(n1 + n2 )! λn1 λn2 1 2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) n1 !n2 ! µn1 µn2 1 2

0

n1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 9

Kelly networks

• • •

Multi-server PS (or symmetric) queues Poisson arrivals, exponential service requirements

Deterministic routes • A product-form distribution

(n1 + n2 )! λn1 λn2 ν m π(n1 , n2 , m) = π(0) n1 !n2 ! µn1 µn2 m! 1 2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 10

Whittle networks

• •

PS queues with state-dependent service rates

**Poisson arrivals, exponential service requirements n2 • Balance property
**

φ1 (n1 , n2 )φ2 (n1 − 1, n2 ) = φ1 (n1 , n2 − 1)φ2 (n1 , n2 ) 1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = φ1 (n1 , n2 )φ2 (n1 − 1, n2 ) . . . φ1 (1, 0) λn 1 λn 2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0)Φ(n1 , n2 ) 1 1 2 2 µn µn 1 2

0

n1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 11

Outline

Part 1: A single link − Processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 12

**The Erlang model
**

• • •

**Poisson call arrivals of intensity λ Exponential call durations of mean τ An M/M/C/C queue
**

An π(n) = π(0) , n!

n≤C

where

A = λ × τ = trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs C = number of circuits

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 13

**The Erlang model
**

• • •

**Poisson call arrivals of intensity λ Exponential call durations of mean τ An M/M/C/C queue
**

An π(n) = π(0) , n!

n≤C

**A = λ × τ = trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs C = number of circuits • The Erlang formula by PASTA B = π(C)=
**

AC C! A2 2 + ...

where

1+A+

+

AC C!

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 13

Insensitivity property

• •

Example: Erlang distribution with τ1 + τ2 = τ A Kelly queueing network

A n1 A n2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) 1 2 n1 ! n2 ! n1 + n 2 ≤ C A1 + A 2 = A π(0) π(n1 , n2 ) = n! n =n n! An An1 An2 = π(0) n1 !n2 ! 1 2 n! =n

n1 +n2

1 +n2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 14

**Processor-sharing model
**

• • •

**Poisson ﬂow arrivals of intensity λ Exponential ﬂow sizes of mean σ An M/M/1 queue π(n) = π(0)ρn ρ<1 where
**

A = λ × σ = trafﬁc intensity in bit/s C = capacity in bit/s ρ = A/C = link load

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 15

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 16

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

**the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size • By Little’s law,
**

n = λ × σD ¯ ρ n= ¯ , 1−ρ A ρ= C =⇒ =⇒ n ¯ D= A 1 D= C −A

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 16

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

**the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size • By Little’s law,
**

n = λ × σD ¯ ρ n= ¯ , 1−ρ

•

=⇒ =⇒

n ¯ D= A 1 D= C −A

A ρ= C

By insensitivity, the mean transfer delay of x bits is x × D

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 16

**Insensitivity to the ﬂow size distribution
**

• •

**Example 1: Erlang distribution with σ1 + σ2 = σ A Kelly network
**

(n1 + n2 )! n1 n2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) ρ1 ρ2 n1 !n2 ! ρ1 + ρ 2 = ρ π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0)

n1 +n2 =n n1 +n2

n! n1 n2 ρ1 ρ2 = π(0)ρn n !n ! =n 1 2

ρ1 n1 = ¯ 1−ρ

ρ2 n2 = ¯ 1−ρ

1 D1 = D 2 = C −A

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 17

**Insensitivity to the ﬂow arrival process
**

• •

**Example 2: Two-ﬂow sessions with σ1 + σ2 = σ A Kelly network
**

(n1 + n2 )! n1 n2 ν m π(n1 , n2 , m) = π(0) ρ1 ρ2 n1 !n2 ! m! ρ1 + ρ 2 = ρ n! n1 n2 ρ1 ρ2 = π(0)eν ρn n !n ! =n 1 2 1 D1 = D 2 = C −A

π(n1 , n2 , m) = π(0)e

n1 +n2 =n

ν n1 +n2

ρ1 n1 = ¯ 1−ρ

ρ2 n2 = ¯ , 1−ρ

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 18

Flow throughput

• γ,

the inverse of the mean per-bit delay

γ =C −A

γ A C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 19

Flow throughput

• γ, •

the inverse of the mean per-bit delay

**The mean transfer delay of x bits is x/γ
**

γ =C −A

γ A C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 19

Flow throughput

• γ, •

the inverse of the mean per-bit delay

**The mean transfer delay of x bits is x/γ
**

1 0.8 Flow throughput 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Link load 1 1.2 1.4

γ =C −A (C = 1)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 20

**The Engset model
**

• K • • •

permanent sessions, jump-over blocking

Exponential call durations of mean τ Exponential think-time durations of mean ν −1 A closed Jackson network

K n π(n) = π(0) a , n

n≤C

where

**a = ν × τ = per source virtual trafﬁc intensity C = number of circuits
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 21

Trafﬁc intensity

calls, τ think times, ν

−1

interarrival time

•

**Effective per source trafﬁc intensity
**

τ a = −1 τ +ν a+1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 22

Trafﬁc intensity

calls, τ think times, ν

−1

interarrival time

•

**Effective per source trafﬁc intensity
**

τ a = −1 τ +ν a+1

•

**Overall trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs
**

a A=K× a+1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 22

Insensitivity property

• •

Example: Erlang distribution with τ1 + τ2 = τ A closed Kelly network

K! an1 an2 1 2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) (K − n)! n1 ! n2 ! n = n 1 + n2 ≤ C a1 + a 2 = a K π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) n =n n! n1 n2 K n a1 a2 = π(0) a n !n ! n =n 1 2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 23

n1 +n2

n1 +n2

**The Engset formula
**

•

**Number of ongoing calls seen by a new call
**

π 0 (n) ∝ π(n) × (K − n)ν K −1 n ∝ a , n≤C n

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 24

**The Engset formula
**

•

**Number of ongoing calls seen by a new call
**

π 0 (n) ∝ π(n) × (K − n)ν K −1 n ∝ a , n≤C n

•

Call blocking

B = π (C) =

0

(K − 1) . . . (K

aC − C) C!

C

1 + (K − 1)a + . . . + (K − 1) . . . (K − C) a C!

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 24

Engset vs. Erlang

• C = 20 • K = 25, 50, 250, ∞

1 Blocking probability 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 1e-05 1e-06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Link load 1.2 1.4

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 25

**The PS model with ﬁnite source
**

• K • • •

permanent sessions

Exponential ﬂow sizes of mean σ Exponential think-time durations of mean ν −1 A closed Jackson network

K! π(n) = π(0) (K − n)!

n

where

**a = ν × σ = per source virtual trafﬁc intensity C = capacity in bit/s = a/C = per source virtual link load
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 26

Trafﬁc intensity

flows, σ think times, ν

−1

interarrival time

•

**Effective per source trafﬁc intensity
**

σ C

σ = −1 +ν

a C

a +1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 27

Trafﬁc intensity

flows, σ think times, ν

−1

interarrival time

•

**Effective per source trafﬁc intensity
**

σ C

σ = −1 +ν

a C

a +1

•

**Overall trafﬁc intensity in bit/s
**

A=K×

a C

a +1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 27

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 28

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

**the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size • By Little’s law, n = λ × σD ¯
**

K

λ=

n=0

π(n)ν(K − n) = ν(K − n) ¯

=⇒

n 1 ¯ D= K −na ¯

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 28

**Mean per-bit delay
**

• D,

**the ratio of the mean ﬂow duration to the mean ﬂow size • By Little’s law, n = λ × σD ¯
**

K

λ=

n=0

π(n)ν(K − n) = ν(K − n) ¯

=⇒

n 1 ¯ D= K −na ¯

•

By insensitivity, the mean transfer delay of x bits is x × D

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 28

Insensitivity property

• •

Example: Erlang distribution with σ1 + σ2 = σ A closed Kelly network

K! n! π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) (K − n)! n1 !n2 ! n1 + n 2 = n 1+ 2 = K! π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) (K − n)! =n

n

n1 n2 1 2

,

n1 = ¯

1

n ¯

n2 = ¯

2

n ¯

n1 +n2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 29

**Finite vs. inﬁnite source
**

• C =1 • K = 10, 100, 1000, ∞

1 0.8 Flow throughput 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Link load 1 1.2 1.4

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 30

Outline

Part 1: A single link − Processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 31

**A common ﬂow rate limit
**

Maximum ﬂow bit rate c • Poisson ﬂow arrivals of intensity λ

• • •

**Exponential ﬂow sizes of mean σ If C/c is an integer m, an M/M/m queue
**

π(n) = ρ<1 (ρm)n π(0) if n ≤ m n! n−m if n > m π(m)ρ

where

**A = λ × σ = trafﬁc intensity in bit/s C = capacity in bit/s ρ = A/C = link load
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 32

**Mean per-bit delay
**

•

Exact expression:

1 A B D= + × c C − (1 − B)A C − A

**where B is the blocking probability in the corresponding Erlang model:
**

B=

Am m! A2 2 + Am m!

1+A+

... +

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 33

**Mean per-bit delay
**

•

Exact expression:

1 A B D= + × c C − (1 − B)A C − A

**where B is the blocking probability in the corresponding Erlang model:
**

B=

•

Am m! A2 2 + Am m!

1+A+

... +

Bound:

1 A 1 D≤ + × c C C −A

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 33

Flow throughput

• C =1 • c = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1

1 0.8 Flow throughput 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Link load 0.8 1 Exact Bound

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 34

**PS models with a common rate limit
**

•

Inﬁnite source (cf. Erlang model) − Poisson ﬂow/session arrivals − a multi-server PS queue

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 35

**PS models with a common rate limit
**

•

Inﬁnite source (cf. Erlang model) − Poisson ﬂow/session arrivals − a multi-server PS queue

•

Finite source (cf. Engset model) − non-Poisson ﬂow arrivals − a closed network with one multi-server PS queue and one inﬁnite-server queue

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 35

**Multirate loss systems
**

• K • • •

classes, bit rates c1 , . . . , cK

Poisson call arrivals of intensities λ1 , . . . , λK Exponential call durations of means τ1 , . . . , τK A reversible Markov process A n1 A n2 π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0) 1 2 n1 ! n2 ! n 1 c1 + n 2 c2 ≤ C where A1 = λ1 × τ1 = class-1 trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs A2 = λ2 × τ2 = class-2 trafﬁc intensity in Erlangs C = capacity in bit/s

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 36

Blocking probability

•

**Class-1 blocking probability
**

A n1 A n2 1 2 n1 ! n2 !

B1 =

C−c1 <n1 c1 +n2 c2 ≤C A n1 1 n1 c1 +n2 c2 ≤C

A n2 2 n1 ! n2 !

•

**Class-2 blocking probability
**

A n1 A n2 1 2 n1 ! n2 !

B2 =

C−c2 <n1 c1 +n2 c2 ≤C A n1 1 n1 c1 +n2 c2 ≤C

A n2 2 n1 ! n2 !

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 37

**The Kaufman-Roberts formula
**

•

Assume C and c1 , c2 are integers

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 38

**The Kaufman-Roberts formula
**

• •

**Assume C and c1 , c2 are integers Deﬁne:
**

2 c1=1, c2=2

P (n) =

n1 c1 +n2 c2

A n1 A n2 1 2 n ! n2 ! =n 1

1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 38

**The Kaufman-Roberts formula
**

• •

**Assume C and c1 , c2 are integers Deﬁne:
**

2 c1=1, c2=2

P (n) =

n1 c1 +n2 c2

A n1 A n2 1 2 n ! n2 ! =n 1

1

•

Then:

1 P (n) = (A1 c1 P (n − c1 ) + A2 c2 P (n − c2 )) n with P (n) = 0 if n < 0

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 38

Example

• C = 100 • ck = 1, 5, 10, 30

1 Blocking probability 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 1e-05 1e-06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Link load 1.2 1.4

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 39

Example (cont’d)

• C = 100 • ck = 1, 30

1 Blocking probability 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 1e-05 1e-06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Link load 1.2 1.4

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 40

Multirate PS systems

• K • • •

classes, bit rates c1 , . . . , cK

**Poisson ﬂow arrivals of intensities λ1 , . . . , λK Exponential ﬂow sizes of means σ1 , . . . , σK A Whittle network
**

π(n1 , n2 ) = π(0)Φ(n1 , n2 )An1 An2 1 2 A = A1 + A2 < C

where A1 = λ1 × σ1 = class-1 trafﬁc intensity in bit/s A2 = λ2 × σ2 = class-2 trafﬁc intensity in bit/s C = capacity in bit/s provided the allocation is balanced (so-called balanced fairness)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 41

Balance property

•

**The product of service rates φ1 , φ2 (allocated bit rates) does not depend on the considered path
**

1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = φ1 (n1 , n2 )φ2 (n1 − 1, n2 ) . . . φ1 (1, 0)

n2

0

n1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 42

Balance property

•

**The product of service rates φ1 , φ2 (allocated bit rates) does not depend on the considered path
**

1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = φ1 (n1 , n2 )φ2 (n1 − 1, n2 ) . . . φ1 (1, 0)

n2

0

n1

•

**A necessary and sufﬁcient condition for insensitivity!
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 42

**Max-min fairness
**

•

**Allocation by water-ﬁlling
**

φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = n1 c1 φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = n2 c2 φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = C − n1 c1 φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = n2 c2 φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = φ2 (n1 , n2 ) =

n1 n1 +n2 C n2 n1 +n2 C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 43

**Max-min fairness
**

•

**Allocation by water-ﬁlling
**

φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = n1 c1 φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = n2 c2 φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = C − n1 c1 φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = n2 c2 φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = φ2 (n1 , n2 ) =

n1 n1 +n2 C n2 n1 +n2 C

•

The balance property is violated!

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 43

Balanced fairness

•

**Allocation by balancing the service rates
**

Φ(n1 −1, n2 ) φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = , Φ(n1 , n2 ) Φ(n1 , n2 −1) φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = Φ(n1 , n2 )

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 44

Balanced fairness

•

**Allocation by balancing the service rates
**

Φ(n1 −1, n2 ) φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = , Φ(n1 , n2 ) Φ(n1 , n2 −1) φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = Φ(n1 , n2 )

•

**A unique balance function
**

1 1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = n1 × n1 !c1 n2 !cn2 2

if n1 c1 + n2 c2 < C otherwise

1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = (Φ(n1 −1, n2 ) + Φ(n1 , n2 −1)) C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 44

Balanced fairness

•

**Allocation by balancing the service rates
**

Φ(n1 −1, n2 ) φ1 (n1 , n2 ) = , Φ(n1 , n2 ) Φ(n1 , n2 −1) φ2 (n1 , n2 ) = Φ(n1 , n2 )

•

**A unique balance function
**

1 1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = n1 × n1 !c1 n2 !cn2 2

if n1 c1 + n2 c2 < C

1 Φ(n1 , n2 ) = (Φ(n1 −1, n2 ) + Φ(n1 , n2 −1)) otherwise C • The balance property is satisﬁed by construction

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 44

A recursive formula

• •

**Assume C and c1 , c2 are integers Deﬁne:
**

2 c1=1, c2=2

P (n) =

n1 c1 +n2 c2 =n

Φ(n1 , n2 )An1 An2 1 2

1

1 Then: P (n) = (A1 c1 P (n − c1 ) + A2 c2 P (n − c2 )) n A1 A2 ¯≡ P (n) = P (n)+ P (n) P C −A C −A

•

n>C C−c1 <n≤C C−c2 <n≤C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 45

Example

• C = 100 • ck = 1, 5, 10, 30

30 25 Flow throughput 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Exact Bound

Link load

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 46

**Comparison with max-min fairness
**

• C = 100 • ck = 1, 30

35 30 Flow throughput 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Max-min fairness Balanced fairness

Link load

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 47

Outline

Part 1: A single link − The processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

We consider: − data networks only − no ﬂow rate limit

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 48

**The linear network
**

2 1 C C 3

• Network state: n = (n1 , n2 , n3 ) numbers of active ﬂows on each

route

• Bandwidth allocation: φ(n) = (φ1 (n), φ2 (n), φ3 (n)) ∈ C

φ1

φ1 (n) + φ2 (n) ≤ C φ1 (n) + φ3 (n) ≤ C

φ2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 49

φ3

**The linear network
**

• A network of PS queues with state-dependent service rates - Each class-i ﬂow served at rate φi (n)/ni (TCP fairly shares the bandwidth among connections with the same characteristics) - A PS node per ﬂow class

2 1 C C 3 ρ1 φ1(n) ρ2 φ2(n) ρ3 φ3(n)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 50

**The linear network
**

• Proportional fairness (Kelly’97)

n1 , φ1 (n) = n1 + n 2 + n 3 trafﬁc intensity on route i, ρi

φi (n) = C − φ1 (n), i = 2, 3

• Flow-level analysis with Poisson ﬂow arrivals on each route, - Stability: PF is stable if and only if ρ = (ρ1 , ρ2 , ρ3 ) ∈ C - Stationary distribution (C = 1): π(n) = π(0) - Flow throughput: 1 − ρ1 , γ1 = ρ ρ 1 + 1−ρ12+ρ2 + 1−ρ13+ρ3 γi = 1 − ρ1 − ρi , i = 2, 3

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 51

n1 + n 2 + n 3 n1 n2 n3 ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 n1

Outline

Part 1: A single link − The processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2:Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 52

The model

• N ﬂow classes: ﬂows of the same class require the same

network resources (e.g., a set of links in wired network)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 53

The model

• N ﬂow classes: ﬂows of the same class require the same

**network resources (e.g., a set of links in wired network)
**

• Network state: n = (n1 , . . . , nN ), ni number of class-i ﬂows

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 53

The model

• N ﬂow classes: ﬂows of the same class require the same

**network resources (e.g., a set of links in wired network)
**

• Network state: n = (n1 , . . . , nN ), ni number of class-i ﬂows • Bandwidth allocation: φ(n) = (φ1 (n), . . . , φN (n)), class-i ﬂows

served at rate φi (n). C, a convex, compact, and monotone capacity set

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 53

The model

• N ﬂow classes: ﬂows of the same class require the same

**network resources (e.g., a set of links in wired network)
**

• Network state: n = (n1 , . . . , nN ), ni number of class-i ﬂows • Bandwidth allocation: φ(n) = (φ1 (n), . . . , φN (n)), class-i ﬂows

**served at rate φi (n). C, a convex, compact, and monotone capacity set
**

• Class-i ﬂows generated in sessions according to a Poisson

process, trafﬁc intensity ρi = λi /µi . ρ = (ρ1 , . . . , ρN )

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 53

The model

• N ﬂow classes: ﬂows of the same class require the same

**network resources (e.g., a set of links in wired network)
**

• Network state: n = (n1 , . . . , nN ), ni number of class-i ﬂows • Bandwidth allocation: φ(n) = (φ1 (n), . . . , φN (n)), class-i ﬂows

**served at rate φi (n). C, a convex, compact, and monotone capacity set
**

• Class-i ﬂows generated in sessions according to a Poisson

**process, trafﬁc intensity ρi = λi /µi . ρ = (ρ1 , . . . , ρN )
**

• Issues:

- Is the network stable? - What is the mean time to transfer a class-i ﬂow?

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 53

Stability region

˘ ˘ • (i) If ρ ∈ C (C is the largest open subset of C), there exists a bandwidth allocation such that the network is stable

• (ii) If ρ ∈ C, the network is unstable under any bandwidth /

allocation

Proof. (i) If ρ

**˘ ∈ C , let r ∈ C such that for all i, ri > ρi . The ﬁxed allocation φ(n) = r = {φ :
**

i

stabilizes the network. / (ii) If ρ ∈ C , there exists H

**αi φi ≤ K} such that C ⊂ H and ρ ∈ H. Wi (t) workload of class-i ﬂows at time t, we have i αi Wi (t) → +∞ a.s.
**

φ2 H C ρ φ1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 54

**Utility-based allocations
**

• Usual allocation are based on the notion of utility

- Max throughput: U (r) = r

- Proportional fairness (Kelly’97): U (r) = ln r - Minimal potential delay (Massoulie-Roberts’99): U (r) = 1/r - α-bandwidth sharing (Mo-Walrand’00): U (r) = r 1−α /1 − α α=0 α→1 α=2 α → +∞ max throughput proportional fairness minimal potential delay max-min fairness (Rawls’71, Bertsekas-Gallager’87)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 55

max i ni U (φi (n)/ni ) φ(n) ∈ C

**Utility-based allocations in practice
**

• Decentralized algorithms - e.g., A model of TCP: proportional fairness in wired networks can be arbitrarily closely approximated by the following decentralized algorithm, Kelly-Maullo-Tan’98: λi = φi /ni , ∂λi = wi − λi (t) ∂t pl (

l∈i j:l∈j

λj )

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 56

**Utility-based allocations in practice
**

• Decentralized algorithms - e.g., A model of TCP: proportional fairness in wired networks can be arbitrarily closely approximated by the following decentralized algorithm, Kelly-Maullo-Tan’98: λi = φi /ni , ∂λi = wi − λi (t) ∂t pl (

l∈i j:l∈j

λj )

• Centralized algorithms - e.g. the gradient-based algorithm (for any capacity set, any utility function), Stolyar’05: at time t choose φ∗ ∈ C such that φ∗ = argmax

i

U (λi (t))φ∗ , i

λi (t + 1) = (1 − β)λi (t) + βφ∗ (t) i

**The proportional fair algo (Tse) in CDMA/HDR system is built that way
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 56

**Utility-based allocations: ﬂow-level stability
**

˘ • If ρ ∈ C, allocations based on utility functions of the form λ1−α /(1 − α), with α > 0, stabilize the network

Proof. Using classical ﬂuid limit and the following Lyapounov function

f (λ) =

i

λα+1 1/µi ρ−α i i α+1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 57

**Utility-based allocations: ﬂow-level stability
**

˘ • If ρ ∈ C, allocations based on utility functions of the form λ1−α /(1 − α), with α > 0, stabilize the network

Proof. Using classical ﬂuid limit and the following Lyapounov function

f (λ) =

i

λα+1 1/µi ρ−α i i α+1

• The linear network paradox with the max throughput allocation,

B.-Massoulie’01

- Stability condition: ρ ∈ K = {ρ : ρ1 < (1 − ρ2 )(1 − ρ3 )} throughput in a dynamic scenario CMaximizing the throughput in all static scenarios can minimize the

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 57

**Utility-based allocations: performance
**

• Proportional fairness on homogeneous linear, grid networks

(B.-Massoulie’01)

- On these networks, PF is insensitive - The stationary distribution is explicit

• For a general non trivial capacity set C, almost all utility-based

allocations are sensitive, e.g., maxmin is always sensitive

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 58

**Utility-based allocations: performance
**

• Proportional fairness on homogeneous linear, grid networks

(B.-Massoulie’01)

- On these networks, PF is insensitive - The stationary distribution is explicit

• For a general non trivial capacity set C, almost all utility-based

**allocations are sensitive, e.g., maxmin is always sensitive
**

• How can we predict the performance of these usual

allocations?

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 58

Balanced fairness

• Introduced by B.-P.’03 as the most efﬁcient insensitive

bandwidth allocation

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 59

Balanced fairness

• Introduced by B.-P.’03 as the most efﬁcient insensitive

bandwidth allocation

• Insensitivity implies the existence of a balance function Φ such

that ∀i,

Φ(n − ei ) φi (n) = Φ(n)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 59

Balanced fairness

• Introduced by B.-P.’03 as the most efﬁcient insensitive

bandwidth allocation

• Insensitivity implies the existence of a balance function Φ such

that ∀i,

Φ(n − ei ) φi (n) = Φ(n)

• Balanced fairness satisﬁes the capacity constraints

Φ(n − eN ) Φ(n − e1 ) ,..., Φ(n) Φ(n)

∈C

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 59

Balanced fairness

• Introduced by B.-P.’03 as the most efﬁcient insensitive

bandwidth allocation

• Insensitivity implies the existence of a balance function Φ such

that ∀i,

Φ(n − ei ) φi (n) = Φ(n)

• Balanced fairness satisﬁes the capacity constraints

Φ(n − eN ) Φ(n − e1 ) ,..., Φ(n) Φ(n)

∈C

• Efﬁciency means that φ(n) belongs to the border of C

Φ(0) = 1,

Φ(n − e1 ) Φ(n − eN ) ,..., ) ∈ C} Φ(n) = min{α : ( α α

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 59

**Balanced fairness (cont’d)
**

• Invariant measure with balanced fairness

π(n) = π(0)Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN 1 N

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 60

**Balanced fairness (cont’d)
**

• Invariant measure with balanced fairness

π(n) = π(0)Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN 1 N

• Network stability under balanced fairness if and only if

Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN < +∞ 1 N

n

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 60

**Balanced fairness (cont’d)
**

• Invariant measure with balanced fairness

π(n) = π(0)Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN 1 N

• Network stability under balanced fairness if and only if

Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN < +∞ 1 N

n

• Balanced fairness maximizes the probability the system is

empty

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 60

**Balanced fairness (cont’d)
**

• Invariant measure with balanced fairness

π(n) = π(0)Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN 1 N

• Network stability under balanced fairness if and only if

Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN < +∞ 1 N

n

• Balanced fairness maximizes the probability the system is

empty

• The only possible Pareto-efﬁcient and insensitive allocation is

balanced fairness

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 60

**Balanced fairness: stability
**

˘ • If ρ ∈ C, balanced fairness stabilizes the network ˜ Proof. Let Φ be a balance function satisfying the network capacity

constraints, i.e.,

˜ ˜ Φ(n − e1 ) Φ(n − eN ) ( ,..., ) ∈ C, ˜ ˜ Φ(n) Φ(n) ˜ ≤ Φ(n). ˜ Since (1 + )ρ ∈ C , the balance function Φ corresponding to the static allocation φ(n) = (1 + )ρ satisfy the network constraints and is stable.

then Φ(n) Finally,

Φ(n)ρn ≤

n n

˜ Φ(n)ρn < +∞

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 61

**Balanced fairness: performance
**

• Under the stability condition, the performance can be evaluated

explicitly using Little’s formula ρi γi = Ei [ni ] and the network stationary distribution π(n) = π(0)Φ(n)ρn1 . . . ρnN 1 N

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 62

Outline

Part 1: A single link − The processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 63

Static routing

• A wired network is a set of L links and K routes where each

route k is a subset of links. Capacity of link l, Cl

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 64

Static routing

• A wired network is a set of L links and K routes where each

**route k is a subset of links. Capacity of link l, Cl
**

• Static routing (N = K - the class of a ﬂow is deﬁned by a

route): capacity set C = {φ : φA ≤ C = (C1 , . . . , CL )} A is a N × L matrix, Akl = 1 if l ∈ k, Akl = 0 otherwise

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 64

Static routing

• A wired network is a set of L links and K routes where each

**route k is a subset of links. Capacity of link l, Cl
**

• Static routing (N = K - the class of a ﬂow is deﬁned by a

**route): capacity set C = {φ : φA ≤ C = (C1 , . . . , CL )} A is a N × L matrix, Akl = 1 if l ∈ k, Akl = 0 otherwise
**

• Stability condition: ∀l,

k:l∈k

ρk < C l

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 64

**Static routing: balanced fairness
**

• An insensitive allocation is deﬁned by a balance function Φ

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 65

**Static routing: balanced fairness
**

• An insensitive allocation is deﬁned by a balance function Φ • Capacity constraints

∀l,

k:l∈k

Φ(n − ek ) ≤ Cl Φ(n)

equivalent to ∀l, Φ(n) ≥ 1 Cl Φ(n − ek )

k:l∈k

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 65

**Static routing: balanced fairness
**

• An insensitive allocation is deﬁned by a balance function Φ • Capacity constraints

∀l,

k:l∈k

Φ(n − ek ) ≤ Cl Φ(n)

equivalent to ∀l, Φ(n) ≥ 1 Cl Φ(n − ek )

k:l∈k

• Balanced fairness recursively deﬁned by Φ(0) = 1 and

Φ(n) = max

l

1 Cl

Φ(n − ek )

k:l∈k

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 65

**The linear network
**

• A homogeneous 2-link line

1 C C 2 3

n2

+

n

+

n3 n1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 66

**The linear network
**

• A homogeneous 2-link line • Both links are saturated:

2 1 C C 3

e.g. if n1 > 0 and n2 > 0, Φ(n) = Φ(n − e1 ) + Φ(n − e2 )

n2

+

n

+

n3 n1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 66

**The linear network
**

• A homogeneous 2-link line • Both links are saturated:

1 C C 2 3

e.g. if n1 > 0 and n2 > 0, Φ(n) = Φ(n − e1 ) + Φ(n − e2 )

• Φ(n) is the number of direct

n2

+

n

+

paths from n to 0 Φ(n) = n1 + n 2 + n 3 n1

n3 n1

This is proportional fairness

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 66

**A symmetric tree network
**

• A trunk and several branches with identical capacities

φ3

1

C

2

1

1

φ1

φ2

C = (2, 1, 1, 1) A = 1 0 1 1 0 0

1 1 0

0

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 67

0 1

**A symmetric tree network (cont’d)
**

• Flow throughputs: γ1 = γ2 = γ3 =

(2− )(3− )(6+ ) , (4− )(9+ )

where

= ρ 1 + ρ2 + ρ3

1 0.8 Flow throughput 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

0

0.5

1 1.5 Traffic intensity

2

• For max-min and proportional fairness, simulations with

**Poisson ﬂow arrivals and exponentially distributed ﬂow sizes.
**

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 68

Recursive algorithm

• State space decomposition

Ω = N3 = {0} + Ω1 + Ω2 + Ω3 + Ω12 + Ω13 + Ω23 + Ω123 where ΩI = {n : ni > 0 iff i ∈ I}

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 69

**Recursive algorithm (cont’d)
**

• Normalization constant G(ρ) =

n Φ(n)ρ n

**G(ρ) = 1+G1 (ρ)+G2 (ρ)+G3 (ρ)+G12 (ρ)+G13 (ρ)+G23 (ρ)+G123 (ρ) where GI =
**

n∈ΩI

π(n)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 70

**Recursive algorithm (cont’d)
**

• Normalization constant G(ρ) =

n Φ(n)ρ n

**G(ρ) = 1+G1 (ρ)+G2 (ρ)+G3 (ρ)+G12 (ρ)+G13 (ρ)+G23 (ρ)+G123 (ρ) where GI =
**

n∈ΩI

π(n) Gij (ρ) =

ρi ρj (1−ρi )(1−ρj )

• We have Gi (ρ) =

ρi 1−ρi ,

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 70

**Recursive algorithm (cont’d)
**

• Normalization constant G(ρ) =

n Φ(n)ρ n

**G(ρ) = 1+G1 (ρ)+G2 (ρ)+G3 (ρ)+G12 (ρ)+G13 (ρ)+G23 (ρ)+G123 (ρ) where GI =
**

n∈ΩI

π(n) Gij (ρ) =

ρi ρj (1−ρi )(1−ρj )

• We have Gi (ρ) = • Recursion

ρi 1−ρi ,

ρ1 G23 (ρ) + ρ2 G13 (ρ) + ρ3 G12 (ρ) G123 (ρ) = 2−

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 70

**Recursive algorithm (cont’d)
**

• Normalization constant G(ρ) =

n Φ(n)ρ n

**G(ρ) = 1+G1 (ρ)+G2 (ρ)+G3 (ρ)+G12 (ρ)+G13 (ρ)+G23 (ρ)+G123 (ρ) where GI =
**

n∈ΩI

π(n) Gij (ρ) =

ρi ρj (1−ρi )(1−ρj )

• We have Gi (ρ) = • Recursion

ρi 1−ρi ,

**ρ1 G23 (ρ) + ρ2 G13 (ρ) + ρ3 G12 (ρ) G123 (ρ) = 2−
**

• Flow throughtput

γi =

∂ ln G(ρ) ∂ρi

−1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 70

**The store-and-forward bound
**

• Store-and-forward policy: the ﬂows on a given route are

transmitted sequentially on each link of this route Each link fairly shares its capacity among active ﬂows.

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 71

**The store-and-forward bound
**

• Store-and-forward policy: the ﬂows on a given route are

transmitted sequentially on each link of this route Each link fairly shares its capacity among active ﬂows.

2 1 ρ1 C C 3 ρ2 C

PS

ρ3 C

PS

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 71

**The store-and-forward bound
**

• Store-and-forward policy: the ﬂows on a given route are

transmitted sequentially on each link of this route Each link fairly shares its capacity among active ﬂows.

2 1 ρ1 C C 3 ρ2 C

PS

ρ3 C

PS

• The performance of store-and-forward provides a bound for

**that of balanced fairness γi ≥
**

SF γi

=

l∈i

1 Cl −

k:l∈k

−1

ρk

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 71

Fast routing

• Each ﬂow class is assigned a set of routes

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 72

Fast routing

• Each ﬂow class is assigned a set of routes • All ﬂows of class i chooses one route in the subset s i at any

time. A set R of N × K matrices such that if R ∈ R, Rik = 1 if class-i ﬂows take route k and Rik = 0 otherwise

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 72

Fast routing

• Each ﬂow class is assigned a set of routes • All ﬂows of class i chooses one route in the subset s i at any

**time. A set R of N × K matrices such that if R ∈ R, Rik = 1 if class-i ﬂows take route k and Rik = 0 otherwise
**

• At any time a routing scheme R ∈ R is chosen

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 72

Fast routing

• Each ﬂow class is assigned a set of routes • All ﬂows of class i chooses one route in the subset s i at any

**time. A set R of N × K matrices such that if R ∈ R, Rik = 1 if class-i ﬂows take route k and Rik = 0 otherwise
**

• At any time a routing scheme R ∈ R is chosen • Capacity set

C = convex hull of {φ : ∃R ∈ R, φRA ≤ C}

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 72

**Fast routing (cont’d)
**

• Example 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

C = (1, 1),

A=

,

1 0 or R = 0 1 R= 0 1 0 1

φ3

class 1 class 2 class 3 or

1

C

1

φ1

φ2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 73

Trafﬁc splitting

• Each class i can use all routes in the set si at the same time

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 74

Trafﬁc splitting

• Each class i can use all routes in the set si at the same time • A set S of N × K stochastic matrices such that if S ∈ S,

**Sik = 0 for all k except if k ∈ si
**

- Sik is the proportion of the total bandwidth φi (offered to class-i trafﬁc) class-i ﬂows get on route k

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 74

Trafﬁc splitting

• Each class i can use all routes in the set si at the same time • A set S of N × K stochastic matrices such that if S ∈ S,

**Sik = 0 for all k except if k ∈ si
**

- Sik is the proportion of the total bandwidth φi (offered to class-i trafﬁc) class-i ﬂows get on route k • Capacity set

C = {φ : ∃S ∈ S, φSA ≤ C}

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 74

**Trafﬁc splitting (cont’d)
**

• Example C = (1, 1), 0 1 0 0 1

φ2

2

A= 1

,

C

S= α 0

class 1 class 2 class 3 and

1−α 1

1

1

1

1

1

φ1

φ3

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 75

**Trafﬁc splitting (cont’d)
**

• Performance of balanced fairness

2(2 − )(3 − ) γ1 = γ 3 = , 12 − 5

Classes 1,3 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair 2 Flow throughput 1.5 1 0.5 0

γ2 = 2 −

Class 2 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

0

0.5

1 1.5 Traffic intensity

2

0

0.5

1 1.5 Traffic intensity

2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 76

Outline

Part 1: A single link − The processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 77

**Downlink of cellular networks
**

• Formalism: a set of M transmission proﬁles, each

corresponding to a particular allocation of downlink radio resources

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 78

**Downlink of cellular networks
**

• Formalism: a set of M transmission proﬁles, each

**corresponding to a particular allocation of downlink radio resources
**

• At any time, a transmission proﬁle is chosen

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 78

**Downlink of cellular networks
**

• Formalism: a set of M transmission proﬁles, each

**corresponding to a particular allocation of downlink radio resources
**

• At any time, a transmission proﬁle is chosen • C is the M × N capacity matrix such that Cmi is the rate

allocated to class-i ﬂows in transmission proﬁle m

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 78

**Downlink of cellular networks
**

• Formalism: a set of M transmission proﬁles, each

**corresponding to a particular allocation of downlink radio resources
**

• At any time, a transmission proﬁle is chosen • C is the M × N capacity matrix such that Cmi is the rate

**allocated to class-i ﬂows in transmission proﬁle m
**

• T the set of M -dimensional non-negative row vector summing

to 1. τ ∈ T corresponds to a particular schedule

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 78

A single cell

• We compare two access technologies - The ideal broadcast channel - TDMA access mode

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 79

A single cell

• We compare two access technologies - The ideal broadcast channel - TDMA access mode • For the sake of clarity: mobility/fading are not modelled

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 79

A single cell

• We compare two access technologies - The ideal broadcast channel - TDMA access mode • For the sake of clarity: mobility/fading are not modelled • User positions determine their feasible rate: when all resources

are allocated to class-i ﬂows, they receive a rate Ci

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 79

A single cell

• We compare two access technologies - The ideal broadcast channel - TDMA access mode • For the sake of clarity: mobility/fading are not modelled • User positions determine their feasible rate: when all resources

are allocated to class-i ﬂows, they receive a rate Ci

C2 C1

class 1

class 2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 79

TDMA

• One user scheduled at a time: N transmission proﬁles (one per

class), C = diag(C1 , . . . , CN )

or

1

φ2

3

1

C

class 1

class 2

3

φ1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 80

TDMA

• One user scheduled at a time: N transmission proﬁles (one per

class), C = diag(C1 , . . . , CN )

or

1

φ2

3

1

C

class 1

class 2

3

φ1

• Scheduling - Fair time sharing: realized by proportional or balanced fairness φ1 (n) = 3n1 /(n1 + n2 ), φ2 (n) = n2 /(n1 + n2 ) - Fair rate sharing: realized by max-min fairness φ1 (n) = n1 /(n1 + 3n2 ), φ2 (n) = 3n2 /(n1 + 3n2 )

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 80

Performance of TDMA

• Fair time sharing γ1 = 3(1 − ), γ2 = 1 −

where

= ρ1 /3 + ρ2

**• Fair rate sharing: A DPS queue, results by Fayolle et al’81
**

Class 1 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Traffic intensity 1.25 1.5 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair 3 Flow throughput 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Traffic intensity 1.25 1.5 Class 2 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 81

**The broadcast channel
**

• A Gaussian broadcast channel • Capacity set C = {φ : φ1 ≤ W log2 1 + P1 N1 , φ2 ≤ W log2 1 +

φ2

1

P2 N2 + P 1

, P1 +P2 ≤ P }

and 3 1

C

class 1

class 2

3

φ1

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 82

**Performance of the broadcast channel
**

Class 1 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Traffic intensity 1.5 1.75 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair 3 Flow throughput 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Traffic intensity 1.5 1.75 Class 2 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 83

Cell coordination

• 2 interfering base stations - 3 transmission proﬁles

φ2

3

3

(1)

class 1

class 2

2

C

3

(2)

class 1

class 2

2

3

φ1

2

2

(3)

class 1

class 2

3 0 C= 0 3 2 2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 84

**Cell coordination: performance
**

3 2.5 Flow throughput 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Traffic intensity 3 3.5 4 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 85

Part 1: A single link − The processor-sharing model − Flow rate limits • Part 2: Networks − Bandwidth sharing − Application to wired, cellular, ad-hoc networks

•

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 86

**Ad-hoc networks
**

• A set of L node-to-node links and K routes

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 87

**Ad-hoc networks
**

• A set of L node-to-node links and K routes • A incidence matrix (i.e., Akl = 1l∈k )

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 87

**Ad-hoc networks
**

• A set of L node-to-node links and K routes • A incidence matrix (i.e., Akl = 1l∈k ) • M transmission proﬁles used one at a time: C is the M × L

matrix, with Mml = capacity of link l in proﬁle m

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 87

**Ad-hoc networks
**

• A set of L node-to-node links and K routes • A incidence matrix (i.e., Akl = 1l∈k ) • M transmission proﬁles used one at a time: C is the M × L

**matrix, with Mml = capacity of link l in proﬁle m
**

• N = K classes of ﬂow

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 87

Example

class 2 class 1

(1) 2 2

class 3

3 links 2 transmission proﬁles

(2)

2

φ1

1

C

2

A= 0 1 0 0

φ3

1 1

1

0 1

2

φ2

C=

2 0

0 2 2 0

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 88

Example (cont’d)

Class 1, 3 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair 2 Flow throughput 1.5 1 0.5 0 Class 2 Max-min fair Proportional fair Balanced fair

0

0.5

1 1.5 Traffic intensity

2

0

0.5

1 1.5 Traffic intensity

2

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 89

Summary

• Any data network can be represented by a network of

state-dependent PS queues

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 90

Summary

• Any data network can be represented by a network of

**state-dependent PS queues
**

• Usual utility-based allocations - can be implemented in a centralized or distributed way - stabilize the network at ﬂow level - are sensitive (performance unknown)

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 90

Summary

• Any data network can be represented by a network of

**state-dependent PS queues
**

• Usual utility-based allocations - can be implemented in a centralized or distributed way - stabilize the network at ﬂow level - are sensitive (performance unknown) • Balanced fairness (the most efﬁcient insensitive allocation) - stabilizes the network at ﬂow level - has an explicit performance that approximates that of usual utility-based allocations - A distributed algorithm to implement BF is not known yet

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 90

References

• Papers available at

http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/bonald http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/proutiere

` T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, A Teletrafﬁc Theory for the Internet – 91

- The Influence of Signed Epistemologies on Cryptography.pdf
- 1207_fUsingEthereal - investigate TCP slow throughput.pdf
- Molecules in Motion
- MMNG Constraint Final
- Operation Research Prob.docx
- ECX4233 - Session 11 - Telecommunication Switching Principles - Introduction to Telephone Traffic I © OUSL
- Classical Symmetrie.pdf
- ieee_jsac
- 80216m-08_004r5
- MachineLearning-Lecture04.pdf
- CDMA3G-1X RF Engineering
- GPS Based Anti-Collision Mechanism
- Traffic Calculation
- 4 Network Dimension Ing
- Do You Have Leptokurtophobia - Wheeler
- Increasing Throughput by Efficient Target Localization in WSN
- Soundararajan_Srivathsan_35
- 36
- Stabilization of Variable Bit Rate Video Streams Using Linear Lyapunov Functions on Wireless Mobile Network
- Loss-Aware Network Coding for Unicast Wireless Sessions
- Video_LTE
- BATMAN Presentation
- Network Processor INTEL
- [11] Channel Assignment for Multicast in Multi-channel Multi-radio Wireless Mesh Networks
- A Case for Neural Networks
- Module07 1xEV-DO RF Guidelines
- Redundancy Considered Harmful
- Exam C_1106
- Stochastic Process methods 23
- optimumconsumpti00mert

- Ligji Nr. 06 L-017 Për Ratifikimin e Marrëveshjes Financiare Për Projektin e Konkurrueshmërisë Dhe Gatishmërisë Për Eksport Ndërmjet Republikës Së Kos
- Udhëzim Administrativ (Mpb) Nr. 04 2018 Për Kategorizimin Dhe Klasifikimin e Objekteve Në Kategorinë Përkatëse Të Rrezikshmërisë Nga Zjarri
- RREGULLORE_(ZKA)_NR._01_2018_PËR_MARRËDHËNIE_PUNE
- Ligji Nr. 05 L-075 Për Parandalimin Dhe Sanksionimin e Dhunës Dhe Dukurive Negative Në Ngjarjet Sportive
- Ligji Nr. 05 L-137 Për Ratifikimin e Marrëveshjes Përkitazi Me Themelimin e Fondit Të Ballkanit Perëndimor
- LIGJI_NR._06_L-003_PËR_RATIFIKIMIN_E_MARRËVESHJES_FINANCIARE_PËR_IPA_2016_NDËRMJET_REPUBLIKËS_SË_KOSOVËS_DHE_BASHKIMIT_EVROPIAN
- LIGJI_NR._05_L-149__PËR_RATIFIKIMIN_E_MARRËVESHJES_PËR_THEMELIMIN_E_ZYRËS_RAJONALE_PËR_BASHKËPUNIM_RINOR_NË_MES_KOSOVËS_SHQIPËRISË_BOSNJË_DHE_HERCEGOV___
- Ligji Nr. 05 L-132 Për Automjete
- Ligji Nr. 05 L-090 Për Sponsorizime Në Fushën e Kulturës Rinisë Dhe Sportit
- LIGJI__NR._03_L-040_PËR_VETËQEVERISJEN_LOKALE.pdf
- LIGJI_NR._06_L-018_PËR_RATIFIKIMIN_E_MARRËVESHJES_FINANCIARE_PËR_FINANCIM_SHTESË_PËR_PROJEKTIN_PËR_BUJQËSI_DHE_ZHVILLIM_RURAL_NDËRMJET_REPUBLIKËS_SË_K___
- Ligji Nr. 04 L-232 Për Shërbimin Gjeologjik Të Kosovës
- Marrëveshje Ndërmjet Qeverisë Së Republikës Së Kosovës Dhe Qeverisë Së Kanadasë Për Promovimin Dhe Mbrojtjen e Investimeve
- Ligji Nr. 05 L-157 Për Ratifikimin e Marrëveshjes Së Financimit Të Projektit Për Sigurinë e Ujit Dhe Mbrojtjen e Kanalit Të Ibër-lepencit Ndërmjet
- 04-L-230 sh
- kuvendi.pdf
- tabela 2.23.xlsx
- STATUTI i Komunes Se Prishtines(10)
- OBSAI Interfaces
- tarifat_cmimi
- An Overview of the EU Radio Equipment Directive 082015
- LIGJI__NR._03_L-212_I_PUNËS.pdf
- tabela 2.23
- tabela 2.23.xlsx
- Doracak Per Shpjegimin e Tarifave
- 3432 Manual Fxxb
- Ligji Per Barazi Gjinore
- 05-L-110 sh
- RA2001_27
- GAP Policy brief 11 Regulating employment in Kosovo (Shqip).pdf

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading