A Teletraffic Theory for the Internet

` 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

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 – 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