Leaky Buckets : Sizing and Admission Control
V.G. Kulkarni
and
N. Gautam
Department of Operations Research
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, N.C. 275993180
vg kulkarni@unc.edu
gautam@or.unc.edu
October 9, 1996
Abstract
In this paper we propose a new uni ed approach to address simultaneously the issues of trac policing (using leaky buckets), admission control and network dimensioning. First we compute the eective bandwidth of the output of the leaky bucket (both buered and unbuered). We nd a surprising result that eective bandwidth of the output of a buered leaky bucket is independent of the token pool size. Furthermore, the output eective bandwidth exhibits discontinuous behavior as the token pool size approaches in nity. We use these results in an optimization model to nd the \optimal" leaky bucket parameters. We explain how this optimization program can be used to do network dimensioning if the input trac characteristics are known, or to do connection admission control if the network parameters are xed.
1 Introduction
The emerging high speed networks are expected to carry a broad range of tra c (video, audio and data). In the networks using asynchronous transfer mode (ATM), each tra csource is described by its stochastic characteristics, and is assured a quality of service (QoS), as measured by cellloss probability, delay, delayjitter, etc. The network dimensioning, tra c policing and connection admission control is done with the aim of guaranteeing a specied quality of service (QoS) to all the users.
The concept of eective bandwidth (also known as equivalent capacity) and its use in admission control for the statistical multiplexing of bursty sources is now welldocumented and accepted ( See 17], 4], 11], 6], 12] and 9]. ) The eective bandwidth is a number associated with a tra csource such that if the sum of the eective bandwidths of all the sources multiplexed onto a buer is less than the output rate of that buer, then the QoS is satised for each source.
The above methodology assumes that the source tra c will conform to its stated statistical properties. However, in practice we need a policing mechanism to make sure that any nonconforming source does not aect the network adversely. Due to the high data transmission speed of the network, one needs to use rate based open loop tra c policing mechanisms, rather than the \more optimal" feedback based mechanisms. (See 10], 1], 18] and 25] ). One common method of policing the user tra c is called the Leaky Bucket. (See 18], 2], 19], 26], 27] and 28].)
A leaky bucket is essentially a credit management mechanism that controls the tra c entering the network as follows: Tokens enter a token pool of size
M
at rate . (Tokens generated while the token pool is full are lost.) If there is a token in the token pool, an incoming packet immediately takes one and enters the network. If the token pool is empty then we have two alternative implementations:Buered Leaky Bucket: there is an (innite capacity) buer where packets wait for tokens to arrive.
The admitted packets enter the network and may be dropped if they encounter full buers along the way. This cell loss probability will depend upon the link speeds and the buer sizes in the network, as well as on the route followed by the packet.
One of the important questions is how to set the parameters of the leaky bucket, viz.,
M
and , and the network parameters, viz., buer sizes and link speeds. The leaky bucket sizing has been addressed in the literature by many researchers, see 3], 26], 16], etc. Bandwidth allocation in general has also received considerable attention, see 7], 13], 14], 15], etc.It is clear from the above literature that the problems of network design, bandwidth allocation and call admission control are treated separately so far. Here we present a combined approach that treats these problems simultaneously, thus continuing the approach taken in 15] by incorporating the more recent results on eective bandwidths.
Thus the main problem we deal with in this paper concerns the optimal choice of the leaky bucket parameters and
M
for each source, the network link speeds, and the buer sizes. The actual formulation is given in the Section 4. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the next section we recapitulate some of the recent results on eective bandwidths that are relevant to our work. In Section 3 we apply these results to study the eective bandwidth of the output from a leaky bucket. We study the buered as well as the unbuered case. These results are then used in an optimization model that is presented in Section 4. An e cient algorithm to solve the optimization problem is then described in Section 5. This section also presents numerical results illustrating many dierent uses of the optimization problem.2 Preliminary Results
In this section we recapitulate some of the more recent results on eective bandwidths from 4], 5], 8], 9], 20] and 21].
2.1 Asymptotic Log Moment Generating Function of a Trac Source
Consider a single buer uid model driven by a random environment processf
Z
(t
)t
0g. Whenof uid in the buer at time
t
. The buer has innite capacity and is serviced by a channel of constant output ratec
.Let
A
(t
) be the total amount of uid input from the source to the buer in timet
. ThusA
(t
) =Z t 0r
(Z
(u
))du:
The asymptotic log moment generating function (ALMGF),
h
(v
), is dened to beh
(v
) = limt!1
1
t
logE
fexp(vA
(t
))g:
(1)In practice we want to bound the overow probability of the nite buer of size
B
by . This can be achieved if the innite buer process satiseslim
t!1
P
(X
(t
)> B
)< :
(2) In the asymptotic regionB
!1and !0, such that ;log()=B
!>
0, (3)the inequality (2) is satised if
h
()= < c:
(4)The quantity
h
()=
is called the e ective bandwidth of the input source.It is not easy to calculate the ALMGF using equation (1). However, when the environment process can be modeled as Markov Regenerative Process (MRGP) or regenerative process, we can compute their eective bandwidths in the following manner as shown in 21]. We restate these results in the next two subsections.
2.2 MRGP Sources.
Let f
Z
(t
)t
0g be an MRGP with an embedded Markov renewal sequence f(Y
n
S
n)n
0g.Assume that f
Y
nn
0g is an irreducible Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC) with a nite
statespace f1
2:::m
g. LetF
1= ZS1 0
r
(Z
(t
))dt
be the total uid generated by the source during 0
S
1]. Dene (uv
) =E
e
;uS +v Ffor
ij
= 12:::m
and ;1< uv <
1. Let(
uv
) = ij(uv
)]be an
m
m
matrix. Lete
(uv
) be the largest real positive eigenvalue (the PerronFrobeniuseigenvalue) of (
uv
). Denee
(
v
) = supfu>0:e(uv )<1g
f
e
(uv
)gand
u
(
v
) = inffu >
0 :e
(uv
)<
1g:
Then for a given
v
, (a) ife
(v
)1,
h
(v
) is a unique solution toe
(h
(v
)v
) = 1,(b) if
e
(v
)<
1,h
(v
) =u
(v
):
2.3 Regenerative Source
Let f
Z
(t
)t
0g be a regenerative process and fS
nn
0g, with
S
0 = 0, be a sequence of
regeneration epochs. Then
(
uv
) =(uv
) =E
fe
;uS1 +v F
1 g
and hence
e
(uv
) =(uv
):
The quantities
e
(v
),u
(v
) andh
(v
) can be obtained from Section 2.2 on MRGP sources.For example, consider an ono source with general on and o times. When the source is on, tra c is generated at rate
r
, otherwise it does not generate any tra c. The successive on and o times (generically denoted byU
andD
, respectively) are independent. This ono source can be modeled as a regenerative process withS
1 =U
+D
andF
1=rU
. Hence, (uv
) =E
fe
;u(U+D )+v r U
g= ~
U
(u
;rv
) ~D
(u
)where ~
U
and ~D
are the Laplace Stieltjes Transforms (LSTs) of the on and o time distributions respectively. Hence one can nd the ALMGF (h
(v
)) for general ono sources by using the results of Section 2.2.3 Output of a Single Leaky Bucket

6
(
r
, ,)X
(t
)Data Buer Token
Pool
M
Y
(t
)Token Rate
Output
R
(t
)Figure 1.
Consider a single leaky bucket as shown in Figure 1. Input to the data buer is from an exponential ono source with on time parameter and o time parameter
. When the source is on it generates tra c at rater
and at rate 0 when o. LetX
(t
) be the amount of tra c in the data buer at timet
.There is a token pool of size
M
into which tokens are generated continuously at a xed rate . (The new tokens are discarded if the token pool is full.) LetY
(t
) be the number of tokens in the token pool at timet
(Y
(t
)M
).In this subsection we characterize the output from the leaky bucket and calculate its ALMGF (and hence the eective bandwidth). This is useful since the output of the leaky bucket acts as an input to a network node. Dene a process
W
(t
) asW
(t
) =X
(t
) +M
;Y
(t
):
We use the
W
(t
) process for two dierent scenarios :Buered Leaky bucket (data buer of innite capacity). Unbuered Leaky bucket (no data buer).
Note that for the unbuered leaky bucket
X
(t
) = 0, for allt
0, and henceW
(t
) would be just3.1 Buered Leaky Bucket
6
M
W
(t
)r
;;
t
U
;
; ;
; ;
;@ @;
; ;
; ;
; ;
;@ @;
; ;
;@ @
@ @
@ @
@ @
@ @
@ @
@ ;
;
Figure 2.
A typical sample path of
W
(t
) is shown in Figure 2. Following 10] we note thatW
(t
) process behaves like the buer content process of a single innite buer uid model with an exponential ono source with parameters and . Tra c is generated at rater
when the source is on, and at rate 0 when it is o. The output rate is a constant .W
(t
) increases at rater
; when thesource is on (for an exponential amount of time with parameter ). When the source is o, (for an exponential amount of time with parameter
)W
(t
) either decreases at rate ifW
(t
)>
0 or stays constant at 0 ifW
(t
) = 0. LetZ
(t
) be the state of the source (0 if o and 1 if on) at timet
.The output rate from the leaky bucket is
R
(t
) at timet
and is given byR
(t
) =8 > < > :
if
W
(t
)M
r
ifW
(t
)< M
andZ
(t
) = 10 if
W
(t
)< M
andZ
(t
) = 0:
(6)Dene the following :
U
= infft >
0 :W
(t
) = 0jW
(0) = 0Z
(0) = 1g (7)See Figure 2 for an illustration of
U
. LetV
be the total amount of tra c output from the leaky bucket in timeU
. It is clear thatW
(t
)>
0 and token pool is nonfull during (0U
). Hence the tokens enter the token pool at rate during (0U
). Since the token pool is full at 0 andU
, it is clear that the total number of tokens removed from the pool over (0U
) must be the same as the total number of tokens that entered the pool over (0U
). Hence we getV
=U:
(8)Theorem 1
LetD
(t
) be the total output from the leaky bucket over 0t
]. The ALMGF of the output of the leaky bucketh
D(v
) = lim t!11
t
logE
fexp(vD
(t
))gis given in terms of the ALMGF of the input,
h
A(v
), ash
D(v
) = (h
A(v
) if 0v
v
h
A(v
);
v
+
v
ifv > v
, (9)where
v
=r
s
(r
; ) ;1!
+
_{r}
1; s
(r
; ) !and
h
A(v
) = 12rv
; ;+ q(
rv
; ;)2+ 4
rv
:
Proof
: The output from a buered leaky bucket is modulated by the bivariate processf(
W
(t
)Z
(t
))t
0g according to Eq. (6). Now, supposeW
(0) = 0 andZ
(0) = 1. Then, f(W
(t
)Z
(t
))t
0gis a regenerative process that regenerates whenever it reaches the state (01).The length of the regenerative cycle is seen to be
S
1 =U
+D
, whereU
is as in Eq. (7) andD
isan exp(
) random variable. Now, from Eq. (8), the total output duringU
isU
, while the total output duringD
is 0. Hence the total output during the rst regenerative cycle isU
. Thus the output from the leaky bucket has the same characteristics as that of an ono source discussed in Section 2.3, with as the peak rate,U
as ontime andD
as otime. Let ~U
and ~D
be the LSTs ofU
andD
respectively. Using the results from 23] and 24] we get ~D
(w
) =_{}
_{+}_{w}
and~
U
(w
) =(
w ++s 0
(w )
if
b
2+ 4
w
(w
+ +) (r
; )0
1 otherwise
(10) where
s
0(w
) = ;b
;p
b
2+ 4w
(w
+ +) (r
; )2 (
r
; )and
b
= (r
;2 )w
+ (r
; );:
Thus the ALMGF of the buered leaky bucket is identical to that of the output from a queue (with output rate ), and is independent of
M
! This means thatM
does not play any role as far as reducing the eective bandwidth, but acts strictly as a policing device that prevents arbitrarily large peakrate bursts from entering the network.We would like to comment upon a curious discontinuous behavior at this point. Although the ALMGF of the output is related to that of the input as stated in Theorem 1 for all
M <
1, wehave
h
D(v
) =h
A(v
) ifM
=1. This is because the f(
W
(t
)Z
(t
))t
0g process is transient ifM
=1, thus making the above analysis inapplicable. However, in that case, the leaky bucket istransparent and
D
(t
) =A
(t
) for allt
0, thus making the two ALMGFs identical. In practiceusing
M
= 1 is never a good idea, and hence this discontinuity will not bother us in the lateranalysis.
3.2 Unbuered Leaky Bucket
6
M
W
(t
)r
;;
t
U
;
; ;
; ;
;@ @;
; ;
; @
@ @
@ @
@ @
@ ;
;
Figure 3.
In the unbuered leaky bucket case, a packet that arrives at the leaky bucket is sent into the network with a \violation" tag if no tokens are available at the time of its arrival. We will concentrate on the untagged packets as the tagged ones would be dropped in the event of a congestion. The sample path of
W
(t
) is shown in Figure 3. Since there is no data buer,W
(t
) =M
;Y
(t
)and
W
(t
) ranges from 0 toM
. Note thatW
(t
) process is identical to a buer content process of a uid queue with ono input and constant output with rate and a nite buer of sizeM
.is given by
R
(t
) =8 > < > :
if
W
(t
) =M
r
ifW
(t
)< M
andZ
(t
) = 10 if
W
(t
)< M
andZ
(t
) = 0:
(11)Let
U
be as in Eq. (7). Then Eq. (8) remains valid in the unbuered case. Hence the ALMGF of the output process is similar to that in Theorem 1 except that we need to use modied expressions for the LSTs ~U
and ~D
. In the unbuered case, the LST of the distribution ofU
depends onM
and , and can be computed using techniques of 23]. The nal result is as follows: ~
U
(w
) =E
fe
;w Ug=
(
+w
+s
1)e
(s0 ;s
1
)M(
w
(w
++s
0+ ) +
s
0);(
+w
+s
0)(
w
(w
++s
1+ ) +s
1) (e
(s 0;s 1
)M(
w
2+w
+w s
0+
w
+s
0) + ( ;w
2
;
w
;w s
1;
w
;s
1))where
s
0= ( ;^b
;q
^
_{b}
2+ 4w
(w
+ +) (r
; ))
=
(2 (r
; ))s
1= ( ;^b
+q
^
_{b}
2+ 4w
(w
+ +) (r
; ))
=
(2 (r
; ))and
^
b
= (r
;2 )w
+ (r
; );:
~
D
(w
) is as in the buered case. Therefore from Section 2.3 we have that, for a givenv >
0, the ALMGF of the output of the unbuered leaky bucket,h
D(v
), is computed as follows :(a) if
e
(v
) 1,h
D(
v
) is a unique solution to ~U
(h
D(v
);
v
) ~D
(h
D(
v
)) = 1,(b) if
e
(v
)<
1,h
D(
v
) =u
(v
):
Though closed form expressions for
h
D(v
) are complicated, they are straightforward to obtainnumerically.
When
M
= 0, it can be shown that theh
D(v
) function reduces to the ALMGF of an onosource with exp( ) ontimes, exp(
) otimes and peak rate . This is as expected. However, we get the same discontinuous behavior asM
!1as in the buered case, and it arises for the same4 Sizing of Leaky Buckets and Admission Control
#
"
!
M
1 1#
"
!
M
K K t t t

7 S
S S
S S
S S
S w
(
r
K, K,K)(
r
1, 1,1)Leaky Bucket
K
Leaky Bucket 1
Buer (Size
B
)Output Channel
(Capacity
c
)Figure 4.
We assume that there are
K
(a xed positive integer) sources of tra c. Thei
th(i
= 12:::K
)source is an exponential ono one with ontime parameter i, otime parameter
i and peak rater
i. The mean input rate ism
i = ri
i
i +
i. We assume that the
i
th input source is policed by a
leaky bucket with parameters i and
M
i. We shall consider both the buered and unbuered leakybucket cases.
The output from the
K
leaky buckets is multiplexed onto a single buer of sizeB
and constant output ratec
. In the unbuered case all the packets (tagged or untagged) enter the buer. However, when the buer gets full the tagged packets are dropped from the buer before any of the untagged ones are aected.4.1 The Optimization Problem
We now conceptually formulate the problem of selecting the parameters
M
i, i, (1i
K
). Weconsider the following issues arising from the contract between the sources and the network: In case of the buered leaky bucket, the contract species that as long as the
i
th sourceadheres to its agreed upon characteristics, the fraction of the tra c that faces a delay of more than a xed amount
d
In the case of the unbuered leaky bucket, the contract species that as long as the
i
thsource adheres to its agreed upon characteristics, the fraction of the tra c that gets tagged as violation tra c is bounded above by
i.In the case of the buered leaky bucket, the fraction of the tra c from the
i
th source that isdiscarded by the network due to buer overows is bounded above by
i. (This is called thecell loss probability constraint.)
In the case of the unbuered leaky bucket, the fraction of the nonviolation tra c from source
i
that is discarded by the network due to buer overow is bounded above by i.Now consider the following optimization problem:
P: Minimize
P K i=1i
Subject to:
1. Waiting time or tagging constraint at the leaky bucket,
2.
m
i<
ir
i
, for
1i
K
.
3.
P K i=1M
i
M
:
The objective function and constraint (3) need some explanation. The parameter i of the
i
thleaky bucket serves the following function: No matter how badly the source behaves, the data rate in the arbitrarily long bursts that it can send into the network is bounded above by i. Thus if
all sources were to simultaneously misbehave, the network will get tra c at maximum sustainable rateP
K i=1
i. Hence it make sense to ensure that this worst case situation is kept the best possible.
Similarly, the parameter
M
i can be thought of the largest instantaneous burst that the leaky bucketwill allow from the
i
th source. Thus ifM
is the largest burst that the network can handle, (forexample we may set
M
=B
orM
=B=
2 .) then it makes sense to add constraint number (3).It will be seen that this turns out to be a very crucial constraint.
Constraint (1) is self explanatory, arising out of the contract stipulations. Constraint
m
i<
i isneeded for stability, and i
r
i is needed to keep the the leaky bucket operation nontrivial. The
Note that the packet loss constraint in the network is not explicitly included in the above optimization problem. We show next how this constraint can be handled.
4.2 Uses of the Model
We illustrate two uses of the solution of the optimization problem
P
.Determining the channel capacity
Suppose we want to design a network to handle a given set of sources. We rst choose
B
to satisfy budget constraint or the maximum delay constraint. Then we solveP
for these given sources and this buer sizeB
, and obtain the optimal values of i andM
i for 1i
K
.Now, let
D
i(t
) be the total output from thei
th leaky bucket over time 0
t
). (For an unbueredleaky bucket, it is dened to be the total nonviolation tra c admitted by the leaky bucket over 0
t
):
) Using the optimal parameters i andM
i, use the results of Section 3.1 and 3.2 to obtainthe ALMGF
h
i(t
) ofD
i(t
). Consider the case when alli =. (This means all sources require thesame Quality of Service.) Then it is known that the QoS criterion is satised if
K X i=1
h
i()< c
where
=;log
B :
(See 4], 20].) This result is valid in the asymptotic region
B
!1!0 so that ;log()=B
! 2(01):
Then the minimum capacity needed to satisfy the packet loss constraints constraints is given by
c
= K X i=1h
i():
Call admission control
Suppose the capacity
c
and the buer sizeB
are given. Suppose we haveK
sources requesting service. We rst solveP
and compute the optimal parameters i andM
i. Using these we computeh
i() as in the previous paragraph. Letc
= K Xh
i(
)If
c
< c
then we can admit all the sources, otherwise some will have to be denied access.Furthermore, if we have already admitted
K
sources, and a newK
+ 1 st source arrives, we resolveP
and compute the new optimal parametersM
i and i (1i
K
+ 1), and computec
= K+1X i=1
h
i():
If
c
< c
we can admit the new source and reset the leaky bucket parameters of all the existingsources. Note that this dynamic change should be transparent to the users, since their service contract will continue to be honored.
4.3 Constraint (1)
We now state the explicit expressions for constraint (1) below for the buered and unbuered case.
Buered Leaky Buckets
Consider the buered leaky bucket system where the data buer has innite capacity. We assume that
d
i = 0, for all
i
. Then delay constraint at the input buer can be stated using the steadystate analysis of thef(
W
(t
)Z
(t
))t
0g process as (see 16])e
;iMii
fori
= 12:::K
where
i =r
i( i ;m
i) i
(
r
i ;i)(
r
i ;m
i) i
and
i is the expected fraction of tra c from sourcei
that experience a nonzero delay.Unbuered Leaky Buckets
Consider the unbuered leaky bucket system where there are no input buers or data buers and packets enter the network with \violation" tag if there are no tokens available to them. The tagging constraint can be obtained by suitably modifying the delay constraint at the input buer as stated by 16] as follows :
r
i ;i
m
ie
; iM i
i
fori
= 12:::K
where
i =r
i( i ;m
i) i
(
r
i ;i)(
r
i ;m
i) i
5 Algorithms and Numerical Results
5.1 Buered Leaky Buckets
In this section we study the optimization problem
P
for the buered leaky bucket in more detail and derive an e cient numerical algorithm to solve it. First we restateP
as:PB:
min ( K X i=1 i )subject to the constraints,
e
; iM i
i
fori
= 12:::K
(12)M
1+M
2+:::
+M
K
B
(13)r
ii i+ i<
i
r
i
fori
= 12:::K :
(14)Before we go ahead and employ nonlinear programming techniques to solve PB, we modify the problem to simplify the analysis. The constraint
r
ii i+ i<
iwould be automatically satised as i =
m
i will imply thatM
i =1 which is not possible. Hence
we can drop the above constraint. Also note that the larger the
M
i, the smaller the i and hencethe constraint
M
1+M
2+:::
+M
KB
will be binding. Therefore the optimality problem can be restated as follows:
PB1:
min ( K X i=1 i )subject to the constraints,
e
;iMi
i
fori
= 12:::K
(15)M
1+M
2+:::
+M
K =B
(16)i
r
i
fori
= 12:::K :
(17)Dene the Lagrangian
L
( 1:::
KM
1:::M
K) = K Xi+ K X
i(e
;i M
i ;
i) +
( K XM
i;
B
) + K X i( i ;r
where
i's,andi's are associated Lagrange multipliers. Using the standard Lagrangian approach,it is easy to reduce the rst order necessary conditions for optimality to
K X i=1
;log(
i)
=
i =B
and (18)either
m
i(r
i ;m
i) 2
r
i i( i ;m
i) 2 +r
i ;m
ir
i i= ;1
log(i)i = 0 and i
< r
i (19)or
i= 0M
i= 0 i =r
i and ii<
0:
(20)Using the above conditions, we derive the following algorithm to solve
PB1
. First note that asi varies from
m
i tor
i in Eq. (19), 1=
varies from 0 to ;i
=
log(i). Thus for a xed 2(0
maxi f;i
=
log(i)g) one can solve Eq. (19) to get
i= ^i =
m
i+ rx
y
where
x
=m
i(r
i ;m
i) 2
r
i i andy
=;r
i ;m
i
r
i i ;1
log(i):
Let
i(
) = min f^i
r
i g:
It can be seen that i(
) is a monotone function of. This fact is used in the following algorithm1. Using binary search over
2(0max if;
i
=
log(i)g) solve X i: i ()<r i ;log(
i)
=
i=B
where
i is computed by using i= i(). Let the nal value ofbe .2. Set i =
i(
), and
M
i = ; log( i ) i , wherei is computed by using
i= i(
).It is easy to show that the optimal solution corresponds to the objective function being minimized. We illustrate the algorithm by means of two numerical examples.
Example 1:
Consider the case ofK iid
sources with common parameters , andr
. It is easy to observe thatM
i =
M
and i =
M
=
_{K}
B
= ;
a
2+ q
a
2 2;4
a
1a
32
a
1where
a
1 =r
;
m
,a
2=r B ;K
;
r
(r
;m
) anda
3=
m Br=K
log().Therefore using and
M
, the ALMGFh
() =h
i(M
) can be obtained from Theorem 1.The QoS criteria for cellloss probability is satised if
K h
()= < c:
(21) Thus in the design problem we should choosec
to satisfy the above while in the call admission problem we should keep admitting calls as long as the number of callsK
in the system satises (21).As a numerical example, consider the following input parameters: = 1,
= 0:
4,r
= 1:
2, = 10;7, = 0:
003, andK
= 27. Then the optimal leaky bucket parameters are = 1:
1711 andM
= 0:
1695, which yieldsh
()=
= 0:
7360. Thus Eq. (21) is satised ifc >
27 0:
7360 = 19:
87.Notice that the optimal leaky bucket parameters, and hence the value of
h
()=
will change withK
, and hence the problemPB1
will need to be solved repeatedly for dierent values ofK
.Example 2:
Suppose there are two types of sources. There arek
1iid
type 1 sources with 1= 2:
4, 1 = 0:
4,r
1 = 2:
0 and 1 = 10;5, and
k
2
iid
type 2 sources with 2 = 1, 2 = 0:
4,r
2 = 1:
2 and 2 = 0:
003. The network buer has capacityB
= 10,= 10;7 for both types of sources. It is clear
that the optimal leaky bucket parameters will depend only on the type of the source. For a given (
k
1k
2), we can obtain the optimal1,
2,
M
1 and
M
2 by solving
PB1
. The eective bandwidthof the output of a type
i
source will beh
i()=
. The QoS criterion is thenk
1h
1() +k
2h
2()< c:
If this is satised we say that the pair (
k
1k
2) is feasible. Table 1 gives the values of 1,2,
M
1,
M
2,h
1(
)=
, andh
2()=
for the pairs f(k
1
k
2) : 1k
1
6
1k
26g. They are obtained using
k
1 1 2 3 4 5 6k
21 0
:
861 0:
7917 1:
173 1:
038 1:
3629 1:
1903 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
2 7:
012 2:
9883 4:
498 1:
003 3:
3145 0:
0566 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
681 0:
6698 0:
796 0:
736 0:
8356 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736 2 0:
988 0:
8922 1:
215 1:
072 1:
3650 1:
1920 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
25
:
851 2:
0746 4:
219 0:
781 3:
3022 0:
0467 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
735 0:
7100 0:
807 0:
736 0:
8359 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736 3 1:
068 0:
9547 1:
243 1:
094 1:
3665 1:
1932 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
25
:
235 1:
5882 4:
041 0:
639 3:
2935 0:
0398 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
763 0:
7269 0:
813 0:
736 0:
8361 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736 4 1:
120 0:
9966 1:
263 1:
110 1:
3676 1:
1940 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
24
:
855 1:
2864 3:
918 0:
541 3:
2871 0:
0347 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
781 0:
7337 0:
818 0:
736 0:
8363 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736 5 1:
158 1:
0265 1:
277 1:
122 1:
3684 1:
1947 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
24
:
596 1:
0808 3:
828 0:
469 3:
2822 0:
0307 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
792 0:
7359 0:
821 0:
736 0:
8364 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736 6 1:
186 1:
0488 1:
288 1:
131 1:
3691 1:
1953 1:
5072 1:
2 1:
6 1:
2 1:
6642 1:
24
:
409 0:
9319 3:
759 0:
414 3:
2783 0:
0275 2:
5000 0 2:
0 0 1:
6667 0 0:
799 0:
7360 0:
823 0:
736 0:
8365 0:
7360 0:
8478:
736 0:
848:
736 0:
848:
736Legend :
1 2
M
1M
2 h1 ( ) h
2 ( )
Table 1.
For example, suppose we want to be able to handle 4 sources of type 1 and 5 of type 2. Then for the pair (4
5) we see that the sum of the output eective bandwidths is 4 0:
8478+5 0:
7360 = 7:
0712. Hence we must choosec >
7:
0712 in order to handle this tra c. On the other hand supposec
= 6:
2 is given. Then the pair (34) is feasible if we use the optimal parameters from Table 1, however the pair (35) is infeasible. Thus the call admission can be done using a table like this. As a nal example, all feasible pairs (k
1k
2) are shown in the regionR
(including the boundary)6
R
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 222 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
k
1k
2 t @ @ @ t t t A At @ @ @ @ @ @ t t t t t t A At @ @ @ @ @ @ t t t t t t A At @ @ @ t t tFigure 5.
5.2 Unbuered Leaky Buckets
For the unbuered leaky buckets, the optimization problem is very similar except for the tagging probability constraint. The Lagrangian method can be adopted here too to optimally solve for
M
iand
i, (
i
= 12:::K
). Then the ALMGFh
i(i
M
i) can be obtained using the procedure in
Section 3.2. Hence the design problem and the call admission problem can be solved in a manner similar to the buered leaky bucket case.
References
1] A.W. Berger Performance Analysis of a rate Control Throttle where Tokens and Jobs Queue. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., SAC9, 165{170, 1991.
2] M. Butto, E. Cavallero and A. Tonietti. E ectiveness of the Leaky Bucket Policing Mechanism in ATM Networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., SAC9, 335{342, 1991.
4] C. S. Chang and J. A. Thomas. E ective Bandwidth in Highspeed Digital Networks. IEEE Journal on Selected areas in Communications, 13(6), 1091{1100, 1995.
5] C. S. Chang and T. Zajik. E ective Bandwidths of Departure Processes from Queues with Time Varying Capacities. INFOCOM'95, 1001{1009.
6] G. L. Choudhury, D. M. Lucantoni and W. Whitt. On the E ectiveness of E ective Bandwidths for Admission Control in ATM Networks. Proceedings of ITC14, 411{420, Elsevier Science, B.V., 1994.
7] I. Cidon, I. Gopal and R. Guerin. Bandwidth Management and Congestion Control in plaNET IEEE Commun. Mag., 29, 54{63, 1991.
8] G. de Veciana, C. Courcoubetis and J. Walrand. Decoupling Bandwidths for Networks: A Decomposition Approach to Resource Management. INFOCOM'94, 466{473.
9] G. de Veciana, G. Kesidis and J. Walrand. Resource Management in WideArea ATM Networks Using E ective Bandwidths. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 13(6), 1081{ 1090, 1995.
10] A.I. Elwalid and D. Mitra. Analysis and Design of RateBased Congestion Control of High Speed Networks, part I: Stochastic Fluid Models, Access Regulation. Queueing Systems and their Applications, Vol.9, 29{64, 1991.
11] A.I. Elwalid and D. Mitra. E ective Bandwidth of General Markovian Trac Sources and Admission Control of Highspeed Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1(3), 329{343, June 1993.
12] A.I. Elwalid, D. Heyman, T.V. Lakshman, D. Mitra, and A. Weiss. Fundamental Bounds and Approximations for ATM Multiplexers with Applications to Video Teleconferencing. IEEE Journal on Selected areas in Communications, 13(6), 1004{1016, 1995.
13] L. G"un and R. Guerin. Bandwidth Management and Congestion Control Framework for the Broadband Network Architecture. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 26, 61{78, 1993. 14] G. Gallassi, G. Rigolio and L. Fratta. ATM : Bandwidth Assignment and Bandwidth
15] R. Guerin, H. Ahmadi and Naghshineh. Equivalent Capacity and its Application to Bandwidth Allocation in Highspeed Networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,SAC9, 968{981, 1991. 16] L. G"un, V.G. Kulkarni and A. Narayanan. Bandwidth Allocation and Access Control in
Highspeed Networks. Annals of Operations Research, 49, 161{183, 1994.
17] R. J. Gibbens and P.J. Hunt. E ective bandwidths for the Multitype UAS Channel. Queueing Systems and their Applications, 9, 17{28, 1991.
18] Gu, X., K. Sohraby and D. R. Vaman. Control and performance in packet, circuit, and ATM networks. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1995.
19] D. Holtsinger and H. Perros. Performance Analysis of Leaky Bucket Policing Mechanisms. Proc. Tricomm '92, Raleigh, NC, 1992.
20] G. Kesidis, J. Walrand, and C.S. Chang. E ective bandwidths for Multiclass Markov Fluids and Other ATM sources. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1(4), 424{428, 1993. 21] V. G. Kulkarni. E ective Bandwidths for Markov Regenerative Sources. Technical Report
No. 9413, Dept of Operations Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, 1994 (Submitted to QUESTA).
22] V. G. Kulkarni, and N. Gautam. Admission Control of MultiClass Trac with Service Priorities in HighSpeed Networks. Technical Report No. 9506, Dept of Operations Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, 1995.
23] A. Narayanan and V. G. Kulkarni. First Passage Times in Fluid Models with an Application to Twopriority Fluid Systems. Technical Report No. 9501, Dept of Operations Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, 1995. (Submitted to Queueing Systems and their Applications)
24] N. U. Prabhu and A. Pacheco. A storage model for data communication systems. Queueing Systems and their Applications, 19, 1{40, 1995.
26] K. Sohraby and M. Sidi. On the Performance of Bursty and Modulated Sources Subject to Leaky Bucket Ratebased Access Control Schemes. IEEE Trans. on Commun., Vol. 42, No. 2/3/4, 1994.
27] G. Wu and J.W. Mark. Discrete Time Analysis of Leaky Bucket Congestion Control. Proc. of ICC '92, 1992.