4.1 Input traffic
This paper confines the discussion on mainly data.
Data source are generally bursty in nature whereas
voice and video sources can be continuous or bursty,
depending on the compression and coding
techniques used.
4.2 Characteristics of queuing model
There are three components with certain
characteristics that must be examined before the
simulation models are developed.
4.2.1 Arrival characteristics
The pattern of arrivals input traffic is mostly
characterized to be Poisson arrival processes
(Pakdeepinit et al, 2002). Like many random events,
Poisson arrivals occur in such a way that for each
increment of time (T), no matter how large or small,
the probability of arrival is independent of any
previous history. These events may be individual
labels, a burst of labels, label or packet service
completions, or other arbitrary events.
4.2.2 Service facility characteristics
In this paper, service times are randomly distributed
by the exponential probability distribution. This is a
mathematically convenient assumption if arrival
rates are Poisson distributed. In order to examine the
traffic congestion at output of VDSL downstream
link with capacity 15Mbps
(www.dlink.pl/docs/datenblatt/DEV3001_datasheet
_en.pdf), the service time in the simulation model is
specified by the speed of this VDSL link, resulting
that a service time is set to be exponential
distribution with mean 216 µs ,where the frame size
is 405 bytes (www.etsi.org). The buffer size at the
entrance to VDSL network is set to be 1,024 frames
(www.dlink.pl/docs/datenblatt/DEV3001_datasheet
_en.pdf). Once it is exceeding the buffer size then it
is considered to be non-conforming frames (or
dropped frames).
4.2.3 Source traffic descriptor
The source traffic descriptor is the subset of traffic
parameters requested by the source (user), which
characterizes the traffic that will (or should) be
submitted during the connection. The relation of
each traffic parameter used in the simulation model
is defined in table 2.
Table 2: Input parameters
5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The comparison of results before and after applying
QLR in policing mechanisms is shown in figure: 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9. They are listed as LB, JW, TJW and
FLB, FJW and FTJW respectively. This This section
focuses on the simulation results as of LB, JW,
TJW, FLB, FJW and FTJW. The input traffic rate
(frame rate varies from 1 Mbps to 35 Mbps) with
burst/silence ratio of 100:100 was simulated and
results were shown in figure 5. It clearly determines
that the fuzzy control QLR in policing mechanism
(that is FLB,FJW and FTJW) is much better
throughput than traditional policing mechanism (LB,
JW, TJW). Throughput is one of QoS to help
guarantee higher reliability of network performance.
In conclusion, the FLB, FJW and FTJW can handle
real time applications such as multimedia traffic.
Figure 6 demonstrates that we can help conserve the
conforming frames by simply reducing number of
dropped frames. The highest number of dropped
frames as shown in this figure is produced by
traditional policing mechanisms (LB,JW and TJW).
A regular network may cause a poor QoS by higher
non-conforming frames. Especially, a quality of
multimedia traffic such as video conference, video
on demand during the online display mode must
guarantee QoS while high dropped frames will
cause unclear pictures and retransmission.
Furthermore It will lead to higher delay time.
In figure 7, the simulation result determines
more utilization of fuzzy control prior queue length
and depleting rate in policing mechanisms compared
to traditional policing mechanisms with burst/silence
ratio of 100:100. The increment of utilization factor
does not seem to be relevant to the performance
improvement. The higher utilization may cause
approach of a bottleneck situation which can boggle
down the system. In fact the 78% in FLB, FJW and
FTJW will not affect the situation of bottleneck.
Positively this factor will rather improve the cost
effectiveness of the VDSL devices.
Figure 8 and 9 show that all fuzzy control prior
queue length and depleting rate in policing
Arrival rate
(Mbps)
Max Queue Length
(MQL in frames)
QLR
(Mbps)
1- 5 9 6
6-9 15 10
11-12 23 13
13-35 105 14
ICETE 2005 - SECURITY AND RELIABILITY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
360