2010 IEEE 71st Vehicular Technology Conference 2010
DOI: 10.1109/vetecs.2010.5493737
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic Packet Scheduling for Traffic Mixes of Best Effort and VoIP Users in E-UTRAN Downlink

Abstract: This paper deals with packet scheduling for Voiceover-IP (VoIP) traffic in the Long Term Evolution (LTE) E-UTRAN Downlink. The more specific target is to optimize the performance of dynamic scheduling for traffic mixes of VoIP and best effort users. To this end, we introduce the Required Activity Detection (RAD) packet scheduling algorithm with Delay Sensitivity (RAD-DS). With an appropriate delay sensitivity function, it is shown that a MACRO 1 cell with 5MHz transmission bandwidth can support up to 346 VoIP … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fig. 5.e illustrates the intra-class 95th CDF percentile for the user PLR when the number of heterogeneous users belongs to the range of [10,31]. For this scenario, 5MART respects the PLR requirements for all traffic types meaning that, it can afford a higher number of aggregate users to be served at the same time when compared to other schemes.…”
Section: Exploitation Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fig. 5.e illustrates the intra-class 95th CDF percentile for the user PLR when the number of heterogeneous users belongs to the range of [10,31]. For this scenario, 5MART respects the PLR requirements for all traffic types meaning that, it can afford a higher number of aggregate users to be served at the same time when compared to other schemes.…”
Section: Exploitation Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the scheduler in [8] preselects users with the highest headof-line packet delay and the frequency domain focuses more on meeting the GBR requirement for each preselected user. The Required Activity Detection Scheduler (RADS) [10] deals with delay minimization in the time domain, whereas the frequency domain performs the PF scheduling rule to achieve proper throughput-fairness trade-offs. To minimize PLR and packet delay, the Frame Level Scheduler (FLS) [11] estimates in the time domain the amount of real-time data to be transmitted in the next frame, while the same PF scheduling rule is performed in the frequency domain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to other TDP strategies where users from different classes may be pre-selected according to their QoS budget [32], [33], the proposed scheduler aims to prioritize classes by deciding at each TTI a new prioritization sequence. However, the order of classes to be scheduled at each TTI is decided based on the performance of x over the requirementx and not on the occupancy degree of the available spectrum.…”
Section: B Multi-class and Multi-objective Optimizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LTE physical layer is important for conveying both data and control information between an eNodeB and UE. To enable reproducibility of our results, simulation of the network is done by using a system level simulator [9,[11][12][13][14].…”
Section: System Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%