Optimal Call Admission Control on a Single Link With a GPS Scheduler

Abstract

Abstract-In this paper the problem of Call Admission Control (CAC) is considered for leaky bucket constrained sessions with deterministic service guarantees (zero loss and finite delay bound), served by a Generalized Processor Sharing scheduler at a single node in the presence of best effort traffic. Based on an optimization process a CAC algorithm capable of determining the (unique) optimal solution is derived. The derived algorithm is also applicable, under a slight modification, in a system where the best effort traffic is absent and is capable of guaranteeing that if it does not find a solution to the CAC problem, then a solution does not exist. The numerical results indicate that the CAC algorithm can achieve a significant improvement on bandwidth utilization as compared to a (deterministic) effective bandwidth-based CAC scheme.

Beyond processor sharing

“…The reverse problem of selecting suitable weight factors so as to satisfy given Quality-of-Service requirements and the closely related issue of characterizing the admissible region, have received considerably less attention, see for instance [32,52,55,63,76]. Kleinrock [45,Section 4.7] introduced a class of nonanticipating and work-conserving disciplines called Multilevel ProcessorSharing (MLPS) disciplines.…”

QoS Mechanisms for the MAC Protocol of IEEE 802.11 WLANs

“…Our algorithm is designed for a single-node system but, as explained in [15], it can be extended to multiple-node systems in many situations of practical interests. For instance, when it is applied at the bottleneck node, or when it is applied at an edge node and the same bandwidth is reserved for each connection at all the nodes included in its end-to-end path.…”

“…The "checkpoints" for a session j are defined as those time instants at which the maximum delay d j can be achieved (i.e., candidates for t * j ) [15]. According to Theorem 1, the checkpoints include d j itself and those t L (k ) greater than d j , k ∈ {1, 2, .…”

“…If we compare our algorithm to those presented in [2], the main difference is that the previously proposed algorithms are not based on systematic calculations, but rely instead either on random search techniques or on successive approximations to find a solution, which can be very inefficient or even ineffective, as explained in [15].…”

“…Finally, the algorithm presented in [15] is equivalent to the algorithm presented here. It is important to mention, however, that our algorithm was developed independently as part of an M.Sc.…”