ADMISSION CONTROL OF MIXED VBR SOURCES IN BROADBAND NETWORKS

Abstract: In controlling the admission of variable bit rate (VBR) traffic, source classes are typically mixed in the sense that some can benefit from statistical multiplexing while others cannot. Moreover, such a mix of statistically multiplexable (S-VBR) and nonstatistically multiplexable (NS-VBR) sources is known to cause nonlinear interactions. Accordingly, if the boundary of the set of admissible connections is conservatively estimated by a linear approximation, the number of falsely rejected connections can become excessive. On the other hand, such an approximation permits admissibility to be easily decided in terms of the effective bandwidths of the traffic classes. Motivated by this background, the modified Chernov bound (MCB) is used to estimate the probability Psat of channel saturation and, with respect to a specified QOS bound on Psat, the set of admissible connections is formulated for worst-case regulated, periodic, on-off traffic. The S-VBR/NS-VBR dichotomy is characterized relative to this MCB-based admissible set and effective bandwidth computations are derived for S-VBR traffic. These results are then incorporated in an innovative, time-efficient admission control algorithm that applies to mixed S-VBR/NS-VBR traffic without compromising the accuracy of admission decisions. The algorithm relies on an ordering of classes according to their relative multiplexabilities along with a table of precomputed effective bandwidths for incremental values of residual capacity. The description of the invention concludes with an assessment of the algorithm's accuracy and computational efficiency as compared with alternative methods.

Description: ADMISSION CONTROL OF MIXED VBR SOURCES IN BROADBAND NETWORKS Technical Field This invention concerns methods of connection admission control (CAC) for ATM networks, whereby requests for admitting and routing a virtual circuit are granted or denied on the basis of currently available network resources (buffer space in the nodes, channel capacity in the links) and quality of service (QOS) requirements. More in particular, the invention addresses a basic issue of recognized importance in the above context, namely how to guarantee QOS for multiplexed variable bit rate (VBR) sources, particularly when the the traffic classes are mixed with respect to their potential multiplexing gains. Background A network in which the method of admission control and routing of requests for virtual circuits of the invention may be practiced is depicted in Figure 1. The means used to estimate both resource availability and prospective resource consumption (by the requested circuit) is based on the concept of an effective bandwidth (EB). In controlling the admission and routing of variable bit rate (VBR) traffic, source classes are typically mixed in the sense that some classes can benefit from statistical multiplexing while others cannot. Moreover, such a mix of statistically multiplexable (S-VBR) and nonstatistically multiplexable (NS-VBR) sources is known to cause nonlinear interactions. Accordingly, if the boundary of the set of admissible sources is conservatively estimated by a linear approximation (for the purpose of determining EBs), the number of falsely rejected connections can become excessive. This problem and certain difficulties associated with solving it are nicely described in the work of Ewalid et al. [1]; its solution, however, is left open as a "subject of future work". In a subsequent patent application by the same authors [2], they propose a step in this direction whereby bandwidth is allocated directly to CBR sources; available link capacity is then reduced accordingly and the EBs for the remaining classes are computed relative to this residual capacity. Although this approach can reduce the severity of nonlinear interactions, if the remaining VBR classes are mixed (which is likely) then the problem cited above persists. According to [1, 2], traffic sources are represented by worst-case, regulated rate processes. Specifically, regulation is implemented by a leaky bucket, as schematically depicted in Figure 2, with parameters r (the token rate, which regulates the mean input rate), B (the token buffer capacity, which bounds the burst size), and P (the peak rate permitted, where r < P), these are deterministic sources that behave as follows. If r < P then the worst-case arrival process (when so regulated) is a deterministic, on-off, periodic rate process. The duration of an on period is T on = Bτl(P - r), during which the rate is equal to the peak rate P. The source is then off _ (rate = 0) for a duration or τ = B lr. Accordinglv, the source is able to transmit the o maximum amount of information (burst size) permitted by the leaky bucket, namely Q = BjP/(P — r): the mean rate is likewise maximized (= r) with respect to the period T = T on + T 0f j. If r = P then the periodicity disappears, i.e., the output of the regulator becomes a constant bit rate (CBR) source with rate r. Heterogeneity is introduced by considering a set J = {1.2. . . . , J} of J traffic classes that are distinguished by leaky buckets with differing parameter values, i.e.. for each j € J ' , source class j is characterized by the parameter triple ( r, . BT. J , P j ) ■ Individual sources are assumed to be randomly phased and, with respect to such phasing, statistically independent. With these input assumptions, the analysis in [1. 2] concerns the probabilistic behavior of channel (trunk) utilization at the output of a buffer with capacity B. The QOS measure in question is the saturation probability sat where, letting C denote the channel capacity and S the total instantaneous demand on the channel, P sat = Pr[5 > C] . (1) In [1, 2], this is referred to as the "loss probability "1 (denoted Pι oss ) and the no- saturation (or "lossless") case is considered first. To reduce the allocation problem to a single resource (either the buffer or the channel), it is assumed that buffer/bandwidth allocations for a class- connection are such that both resources are exhausted simultaneously. In other words, if &o and eo denote the buffer and channel allocations, respectively, then the allocation policy is such that Further, if b 0 is identified with the maximum buffer content, an analysis of the buffer's output behavior for an isolated class- source reveals that , - *. (. - ^ ) . (3) where r,- < e 0 ,j < P r Accordingly, if then equations (2) and (3) have a unique solution, permitting the bandwidth allocation eo, 7 to be expressed as in terms of the source parameters (r j , Bj tJ . P j ) and the ratio B/C. By (2), the corresponding buffer allocation is then bo. j = e 0ιJ B/C. On the other hand, if (4) is not satisfied, i.e.. B/C > Br r j (ό) then no such solution exists. In this case, a class- source is bandwidth limited (BL) since, under condition (5). its bandwidth need exceeds what is required (proportionately) of the buffer. Here, a natural choice for the channel is to allocate the mean rate, i.e.. e 0,j = r,. In turn, by (3). the required buffer space is simply b 0 j = BT. J - However, in view of the allocation eo._, = r, and the definition (ό) of a BL source, we have e 0 .jB/C = rjB/C > B τ .j = δ 0 .. - thus violating the proportional allocation policy (2). To preserve the advantages of the latter, the token buffer capacity is artificially increased to a value that just satisfies (4). Specifically, this occurs when Bτ, j — r 3 B/C . Policy (2) then applies, resulting in b 0,j = e 0tJ B/C = r 3 B/C . It is important to note that this is a conservative choice since, by (5), the allocation r 3 B /C is greater than the buffer space B ,j actually required by a BL source. Summarizing the above and selecting the channel as the focus of the analysis (from this point on, buffer allocations are implicit via the assumptions just adopted), the bandwidth eo, j can be be expressed in terms of the traffic and resource parameters In [1, 2], this quantity is called the "effective bandwidth for lossless performance". However, in keeping with our preferred term for the QOS measure (1), we will subsequently refer to eo ,j as the no-saturation effective bandwidth (NEB) of a class-j source. This is justified by the fact that a connection vector Table 1: Notational Differences. where n 3 is the number of sources in class j . is admissible with no saturation (F sat = 0) if and only if j (In what follows, the coordinates ti j of n are taken to be non-negative real numbers: all further uses of n are implicitly so qualified.) Further, letting wj denote the fraction of time that the channel is utilized by a class-j source, the product Wj£ Q .j is equal to the mean rate r, permitted by the regulator, whence (S) eo.j The quantities given by (6) and (S) are key to the subsequent development in Ewalid et al. ([1], Section III), which considers statistical multiplexing gains with possible losses due to saturation. To complete our summary of this background, we find it convenient to employ certain notation that conforms more closely with Kelly [3]. Specifically, the translation to our usage is given by Table 1, where some of these differences have already been noted. The variable X j i represents the instantaneous utilization of the channel due to the ith class- j source. Accordingly, for a given connection vector n = (nι, n 2 , . . . , nj), the aggregate demand on the channel is 5 = ∑ ∑ Xji = ∑ njXji (9) j=l J=l As noted in the above table, the quality of service requirement is specified in terms of the saturation probability P sat (1) and the QOS parameter 7 (where 7 > 0). Hence, connection vector n is admissible (under this QOS constraint) if and only if its corresponding demand 5 (9) satisfies Pr[5 > C] < e — (10) Also, as in [3]. we choose to deal directly with the log moment generating function (LMGF) of a load variable X ]t . Specifically, for each source class j, this LMGF is the function where .s > 0 and \Y j is the probability distribution function of N,,- (/ = 1, 2, n 3 ). 5 i.e.. W J (x) = Pv[X Jl < .v} . ( 12) (In [1, 2]. M j (s) denotes E[e sΛ -"] whereas ( 11 ) refers to its logarithm.) In terms of the above terminology and notation, the basic question considered is whether a connection vector n is admissible, i.e.. its corresponding channel load 0 5 satisfies ( 10). To this end. it is assumed throughout that the system is stable in the sense that E[S] < C. Equivalently. under the traffic assumptions that yield (6) and (S). this stability condition for n can be equivalently expressed as J ∑ ri j iC j tQ. j ≤ C . ( 13) 5 If, further, condition (7) is satisfied then there is no saturation and. hence, n is trivially admissible. The region in which this occurs is called the admissible set for no saturation (or "lossless performance" in the terminology of [1. 2]), denoted Ao, where by (7). On the other hand, if saturation is possible, i.e., Pr[5 > C] > 0, then under this condition (together with (13)), Chernov's bound [4] applies to the random variable S — C. This yields a bound on the saturation probability given by S t < - "<* * > , (15) 5 c where j F n (s) = and s* is the (unique) value of s that maximizes F n (s), i.e., F n (s * ) = sup F n (s) . (17) s>0 0 In other words, the bound (15) insures that the QOS requirement (10) will be satisfied for connection vector n if F n (s') ≥ > . (18) Combining (14) with condition (18) so as to permit saturation, the admissible set (determined by the Chernov bound relative to the QOS parameter 7 and, implicitly, the resource parameters B and C) can thus be expressed as A v = {n I n e Λo or F n (s') > 7} . (19) Although Aγ is nonlinear, by using the tangent hyperplane construction of [5. 3], one can obtain a linear, conservative estimate of A-,. More precisely, letting n" denote an appropriately chosen tangent point on the boundary dA- t of A.,, the admissible set Ny can be approximated by the set where and 5" is the value of 5 that yields the supremum ( 17) when n is fixed at the tangent point n". In view of the linear nature of (20). the quantity e 3 (j £ J) can be legitimately referred to as the effective bandwidth (EB) of a classy traffic source. As defined in [1], the statistical m ultiplexing gain g 3 compares the EB given by (21) with the NEB (6), i.e., Further, if bandwidth is allocated to class- j sources only then VBR source class j is statistically multiplexable (S-VBR) if g 3 > 1; else (g 3 = 1) it is nonstatistically multiplexable (NS-VBR). Assuming that B/C remains fixed as B varies with C, there then exists a critical bandwidth C Cι3 for source class j (when considered in isolation) where C c<3 is the smallest capacity such that g 3 > 1 whenever C > C c , 3 . Moreover, in terms of the source characteristics, this can be simply expressed ([1], Proposition 4.2) as \og(l/w 3 ) Hence, for given values of C and 7, class j is S-VBR if and only if This distinction between S-VBR and NS-VBR classes is an important contribution of [1] since, as shown in their subsequent development (beginning with Proposition 4.3), the nature of Λ 7 (19) and the accuracy of its approximation depend on which types (S-VBR and/or NS-VBR) are involved. If all classes are NS-VBR then Aγ = AQ and the effective bandwidths are given by the eo, j . If all classes are S-VBR then (20) provides a linear, conservative estimate of A~, and, in turn, a relatively straightforward means of computing the EBs. However, if connection requests range over a proper mix of S-VBR and and NS-VBR classes (including CBR) then. as demonstrated in [1], there are nonlinear interactions which can severelv reduce the accuracy of a linear (hyperplane) approximation. As a consequence, there is an increase in the number of admissible connections (relative to A.,) that get falsely rejected, thereby reducing resource (bandwidth, buffer) utilization. Object and summary of the invention In view of this background, there is a need for innovative CAC methods that avoid the difficulties just mentioned. Moreover, if these methods are to profit from improvements afforded by the use of a modified Chernov bound (first considered by Hui [5] in this context), this requires a careful investigation of issues concerning multiplexability and effective bandwidth computation for the traffic classes in question. In response to this need, the inventive methods disclosed in the section that follows feature a CAC algorithm which efficiently and accurately controls the admission/routing a diverse mix of ATM traffic demands, ranging from highly multiplexable S-VBR sources to nonstatistically multiplexable CBR demands. Innovative ancillary methods devised in the development of this algorithm include a means of ordering traffic classes according to their relative multiplexability, formulating lin- ear upper and lower bounds (hyperplanes) of an improved admissible connection region (based on the modified Chernov bound), and computing EB-entries for the table on which the CAC algorithm is based. The novel method of the invention is defined in claim 1 and the appended claims define most preferred embodiments of the invention. Brief description of the drawings Figure 1 schematically shows a typical network to which the method of the invention refers. Figure 2 shows the scheme of a so called leaky bucket regulator. Figure 3 shows how the characteristic G nj (s * ) comprises with the QOS parameter and the characteristic F n] (s") of the BCB exponent. Figure is a diagram showing the admissible sets and tangent hyperplanes. Figure 5 is a diagram showing the accuracy characteristic of admissible set. Figure 6 is a flow sheet representation of the table-based algorithm of the invention. Figure 7 shows a set of accuracy characteristics of the table-based algorithm of the invention. Figure 8 shows the probabilities of a CBR connection request for the algorithm of the prior art and for the TB algorithm of the invention. Detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention The invention will now be described in detail in the sections that follow. The first section ( Case 1 ) considers the admissible set given by the modified Chernov bound (MCB) and, in terms of the traffic and resource parameters, derives necessary and sufficient conditions for class j sources to be S-VBR. The second section (Case 2) details the analysis and computations that accurately determine MCB-based effective bandwidths (EBs) when all classes are S-VBR. The third section (Case 3) responds directly to the need identified in the last paragraph of the background section, namely accurate admission control when the considered traffic is a mix of S-VBR and /NS-VBR classes. The preferred algorithm of the invention is described in the section entitled " CAC algorithm for mixed traffic" (that is for Case 3). MCB-Based Multiplexability To formulate the admissible set determined by the modified Chernov bound, let Ms denote the LMGF of the aggregate load 5, i.e., by (9), Ms(s) = log E[e sS ] = ∑ n 3 M 3 (s) . (25) i=ι and let σ^(s) denote the second derivative (with respect to s) of (25), i.e., Assume further that saturation is possible (Pr[5 > C) > 0) and, as with (17), let s * be the value of s that maximizes F n (s). Then the refined large deviations approximation of jP sat (first considered by Hui [5] in this context) is The above derives from the modified Chernov bound (MCB) where, letting K n (s) = s /2πσ*(s) , (27) the BCB ( 15) is multiplied by the factor l/K n (s"), i.e., € -Fn(»' ) Accordingly, taking logarithms on both sides of (28), the QOS requirement log P sat < —7 will be satisfied by a connection vector n if -F - log λ ' -Λ ≤ - . Equivalently, letting G n (s m ) = F n (*') + log K n (s ) . (29) the admission criterion is simply G B (* " ) > 7 - (30) When compared with (18), this is a more liberal condition since, except for extreme values of n (either very close to the boundary of .4o or very close to causing instability). log Λ ' „(.s * ) > 0 and therefore G n (s" ) > F n (s"). If there is no saturation then, as earlier ( 14). admissibility is characterized by the set AQ. Combining these two cases, the corresponding admissible set is A™ = {n I n € A 0 or G n (s") > 7} , (31) where the superscript m (for modified) distinguishes (31) from the basic set (19) reviewed in the previous section. Under the traffic and regulation assumptions that led to (6) and (8), let us now consider the problem of determining effective bandwidths that comply with (31). Given a connection vector n for which saturation is possible (n € A™ — Ao), F n (s") and log A'„(s*) can be formulated as follows in terms of the resource and traffic parameters. (Since the first of these is the essential ingredient of the BCB- based analysis [1], its expression there is similar, the differences being notational.) Recalling the assumptions of the Background section, the load variables Xji are binomially distributed. Specifically, X 3 i is equal to the NEB eo, when a type- source is utilizing the channel; else it is 0. Accordingly, the fraction of time w 3 (under steady-state conditions) that the channel is busy (due to such a source) can be identified with the probability w j = P[X 3i = e 0lj ] and, therefore, l - w j = P[X 3> = 0] . Hence, by definition of LMGF (11), it follows that M 3 (s) = \og E[t' x» ] 5 = \og(t s ( [ - w 3 ) + e se °- ω 3 ) = log(l - w 3 + w 3 e seo η . (32) Substituting (32) in (16), F n (s) can thus be expressed as ./ F n (s) = sC - ∑ n 3 log( l - w j + w 3 e se °-' ) . (33) 10 J=1 Moreover, since ;? is such that saturation is possible (n " AQ). the s" associated with n is the unique solution of Eή(- S ) = 0- Specifically, taking the first derivative of (33) with respect to s. we have and equating the above with 0. it follows that ,s" is the unique 5 that satisfies ± / 1 - W w 3 +*. W'- j e ∞ ' o j . c. (34) Before considering a linear approximation of the boundary of (31). it is helpful to 0 first address the question of statistical multiplexability with respect to this modified admissible set. More precisely, if bandwidth is allocated to class- sources in isolation, one seeks conditions under which the number of admissible sources can exceed the maximum permitted with no saturation. In this regard (and with a slight abuse of notation), let n 3 denote the connection vector consisting of n 3 class- sources only, 5 i e -' n J = (0, 0, . . . , 0, n J , 0, . . . , 0) , where either context or explicit qualification will serve to provide the correct vector vs. scalar interpretation. If n 3 < C/eo, then, by (14), there is no saturation. Further, by the stability condition (13), the maximum value of n 3 (ignoring the QOS requirement) is C/(w 3 e 0ι3 ). Accordingly, if we let n 0j denote the maximum u no-saturation value for capacity C, i.e., C n 0 , j = — (35) e 0,j then saturation occurs in the interval -V, = {n 3 I no. j < n 3 < n 0 /w 3 } . (36) Moreover, if G nj (s") > 7 then, by (30), n 3 is admissible, yielding a statistical multiplexing gain. Hence, what remains is an analysis that expresses G nj (s") in terms of traffic and resource parameters. If w 3 — 1 then the interval N 3 is empty and nothing more needs to be done. Note that this is consistent with the definition (8) of w 3 , where its value is 1 if class- j is bandwidth limited (5), including the CBR extreme where eu, j = P 3 = r 3 . Suppose then that w 3 < 1 and let n 3 € N,. Then by (34) when restricted to class- sources, the corresponding value of ^ * must satisfy Solving for s * in terms of n 3 , τ?o. j . and w 3 . the resulting solution can be expressed as In turn, an explicit expression of G n ($ m ) for class- sources can be obtained by substituting n 3 for n and 5 * for 5 in the formulas for F n (s) and log K n (s). Specifically, for the two summands of (29), if n = n 3 then by (33). F nj (s") = s'C - n g(l - w 3 + w 3 e s'e ° n and by (26)-(27), log A'„,( = log s-fan j M j ''is*) . Substituting (37) for 5 * in each of the above and after some algebraic simplification, W ' "- ( log fe) ÷ {n - ln °- > ~ 1)log {%?=%)) m and l g A-„,( S -) = i log f'^ 1 '' -^ !, (log (^Ll^ύ.)) (39) Since G' nj (s*) = F n] (s') + log K nj (s * ), the sum of (38) and (39) thus expresses G n ($ * ) as a function of n 3 and the associated traffic and resource parameters. Taking the limit of this sum as n 3 approaches its lower bound n 0ιJ from above (in which case 5 * → oo), we find that lim G n , (s") = — oo . Similarly, as ri j approaches the upper limit imposed by stability, However, with the exception of values very near these extremes (which will not arise in practice). G n (s * ) is a nicely behaved function of n 3 over the interval (36). Specifically, it has a value which occurs when n 3 is quite close to UQ : beyond this point, G nj (s") decreases montonically with increasing n 3 and remains larger than F n (s") until n 3 is very close to no /wj. Figure 3 depicts the behavior of G nj (*') (the bold curve) in the region surrounding its maximum value, as it compares with the value of 7 (20.72; the horizontal line) that bounds P sat bv e ~ = 10 -9 . The channel capacitv is taken to be C — 150 Mbps and the sources considered are very bursty, i.e.. it' j = 0.05 and e 0j = C \og(l/w 3 )/η = 21.69Mbps. (40) The figure also includes a plot of F nj (s" ). as given by (38), permitting a comparison of G nj (s") with the magnitude of the BCB exponent. In view of the above, whether a traffic class can profit from statistical multiplexing can be decided as follows. Let rrij{C) denote the maximum value of G nj (s"), i.e., Then, relative to the QOS exponent 7, it follows that class j is S-VBR for capacity C if and only if πijiO ≥ η . (42) Sufficiency: If m 3 (C) > 7 then there exist n 3 > no satisfying (30). Due to the decreasing nature of G nj ($ * ) beyond rτij(C) (see Figure 3), the largest such rij occurs where G n (s*) = 7, resulting in an effective bandwidth tj =■ C/tij. Hence, the statistical multiplexing gain (22) is g j — e 0t3 /e j = n j /n 0< j > 1 and, by definition, class-j is S-VBR. Necessity: If m 3 (C) < 7 then, for all rij 6 N j , (30) is never satisfied. By (31), A™ thus coincides with the no-saturation region AQ, in which case the effective bandwidth is e 0, Hence, gj = 1, i.e., class j is NS-VBR. Comparing (42) with the BCB-based criterion (24) of [1], namely by (38), the quantity on the left is just the maximum value of F nj (s * ) that results as ri j —* riQ = C/e 0 from above. However, because rio is on the boundary of .4o> the inequality must be proper to insure that g 3 > 1. On the other hand, since G„ ($') is maximized within the interval N j . we still have gj > 1 at the extreme where equality holds. Accounting for this technicality, the critical bandwidth of source class j is defined to be the least capacity Cj such that, for all C > C j , g 3 > 1. (Our use of C j here distinguishes it from the BCB-based critical bandwidth C c . j defined in [1]; see the definition following (22) and note that, there, C must properly exceed C c,j .) Then by (42) and the fact that m 3 (C) is monotonic and strictly increasing with increasing C (the other parameter values being fixed), C 3 = the unique C that satisfies m 3 (C) = 7. (43) C j thus provides an alternative characterization of statistical multiplexability. for if C > C j then, by the definition of Cj, class j is S-VBR. Conversely, if class j is S- VBR then, by (42). rrt j (C) > 7 and. since trij(C) increases strictly with C. C > C j . Consequently, class j is S-VBR for capacity C if and only if C > C j or. equivalently. C/C j > 1. (44) Although the quantities (41 ) and (43) that characterize an S-VBR class (according to (42) and (44), respectively) agree in form with their BCB-based counterparts, it is important to observe that they differ quantitatively. This is due to the improved nature of the MCB which, for 0 < Wj < 1 (as assumed at the outset of this development), implies or, alternatively, comparing the critical bandwidths, thereby altering the S-VBR/NS-VBR dichotomy. Consequently, a class that is NS- VBR according to the BCB-based analysis can become S-VBR, as decided by (42) or (44). This is illustrated by the example considered in Figure 3, where we see that F n (s*) attains a maximum value of 7 at the limit point where ri j = n 0 . Hence, although right on the edge of being statistically multiplexable, it is nevertheless NS-VBR with respect to the BCB-based definition. On the other hand, since the maximum value of G ni (s * ) exceeds 7, this class can indeed profit from statistical multiplexing, where the computation of e reveals a gain of gj = 1.105. Consequently, relative to allocations that would result from its NS-VBR classification according to (24), this "upgrade" to S-VBR status afforded by (42) results in- a 10% increase in the maximum number of admissible connections. Similarly, comparing critical bandwidths for the assumed values (40) of the source parameters. C c . j = 150 δMbs whereas a numerical solution of rn.j(C j ) = 7 yields a critical bandwidth of C j = 141.2 Mbps. Generally, unlike the BCB-based analysis, there are no simply expressed solutions of rri j (C) and C, in terms of the underlying traffic and resource parameters. However, based on the formulation of G nj {s") given by the sum of (38) and (39), each is easilv determined numericallv. Moreover, the absence of closed-form solutions does " not diminish their utility since effective bandwidth computations involving multiple S-VBR traffic classes must likewise rely on numerical computations (whether based on the BCB or MCB). Indeed, the quantities nij(C) and C j play important roles in the development that follows since the algorithms we describe presume an accurately quantified S-VBR/NS-VBR distinction. To set the stage for these algorithms, we suppose that the traffic mix J = {1, 2, . . . , J) has at least two classes (otherwise J is effectively an isolated class and can be treated as above). Then, as in the BCB-based analysis of [1] but in terms of our modified criteria, the problem of computing effective bandwidths (EBs) differs considerably according to the following three cases. Case 1: max jeJ rτi j (C) < 7. Here, by (42), no class is S-VBR (all are NS-VBR) and, since G n (s") < m&Xj £ j mj(C), G n (s * ) < 7. Hence, by (31), A™ = Λo. Case 2: mm j ςj πi j (C) > 7. Again by (42), this says that all source classes are S-VBR. In this case, A™ D AQ and, moreover, their boundaries are disjoint. Case 3: Neither of the above, i.e., 3j, j' € such that rrij(C) > 7 and rrij>(C) < 7. (47) As a consequence, certain points on the boundary A™ are likewise on the boundary of AQ while others lie properly outside of AQ. In Case 1, nothing can be gained by statistical multiplexing since all classes are NS-VBR; hence the EBs are just the NEBs e 0 , for all j J. In other words, there is no need to approximate A™ since it coincides with AQ. Case 2, on the other hand, is the one for which the tangent hyperplane approximation is intended since, in this case, the boundary 8A™ of A™ can be characterized strictly in terms of the modified Chernov bound, i.e., dA™ = {n \ G n (s') = -/} . (48) Moreover, since ™ has a convex complement [5, 6]. the boundary 3A™ is concave. Hence, with an appropriately chosen tangent point n". the corresponding hyperplane provides a surprisingly accurate yet conservative approximation of 3 ™. By its definition, Case 3 involves a proper mix of of S-VBR and NS-VBR classes and, hence, the boundary of A™ gets distorted by the influence of the NS-VBR classes. As demonstrated in [1] and emphasized in their concluding remarks, this interaction can preclude an accurate linear approximation of the admissible set. Consequently, even though the constructions and computations described below likewise apply to Case 3 (since there exist admissible connection vectors in ™ — AQ), the EBs so determined can be too conservative, resulting in an underutilization of system resources. The remainder of this section presumes Case 2. where we show how to approxi- mate A™ and. in turn, compute EBs relative to the MCB in a manner analogous to that of (20) and (21) for the BCB. Case 3 is then addressed the section that follows, where we find that the Case 2 computations remain useful, thanks to an innovative decomposition of the bandwidth allocation process. If all traffic classes j € J — {1, 2 J} are S-VBR (Case 2). then as noted above, (48) is the boundary of the admissible set A™, where G n (s") is given by (29). As the first step in constructing a hyperplane approximation of 34 m , we seek a tangent point n * € 3A m that reflects a balance of the bandwidth needs of individual classes. This is accomplished by initially considering the J corner points of the boundary 34™ that result when each of the source classes are considered in isolation, where we let n c = (0, 0, . . . , 0, n max , j , 0, . . . , 0) (49) denote the corner point determined by class j. Since j is S-VBR, by (41) and (42) we have rri j (C) > 7. Then n maXι is either the value of rij for which GV, (s * ) = j(C) (if m, j (C) = 7) or the larger of two values of n, that satisfy G nj (s") = 7 (if m 3 (C) > 7; see Figure 3, for example). In the latter case, n mΑX is computed via a bisectional search over the interval (n 0ι j, n 0 /wj), beginning with the value ri j = no A 1 ~ Wj) 2WJ The search presumes that the values tested lie in the region where G nj (s * ) decreases as a function of n. (again see Figure 3). This is indeed the case since i) the initial value is in this region and ii) the region where G Αj (s") increases with n 3 is a very small interval at the extreme lower end of the search space, c Due to the concavity of 34™, the hyperplane having the same corner points, i.e., the set bounds the admissible set A™ from above. Accordingly, a reasonable approach to selecting a tangent point n * is to consider the "midpoint" of H° pt and then locate n" 10 on the straight line that connects the origin (0, 0, . . . . 0) to this midpoint. In other words, n" is just the point where this line intersects the boundary 34™. To describe this construction more precisely, let h denote the midpoint of H° pt , i.e., where ή 3 = rc max>J /J. Note that h indeed lies in H° pt since 15 and hence, by (50), h £ H° pt . Moreover, by its definition, it is located in the "middle" of H° pt , e.g.. if J = 2, it is the midpoint of the straight line that joins the corner points (n maXιl , 0) and (0, n max , 2 ). Alternatively, ή can be viewed as "averaging " ' what 0 can be achieved by sources in isolation, for if we sum the J corner points and divide by J, by definitions (49) and (51) we have ∑, 7 =ι n c,j Intuitively, therefore, ή appears to be an appropriate departure point for se- lecting a point n" on 34™ that likewise reflects a balance of the bandwidth needs for individual classes. In the latter regard, we choose to place n * on the line with endpoints (0, 0, . . . , 0) and ή, i.e, the set of points L = {kn | 0 < k < 1} . (52) Q Since H° pt is an outer bound of the admissible set A™, (52) must intersect 34™, the point of intersection being the point we select, i.e., the tangent point for the subsequent hyperplane construction is given by n = L n A™ . (53) Accordingly, by definitions (52) and (31), n" can be computed using a bisectional search along L that begins with k = 1/2. At each iteration of the search, the point kή is first tested to see whether the quantity G kn s") is defined. If not. then k either lies properly within AQ or fails to satisfy the stability condition (13). In the first case, the upper half-section is the next to be bisected; if unstable, the lower _ half-section is chosen for the next iteration. If Gk n ($") iS defined, the difference D(k) = G tA (s-) - 1 is then computed. When D(k) = 0 (or if the section length has become sufficiently small) then n * = k . Otherwise the lower or upper half-section is the next to be bisected according as D(k) < 0 or D(k) > 0. Tangent Hyperplane and Effective Bandwidths Let us now consider the construction of the hyperplane that is tangent to 34™ at the point n" determined above, i.e.. the linear approximation that defines effective bandwidths relative to the modified Chernov bound. Although similar to Hui's construction [5. 6]. the formulation is somewhat more complicated due to the log K n (s") term of G n (s" ). Let H™ denote the hyperplane in question, let g be the function whose value at n is G n (s m ), i.e., g(n) = G n (s") and let V</ be the gradient of g, i.e., Then relative to the surface 34™ = {n | g(n) = 7} the vector V<?(n) (i.e., the value of V# at point n) is normal to the hyperplane that touches 34™ at n. Accordingly, letting H™ denote this hyperplane when the tangent point is n * , the latter consists of all points n such that n — n * is perpendicular to V^(n * ), i.e., the set H™ = {n | (n - n * ) . V<7(n-) = 0} (54) where • denotes the inner (dot) product. If, further, we let e™ denote the effective bandwidth of a class- source relative to H™ (analogous to the EBs (21) associated with the BCB), then we also want H™ = {n \ ∑ n 3 e™ = C} . (55) Exploiting the equivalence of the conditions which define (54) and (55), the EBs e™ can be computed as follows. We first consider the coordinates of Vg, where we recall that g(n) = G n (s") and. making similar abbreviations for the components of (29), we let f(n) = F n (s") and lι(n) = log K n (s") . 5 Then, by the linearity of V, Vø = V(/ + Λ) = V/ + VΛ with the jt coordinate of V<gr being 10 dg df dh Ti j on 3 Ori j This decomposition is useful since V/ is just the gradient that results when the hyperplane is constructed relative to the basic Chernov bound. This is due to the fact that the MCB reduces to the BCB if A ' „(s" ) = 1. in which case VΛ = (0. 0 0). . f . Accordingly, as established in [6] (Theorem 3). 0 = Mj(s") - Mj(s") Λf.-( ) ° However, by the definition of 5 * , thus nullifying the first term on the right. Hence, for j = 1, 2, . . . , J, the value of this derivative at point n £ 34™ is just In view of (58), we see that V/(n) depends on the tangent point n only to the extent that n influences s * , leading to the relatively simple expression (21) of effective bandwidth associated with the BCB. On the other hand, as revealed in the following formulation of VΛ, the gradient V<y = V/ + V/i for the MCB depends directly on n through quantities such as σ^ ' s"). Moreover, unlike V/ where dependence on the ,- partial derivatives f^- is nullified by (57), these derivatives influence Vg through their effect on Vλ. In keeping with the above remarks, we first determine |^-, where taking partial derivatives with respect to r j on both sides of (57). it follows that Applying the chain rule for differentiation. rii and recalling the definition (26) of & $). a rearrangement of terms yields In turn, by (27). log sjσl(s') 3 3 n lθg 5* + ^ lθg V ^ where, using (59) 3 . . 3 d» * M ά '(s > ) 5 -^ \og s = _(log S )^- = -^7-^ and omitting a detailed justification Q Summarizing the above and letting denote the value of the ■ *- at n, Accordingly, depends not only on n and the probabilistic nature of class- j traffic (as conveyed by M j (s") and its derivatives) but also on the LMGFs and derivatives thereof associated with the remaining classes. Specifically, for the traffic in question and any class j, M j (s') is given by (32) (with $ = $") and, taking its partial derivatives with respect to 5 * , ei j W j ( l - w 3 )( l - WJ - w 3 e s -*°-J )e a e °-< M?(s * ) = ; i - W j + w 3 e s -' •e e° 0 < l j, )3 '° Accordingly, the value V#(n) of Vg at any point n € 34™ can be computed as follows. 1) Determine the value of 5 * that corresponds to n. 2) For each traffic class j. determine M 3 (s") and its derivatives via the above c equations. 3) For each j, substitute the results of 2) (which pertain to all classes) in equation (60). thus obtaining the jth coordinate of Vg(rt). Applying the above to the tangent point n" given by (53), let c(n" ) denote the inner product of n * and V#(n * ), i.e., 0 Then by the first characterization (54) of the tangent hyperplane, the vectors n that comprise H™ are just those which satisfy ^ dg In particular, if bandwidth is allocated to class- sources only, the vector n,- = (0, 0, . . . , 0,^, 0, . . . , 0) lies in H™ iff its jth coordinate satisfies Equivalently, by the second characterization (55), n 3 £ H™ iff n > = 7∑ (63) Hence, equating (62) and (63), the (modified) EB of a class- source is given by the expression e ™ = - cf(n-")ξdn 3 n η (64) where the means of obtaining c(n") and - j j -(" * ) have already been described. Figure 4 illustrates the above computations for a pair of traffic classes, where e 0 ,ι = 1 Mbps, u'ι = 0.3 and e 0 , = 5 Mbps. w 2 = 0.1. Assuming a channel with capacity C = 150 Mbps, the values of rn 3 (C) are mι C) = 181.76 and m 2 (C) = 70.29. Further, taking the QOS requirement to be sat < 10 -9 , η = 20.72: hence, by (42), both classes are S-VBR, With these choices, the curves labeled AQ. A-,, and A™ delineate the connection vectors n = (r?ι, n 2 ) that lie on the boundaries of admissible sets (14), (19), and (31), respectively. Relative to the admissible set A™ determined by the MCB, H™ is the tangent hyperplane (a line in this case, since J = 2) given by (54) and computed via the formulas derived above. Similarly, the line labeled H is the tangent hyperplane for the set -y More precisely, H-, is the boundary of (20). where the tangent point n" is chosen in a manner analogous to (53). These plots reveal several things that appear to be typical of S-VBR traffic. First, one notes that the size of the admissible set is obviously improved through the use of the MCB as opposed to the BCB. Further, we see that the boundaries of these sets are fairly linear; hence, the tangent hyperplane approximations are not overly conservative. One also notes that the choice of the tangent point can make a difference, e.g., if it were selected at a corner point of the boundary, the approximation would be considerably worse. Regarding the resulting EBs and, in turn, the corresponding statistical multiplexing gains, the figure indicates these as follows. Restricting our attention to the MCB-based allocations, when bandwidth is allocated to class- sources only, the maximum number n 3 of admissible connections is given by the intersection of H™ with the n 3 axis. In turn, by (63), e™ = - . 3 n 3 ' In particular, for the two classes in question, m = 301 and n 2 = 86.8 and, hence, e™ = 150/301 = 0.498 and e™ = 150/86.8 = 1.73 Accordingly, the statistical multiplexing gains for these classes are g x = 1/0.498 = 2.01 and g 2 = 5/1.73 = 2.89 , respectively. Finally, it is important to note that the MCB-determined admissible set A™ is, itself, very accurate. This is illustrated in Figure 5, where the presumed traffic classes are the same as those considered above. Specifically, the boundary 34™ of A™ (the smooth curve) is compared with that determined by a saddlepoint approximation (the jagged curve). The latter is known to provide an essentially exact bound for CAC [7] as well as for seemingly diverse applications such as bounding the error probability of digital optical communication systems (see [8], for example). As attested to by this figure, the two bounds are practically identical. In particular, this says that the tangent point n" lies right on the edge of actual admissibility. In turn, this suggests that, generally, the hyperplane H™ provides a highly accurate linear estimate of the actual boundary. CAC Algorithm for Mixed Traffic This section describes a preferred embodiment of the algorithm of the invention, namely a CAC algorithm that accommodates mixed S-VBR/NS-VBR (Case 3) traffic without compromising the accuracy of the admission decisions. Needless to say, such an algorithm will also apply to pure S-VBR traffic (Case 2); here, however, a direct computation of the EBs using (64) suffices, eliminating the need for the more refined approach that follows. A key ingredient of the algorithm is a ranking of classes j £ J according to their potential for a multiplexing gain. As suggested by (44), a logical choice in this regard is the reciprocal of the critical bandwidth C j , provided C j exists (WJ < 1); if not (WJ = 1), a proper gain is impossible for any finite capacity and its rank is 0. Accordingly, we define the relative multiplexability of class j £ J to be the quantity κ 3 \ 0 llCi i 'ή f W Wj J = < 1 l w Since C j depends only on 7 and the characteristics of traffic class j, μj is likewise determined and, in particular, remains invariant with changes in C. In turn, this . invariance is useful since the algorithm involves allocations with respect to residual capacities rC, where 0 < r < C. Specifically, for capacity rC, it follows immediately from (44) that class j is S-VBR if and only if μ rC > 1 . (66) More importantly, these invariants are indeed indicators of relative multiplexability, for suppose j and j' are classes such that μj > μ . Then, by (66), j is S-VBR whenever j' is S-VBR. Moreover, if μj > μj> then for capacities in the range C j < rC < C 3 ', class j is S-VBR whereas the lower-ranked class j' is NS-VBR. In view of the above and without loss of generality, we can assume that the traffic classes are named in an order of nonincreasing relative multiplexability. i.e.. With respect to a given value of rC. it is also convenient to distinguish the highest numbered class that is S-VBR for rC. namely the class f maxjj I u ;rC > 1} if such a j exists f(r) = J U " J - ; J (68) 0 else where t(r) is referred to as the least statistically multiplexable (LSM) class for capacity rC. Although no such class exists if t?(r) = 0 (all classes are NS-VBR), the terminology is excused by the fact that 1 is the lowest numbered class. Also, when an LSM class does exist ( (r) > 1), there may be other S-VBR classes with the same relative multiplexability; however, among such classes, (r) is the highest numbered. By the ordering assumption (67), the LSM class therefore conveniently distinguishes the subset J r = {j e j \ j ≤ i(r)} consisting of all classes that are S-VBR for capacity rC. Assisted by the notions just described, a precomputed table of bandwidth allocations is determined as follows. The channel capacity C is quantized into K levels, resulting in a finite set of residual capacities {r k C \ r k = k/K, k = l, 2, . . . , K} where, even if J is very large, K = 100 provides sufficient granularity. (Context should serve to distinguish the above uses of r and r k from the source parameters discussed at the outset of the Background section.) For each such capacity and its corresponding subset J Tk of S-VBR classes, let t™(r ) denote the EB of sources in S-VBR class j < ((r^). as . computed according to (64) for capacity r k C. N ' ote that the computation here is restricted to r he above subse (J is taken to be /('V" and. hence. Case 2 assumptions apply. The remaining classes j > /(; • ;.) are NS- VBR where, if treated independently. Case 1 applies. Therefore, for sources in these ** classes, we conservatively allocate their corresponding XEB o, 3 . Doing this tor each level k. we thus precompute a table E with A ' rows and J columns, where entry E k . j is the bandwidth 10 A second precomputed table L. again with A ' rows, stores the corresponding LSM class numbers, i.e.. its row- ' entrv is Li,- = H r. (70) Employing E and L as look-up tables, the admissibility of a prospective connection vector n = (Γ? I .H 2 tij). i.e. whether n £ A™, is then efficiently and conser¬ 15 vatively decided by the following algorithm. Because it relies on the tables just described, we refer to it simply as the table-based (TB) algorithm. A flowchart description of the algorithm is displayed in Figure 6. TB Algorithm: Degin 20 ... c= C / * c is the residual capacity that remains for furthe k = K /" k is the greatest integer such that r C < c " / 6=0 / 6 is the total bandwidth already allocated * / for ( j = ./ downto 1) begin 6 = 6 + • njEkj /" allocates bandwidth to sources in class j * / 25 if (6 > C) then begin /" allocated bandwidth is greater than C * / vectc »/ • n is not admissible exit end if ( > L k ) then begin / * class j is N ' S-VBR for capacity r k C ' / c = c ' - njEk.j / '* reduces the capacity available for further allocat: 30 * • = [ cK/C\ / '■ ' updates k "/ end end vector n is admissible /" total allocated bandwidth is < C */ end When compared to the saddlepoint (SP) algorithm [7]. we find that the TB algorithm is both accurate and extremely time-efficient. Regarding first its accuracy. Figure 7 compares the resulting admissible set boundaries for an example involving three source classes. Classes 1 and 2 coincide with those considered in Figures 4 and 5 5. The channel capacity and QOS requirement are likewise the same. i.e.. C = 150 Mbps and 7 = 20.72. As earlier, Classes 1 and 2 are therefore S-VBR. Class-3 sources are taken to have an NEB of eo.3 = 10 Mbps. with t-> 3 = 0.4. Computing the corresponding value of (41), τrij(C) - 14.67: hence, class 3 is NS-VBR. This is therefore an example of mixed traffic, as characterized by condition (47). For 10 various values of n 3 (the number of class-3 connections), Figure 7 compares the boundaries of the admission region for classes 1 and 2, as computed by using the TB (bold curves) and the SP algorithms. Being conservative, the former permits somewhat fewer connections, particularly in instances where most of the allocation involves a single class (connection vectors near the corner points). Nevertheless, we _, c see that the admission decisions made by this algorithm are surprisingly accurate when compared to the near-exact SP computations. Further testimony to the effectiveness of the TB algorithm has been obtained by evaluating its performance under simulated traffic conditions. Here, the nature of a newly arrived connection request is determined by randomly selecting its traffic class from a predefined set of S-VBR and NS-VBR classes. The latter include CBR 0 classes, where the probability ot a (.'BR connection is adjustable via a parameter of the simulation program. In the presence of such simulated traffic and for both the TB and SP methods, we evaluated channel utilization (relative throughput ). mean accepted bandwidth, and the probability that a connection is blocked ( not admitted). As revealed by Figure 8. which displays channel utilization as a func- 5 tion of the CBR-connection probability for both algorithms, the slightly improved performance realized by lengthy SP computations is barely perceptible. Moreover. with respect to the other two measures (accepted bandwidth, blocking probability) we have likewise found that the performance of these two algorithms is essentially identical. However, as compared with the SP algorithm, execution of the TB algorithm is significantly faster. Indeed, together with accurate admission decisions, real-time implementation was a pivotal objective of the algorithm ' s development. By virtue of using precomputed EB tables, its time-complexity is but linear in the number of traffic classes ./. Specifically, the worst-case number of required operations is 2J floating-point products plus '1.1 floating-point sums. This permits the admission control of highly nonhomogeneous traffic ( large values of J). a requirement that is likely for emerging broadband networks. On the other hand, methods that employ convolution or the SP approximation become infeasible if the number of traffic.classes is even moderatelv large. In more concrete terms. Table 2 describes the time-efficiency of the TB algorithm as compared with that of the SP algorithm. For various durations of CPU time required by a contemporary workstation (HP Series 9000. Model 715/100. with a PA RISC 2.0 microprocessor), the table displays the maximum number of traffic classes ./ that can be accommodated by each algorithm in that amount of time. Here we see that, even for execution times exceeding 1 ms. the capability of the saddlepoint method is modest compared to what the TB algorithm can handle in a fraction of a millisecond. Table 2: Traffic class capability as a function of CPU time. References [1] A. I. Ewalid. D. Mitra. and R. H. Wentworth. "A new approach for allocating buffers and bandwidth to heterogeneous, regulated traffic in an ATM node." IEEE.ISAC. pp. 1115-1127. August 1995. [2] European Patent Application EP 0 7 6 403 A2. July 1996. [3] F. P. Kelly, "Effective bandwidt h at multi-class queues. " Qaeueing Syste m.", pp. - 16. September 1991. [4] P. Billingslev. Probability and Measure. Wilev. XV. 1986. [5] J. V. Hui. "Resource allocation for broadband networks. " IEEE.ISAC. pp. 1098- 1608. June 1988. [6] J. V. Hui. "Layered required bandwidt h for her erogenous traffic. " in Pro . l.X- FOCOM " < -?. pp. 13-20. 1992. [7] S. Montagna. R. Paglino. and A. Puglisi. "Call acceptance control algorithms for voice, video, and data traffic. " in Proc. of . t 'th Int ' l Workshop on Performance Modelling and Evaluation of A TM Seticorks. Ilkley. UK. July 1996. [8] K. Schumacher and J. J. O ' Reilly. "Relationship between the saddlepoint approximation and the modified Chernoff bound. " IEEE Trans. Comm unications. vol. 38. no. 3. pp. 270-272. March 1990.

Claims: CLAIMS 1. Method of determining whether, in response to a request signal for a virtual circuit that routes variable bit rate (VBR) information through a network node with prescribed buffer and channel (output link) capacities, where the information source may be either statistically multiplexable (S-VBR) or nonstatistically multiplexable (NS-VBR), said request can be granted by said node, by an algorithm which, given the resulting traffic demand in terms of existing connections plus the requested connection, as represented by a vector describing the number of connections in each of plurality of J predefined S-VBR and NS-VBR classes, decides whether said connection vector is admissible with respect to a specified upper bound on the 0 probability of channel saturation, characterized in that the method employs a look-up table having J columns and K rows; the J columns correspond to the said predefined traffic classes and are listed in nonincreasing order of the extent to which a traffic class can benefit from statistical multiplexing; the K rows correspond to a quantization of the channel capacity C into K levels of residual capacity Ck=(k/K)C, where k=l,2....K, Ck being the capacity that remains available after prior allocations of bandwidth to NS-VBR connections and; letting Lk denote the largest class in said ordering of traffic classes, corresponding to the class S-VBR for a certain capacity Ck. the precomputed entry Ekj of row k, n column j of said look-up tables is - if j>Lk, the maximum bandwidth required by class-j sources, class j being in this case NS-VBR for said capacity Ck; or - if j≤Lk, the effective bandwidth of class-j sources as determined relative to all the Lk classes that are S-VBR for said capacity Ck. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein based on said look-up table and beginning with a capacity Ck=C(k=K) and traffic class j=J, the algorithm allocates bandwidth Ekj to any class-j connection in said connection vector and compares anaccumulated total allocation value b with C: if b>C, then said connection vector is not admissible; else if j>l and class j is S-VBR for the capacity Ck, where j<Lk, then the above allocation procedure is repeated for class j-1; else if j>l, then is k reduced to a value k', where Ck' is the residual capacity that remains after the class-j allocations, and the above routine is repeated for class j-1; else j=l and said connection vectors is admissible. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein each request signal from a certain traffic source has a set of leaky-bucket characterization parameters comprising a token rate parameter r regulating the average input rate, a token buffer capacity parameter BT defining the burst size and a peak rate parameter P defining the maximum peak rate of the source, the statistical multiplexability of a request coming from a source classified as belonging to a certain class of traffic being decreased in value by a factor corresponding to said parameter r, whereby a class nominally statistically multiplexable at a certain available bandwidth capacity of the link may result non- multiplexable because of said decrement of statistical multiplexability. and further characterized in that among requests classified as statistically multiplexable. a least- statisticallv- multiplexable request is identified as the one of highest class number that remains multiplexable after accounting for said decrement. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein for a set of traffic classes, all statistically multiplexable, the method comprises the computation of a linear upper bound (hyperplane) for the admissible set determined by the so-called modified Chernov bound (MCB) algorithm. 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the corner points of the MCB-determined admissible set are first determined algorithmically and then a linear outer bound is identified with the said hyperplane having the same corner points. 6. The method of claim 3, wherein a linear lower bound (hyperplane) for the MCB-determined admissible set tangent to a point on the boundary of said set is constructed. 7. The method of claim 5 whereby the tangent point is selected along a line that runs between the midpoint of the said outer bound and the original corresponding to the point where no sources are allocated; said tangent point being the point where this line intersects the MCB-determined admissible set and the construction of said linear lower bound (hyperplane) is based on partial derivatives associated with the MCB. 8. The method of claim 5, wherein effective bandwidths relative to a linear approximation of an admissible set of the traffic classes relative to the linear lower bound are computed.

Inventors: MEYER JOHN F, MONTAGNA SERGIO, PAGLINO ROBERTO, PUGLISI ALBERTO, MEYER, JOHN, F., MONTAGNA, SERGIO, PAGLINO, ROBERTO, PUGLISI, ALBERTO
Applicants: ITALTEL SPA, MEYER JOHN F, MONTAGNA SERGIO, PAGLINO ROBERTO, PUGLISI ALBERTO, ITALTEL S.P.A., MEYER, JOHN, F., MONTAGNA, SERGIO, PAGLINO, ROBERTO, PUGLISI, ALBERTO
Application year: 1998
Main classification: H04L12
IPC codes: H04L12, H04Q11