A comparative study of bandwidth reservation and admission control schemes in QoS‐sensitive cellular networks
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Sunghyun | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Shin, Kang G. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-09-08T19:11:41Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-09-08T19:11:41Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2000-07 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Choi, Sunghyun; Shin, Kang G.; (2000). "A comparative study of bandwidth reservation and admission control schemes in QoS‐sensitive cellular networks." Wireless Networks 6(4): 289-305. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41380> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1022-0038 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1572-8196 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41380 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper compares five different schemes – called CHOI, NAG, AG, BHARG, and NCBF – for reserving bandwidths for handoffs and admission control for new connection requests in QoS‐sensitive cellular networks. CHOI and NAG are to keep the handoff dropping probability below a target value, AG is to guarantee no handoff drops through per‐connection bandwidth reservation, and BHARG and NCBF use another type of per‐connection bandwidth reservation. CHOI predicts the bandwidth required to handle handoffs by estimating possible handoffs from adjacent cells, then performs admission control for each newly‐requested connection. On the other hand, NAG predicts the total required bandwidth in the current cell by estimating both incoming and outgoing handoffs at each cell. AG requires the set of cells to be traversed by the mobile with a newly‐requested connection, and reserves bandwidth for each connection in each of these cells. The last two schemes reserve bandwidth for each connection in the predicted next cell of a mobile where the two schemes use different admission control policies. We adopt the history‐based mobility estimation for the first two schemes. Using extensive simulations, the five schemes are compared quantitatively in terms of (1) handoff dropping probability, connection‐blocking probability, and bandwidth utilization; (2) dependence on the design parameters; (3) dependence on the accuracy of mobility estimation; and (4) complexity. The simulation results indicate that CHOI is the most desirable in that it achieves good performance while requiring much less memory and computation than the other four schemes. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 330042 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3115 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Publishers; Springer Science+Business Media | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Computer Science | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Computer Communication Networks | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Electronic and Computer Engineering | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Business Information Systems | en_US |
dc.title | A comparative study of bandwidth reservation and admission control schemes in QoS‐sensitive cellular networks | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Information and Library Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Electrical Engineering | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Engineering | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Real‐Time Computing Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109‐2122, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Philips Research‐USA, Briarcliff Manor, New York, 10510, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41380/1/11276_2004_Article_330564.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019154001580 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Wireless Networks | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.