Adaptive Scheduling for Improved Quality Differentiation

  • Johanna Antila
  • Marko Luoma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3311)


In this paper we compare the performance of static and adaptive provisioning methods with ns2-simulations. For the static provisioning case we use capacity as a provisioning parameter and for the adaptive case we use packet delay. The scheduling algorithms that we investigate are Deficit Round Robin (DRR) and delay-bounded HPD (Hybrid Proportional Delay), which is our own version of the HPD algorithm. According to our results the delay-bounded HPD algorithm is better able to achieve the targeted provisioning goal than the static DRR algorithm regardless of the load level, application mix or queue management method used.


Packet Loss Schedule Algorithm Packet Delay Active Queue Management Assured Forward 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antila, J., Luoma, M.: Scheduling and quality differentiation in Differentiated Services. In: Proceedings of Multimedia Interactive Protocols and Systems (MIPS) (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, J., Zhang, H.: WF2Q: Worst-case Fair Weighted Fair Queueing. In: Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, pp. 120–127 (March 1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., Weiss, W.: An Architecture for Differentiated Services. IETF RFC 2475 (December 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dovrolis, C., Stiliadis, D., Ramanathan, P.: Proportional Differentiated Services: Delay Differentiation and Packet Scheduling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 10(2), 12–26 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golestani, S.: A Self-Clocked Fair Queueing Scheme for High Speed Applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE Infocom (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parekh, A., Gallager, R.: A Generalized Processor Sharing Approach to Flow Control in Integrated Services Networks: The Single-Node Case. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 3(1), 344–357 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shreedhar, M., Varghese, G.: Efficient Fair Queueing using Deficit Round Robin. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liao, R., Campbell, A.: Dynamic Core Provisioning for Quantitative Differentiated Service. In: Proceedings of IWQoS (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christin, N., Liebeherr, J., Abdelzaher, T.: A Quantitative Assured Forwarding Service. In: Proceedings of IEEE Infocom (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floyd, S., Kohler, E.: Internet Research Need Better Models. In: Proceedings of Hot-Nets (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Antila
    • 1
  • Marko Luoma
    • 1
  1. 1.Networking Laboratory of HelsinkiUniversity of TechnologyEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations