Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Analytic model for network resource management between ISPs and users

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Received 18/07/2016, Accepted 19/01/2017, Revised 14/01/2017, Published 20/01/2017

Fixed communication provider is a consortium of internet service providers (ISPs) in which users can switch easily and freely between their ISPs. To increase the QoS of the ISPs, the authors propose a two-class service model. ISPs divide their available bandwidth into two parts to provide their end users with optimal services. One dedicated to primary users, and the other for secondary users. Primary users are those who pay more and thus, expect dedicated bandwidth that is always available. Secondary services are provided by ISPs for the other users who cannot afford the dedicated bandwidth. In this study, by defining the utility functions for both user types, the authors aim at dividing the ISP bandwidth between these two services such that the utility function of the users is maximised. Since the primary users do not always use the maximum bandwidth, an algorithm is proposed for ISPs to estimate the primary users’ required bandwidth in each time segment based on the previous segments. Based on this estimate, the expected bandwidth is dedicated to the primary users, and the remaining bandwidth is devoted to the secondary users to improve the quality of service. On the other hand, an ISP is penalised if it fails to provide the primary users with the required bandwidth mentioned in their contract. Therefore, there exists a trade-off between the conservative estimation of the primary users’ rate, the QoS of the secondary users and the achieved utility of the ISPs.

Inspec keywords: resource allocation; Internet; computer network management; quality of service

Other keywords: analytic model; quality of service; Internet service providers; secondary services; network resource management; fixed communication provider; two-class service model; optimal services; QoS; primary users; ISP bandwidth; utility functions

Subjects: Computer communications; Other computer networks; Network management

References

    1. 1)
      • 1. Dube, P., Jain, R.: ‘Queueing game models for differentiated services’. Game Theory for Networks, 2009. GameNets ‘09. Int. Conf. on, May 2009, pp. 523–532.
    2. 2)
      • 18. Economides, N., Hermalin, B.E.: ‘The economics of network neutrality’, RAND J. Econ., 2012, 43, (4), pp. 602–629.
    3. 3)
      • 7. Etkin, R., Parekh, A., Tse, D.: ‘Spectrum sharing for unlicensed bands’, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., 2007, 25, (3), pp. 517–528.
    4. 4)
      • 5. Krmer, J., Wiewiorra, L., Weinhardt, C.: ‘Net neutrality: a progress report’, Telecommun. Policy, 2013, 37, (9), pp. 794–813.
    5. 5)
      • 20. Jian, X., Zeng, X., Jia, Y., et al: ‘Beta/M/1 model for machine type communication’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2013, 17, (3), pp. 584–587.
    6. 6)
      • 9. Shetty, N., Parekh, S., Walrand, J.: ‘Economics of femtocells’. GLOBECOM – IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf., November 2009.
    7. 7)
      • 17. Hermalin, B.E., Katz, M.L.: ‘The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate’, Inf. Econ. Policy, 2007, 19, (2), pp. 215–248.
    8. 8)
      • 3. Comcast.: ‘Comcast powerboost’, (Online). http://www.comcast.net/powerboost/21/5/2016.
    9. 9)
      • 2. Shetty, N., Schwartz, G., Walrand, J.: ‘Internet QoS and regulations’, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 2010, 18, (6), pp. 1725–1737.
    10. 10)
      • 14. Sharma, P.K., Upadhyay, P.K.: ‘Cooperative spectrum sharing in two-way multi-user multi-relay networks’, IET Commun., 2016, 10, (1), pp. 111–121.
    11. 11)
      • 22. Sen, S., Wang, J.: ‘Analyzing peer-to-peer traffic across large networks’, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 2004, 12, (2), pp. 219–232.
    12. 12)
      • 19. Pastor-Satorras, R., Vespignani, A.: ‘Evolution and structure of the internet: a statistical physics approach’ (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
    13. 13)
      • 6. Mandjes, M.: ‘Pricing strategies under heterogeneous service requirements’, Comput. Netw., 2003, 42, (2), pp. 231–249.
    14. 14)
      • 15. Gibbens, R., Mason, R., Steinberg, R.: ‘Internet service classes under competition’, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2000, 18, (12), pp. 2490–2498.
    15. 15)
      • 11. Duan, L., Gao, L., Huang, J.: ‘Cooperative spectrum sharing: a contract-based approach’, IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., 2014, 13, (1), pp. 174–187.
    16. 16)
      • 10. Ren, S., van der Schaar, M.: ‘Data demand dynamics in wireless communications markets’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2012, 60, (4), pp. 1986–2000.
    17. 17)
      • 13. Shi, Z., Li, K.H., Tan, T., et al: ‘Energy efficient cognitive radio network based on multiband sensing and spectrum sharing’, IET Commun., 2014, 8, (9), pp. 1499–1507.
    18. 18)
      • 4. Wu, T.: ‘Network neutrality, broadband discrimination’, J. Telecommun. High Technol Law, 2003, 2, p. 141.
    19. 19)
      • 8. Odlyzko, A.: ‘Paris Metro Pricing for the internet’. Proc. of the 1st ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce, Ser. EC ‘99. ACM, 1999, pp. 140–147.
    20. 20)
      • 21. Newman, M.E.: ‘The structure and function of complex networks’, SIAM Rev., 2003, 45, (2), pp. 167–256.
    21. 21)
      • 12. Gao, L., Huang, J., Chen, Y.-J., et al: ‘An integrated contract and auction design for secondary spectrum trading’, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., 2013, 31, (3), pp. 581–592.
    22. 22)
      • 16. de Marin de Montmarin, M.: ‘A result similar to the Odlyzko's ‘Paris Metro Pricing’, Appl. Econ., 2006, 38, (15), pp. 1821–1824.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-net.2016.0060
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-net.2016.0060
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address