Fundamental trade-offs between resource separation and resource share for quality of service guarantees

Fundamental trade-offs between resource separation and resource share for quality of service guarantees

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Networks — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

There are two possible resource-allocation strategies for the quality of service (QoS) guarantee in the Internet: the resource separation and the resource share. The resource-separation strategy allows a prioritised flow to occupy its own network resource, which is physically or logically separated from resources used by other traffic. The resource-sharing strategy secures some portion of network resources for prioritised traffic, but secured resource is shared by all of prioritised flows. This study compares these two resource-allocation strategies in terms of the provided QoS level. It is found that the two strategies form a striking contrast to each other in terms of the resource usage. The resource share can benefit from the statistical multiplexing gain, but it increases the envelope of each individual multiplexed flow. In contrast to this, the resource separation does not increase the envelope of flows so much, while it does not benefit from the statistical multiplexing gain. That is, the general belief that the resource separation like the IntServ provides better QoS is not always true, and various conditions including network topology or QoS target would determine which strategy is preferable.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Braden, R., Clark, D., Shenker, S.: ‘Integrated services in the Internet architecture: an overview’, RFC 1633, 1994.
    2. 2)
      • 2. Breslau, L., Knightly, E.W., Shenker, S., Stoica, I., Zhang, H.: ‘Endpoint admission control: architectural issues and performance’. ACM SIGCOMM ‘00, 2000, pp. 5769.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., et al: ‘An architecture for diffentiated services’, RFC 2475, 1998.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Chang, C.S., Chiu, Y.M., Song, W.T.: ‘On the performance of multiplexing independent regulated inputs’. ACM SIGMETRICS 2001, 2001, pp. 184193.
    5. 5)
    6. 6)
      • 6. Vojnović, M., Le Boudec, J.-Y.: ‘Stochastic analysis of some expedited forwarding networks’. IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Le Boudec, J.-Y., Thiran, P.: ‘Network calculus – a theory of deterministic queueing systems for the internet’ (Springer-Verlag, 2004).
    8. 8)
    9. 9)
      • 9. Nakamura, K., Shioda, S.: ‘Statistical multiplexing of regulated sources having deterministic subadditive envelopes’, J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn, 2004, 47, (4), pp. 359378.
    10. 10)
    11. 11)
    12. 12)
    13. 13)
      • 13. Ciucu, F., Hohlfeld, O.: ‘On computing bounds on average backlogs and delays with network calculus’. IEEE ICC, 2010.
    14. 14)
      • 14. Ciucu, F., Schmitt, J.: ‘Perspectives on network calculus: no free lunch, but still good value’. ACM SIGCOMM, 2012, pp. 311322.
    15. 15)
    16. 16)
    17. 17)
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
      • 22. ITU-T Recommendation G.729: ‘Coding of speech at 8 kbit/s using conjugate structure algebraic-code-excited linear prediction (CS-ACELP)’.
    23. 23)
    24. 24)
    25. 25)
      • 25. ITU-T Recommendation G.723.1: ‘Dual rate speech coder for multimedia communications transmitting at 5.3 and 6.3 kbit/s’.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address