The Role of Telecommunications Service Quality in the Digital Economy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Role of Telecommunications Service Quality in the Digital Economy The role of telecommunications service quality in the Digital Economy ITU-IMDA Workshop – Singapore, 19 August 2019 Elena Scaramuzzi, Cullen International Regulatory approaches QoS: Command and control • Parameters and measurements criteria • Targets set • Data collection, validation, reporting • Compliance control, enforcement and sanctioning QoE: Consumers empowerment • Tools to compare offers • Speed testing tools • Coverage maps • Other apps • Feedback from users Encouragement and transparency • Operators set own targets • Publicise results • Industry codes of conduct Evolution from telephony to the digital economy Regulators “Service quality” Providers Users Europe Evolution of EU Framework (relevant for QoS/QoE) EECC transposition by EECC 2018 20/12/20 TSM 2015 2009 Review 2002 Framework Amendments to Universal Service and e-Privacy Directives (Citizens’ Rights Directive - 2009) Key amendments Main provisions Net Neutrality • NRAs will be able set minimum quality of service (QoS) requirements • NRAs to report annually on ‘internet freedoms’ Personal data breaches • Obligation on ECS providers to notify subscribers and other impacted individuals • Also inform NRA Data protection breaches • ECS providers must inform authorities when security breaches lead to personal data loss or misuse Use of cookies and spyware • End users to give explicit consent (opt-in) Information for end-users • any lawful conditions limiting access to or use of services and applications • minimum QoS levels offered • any restriction on the use of terminal equipment Number portability • Within 1 working day Emergency – single 112 • Broadened to all providers offering calls to national numbers. This includes number-based VoIP providers • Caller location information should be made available to the authority handling emergency calls as soon as the call reaches that authority. Before only “to the extent technically feasible”. Telecoms Single Market Regulation (TSM, 2015) Measures mainly concerning open internet access, amending Universal Service Directive and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services art. 4(1a) art. 4(1b) information on how traffic management Information as to how any volume limitation, measures applied by a provider could impact speed and other QoS parameters may in on the quality of the internet access services practice have an impact on IAS, and in (IAS), on the privacy of end-users and on the particular on the use of content, applications protection of their personal data and services art. 4(1d) art. 4(1e) Information on the minimum, normally available, Information on the remedies available to maximum and advertised download and upload speed the consumer in accordance with of the IAS in the case of fixed networks, or of the national law in the event of any estimated maximum and advertised download and continuous or regularly recurring QoS upload speed of the IAS in the case of mobile networks discrepancy European Electronic Communications Code (EECC, 2018) Art. 104: Regulators should be able to collect comparable information on QoS offered by providers of publicly available internet access services and interpersonal communications services Art. 272: Regulators, in coordination with other competent authorities should set out the measurement methods to be applied by the service providers in order to improve the comparability of the data provided. To that aim, BEREC should adopt (non-binding) guidelines. Annex 8: Providers should give information on any specific quality parameters assured, as well as any compensation and refund arrangements which apply if levels of quality of service contracted by users are not met. Annex 10: QoS Parameters, Definitions and Measurement Methods referred to in Article 104. Art. 103.2: End users’ right to have access, free of charge, to at least one independent comparison tool which includes the possibility to compare the quality of service performance between available offers. EECC approach Objective monitoring Quality parameters and and publication of monitoring methodology information on quality are listed in the EECC offered by providers Regulators Transparency & empowerment “Service (Entitled to a compensation if Providers of IAS quality” and ICS (new quality assured not met. definition) Comparison tools) Providers Users 1. Who are the “providers” now possibly subject to “monitoring”? Electronic communications services (ECS) Interpersonal communications services (ICS): Conveyance of Internet access Number- Number signals services (IAS) based independent (M2M, broadcasting) “….to the extent that they control at least some elements of the network either directly or by virtue of a service level agreement to that effect.” 2. What are the “quality parameters” that can be monitored? Providers of access to a public Providers of inter-personal Providers of internet access electronic communications communications services who services networks have control on at least some network elements or SLA 1. Supply time for initial 1. Call set up time 1. Latency (delay) connection 2. Bill correctness complaints 2. Jitter 2. Fault rate per access line 3. Voice connection quality 3. Packet loss 3. Fault repair time 4. Dropped call ratio 5. Unsuccessful call ratio 6. Failure probability (*) 7. Call signaling delays (*) ETSI EG 202 057 ETSI EG 202 057 - except (*) ITU-T Y.2617 Current situation Example: fixed voice • Transparency obligations in 20 EU member states. In 6 of them they only apply to the designated USO provider • Targets in 15 EU member states, but 10 of them only on designated USO providers Source: Cullen International 3. End-users’ empowerment tools – current situation (mobile) NRA survey NRA survey Speed test Coverage Providers’ (measurements) (users) tools maps rankings Belgium France Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden UK Source: Cullen International Example – end user empowerment (UK) https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/145525/comparing-service-quality-2018.pdf Example – end user empowerment (France) Americas Overview broadband: fixed and mobile Country Targets set? Imposed on all Measurement Obligation to Specific operators? audited publish? penalties? Argentina Brazil Canada Chile proposed Colombia (autom. comp.) Costa Rica Ecuador Mexico (mobile) Paraguay Peru United States Source: Cullen International USA: broadband maps used for different purposes (eligibility for subsidies AND user empowerment) Source: FCC In Latin America mixed approaches – example Brazil TARGETS, COMPLIANCE CONTROL, SANCTIONING 14 indicators 14 indicators 10 indicators 16 indicators Source: Anatel Example Brazil GUARANTEED BROADBAND SPEED SINCE 2012 Entitade aferidora da Qualidade (EAQ) is an external entity selected and funded by providers, to implement the measurements and certify them to Anatel on a regular basis. Example Brazil EXTENSIVE CONSUMER SURVEYS SINCE 2015 Results also by Brazilian state Reports by type of service All results in spreadsheets… Source: Anatel Example Brazil TOOLS SINCE 2012 Access to voice network Quality and User amount of Experience antennas Voice and data ranking Other examples across Latin America GUARANTEED SPEEDS Source: Cullen International Proposal in Mexico In 2018 IFT proposed minimum speed to be mandated on all broadband providers. IFT proposed minimum speeds to be offered for broadband services, and not to a percentage of the advertised speed. Other examples across Latin America TOOLS Source: Cullen International Middle East and North Africa QoS regulation - overview Targets Measurements Publication of Sanctions and reporting results Algeria Bahrain Only reference values Not Egypt available Jordan Lebanon Morocco Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Tunisia Not available UAE Only KPIs Source: Cullen International Examples - telephony Source: Cullen International Frequency of KPI reports submitted by operators to the NRA In Bahrain some KPIs must be reported every three months and others every year. In Oman KPIs must be reported every three months, every six months, or every year depending on the the KPI. Source: Cullen International Broadband – guaranteed speeds • Tunisia: at least 25% of advertised download and upload speed (mobile) • Proposal in Qatar: 85% of contracted download and upload speed • Bahrain: reference value within the advertised speed Kingdom of Bahrain revised QoS rules in 2018 TRA revised its 2008 QoS regulation. The new rules include, amongst others: • New provisions on network outages • More precise criteria TRA may follow to set binding targets on operators • New provisions on enforcement, incl. sanctions • A review of KPIs (now fewer, but more relevant and more precisely defined) Saudi Arabia – revised QoS rules (2018) Revised rules of 2009, among the key changes, the obligation to publish geographical coverage maps for both mobile and fixed services. Source: https://www.citc.gov.sa/en/reportsandstudies/indicators/Pages/service_providers_coverage_maps.aspx A look at … Uganda… • The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) monitors, conducts performance audits, publishes results. • Targets: blocked call rate and dropped call rate: Source: UCC no more than 2% Nigeria…. • The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) established minimum Quality of Service (QoS) standards (a number of network and non-network KPIs). • Every mobile operator must report measurements to the NCC on a quarterly basis. Source: NCC Malaysia… Service PSTN Mobile Dial-up Content Pay- Digital Fixed internet app phones Leased broadband services Lines # of KPIs/
Recommended publications
  • D4.2 – Report on Technical and Quality of Service Viability
    Ref. Ares(2019)1779406 - 18/03/2019 (H2020 730840) D4.2 – Report on Technical and Quality of Service Viability Version 1.2 Published by the MISTRAL Consortium Dissemination Level: Public This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 730840 H2020-S2RJU-2015-01/H2020-S2RJU-OC-2015-01-2 Topic S2R-OC-IP2-03-2015: Technical specifications for a new Adaptable Communication system for all Railways Final Version Document version: 1.2 Submission date: 2019-03-12 MISTRAL D4.2 – Report on Technical and Quality of Service Viability Document control page Document file: D4.2 Report on Technical and Quality of Service Viability Document version: 1.2 Document owner: Alexander Wolf (TUD) Work package: WP4 – Technical Viability Analysis Task: T4.3, T4.4 Deliverable type: R Document status: approved by the document owner for internal review approved for submission to the EC Document history: Version Author(s) Date Summary of changes made 0.1 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2017-12-27 TOCs and content description 0.4 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-01-31 First draft version 0.5 Carles Artigas (ARD) 2018-02-02 Contribution on LTE Security, Chapter 5 0.8 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-03-31 Second draft version 0.9 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-04-27 Release candidate 1.0 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-04-30 Final version 1.0.1 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-05-02 Formatting corrections 1.0.2 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-05-08 Minor additions on chapter 6 1.1 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2018-10-29 Minor additions after 3GPP comments 1.2 Alexander Wolf (TUD) 2019-03-12 Revision after Shift2Rail JU comments Internal review history: Reviewed by Date Summary of comments Edoardo Bonetto (ISMB) 2018-04-19 Review, comments and remarks Laura Masullo (SIRTI) 2018-04-19 Review, comments and remarks Laura Masullo (SIRTI) 2018-04-29 Review Document version : 1.2 Page 2 of 88 Submission date: 2019-03-12 MISTRAL D4.2 – Report on Technical and Quality of Service Viability Legal Notice The information in this document is subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • (Qos) and Quality of Experience (Qoe) Issues in Video Service Provider Networks ––
    Troubleshooting Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) issues in Video Service Provider Networks –– APPLICATION NOTE Application Note 2 www.tek.com/mpeg-video-test-solution-series/mpeg-analyzer Troubleshooting Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) issues in Broadcast and Cable Networks Video Service Providers deliver TV programs using a variety is critical to have access or test points throughout the facility. of different network architectures. Most of these networks The minimum set of test points in any network should be at include satellite for distribution (ingest), ASI or IP throughout the point of ingest where the signal comes into the facility, the the facility, and often RF to the home or customer premise ASI or IP switch, and finally egress where the signal leaves as (egress). The quality of today’s digital video and audio is IP or RF. With a minimum of these three access points, it is usually quite good, but when audio or video issues appear at now possible to isolate the issue to have originated at either: random, it is usually quite difficult to pinpoint the root cause ingest, facility, or egress. of the problem. The issue might be as simple as an encoder To begin testing a signal that may contain the suspected over-compressing a few pictures during a scene with high issue, two related methods are often used, Quality of Service motion. Or, the problem might be from a random weather (QoS), and Quality of Experience (QoE). Both methods are event (e.g., heavy wind, rain, snow, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Diffserv -- the Scalable End-To-End Qos Model
    WHITE PAPER DIFFSERV—THE SCALABLE END-TO-END QUALITY OF SERVICE MODEL Last Updated: August 2005 The Internet is changing every aspect of our lives—business, entertainment, education, and more. Businesses use the Internet and Web-related technologies to establish Intranets and Extranets that help streamline business processes and develop new business models. Behind all this success is the underlying fabric of the Internet: the Internet Protocol (IP). IP was designed to provide best-effort service for delivery of data packets and to run across virtually any network transmission media and system platform. The increasing popularity of IP has shifted the paradigm from “IP over everything,” to “everything over IP.” In order to manage the multitude of applications such as streaming video, Voice over IP (VoIP), e-commerce, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and others, a network requires Quality of Service (QoS) in addition to best-effort service. Different applications have varying needs for delay, delay variation (jitter), bandwidth, packet loss, and availability. These parameters form the basis of QoS. The IP network should be designed to provide the requisite QoS to applications. For example, VoIP requires very low jitter, a one-way delay in the order of 150 milliseconds and guaranteed bandwidth in the range of 8Kbps -> 64Kbps, dependent on the codec used. In another example, a file transfer application, based on ftp, does not suffer from jitter, while packet loss will be highly detrimental to the throughput. To facilitate true end-to-end QoS on an IP-network, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has defined two models: Integrated Services (IntServ) and Differentiated Services (DiffServ).
    [Show full text]
  • Autoqos for Voice Over IP (Voip)
    WHITE PAPER AUTOQoS FOR VOICE OVER IP Last Updated: September 2008 Customer networks exist to service application requirements and end users efficiently. The tremendous growth of the Internet and corporate intranets, the wide variety of new bandwidth-hungry applications, and convergence of data, voice, and video traffic over consolidated IP infrastructures has had a major impact on the ability of networks to provide predictable, measurable, and guaranteed services to these applications. Achieving the required Quality of Service (QoS) through the proper management of network delays, bandwidth requirements, and packet loss parameters, while maintaining simplicity, scalability, and manageability of the network is the fundamental solution to running an infrastructure that serves business applications end-to-end. Cisco IOS ® Software offers a portfolio of QoS features that enable customer networks to address voice, video, and data application requirements, and are extensively deployed by numerous Enterprises and Service Provider networks today. Cisco AutoQoS dramatically simplifies QoS deployment by automating Cisco IOS QoS features for voice traffic in a consistent manner and leveraging the advanced functionality and intelligence of Cisco IOS Software. Figure 1 illustrates how Cisco AutoQoS provides the user a simple, intelligent Command Line Interface (CLI) for enabling campus LAN and WAN QoS for Voice over IP (VoIP) on Cisco switches and routers. The network administrator does not need to possess extensive knowledge of the underlying network
    [Show full text]
  • Quality of Service Regulation Manual Quality of Service Regulation
    REGULATORY & MARKET ENVIRONMENT International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Development Bureau Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 20 Quality of Service Switzerland REGULATION MANUAL www.itu.int Manual ISBN 978-92-61-25781-1 9 789261 257811 Printed in Switzerland Geneva, 2017 Telecommunication Development Sector QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION MANUAL QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION Quality of service regulation manual 2017 Acknowledgements The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) manual on quality of service regulation was prepared by ITU expert Dr Toni Janevski and supported by work carried out by Dr Milan Jankovic, building on ef- forts undertaken by them and Mr Scott Markus when developing the ITU Academy Regulatory Module for the Quality of Service Training Programme (QoSTP), as well as the work of ITU-T Study Group 12 on performance QoS and QoE. ITU would also like to thank the Chairman of ITU-T Study Group 12, Mr Kwame Baah-Acheamfour, Mr Joachim Pomy, SG12 Rapporteur, Mr Al Morton, SG12 Vice-Chairman, and Mr Martin Adolph, ITU-T SG12 Advisor. This work was carried out under the direction of the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) Regulatory and Market Environment Division. ISBN 978-92-61-25781-1 (paper version) 978-92-61-25791-0 (electronic version) 978-92-61-25801-6 (EPUB version) 978-92-61-25811-5 (Mobi version) Please consider the environment before printing this report. © ITU 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU. Foreword I am pleased to present the Manual on Quality of Service (QoS) Regulation pub- lished to serve as a reference and guiding tool for regulators and policy makers in dealing with QoS and Quality of Experience (QoE) matters in the ICT sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality of Services for ISP Networks
    Quality of Services for ISP Networks Qi Guan SIEMENSAG Austria Siemensstrasse 88-92 A-1210, Vienna, Austria Key words: Quality of Service, QoS, ISP Internet, Backbone, VoiP Abstract: Quality of Service (QoS) is a basic functionality that the Internet needs to be able to cope with when the applications increased in number and varied in use. Internet QoS issues concerning the Internet involves many different areas: end user QoS, ISP network QoS, backbone QoS. Backbone QoS is the problem concerning traffic engineering and bandwidth. ISP network QoS is one of the major problems in the Internet, In this paper, we would like to present an architecture model for QoS enabled ISP networks. This model is based on differentiated services and is connected to QoS or non-QoS enabled backbones for IP upstream and downstream QoS traffic. At the end of paper, an example of VoiP application is introduced. 1. INTRODUCTION Until now, two separate worlds have existed for telecommunication services and networks - one for voice and one for data. The voice world is that of switched PSTN I ISDN networks, which generally provide real-time services and features such as call diversions, conference and display services. Switched PSTN I ISDN networks guarantee quality and reliability in the form of constant availability of voice services for their customers. As a result thereof, this quality of service has made voice networks extremely profitable. The original version of this chapter was revised: The copyright line was incorrect. This has been corrected. The Erratum to this chapter is available at DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35522-1_37 H.
    [Show full text]
  • SD-WAN QUALITY of SERVICE Supplemental Guide
    SD-WAN QUALITY OF SERVICE Supplemental Guide June 2019 Table of Contents Quality of Service ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Classification and Marking...............................................................................................................................................................................2 QoS for Aruba Gateways..................................................................................................................................................................................3 Deploying SD-WAN QoS .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Appendix A: QoS Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Comprehensive QoS Policy........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix B: QoS Deployment ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Application Category Mapping ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Qos Performance Study of Real-Time Transport Protocol Over Voip
    VOL. 11, NO. 9, MAY 2016 ISSN 1819-6608 ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2016 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved. www.arpnjournals.com QOS PERFORMANCE STUDY OF REAL-TIME TRANSPORT PROTOCOL OVER VOIP Abdallah S. Abdelrahman1, Rashid A. Saeed1 and Raed A. Alsaqour2 1College of Engineering, Sudan University of Science and Technology (SUST), Khartoum, Sudan 2School of Computer Science, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia E-Mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT In recent years, Voice over IP (VoIP) has gained a lot of popularity and become an industry favorite over Public Switching Telephone Networks (PSTN) with regards to voice communication. This paper work consists of creating a VoIP network and testing for its known faults. Through this paper, we get a better understanding of the underlying layers of the network and see if and where improvements can be made. In implementation stage the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) packets for VoIP applications had been sent and compared with TCP/UDP packets to obtain results which are mainly related to Quality of Service (QoS) factors. The attained result approved that RTP consider to be better to reduce a packet loss than UDP and also approved that UDP/RTP are most reliable because they had a very small delay and jitter in contrast with TCP. Hence, we find that, UDP/RTP are more balance and prefer than TCP in real-time applications such as VoIP. Keywords: Transport Control Protocol (TCP), UDP, RTP, VoIP. INTRODUCTION RTP network with TCP and UDP.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Parameters and Standards for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Networks (Study of Specifications and Recommendations)
    Quality parameters and standards for Telecommunications and Broadcasting networks (Study of Specifications and Recommendations) Executive summary This document is the study report for the ‘Quality parameters and standards for Telecommunication networks’ for the Bureau Telecommunications and Post St. Maarten. This study is to analyze and describe Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) parameters that are relevant for the St. Maarten Telecommunication Industry. As part of the study existing standards and recommendation (such as ITU, GSMA etc.) have been inventoried. The parameters and standards will be consistent with International recommendations and specifications from institutions such as ITU, GSMA, 3GPP, ETSI, and also will be in line with international best practice of how to define such quality parameters. The set of parameters for inspection purposes have been described in a separate document (‘Inspection Guide’). Page 2 Cannegieter Street 15 – Unit 5.1 I Philipsburg I St. Maarten I Dutch Caribbean I +1(721) 542.4699 [email protected] I www.sxmregulator.sx Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background and current situation ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose of the project ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How to Configure Qos to Conform to Standard Marking Schemes
    AlliedWare PlusTM OS How To | Configure QoS to Conform to Standard Marking Schemes Introduction This How To Note describes how to deploy a QoS solution across an entire network. It explains how to define per-hop behaviours (PHBs) that each switch in the network should perform, and how to ensure that the switches uniformly interpret the QoS information carried in packets. This means you can achieve a predictable performance for different traffic types across the whole network. Packets that enter the network’s edge may carry no QoS information. If so, the edge switch places such information into the packets before transmitting them to the next node. Thus, QoS information is preserved between nodes within the network and the nodes know what treatment to give each packet. Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Which products and software versions does this How To Note apply to? ....................... 2 Related How To Notes ................................................................................................................... 3 Marking QoS information into packets .............................................................................................. 4 Layer 2 CoS/802.1p ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Measurement Methodologies and Quality of Service Evaluation in Voip and Desktop Videoconferencing Networks
    Performance Measurement Methodologies and Quality of Service Evaluation in VoIP and Desktop Videoconferencing Networks Henri TOBIET1 and Pascal LORENZ2 1 NMG TELECOMS – Network Management Group – Telecoms Solutions 20e, rue Salomon Grumbach, BP 2087, 68059 Mulhouse Cedex, France [email protected] 2 University of Colmar - IUT / GTR 34 rue du Grillenbreit - 68008 Colmar, France [email protected] Abstract. The present paper relates to performance and quality of service evaluation for VoIP (Voice over IP) and desktop videoconferencing services in IP networks. Simulation-based performance measurements consist in the generation of performance statistics obtained by measurements realized by simulation on the subscriber interface. They include detailed measurement of call quality, call set-up quality and availability. The tests are accomplished by emission of non-disturbing additional test traffic. The real-time QoS monitoring is based on non-intrusive analysis of real call parameters. The advantage of this method is the exhaustiveness of the analyzed call. The QoS measurements are mainly service availability and call set-up quality. 1 Introduction QoS defined in CCITT Recommendation E.800 may be considered as the generic definition reproduced below: "The collective effect of service performance which determine the degree of satisfaction of a user of the service". Quality of Service on the LAN represents a major challenge, not so much during the predictable processes of compressing the voice streams and splitting them into packets which are mathematically predictable, the real challenge is of sharing the connectionless transmission media with other users in a predictable and quantifiable way. As soon as voice/video traffic reaches the IP network, it must compete with electronic mail traffic, database applications and file transfers [13], [17], [18].
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Switching
    Circuit Switching Network resources (e.g., bandwidth) divided into “pieces” Pieces allocated to and reserved for calls Computer Networks Resource idle if not used by owner (no sharing) Ways to divide link bandwidth into “pieces” • frequency division multiplexing (FDM) frequency Example: Lecture 36: 4 users time QoS, Priority Queueing, VC, WFQ • time division multiplexing (TDM) frequency time Packet Switching Bandwidth division into “pieces” Packet Switching: Dedicated allocation Each end-to-end data stream Resource reservation Statistical Multiplexing divided into packets 10 Mbps C Packets from multiple users share network resources A Ethernet statistical multiplexing Each packet uses full link bandwidth B 1.5 Mbps Resources used as needed queue of packets waiting for output Resource contention: link • aggregate resource demand can exceed amount available D • congestion: packets queued, wait for link use E • store and forward: packets move one hop at a time Sequence of A’s and B’s packets does not have a fixed • each node receives complete packet before forwarding pattern ⇒ statistical multiplexing Packet vs. Circuit Switching Pros and Cons of Packet Switching Packet switching allows more users to use network! Advantages: great for bursty data • resource sharing For example: • simpler, no call setup • 1 Mbps link • each user: • sends 100 kbps when “active” Disadvantages: excessive congestion, N users • active 10% of time 1 Mbps link packet delay and loss • protocols needed for reliable data transfer circuit-switching: 10 users • congestion control • no service guarantee: “best-effort” service packet switching: with 35 users, probability that more than 10 are active at the same time < .0004 Better than Best-Effort Service Example: HTTP vs.
    [Show full text]