Evaluation and Comparison of a Simple Packet Rate
Estimator
K. Salah**
Department of Information and Computer Science
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Email: {salah,fahd}@kfupm.edu.sa
Abstract—This paper proposes a simple packet rate estimator
that can be very useful in predicting the rate of network traffic.
The quality and performance of the estimator is evaluated and
compared with three popular rate estimators that were originally
designed for estimating bit rate. The proposed estimator is
highly cost effective as its computation is not carried out upon the
arrival of each incoming packet. In addition, the computation is
simple and does not depend on the measurement of interarrival
times of packets. We evaluate and compare the quality and
performance in terms of accuracy, agility, stability, and cost. The
performance evaluation is conducted using discrete-event
simulation that produces synthesized bursty traffic with
empirical packet sizes. In addition, we investigate the
performance impact of selecting different parameter values for
the proposed estimator.
KEYWORDS: Traffic Rate Estimation, Time Sliding Window,
Exponential Averaging, Simulation, Bursty Traffic, Performance
Evaluation
I. INTRODUCTION
Estimating the incoming arrival rate of network traffic is an
integral component of network traffic management, monitoring
and call-admission control. In Call Admission Control (CAC),
the rate of the flows are monitored at the access points of the
network in order to make decisions on admitting new flows [1].
For providing QoS-enabled Internet, the rates of current flows
get also monitored for traffic policing to ensure senders comply
to their SLAs (Service Level Agreement). SLA defines the
traffic characteristics (especially the traffic rate) expected from
the sender. Other than call admission control and policing, rate
estimation is also an integral part of link-sharing [2] and fair
scheduling algorithms [3] which are utitlized in DiffServ and
RSVP protocols [4].
Devising a proper rate estimator is not a trivial task. The
quality of any estimator depends on multiple factors that may
include agility, stability, accuracy, and overhead cost [3].
Agility defines the quickness of the estimator in following the
changes in the actual data rate of the traffic. Stability (a.k.a.
smoothing) refers to the ability of the estimator to ignore short-
term changes or peaks of traffic. Accuracy refers to the
difference between the estimated and the actual data rates of
the traffic. Finally, the cost refers to the complexity of the
algorithm and the required computational time and memory. In
other words, a cost-effective estimator has to be simple, fast,
** Corresponding Author: Prof. K. Salah, PO Box 5066, ICS Department,
KFUPM, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia)
1
F. Haidari
and does not need to store much data.
All of the estimators utilized in [1-4] were designed
originally for estimating bit arrival rate. However, little
research has been done on estimating packet arrival rate.
Estimators of packet arrival rate can be very useful and
attractive in a variety of applications in networking and
communications. The computation of packet rate is much
simpler than bit rate as it does not depend on accumulation of
packet sizes. In addition, a packet rate estimator can be
designed to perform estimation at a periodic rate, as the case
for our proposed estimator. Our proposed estimator is simple
and does not depend on interarrival time measurements of
packets and running estimation at every packet arrival, but
utilizes a fixed time window. This can be an indispensable
design option for network elements of sensor networks nods as
well as PC-based routers and servers. Nodes in sensor
networks are typically limited in computational power and
energy. For PC-based routers and typical workstations and
servers, avoiding summing up packet sizes and computation at
every incoming packet will result in better overall performance.
And more importantly, the NIC of these systems typically does
not timestamp the arrival of each packet, and timestamping has
to be performed by the kernel at interrupt handling of packet
reception. This requires considerable overhead and is not
doable in the default interrupt handling schemes of FreeBSD
polling and Linux NAPI where interrupts of received packets
are disabled.
Recently, the use of packet arrival rate estimators has been
increasing. In [5], optimal routes through sensor network
elements and optimal wakeup rate to minimize energy
consumption are determined based on the incoming packet
arrival rate to sensor nodes. In [6], an adaptive rate-scheduling
based on the estimation and prediction of packet arrival rate has
been proposed for minimizing QoS degradations in next
generation CDMA wireless mobile systems. In [7], a queue
management technique based on packet arrival rate was
introduced for routers and switches to provide end-to-end high
performance DiffServ QoS. In [8], the packet arrival rate of
incoming traffic is utilized in a dynamic weighted fair queueing
scheduler of routers. The weight gets adjusted dynamically
based on the estimated packet arrival rate of each flow. In [9],
an enhanced scheduling scheme of time varying fair queueing
(TVFQ) was proposed using dynamic weights that get set
according to estimated packet arrival rate. In [10], estimated
packet rate is used to identify abnormal activities and attacks.
In [11], estimated packet rate is used to reduce power
consumption of network devices such as LAN switches. An
interface on a switch can go to sleep (and thereby saving
power) if the estimated next arrival time is long enough. In
[12-14], estimation of packet arrival rate is required for the
implementation of a hybrid interrupt handling scheme that can
result in high performance of network servers with Gigabit
Ethernet links. The hybrid interrupt handling scheme is a
combination of two modes: normal interruption and polling.
The switching between these two modes depends on the
estimated packet arrival rate.
It is worth noting that, the packet arrival rate estimators
reported in [5-9] employ typically an exponentially weighted
moving average, described and named later in the paper as the
static EWMA as it has a constant weight. In this paper, we
describe and study a total of four different packet arrival rate
estimators, including the static EWMA. One of these
estimators, later called Time-Window-based EWMA, is a novel
estimator that we propose. The performance and quality of
these estimators are evaluated and compared. The
performance is studied in terms of important estimation metrics
that include agility, stability, accuracy, and cost. The
performance is studied using DES (Discrete Event Simulation).
Bursty traffic with empirical packet sizes is used to introduce
realistic and highly variable network traffic. For the proposed
algorithm, we study the impact of selecting different parameter
values that can be used in tuning the estimator results and
behavior.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the algorithms of four packet rate estimators. Three
of these estimators are modified versions of popular bit rate
estimators. The fourth estimator is a proposed one by the
authors. Section 3 compares the performance of the four
estimators in terms of accuracy, stability, agility, and cost.
Section 4 studies the impact of the selection different parameter
values for our proposed estimators. Finally, Section 6
concludes the study and identifies future work.
II. PACKET RATE ESTIMATORS
In this section, we describe the algorithms of four
estimators that can potentially be utilized for estimating the
average packet arrival rate. Three of the popular algorithms
that were originally used in estimating bit rate are modified to
estimate packet arrival rate. A fourth algorithm is proposed.
The proposed algorithm is simple and does not depend on the
measurement of the interrarival times or computation upon the
arrival of every packet, and yields acceptable performance in
terms of accuracy, stability and agility.
A. TSW
TSW (Time Sliding Window) is a time-based estimator that
employs a rectangular data weighting function based on a fixed
size time window. It essentially estimates the rate upon packet
arrival and decays, or forgets, the past history over time.
Algorithm 1 shows the modified version of the estimator
presented in [15,16] to estimate packet rate. The algorithm in
[15,16] was modified to exclude packet size calculations. The
2
agility and stability of TSW depend on the size of the time
window Win_length. If Win_length is small, the estimator will
be more agile as the past takes less weight so that it can follow
the new changes in the traffic rate quickly. On the other hand,
if Win_length is large, the estimator will be more stable as the
past takes more weight so that it can forget the short peaks
which are very brief and only temporary. now is the time of the
current packet arrival. T_front is the time of the last packet
arrival. It is worth noting that computation of TSW estimator
is performed on each packet arrival and measurements of
interrarrival times are required, and therefore may result in a
considerable overhead, especially at high rate. In Ethernet of
Gigabit link, the rate can go up to 1.4 million pps!
Algorithm 1: TSW
Initialization:
Win_length = a constant
Avg_rate = 0
T_front =0
For each packet arrival do:
Pkts_in_TSW ← Avg_rate × Win_length
New_pkts ← Pkts_in_TSW + 1
Avg_rate ← New_pkts (now − T_front + Win_length )
T_front ← now
return Avg_rate
End
B. Static EWMA
The static EWMA (Exponentially Weighted Moving
Average) is a popular exponentially weighted moving average
that is utilized in [2,11,15]. It has a constant weight.
Algorithm 2 estimates the packet arrival rate. However, this
estimator uses interrarrival times and computation at every
incoming packet, and thus requires more computational power
and measurements, as is the case in TSW.
Algorithm 2: Static EWMA
Initialization:
α = a constant weight factor
Avg_rate = 0
T_front =0
For each packet arrival do:
interarrival ← now − T _ front
Avg_rate ← (1 − α ) × Avg _ rate + α × interarrival
T_front ← now
return Avg _ rate
End
C. Dynamic EWMA
Dynamic EWMA is an EWMA estimator with dynamic
weight that gets adjusted based on the temporary or persistent
changes in the traffic over time [17]. Dynamic EWMA
typically gives better performance than the conventional static
EMWA with constant weight α . In Dynamic EWMA,
temporary and brief traffic changes (peaks) are treated with
lower weight; however, persistent and more permanent changes
are treated with higher weight. These trends of changes are
determined using the gradient of the occupied traffic. The
complete Dynamic EWMA is described in Algorithm 3. The
algorithm is devised such that it time-window based, meaning
estimation is performed periodically and does not depend on
the interarrival times of packets. α max is typically chosen to
be twice the value of the initial value of α opt [17].
Algorithm 3: Dynamic EWMA
Initialization:
α opt = a constant to represent the optimal weight
α max = a constant to represent the maximum weight
Avg_rate = 0
mnorm = a constant which set to
( Link Capcity in pps) (2 × Time _ Window)
Time _ Window = a constant to represent the size of the
jumping window
For each window do:
N ← number of packets during this window
M _ rate ← N Time _ Window
m ← ( M _ rate − Avg _ rate) Time _ window
α ← α max (1 + m mnorm )
Avg_rate ← (1 − α ) × Avg _ rate + α × M _ rate
return Avg _ rate
End
D. Proposed EWMA
Our proposed EWMA algorithm is similar to the static
EWMA but with a major difference. The proposed algorithm is
time-window based, which means it does not require
measurements of interarrival times of packets or computation
on every packet arrival. Considerable overhead can be
encountered if estimation is performed upon the reception of
each incoming packet, especially at traffic arrival of high rate.
In Gigabit Ethernet, a link may carry up to 1.4 million pps, and
with 10 Gigabit links the problem can be significantly
exacerbated. We propose a time-window-based EWMA
estimator to alleviate such a constraint. Algorithm 4 describes
the proposed algorithm of a time-window-based EWMA
estimator. The purpose of the time window is two fold: First, it
mitigates the computation at each incoming packets. Second, it
is used to smooth out the burstiness of traffic and short peaks.
In addition, there is no need for measuring interrarival times of
packets. The window in the proposed EWMA is a jumping
window (as opposed to TSW) where the window gets restarted
after each window trigger to run the algorithm.
3
Algorithm4: Proposed EWMA
Initialization:
α = a constant weight factor
Avg_rate = 0
Time _ Window = a constant to represent the size of the
jumping window
For each window do:
N ← number of packets during this window
M _ rate ← N Time _ Window
Avg_rate ← (1 − α ) × Avg _ rate + α × M _ rate
return Avg _ rate
End
III. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON
The performance of the four algorithms is evaluated using a
DES simulation developed in C language and followed closely
the guidelines in [18]. In order to introduce realistic and highly
variable network traffic, bursty traffic with empirical packet
sizes is used. To generate a synthesized bursty traffic, we
implemented the method described in [19]. This method
follows fractional Gaussian noise such as the resulting self-
similar traffic is obtained by aggregating multiple streams (one
stream per source) each consisting of alternating Pareto-
distributed ON/OFF periods. In our simulation we used 8
sources, which are enough for producing realistic brusty
aggregated traffic according to our own experimentation and
findings, which are also in line with the observations in [20].
For the ON and OFF periods, we used the commonly-used
shape parameters of α ON = 1.3 and α OFF = 1.5 ,
respectively. During the ON period we generated packets with
sizes that follow an empirical distribution, which are real
measurements of packet sizes from MCI backbone. The
measurements are reported in [21] and available online at
http://www.caida.org.
For all of simulation runs (unless stated otherwise), we fix
the weight factor α to 0.3 as used in [13], the maximum
weight α max of Dynamic EWMA to 0.6 as used in [17], and
the window length of TWS to 10 ms. For accuracy, stability
and agility, we compare our results to a reference traffic.
Reference traffic rate is the instantaneous measure of the
average rate (i.e., the total number of packets received over a
period of 10 ms). For simulation results of stability and agility,
we record the average reference traffic rate every 10 ms (as
opposed to say 1 ms) in order to reduce the fluctuation of the
instantaneous data and thus plots become more readable. For
the results of estimators, their output is recorded at the end of
10 ms interval (which indicates the predicted or estimated rate
of the next interarrival time).
A. Accuracy
To measure accuracy we offered a constant load of 70%
(corresponding to an average of 150 kpps) for 60 seconds and
we measured the results of the relative estimation error. The
estimators were evaluated in terms of accuracy based on the
relative error between average estimated and average reference
according to this formula
 reference − estimated
relative _ error =
reference
Fig. 1 exhibits the average of relative estimation errors. It
is clear that conventional static EWMA performs poorly in
terms of accuracy when compared to other algorithms, even
with different weights. Other algorithms of TSW, dynamic
EWMA, and proposed EWMA produced comparable results
with little difference. Similar results were produced at different
loads of 25% and 50%. Also when we increased the simulation
time to 120 seconds from 60 seconds, it was observed that the
Dynamic EWMA was the most accurate, and second to it was
the proposed EWMA, outperforming TSW.
TSW
Dynamic EW MA
Error (%)
25%
Avarage Estim ation
20%
Relative Estimation
15%
Error
10%
5%
0%
Figure 1. Average of Relative Estimation Errors
B. Stability
In this example we reduced the weight α to 0.125 in order
to obtain clear graphs for stability. Fig. 2 compares the
stability results of the four algorithms when subjected to an
average aggregated bursty traffic of 150 kpps. It is shown that
the conventional static EWMA performs poorly again, as
shown in the left of Fig. 2. A zoom-in version of the figure is
also shown on right. The zoom-in version excludes the results
of the conventional static EWMA. It is clear that for the most
part our proposed algorithm is more stable (not reacting much
to short peaks) than all others.
C. Agility
Fig. 3 compares the agility results of the four algorithms
when subjected to an average aggregated bursty traffic of
different rates. To study agility, we introduce fluctuation in the
offered traffic load, as shown. An average offered rate of
× 100% . bursty traffic of 150 kpps is used for 200 ms and then reduced
to 50 kpps, and then increased after 200ms to 150 kpps again.
It is shown that the conventional EWMA overreacts and
performs poorly. For the zoom-in version which excludes the
static EWMA, it is obvious that our proposed algorithm TW-
based EWMA reacts slowly to permanent traffic changes,
unlike TSW and dynamic EWMA.
D. Cost
TSW and static EWMA estimators are packet-based
estimators as they require computation upon the arrival of each
packet arrival. This can result in a significant overhead
especially at high arrival rate of packets, which can go up to 1.4
million pps in Gigabit links. For example if we assume the
average estimation time is 1 µ s, then a possible system
Static EW MA overhead due to estimation processing or computation at
Proposed EW MA incoming rate of 100 kpps (which is a typical moderate rate for
desktop machines with 100M and Gigabit Ethernet links) can
be approximately 10% (as ρ = λ µ ). The Dynamic EWMA
and our proposed EWMA estimators are window-based
estimators, whereby computation is not performed on each
packet arrival, but triggered periodically based on the
configured time window size. To illustrate this further by the
same numerical example with a time window of 10 ms, an
average estimation time of 1 µ s , and an incoming rate of 100
kpps, we encounter an approximate a system overhead of
0.01% (as opposed to 10% for other algorithms). This is a
significant improvement (i.e., 1000 times better). When
comparing the least overhead of the Dynamic EWMA and
proposed EWMA, it is clear that our proposed EWMA requires
the least overhead and processing. The Dynamic EWMA
algorithm requires far more computational steps which
involves significant division and floating point operations.
As was demonstrated in this section, our proposed
algorithm TW-based EWMA outperforms the other three
algorithms in terms of cost and stability and compares well in
terms of accuracy and agility. For accuracy, the proposed
algorithm is comparable to TSW and Dynamic EWMA.
However, for agility, the algorithms of TSW and dynamic
EWMA give relatively better performance.
4
 5 5
x 10 x 10
4.5 2.2
Reference Reference
4 TSW TSW
Static EWMA Dynamic EWMA
2
Dynamic EWMA Proposed EWMA
3.5 Proposed EWMA

3 1.8

Arrival Rate (pps)

Arrival Rate (pps)

2.5
1.6
2

1.5 1.4

1
1.2
0.5

0 1
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time [ms]
Time [ms]

Figure 2. Stability comparison (left) with zoom-in (right)

5 5
x 10 x 10
5 2.2
Reference Reference
4.5 TSW 2 TSW
Static EWMA Dynamic EWMA
4 Dynamic EWMA Proposed EWMA
1.8
Proposed EWMA
3.5
1.6

Arrival Rate (pps)

Arrival Rate (pps)

3
1.4
2.5
1.2
2
1
1.5
0.8
1
0.6
0.5

0 0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [ms] Time [ms]

Figure 3. Agility comparison (left) with zoom-in (right)

one shift and two add instructions which are costless operations
IV. SELECTION OF PARAMETERS FOR PROPOSED TW-BASED [22]. The second reason is that these values are close to the
EWMA values used in practice and literature [13,17,22]. As shown, a
A question related to the performance of the proposed TW- smaller weight yields more stability (more obvious on left of
based EWMA is the proper value selection for its parameters of the figure) and less agility (more obvious in the right of the
time window size and weight. In this section we examine the figure).
5
effect of choosing different parameter values on the 2
x 10

performance of the scheme in terms of agility and stability. Reference

Time−Window 32ms
Fig. 4 shows the impact of choosing three different values for Time−Window 16ms
the time window size. We evaluate the performance in terms Time−Window 8ms

of three window sizes of 32 ms, 16 ms, and 8 ms. It is worth

1.5
mentioning that these values are chosen to be power of 2 so
Arrival Rate (pps)

that they can be simply implemented using bit-shift operations.

It is depicted that a bigger window size yields relatively more
stability, but less agility. Certainly there exists a trade-off
among stability, agility, and overhead. Smaller window sizes 1

yield to more overhead, but are more agile and less stable.
Fig. 5 shows the impact of different weight values on the
performance in terms of stability and agility. We consider
0.5
three realistic weight values of 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 for two 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time [ms]
reasons: First these values can be represented as a negative
power of 2 and then the estimated rate can be computed with
Figure 4. Impact of different time-window sizes

5
 5 5
x 10 x 10
2.5 2.5
Reference Reference
weight = 0.5 weight = 0.5
weight = 0.25 weight = 0.25
2 weight = 0.125 2 weight = 0.125

Arrival Rate (pps)

Arrival Rate (pps)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [ms] Time [ms]

Figure 5. Impact of different weights on stability (left) and agility (right)

Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM ’97, Kobe, Japan, pp. 973-980, April

V. CONCLUSION
We presented three algorithms that can be potentially used
for estimating packet rate: TSW, conventional static EWMA,
and dynamic EWMA. We also proposed a novel fourth
algorithm time-window-based EWMA that requires the least
computational overhead. We used simulation with empirical
packet sizes to study the performance of the estimators. The
quality and performance of these estimators were studied and
compared in terms of accuracy, stability, agility, and cost. We
also investigated the effect of different weights and time-
window sizes on the performance of the proposed estimator.
As was demonstrated, our proposed TW-based EWMA
estimator showed adequate performance in terms of accuracy
and agility. However in terms of stability and overhead cost,
the proposed estimator is superior. As further study, we are in
the process of implementing the proposed estimator on Linux
in order to measure its performance experimentally
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals in completion of this work. This
work has been funded under Project #ICS/Linux/383.
REFERENCES
[1] [1] M. Grossglauser and D. Tse, “A Framework for Robust
Measurement Based Admission Control,” IEEE/ACM Trans.
Networking, vol.7(3), pp.293-309, June 1999.
[2] [2] S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, “Link-Sharing and Resource
Management Models for Packet Networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans.
Networking, vol. 3, pp.365-386, Aug. 1995.
[3] [3] F. Agharebparast and V. Leung, “A New Traffic Rate Estimation
and Monitoring Algorithm for the QoS-Enabled Internet,” IEEE
GLOBECOM, VOL. 7, pp. 3883-3887, 2003.
[4] [4] S. Shenker, P. Danzig, and S. Jamin, “Comparison of Measurement-
based Admission Control Algorithms for Controlled-Load Service”,
1997.
[5] [5] R. C. Shah, D. Petrovic and J. Rabaey, "Energy Aware Routing and
Data Funneling in Sensor Networks", book chapter in Handbook of
Sensor Networks: Compact Wired and Wireless Sensing Systems, CRC
Press, 2004.
[6] [6] Y. Oliver, E. Saric, and A. Li, “Adaptive Rate-Scheduling with
Reactive Delay Control for Next Generation CDMA Wireless Mobile
Systems,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and
Networking, vol. 06, pp. 1-15, 2006.
[7] [7] B. Wydrowoski and M. Zukerman, “High Performance DiffServ
Mechanism for Routers and Switches: Packet Arrival Rate based Queue
Management for Class Based Scheduling,” Proceeding of the 2nd
International IFIP-TC6 Networking Conference on Networking
Technologies, Services and Protocols, Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 62-73
[8] [8] C.-C. Li, S.-L. Tsao, M. C. Chen, Y. Sun, and Y-M Huang,
“Proportional Delay Differentiation Service Based on Weighted Fair
Queueing,” in Proceedings of the 9th IEEE ICCCN’00, pp. 418-423, Las
Vegas, October 2000.
[9] [9] A. Stamoulis, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and G. B. Giannakis, “Time-
Varying Fair Queueing Scheduling for Multicode CDMA Based on
Dynamic Programming,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 512-523, 2004.
[10] [10] J. Zimmerman, A. Clarck and G. Mohay, “The Use of Packet
Interarrival Times for Investigating Unsolicited Internet Traffic,” in
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop Systematic Approaches to
Forensic Engineering, pp. 89-104, November 2005.
[11] [11] M. Gupta, S. Glover, and S. Singh, “A Feasibility Study for Power
Management in LAN Switches,” in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE
International Conference on Network Protocols, pp. 361-371, October
2004.
[12] [12] J. Mogul, and K. Ramakrishnan, “Eliminating Receive Livelock in
an Interrupt-Driven Kernel,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 15,
no. 3, August 1997, pp. 217-252.
[13] [13] C. Dovrolis, B. Thayer, and P. Ramanathan, “HIP: Hybrid
Interrupt-Polling for the Network Interface,” ACM Operating Systems
Reviews, vol. 35, October 2001, pp. 50-60.
[14] [14] K. Salah and K. El-Badawi, “Analysis and Simulation of Interrupt
Overhead Impact on OS Throughput in High-Speed Networks,”
International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, Wiley
Publisher, June 2005, pp. 501-526
[15] [15] D. Clark and W. Fang, “Explicit Allocation of Best-Effort Packet
Delivery Service”, IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 6 (4), pp 362-
373, August 1998.
[16] [16] W. Fang, N. Seddigh N, B. Nandy, “A Time Sliding Window Three
Colour Marker (TSWTCM)”, RFC 2859, June 2000.

6
[17] [17] L. Burgstahler and M. Neubauer, “New Modifications of the [20] [20] P. M. Wells, “Simulation of Self-Similar Network Traffic Using
Exponential Moving Average Algorithm for Bandwidth Estimation”, High Variance ON/OFF Sources, M.S. Thesis in Computer Science,
Proceedings of the 15th ITC Specialist Seminar, July 2002. May 2002.
[18] [18] A. Law and W. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, [21] [21] K. C. Claffy, G. Miller, and K. Thompson, “The Nature of the
McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition, 1991. Beast: Recent Traffic Measurements from an Internet Backbone,” In the
[19] [19] M. S. Taqqu, W. Willinger, and R. Sherman, “Proof of a Proceedings of INET 1998, Geneva, Switzerland, July 1998.
Fundamental Result in Self-Similar Traffic Modeling” [22] [22] V. Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control”, Proceedings of
ACM/SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 24, no. 2, ACM SIGCOMM, 1988, Stanford, CA, pp. 314-320.
1997, pp. 5-23.