2006 Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton University, March 22-24, 2006

Performance analysis of a parallel link network with preemption

Dept. of ECE Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104
zz392@drexel.edu

Zhen Zhao

Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

bjw25@drexe1.edu

Bryan Willman Dept. of ECE

Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

sweber@ece.drexel.edu

Steven Weber Dept. of ECE

Jaudelice C. de Oliveira Dept. of ECE

Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

jau@ece.drexel.edu

context, preemption has been applied in cache-related events. In [2] a technique to bound cache-related preemption delay is proposed. Another example is the use of preemption in handoff schemes in the wireless mobile networks framework [3]. Preemonple select one or more o Preemption policies select onewormst streams to be removed from a given route in the network in order to make room for a newly arriving stream. The removed stream may then be rerouted on another path in the network (transferred) or, if necessary, evicted from the network (dropped). While several criteria (e.g., priority of stream, number of preempted streams, preempted bandwidth, etc.) for a evc rvdr o nentEgneig ntneh can be taken into account in a preemption policy, we concentrate Task Force (IETF) traffic engineering working group (tewg) on simple stream priority in this paper. That is, a newly arriving pointed out the need for priority and preemption parameters as stream of a given priority level may cause the preemption of one of traffic engineering attributes in a MultiProtocol Label Switching more lower priority streams if contention for resources exists. In this paper we restrict our attention to a relatively simple (MPLS) network. In this paper we analyze a simple two parallel scenario: two parallel links, one primary (more preferable) and one link ntrspoigw sri clsswsecondary (less preferable). These two links are to provide service priority (HP) class has hard preemptive priority over the low to two traffic classes: high priority and low priority inelastic traffic. priority (LP) class. This simple two link topology can be thought We assume all calls of both classes are of the same bandwidth which of as an abstraction of a (more desirable) primary route and we normalize to 1; thus the link capacities are expressed in terms of the maximum number of simultaneous calls they may support. a (less desirable) secondary route connecting a given source se onarye routewonne. Tin aegivn souc The low andand Poisson, andarrival processes are assumed to be ad(lessdesirable) in a large network. The preemption policy independent high priority the call durations are exponential so destination pair permits both preemption from the primary link to the secondary that the random process describing the number of active calls of each link (a transfer) if possible, and eviction from either link if priority level on each of the two links is a continuous time Markov necessary. Analysis of the system is trivial for HP streams, chain. In fact both the primary link and the system as a whole may and quality of service (QoS) is captured by the admission be viewed as M/M/c/c queues servicing two priority classes. It is well known that the blocking probabilities for such queues are links (which are probabilities . the primary and secondary. given by the Erlang-B blocking probability formula. We exploit this independent of the LP traffic). For the LP streams, however, queue-based interpretation to derive expressions capturing the rate at the QoS is specified both by admission rates on both links as which low priority streams are preempted (transferred or dropped) well as preemption rates from both links. We are able to analyze from the two links. This Erlang-B based analysis is quite successful in characterizing the preemption and departure rates of LP streams in this system the performance of LP streams in the system, however it cannot in terms of the Erlang-B blocking probability equation for an fully characterize all quantities of interest. This limitation is funM/M/c/c queue. Numerical and simulation results show very damentally due to the fact that the arrival process at the secondary link is not Poisson (because of the temporal correlations in blocking good agreement and demonstrate some interesting behavior. streams from the primary link). We present numerical and simulation results which show very close agreement and validate our analysis. I. INTRODUCTION The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Related work on Demand for streaming media on communication networks con-. .. preemption policies and their performance analysis is presented in tinues to increase and may possibly in the future eclipse the Section II. Section III introduces the model framework and notation. th trics volume of data traffic on the Internet. Preemption policies for Te pr.eemtionpolicsreduescried e andn for the presents tesmathem analysis of the two metrwcs inelastic traffic have gained attention in recent years as a flexible are gieection IV presents the mathematical analysis and ffetiveconrol echnismto ynamcaly allocate capacity lik given. Section and effective control mechanism to dynamically alocae caa i two priority level system. Numerical and simulation ty.. lilnks tw proiylvlsse.Nmrcladsmlto.eut results ..~~~~~~~ among competing traffic classes with different priorities (see related a work below). In fact preemption policies also have been widely are presented in Section V. employed in the context of MPLS where the preemption attribute are presented in Section VI determines whether a Label Switched Path (LSP) with a certain II. RELATED WORK In this section we highlight the related work and group it into priority attribute can preempt another LSP with a lower priority attribute from a given path, when there is a competition for available two different types of literature on preemption. The first group conresources. The preempted LSP may then be rerouted. Preemption centrates on proposing preemption policies, optimal and heuristics, can be used to assure that high priority LSPs can be always and evaluating their computational complexity. The second group routed through relatively favorable paths within a differentiated concentrates on preemption modeling on a simple network (single services environment. In the same context, preemption can be link). In 1992, Garay and Gopal addressed the call preemption problem used to implement various prioritized access policies as well as restoration policies following fault events [1]. In a computing system in communication networks [4]. The authors showed that the probAbstract- Preemption can be used to provide improved availability and reliability to high priority traffic on a congested network, or when the network experiences link or node failures and traffic needs to be rerouted. The use of preemption permits improved blocking probabilities and traffic alignment on shortest paths for high priority traffic at the expense of performance degradation for low priority traffic. Such policies have been deployed in a variety of scenarios and are very attractive

Tae

1-4244-03 50-2/06/$20.OO

C2006 IEEE

271

lem of selecting a connection for preemption in order to minimize the number of preempted connections or minimizing the amount of bandwidth preempted is NP-complete. They then proposed heuristics for a centralized network framework that were shown to perform reasonably well relative to the optimal solution. Citing Garay and Gopal's work, Peyravian and Kshemkalyani proposed decentralized network connection preemption algorithms in [5], which optimize three fixed criteria in a given order of importance: number of connections, bandwidth, and priority; and bandwidth, priority, and number of connections. These decentralized policies were the basis for the author's work on flexible and adaptive preemption policies [6], [7], in which an order of importance for the considered criteria is not fixed, but can be configured by the network provider according to the network's best interest. In [8], the authors proposed a centralized connection preemption algorithm which optimizes the preemption criteria in a different fixed order. In [9], the authors presented an algorithm concentrating on bandwidth allocation and management with preemption. A bandwidth constraint model similar to Maximum Allocation with Reservation (MAR), [10], is proposed and implemented using three colored matrices. The algorithm is however centralized (the matrices need to be advertised). Preemption is performed until a connection reaches its minimum bandwidth, in which case preemption is not allowed. Stanisic and Devetsikiotis proposed simple preemption policies based on random selection, which dramatically reduce the time needed to select a set of connections to be preempted, a very intesreting feature for large topologies [11]. Both [12] and [13] focus on routing algorithms which consider preemption mechanisms. A path is selected based on the number of connections (or LSPs in this case) which need to be preempted. The routing algorithm therefore tries to minimize the preemption events and therefore the need for rerouting. Recently, Vieira and Guardieiro implemented de Oliveira's preemption policies using fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm in an MPLS test-bed and discuss their approach in [14]. The work in [6], [7], [8], [9], [11], [12], [13], [14] is applied to a Differentiated Services (DiffServ) aware MPLS scenario. Our primary contribution in this work is that we analyze the performance of a multiple link network handling multiple service classes of inelastic traffic with preemptive priority. Most related work on preemption either discusses the case of elastic traffic (e.g., M/G/1 queues), or multiple service classes of inelastic traffic on a single link, or multiple links servicing multiple service classes without preemption, i.e., multi-service loss networks [15]. Miller [16] uses matrix-geometric methods to compute steady state probabilities for M/M/1 priority queues, and Cho and Un [17] provide an analysis of a combined preemptive/nonpreemptive priority M/G/1 queue. These analyses, although studying preemption, are of limited relevance to our case since they are appropriate for elastic instead of inelastic traffic. The earliest paper to discuss preemption policies for circuit switched traffic, and in fact the most relevant, is by Helly [18] which came out in 1962. This short two page paper presents the framework for employing the Erlang B blocking probability equation on a single link with preemption. We have employed this same idea in our analysis and extended it to the multiple link case. Helly's model and analysis was extended to a broader class of policies by Burke [19] later that same year. From then the literature appears to be silent until 1980 when Calabrese et. al. [20] published an analysis of a voice network with preemption. His paper includes a discussion of a variety of different preemption policies, which he terms "ruthless" and "friendly." His analysis is applied to a network of links, but he employs approximations that only hold in certain regimes. Buzen and Bondi [21] published an article in 1983 studying a network of M/M/m queues with preemptive resume policies. Their results are focused on moments rather than distributions. Ngo and Lee published a short note in 1990 [22] on a single M/M/c queue with preemptive priority. On a somewhat more tangential note, the work by Liang et. al. [23] on QoS aware queueing analysis for UMTS employs an M/M/c/K queueing model with two service classes, very similar to ours. Their focus

is not on preemption however.

The
two

The two parallel link network is depicted graphically in Figure 1 The top figure illustrates quantities pertaining to HP streams and the bottom figure illustrates quantities pertaining to LP streams. The notation used in the figure will be defined below. Throughout the paper we will make use of both a "link view" and a "system view" of the network In the link view we consider the links separately and the "state" of the system is the number of HP/LP streams on the (a primary and secondary linksand four tuple). In the "system view" we the "state" of the system is simply consider the links together the total number of HP/LP streams in the network High priority: link view 1 Al1

III. DEFINITIONS AND NOTATION AND

NOTATION

Dil
D12

A12

C2
High priority: system view

Al

Cl + C2

D10

IF_
Low priority: link view
2

A2

cl

D21
D

T212
A

\p
c2

A22

'IF

\\22
Low priority: system view

C1 A2

C2

P20
Fig. 1. Illustration of the two parallel link topology. The top figure shows (link and system views of) the network as seen by HP streams; the bottom figure shows the network as seen by LP streams.
We denote high priority streams with the subscript 1 and low priority streams with the subscript 2. HP streams are assumed to have hard preemptive priority over LP streams. This means a HP stream arriving to find the system full with one or more LP

272

streams will immediately preempt the LP stream either by causing the LP stream to be transferred to the secondary path (if possible) or dropping the stream from the network (if necessary). The links are numbered in order of preference, i.e., the primary link is 1 and the secondary link is 2. Arrivals for each class k = 1, 2 form an independent Poisson process of rate Ak. Moreover, each call of class k requests service for an exponentially distributed length of time of mean /kt. Consider first the arriving HP streams. HP streams first seek admission on the primary link 1. There are three possibilities for the state of link 1: * There is sufficient free capacity on link I to permit admission; * There is no free capacity on link 1 but one or more of the active streams are LP; * There is no free capacity on link 1 and all the active streams on link 1 are HP. In the first case the HP stream is simply admitted on link 1. In the second case the HP stream is admitted on link 1 and one of the active LP streams on link 1 is preempted (see below). In the third case the HP stream is blocked from link 1 and must seek admission on link 2. There are the same three possibilities for the state of link 2 as for link 1. In the first case the HP stream is admitted on link 2. In the second case the HP stream is admitted on link 2 and one of the active LP streams on link 2 is preempted. Finally, in the third case, the HP stream is blocked from link 2 and hence from the system. Consider next the arriving LP streams. From the perspective of an arriving LP stream there are only two possible states for each link: there either is or is not sufficient free capacity for admission. If there is sufficient free capacity on link 1 then the LP stream is admitted there. If there is not, the LP stream then seeks admission on link 2. If there is sufficient free capacity on link 2 then the LP stream is admitted. If not, then the LP stream is blocked from link 2 and hence from the system. Next consider the preempted LP streams from the primary link 1. Such a stream may switch to the secondary link 2 if there is sufficient free capacity for admission. In this case we say the LP stream is transferred from link 1 to link 2. Otherwise the LP stream is dropped from link 1 and from the system. Finally, consider a preempted stream from the secondary link 2. This stream is dropped from the system irrespective of whether or not there is free capacity on the primary link 1. Given the above description, the system is characterized by specifying the following "primitives": * A1, A2: stream arrival rates for each priority class. * /1l,/t2: service rates for each priority class, for each link. Cl, C2: link c
From thsepi From
Ak lik Ak 1/2k, for k = 1, 2. * A sA1 HA2: the cumulative arrival rate for both the two classes. Hp +P2: the cumulative offered load for both the two cl classes. C =cl -+ C2: the total capacity of the two links when viewed as a whole. It is convenient to define several quantities pertaining to the admission, departure, and preemption rates, as well as the system state. Each of these quantities generalizes in a natural way to more complex systems of larger numbers of priority classes sharing larger numbers of parallel links. Akl: the rate at which streams of class k are admitted on link I, for k, 1 1, 2. Let Ako Akl IAk2 be the total admission rate for class k streams. * Dkl: the rate at which streams of class k depart from link 1 (of their own accord, without preemption), for k, 1 1, 2. Let Dko =Dkl H- Dk2 be the total departure rate for class k streams.

. Pkl: the rate at which streams of class k are dropped from link 1, for k, I 1, 2. Note that P1 = 0 since HP streams are not dropped. Let Pko = Pkl + Pk2 be the total preemption rate of class k = 2 calls from the system. . Tklm: the rate at which streams of class k are transferred from link I to link m. In the two link case the only non-zero quantity is T212: the rate at which class 2 streams are transferred from link I to link 2. . nkl: the number of streams of class k on link 1, for k, 1 1, 2. The four tuple (nil, n12, n2l, n22) is the state of the link-view of the network. Let nkO = nkl + nk2 be the total number of class k streams in the network; the pair (nro, n20) is the state of the system-view of the network. Note that the total rate of preemption is the sum of the dropping rate and the transfer rate. In particular, the total preemption rate of LP streams from link 1 is T212 + P21. We will derive expressions for several of these quantities in the next section.
For an overview of the M/M/c/c queue and the Erlang-B blocking probability equation, the reader is referred to Bertsekas and Gallager [24]. We write E(p, c) for the Erlang-B blocking probability of an M/M/C/c queue with arrival rate A, service rate 8, and offered load p = A/it. For notational convenience we will write E(p, c) = 1- E(p, c) to denote the admission probability of an M/M/c/c queue. Analysis of admission rates for HP streams. Although the HP streams may induce preemption in the LP streams, the HP streams admission process is in fact independent of the number of LP streams. The primary link, secondary link, and system admission t f the HP streams are iven b: g Y All = Di, = AlE(pl, Cl),

IV. SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Alo

A12

D12 = Alo - All = AlE(pl,c) - AlE(pl,cl), = AlE(pl,c). D io

To see this, first note that the state of the primary link 1 is independent of the state of link 2. Thus the HP streams vying for an the primary lilnk have admlisslion/con queue with arrival 1rate A1 the same dynamicsii,as and and service rate M/M/C 1 Al1 A tE(ps,ca). Viewing the system as a whole the total number of streams admitted into the system has the same dynamics as an M/M/c/c
rate and /i1 is the service

po,

pacties theseprie quferedloantitie for each class, where pk P2: the offered load weacclansdefine:

secondary link is not Poisson, and therefore the number of HP calls on the secondary link is not a Markov process, and the Erlang-B equation doesn't apply. The departure rates equal the corresponding admission rates by conservation of flow. These equations specify the dynamics of the HP streams.

rate. This yields Alo = AiE(pi, c). Finally, by conservation of flow, the admission rate to the secondary link 2 is the system admission rate less the primary admission rate. Note, however, that the arrival process to the

queue where c

cl H C2 is the system capacity, A1 is the arrival

Analysis of admission rates for LP streams. The analysis of LP streams admission rates is similar to that of HP streams except that the total load p = pl + P2 is used in calculating the blocking probabilities:

A21 A22
A20

A20

A2E(p, cl),
- A21 A2E(p, c).
=

A2E(p, c)

A2E(p, cl)),

Consider first LP streams arriving at the primary link 1. These streams are admitted only if the total number of active streams is strictly less than the link 1 capacity, i.e., Till H- ni2l < cl. Thus LP streams vying for admission on the primary link 1 have the same

273

dynamics as an M/M/ci/ci queue with offered load p. The same comments as above explain the expressions for A22 and A20.

from the system is found to be P(preempt sys.

P((N1o, N20) c Spreemp

Analysis of total preemption rates for LP streams. Recall that the total rate of preemption is the sum of the drop rate plus the transfer rate. The total rate of preemption from the primary link 1 we denote by R21 _ P21 + T212, the total rate of preemption from the system as a whole is P20 = P21 + P22. Consider the primary link 1: the state on this link is independent of the state on the secondary link 2. Let (nill, n2l) denote the state of link 1, and Hlet S = {(nil, n2l) :ll +n2l < Cl } be the set of feasible states. Then the set of states that cause HP blocking, LP blocking, and LP preemption are:

PI(block sys.

2) -IP(block sys. 1)

E(p, c)-E(pi, c). Thus the total rate of preemption from the system as a whole is
P20
=

P21 + P22

AlE(p, c) - AlE(pl, c).

(2)

Analysis of departure rates for LP streams. Looking at Figure 1 it is easy to see that the following rate conservation equations hold:

Sbl.ckl Sblock2
Spreempt2

=
=

{(Cl )} {(nll, n2l) : nll + n21

Sblock2 \ Sblockl -

A21
A22 + T212

=
=

Cl},

A20
primary

D21 + P21 + T212, D22 + P22, D20 + P20

The first equation says a HP stream is blocked at the primary link 1 iff it arrives to find the primary link filled with cl HP streams. The second equation says a LP stream is blocked at the primary link 1 iff it arrives to find the primary link filled with cl streams total. The third equation says a HP stream causes a preemption of a LP stream from the primary link 1 iff it arrives to find the primary link filled with cl streams total and one or more of them are LP. See Figure 2 for a picture of these three events.

Looking at the first equation, we have expressions for A21 and P21 + T212, and thus the departure rate of LP streams from the
link 1 is the difference of these two expressions:
=

D21

A21 - (T212 + P21)

= A2E(p, cl) - Al(E(p, cl) - E(pl, cl)). Similarly, looking at the third equation, we have expressions for A20 and P20, and thus the departure rate of LP streams from the system as a whole is the difference of these two expressions:

n2l
Spreempt 2

D20

A20 - P20 A2E(p, c) - Al1(E(p, c) - E(pl, c)).

Finally, noting that D21 + D22 = D20, we obtain an expression for the departure rate of LP streams from the secondary link 2:

C1

(S

D22
2

(A2E(p,c) - Al(E(p,c) - E(pl,c)))

_(A2P(p, cl) - Nl(E(p,cl)--E(pl, cl))) .

Sblock 2

Sblock
n I ni:s

the Erlang-B equation to derive expressions for the admission, preemption, and departure rates of HP and LP streams from both the primary and secondary links. There are three remaining quantities

Limitations of the analysis. Thus far we have successfully applied

that have not been specified: the transfer rate T212, the LP link 1 drop rate P21, and the LP link 2 drop rate P22. At first it would appear that we have three equations in these unknowns:

CJ
Fig. 2. Illustration of the state space S for the primary link 1. The x-axis is the number of HP streams, the y-axis is the number of LP streams.

T212

+ P21

P21 + P22

By PASTA (Poisson arrivals see time averages), the probability of these events are found by summing the invariant distribution over the states comprising the event. The invariant distribution for this system is not known in closed form (to our knowledge) but the probabilities of the events of interest are known. In particular:

IP(block 1) PI((N1l, N21) e Sblockl) = E(pl, cl), IP(block 2) = P((N1l, N21) c Sblock2) =E(p, cl), IP(preempt 2) IP((Nll, N21) c Spreempt2) PP(block 2) -IP(block 1) I - E(p, cl) - E(pl, cl).
This line of reasoning is originally due to [18]. Thus the total rate of preemption from link 1 is
T212 H- P21 = N1E(p, cl) - AE(p1, cl).
(1)

-T212 + P22 However, further analysis shows that these equations are not independent, i.e., we still only have two equations and three unknowns. This would seem to be a fundamental limitation of the model. We have two systems we can analyze: the primary link by itself and the system as a whole, i.e., we can not analyze the secondary link by itself since its state depends on that of the primary link. The basic problem is that we cannot determine the probability that a stream preempted from the primary link will be transferred to the secondary link versus being dropped. Determining this probability would require knowledge of the state of the secondary link. In particular, a preemption from the primary link is transferred to the secondary link only if the secondary link is not full at the time of

-D20 = A22 -D22

=

A20

A21 -D21

preemption.

By an exactly analogous argument the probability of the system being in a state that would cause an LP stream to be preempted

Another way to see this is to note that only four elementary events may be expressed in terms of Erlang-B probabilities: . HP blocking on primary link 1: {Till =cl}. * HP blocking from the system as a whole: {Tilo =c}. . LP blocking on primary link 1: {Till H- T21 =cl} . LP blocking from the system as a whole: {Tilo H- T20 =c}.

274

All the admission, preemption, and departure events analyzed above are easy combinations of these four fundamental events. Determining the probability of a LP transfer from the primary link to the secondary link, however, requires computing the probability of

filled with streams, i .e., L +) Ilj I,which for this example translates to around Al A2 100. These calculations are born out in the Figure. Note again the close alignment between the numerical and simulation results.
=

That is, a preemption requires the system state be such that the primary link is filled, there are one or more preemptable LP streams on the primary link, and the secondary link is not filled. This type of event is not expressible as a combination of the above four

LP Preemption Rate vs Arrival Rate LPILink A rate of preemption (sim) A rate of preemption (num) 80LP Link rate of preemption (sim) 80LP Sytem rate of preemption (num) LP System 70-----------------------------------

90

elem

entary

events.60--------------------

V. NUMERICAL AND SIMULATION RESULTS 5 We have written scripts to compute all the performance expres- ~-E sions derived in the previous section. Moreover, we have written 9) n a Perl script that simulates the system. The capacities of the two P20 =P21 + P22 T212 + P'21 10;real3hecpaite aeR21 links are fixed and equal: cl C2 20 expressed in terms of the number of streams they can accommodate. We assume the service rates are unity: /1l -1 1. The HP and 10 LP arrival rates, Al, A2 are kept equal to one another and are varied 0 __ from 1 to 200. Thus the aggregate arrival rate (HP plus LP) varies HP040 6 4L __L and LP0ria rat X14 1620 a from 2 to 400. The plots refer to the primary link 1 as link A, and l=k the secondary link 2 as link B. Figure 3 shows the departure rate of LP streams from both the primary link and the system as a whole. We can see the theorical Fig. 4. Simulation and numerical results for the preemption rate of LP results match the simulation results very well. Note the departure streams (drops plus transfers) versus the HP/LP stream arrival rate both rate tracks the arrival rate when the system is underloaded. The from the primary link and the system as a whole. primary link saturates first around A =50; at this point the HP Recall from the previous section that our mode of analysis streams are preempting the LP streams from the primary link, lowering their chances of departing from the primary link. The suffers from the limitation that we are unable to derive closed form system departure rate peaks around A =100. Beyond this point, expressions for T212, P21 and P22. These quantities are available the HP streams are preempting the LP streams out of the system, via simulation, however, and we show them in Figure 5. We can see the transfer rate T212 starts to increase when the preemption again reducing the departure rate. starts on the primary link, around Al1 A2 =50. This is because the secondary link is not filled in for A less than approximately LP Link A and System Departure Rates 50, and thus all primary link preemptions result in transfers to the 100 T T T secondary link. Once the system as a whole is filled on average, LP Link A departure rate '(sim) A2 100, the drop rates begin to increase. This is ink A departure rate (num) around A, L 90 tem departure rate (sim) o because for A greater than around 100 a preempted LP stream may LP--------s --departure rate------ --rum)---80 find the secondary link is already full, and thus will have to be
--=
------------------------------------

Parvlrt

-------

---------k 30 20

A-----o--in20

-------T

rans--------er----rate---------s---m--------------60
7

rtfRomsytemsim LPhinkeBPreemption

rr 21~~H

andLnkLPprarrivalrat (im30 ratesys-m

link and

vessth0

PL stea

aria rate-- both------ from------ the------ primary----

theBpempin
160 180 200

ae

rmsytm

sm

Fiue4sostetercladsmlto 20 repinrts0 40 60 80 100 120 140 P of sreas, othfro th prmar lik 1andfro th sytemHPand LP arrival rate

X1

21

5. lnainraeocrintergmwhrLPsrasaesilbigFig.Simulationannueil results for the

tranferanddro LP streams of rate 2 amte,btotnpemtdArogcauainothariaraeversusHP/LP stream arrival rate both from the primary link and the the

ratea increases,

sytend to

ofLPo ther priar lienk wilVtCNCUINADeUUEWR the preemption rate ha then wholeasystliemrl, thenLprevempotio rThe Fin. thisupapeonrw aesulstudited thensperforancrpae ofa preeampto P are stnartst increase accrouind the pogint whene bot ofthea tomins policyng one aHiPLetwoa parriallrael link netork shervcn priw vesu s oriinadtye

aucnstrlant.dFo

],,,+

-+--

1,

-F

+,-

275

classes. This topology is important because it captures the essential characteristics of a primary and backup path in a network. Our contribution in this paper is the derivation of several closed form expressions capturing the admission, departure, and preemption rates of LP streams in a multiple link system servicing multiple classes of inelastic traffic with preemptive priority. To our knowledge all othr rlatd n tis opi is either inge link wit posibl wrk other related work on this topic iseiter single lnk (with posily multiple classes) or multiple classes (with only a single traffic class). As shown in our numerical and simulation results section, the use of preemption permits improvements in service quality for HP streams at the expense of LP streams. Our analysis predicts these tradeoffs quite accurately. Our current work on this topic is to extend the analysis from 2 classes on 2 parallel links to a more general k classes on 1 parallel links.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Transactions on Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, 1993. [18] W. Helly, "Two doctrines for the handling of two-priority traffic by a group of N servers," Operations Research, vol. 10, no. 2, 1962. [19] Paul J. Burke, "Priority 10, no. with at most one queueing class," traffic 4, 1962. Operations Research, vol. [20] D. A. Calabrese, M. J. Fischer, B. E. Hoiem, and E. P. Kaiser, "Modeling a Voice Network with Preemption," IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 28, no. 1, 1980. [21] J. P. Buzen and A. B. Bondi, "The response times of priority classes under preemptive resume in m/m/m queues," Operations Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 456-465, May-June 1983. [22] B. Ngo and H. Lee, "Analysis of a pre-emptive priority M/M/c model with two types of customers and restriction," Electronics Letters, vol.
26, 1990. [23] G. L. Liang, S. Burley, and M. Witwit, "QoS aware queueing analysis for UMTS," in The 5th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communicationss, October 2002.

[17] Y Z. Cho and C. K. Un, "Analysis of the M/G/1 Queue under a Combined Preemptive/Nonpreemptive Priority Discipline," IEEE

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under NeTS Grant No. 0435247. The opinions and findings in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

[24] D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data Networks, Prentice Hall, 1991.

IETF, RFC 2702, September 1999. [2] C.-G. Lee et al., "Bounding Cache-Related Preemption Delay for RealTime Systems," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 805-826, September 2001. [3] J. Wang, Q.-A. Zeng, and D. P. Agrawal, "Performance Analysis of Preemptive Handoff Scheme for Integrated Wireless Mobile Networks," in Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM'01, San Antonio, TX, 2001, pp. 3277-3281. [4] J. A. Garay and I. S. Gopal, "Call Preemption in Communication Networks," in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 1992, pp. 1043-1050. [5] A. D. Kshemkalyani M. Peyravian, "Connection Premption: Issues, Algorithms, and a Simulation Study," in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 1997. [6] J. C. de Oliveira, C. Scoglio, I. F. Akyildiz, and G. Uhl, "A New Preemption Policy for DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering to Minimize Rerouting," in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, New York City, New York, June 2002. [7] J. C. de Oliveira, C. Scoglio, I. F. Akyildiz, and G. Uhl, "New Preemption Policies for DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering to Minimize Rerouting in MPLS Networks," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 12, no. 4, 2004. [8] J. Sung-eok, R. T. Abler, and A. E. Goulart, "The optimal connection preemption algorithm in a multi-class network," in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2002. [9] S. Tong, D. Hoang, and 0. Yang, "Bandwidth allocation and preemption for supporting differentiated-service-aware traffic engineering in multi-service networks," in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2002. [10] J. Ash, Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering and Performance Comparisons, IETF RFC 4126, June 2005. [11] V. Stanisic and M. Devetsikiotis, "A dynamic study of providing quality of service using preemption policies with random selection," in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2003. [12] F. Blanchy, L. Melon, and G. Leduc, "Routing in a MPLS network featuring preemption mechanisms," in Proceedings of 10th International Conference on telecommunications, 2003. [13] K. Yu, L. Zhang, and H. Zhang, "A Preemption-aware Path Selection Algorithm for DiffServ/MPLS Networks," in Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on IP Operations and Management, 2004. [14] R. C. Vieira and P. R. Guardieiro, "A proposal and evaluation of a LSP preemption policy implemented with fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms in a DiffServ/MPLS test-bed," in Proceedings of International Conference on Communications, Circuits and Systems, May 2005. [15] Keith W. Ross, Multiservice loss models for broadband communication networks, Springer Verlag, 1995. [16] D. R. Miller, "Computation of Steady-state Probabilities for M/M/1 Priority Queues," Operations Research, Operation Management, vol. 10, no. 2, 1962.

REFERENCES [1] D. 0. Awduche et al., Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS,

276