throbber
Experiments with packet switching of
`voice traffic
`
`P.N. Clarke. B.Sc., Ph.D., and Prof. L.F. Turner. B.Sc.. Ph.D.
`
`Indexing terms:
`
`Telephone exchanges and networks. Voice trafiic
`
`Abstract: There has been much interest recently in integrated services digital networks carrying both voice and
`data traffic. Packet switching is being used to carry data in an attempt to make better use of trunk capacity
`than with circuit switching. In a telephone conversation, for most olthe time only one person is talking. and it
`has been suggested that packet switching can lead to economies in carrying voice traflic also. In view or the
`variable delays associated with store and forward switching. buffering is usually required at the receiver to
`enable received speech to be reconstituted at the proper rate. Simulation experiments of packet switching of
`voice traffic with fixed packet routing have been carried out. The results of these simulation experiments. which
`are described in this paper, show that, for a single link between two exchanges. 22 conversations can be carried
`by packet switching with reasonable delay. For the same inter-exchange-link capacity. only 15 conversations
`can be carried by circuit switching. For a larger network with more exchanges and links per path. a similar
`advantage is also found with packet switching. The results show that
`the standard deviation of intcrpacket
`delay for successive packets of the same talkspurt is an order of magnitude less than the standard deviation or
`packet transit time for all packets. This suggests correlation cl’ flows of packets within the same talkspurt. The
`wider variation of transit delay applies to each lalkspurt as a whole and all packets within the talkspurt have
`correlated transit times, and hence interarrival times. The fact that the standard deviation ofinterpacltet delay is
`small as compared with the standard deviation of packet
`transit
`time suggests that
`the receiver buffering
`requirement is less than that indicated by the standard deviation ofthe packet transit time.
`
`1
`
`Introduction
`
`As a result of the recent increases in data traffic, various
`suggestions have been put forward relating to the use of
`separate data networks. The existing analogue circuit-
`switched telephone network has transmission and noise
`characteristics which
`vary significantly
`through
`the
`network, and call set-up times of the order of seconds are
`involved. Although this situation is acceptable in so far as
`voice traffic is concerned, it is unacceptable for many data
`applications. On account of the burst-like nature of the
`data,
`in many applications store and forward switching
`methods, such as packet switching, have been proposed
`and implemented [I-6]. Packet switching makes better use
`of expensive high-capacity irtterexchange trunks by trans-
`mitting small biocks of data. or packets, only when there
`are data to be sent. If there are, for short periods, more
`packets for transmission than can be dealt with, some are
`stored for forwarding in later less busy periods. Packet
`switching makes eliicient use of trunk capacity at
`the
`expense of variable delay.
`Rather than have two separate networks, one for data
`and one for voice trallic, a single network for both types of
`traliic may be more economical. As digital
`transmission
`and switching methods are being used increasingly for
`speech, and as data are best handled in digital form, inte-
`grated services digital networks (ISDN) are being pro-
`posed. These might
`be
`implemented using the new
`electronic digital circuit-switching exchanges, such as in
`System X [7]. Alternatively, depending on the relative
`costs of switching and transmission, packet
`switching
`might be used to make use of trunk capacity during silent
`periods. Systems such as TASI [8] have been used in the
`past on both transocean cable and satellite circuits in
`order to make use of silent periods.
`Packet switching with its variable delays might be con-
`sidered unsuitable for real-lime application such as conver-
`sational speech. If, however, a buffer is used at the receiver
`
`Paper 25865. first received 3rd June 1932 and in revised fonn l'l'th February I983
`Professor Turner is, and Dr. Clarke was fonnerly. with the Department of Electrical
`Engineering. Imperial College of Science & Technology. South Kensington. London
`SW? 251’. England. Dr. Clarke is now with British Telecommunications, Gower
`Street. London WCI F.6BA. England
`
`LEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. J38. Pt. G. No. 4. AUGUST I983
`
`can be
`times
`arrival
`in packet
`then the variations
`smoothed out and the received speech reconstituted at the
`correct rate. This does, of course, add to the total speech
`delay. The total delay resuiting from packet creation,
`network transit time. and receiver buffering and decoding
`must not be too long (cf. 270 ms l-way delay through a
`satellite link). It has been observed [9] that delay in excess
`of 900 ms can give rise to considerable difiiculties. Replies
`and nonverbal
`responses,
`together with their
`relative
`timings, provide the speaker with clues as to the listener's
`understanding and thus aid the conversation process.
`Minoli [10, ll] considered theoretically talker behav-
`iour and end-to-end, that is, packet transit delay for a link
`packet-switched voice system. He also considered delay
`dependencies on packet size and the efiects of the number
`of queue buffers at
`the link output. Coviello [12] also
`considered end-to-end delay for a variety of network par-
`ameters and a variety of alternative network protocols to
`facilitate packet switching of voice traffic. Gruber [13]
`reviews a variety of switching techniques for voice traffic
`and is again concerned with cnd-to-end delays. A variety
`of speech coding techniques are reviewed and the results of
`some ARPA network voice experiments are described by
`Gold [14].
`These works [l0—l4] have been concerned very largely
`with the end-to-end, or packet transit, delay and its varia-
`tion, and the workers invoived have considered this varia-
`tion to be the principal factor determining the buliering
`requirement at the receiver; with the buffer being necessary
`to even out irregular packet arrivals. Although the packet
`transit time, if large, and its variation may have a signifi-
`cant effect on conversational behaviour (see Reference 9), it
`is, however, the variation of interpacket delay. rather than
`packet transit time, which determines the receiver buffering
`requirement. In the experiments carried out and described
`in this paper
`the interpacket delay (that
`is,
`the delay
`between arrivals of successive packets within the same
`tallcspurtj and its standard deviation were measured in
`order to investigate the correlation of packet flows. The
`results of simulation experiments carried out with a fixed
`packet routing system Show that the standard deviation of
`interpackcl delay for successive packets of the same talk-
`spurt is an order of magnitude less than the standard devi-
`IDS
`
`Apple 1017
`U.S. Pat. 7,535,890
`
`

`
`ation of the packet transit time. This thus suggests that the
`receiver buffering requirements are significantly less than
`suggested by packet transit-time statistics.
`This paper describes an investigation into the delays
`involved in the use of packet switching for voice traffic. In
`the course of the investigation, a computer simulation
`model was devised and this is described in Section 2 ofthe
`paper. The experiments carried out
`and the results
`obtained are described in Section 3, and some conclusions
`to be drawn from the work are presented in Section 4.
`
`2
`
`Packet-switched voice network simulation
`model
`
`The simulation model developed will be described in two
`parts:
`(a} the talker activity model (Section 2.1)
`(b} the packet-switched network model (Section 2.2}.
`
`Part (a) deals with the nature of the interaction between
`the talkers, and part (b) with the packet-switched network
`itself, which transports the speech in packet form.
`
`2.1 Talker activity mode!
`In most conversational speech between two people, one is
`silent at any given time (listening while the other
`is
`talking). There are, however, occasions when both are
`silent and or when both are talking simultaneously (e.g.
`when one person interrupts the other). Talker activity can
`be thought of in terms of active periods (talking) or silence
`periods. These periods can be the main active periods of
`significant utterances, such as sentences, and the silence of
`a listener while another person is talking. Alternatively, the
`fine structure of the significant utterances can be taken
`into account. This fine structure refers to the actual time
`
`during which a sound is being made by a talker and the
`pauses between sentences, words and syllables.
`The principal object of a packet-switched network is to
`make efficient use of network transmission capacity. It is
`thus clear
`that packets should only be carried by the
`network for any conversation, while either of the parties of
`that conversation is actually speaking.
`in this way,
`the
`silence periods of conversation can be filled in on the high-
`capacity trunks which are shared by many talkers. A larger
`number of talkers can thus use a given trunk capacity than
`with circuit switching. Speech detection equipment should
`produce an output to be put into packets according to the
`coarse or the fine structure of talker activity, depending on
`the speech-detector sensitivity and switching speed.
`Studies have been carried out of the talker activity
`during telephone calls. Norwine and Murphy [IS] con-
`sider principally the coarse structure of the interactions
`between talkers. Brady describes an experimental arrange-
`ment for measuring fine structure of talker activity [16],
`the analysis of data gathered using this apparatus [17] and
`the fitting of such data to a theoretical model for gener-
`ating probabilities of transition between states of talking,
`silence, interruption etc. [18].
`the simulation
`The talker activity model used for
`experiments, and reported on in this paper, was based on
`the results given in Figs. 3 and 5 of the paper by Norwine
`and Murphy [15], and thus does not
`take account of
`pauses within talkspurts.
`It would have been possible,
`using a Markov chain model,
`to obtain finer details of
`talkspurt activity, but as this approach is considerably
`more difiicult to implement than the probability density
`function approach, it was not adopted in the simulations
`leading to the results presented in this paper. However, an
`approach involving the consideration of the finer details of
`I06
`
`
`
`talkspurt activity may well be of value, and could form the
`basis of a more extensive further consideration of packet-
`switched systems used for the transmission of voice traffic.
`In Reference 15, graphs are given of talkspurt length and
`response time distributions, with response time being
`defined to be the length of time between the end of one
`talker‘s talkspurt and the beginning of the next talker’s
`talkspurt. The distribution of response time includes nega-
`tive values,
`that
`is,
`interruptions. A positive value of
`response time corresponds to the more normal period of
`mutual silence between talkspurts before the next talker
`begins. Using the talkspurt duration statistics given in Ref-
`erence IS, the talkspurt duration was approximated in the
`work reported on in this paper, using a lognormal dis-
`tribution [19] having the same mean and modal values.
`The lognormal distribution has a PDF,f(x}, given by
`
`_
`
`f(x) _ x. /21:62 exp i
`
`I
`
`-0089* - #12
`
`252
`
`i
`
`where _l.t and tr‘ are the parameters of the distribution.
`With the mean and mode of the distribution, as given in
`Reference
`15,
`,u = 0.435
`and 01 = l.8'r'l. As
`regards
`response time, this was approximated using a normal dis-
`tribution with mean 0.32 and standard deviation 0.584 (all
`times in seconds].
`With the model used,
`defined to be:
`.
`.
`mker acnmy :
`
`1
`I
`mean ta kspurt ength
`2{mean talkspurt length + response time]
`' can be seen to be:
`
`the talker activity, which is
`
`talker activity =
`
`4.14
`
`2(4.l4 + 0.4!)
`
`= 0.45
`
`(or 45%}
`
`In the model used in the simulation, a talker was allowed
`to talk for a talkspurt length, with the length being drawn
`from the lognormal distribution. The response time for the
`second talker was drawn from the normal distribution.
`After the talkspurt length, the first talker stops, and the
`second talker is allowed to begin at a time equal to the
`sum of the talkspurt length and the response time after the
`start of the first talker’s talkspurt. The length of the talk-
`spurt for the second talker was determined from the log-
`normal distribution. In this way the times for the second
`talker to stop and for the first talker to begin again were
`determined. It as a result ofa combination of interruptions
`and long talkspurts a talker was scheduled to start a new
`talkspurt during the course of an existing talkspurt, it was
`arranged for the current talkspurt to be completed before
`the start of the next, which was then allowed to begin
`immediately afterwards. These points are illustrated by the
`simple example shown in Fig. 1.
`in the Figure; at time A, talker 1 (T1) begins to speak
`until 8. T2 is idle at time A and is scheduled (by T1) to
`start speaking at C. At time B, T] stops and becomes idle
`and T2 is idle but waiting to start at time C. At C, T2
`begins to speak until E and schedules Tl, who is idle, to
`start at time D. This represents an interruption by T1 who
`will start talking before T2 has finished. At
`time D, Tl
`begins to speak until H. T2 is scheduled by T1 to start his
`next talkspurt at time F which is thus an interruption of
`T1. T2 stops talking at E and awaits a new start at F. At
`time F, T2 interrupts T1 and schedules Tl’s talkspurt to
`start at 1. T2 stops talking at G and TI carries on until H.
`Tl stops at time H and remains idle until the next start at
`I. At time I, Tl begins to speak until time M and schedules
`T2 to start at time J. T2 starts speaking at J, interrupting
`T1 and schedules T] to start at time L. T2 stops at time K.
`
`.l‘EE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. I30, Pt. G, No. 4, AUGUST 3983
`
`

`
`l I
`
`I
`I
`l
`I
`I
`
`l
`I
`1
`l
`I
`I response |
`time (-we)
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`
`II
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Example nfrallrer-or.-riuiry model
`
`At L, T] is still talking, so he continues the current talk-
`spurt {until M) and restarts immediately until N. Also at
`time M, T2 is scheduied to start at time 0, and so on.
`In the simulation, the following procudure was adopted.
`During talkspurts, the speech from talker’s equipment was
`taken as having been digitised with all talker pairs in the
`network having the same speech bit rates. When enough
`8-bit (byte) speech digits to fill a packet had been received
`from a talker, a packet was created at the exchange. An
`appropriate header was added to the packet which then
`went
`for
`transmission through the network. The next
`packet of the talkspurt was then filled up, and so on. At
`the end of the talkspurt, the packet which was being filled
`up was completed by filling with ‘blank’ infonnation at the
`speech bit
`rate (see Fig.
`2}. All speech packets in the
`network were thus of the same length. All packets as well
`as being of the same length were created at regular inter-
`vals during the talkspurt.
`Clearly,
`this simple model of the coarse structure of
`talker activity, and regular packet generation, makes no
`allowance for the possibility, depending on the nature of
`the interruption, of a talker stopping when interrupted. No
`allowance was made in the simulation model for the effects
`
`on talker behaviour of delay in packet creation, of cross-
`network delays. nor of buffering and speech reconstruction
`delays. All of these delays will
`in general be variable,
`except the regular packet creation delay. Delays in tele-
`phone channels do affect
`talker behaviour, as has been
`reported by Brady [20] in the case of fixed delays. The
`simple model was chosen to provide approximate conver-
`sational talker activity.
`
`_
`packet
`-_genercIlron
`l|l'l'IE5
`
`Fig. 2
`Talker activity and packet creation
`maximum data content of packet (bits)
`Speech bit rate (bills)
`
`res PROCEEDINGS. Vol. :30. Pt. 6, No. 4. A UG U51" 1933
`
`The rationale behind the simplfied approach was that if
`this model which does not allow for delays in speech, and
`operates by generating full packets at regular intervals, can
`handle more calls than a circuit switched system of the
`same trunk capacity,
`then a more complicated model,
`allowing for delays and pauses within talkspurts, may
`allow even more calls to take place.
`
`2.2 Packet-switched network model
`
`The network of the simulation model was made up of
`packet—switching exchanges
`(PSEs} connected by full-
`duplex trunks. The
`talkers were
`connected to the
`exchanges by lines which can be assumed to be either ana-
`logue or digital {operating at the speech bit rate). In all the
`examples, each talker was associated with another talker at
`another PSE in the network. These talker pairs were
`assumed to be engaged in conversation before the start of
`each experiment.
`On generation of a speech packet at a talker‘s interface,
`the required outgoing trunk was determined by consulting
`the route table. Fixed routing was used in all of the experi-
`ments. Packets entering the network from a talker could
`only be put into the queue for this trunk if there were more
`than two free queue bullets. This gives some priority to
`transit trallic, i.e. to packets which have been accepted into
`the network, for example, at node 4 in Fig. 4b, or at node 2
`in Fig. 4:’: for packets between t and 3, and between 3 and
`1. If an originating packet could not be accepted, it was
`held in a buffer associated with the talker’s interface to the
`network. That
`talker‘s identity was put
`into a queue
`associated with the trunk output queue. Whenever a
`packet was sent along the trunk and a queue bufl‘er
`became free,
`the list of talkers with waiting packets was
`inspected. If there were sufficient buffers to allow in an
`originating packet, the first one waiting joined the trunk
`output queue. If that talker had further waiting packets, he
`rejoined the list of talkers with waiting packets.
`Packets were transmitted over the trunks at the trunk
`
`transmitted packets were kept,
`rate. Copies of all
`bit
`pending acknowledgments received from the other end of
`the trunk. Associated with each copy of a packet, kept in
`the retransmission queue, was a time by which that packet
`must be acknowledged. This time was based on the worst
`possible case of acknowledgment delay. Acknowledged
`packets were deleted from the retransmission queue. If a
`I07
`
`

`
`packet were to exceed its time in the retransmission queue,
`then it would be retransmitted, followed by its successors
`(unless these had meanwhile been deleted) before any new
`packets were transmitted. However, as transmission errors
`were not simulated,
`the only condition under which the
`retransmission procedure could have been evoked was that
`in which a packet was discarded at a transit node because
`of there being no free bufi'e1's in the output queue.
`The acknowledgment process was carried out using the
`send-and-receive sequence numbers carried by all packets
`as used in the lSO‘s HDLC and in the CCITT’s X25
`recommendation [2], 22]. Any packet carrying a send
`sequence number greater than that expected was discarded
`and a REJ (Reject) packet sent
`in the reverse direction.
`This REJ packet
`indicated the last correctly received
`packet and instructed retransmission to start at the appro-
`priate point
`in the packet sequence. Only one REJ was
`allowed in a given direction until the next expected packet
`was received. If a REJ was corrupted by noise and thus
`discarded. the correct packet sequence was maintained by
`retransmission invoked by the timeout mechanism. In the
`case of no outgoing packets when one was correctly
`received. a RR {receiver ready) packet
`indicating correct
`reception was sent. This reduced the use of the timeout
`mechanism under conditions of light trunk loading.
`Packets made their way through the network to their
`destination. Here they were assumed to be passed to the
`receiver interface for conversion to speech {after any buf-
`fering, if necessary}. On arrival of every packet, the packet
`statistics were
`updated. Packet
`statistics measured
`included:
`
`(i) the number of packets received
`(ii) the mean and standard deviation of packet transit
`time for the packets of (i). Packet transit time was mea-
`sured as the difference between the arrival
`time at
`the
`destination PSE and the packet creation time at the source
`PSE
`
`(iii) the mean and standard deviation of packet inter-
`arrival
`time. Packet
`interarrival time was defined as the
`difference between arrival times of successive packets of the
`same talkspurt.
`
`The simulation program was written in Simula [23, 24]
`and was designed to be as flexible as possible. A wide
`variety of networks and conditions could be simulated by
`choosing appropriate input data for the program. The
`input data required for this were:
`(i) the number of PSEs
`(ii) the number of trunks
`the source and destination of
`(iii) for each trunk: (a)
`PSEs, (b) the trunk capacity, (:2) the bit error probability,
`and (cl) the retransmission timeout period
`(iv) the route table (this gives the next PSE en route to
`each destination)
`(v) the talkers‘ speech bit rate (the same for all talkers)
`(vi) the speech packet length {in bytes)
`(vii)
`the number of PSE. pairs with conversations
`between them
`
`(viii) for each of {vii} above, the number of talker pairs
`(ix) the duration of the simulation and intervals between
`statistics report
`(x) the seed for the random—number stream used.
`
`3
`
`Packet-switched voice network experiments
`
`3.1 General description
`Three simulation experiments were carried out, and there
`were several model parameters common to the experi-
`ments. The maximum trunk output queue length was ten
`I03
`
`
`
`packets (with two reserved for transit traffic). The talker
`speech bit rate"' was 9600 bit/s. There were no local calls
`(i.e. calls between talkers at the same PSE}. The program
`was run for 250 s in all experiments and the results of the
`first 100 s were removed in order to reduce the bias effects
`of no packets being present in the network at the start of
`the simulation. Analysis of the results has shown that a
`stable condition was reached in this time. Results were also
`collected for a single talker pair. The three experiments
`carried out were as follows:
`
`{it Two PSEs, one 144 kbitfs trunk (see Fig. 3); 128 + 8
`{speech + header) byte packets; 25 ms
`retransmission
`timeout interval; varying number of talker pairs.
`(ii) Two PSEs; one 144 kbit,r‘s trunk (see Fig. 3); 15, 20
`and 25 talker pairs, packet sizes of 32, 48, 64, 96, 128 (from
`previous experiment) 192 and 256 bytes (with 8 bytes of
`header
`in
`addition with
`correspondingly
`adjusted
`retransmission time.
`
`(a) a fully connected
`(iii) Three PSES (see Fig. 4):
`network with 144 kbit,='s trunks; (b) a star network with
`288 kbitfs trunks; and (c) a linear network with 288 kbitsfs
`trunks; 128 + 3 byte packets; 12.5 ms retransmission
`
`:
`
`PSEI
`
`trunk
`
`PSE2
`
`,
`
`to
`talkers
`
`Fig. 3
`
`2-node packer-switched uoice network
`
`C
`
`I
`
`3-node packet-switched networks
`Fig. 4
`a Three nodes: FC, in Three nodes; star. c Three nodes: linear
`
`" A 9600 bitsfs speech rate was used in order to facilitate the simulation. The
`significance of the results so obtained is not, however. restricted by this. Appropri-
`at: time scaling of packet lengths and trunk-line rates would render them applicable
`at a more realistic speech data rate o|'64 kbitfs.
`
`IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. G, No. 4, AUGUST 1983
`
`

`
`of [07 + 20 = I2? ms (before receiver buffering]. For more
`than 22 talker pairs, the packet transit time and standard
`deviation will lead to even greater delays. It will be noticed
`that there is a difference between the packet transit time
`and standard deviation curves for all talker pairs and for
`single talker pair {see Figs. 6 and 7}. This is because of the
`effects of the smaller sample size of packets from the single
`talker pairs (see Fig. 5). The single talker pair results will
`not be considered in the rest of this paper. Packet switch-
`ing appears to be able to carry the conversations of 22
`talker pairs (under the above conditions) before delays
`become unacceptable. A 144 kbitfs trunk operating under
`circuit switched conditions can carry (l44000,i'9600) = 15
`conversations with no variable delay.
`2.0
`
`_L9l‘.€£.l!.='_1T_$_
`all
`
`.uI.
`
`
`
`
`
`SDofpndiettransittime-,5F-3.-ua0
`
`timeout period on the faster 288 kbitsfs trunks of (b) and
`(c}; number of talker pairs varied. (The abbreviation FC is
`used in the Figures to refer to the fully connected network
`configuration.)
`
`3.2 Results of experiments
`The results of the experiments will now be described.
`Related points in all Figures are joined by straight-line
`segments to identify related points in the multigraph
`Figures and to indicate trends, rather than to show exact
`behaviour, between the experimental points.
`
`3.2.? Two P.S‘Es, 128+8 byte packers. varying number
`of talker pairs: The number of packets transferred in the
`150 s (for each value of talker load} of the experiment for
`all talker pairs and for the single talker pair are shown in
`Fig. 5. The number of packets for all pairs rises almost
`linearly up to 25 talker pairs. with a smaller rise between
`25 and 27. For the single talker pair, almost
`the same
`number of packets are carried at all loads (total number of
`talker pairs). The average packet
`transit
`time of Fig. 6
`shows little increase up to 22 talker pairs but shows an
`increasing rate of increase above 22 pairs. The average
`packet transit time must be added to the packet creation
`time of(l28 x 839600) 5 = 10? ms to obtain the total delay
`between speech being uttered and becoming available for
`reconstruction on arrival at the destination PSE. Any buf-
`fering to allow for variations in arrival
`times must be
`added as well. Up to 22 talker pairs, the transit time is less
`than 20 ms. The standard deviation of packet transit time,
`shown in Fig. ‘i’, is low [less then 30 ms. suggesting receiver
`bufi‘ering of over 100 ms) up to 22 talker points, but it
`increases more rapidly as more talkers are added to the
`network. This suggests that up to 22 talker pairs with
`speech bit rate of 9600 bitfs, with 128 + 8 byte packets,
`can share a 144 kbitfs trunk with an average speech delay
`
`tulkgr $1;
`all
`
`U1
`0
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`talker pairs
`
`25
`
`30
`
`Packers transferred, varying talker
`Fig. 5
`length = £28 + 8
`
`lead.
`
`two nodes. packet
`
`tclttmpsira
`uu
`
`Fig. 3''
`
`SD of packet transit tirne. varying tuiker limits
`
`The average interpacket delays of Fig. 8 are dominated
`by the 107 ms packet creation delay and are almost equal
`to it for up to 25 talker pairs. In fact, the variation in delay
`due to queueing was found to be approximately three
`orders of magnitude less than the transit
`time. and to
`exhibit no systematic variations)‘ This indicates that. even
`with the extra transit time (queueing for transmission over
`the trunk), there is little difference between the admission
`queueing and transmission delays for successive packets of
`talkspurts. The increase in interpacket delay for more than
`25 talker pairs indicates that successive packets of each
`talkspurt take longer to reach their destination than each
`of their predecessors. A packet-switched network is clearly
`unsuitable for carrying speech traffic when operated in this
`region. The standard deviation of interpacket delay is less
`than 4 ms for less than 22 talker pairs. This is approx-
`imately an order of magnitude less than the standard devi-
`ation of packet transit time.
`
`
`
`
`
`avemgeinterpacketdr-In_
`
`I5
`
`20
`talker pairs
`
`25
`
`Irirerpacket delay, earyirly talker loads
`
`Fig. 6
`
`Pocket transit time, unrying talker load
`
`talker pairs
`
`IEE PROCEEDINGS. Vol. I30. Pt. G. No. 4. AUGUST I933
`
`1‘ Details of the effects of speech statistics on the pcreeplion of irnpairmcnls nrising
`from variable delays can be found in References 13 and 25.
`
`I09
`
`

`
`This suggests greater correlation between arrivals of
`successive packets of the same talkspurt than indicated by
`the transit-time figures. The packets are generated at
`regular intervals and, for long talkspurts {with respect to
`packet creation time), the packets of all active talkers are
`correlated. This correlation is disturbed slightly when a
`talker stops or when another joins the set of active talkers.
`Once the transit delay is determined, all the packets of the
`same talkspurt have similar transit times, and thus inter-
`packet delays are similar. The transit
`time indicates the
`delay in admission queueing and transmission, and thus
`represents the storage of packets within the network.
`0.020
`
`C’ S’ at
`
`delay,5.0ca0‘<23o
`SDofinterpacl-tel
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`tel ke r pa i r 5
`
`25
`
`30
`
`Fig. 9
`
`SD of tnterparlret tlelays. varying talker load
`
`the
`Variation in this for each talkspurt does not affect
`interarrival
`times of the packets and hence the speech
`reconstruction. The standard deviation of
`the packet
`transit time is thus a measure of the spread of time spent in
`the network. The standard deviation of interpacket delay is
`the measure which should be used in deciding on receiver
`buffering requirements. Several
`times this standard devi-
`ation should be allowed in the receiver buffer to minimise
`
`the number of late packets which will have to be dealt with
`in some way.
`The trunk utilisation, shown in Fig. 10, rises approx-
`imately linearly with the number of talker pairs. For less
`than 22 talker pairs, the utilisation is less than 80%. For
`more than 22, the utilisation is greater than this, with the
`associated rapid rise in transit times, as can be seen from
`the packet transit time of Fig. 6. It should be noted that
`certain parameters such as the number of packets trans-
`mitted and the trunk utilisation {which are shown in Figs.
`5 and I0, for example] can be calculated from a knowledge
`of talker activity, packet generation rate, packet
`length,
`trunk capacity and the number of talkers. It should also be
`noted that the number of talker pairs required to achieve
`100% trunk utilisation can be calculated using the packet
`generation rate, talker activity and trunk capacity. If this is
`100
`90
`80
`
`‘tn_.HaslbU’!0'!-.1so00cl:3ooo
`lineutttisation_
`
`15
`
`20
`talker pairs
`
`25
`
`30
`
`Fig.1O Trrmlr utilisation. varying talker
`It.-nytlr = £28 + 8
`
`load,
`
`two nodes. packet
`
`I10
`
`
`
`done, then it is found that 31 talker pairs are required, and
`this agrees with extrapolation of Fig. 6. However, it is clear
`that before this number of talker pairs is actually reached
`the variations in delays are such as to render speech trans-
`mission unacceptable.
`
`3.2.2 Two PSEs, varying packet sizes: The different
`packet sizes used inithis experiment, with their creation
`times and retransmission timeout periods on the 144 kbit_t‘s
`trunk, are shown in Table 1. Totals of 15. 20 and 25 talker
`pairs were used in the experiment with each value of
`packet length (except for 25 pairs 32 + 8 bytes].
`
`Table 1 2 Packet details
`
`Packet length
`
`Packet creation
`time
`
`Retransmission
`timeeut
`
`ms
`ms
`bytes
`135
`26 213
`32 + 8 (B header}
`10,29
`40
`48 + 8
`13.24
`501t3
`E-4+8
`19.12
`30
`96 + 8
`25.00
`50 2,t3
`128 + 8
`3636
`160
`192 + 8
`
`255 + B 48.53 213 1:3
`
`
`The numbers of packets carried are shown in Fig. 11. Here
`it can be seen that the number of packets carried rises as
`the packet
`length decreases. Obviously, more shorter
`packets are required to carry the same quantity of speech.
`The average packet transit times are shown in Fig. 12. As
`before, the packet transit time is large (over 100 ms} for 25
`talker pairs. Here, the packet transit time rises for packet
`lengths greater than 128 + 8 bytes. This is expected, since
`longer packets will obviously take longer to traverse the
`network. Below 128 —+- 8 bytes, the packet transit time also
`
`
`
`30
`
`CI
`
`22!.
`192
`160
`12B
`96
`6-5
`32
`data characters per packet (header = 8)
`
`256
`
`Packets transferred. all talker pairs, varying packet lengtli. two
`
` E}
`
`0
`
`128
`96
`6!.
`32
`I60
`192
`22-‘.
`data characters per packet
`[header : 3)
`
`256
`
`Fig. 12
`
`Parker transit time. all tall-ter pairs. varying packet length
`
`LEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. I30, Pt. G, No. if, AUGUST 1983
`
`

`
`increases. This rise of transit time in this region is due to
`the increased quantity of overhead (8 bytes per packet) of
`the headers of the larger numbers of smaller packets. This
`increases the trunk utilisation above 90% (as can be seen
`in Fig.
`16} and increases the transit
`time. Fig. 12 also
`shows a rise in packet transit times below 48 + 8 bytes for
`20 talker pairs, where the packet transit times is lower than
`for 25 pairs in any case. Referring to Fig.
`[6 again, only
`below 48 + 8 bytes does trunk utilisation rise above 80%
`for 20 talker pairs. It can thus be seen that higher loading
`leads to greater packet
`length below which the header
`overhead

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket