The present disclosure generally relates to data communication systems and methods of configuring a data network based on user capacity estimation techniques.
Telecommunications providers of data services, such as digital subscriber line (DSL) service, utilize concentration equipment that support many individual lines. To configure such equipment in a manner to match the data needs of the subscribers connected thereto, it would be desirable to have a data transmission capacity model. With conventional methods, there is no good method of estimating the number of customers that can be served by a remote terminal or a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM). A limiting factor in capacity is the connection between the remote terminal or the DSLAM and the ATM switch. Typically this connection is an OC3 or DS3 connection. In the event that the equipment is configured above a reasonable capacity, then customers receive a lower quality service and experience significant data slowdown.
Accordingly, there is a need for a method and system to estimate the number of customers that can be supported on deployed network equipment.
In a particular embodiment, the present disclosure is directed to a data communications system. The data communication system includes a plurality of digital subscriber lines, a digital subscriber line multiplexer coupled to each of the plurality of digital subscriber lines, and a data switch coupled to the digital subscriber line multiplexer via a communication link. The data communications system is configured such that the number of digital subscriber line users supported by the digital subscriber line multiplexer is determined based on an estimated maximum number of users, the estimated maximum number of users determined based on an average peak bandwidth per user value, a data communication capacity of the communication link, and a data transmission slowdown indicator. The communication capacity is based on a user type selected from a set of available user types. In a particular embodiment, the estimated maximum number of users of digital subscriber lines is calculated with an assumption that a first set of users of the first user type download data at the same data transfer speed and a second set of user having a second user type download data at a different data transfer speed.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Based on the prior information, an estimated maximum number of users is determined corresponding with a maximum number of DSL lines that may be supported by the DSLAM, is shown at 308. The estimated maximum number of users of DSL lines is based on the average peak bandwidth per user value, the bandwidth capacity of a user, the capacity of the communication link, and the customer data transmission slowdown indicator. Once an estimated maximum number of users of DSL lines is determined, the data network may be configured such that the DSLAM has a configured number of users of DSL lines that is less than or equal to the estimated maximum number of users of DSL lines. This process step is shown at 310. Thus, after determining the estimated maximum number of DSL lines, DSLAM equipment may be configured to prevent overuse and traffic congestion of the DSL network. In addition, the DSLAM may be properly loaded to provide for increased traffic utilization, but not exceeding the estimated maximum number of lines.
Referring to
An example of an estimated maximum capacity model that may be used to calculate the estimated maximum capacity is now shown. For purposes of illustration, the bandwidth capacity of a remote terminal will be illustrated as the bandwidth B. The capacity of an individual user, which is the highest data transmission speed available to that user, will be labeled C. Typically, this individual user download speed for a DSL line is about 1.5 megabits per second. The average peak period bandwidth per customer will be indicated as A. This value is averaged over all customers in the network even those that are not currently logged in.
The number of servers will be determined as B/C. The total number of customers on an RT will be labeled PS for population size. The probability of a random user downloading at any given instant will be labeled U and is defined as A/C. A probability distribution labeled P is calculated as U/(1−U). This is substantially the same calculation utilized for telephone circuits based on an Erlang engineering distribution. P(n) is the probability of n customers actively downloading in a randomly chosen time.
With these variable definitions, the model formula is defined below:
A specific example with specific data filled in for a given remote terminal is now presented:
A rural RT is served by 2 T1 lines and has 20 customers all with a maximum download speed of 1.5 Mb/s and an average peak bandwidth of 50 kb/sec.
One way to engineer the RT is to ensure that customers experience a slowdown of no more then, say, 20%, no more than X % of the time. The tables below show the results for this example with X=1%, 5%, and 10%.
In another embodiment, a method of estimation is provided that does not assume all customers have the same bandwith. In this method customers can have different bandwith speeds. For DSL, the bandwith speeds are integer multiples of the slowest speed. Below is an illustration:
A rural RT is served by 4 T1 lines and has 15 customers with a maximum download speed of L536M and an average peak bandwidth of 50 kb/sec and 5 customers with a maximum download speed of 6.144M and an average peak bandwidth of 100 kb/sec.
F(type1, type2)
p(type 1,type2)
This model allows different types of customers to have different bandwidth speeds and also for different types of customers to have different average peak period bandwidth. This allows capacity questions to be analyzed under more realistic conditions than previously available. For example, 6 Mb/s links can use up the capacity of RTs that have only a few T1s of total capacity. Therefore, being able to accurately analyze the impact of adding these customers to 1.5 Mb/s customers is important in setting capacity. Also, one might want to assume that the 6 Mb/s customers have a different average peak period bandwidth when analyzing even large capacity DSLAMs and RTs.
An example of how this model can be used in practice follows: Suppose type 1 customers have 1.5 Mb/s capacity and an average peak period bandwidth of 20 kb/sec. Type 2 customers have 6 Mb/s capacity and an average bandwidth of 35 kb/sec. If we estimate that the type 2 customers will be 10% of the total customer base, the model as described can be used to calculate the capacity of an RT in the following way. With this assumption, 90% of the customers are assumed to be type 1 customers. The probability of slowdown of at least x % is calculated for some (0.9*N) type 1 customers and (0.1* N) type 2 customers. N is increased or decreased until the largest value of N is found where the probability of slowdown is at least x % less than a desired threshold. One can also vary the percentage of type 2 customers, repeat the process, and observe the impact of the percentage of type 2 customers on the capacity of the RT.
Referring to
The above disclosed methods and models provide an improved estimate for the number of customers that may be served by a given capacity communication link. This estimate is useful for configuration of data networks as illustrated. The methods may be implemented by use of a spreadsheet program on a personal computer. In addition, the models have wide applicability and may be useful for telecommunications providers to determine the amount of bandwidth needed to provide a given service. Similarly, suppliers of switching equipment may use the models to assist their customers to properly size deployed networks.
The above disclosed subject matter is to be considered illustrative, and not restrictive, and the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications, enhancements, and other embodiments which fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention. Thus, to the maximum extent allowed by law, the scope of the present invention is to be determined by the broadest permissible interpretation of the following claims and their equivalents, and shall not be restricted or limited by the foregoing detailed description.
The present application claims priority from and is a continuation in part of patent application Ser. No. 10/766,314 filed on Jan. 28, 2004.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5280483 | Kamoi et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5751338 | Ludwig, Jr. | May 1998 | A |
5764961 | Bhat | Jun 1998 | A |
5974139 | McNamara et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5987061 | Chen | Nov 1999 | A |
6044107 | Gatherer et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6055268 | Timm et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6081291 | Ludwig, Jr. | Jun 2000 | A |
6292559 | Gaikwad et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6317495 | Gaikwad et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6424657 | Voit et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6466088 | Rezvani et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6467092 | Geile et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477238 | Schneider et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6498791 | Pickett et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507606 | Shenoi et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6532277 | Ulanskas et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6538451 | Galli et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6549568 | Bingel | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6570855 | Kung et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6597689 | Chiu et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6608835 | Geile et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6614781 | Elliott et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625255 | Green et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6640239 | Gidwani | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6643266 | Pugaczewski | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658052 | Krinsky et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6667971 | Modarressi et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668041 | Kamali et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6674725 | Nabkel et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6674749 | Mattathil | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6680940 | Lewin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6697768 | Jones et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6700927 | Esliger et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724859 | Galli | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728238 | Long et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6731678 | White et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6735601 | Subrahmanyam | May 2004 | B1 |
6751218 | Hagirahim et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6751315 | Liu et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6751662 | Nararajan et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6754283 | Li | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6762992 | Lemieux | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6763025 | Leatherbury et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6765864 | Natarajan et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6765918 | Dixon et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6769000 | Akhtar et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6769024 | Natarajan et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6771673 | Baum et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775232 | Ah Sue et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775267 | Kung et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775268 | Wang et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775273 | Kung et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778525 | Baum et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782082 | Rahamim | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6925068 | Stanwood et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6963828 | McDonald et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6965558 | Hann | Nov 2005 | B1 |
20020075844 | Hagen | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20030169460 | Liao et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040095921 | Kerpez | May 2004 | A1 |
20040236547 | Rappaport et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050135490 | Zimler et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050163057 A1 | Jul 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10766314 | Jan 2004 | US |
Child | 10842842 | US |