Side_1_360

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

sec

0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

sec

0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Figure 1 The complementary waiting time distribution for high priority traffic with ATM fragmentation (the lower curves) and without
any fragmentation (upper curves) for a link of capacity 2 Mbit/s, and high priority packet length of 200 bytes, low priority packet length
of 1500 bytes. The load is 0.2 and 0.5 in the left figure and 0.3 and 0.6 in the right figure for high priority and low priority traffic

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

sec

0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

sec

0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Figure 2 The complementary waiting time distribution for priority traffic with ATM fragmentation (the lower curves) and without any
fragmentation (upper curves) for a link of capacity 2 Mbit/s, and high priority packet length of 200 bytes, low priority packet length of
3000 bytes in the left figure and 6000 bytes in the right figure. The load is 0.2 and 0.5 for high priority and low priority traffic

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

sec

0.125 0.15 0.175 0.02

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Log[P(W>t)]

0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

sec

0.125 0.15 0.175 0.02

Figure 3 The complementary waiting time distribution for priority traffic with ATM fragmentation (the lower curves) and without any
fragmentation (upper curves) for a link of capacity 0.5 Mbit/s, and high priority packet length of 200 bytes, low priority packet length
of 1500 bytes. The load is 0.2 and 0.5 in the left figure and 0.3 and 0.6 in the right figure for high priority and low priority traffic