Monitoring the packet gap of real-time packet traffic
Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications
IEEE MultiMedia
User-to-user QoS - management and monitoring
PfHSN '96 Proceedings of the TC6 WG6.1/6.4 Fifth International Workshop on Protocols for High-Speed Networks V
On Realizing a Broadband Kernel for Multimedia Networks
Proceedings of the Third International COST 237 Workshop on Multimedia Telecommunications and Applications
Realizing a foundation for programmability of ATM networks with the binding architecture
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
Design, implementation, and experiences of the OMEGA end-point architecture
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
QRTP: A Middleware for Broadband Networks
Multimedia Tools and Applications
A QoS management framework for distributed multimedia systems
International Journal of Network Management
XML QoS specification language for enhancing communication services
ICCC '02 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Computer communication
Sapphire: Statistical Characterization and Model-Based Adaptation of Networked Applications
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
Formalization of Network Quality-of-Service Requirements
FORTE '07 Proceedings of the 27th IFIP WG 6.1 international conference on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems
Quality of service solutions in satellite communication
ICN'05 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Networking - Volume Part I
A QoS-providing multicast network management system
Computer Communications
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A framework for studying QOS mapping between various levels in the information transport protocol stack and a platform for evaluating the mapping rules by performing concurrent network and application level measurements of QOS are presented. An empirical loss mapping rule between the application (frame) level and network (cell) level is given. The rule was tested using two 10 minutes motion JPEG video clips and a 30 minutes MPEG-2 VBR video clip under 55 different network load conditions and gives results within a 3% error margin.