n terms of "Over-provisioning factor", , which is same as "overdimensioning factor" or "normalized capacity" defined in section 4.3. This parameter indicates in addition to the mean traffic load on the lub link how much extra bandwidth is needed in order to fulfill the QoS requirements. Figure A.24(b) shows the obtained over-provisioning factor in percentage of the mean lub traffic. It can be seen that the degree of over-provisioning decreases for higher traffic load on the lub link in both with TS and without TS scenario. That means, with a larger traffic load a higher multiplexing gain is achieved which results in decreased over-provisioning factor. Furthermore, with traffic separation technique less extra bandwidth is required for transmitting the same amount of the traffic on the lub link. And moreover, at the lower traffic load range, the over-provisioning factor of without traffic separation is much higher than that of the traffic separation scenario, and with the increase of the aggregated traffic load their gap is slowly reduced. This implies the traffic separation is able to achieve more bandwidth savings (compared to without traffic separation) at a lower mean lub traffic load, where the room for the potential multiplexing gain is more. A.16 Use of Traffic Separation for Transport of HSPA and Rel99 Required lub Bandwidth Over-provisioning factor with TS without TS with TS without TS offered UTRAN traffic load (kbps) mean lub traffic (kbps) (a) Required lub Bandwidth (b) over-provisioning factor Figure A.24: Dimensioning for different UTRAN load V. Comparing Different Configurations for Traffic Separation This section presents the simulation results of transmitting all HSDPA, HSUPA and Rel99 traffic simultaneously in the UTRAN transport network. Two different traffic separation solutions are compared: (1) 2 VPs among which one CBR VP for Rel99 and one UBR+ VP for both HSDPA and HSUPA without using separated VCs; (2) 3 VPs where each VP carries a separate traffic type: one CBR VP for Rel99, one UBR+ VP fo