the end-to-end QoS performances of two networking scenarios: QoS-aware transport networking, and best-effort trans- port networking. In the QoS-aware transport networking, the IEEE 802.11e EDCA AC_VI is used in the WLAN subnetwork, and the strict-priority queue is used in the Fast/Gigabit Ethernet switch. In the best-effort transport net- working, the IEEE 802.11e EDCA AC_BE is used in the WLAN subnetwork, C 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Q-SIP/SDP for Converged Heterogeneous Wired and Wireless Networks 369 (b) 350 QoS-Aware QoS-Aware Best effort Best effort Traffic load [Mbps] Traffic load [Mbps] Packet Loss VS. Traffic load Throughput VS. Traffic load (c) 14 QoS-Aware QoS-Aware Best effort Best effort Traffic load [Mbps] Traffic load [Mbps] Delay VS. Traffic load Jitter VS. Traffic load FIGURE 15.12 Traffic load VS. end-to-end throughput, packet loss, delay, and jitter. while the non-strict priority WRED queue is used in the Fast/Gigabit Ether- net switch. The backbone transit network is configured to provide TE-LSPs for both cases. From Figure 15.12, we can see that the end-to-end packet delivery of QoS- aware video traffic is guaranteed until 22 Mbps, while the best-effort video traffic is suffering from massive packet loss. The average delay of QoS-aware video traffic is guaranteed to be less than 100 ms until the aggregated traf- fic at IP-layer is less than 20 Mbps, while the end-to-end delay of best-effort video traffic is suffering a longer delay, which is more than 2s. Since the currently available IEEE 802.11e WLAN AP and NIC do not support the HCCA mechanism, QoS-guaranteed real-time multimedia service provision- ing is not possible if the aggregated traffic load is beyond 22 Mbps, which is around 60% of the practically available throughput of IEEE 802.11 WLAN. From these experiments, we found that the QoS-aware connectivity provision- ing in WLAN is the most critical factor in the end-to-end QoS-guaranteed real-time service provisioning in broadband convergence network with het- erogeneous netwo