o we can set different CLP value for the separated VCs to differentiate the inband signaling traffic and HSPA traffic SO that the HSPA inband signaling traffic can be protected. In scenario 4, all Rel99, HSUPA and HSDPA traffic share one common CBR VP/VC, i.e. there is no traffic separation in this case. For scenario 1, 2 and 3, the transport of HSPA traffic can either be on a UBR or UBR+ VP. If UBR+ VP is used, there is a guaranteed minimum bandwidth for transmitting the HSPA traffic, with which a minimum QoS is assured for the requested HSPA services. IV. Impact of Applying Traffic Separation This section investigates the impact of using traffic separation for transmitting the HSPA and Rel99 traffic. The HSDPA and Rel99 traffic scenario is investigated as an example here for the investigations. In the following, the results of applying traffic separation to transport both HSDPA and Rel99 at the lub interface is presented and compared to the scenario without traffic separation. The parameter settings for the traffic separation and its impact on the dimensioning will be also discussed. Additionally one example of the lub dimensioning with A.16 Use of Traffic Separation for Transport of HSPA and Rel99 traffic separation and without traffic separation is given and their transmission efficiency is compared. Simulation Scenarios The simulation model of HSPA and Rel99 are introduced in Chapter 5. The modeling of combining HSPA and Rel99 traffic is described in section 5.7. The simulation scenario consists of one Node B and one RNC. In the HSDPA model, a Round Robin air interface scheduler is used in the simulations. In addition, in order to protect the congestion on the lub link, flow control and congestion control schemes are applied on the lub. The HSDPA traffic is modeled with 20 Internet users browsing the web. The web traffic model is defined by ETSI standards (see Table 5.3). Each user requests multiple pages where the inactive time between pages follows the geometric distribution. The same traffic model is used