, which achieves improved bandwidth efficiency. Besides, the overhead of LIPE is one byte smaller than that of CIP, and therefore the bandwidth efficiency of LIPE is slightly better than CIP. Bandwidth Efficiency AMR Voice RAB 64kbps RAB 128kbps RAB 384kbps RAB Type Figure A.41: Calculated bandwidth efficiency - ATM vs. IP-based UTRAN The following present several examples of the simulation results. These results have been presented in [LC*07]. In the IP-based UTRAN scenario, 10BaseT Ethernet cable is used at the physical layer, while the allocated lub link bandwidth is 2Mbps. Voice Scenario For voice scenario, AMR codec is used for generating voice frame. The voice traffic model is defined in Table 5.2. Multiple users are configured in the simulations. In the shown example, each user contributes for around 20 kbps link load, and then the total traffic is scaled up with the increased number of users. In IP multiplexing scenario, only LIPE is investigated below, we set maximum 35 FP PDUs encapsulated into one LIPE or CIP container for voice traffic. In addition, we set a multiplexing timer of 5 ms and 10 ms as an example. Figure A.42 presents the measured bandwidth efficiency of different transport layer schemes, as a function of the number of simultaneously active voice users. It shows that the IP-based UTRAN with LIPE multiplexing scheme with both timers achieve a little better efficiency than the one of ATM-based UTRAN model, and the IP-based UTRAN model without multiplexing schemes has the lowest efficiency due to relatively larger overhead. This Appendix conclusion is the same as the calculation results shown in Figure A.41. And with the increased number of voice users, the bandwidth efficiency is also increased due to more number of FP PDUs arrive before the MUX timer expires. Figure A.43 gives the measured FP PDU delay of different transport layer schemes, as a function of the number of active voice users. It is seen in this figure that both ATM and IP- based UTRAN without using multiplexing scheme have rat