her low FP PDU delay, but with LIPE multiplexing scheme the FP PDU delay is higher and in the range of multiplexing timer. For all cases, the FP PDU delays are increased with more number of active voice users. When comparing 5ms and 10ms timer results, it is found that 5ms timer reaches the similar efficiency as 10ms timer as shown in Figure A.42, but on the other hand it gets much lower FP PDU delays. So, a smaller MUX timer is preferred for the voice traffic. Bandwidth Efficiency (AMR Voice) IP LIPE 5ms Timer IP LIPE 10ms Timer Number of UEs Figure A.42: Simulated bandwidth efficiency - ATM vs. IP-based UTRAN (voice traffic) FP PDU Delay (AMR Voice) IP LIPE 5ms Timer IP LIPE 10ms Timer Nubmer of UEs Figure A.43: Simulated FP PDU delay - ATM vs. IP-based UTRAN (voice traffic) A.22 Comparing ATM and IP-Based UTRAN Web Traffic Scenario For the given web traffic example, RAB 64 kbps is configured for transferring web pages. Multiple numbers of users are configured in the simulations. In this example, each user contributes for around 27kbps 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 for the packet switched data maximum 8 numbers of FP PDUs encapsulated into one LIPE or CIP container. In addition, we set a multiplexing timer of 5ms and 10ms as an example. Figure A.44 compares the measured bandwidth efficiency of different transport layer schemes, as a function of the number of simultaneously active users. It shows that IP-based UTRAN with LIPE multiplexing scheme greatly increases the bandwidth efficiency when comparing to the ATM-based UTRAN. Moreover, a longer multiplexing timer results in a higher efficiency. When the load is increased in terms of more active users in the system, the efficiency becomes even better as the average number of FP PDUs increases which arrive before the MUX timer expires. Without IP multiplexing scheme, the bandwidth efficiency is the lowest in this case due to larger UDP/IP o