ty to the secondary UEs, which are transmitting with the SAG, and what is left from the resources is given to the PAG UEs. Different than the HSDPA modeling, the soft handover users are considered in the HSUPA. The soft handover (SHO) users are about ~20% of the total number of HSUPA UEs in the cell. Those soft handover UEs cause additional packets to be carried over the lub link, which occupies some of the link bandwidth. Two different cases can be distinguished for the SHO implementation: the first case represents the soft handover which some of serving radio link set (S-RLS) UEs are experiencing, in which those UEs will have their packets carried over the non-serving radio link set (NS-RLS) lub link to the RNC (via another Node B). The second case represents the UEs from the neighboring cells that are in soft handover to the own cell. Those UEs are referred to as NS-RLS UEs, and some of their packets have to be carried by the own cell lub link. In addition, there are also lub congestion control functions implemented for the HSUPA. But there is not flow control function in the HSUPA. The HSUPA model has been presented in [LZK*08]. A.11 Multiplexing Schemes for the IP-Based UTRAN With the transport overhead of UDP/IP and Ethernet, bandwidth efficiency in the IP-based UTRAN will be low, especially for small packets due to larger UDP/IP and Ethernet headers. For example for voice traffic, the achievable efficiency in the IP-based UTRAN is only 40.6%. In order to improve the bandwidth efficiency, several multiplexing schemes are proposed in 3GPP TR 25.933 [3GP04a] and [MWIF01], as introduced in section 2.3.4.1. In this thesis, Composite IP (CIP) and Lightweight IP Encapsulation (LIPE) have been Appendix considered. Both schemes allow multiplexing small frames with variable packet sizes into one UDP packet in order to reduce the overhead. The CIP packet format is shown Figure A.10. The FP PDU is segmented or reassembled to fit the size of the CIP packet payload. Then several CIP packets are encapsulated into one UDP