 Solution

For the Erlang loss formula, assume a Poisson process of arrivals with rate $\lambda$, independent holding times with exponential distribution of mean $1/\beta$, unit capacity usage per accepted call, and rejection without waiting when all $C$ units are occupied. Here $C$ is a positive integer and the offered load is $a=\lambda /\beta$. The call population on $\{0,\dots ,C\}$ is a birth-death process; detailed balance givesBy Poisson arrivals see time averages, the fraction of arrivals rejected is the time probability of full occupancy. ThereforeThe paper's $\nu$ is the offered load, rather than necessarily an arrival rate. Exponential holding times suffice for this derivation; no unproved insensitivity of loss networks assumption is needed.

A loss network with fixed routing has capacities $C_j$, call types $r$, and a link-route incidence matrix $A$ with $A_{jr}=1$ exactly when a type-$r$ call requires link $j$. An accepted call holds one unit on every link of its route for its holding time; if any required link is full, the call is rejected everywhere. Take independent Poisson processes of calls, independent holding times, and route offered loads ${\nu }_r$. For the finite-variable formulation below, take $C_j\ge 1$; a zero-capacity link and all routes using it may be removed first.

The Erlang fixed point approximation treats blocking at different links as independent and thins the traffic offered to link $j$ by acceptance at the other links. Its reduced offered load isThe equality uses $A_{jr}\in \{0,1\}$: only routes with $A_{jr}=1$ contribute. Treating this reduced stream as Poisson leads to $B_j=E(a_j(B),C_j)$. Independence and Poisson thinning here are the approximation, not exact properties of a general loss network.

To construct the convex potential for the Erlang fixed point, write $e_C(a)=E(a,C)$ and $m_C(a)=a[1-e_C(a)]$, the carried load of an Erlang loss resource, equivalently the mean occupancy in the single-link stationary distribution. Differentiating its finite sums gives, for $a>0$,The variance is positive because the finite occupancy law is nondegenerate for $a>0$. Furthermore $e_C$ maps $[0,\infty )$ increasingly onto $[0,1)$, while $m_C$ increases from zero to $C$. SetIn particular $U(0,C)=0$, $U(\cdot ,C)$ is continuous and strictly increasing, and $U(z,C)\to C$ as $z\to \infty$.

Forthe first sum is convex, and each integrated strictly increasing function is strictly convex. Thus $F$ is a strictly convex function on $y\ge 0$. Since $U$ tends to a positive limit on every coordinate, $F$ is a coercive function there; it has a unique minimizer. Its coordinate derivative isThe Erlang fixed point equation is exactly ${\partial }_{j}F=0$. For an unused link, $a_j=0$ and the optimum is $y_j=0$; for a used link with positive offered load, the derivative at zero is negative and the optimum is positive. Hence every fixed point gives the unique minimizer, and the minimizer gives a fixed point. The Erlang fixed point is unique under these fixed-routing assumptions.

A convergent cyclic substitution for the Erlang fixed point updates one coordinate at a time, repeatedly cycling through all links:Always use the most recently available values of the other coordinates. Start, for example, with $B=0$. In $y$ coordinates this is exact coordinate descent for $F$: with other coordinates fixed, the displayed update is the unique coordinate minimizer.

Here is a convergence proof. All iterates stay in the initial compact sublevel set of the coercive function $F$, and their potential values decrease to a limit. Each single-coordinate update is continuous, since its reduced load is continuous and finite and $E(a,C)<1$. Thus a whole-sweep map $T$ is continuous. If a full-sweep subsequence converges to $z$, continuity gives $F(Tz)=F(z)$, because both consecutive potential values converge to the same limit. Strict coordinate convexity means equality can occur only when no coordinate changes during that sweep. Thus $z$ minimizes every coordinate, satisfies the nonnegative-orthant first-order conditions, and is the unique global minimizer of $F$. Every subsequential limit is therefore the same point, proving convergence of the full-sweep iterates and, by continuity of the updates, all intermediate iterates. This argument applies to sequential substitution; it does not assume simultaneous updates converge.