ieee 802.11 (mac)

31
On Optimizing Backoff Counter Reservation and Classifying Stations for the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Wireless LANs

Upload: halima

Post on 05-Jan-2016

40 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

On Optimizing Backoff Counter Reservation and Classifying Stations for the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Wireless LANs. IEEE 802.11 (MAC). DCF - Distributed Coordination Function PCF - Point Coordination Function CSMA/CA with binary exponential backoff. DCF Enhancements. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

On Optimizing Backoff Counter Reservation and

Classifying Stations for the IEEE 802.11 Distributed

Wireless LANs

Page 2: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

• DCF - Distributed Coordination Function

• PCF - Point Coordination Function

• CSMA/CA with binary exponential backoff

Page 3: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

DCF Enhancements

• Many enhancements to improve performance, models with hiddent terminal

• Baldwin – Transmission deadline– Stations next backoff value - Enhanced Collision

Avoidance (ECA)– Decrease # collisions under constant backoff

window size

Page 4: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Proposal

• These studies show: Increase # competing stations --> performance sharp decrease

• BCR-CS Backoff Counter Reservation and Classifying Stations– Reduce collisions– Improve performance

Page 5: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

BCR-CS

• Main reason for collision in DCF is that other station do not know other station’s info such as backoff counter

• If known, unecessary collisions and wasted waiting time can be avoided

Page 6: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

BCR-CS

• Backoff counters of next frames generated in advance and sent in frame transmissions.

• Random backoff counter generated and embedded into header info of next frame

• Classify stations into 3 groups– Idle - no frame to transmit– Reserved - frames ready and backoff counters

announced success through previous frames– Contentious - frames ready and not success

announced

Page 7: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

BCR-CS

• Frames in reserved group do not collide• Frames in Contentious group do collide

because of unknown backoff counter

• BCR-CS subschemes - based upon # stations in contentious group– BCR-CS-b - original binary backoff– BCR-CS-p - psuedo-p-persistent

Page 8: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Backoff Counter Table

• Store other station’s backoff counter’s inside table.

Page 9: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)
Page 10: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

BCR-CS-p (pseudo-p-persistent)

• Goal is to avoid choosing conflicted slots already reserved by other stations

• Contentious Group1) Choose smallest available backoff counter2) Xmit when counter reaches zero3) If frame xmit fails, repeat 1 & 2

• Reserved Group– CW values are doubled if there is a collision– Collisions only possible if there are hidden nodes– Initial window size = NR + NC

Page 11: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

BCR-CS-b (exponential backoff)

• Ordinary Exponential backoff

• Initial window size = NR + NC

• Reserved Group– Since collisions are very rare, use min CW– Throughput maximized when CW = 1– Min CW may cause starvation for

contentious group

Page 12: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Estimation of NR + NC

• NR is approx the # of BCT values != -1

• NI is approx the # of BCT values = -1

• NR + NC + NI varies as nodes move and power down

• We can analyze historic NC

Page 13: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Estimate by Time (EBT)

• Modify MAC headers to include time spent by the transmitting station in each state– TR(j) + TC (j) + TI (j) = 1

• Delete stations from BCT have CW = -1 for long periods bc they have moved away

• Approximate NC by summing TC (j) • Exponential smoothing can improve

estimate

Page 14: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Estimate by Probability (EBP)

• Modify MAC headers to include probability that the transmitting station is in each state– Reserved frames / total frames

• Sum probabilities

• Exponential smoothing can improve estimate

Page 15: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Utilization vs p

Page 16: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Optimal p vs M (# of stations)

Page 17: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Optimal U vs M (# of stations)

Page 18: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Effects of Estimating M

Page 19: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Performance evaluation under two classes of traffic

• comprehensive evaluation for the proposed schemes

• comparison with the DCF and the ECA

Page 20: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

• frame payload : 500 bytes• beacon interval : 100 ms• DIFS time : 34 s• SIFS time : 16 s• slot time : 9s• physical preamble : 16 s• physical header time : 4s• symbol time : 4 s• control rate : 24Mbps• data rate : 54Mbps• backoff minimal window size :32

• maximum backoff window size : 1,024

Page 21: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

• type A station : always has at least a frame ready to send in the queue at any time

• type B station : a frame only arrives after the previous frame is just transmitted

• NA : number of type A stations • NB : number of type B stations

Page 22: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Pseudo-p-Persistent

a)Throughput with different p values )No of collisions with different p values

Page 23: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Comparison over Simulation Time

c) Throughput versus simulation time d) No of collisions versus simulation time

Page 24: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Comparison over traffic pattern

a) Total throughput b) Number of collisions

Page 25: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Comparison over traffic pattern

c) idle time d) collision time

Page 26: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER q

• new metric q - defined as the probability that an outgoing frame arrives when the queue is not empty in a station

We study

• performance of the proposed schemes on different traffic situations

• performance over the mean

• performance over the variance

• Two extreme cases of q

Page 27: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

E(q) = 0

E(q) = 1

Page 28: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Comparison of Schemes under q

Page 29: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Effects of q Distributions

Page 30: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Comparison of NC Estimated Methods andReal Value

Page 31: IEEE 802.11 (MAC)

Conclusion

• New scheme for contention based protocol : BCR-CS

• Two different back off schemes

• Three key aspects- reservation, classification, and optimality

• scheme outperforms the DCF and ECA

• Two estimation methods of the number of contentious stations are proposed

• Simulation studies are performed to compare the new protocol with the DCF and ECA