1 / 20

A Mixed Queueing Network Model of Mobility in a Campus Wireless Network

A Mixed Queueing Network Model of Mobility in a Campus Wireless Network. Yung- Chih Chen Jim Kurose and Don Towsley Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts Amherst. Motivation. Mobility modeling (till now) Theoretical models Random WayPoint /Walk

swann
Télécharger la présentation

A Mixed Queueing Network Model of Mobility in a Campus Wireless Network

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Mixed QueueingNetwork Model of Mobility in a Campus Wireless Network Yung-Chih Chen Jim Kurose and Don Towsley Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts Amherst

  2. Motivation • Mobility modeling (till now) • Theoretical models • Random WayPoint/Walk • Real world user mobility modeling • Mobility pattern [Kim’07, Hsu’06] • Contact-based mobility [Chaintreau’06, Hsu’10] • Group-based mobility [Hong’99, Wang’02, Chen’10] • Merge/split process [Heimlicher’10] • Modeling becomes complicated….

  3. Goal • Simple model to capture user behavior • Users moving from AP to AP • Predict system level performance • AP occupancy distribution • Predict user level performance • Time stay in network • Number of visited APs • Network dimensioning

  4. User Behavior: Campus Network Midnight Early Morning Evening • Focus on modeling the period when • network more active and heavily used • A closer look of this stable period

  5. User Behavior: Campus Network APM APi Stay Transition APj Arrive Depart • Some “arrive and depart” • Some “always” in the network • Transitions between APs • Stay times at AP

  6. Model APj APi • A mixed network consists of two types of users • Open class (,,) • Arrive, stay, and eventually leave • Poisson arrivals, general stay time • APs are modeled as M/G/∞queues • As if infinite number of servers • AP Occupancy Distribution • Poisson distribution • AP load (open): • Closed class (N,) • Always active inthe network • N : fixed population (average over each day) • : Visit ratio to AP • AP occupancy distribution • Binomial distribution: Poisson distribution • AP load (closed): • Mixed Network • APs are modeled as M/G/∞queues • AP occupancy distribution • Open PDF + closed PDF: Poisson distribution • APi load: stay: APk M/G/∞queues APi APj APk

  7. Trace • Mobility • User moving from AP to AP • User/AP association/disassociation messages • Dartmouth Trace* • 17 weeks on Dartmouth College campus • 6000+ users • 550+ Cisco APs • Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) • Central controller polls each AP every 5 minutes • AP replies which clients (MAC addresses) are with it • Know when a user joins network, how long he stays • Infer departure by a user’s absence in the subsequent poll *CRAWDAD archive: http://www.crawdad.org/

  8. Trace (Con’t) • Interested in periods most active • Remove weekends/holidays/inter-session breaks • Stable network traffic • 9 AM to 5 PM • 544 APs with 5,715 distinct MAC addresses

  9. Validation: User Occupancy at APs APi load: (parameters obtained from the trace) How about other APs? • Example: The most heavily loaded AP • Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit (K-S) • :CDF of empirical data • : CDF of model predictions • : K-S statistic (max diff. of 2 dist.) • Accept if small enough ( 95% conf. level)

  10. Validation: Mean Network Stay Time, #Visited APs • : network stay time starting at APi • Can be solved analytically • Mean network stay time: • Model prediction : 141 mins • Empirical average: 133 mins • # visited APs: let =1 • Model prediction : 2.1 APs • Empirical average: 2.07 APs Only 5% difference ! Only 1.4% difference !

  11. Network Dimensioning • What if arrival rate/population increase? • Assume user mobility does not change • : open class user’s average stay time at APi • : closed class user’s fraction of time visiting APi • Assume AP has capacity K • Serve K users simultaneously w/ guaranteed QoS • APi is overloaded if • AP can not meet all users’ QoS • =1% in the following scenarios

  12. Network Dimensioning -Open • Increase of arrivals to each AP (arrival rate ) =1 =2 =3 =4 =5 Must triple capacity if 5to maintain the same QoS

  13. Network Dimensioning - Closed • Increase of closed population (N ) =441 =882 =1323 =1764 =2205 Must double capacity if N  5N to maintain the same QoS

  14. Conclusion • Proposed simple queueing model of mobility • open and closed class users • Validated against empirical traces • Good predictions of metrics of interest • System-level • 93.25 % accuracy on user occupancy distribution • User-level • Mean network stay time: 8 minutes difference • # visited APs: 1.4% difference • The model can be used for network dimensioning • Increase of arrival rate to each AP • Increase of always active population

  15. References • W.-j. Hsu, D. Dutta, and A. Helmy. ”Mining behavioral groups in large wireless lans,” Mobicom’07 • M. Kim and D. Kotz. “Extracting a mobility model from real user traces,” Infocom’06 • A. Chaintreau, P. Hui, J. Crowcroft, C. Diot, R. Gass, and J. Scott. “Impact of human mobility on the design of opportunistic forwarding algorithms,” Infocom’06 • W.-j. Hsu and A. Helmy. “On nodal encounter patterns in wireless lan traces,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing’10 • S. Heimlicher and K. Salamatian. “Globs in the primordial soup: the emergence of connected crowds in mobile wireless networks” MobiHoc’10. • Y.-C. Chen, E. Rosensweig, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley. “Group detection in mobility traces,” IWCMC’10 • X. Hong, M. Gerla, G. Pei, C-C. Chiang. “A Group Mobility Model for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” IEEE MSWiM’99 • K. H. Wang, and B. Li. “Group Mobility and Partition Prediction in Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks,” ICC’02

  16. Thanks! ?? || /**/

  17. Trace Pre-Processing (Con’t) • Departure threshold • User did leave the system and returned • User was in motion, moving from AP1 to AP2 • Missing SNMP reports Session: start w/ first AP association; end w/ disassociating w/ all campus APs S2 S1 <threshold ∆ S’=S1+ ∆ +S2

  18. Trace Pre-Processing (Con’t) • Multiple associations • In the same 5-minute window, more than 1 AP report a specific user is associated with it • User is in motion, moving from 1 AP to another AP(s) • Keep the last associated AP, and remove all the rest • Ping-Pong effect • User associates with a fixed set of AP, one after one but only with very short amount of time • Mainly due to weak Wi-Fi signal • Hard to tell when this happens/ how many APs involved • Treat as regular transitions

  19. Verifying Poisson Assumption • Poisson arrivals to each AP • Aggregation of Poisson processes is Poisson • Daily inter-arrival times to campus network • Average (exponential distribution) • : squared correlation from 0~1 (1 as perfect fit) • Explain 96% of variability • Tail outliers • 0.23% • Improve • 0.02 on average • worst fitted day • (

  20. User Occupancy at APs • Open class PDF • Poisson distribution • AP load (open): • Closed class PDF • Binomial distribution: Poisson distribution • AP load (closed): • Mixed network PDF • Open PDF + closed PDF • Poisson distribution • APiload:

More Related