1 / 19

MAC layer Multicast in Wireless Multihop Networks

MAC layer Multicast in Wireless Multihop Networks. Shweta Jain Samir Das. Overview . Motivation. Introduction. Description if IEEE 802.11. Description of various Multicast MAC protocols. Description of Multicast MAC. Performance results. Conclusion. Motivation.

MikeCarlo
Télécharger la présentation

MAC layer Multicast in Wireless Multihop Networks

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. MAC layer Multicast in Wireless Multihop Networks Shweta Jain Samir Das Comsware 2006

  2. Overview • Motivation. • Introduction. • Description if IEEE 802.11. • Description of various Multicast MAC protocols. • Description of Multicast MAC. • Performance results. • Conclusion. Comsware 2006

  3. Motivation • Many applications in wireless multihop networks need one-to- many (multicast) communication. • Multicast data may need to be transmitted across various hops before it reaches all multicast receivers. • Since wireless links are prone to errors, data may not always be received correctly at the next node along the route. • Error recovery in the upper layer can cause large end to end delays in data delivery. • An efficient and reliable MAC layer multicast protocol can improve the performance of multicast communication. Comsware 2006

  4. Introduction • IEEE 802.11 protocol implements positive acknowledgment to provide reliable transmission of unicast data. • The same mechanism can be used to provide reliable multicast support at the MAC layer. • In this paper we present a reliable multicast MAC protocol. • We also evaluate three other Multicast MAC protocols and compare their performance with our approach. • Broadcast based multicast • Unicast based MAC • Multicast MAC. • Our approach– Multicast MAC with cliques. Comsware 2006

  5. Description of IEEE 802.11 MAC • Access Mechanism for unicast data transmission – reliable • Access Mechanism for multicast and broadcast data transmission -- unreliable Comsware 2006

  6. IEEE 802.11– Unicast transmission • IEEE 802.11 DCF is the basic access mechanism used for reliable unicast. • It uses CSMA/CA and optional Control packet exchange to facilitate medium sharing for unicast data. • Requires positive feedback from the receiver to guarantee data delivery. Comsware 2006

  7. IEEE 802.11 IEEE 802.11– Multicast and Broadcast transmission • IEEE 802.11 access mechanism used for multicast and broadcast transmission. • It uses CSMA/CA to facilitate medium sharing for multicast and broadcast data. • Does not implement any feedback mechanism, thus there is no data delivery guarantee. Comsware 2006

  8. MAC protocols • Broadcast MAC – Send multicast data as broadcast data (IEEE 802.11 MAC) • Disadvantage: Unreliable transmission. • Unicast MAC– Send a single multicast data packet as multiple unicast packets to each next hop neighbor. • Disadvantage: Large packet delays. • Multicast MAC – Perform multicast RTS/CTS exchange with all nexthop neighbors. • Disadvantages: • Large size of RTS makes it prone to collisions. • The RTS/CTS/Data/ACK exchange may take a time longer than the time for which the two hop neighbors set their virtual carrier sensing mechanism. • Multicast MAC with cliques – Perform multiple multicast RTS/CTS exchange with each nexthop neighbor group. Comsware 2006

  9. Multicast MAC • Sender: • Send a single RTS with multiple nexthop addresses. • Wait to receive CTS from each nexthop neighbor. • Send data to those neighbors from which CTS was received. • Retransmit RTS to those neighbors from which CTS was not received. • Receivers: • Send CTS after a fixed delay determined by the order in which the receiver’s address appears in the RTS packet. • Receive Data and send ACK packets after a fixed delay determined by the address order in the data packet. • Others: • Invoke the virtual carrier sensing mechanism to allow collision free RTS/CTS/Data/ACK exchange. Comsware 2006

  10. Multicast MAC The wait time for Nth receiver where N is the position index of its address in the RTS Frame— N x SIFS + (N-1) x CTS Duration. Comsware 2006

  11. Interference Problem • CTS order is Recv 1, Recv 2 and Recv3. • Recv 2 does not send CTS because it hears the CTS sent by Recv 1 as noise and invokes its virtual carrier sensing mechanism. • Sender has to retransmit RTS to Recv 2. • We group the neighbors into groups such that neighbors that can hear each other form a single group called cliques. • We perform the RTS/CTS exchange mechanism to send data to each group. Comsware 2006

  12. Multicast MAC with Cliques • We group neighbors in different cliques and send multicast data to atmost 4 neighbors at a time. • Advantage • The RTS size is small so it is not prone to collisions • The RTS/CTS/Data/ACK exchange completes before the NAV of two hop neighbors and potential interferers expire. Comsware 2006

  13. Clique of neighbors Comsware 2006

  14. Performance Evaluation • We used network simulator (ns2) version 2.26 for simulation. • We experimented with a grid scenario of size 1500x300 with 100 nodes • We set up traffic connections for 1 multicast sender and vary the number of receivers -10, 20, 30 and 40 multicast receivers. • We run experiments with two-ray ground propagation model and ricean fading models Comsware 2006

  15. Two Ray Ground Propagation model • Packet delivery fraction for multiple unicast and broadcast MAC fall when the number of multicast receivers is increased. • Packet delivery fraction of multicast MAC remain steady with increase in the number of multicast receivers. Comsware 2006

  16. Two Ray Ground Propagation model • Average per hop delay rises with the number of multicast receivers for unicast MAC. • Delay remains steady for other MAC protocols. • Delay is less for broadcast MAC is low due to the absence of retransmissions in broadcast MAC. Comsware 2006

  17. Ricean Fading model • Packet delivery fraction for all MAC protocols fall when the number of multicast receivers is increased. • Packet delivery fraction of multicast MAC fall less steeply than unicast and broadcast MAC protocols. Comsware 2006

  18. Ricean Fading model • Average per hop delay rises with the number of multicast receivers for all MAC protocols other than broadcast MAC. • Delay remains steady for broadcast MAC protocol due to the absence of retransmissions. • Delay is lower for unicast MAC protocol due to lower packet delivery fraction. Comsware 2006

  19. Conclusion • We have presented an extension of IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol to provide reliable multicast MAC protocol. • We have demonstrated the performance improvement achieved due to our protocol. Comsware 2006

More Related