1 / 4

802.11 Modeling Observations

This paper presents a model designed to evaluate the performance of the E-MAC protocol in IEEE 802.11 networks, focusing on Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities. The study highlights the potential effectiveness of "Native" Point Coordination Function (PCF) compared to "Native" Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). It emphasizes the need for additional sophistication in the model, such as incorporating TCP/IP considerations and validating results with hardware data, and outlines QoS requirements and enhancements necessary for optimal performance across various user and media types.

aron
Télécharger la présentation

802.11 Modeling Observations

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. 802.11 Modeling Observations Authors: Bob Miller AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6920 rrm@att.com Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6791 mjsherman@att.com Date: November 9, 2000 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  2. Model Results - Some Observations • The model demonstrates only availability of a tool for evaluating E-MAC performance • Is not meant to demonstrate efficacy of any particular MAC (yet) • Shows why “Native” PCF can be effective in QoS applications compared to “Native” DCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  3. Model Use for Optimization / Comparison • Needs added sophistication, e.g. TCP/IP, which lowers throughput, impacts streams differently • Needs to be validated e.g. with another model and/or operating hardware data, if possible (current model throughputs are not realistic) • “Efficient QoS”, not just “QoS”, with many users, many media types, many protocols should be goal--- need scenarios which differentiate “Basic PCF” from “QoS PCF” Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  4. Adopted QoS Req’ts from IEEE 802.11-00245r1 “ • 3. QoS Requirements • 3.1. Corrections and enhancements to the PCF that may be required to best meet QoS performance objectives must be incorporated. • 3.2. Differential handling of MSDUs supplied to the MAC with additional priorities and classes of service. • 3.3. Bounded delay, prioritized acess, and bounded latency per MDSU (allocatable services), power management bypass mechanisms (which has priority in iBSS and BSS may need a mechanism for separable handsets). • 3.4. MAC SAP support for 802.1D/802.1q. • 3.5. Support for multiple simultaneous streams with differing priority and class requirements. • 3.6. Transmit Power Control. • 3.7. To provide the hooks in the MAC to obtain remote channel information. ” Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

More Related