Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adaptive Local Error Control
Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adaptive Local Error Control. Presented by Yuanfang Cai. Outline. Local error control introduction Evaluations Simple local error control MAC & LLC design and implementation Experimental approach Results Adaptive local error control
Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adaptive Local Error Control
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adaptive Local Error Control Presented by Yuanfang Cai
Outline • Local error control introduction • Evaluations • Simple local error control • MAC & LLC design and implementation • Experimental approach • Results • Adaptive local error control • MAC & LLC design and implementation • Experimental approach • Results • Summary
Local versus End-to-end Error Control • Attractions: • Understand local characteristics • More efficient • Easier to deploy • Problems: • Confusing higher layer protocols • Undesirable interaction • Wasted Effort
Design Tradeoffs for Local Error Control • Hardware error control • Simple • Can not differentiate flows • “Pure” link-layer approaches • Per-packet basis • Flow-aware • “Protocol-aware” link-layer protocols • Requires gateways to understand a wide variety of protocols. • “Gateway-style”/”indirect” error control • Might have to understand multiple protocols • Routing changes
Simple local error control • MAC design • Master/slave transactions • INVITE and JOIN • POLL-DATA and DATA-ACK • LLC design • Entirely lost, partially lost, corrupted • Stop-and-wait retransmission
Simple local error control—Implementation and Performance • Intel 80486 and Pentium laptops using 915 MHz PCMCIA card WaveLAN units • NetBSD Unix • 43% throughput loss
Simple local error control--Experimental Approach Single Hop Ethernet + wireless WAN extension Client: 75 MHz Pentium Toshiba Satellite pro 400CDT Wireless Host Basestation 25 MHz 80486 DEC pc-4255SL
Evaluation—Pure local error control • Pattern-based evaluation • Packet killer • Basic robust evaluation • TCP without local error control • TCP with local error control • Broader scenarios • Ethernet + wireless • WAN extension • Competing TCP streams
Simple local error control--Analysis • Steady state conditions (Assume that TCP is stable) • Lost packets always indicate congestion. • Avoid packet reordering • Don’t have long delay • Dynamic error environment • Upgrade • Degrade
Simple local error control--Analysis • Persistence of local error control • Perpetual retransmission • Give up after a few transmissions • The higher error environment, the more persistent the retransmission need to be. • Packet Delay by persistent local retransmission
Simple local error control--Analysis • 3% overlap • End-to-end retransmission timeouts should be substantially longer than the single-hop round-trip time • TCP features that allow persistent retransmission with a small efficiency loss • Delay variation • Cautious minimum timeout • Slow-start probing
Adaptive local error control • LLC Design • Add FEC and packet shrinking • Packet truncation • Rare for short packets • Bit corruption • Have only a few bit errors • Packet Shrinking • Forward Error Correction (FEC) • Reed-Solomon codes • Observe the quality of the link • Tell slaves using POLL-DATA • Employ adaptive policies
Adaptive local error control • LLC Implementation • Implement packet shrinking through packet segmentation and reassembly • Data transmission: • Add to the packet sequence number: • starting byte offset, • a byte count • a packet complete bit • Acknowledgement: • A package sequence number • A cumulative length indicating correctly received bytes • Rare for short packets • Emulates the effects of Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Adaptive local error control • Static Policies • BOLD—Without coding or shrinking • LIGHT—5% coding overhead • Robust—Sends minimally-sized packets with nearly 1/3 of each devoted to coding overhead. • Adaptive policies • BIMODAL • BOLD in good conditions • ROBUST in poor conditions • BI-CODE—BIMODAL that only adjust coding overhead • BI-SIZE—BIMODAL that only adjust coding overhead • FLEX—adapts the packet size and degree of FEC redundancy independently
Summary • “Pure” link-layer local error control mechanism can greatly increase the efficiency of data transfer in wireless LAN’s. • Flow-aware instead of Protocol-aware • Simple adaptive policies outperformed static policies across a range of error environments.