1 / 76

Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Capacity and Protocols

Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Capacity and Protocols. Pradeep Kyasanur and Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. D. Access Point. C. Wireless channel. A. B. Infrastructure-based Network. Multi-hop Network. Wireless networks. We consider multi-hop networks

Télécharger la présentation

Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Capacity and Protocols

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. Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Capacity and Protocols Pradeep Kyasanur and Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  2. D Access Point C Wireless channel A B Infrastructure-based Network Multi-hop Network Wireless networks • We consider multi-hop networks • Ad hoc networks, mesh networks, sensor networks

  3. Key limitation • Wireless channel is a shared resource • Simultaneous transmissions limited by interference • Throughput reduces with multiple hops • Higher density reduces per-node throughput • Throughput reduces as number of flows increase • New applications require higher throughput • Streaming video, games Improving network capacity is important

  4. Multiple channels • Typically, available frequency spectrum is split into multiple channels • Large number of channels may be available • Using all the available channels is beneficial 3 channels 8 channels 4 channels 26 MHz 100 MHz 200 MHz 150 MHz 915 MHz 2.45 GHz 5.25 GHz 5.8 GHz 250 MHz 500 MHz 1000 MHz 24.125 GHz 61.25 GHz 122.5 GHz

  5. 1 1 1 B C A B C A 1 2 1 1 D D Multiple channels not used Network is poorly connected Current state of art • Typical multi-hop networks use one channel only • Key challenge: Connectivity vs using multiple channels

  6. Multiple interfaces • Nodes may be equipped with multiple interfaces • Common case may be small number of interfaces • Wireless radio interfaces typically support one channel at a time • We assume a half-duplex transreceiver • Interface can switch to any channel Number of interfaces per node expected to be smaller than number of channels

  7. Example configuration • IEEE 802.11 has multiple channels • 12 in IEEE 802.11a • Devices can be equipped with multiple interfaces • E.g., one interface per PCMCIA/ mini-PCI slot • Typically, fewer interfaces than channels • 2 interfaces, 12 channels

  8. Focus of research • Establish capacity of multi-channel networks • How does capacity vary with channels? • What are the insights from theoretical study? • Design, implement and evaluate protocols • Can we use existing protocols? • Develop suitable protocols optimized for multi-channel networks • How to implement protocols in real systems?

  9. Organization • Capacity analysis • Theory to protocols: Overview of challenges • Protocols • Interface Management Protocol • Routing Protocol • Implementation Issues • Summary and Future Work

  10. Capacity problem • Per-node capacity decreases as network density increases • Use more channels when network density increases • Challenge: Harder to scale interfaces at the same rate as channels How does the network capacity scale with large number of channels, and fewer interfaces than channels?

  11. Related work • [Gupta&Kumar] have studied the capacity of single channel networks • Result applicable for multi-channel networks when number of channels = number of interfaces per node • [Gamal et al.] have studied the throughput-delay tradeoff • Some of our constructions are based on their work • Lot of work on studying capacity in other contexts • Mobility, infrastructure-support, delay constraints, etc.

  12. Model • n nodes in the network, all located on a unit torus • c channels are available • m interfaces per node • Interface operates on one channel at a time • Channel model 1: Total bandwidth W, each channel has bandwidth W/c • Channel model 2:Total bandwidth Wc, each channel has bandwidth W

  13. Network scenarios [Gupta&Kumar] • Arbitrary network • Nodes can be located anywhere on the torus • Traffic patterns can be arbitrarily chosen • Measure of capacity – aggregate network transport capacity (bit-meters/sec) • Random network • Nodes are randomly placed on the torus • Each node sets up a flow to a random destination • Measure of capacity – minimum of flow throughputs (bits/sec)

  14. Results • Established tight bounds • Upper bounds and constructive lower bounds have same order • Capacity depends on ratio of c to m • Derived insights from constructions • Capacity-optimal routing and scheduling strategies

  15. Capacity constrained by interference Arbitrary network – Region 1

  16. Capacity constrained by interfaces Arbitrary network – Region 2

  17. Capacity constrained by connectivity + interference Random network – Region 1

  18. Capacity constrained by interference (arbitrary n/w) Random network – Region 2

  19. Capacity constrained by bottleneck destination Random network – Region 3

  20. Practical implications • When m < c, it is better to use c channels • If only m channels are used, larger capacity loss • Single interface per node often suffices • Up to log(n) channels, 1 interface is sufficient • Switching delay may not affect capacity • Extra hardware has to be provided

  21. Insights for protocol development • Multiple interfaces can simplify protocol design • Use one interface for receiving data on a fixed channel • Use second interface for sending data • Routing protocol has to distribute routes • Important for multi-channel networks • Optimal transmission range depends on density of nodes as well as number of channels • Optimum: # of interfering nodes = # of channels

  22. Open issues • Impact of switching delay has to be better studied • Is switching required at all? • Capacity under other switching constraints – switch among only a subset of channels • Analyze capacity of deterministic networks • Given a topology, what is the capacity? • What protocols should be used to achieve this capacity?

  23. Organization • Capacity analysis • Theory to protocols: Overview of challenges • Protocols • Interface Management Protocol • Routing Protocol • Implementation Issues • Summary and Future Work

  24. 3 channels 8 channels 4 channels 26 MHz 100 MHz 200 MHz 150 MHz 915 MHz 2.45 GHz 5.25 GHz 5.8 GHz Assumptions • Homogeneous channels: Channels with similar ranges and rates • Possibly channels in same frequency band • Alternatively, use appropriate power control

  25. 1 2 B A C Design choice: Multiple interfaces • Theory indicates single interface may suffice • But, multiple interfaces can hide switching delay • Multiple interfaces simplify protocols • Our proposal, described later, is simple to implement • Multiple interfaces can allow full-duplex transfer • Useful when multiple channels are available

  26. Design choice: Protocol separation • Separate protocol design into two components • Interface management • Routing • Interface management – shorter timescales • Map interfaces to channels • Schedule and control interface switching • Routing – longer timescales • Select “channel diverse” routes

  27. Routing and Interface assignment User Space Kernel Space IP Stack Interface Switching and Buffering Interface Interface Protocol separation overview

  28. 1,2 2 3,4 B A D C Link layer requirements • Utilize all the available channels • Even if number of interfaces < number of channels • E.g.: Interfaces can be switched to different channels • Ensure connectivity is not affected • B should be able to communicate with A and D • Need to be cognizant of switching delay

  29. Link layer requirements • Solution should be simple to implement • Avoid the need for complicated co-ordination, tight time synchronization • Allow implementation with existing hardware • Avoid requiring hardware changes • Avoid assuming specific hardware capabilities

  30. 1 2 3 B A D C 1 2 B A C 3 4 D E F Routing requirements • Improve single flow throughput by using multiple channels • Both interfaces can be utilized at the relay nodes • Improve network throughput by distributing flows

  31. Organization • Capacity analysis • Theory to protocols: Overview of challenges • Protocols • Interface Management Protocol • Routing Protocol • Implementation Issues • Summary and Future Work

  32. Key components • Interface assignment strategy • How to map interfaces to channels? • How to ensure neighboring nodes can communicate with each other? • Interface management protocol • Control when interfaces are switched, based on assignment strategy • Buffer packets if interface is busy

  33. Interface assignment strategies • Static Interface Assignment • Interface to channel assignment is fixed • Dynamic Interface Assignment • Interface assignment changes with time • Hybrid Interface Assignment • Some interfaces use static assignment, others use dynamic assignment

  34. 1,2 1,2 1,2 Not all channels used B A D C Common channel approach (e.g., [Draves2004Mobicom]) 1,2 2 3 B A D C May lead to longer routes 3 3,4 E Not possible Varying channel approach (e.g., [Raniwala2005Infocom]) Static interface assignment • Each interface is fixed to one channel • Does not require frequent co-ordination

  35. 1 - 4 1 - 4 1 - 4 B A D C Transmissions can dynamically occur on any channel Co-ordination may be needed for each transmission 1 2 B A D D is unaware of B’s communication Dynamic interface assignment • Interfaces can switch channels as needed • E.g., [So2004Mobihoc, Bahl2004Mobicom]

  36. [Nasipuri1999Wcnc] [Jain2001Ic3n] 1 1 1 B A D C 2-4 2-4 2-4 Channel for data transmission negotiated on control channel Hybrid strategies • One common channel used as “control” channel • One interface always fixed to this channel • Remaining channels used as “data” channels • Second interface switches among data channels Common control channel becomes a bottleneck

  37. Proposed hybrid assignment • One interface “fixed” on a channel • Different nodes use different fixed channels • Other interfaces “switch” as needed • Dynamic assignment • Fixed interface receives data on well-known channel • Avoids co-ordination issues, deafness problems • Switchable interfaces send on recipient's fixed channel • Retain flexibility of dynamic assignment

  38. A B C Fixed (ch 1) Fixed (ch 2) Fixed (ch 3) Switchable Switchable Switchable 2 1 3 2 Switchable interface of B switches to channel 3 when sending to node C, and to channel 1 when sending to node A Hybrid assignment example Any node pairs within transmission range can communicate

  39. Identifying fixed channel • Static Approach: Fixed channel as a function of node-identifier • Simple to build, but may not balance assignment • Dynamic approach: Choose fixed channel based on neighborhood information • A node chooses least used channel for fixed channel • Can balance load, and still inexpensive

  40. Interface management • Each channel is associated with a queue • Broadcast packets are inserted in to every queue • Fixed interface services fixed channel queue • Switchable interface services other channels • Channels serviced in round-robin fashion • Each channel is serviced for at most MaxSwitchTime

  41. UDP throughput – chain topology

  42. FTP throughput – chain topology

  43. Open issues • Broadcast cost increases linearly with channels • Consider partial broadcasts • Use a separate broadcast channel, with third interface • Fixed channel selection is topology-based • Consider load, channel quality information • Integrate with a routing solution

  44. Organization • Capacity analysis • Theory to protocols: Overview of challenges • Protocols • Interface Management Protocol • Routing Protocol • Heterogeneous channels • Summary and Future Work

  45. Routing approach • Existing routing protocols can be operated over interface management protocol • May not select channel diverse routes • Does not consider cost of switching interfaces • Our solution • Develop a new channel-aware metric • Incorporate metric in an on-demand source-routed protocol

  46. B 1 1 Route A-C-D is better A D 2 C 1 When possible, select routes where different hops are on different channels Selecting channel diverse routes • Most routing protocols use shortest-hop metric • Not sufficient with multi-channel networks • Need to exploit channel diversity

  47. B 2 1 Route A-B-D is better D A 1 2 C When possible, select routes that do not require frequent switching 3 E Impact of switching cost • Interface switching cost has to be considered • Switching interfaces incurs a delay • A node may be on different routes, requiring switching

  48. B 2 1 D A 1 2 C 3 E Designing a routing metric • Measure switching cost for a channel • Measure total link cost of a hop • Combine individual link costs into path cost

  49. D 3 0.1 1 C E 0.9 Measuring switching cost • Switching cost depends on the likelihood a switch is necessary before transmission • Fixed channel has cost 0 • “Active” channel has low switching cost • Switching cost (SC) directly proportional to time spent on other channels

  50. Routing protocol • Incorporate metric in on-demand source-routed protocol (similar to DSR) • RREQ messages modified to include link costs • Source initiates RREQ • Intermediate nodes forward RREQ if, • New RREQ • Cost of RREQ smaller than previously seen RREQ • Destination can compute best path • Using link cost information in sent RREQ

More Related