1 / 69

Wireless Medium Access Control

Wireless Medium Access Control. Nitin Vaidya Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University vaidya@cs.tamu.edu. Acknowledgements. Joint work with Victor Bahl, Anurag Dugar, Seema Gupta, Young-Bae Ko. Outline. Introduction MAC protocols Fair scheduling MAC Directional MAC.

minna
Télécharger la présentation

Wireless Medium Access Control

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. Wireless Medium Access Control Nitin Vaidya Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University vaidya@cs.tamu.edu

  2. Acknowledgements • Joint work with Victor Bahl, Anurag Dugar, Seema Gupta, Young-Bae Ko

  3. Outline • Introduction • MAC protocols • Fair scheduling MAC • Directional MAC

  4. Wireless Local Area Network • Similar to a wired LAN, but no wires • Nodes communicate over a broadcast wireless channel B A Wireless channel C D

  5. Mobile Ad Hoc Network • Logical next step • Multi-hop wireless • Nodes may be mobile

  6. Mobile Ad Hoc Network • Network formed by wireless mobile hosts without necessarily using an infrastructure C B A D E F

  7. Many Applications • Emergency operations • search-and-rescue • policing and fire fighting • Extending the reach of infrastructure • Personal area networking • cell phone, laptop, ear phone, wrist watch • Military environments • soldiers, tanks, planes • Civilian environments • mobile robots • meeting rooms • sports stadiums • boats, small aircraft

  8. Medium Access Control: Our Research • Distributed fair scheduling • MAC for directional antennas • Power-aware MAC • Adaptive MAC

  9. Our Research onMedium Access Control (MAC) • Self-imposed constraint : Maintain compatibility / resemblance to a standard • Much of our work focuses on IEEE 802.11 • Some work related to Hiperlan

  10. Distributed Fair Scheduling

  11. Distributed Fair MAC • Distributed • Fair

  12. Distributed Scheduling :What & Why

  13. Centralized Medium Access Control Protocols • Base station coordinates access to the wireless channel Node 1 Node 2 Base Station Node 3 Node n

  14. Distributed MAC Protocols • All nodes have identical responsibilities • We consider a LAN (single-hop network) here Node 1 Node 2 Wireless LAN Node 3 Node n

  15. Disadvantages of Centralized Approach • If a node cannot talk to the base station, it cannot transmit to any other nodes • Base station needs to keep track of state of other nodes • Hard to use failure-prone nodes as coordinators in centralized protocols

  16. Fairness

  17. Weighted Fairness • Packets to be transmitted belong to several flows • Each flow is assigned aweight • Bandwidth assigned to each backlogged flow is proportional to its weight

  18. Two flows backlogged Example: Three flows with weights 2 1 1 All flows backlogged

  19. Why Weighed Fairness ? • Distribute bandwidth “uniformly” in proportion of weights • AAAABBBB… versus ABABABAB… • Can administratively control bandwidth sharing • Possible to bound end-to-end delay for leaky bucket constrained traffic [Parekh] (under ideal conditions) • Useful for diffserv

  20. Flow 1 Output link Flow 2 Flow n Fair Queueing • Many centralized fair queueing protocols exist • WFQ, WF2Q, SCFQ, SFQ, … • Scheduler needs to know state of all flows

  21. Distributed Fair Scheduling

  22. Our Objectives • Fully distributed fair scheduling protocol • Should not have to explicitly exchange state information

  23. Proposed Approach Combination of • IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) • A centralized fair queueing protocol

  24. IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function CSMA / CA • Carrier Sense Multiple Access • Collision Avoidance

  25. IEEE 802.11 (CSMA/CA) • Choose a backoff interval in [ 0,cw ] • Count down backoff interval only when medium is idle • When counter reaches 0, transmit backoff interval 0 cw (contention window)

  26. B1 = 25 B1 = 5 wait Data Data wait B2 = 10 B2 = 20 B2 = 15 802.11 DCF Example B1 and B2 are backoff intervals at nodes 1 and 2 cw = 31

  27. Self-Clocked Fair Queueing (SCFQ)[Golestani] • A centralized fair scheduling protocol • But more amenable to distributed implementation than many others

  28. Self-Clocked Fair Queueing (SCFQ)[Golestani] • Maintains a virtual clock • Each packet is assigned start tag and finish tag • Start tag = max (current virtual clock, last finish tag for the flow) • Finish tag = start tag + length/weight • Packet with smallest finish tag is transmitted next • Virtual clock is updated to finish tag of packet in service

  29. Distributed Fair Scheduling • Backoff intervala (finish tag – virtual clock) a length / weight • No need to maintain explicit virtual clock • Distributed implementation of SCFQ • Smallest finish tag determined using backoff intervals • Backoff interval proportional to finish tag

  30. Distributed Fair Scheduling (DFS) • Choose backoff interval = length / weight packet length = 5 weight = 1/3 backoff interval = 5 / (1/3) = 15 slots

  31. B1 = 10 B1 = 5 B1 = 15 wait wait Collision ! Data Data B2 = 5 B2 = 5 B2 = 5 Distributed Fair Scheduling (DFS) Packet length = 15 Weight of node 1 = 1 ====> B1 = 15 / 1 = 15 Weight of node 2 = 3 ====> B2 = 15 / 3 = 5

  32. Collisions • Collisions occur when two nodes count down to 0 simultaneously • In centralized fair queueing, ties can be broken without causing “collisions” • To reduce the possibility of collisions: Backoff interval = Scaling_Factor * length / weight * random number with mean 1

  33. Backoff Interval • Initial formula: Length / weight = 15 / 1 = 15 • Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number =4 * 15 / 1 * [0.9,1.1] = [54,66] 0 15

  34. Backoff Interval 802.11 0 cw Proposed DFS 0

  35. Collision Resolution • Collision occurs when two nodes count down to 0 simultaneously • Counting to 0 implies that it is a given node’s “turn” to transmit • To reduce “priority” reversals, a small backoff interval is chosen after the first collision • Backoff interval increased exponentially on further collisions

  36. Impact of Small Weights • Backoff interval: Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number • Backoff intervals can become large when weights are small • Large backoff intervals may degrade performance (time wasted in counting down)

  37. Impact of Small Weights • Recall: Backoff intervals are being used to compare “length/weight” • Intuition: Any non-decreasing function of length/weight may to calculate backoff

  38. Alternative Mappings Chosen backoff interval Linear mapping SQRT EXP Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number

  39. Alternative Mappings • Advantage • smaller backoff intervals • less time wasted in counting down when weights of all backlogged flows are small • Disadvantage • backoff intervals that are different on a linear scale may become identical on the compressed scale • possibility for greater number of collisions

  40. Performance Evaluation • Using modified ns-2 simulator: 2 Mbps channel • Number of nodes = N • Number of flows = N/2 • Odd-numbered nodes are destinations, even-numbered nodes are sources • Unless otherwise specified: • flow weight = 1 / number of flows • backlogged flows with packet size 584 bytes (including UDP/IP headers) • Scaling_Factor = 0.02

  41. Throughput / Weight Variation Across Flows (with 16 Flows) 802.11 Flatter curve is fairer DFS is fairer Throughput / Weight Flow destination identifier

  42. Throughput - Fairness Trade-Off 802.11 Aggregate throughput (all flows combined) Number of flows

  43. Fairness Index • Fairness index: function of (throughput T / weightf) for each flowf over some interval of time • Unless specified, the interval is 6 seconds

  44. Throughput - Fairness Trade-Off Fairness index 802.11 Number of flows

  45. Impact of Scaling Factor(six flows with weights 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32,1/32) DFS Fairness index Scaling Factor

  46. Impact of Scaling Factor(six flows with weights 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32,1/32) Aggregate throughput DFS Scaling factor

  47. Scaled 802.11 • Is DFS fairer simply because it uses large backoff intervals ? • Fairness of 802.11 can also be improved by using larger backoff intervals • Scaled 802.11 = 802.11 which uses backoff interval range comparable with DFS

  48. Backoff Interval 802.11 0 cw DFS 0 Scaled 802.11

  49. Fairness versus Sampling Interval Size(24 flows) DFS Scaled 802.11 Fairness index 802.11 Interval Size

  50. Short-Term Fairness Narrow distribution is fairer DFS is fairer DFS Frequency Scaled 802.11 802.11 Number of packets transmitted by a flow (over 0.04 second windows)

More Related