Professional Documents
Culture Documents
264
263
Fig. 3 shows the proposed MAC scheme for multiple access
categories service differentiation. At the first all generated
packets from upper layer is classified in to real-time traffic and
best effort traffic using traffic classifier, where real-time
packets can access MAC layer directly but best-effort traffic
access MAC layer through randomization mechanism, so best-
effort traffic suffers from lager delay than real-time traffic. So
randomization mechanism is considered first level of priority,
and then contention window value used to assign different
priorities for each traffic category.
The proposed scheme considers two main traffic flows
(Real-time traffic and Best-effort traffic), and each traffic flow
consists of multiple traffic categories, assumes that different
types of traffic categories, X ( X 1 ) different traffic flows
for real-time traffic with types x ( x = 1,2,3..........., X ); also
Y ( Y 1 ) different traffic category for Best-effort traffic with
types y ( y = 1,2,3..........., Y ).
Fig. 3 MAC Scheme to Differentiate between Multiple Access Categories.
265
264
X X
channel conditions (i.e., no hidden terminals and no capture
Ps ,real , x = Nτreal , x (1 − τreal , x ) N −1 .∏ (1 −τreal , i ) N .∏ (1 −τbest , i ) N effect); also traffic classes are assumed to be packetized with
i =1 i =1
i≠ x equal packet lengths in order to be able to determine the
Y X
degree of service differentiation.
Ps ,best , y = Nτbest , y (1 −τbest , y ) N −1 .∏ (1 − τbest , i) N .∏ (1 −τreal , i ) N
i =1 i =1
i≠ y
We consider four access categories that will be supported by
X Y the network as shown in Table II; since differentiation is done
So Ps = ∑ P s ,real,i + ∑P s ,best, j (3) by assigning different values for minimum contention
i =1 j =1
window, note that CW 1 ≺ CW 2 ≺ CW 3 ≺ CW 4 to achieve
Normalized system throughput S is differentiation between traffic categories with required
X Y priorities.
S = ∑ Sreal , i + ∑ Sbest , j
i =1 j =1
Normalized throughput per AC with respect to variation of
Sreal , x Is the Throughput of traffic category x of real-time Po at Pr = 0.9 is shown in Fig. 4 and Pr = 0.7 is shown in Fig.
traffic, and Sbest , y is the Throughput of traffic category y of 5, using different values of minimum contention window for
each access category. Figures show that for low values of
best-effort traffic. Throughput of each traffic category can be CW min the throughput increases and decreases for large
calculated as flow
values of CW min . So to guarantee throughput of real-time
Ptr .Ps , x .Ereal ,x traffic AC1 and AC2 will use small values of CW min
Sreal , x = (4) ( CW 1 = 16 and CW 2 = 32 ) compared to values of CW min
(1 − Ptr )σ + PtrTs Ps + PtrTc (1 − Ps )
used by best-effort traffic, where AC3 and AC4 uses large
Ptr .Ps , y .Ebest , y values of CW min , ( CW 3 = 64 and CW 4 = 128 ). So
Sbest , y = (5) contention window considered first level of priority used in
(1 − Ptr )σ + PtrTs Ps + PtrTc (1 − Ps )
differentiation between different AC.
Where Ts Is the average time the channel is sensed busy in
case of successful transmission, Tc is the average time the Note that increasing Po causes increasing in throughput of
channel is sensed busy by each station during the collision. best-effort traffic and decreasing in real-time traffic, which is
Value of Ts and Tc depend on the access technique used, very clear in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Studying the effect of
calculated as follow for RTS/CTS mechanism. randomization mechanism parameter Pr achieved by
comparing throughput of each access category in Fig. 4
⎧Ts , real = RTS + SIFS + δ + CTS + SIFS + δ + H + Ereal where Pr = 0.9 and Fig. 5 where Pr = 0.7 , we note that
⎪ decreasing value of Pr will causes in increase throughput of
⎪ + SIFS + δ + ACK + DIFS + δ
⎪ real-time traffic and decrease throughput of best-effort traffic
⎨Ts , best = RTS + SIFS + δ + CTS + SIFS + δ + H + Ebest and this is considered second level of priority that used to
⎪ + SIFS + δ + ACK + DIFS + δ differentiate between real-time traffic and best effort-traffic.
⎪
⎪⎩ Tc = RTS + DIFS + δ
Delay per access category is shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 we
Simply average delay calculated directly by finding the can note that delay of real-time access categories is almost
following relation between delay and throughput. Since constant and not effected by changing Po or Pr , as expected
Dreal , x is delay of access category x in real-time traffic, and only contention window value has a small effect on the delay,
where increasing CW min causes increasing in time delay
Dbest , y is delay of access category y in best-effort traffic. before packet transmission. On the other hand delay of best-
effort categories is not guaranteed.
N .Ereal , x
Dreal , x = (6) TABLE I
S real , x PARAMETERS USED TO OBTAIN SIMULATION AND NUMERICAL RESULTS
266
265
TABLE II By comparing delay of real-time traffic in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7
DIFFERENT TRAFFIC CATEGORIES ASSUMED IN SIMULATION
with voice over IP QoS requirements in Table III, we can note
Traffic that the proposed scheme gives good performance for voice
Real-time Traffic Best-effort Traffic
Type transmission over WLAN.
Access
AC1 AC2 AC3 AC4
Category TABLE III
Randomization Randomization VOICE OVER IP QOS REQUIRMENTS
Direct Direct
Mechanism Mechanism
Access
MAC Pr and Po Pr and Po Quality Delay( ms )
CW 1 CW 2 Good 0-150
CW 3 CW 4
Medium 150-400
Priority High Low High Low Poor >400
267
266
To evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme, the [6] K. Liu “A Reservation-based Multiple Access Protocol with Collision
total throughput of the proposed scheme is compared with Avoidance for Wireless Multihop Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE ICC ’03,
vol. 2, May 2003, pp. 1119–23.
throughput of IEEE 802.11 standard protocol using RTS/CTS [7] N. H. Vaidya, P. Bahl, and S. Gupta, “Distributed Fair Scheduling in a
(Fig. 8) it is clear that the proposed scheme for service Wireless LAN,” Proc. ACM MOBICOM 2000, Aug. 2000, pp. 167–78.
differentiation has the same throughput of IEEE 802.11 [8] M. Barry, A. T. Campell, and A. Veres, “Distributed Control Algorithms
protocol, which means that adding the randomization for Service Differentiation in Wireless Packet Networks,” Proc. IEEE
INFOCOM 2001
mechanism and scaling CW min according to traffic categories [9] J. D. Pavon and S. Choi, “Link Adaptation Strategy for IEEE 802.11
priority did not have effect on the throughput of standard WLAN via Received Signal Strength Measurement,” IEEE ICC ’03,
MAC layer but add concept of service differentiation to MAC vol. 2, May 2003, pp. 1108–13.
[10] D. Qiao, S. Choi, and K. G. Shin, “Goodput Analysis and Link
layer. Adaptation for IEEE 802.11a Wireless LANs,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
Comp., vol. 1, no. 4, 2002, pp. 278–92.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION [11] H. Aida, “Wireless Packet Scheduling with Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Monitoring,” IEEE Annual Conference on Local Computer Networks
This paper introduced multiple access category service (LCN 2000), Tampa, FL, Nov. 2000.
[12] T. Sheu and T. Chen, “The Impact of RTS Threshold on IEEE 802.11
differentiation algorithms in DCF-WLAN. The differentiation MAC Protocol,” Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, vol. 6,
achieved by using two level of priority; the first level is no. 1, pp. 57-63, March 2003. (EI)
randomization mechanism, and second is the value of [13] M. A. Mehaseb, G. AbdelFadeel, and I. I. Ibrahim “Modified MAC
minimum contention window, to control throughput and delay Protocol for Service Differentiation in DCF-WLAN,” The Sixth IEEE
and IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical
traffic categories according to each traffic requirements. The Communications Networks (WOCN2009).
mathematical model is validated by simulation, which shows [14] Q. Pang, S. C. Liew, J. Y. B. Lee, and V. C. M. Leung, “Performance
that how control parameters can differentiate between evaluation of an adaptive backoff scheme for WLAN,” Wireless
different traffic categories. Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 867–879,
2004.
References
[1] IEEE Std. 802.11-1999. “Part II: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications”. Reference number
ISO/IEC 8802-11:1999(E). IEEE Std. 802.11, 1999 edition.
[2] G. Bianchi, ''Performance analysis of the IEEE802.11 distributed
coordination function" IEEE Journal in Selected Areas: Communication,
vol. 18, pp. 535{547, March 2000.
[3] F. Cali, M. Conti, and E. Gregori, “Dynamic Tuning of the IEEE 802.11
Protocol to Achieve a Theoretical Throughput Limit”. Networking,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Vol. 8, Issue 6, Dec. 2000 Page(s):785 -
799.
[4] S. Xu, “Advances in WLAN QoS for 802.11: an Overview”. Personal,
Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2003. 14th IEEE
Proceedings, Vol. 3, 7-10 Sept. 2003 Page(s):2297 - 2301.
[5] IEEE 802.11e/D4.0, “Draft Supplement to Part II: Wireless Medium
Access Control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications:
Medium Access Control (MAC) Enhancement for Quality of Service
(QoS)”. Nov. 2002.
268
267