Final - Mobile Adhoc Networks

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 32

Performance Evaluation of Deadline Monotonic Policy

over 802.11 protocol

Ines El Korbi and Leila Azouz Saidane


National School of Computer Science
University of Manouba, 2010 Tunisia
Emails: ines.korbi@gmail.com Leila.saidane@ensi.rnu.tn

ABSTRACT
Real time applications are characterized by their delay bounds. To satisfy the
Quality of Service (QoS) requirements of such flows over wireless
communications, we enhance the 802.11 protocol to support the Deadline
Monotonic (DM) scheduling policy. Then, we propose to evaluate the performance
of DM in terms of throughput, average medium access delay and medium access
delay distrbution. To evaluate the performance of the DM policy, we develop a
Markov chain based analytical model and derive expressions of the throughput,
average MAC layer service time and service time distribution. Therefore, we
validate the mathematical model and extend analytial results to a multi-hop
network by simulation using the ns-2 network simulator.

Keywords: Deadline Monotonic, 802.11 protocol, Performance evaluation,


Medium access delay, Throughput, Probabilistic medium access delay bounds.

1 INTRODUCTION priority. To support the DM policy over 802.11, we


use a distributed scheduling and introduce a new
Supporting applications with QoS requirements medium access backoff policy. Therefore, we focus
has become an important challenge for all on performance evaluation of the DM policy in terms
communications networks. In wireless LANs, the of achievable throughput, average MAC layer
IEEE 802.11 protocol [5] has been enhanced and the service time and MAC layer service time
IEEE 802.11e protocol [6] was proposed to support distribution. Hence, we follow these steps:
quality of service over wireless communications. − First, we propose a Markov Chain
In the absence of a coordination point, the IEEE framework modeling the backoff process of
802.11 defines the Distributed Coordination n contending stations within the same
Function (DCF) based on the Carrier Sense Multiple broadcast region [1].
Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) Due to the complexity of the mathematical
protocol. The IEEE 802.11e proposes the Enhanced model, we restrict the analysis to n
Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) as an extension contending stations belonging to two traffic
for DCF. With EDCA, each station maintains four categories (each traffic category is
priorities called Access Categories (ACs). The characterized by its own delay bound).
quality of service offered to each flow depends on − From the analytical model, we derive the
the AC to which it belongs. throughput achieved by each traffic
Nevertheless, the granularity of service offered category.
by 802.11e (4 priorities at most) can not satisfy the − Then, we use the generalized Z-transforms
real time flows requirements (where each flow is [3] to derive expressions of the average
characterized by its own delay bound). MAC layer service time and service time
distribution.
Therefore, we propose in this paper a new − As the analytical model was restricted to
medium access mechanism based on the Deadline two traffic categories, analytical results are
Monotonic (DM) policy [9] to schedule real time extended by simulation to different traffic
flows over 802.11. Indeed DM is a real time categories.
scheduling policy that assigns static priorities to flow − Finally, we consider a simple multi-hop
packets according to their deadlines; the packet with scenario to deduce the behavior of the DM
the shortest deadline being assigned the highest policy in a multi hop environment.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 1


maximum achievable throughput. The native model
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In is also extended in [10] to a non saturated
section 2, we review the state of the art of the IEEE environment. In [12], the authors derive the average
802.11 DCF, QoS support over 802.11 mainly the packet service time at a 802.11 node. A new
IEEE 80.211e EDCA and real time scheduling over generalized Z-transform based framework has been
802.11. In section 3, we present the distributed proposed in [3] to derive probabilistic bounds on
scheduling and introduce the new medium access MAC layer service time. Therefore, it would be
backoff policy to support DM over 802.11. In section possible to provide probabilistic end to end delay
4, we present our mathematical model based on bounds in a wireless network.
Markov chain analysis. Section 5 and 6 present
respectively throughput and the service time 2.2 Supporting QoS over 802.11
analysis. Analytical results are validated by 2.2.1 Differentiation mechanisms over 802.11
simulation using the ns-2 network simulator [16]. In Emerging applications like audio and video
section 7, we extend our study by simulation, first to applications require quality of service guarantees in
take into consideration different traffic categories, terms of throughput delay, jitter, loss rate, etc.
second, to study the behavior of the DM algorithm in Transmitting such flows over wireless
a multi-hop environment where factors like communications require supporting service
interferences or routing protocols exist. Finally, we differentiation mechanisms over wireless networks.
conclude in Section 8.
Many medium access schemes have been
2 LITTERATURE REVIEWS proposed to provide some QoS enhancements over
the IEEE 802.11 WLAN. Indeed, [4] assigns
2.1 The 802.11 protocol different priorities to the incoming flows. Priority
2.1.1 Description of the IEEE 802.11 DCF classes are differentiated according to one of three
Using DCF, a station shall ensure that the 802.11 parameters: the backoff increase function,
channel is idle when it attempts to transmit. Then it Inter Frame Spacing (IFS) and the maximum frame
selects a random backoff in the contention window length. Experiments show that all the three
[0,CW-1], where CW is the current window size and differentiation schemes offer better guarantees for
varies between the minimum and the maximum the highest priority flow. But the backoff increase
contention window sizes. If the channel is sensed function mechanism doesn’t perform well with TCP
busy, the station suspends its backoff until the flows because ACKs affect the differentiation
channel becomes idle for a Distributed Inter Frame mechanism.
Space (DIFS) after a successful transmission or an
Extended Inter Frame Space (EIFS) after a collision. In [7], an algorithm is proposed to provide
The packet is transmitted when the backoff reaches service differentiation using two parameters of IEEE
zero. A packet is dropped if it collides after 802.11, the backoff interval and the IFS. With this
maximum retransmission attempts. scheme high priority stations are more likely to
The above described two way handshaking access the medium than low priority ones. The above
packet transmission procedure is called basic access described researches led to the standardization of a
mechanism. DCF defines a four way handshaking new protocol that supports QoS over 802.11, the
technique called Request To Send/ Clear To Send IEEE 802.11e protocol [6].
(RTS/CTS) to prevent the hidden station problem. A
station S j is said to be hidden from S i if S j is 2.2.2 The IEEE 802.11e EDCA
The IEEE 802.11e proposes a new medium
within the transmission range of the receiver of S i access mechanism called the Enhanced Distributed
and out of the transmission range of S i . Channel Access (EDCA), that enhances the IEEE
2.1.2 Performance evaluation of the 802.11 802.11 DCF. With EDCA, each station maintains
DCF four priorities called Access Categories (ACs). Each
Different works have been proposed to evaluate access category is characterized by a minimum and a
the performance of the 802.11 protocol based on maximum contention window sizes and an
Bianchi’s work [1]. Indeed, Bianchi proposed a Arbitration Inter Frame Spacing (AIFS).
Markov chain based analytical model to evaluate the
saturation throughput of the 802.11 protocol. By Different analytical models have been proposed
saturation conditions, it’s meant that contending have to evaluate the performance of 802.11e EDCA. In
always packets to transmit. [17], Xiao extends Bianchi’s model to the prioritized
Several works extended the Bianchi model either schemes provided by 802.11e by introducing
to suit more realistic scenarios or to evaluate other multiple ACs with distinct minimum and maximum
performance parameters. Indeed, the authors of [2] contention window sizes. But the AIFS
incorporate the frame retry limits in the Bianchi’s differentiation parameter is lacking in Xiao’s model.
model and show that Bianchi overestimates the Recently Osterbo and Al. have proposed

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 2


different works to evaluate the performance of the information.
IEEE 802.11e EDCA [13], [14], [15]. They propose
a model that takes into consideration all the 3 SUPPORTING DEADLINE MONOTONIC
differentiation parameters of the EDFA especially (DM) POLICY OVER 802.11
the AIFS one. Moreover different parameters of QoS
have been evaluated such as throughput, average With DCF all the stations share the same
service time, service time distribution and transmission medium. Then, the HOL (Head of Line)
probabilistic response time bounds for both saturated packets of all the stations (highest priority packets)
and non saturated cases. will contend for the channel with the same priority
Although the IEEE 802.11e EDCA classifies the even if they have different deadlines.
traffic into four prioritized ACs, there is still no Introducing DM over 802.11 allows stations
guarantee of real time transmission service. This is having packets with short deadlines to access the
due to the lack of a satisfactory scheduling method channel with higher priority than those having
for various delay-sensitive flows. Hence, we need a packets with long deadlines. Providing such a QoS
scheduling policy dedicated to such delay sensitive requires distributed scheduling and a new medium
flows. access policy.

2.3 Real time scheduling over 802.11 3.1 Distributed Scheduling over 802.11
To realize a distributed scheduling over 802.11,
A distributed solution for the support of real- we introduce a priority broadcast mechanism similar
time sources over IEEE 802.11, called Blackburst, is to [18]. Indeed each station maintains a local
discussed in [8]. This scheme modifies the MAC scheduling table with entries for HOL packets of all
protocol to send short transmissions in order to gain other stations. Each entry in the scheduling table of
priority for real-time service. It is shown that this ( )
node S i comprises two fields S j , D j where S j is
approach is able to support bounded delays. The
main drawback of this scheme is that it requires the source node MAC address and D j is the
constant intervals for high priority traffic; otherwise deadline of the HOL packet of node S j . To
the performance degrades very much. broadcast the HOL packet deadlines, we propose to
use the DATA/ACK access mode.
In [18], the authors proposed a distributed
priority scheduling over 802.11 to support a class of
When a node S i transmits a DATA packet, it
dynamic priority schedulers such as Earliest
Deadline First (EDF) or Virtual Clock (VC). Indeed, piggybacks the deadline of its HOL packet. The
the EDF policy is used to schedule real time flows nodes hearing the DATA packet add an entry for S i
according to their absolute deadlines, where the in their local scheduling tables by filling the
absolute deadline is the node arrival time plus the corresponding fields. The receiver of the DATA
delay bound. packet copies the priority of the HOL packet in ACK
To realize a distributed scheduling over 802.11, before sending the ACK frame. All the stations that
the authors of [18] used a priority broadcast did not hear the DATA packet add an entry for S i
mechanism where each station maintains an entry for using the information in the ACK packet.
the highest priority packet of all other stations. Thus,
stations can adjust their backoff according to other 3.2 DM medium access backoff policy
stations priorities.
Let’s consider two stations S 1 and S 2
The overhead introduced by the broadcast transmitting two flows with the same deadline D1 (
priority mechanism is negligible. This is due to the D1 is expressed as a number of 802.11 slots). The
fact that priorities are exchanged using native DATA two stations having the same delay bound can access
and ACK packets. Nevertheless, the authors of [18] the channel with the same priority using the native
propose a generic backoff policy which can be used 802.11 DCF.
by a class dynamic priority schedulers no matter if Now, we suppose that S 1 and S 2 transmit flows
this scheduler targets delay sensitive flows or rate
sensitive flows. with different delay bounds D1 and D 2 such as
D1 < D 2 , and generate two packets at time instants
In this paper, we focus on delay sensitive flows t 1 and t 2 . If S 2 had the same delay bound as S 1 ,
and propose to support the fixed priority deadline
monotonic scheduler over 802.11 to schedule delay its packet would have been generated at time t '2 such
sensitive flows. For instance, we use a priority as t '2 = t 2 + D 21 , where D21 = ( D2 − D1 ) .
broadcast mechanism similar to [5] and propose a
At that time, S 1 and S 2 would have the same
new medium access backoff policy where the
backoff value is inferred from the deadline priority and transmit their packets according to the

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 3


802.11 protocol. In this section, we propose a mathematical
Thus, to support DM over 802.11, each station model to evaluate the performance of the DM policy
uses a new backoff policy where the backoff is given using Markov chain analysis [1]. We consider the
by: following assumptions:
• The random backoff selected in [ 0 , CW − 1]
according to 802.11 DCF, referred as BAsic Assumption 1:
Backoff (BAB). The system under study comprises n contending
• The DM Shifting Backoff (DMSB): stations hearing each other transmissions.
corresponds to the additional backoff slots that Assumption 2:
a station with low priority (the HOL packet Each station S i transmits a flow Fi with a delay
having a large deadline) adds to its BAB to bound Di . The n stations are divided into two traffic
have the same priority as the station with the
categories C1 and C 2 such as:
highest priority (the HOL packet having the
shortest deadline). − C1 represents n1 nodes transmitting flows
with delay bound D1 .
Whenever a station S i sends an ACK or hears − C 2 represents n 2 nodes transmitting flows
an ACK on the channel its DMSB is revaluated as with delay bound D 2 , such as D1 < D 2 ,
follows:
D21 = ( D 2 − D1 ) and ( n1 + n 2 ) = n .
DMSB( S i ) = Deadline( HOL( S i ) ) − DTmin ( S i ) (1) Assumption 3:
We operate in saturation conditions: each station has
immediately a packet available for transmission after
Where DTmin ( S i ) is the minimum of the HOL the service completion of the previous packet [1].
packet deadlines present in S i scheduling table and Assumption 4:
Deadline( HOL( S i ) ) is the HOL packet deadline of A station selects a BAB in a constant contention
node S i . window [0 ,W − 1] independently of the transmission
attempt. This is a simplifying assumption to limit the
Hence, when S i has to transmit its HOL packet complexity of the mathematical model.
with a delay bound Di , it selects a BAB in the Assumption 5:
contention window [ 0 , CW min − 1] and computes the We are in stationary conditions, i.e. the n stations
WHole Backoff (WHB) value as follows: have already sent one packet at least.

WHB( S i ) = DMSB( S i ) + BAB( S i ) (2)


Depending on the traffic category to which it
belongs, each station S i will be modeled by a
Markov Chain representing its whole backoff (WHB)
The station S i decrements its BAB when it
process.
senses an idle slot. Now, we suppose that S i senses
the channel busy. If a successful transmission is 4.1 Markov chain modeling a station of category
heard, then S i  revaluates its DMSB when a correct C1
ACK is heard. Then the station S i adds the new Figure 1 illustrates the Markov chain modeling a
DMSB value to its current BAB as in equation (2). station S 1 of category C1 . The states of this Markov
Whereas, if a collision is heard, S i reinitializes its chain are described by the following quadruplet
DMSB and adds it to its current BAB to allow
( R , i , i − j , D21 ) where:
colliding stations contending with the same priority • R : takes two values denoted by C 2 and
as for their first transmission attempt. S i transmits ~ C 2 . When R = ~ C 2 , the n 2 stations of
when its WHB reaches 0. If the transmission fails, S i category C 2 are decrementing their shifting
doubles its contention window size and repeats the backoff (DMSB) during D21 slots and
above procedure until the packet is successfully wouldn’t contend for the channel. When
transmitted or dropped after maximum R = C 2 , the D 21 slots had already been
retransmission attempts.
elapsed and stations of category C 2 will
contend for the channel..
4 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE DM
POLICY OVER 802.11

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 4


Figure 1: Markov chain modeling a category C1 Station

• i : the value of the BAB selected by S 1 in channel during additional D21 slots. Therefore, S 1
[0 ,W − 1] . moves to the state ( ~ C 2 , i − j , i − j ,− D 21 ) ,
• ( i − j ) : corresponds to the current backoff of i = 1..W − 1 , j = 0.. min( D21 − 1, i − 1) .
the station S 1 .
• D 21 : corresponds to ( D2 − D1 ) . We choose Now, If S 1 is in one of the states
the negative notation − D 21 for stations of ( C 2 , i , i − D21 ,− D21 ) , i = ( D21 + 1) ..W − 1 and at
C1 to express the fact that only stations of least one of the ( n − 1) remaining stations (either a
category C 2 have a positive DMSB equal to category C1 or a category C 2 station) transmits,
D 21 . then S 1 moves to one of the states
Initially S 1 selects a random BAB and is in ( ~ C 2 , i − D21 , i − D21 ,− D21 ) , i = ( D21 + 1) ..W − 1 .
one of the states ( ~ C2 , i , i ,− D21 ) , i = 0..W − 1 .
During ( D 21 − 1) slots, S 1 decrements its backoff if
4.2 Markov chain modeling a station of
category C2
none of the ( n1 − 1) remaining stations of category Figure 2 illustrates the Markov chain modeling
C1 transmits. Indeed, during these slots, the n 2 a station S 2 of category C 2 . Each state of S 2
stations of category C 2 are decrementing their Markov chain is represented by the quadruplet
DMSB and wouldn’t contend for the channel. ( i , k , D21 − j , D21 ) where:
• i : refers to the BAB value selected by S 2 in
When S 1 is in one of the states [0 ,W − 1] .
( ~ C 2 , i , i − ( D21 − 1) ,− D21 ) , i = D 21 ..W − 1 and • k : refers to the current BAB value of S 2 .
th
senses the channel idle, it decrements its D 21 slot. • D21 − j : refers to the current DMSB of S 2 ,
But S 1 knows that henceforth the n 2 stations of j ∈ [ 0 , D21 ] .
category C 2 can contend for the channel (the D 21 • D21 : corresponds to ( D 2 − D1 ) .
slots had been elapsed). Hence, S 1 moves to one of
the states ( C 2 , i , i − D21 ,− D 21 ) , i = D 21 ..W − 1 . When S 2 selects a BAB, its DMSB equals D21 
and is in one of the states ( i , i , D 21 , D 21 ) ,
However, when the station S 1 is in one of the i = 0..W − 1 . During D21 slots, only the n1
states ( ~ C 2 , i , i − j ,− D 21 ) , i = 1..W − 1 , stations of category C1 contend for the channel.
j = 0.. min( D 21 − 1, i − 1) and at least one of the
( n1 − 1) remaining stations of category C1 If S 2 senses the channel idle during D21 slots, it
transmits, then the stations of category C 2 will moves to one of the states ( i , i ,0 , D 21 ) , i = 0..W − 1 ,
reinitialize their DMSB and wouldn’t contend for where it ends its shifting backoff.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 5


Figure 2: Markov chain modeling a category C 2 Station

When S 2 is in one of the states ( i , i ,0 , D 21 ) ,


i = 0..W − 1 , the ( n 2 − 1) other stations of category • γ : the set of states of S 2 , where stations
2

C 2 have also decremented their DMSB and can of category C 2 contend for the channel
(pink states in figure 2).
contend for the channel. Thus, S 2 decrements its
γ 2 = { ( i , i ,0 , D21 ) , i = 0..W − 1
BAB and moves to the state ( i , i − 1,0 , D 21 ) ,
∪ ( i , i − 1,0 , D 21 ) , i = 2..W − 1}
i = 2..W − 1 , only if none of ( n − 1) remaining
stations transmits.
Therefore, when stations of category C 1 are in
If S 2 is in one of the states ( i , i − 1,0 , D 21 ) , one the states of ξ 1 , stations of category C 2 are in
i = 2..W − 1 , and at least one of the ( n − 1) one of the states of ξ 2 . Similarly, when stations of
remaining stations transmits, the n 2 stations of category C 1 are is in one of the states of γ 1 ,
category C 2 will reinitialize their DMSB and S 2 stations of category C 2 are in one of the states of
moves to the state ( i − 1, i − 1, D21 , D21 ) , γ 2.
i = 2..W − 1 . Hence, we derive the expressions of S 1
4.3 Blocking probabilities in the Markov chains blocking probabilities p11 and p12 shown in
According to the explanations given in figure 1 as follows:
paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, the states of the Markov
chains modeling stations S 1 and S 2 can be divided − p11 : the probability that S 1 is blocked given
into the following groups:
that S 1 is in one of the states of ξ 1 . p11 is
• ξ 1 : the set of states of S 1 where none of the the probability that at least a station S 1' of
n 2 stations of category C 2 contends for the the other ( n1 − 1) stations of C 1 transmits
channel (blue states in figure 1). given that S 1' is in one of the states of ξ 1 .
ξ 1 = { ( ~ C 2 , i , i − j ,− D 21 ) , i = 0..W − 1,
p 11 = 1 − ( 1 − τ ) n1 − 1 (3)
j = 0.. min( max( 0 , i − 1) , D 21 − 1)}
11

where τ 11 is the probability that a station S 1'

• γ : the set of states of S 1 where stations of


1
of C1 transmits given that S 1' is in one of
category C 2 can contend for the channel the states of ξ 1 :
(pink states in figure 1). τ 11 [
= Pr S 1' transmits ξ 1 ]
γ 1 = { ( C 2 , i , i − D 21 ,− D 21 ) , i = D 21 ..W − 1} ( ~ C2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 )
π 1
= (4)
W − 1  min ( max ( 0 ,i − 1) ,D21 − 1) 
ξ
• : the set of states of S 2 where stations of
2
category C 2 do not contend for the channel

i= 0 

 ∑ π 1( ~C2 ,i ,i − j ,− D21 ) 

j= 0 
(blue states in figure 2).
ξ 2 = { ( i , i , D 21 − j , D 21 ) , i = 0..W − 1,
π 1( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 )
is defined as the probability of
j = 0..( D 21 − 1)}
the state ( R , i , i − j ,− D21 ) , in the stationary

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 6


conditions and Π 1 = π { ( R ,i ,i −
1
j ,− D21 )
} is the − p 22 : the probability that S 2 is blocked

probability vector of a category C 1 station. given that S 2 is in one of the states of γ 2 .


p 22 = 1 − ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2 − 1 (9)
− p12 : the probability that S 1 is blocked given
that S 1 is in one of the states of γ 1 . p12 is The blocking probabilities described above
allow deducing the transition state probabilities and
the probability that at least a station S 1' of
having the transition probability matrix Pi , for a
the other ( n1 − 1) stations of C 1 transmits
station of traffic category C i .
given that S 1' is in one of the states of γ 1 or Therefore, we can evaluate the state
at least a station S 2' of the n 2 stations of probabilities by solving the following system [11]:
C 2 transmits given that S 2' is in one of the
 Π i Pi = Π i
states of γ 2 . 

p 12 = 1 − ( 1 − τ ) n1 − 1 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2


 j
π ij = 1 (10)
12 
(5)
4.4 Transition probability matrices
where τ 12 is the probability that a station S 1' 4.4.1 Transition probability matrix of a
category C1 station
of C 1 transmits given that S 1' is in one of
Let P1 be the transition probability matrix of
the states of γ 1 . the station S 1 of category C1 . P1 { i , j} is the
τ 12 [
= Pr S 1' transmits γ 1 ] probability to transit from state i to state j . We
π 1( C2 ,D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) have:
= W−1
(6)
P1 { ( ~ C 2 , i , i − j ,− D 21 ) , ( ~ C 2 , i , i − ( j + 1) ,− D 21 )}
∑ π 1
( C2 ,i ,i − D21 ,− D21 )
i = D21 = 1 − p11 , i = 2..W − 1, j = 0.. min( i − 2 , D 21 − 2 )
(11)
and τ 22 the probability that a station S 2' of P1 { ( ~ C 2 , i ,1,− D 21 ) , ( ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 ,− D 21 )} = 1 − p11 ,
C 2 transmits given that S 2' is in one of the i = 1.. min(W − 1, D 21 − 1)
states of γ 2 . (12)
P1 { ( ~ C 2 , i , i − D 21 + 1,− D 21 ) , ( C 2 , i , i − D 21 ,− D 21 )}
τ 12 = Pr [ S '2 transmits γ 2 ] = 1 − p11 , i = D 21 ..W − 1
( 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 ) (13)
π
= 2
(7) P1{ ( ~ C2 , i , i − j ,− D21 ) , ( ~ C2 , i − j , i − j ,− D21 )}
W−1 W−1 (14)
= p11 , i = 2..W − 1, j = 1.. min( i − 1, D21 − 1)
∑i= 0
π
( i ,i ,0 ,D21 )
2 + ∑
i= 2
π
( i ,i − 1,0 ,D21 )
2

P1 { ( ~ C2 , i , i ,− D21 ) , ( ~ C2 , i , i ,− D21 )} = p11 ,


( i ,k ,D21 − j ,D21 )
(15)
π 2 is defined as the probability i = 1..W − 1
of the state ( i , k , D21 − j , D 21 ) , in the
P1{ ( C2 , i , i − D21 ,− D21 ) , ( ~ C2 , i − D21 , i − D21 ,− D21 )}
stationary condition. Π 2 = π { ( i ,k ,D21 −
2
j ,D21 )
} = p12 , i = ( D21 + 1) ..W − 1
is the probability vector of a category C 2 (16)
station.
P1{ ( C2 ,i ,i − D21 ,− D21 ) ,( C2 ,( i − 1) ,( i − 1 − D21 ) ,− D21 )}
In the same way, we evaluate p 21 and p 22 the = 1 − p12 ,i = ( D21 + 1) ..W − 1
blocking probabilities of station S 2 as shown in (17)
figure 2:
− p 21 : the probability that S 2 is blocked 1
P1{ ( ~ C2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 ) , ( ~ C2 , i , i ,− D21 )} = ,
given that S 2 is in one of the states of ξ 2 . W (18)
i = 0..W − 1
p 21 = 1 − ( 1 − τ 11 ) n1
(8)
If ( D 21 < W ) then:

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 7


P1{ ( C2 , D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) , ( ~ C2 , i , i ,− D21 )} =
1
,  τ 11 = f (τ 11 ,τ 12 ,τ 22 )

 τ 12 = f (τ 11 ,τ 12 ,τ 22 )
W (19)
i = 0..W − 1 
 τ 22 = f (τ 11 ,τ 12 ,τ 22 )
 under the constraint
By replacing p11 and p 12 by their values in 
equations (3) and (5) and by replacing P1 and Π 1  τ 11 > 0 ,τ 12 > 0 ,τ 22 > 0 ,τ 11 < 1,τ 12 < 1,τ 22 < 1
in (10) and solving the resulting system, we can (28)
( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 )
express π 1 as a function of τ 11 , τ 12 and
Solving the above system (28), allows deducing
τ 22 given respectively by equations (4), (6) and the expressions of τ 11 , τ 12 and τ 22 , and deriving
(7). the state probabilities of Markov chains modeling
category C 1 and category C 2 stations.
4.4.2 Transition probability matrix of a
category C2 station
Let P2 be the transition probability matrix of 5 THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS
the station S 2 belonging to the traffic category C 2 .
The transition probabilities of S 2 are: In this section, we propose to evaluate Bi , the
normalized throughput achieved by a station of
P2 { ( i , i , D21 − j , D21 ) , ( i , i , D21 − ( j + 1) , D21 )} traffic category C i [1]. Hence, we define:
(20)
= 1 − p21 , i = 0..W − 1, j = 0..( D21 − 1)
− Pi ,s : the probability that a station S i belonging
P2 { ( i , i , D21 − j , D21 ) , ( i , i , D21 , D21 )} = p21 , to the traffic category C i transmits a packet
(21)
i = 0..W − 1, j = 0..( D21 − 1) successfully. Let S 1 and S 2 be two stations
belonging respectively to traffic categories C 1
P2 { ( i , i ,0 , D21 ) , ( i , i − 1,0 , D21 )} = 1 − p22 , and C 2 . We have:
(22)
i = 2..W − 1
P1,s = Pr [ S1 transmits successfully ξ 1 ] Pr [ξ 1 ]
P2 { ( 1,1,0 , D21 ) , ( 0 ,0 ,0 , D21 )} = 1 − p22 (23) + Pr [ S1 transmits successfully γ 1 ] Pr [γ 1 ]
= τ 11 ( 1 − p11 ) Pr [ξ 1 ] + τ 12 ( 1 − p12 ) Pr [γ 1 ]
P2 { ( i , i ,0 , D21 ) , ( i , i , D21 , D21 )} = p22 ,
(24) (29)
i = 1..W − 1
P2 ,s = Pr [ S 2 transmits successfully ξ ] Pr[ξ 2 ]
P2 { ( i , i − 1,0 , D21 ) , ( i − 1, i − 1, D21 , D21 )} = p22 , 2

i = 2..W − 1
(25) + Pr [ S 2 transmits successfully γ 2 ] Pr[γ 2 ]
=τ 22 ( 1 − p 22 ) Pr [γ 2]
P2 { ( i , i − 1,0 , D21 ) , ( i − 1, i − 2 ,0 , D21 )} = 1 − p22 , (30)
(26)
i = 3..W − 1 − Pidle : the probability that the channel is idle.
1
P2 { ( 0 ,0 ,0 , D21 ) , ( i , i , D21 , D21 )} = , i = 0..W − 1 (27)
W The channel is idle if the n1 stations of
category C 1 don’t transmit given that these stations
By replacing p 21 and p22 by their values in
are in one of the states of ξ 1 or if the n stations
equations (8) and (9) and by replacing P2 and Π 2
(both category C 1 and category C2 stations) don’t
in (10) and solving the resulting system, we can
( i ,k ,D − j ,D21 ) transmit given that stations of category C 1 are in
express π 2 21 as a function of τ 11 , τ 12
one of the states of γ 1 . Thus:
and τ 22 given respectively by equations (4), (6)
( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 )
and (7). Moreover, by replacing π 1 and Pidle = ( 1 − τ 11 ) n1 Pr [ξ 1 ] + ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2 Pr [γ 1 ]
( i ,k ,D21 − j ,D21 ) (31)
π 2 by their values, in equations (4), (6)
and (7), we obtain a system of non linear equations Hence, the expression of the throughput of a
as follows:
category C i station is given by:

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 8


Pi ,s T P
Bi =
 2 
PIdle Te + Ps Ts +  1 − PIdle −
 ∑ ni Pi ,s  Tc

For all the scenarios, we consider that we are in
n
 i= 1  presence of n contending stations with stations
(32) 2
for each traffic category. In figure 3, n is fixed to
Where Te denotes the duration of an empty 8 and we depict the throughput achieved by the
different stations present in the network as a
slot, Ts and Tc denote respectively the duration of
function of the contention window size W ,
a successful transmission and a collision. ( D21 = 1) . We notice that the throughput achieved
 2 
 1 − PIdle −
 ∑ ni Pi ,s 
 corresponds to the by category C1 stations (stations numbered from
 i= 1  S 11 to S 14 ) is greater than the one achieved by
probability of collision. Finally T p denotes the category C 2 stations (stations numbered from S 21
average time required to transmit the packet data to S 24 ).
payload. We have:

(
Ts = T PHY + TMAC + T p + T D + SIFS + )
(33)
( TPHY + T ACK + T D ) + DIFS

(
Tc = TPHY + TMAC + T p + TD + EIFS ) (34)

Where T PHY , TMAC and T ACK are the


durations of the PHY header, the MAC header and
the ACK packet [1], [13]. T D is the time required to
transmit the two bytes deadline information.
Stations hearing a collision wait during EIFS before
resuming their backoff.

For numerical results stations transmit 512 Figure 3: Normalized throughput as a function of
bytes data packets using 802.11.b MAC and PHY the contention window size ( D 21 = 1, n = 8 )
layers parameters (given in table 1) with a data rate
equal to 11Mbps. For simulation scenarios, the Analytically, stations belonging to the same
propagation model is a two ray ground model. The traffic category have the same throughput given by
transmission range of each node is 250m. The equation (31). Simulation results validate analytical
distance between two neighbors is 5m. The EIFS results and show that stations belonging to the same
parameter is set to ACKTimeout as in ns-2, where: traffic category (either category C1 or category C 2
) have nearly the same throughput. Thus, we
ACKTimeout = DIFS + ( T PHY + T ACK + T D ) + SIFS
conclude the fairness of DM between stations of the
(35) same category.
Table 1: 802.11 b parameters. For subsequent throughput scenarios, we focus
on one representative station of each traffic
category. Figure 4, compares category C1 and
category C 2 stations throughputs to the one
obtained with 802.11.

Curves are represented as a function of W and


Data Rate 11 Mb/s for different values of D21 . Indeed as D21
Slot 20 µs
increases, the category C1 station throughput
SIFS 10 µs
DIFS 50 µs increases, whereas the category C 2 station
PHY Header 192 µs throughput decreases. Moreover as W increases,
MAC Header 272 µs the difference between stations throughputs is
ACK 112 µs reduced. This is due to the fact that the shifting
Short Retry Limit 7 backoff becomes negligible compared to the
contention window size.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 Ubiquitous Computing- and Communication Journal 9


We propose to evaluate the Z-Transform of the
Finally, we notice that the category C1 station MAC layer service time [3], [14], [15] to derive an
obtains better throughput with DM than with expression of the average service time. The service
802.11, but the opposite scenario happens to the time depends on the duration of an idle slot Te , the
category C 2 station. duration of a successful transmission Ts and the
duration of a collision Tc [1], [3],[14]. As Te is the
smallest duration event, the duration of all events
 Tevent 
will be given by  .
 Te 

6.1 Z-Transform of the MAC layer service time

6.1.1 Service time Z-transform of a category


C1 station:
Let TS 1 ( Z ) be the service time Z-transform of
a station S1 belonging to traffic category C 1 . We
define:

Figure 4: Normalized throughput as a function of H 1( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 ) (Z) :


The Z-transform of the
the contention window size (different D21 values)
time already elapsed from the instant S 1 selects a
In figure 5, we generalize the results for basic backoff in [ 0 ,W − 1] (i.e. being in one of the
different numbers of contending stations and fix the states ( ~ C 2 , i , i ,− D 21 ) ) to the time it is found in the
contention window size W to 32.
state ( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 ) .
Moreover, we define:

11
• Psuc : the probability that S 1 observes a
successful transmission on the channel,
while S 1 is in one of the states of ξ 1 .
11
Psuc = ( n1 − 1)τ 11 ( 1 − τ 11 ) n1 − 2 (36)

12
• Psuc : the probability that S 1 observes a
successful transmission on the channel,
while S 1 is in one of the states of γ 1 .
12
Psuc = ( n1 − 1)τ 12 ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 − 2 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2
(37)
Figure 5: Normalized throughput as a function of + n2τ 22 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2 − 1 ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 − 1
the number of contending stations
We evaluate H 1( R ,i ,i − j ,− D21 ) ( Z ) for each state
All the curves show that DM performs service
differentiation over 802.11 and offers better of S1 Markov chain as follows:
throughput for category C1 stations independently
  Ts 
of the number of contending stations. 1  11  Te 
H 1( ~ C2 ,i ,i ,− D21 ) ( Z ) = + Psuc Z +
W 

6 SERVICE TIME ANALYSIS  Tc  
  min ( i + D21 − 1,W − 1)

In this section, we evaluate the average MAC (p 11 − 11


Psuc ) T 
Z e   ∑ H 1( ~ C 2 ,k ,i ,− D21 ) (Z)

k = i+ 1
layer service time of category C 1 and category C 2
stations using the DM policy. The service time is   Ts   Tc  
 12  Te 
( ) 
 
+ Ĥ 1( C 2 ,i + D21 ,i ,− D21 ) ( Z )  Psuc Z
T
the time interval from the time instant that a packet 12
+ p11 − Psuc Z  e  
becomes at the head of the queue and starts to  
contend for transmission to the time instant that  
either the packet is acknowledged for a successful (38)
transmission or dropped. Where:

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 10


 Ts 

(( 1 −
 
 Ĥ 1( C ,i + D ,i ,− D ) ( Z ) = H 1( C ,i + D ,i ,− D ) ( Z ) TS1 ( Z ) = p11 ) H 1( ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z )
T
Z e 
 2 21 21 2 21 21

 if ( i + D 21 ) ≤ W − 1   Tc 
  Te 
)∑ (
m
 + ( 1 − p12 ) H 1( C2 ,D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) p11 H 1( ~ C2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z )
 Ĥ 1( C2 ,i + D21 ,i ,− D21 ) ( Z ) = 0 Otherwise Z
i= 0 
(39) 
+ p12 H 1( C2 ,D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) )) i

We also have: m+ 1
  Tc  
 T 
( (1 − p11 ) Z ) j H 1( ~ C2 ,i ,i ,− D21 ) ( Z )
(
+  Z  e  p11H 1( ~ C2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) + p12 H 1( C 2 ,D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) ) 
j ,− D21 ) ( Z ) =
H 1( ~ C2 ,i ,i −  
 Ts   Tc   
( )
   
11 
1 − Psuc Z
Te  11
− p11 − Psuc Z
Te  (44)
i = 2..W − 1, j = 1..min( i − 1, D21 − 1)
6.1.2 Service time Z-transform of a category
(40) C2 station:
In the same way, let TS2 (Z) be the service
( (1 − p11 ) Z ) D21 H 1( ~ C2 ,i ,i ,− D21 ) ( Z ) time Z-transform of a station S 2 of category C 2 .
H 1( C2 ,i ,i − D21 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) =
 Ts   Tc  We define:
( )
   
1− 11  Te 
Psuc Z − p11 − 11
Psuc
T
Z e  H 2( i ,k ,D21 − j ,D21 ) ( Z ) : The Z-transform of the
+ ( 1 − p12 ) ZH 1( C 2 ,i + 1,i + 1− D21 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) ,i = D21 ..W − 2 time already elapsed from the instant S 2 selects a
(41) basic backoff in [0 ,W − 1] (i.e. being in one of the
states ( i , i , D21 , D 21 ) ) to the time it is found in the
H 1( C 2 ,W − 1,W − 1− D21 ,− D21 ) ( Z )
state ( i , k , D21 − j , D 21 ) .
( (1 − p11 ) Z ) D21 H 1( ~ C2 ,W − 1,W − 1,− D21 ) ( Z ) Moreover, we define:
=
 Ts   Tc 

( )
   
11  Te  11 T 21
1− Psuc Z − p11 − Psuc Z e  • Psuc : the probability that S 2 observes a
+ ( 1 − p12 ) ZH 1( C 2 ,i + 1,i + 1− D21 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) ,i = D21 ..W − 2 successful transmission on the channel,
(42) while S 2 is in one of the states of ξ 2 .
11
Psuc = ( n1 − 1)τ 12 ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 − 1 (45)
(1 − p11 ) ZH 1( ~ C2 ,1,1,− D21 ) ( Z )
H 1( ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 ,− D21 ) ( Z ) =
 Ts   Tc 
22
( )Z • Psuc : the probability that S 2 observes a
   
11  Te  11  Te 
1− Psuc Z − p11 − Psuc
successful transmission on the channel,
min ( W − 1,D21 − 1)
1 while S 2 is in one of the states of γ 2 .
+ ( 1 − p11 ) Z ∑ H 1( ~ C2 ,i ,1,− D21 ) ( Z ) +
W
i= 2 22
Psuc = n1τ 12 ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1 − 1 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2 − 1
(43) (46)
+ ( n2 − 1)τ 22 ( 1 − τ 22 ) n2 − 2 ( 1 − τ 12 ) n1
If S 1 transmission state is ( ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 ,− D 21 ) ,
the transmission will be successful only if none of We evaluate H 2( i ,i ,D21 − j ,− D21 ) ( Z ) for each state
the ( n1 − 1) remaining stations of C 1 transmits. of S1 Markov chain as follows:
1
Whereas when the station S 1 transmission state is H 2( i ,i ,D21 − j ,D21 ) ( Z ) = , i = 0 and i = W − 1 (47)
( C 2 , D21 ,0 ,− D21 ) , the transmission occurs W
successfully only if none of ( n − 1) remaining   Ts 
1  22  Te 
H 2( i ,i ,D21 ,D21 ) ( Z ) = +  Psuc Z +
stations (either a category C 1 or a category C 2 W 
station) transmits. 
 Tc  

( )
  
If the transmission fails, S 1 tries another p 22 − Psuc 22
Z  e   H 2( i + 1,i ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) , i = 1..W − 2
T

transmission. After m retransmissions, if the 


packet is not acknowledged, it will be dropped. 
(48)

To compute H 2( i ,i ,D21 − j ,D21 ) (Z) , we define


Thus: j
Tdec ( Z ) , such as:

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 11


m+ 1
  Tc  
0
Tdec (Z) = 1 (49)    
TS 2 ( Z ) =  p 22 Z  e  H 2( 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) 
T
+
 
(1 − p 21 ) Z  
j
Tdec (Z) =  Ts    Tc  
i
  Ts   Tc     m
   
 21
( )  j− 1

   
1 −  Psuc Z  Te  21
+ p 21 − Psuc Z  Te 
 Tdec ( Z ) (1 − p 22 ) Z  Te  H 2( 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z )  p 22 Z  Te 
H 2( 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) 
  i= 0  
   
for j = 1..D 21 (54)
(50)
6.2 Average Service Time
So: From equations (43) (respectively equation
(54)), we derive the average service time of a
H 2( i ,i ,D21 − j ,D21 ) (Z) = H 2( i ,i ,D21 − j + 1,D21 ) ( Z )Tdecj ( Z ) , category C 1 station ( respectively a category C 2
i = 0..W − 1, j = 1..D 21 , ( i , j ) ≠ ( 0 , D 21 ) station). The average service time of a category C i
(51) station is given by:
And: X i = TS i( 1) ( 1) (55)

H 2( i ,i − 1,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) = ( 1 − p 22 ) ZH 2( i + 1,i ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z )


(1 − p 22 ) ZH 2( i ,i ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) Where TS i( 1) ( Z ) , is the derivate of the service
+
  Ts   Tc   time Z-transform of station S i [11].
 22  Te 
( )  D21
 
 Tdec ( Z )
22 T
1 −  Psuc Z + p 22 − Psuc Z  e 
  By considering the same configuration as in
  figure 3, we depict in figure 5, the average service
i = 2..W − 2 time of category C 1 and category C2 stations as a
(51)
function of W . As for the throughput analysis,
stations belonging to the same traffic category have
H 2( W − 1,W − 2 ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z )
nearly the same average service value. Simulation
(1 − p 22 ) ZH 2( W − 1,W − 1,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) service time values coincide with analytical values
= given by equation (55). These results confirm the
  Ts   Tc   (52)
 22  Te 
( )  D21 fairness of DM in serving stations of the same
 
 Tdec ( Z )
22 T
1 −  Psuc Z + p 22 − Psuc Z  e  category.
 
 

According to figure 2 and using equations (44),


we have:

H 2( 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 ) ( Z ) = H 2( 0 ,1,0 ,D21 ) ( Z )Tdec21 ( Z )


D

( 1 − p 22 ) ZH 2( 1,1,0 ,D21 ) ( Z )
+
  Ts   Tc   (53)
 22  Te 
( )
  
 Tdec ( Z )
22  Te  D21
1 −  Psuc Z + p 22 − Psuc Z
 
 

Therefore, we can derive an expression of S 2


Z-transform service time as follows: Figure 6: Average service time as a function of the
contention window size (D21=1, n=8)

In figure 8, we show that category C 1 stations


obtain better average service time than the one
obtained with 802.11 protocol. Whereas, the
opposite scenario happens for category C 2 stations

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 12


independently of n , the number of contending D 21 = 4 , the probability that S 1 service time
stations within the network.
exceeds 0.005s equals 0.28%. Whereas, station S 2
service time exceeds 0.005s with the probability
5.67%. Thus, DM offers better service time
guarantees for the stations with the highest priority.

In figure 9, we double the size of the contention


window size and set it to 64. We notice that
category C 1 and category C 2 stations service time
curves become closer. Indeed, when W becomes
large, the BAB values increase and the (DMSB)
becomes negligible compared to the basic backoff.
The whole backoff values of S 1 and S 2 become
near and their service time accordingly.

Figure 7: Average service time as a function of the


number of contending stations

6.3 Service Time Distribution

Service time distribution is obtained by


inverting the service time Z transforms given by
equations (43) and (54). But we are most interested
in probabilistic service time bounds derived by
inverting the complementary service time Z
transform given by [11]:

~ 1 − TS i ( Z )
Xi (Z) = (55) Figure 9: Complementary service time distribution
1− Z for different values of D21 (W=64)

In figure 8, we depict analytical and simulation In figure 10, we depict the complementary
values of the complementary service time service time distribution for both category C 1 and
distribution of both category C 1 and category C 2 category C 2 stations and for values of n , the
station (W = 32 ) . number of contending nodes.

Figure 8: Complementary service time distribution Figure 10: Complementary service time
distribution for different values of the contending
for different values of D21 , (W = 32 ) stations
All the curves drop gradually to 0 as the delay Analytical and simulation results show that
increases. Category C 1 stations curves drop to 0 complementary service time curves drop faster
faster than category C 2 curves. Indeed, when when the number of contending stations is small for
both category C 1 and category C 2 stations. This

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 13


means that all stations service time increases as the CW max < 1024 and K =1.
number of contending nodes increases. Analytical and simulation results show that
7 EXTENTIONS OF THE ANAYTICAL throughput values increase with stations priority.
RESULTS BY SIMULATION Indeed, the station with the lowest delay bound has
the maximum throughput.
The mathematical analysis undertaken above
show that DM performs service differentiation over Moreover, figure 12 shows that stations
802.11 protocol and offers better QoS guarantees belonging to the same traffic category have the
for highest priority stations same throughput. For instance, when n is set to 15
Nevertheless, the analysis was restricted to two (i.e. m = 3 ), the three stations of the same traffic
traffic categories. In this section, we first generalize category have almost the same throughput.
the results by simulation for different traffic
categories. Therefore, we consider a simple multi-
hop and evaluate the performance of the DM policy
when the stations belong to different broadcast
regions.

7.1 Extension of the analytical results


In this section, we consider n stations
contending for the channel in the same broadcast
region. The n stations belong to 5 traffic categories
where n = 5 m and m is the number of stations of
the same traffic category. A traffic category C i is
characterized by a delay bound Di , and
Dij = Di − D j is the difference between the
deadline values of category C i and category C j Figure 12: Normalized throughput: different
stations. We have: stations belonging to the same traffic category
Dij = ( i − j ) K (53)
In figure 13, we depict the average service
Where K is the deadline multiplicity factor time of the different traffic category stations as a
and is given by: function of K , the deadline multiplicity factor. We
Di + 1,i = Di + 1 − Di = K (53) notice that the highest priority station average
service time decreases as the deadline multiplicity
Indeed, when K varies, the deadline values of factor increases. Whereas, the lowest priority
all other stations also vary. Stations belonging to station average service time increases with K .
the traffic category C i are numbered from S i1 to
S im .

Figure 13: Average service time as a function of


Figure 11: Normalized throughput for different the deadline multiplicity factor K
traffic category stations
In the same way, the probabilistic service time
In figure 11, we depict the throughput achieved bounds offered to S 11 (the highest priority station)
by different traffic categories stations as a function are better than those offered to station S 51 (the
of the minimum contention window size CW min lowest priority station). Indeed, the probability that
such as CW min is always smaller than CW max , S 11 service time exceeds 0.01s=0.3%. But, station

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 14


S 51 service time exceeds 0.01s with the probability and D21 = D 2 − D1 =5 slots. Flows F3 and F4 are
of 36%. transmitted respectively by S 12 and S 4 and have
the same delay bound. Finally, F5 and F6 are
transmitted respectively by S 5 and S 6 with delay
bounds D1 and D2 and D 2 ,1 = D2 − D1 = 5 slots.

Figure 16 shows that the throughput achieved


by F1 is smaller than the one achieved by F2 .

Figure 14: Complementary service time


distribution (W=32, n=8)

The above results generalize the analytical


model results and show once again that DM
performs service differentiation over 802.11 and
offer better guarantees in terms of throughput,
average service time and probabilistic service time
bounds for flows with short deadlines.
Figure 16: Normalized throughput using DM
policy
7.2 Simple Multi hop scenario
In the above study, we considered that Indeed, both flows cross nodes 6 and 7, where
contending stations belong to the same broadcast F1 got a higher priority to access the medium than
region. In reality, stations may not be within one F2 when the DM policy is used. We obtain the
hop from each other. Thus a packet can go through
same results for flows F5 and F6 . Flows F3 and
several hops before reaching its destination. Hence,
factors like routing protocols or interferences may F4 have almost the same throughput since they
preclude the DM policy from working correctly. have equal deadlines.
Figure 17 show that the complementary service
In the following paragraph, we evaluate the time distribution curves drop to 0 faster for flow F1
performance of the DM policy in a multi-hop than for flow F2 .
environment. Hence, we consider a 13 node simple
mtlti-hop scenario described in figure 15.

Figure 17: End to end complementary service time


distribution
Figure 15: Simple multi hop scenario
Six flows are transmitted over the network. Flows The same behavior is obtained for flow F5 and F6,
packets are routed using the AODV protocol. where F5 has the shortest delay bound.
Flows F1 and F2 are respectively transmitted by
stations S 1 and S 2 with delay bounds D1 and D2 Hence, we conclude that even in a multi-hop

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 15


environment, the DM policy performs service [6] IEEE 802.11 WG, ”Draft Supplement to Part
differentiation over 802.11 and provides better QoS 11: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
guarantees for flows with short deadlines. and physical layer (PHY) specifications:
Medium Access Control (MAC) Enhancements
8 CONCLUSION for Quality of Service (QoS)”, IEEE
In this paper we first proposed to support the 802.11e/D13.0, (January 2005).
DM policy over 802.11 protocol. Therefore, we [7] J. Deng, R. S. Chang: A priority Scheme for
used a distributed backoff scheduling algorithm and IEEE 802.11 DCF Access Method, IEICE
introduced a new medium access backoff policy. Transactions in Communications, vol. 82-B,
Then we proposed a mathematical model to no. 1, (January 1999).
evaluate the performance of the DM policy. Indeed, [8] J.L. Sobrinho, A.S. Krishnakumar: Real-time
we considered n contending stations belonging to traffic over the IEEE 802.11 medium access
two traffic categories characterized by different control layer, Bell Labs Technical Journal, pp.
delay bounds. Analytical and simulation results 172-187, (1996).
show that DM performs service differentiation over [9] J. Y. T. Leung, J. Whitehead: On the
802.11 and offers better guarantees in terms of Complexity of Fixed-Priority Scheduling of
throughput, average service time and probabilistic Periodic, Real-Time Tasks, Performance
service time bounds for the flows having small Evaluation (Netherlands), pp. 237-250, (1982).
deadlines. Moreover, DM achieves fairness [10]K. Duffy, D. Malone, D. J. Leith: Modeling
between stations belonging to the same traffic the 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function
category. in Non-saturated Conditions, IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking (TON),
Then, we extended by simulation the analytical Vol. 15 , pp. 159-172 (February 2007)
results obtained for two traffic categories to [11]L. Kleinrock: Queuing Systems,Vol. 1: Theory,
different traffic categories. Simulation results Wiley Interscience, 1976.
showed that even if contending stations belong to [12]P. Chatzimisios, V. Vitsas, A. C. Boucouvalas:
K traffic categories, K > 2 , the DM policy offers Throughput and delay analysis of IEEE 802.11
better QoS guarantees for highest priority stations. protocol, in Proceedings of 2002 IEEE 5th
Finally, we considered a simple multi-hop scenario International Workshop on Networked
and concluded that factors like routing messages or Appliances, (2002).
interferences don’t impact the behavior of the DM [13]P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: Delay and
policy and DM still provides better QoS guarantees Throughput Analysis of IEEE 802.11e EDCA
for stations with short deadlines. with Starvation Prediction, In proceedings of
the The IEEE Conference on Local Computer
Networks , LCN’05 (2005).
9 REFERENCES [14]P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: Queueing Delay
Analysis of 802.11e EDCA, Proceedings of
[1] G. Bianchi: Performance Analysis of the IEEE The Third Annual Conference on Wireless On
802.11 Distributed Coordination Function, demand Network Systems and Services
IEEE J-SAC Vol. 18 N. 3, (March 2000). (WONS 2006), France, (January 2006).
[2] H. Wu1, Y. Peng, K. Long, S. Cheng, J. Ma: [15]P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: The Delay
Performance of Reliable Transport Protocol Distribution of IEEE 802.11e EDCA and
over IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN: Analysis and 802.11 DCF, in the proceeding of 25th IEEE
Enhancement, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Performance Computing and
INFOCOM`02, June 2002. Communications Conference (IPCCC’06),
[3] H. Zhai, Y. Kwon, Y., Fang: Performance (April 2006), USA.
Analysis of IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol in [16]The network simulator ns-2,
wireless LANs”, Wireless Computer and http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
Mobile Computing, (2004). [17]Y. Xiao: Performance analysis of IEEE
[4] I. Aad and C. Castelluccia, “Differentiation 802.11e EDCF under saturation conditions,
mechanisms for IEEE 802.11”, In Proc. of Proceedings of ICC, Paris, France, (June 2004).
IEEE Infocom 2001, (April 2001). [18]V. Kanodia, C. Li: Distribted Priority
[5] IEEE 802.11 WG: Part 11: Wireless LAN Scheduling and Medium Access in Ad-hoc
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Networks”, ACM Wireless Networks, Volume
Layer (PHY) specification”, IEEE (1999). 8, (November 2002).

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 16


A FRAMEWORK FOR AN AGGREGATED QUALITY OF SERVICE IN
MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS

Ash Mohammad Abbas, Khaled Mohd Abdullah Al Soufy


Department of Computer Engineering
Zakir Husain College of Engineering and Technology
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh – 202002, India
am.abbas@amu.ac.in

ABSTRACT
Providing quality of service in an ad hoc network is a challenging task. In this
paper, we discuss a framework for user perceived quality of service in mobile ad
hoc networks. In our framework, we try to aggregate the impact of various quality
of service parameters. Our framework is flexible and has a provision of providing
dynamic quality of service. Further, an application may adapt from the required
quality of service to that which can readily be provided by the network under a
stressful environment. Our framework may adapt to the QoS desired by a source
based on user satisfaction.

Keywords: User perceived quality of service, quality of service aggregation,


dynamic and adaptive, ad hoc networks.

1 INTRODUCTION challenging problem. The challenge is posed by the


characteristics of ad hoc networks. In an ad hoc
An ad hoc network is a cooperative engagement network, one cannot have a solution that either relies
of a collection of mobile devices without the on extensive amount of computations or consumes a
required intervention of a centralized infrastructure significant amount of power and energy because the
or a centralized access point. In the absence of resources of the devices used to form such a network
centralized infrastructure, an ad hoc network may are scarce. Note that an ad hoc network is an on the
provide a cost-effective and a cheaper way of fly network and should be self organizing in nature.
communication. Applications of an ad hoc network Frequent node and link failures together with
include battlefield communications, disaster recovery mobility of nodes give rise to a highly dynamic
missions, convention centers, online classrooms, topology of the network. The dynamically varying
online conferences, etc. topology of the network makes it difficult to provide
In an ad hoc network, there are no separate any hard QoS guarantees. However, as the users are
routers. As a result, the devices need to forward aware that they are part of an ad hoc network,
packets of one another towards their ultimate therefore, instead of expecting hard QoS guarantees,
destinations. The devices possess limited radio users may expect a soft QoS.
transmission ranges, therefore, routes between any In situations, when an end-user can tolerate
two hosts are often multihop. The devices are often variations in the QoS, the user should have a
operated through batteries whose power depletion flexibility to change the specifications of QoS
may cause the device failure and/or associated link parameters depending upon the extent of satisfaction
failures. Further, nodes may move about randomly with the QoS provided by the network. However, not
and thus the topology of the network varies much work is done in this area. In [6], a framework
dynamically. for QoS aware service location is presented in the
There can be applications of an ad hoc network, context of an ad hoc web server system. Therein, the
where users expect a given level of quality of service authors assign the priorities in integers to QoS
(QoS) to be provided by the network. These parameters. In [11], an adaptive QoS routing
applications may include multimedia streaming, protocol is presented by rerouting the packets that
exchanging geographical maps, etc. However, the faced QoS violations.
requirements and the expectations of users about the The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In
level of the QoS to be provided by an ad hoc network Section 2, we discuss the framework for an
may not be as high as those in case of a wired aggregated quality of service. In Section 3, we
network or a wireless network that possesses a discuss how to adapt quality of service based on user
centralized infrastructure. feedback. In Section 4, we describe methods of QoS
Provision of QoS in an ad hoc network is a aggregation. Section 5 contains results and

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 17


Table 1: Symbols used for QoS parameters in AQS. Table 2: Example 1 – Values of QoS parameters.
Parameter Weight Min/Max Tolerance Parameter Weight Min Max Tolerance
Value Limit (%) Limit (%)
End-to-End wD Dmax δD End-to-End 0.40 3.0 - 1.0
Delay Delay
Delay Jitter wJ J max δJ Delay Jitter 0.20 0.2 - 1.0
Bandwidth 0.25 2.0 - 3.0
Bandwidth wB Bmin δB
Packet -
Packet Delivery wR Rmin δR Delivery 0.1 0.80 2.0
Ratio Ratio
Route Lifetime wL Lmin δL Route 0.05 - 10 2.0
Lifetime

discussions. Finally, the last section is for conclusion In what follows, we define aggregated QoS to
and future directions. incorporate the effect of the parameters mentioned
above.
2 A FRAMEWORK FOR AN AGGREGATED Definition 1: Let there be n QoS parameters
QOS P1 , P2 ,..., Pn . Let Pk ,1 ≤ k ≤ n for bandwidth be
defined as follows.
In this section, we describe a framework for an
aggregated QoS. We call our framework as an FileSize
aggregated QoS (AQS) framework because it PBW = (2)
BW
aggregates the effect of many QoS parameters or
metrics. In our framework, we consider a set of QoS where, FileSize denotes the size of file that is sent
parameters such as end-to-end delay, delay jitter, using the particular bandwidth.
bandwidth, packet delivery ratio, route lifetime 1 . Let Pk ,1 ≤ k ≤ n for packet delivery ratio be
Our aggregation mechanism consists of
assigning importance or weights to each of the defined as follows.
parameters discussed in the previous subsection, and
PPDR = RΔ (3)
then computing a factor of aggregation. Let us first
consider assignment of importance or weights 2 . To where, Δ is the duration of time for which the
each of these parameters, we assign a weight
particular packet delivery ratio 3 is desired.
wi , 0 ≤ wi ≤ 1 , in such a fashion so that
Having defined the constituent parameters in
n time units, we now define a parameter called
∑ w =1
i =1
i (1) Weighted Aggregate QoS (WAQ) as follows.

where wi represents the relative importance (or the WAQ = ∑ {( P i


i
min
+ TLi ) wi }
weight) of parameter i. If there are n parameters, and (4)
each parameter i is assigned a weight 1/n then all +∑ {( P j
max
+ TL j )w } j
QoS parameters are equally important. If j

wi > w j , i ≠ j , then parameter i is said to be


relatively more important than parameter j. where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, i ≠ j , and Pi min is the value of ith
The notation used to represent information parameter whose minimum value is specified, and
related to QoS parameters is as follows. We use the Pjmax is the value of jth parameter whose maximum
following symbols to represent QoS parameters− D: values is specified. Further, TLi and TL j are values
end-to-end delays, J: delay jitter, B: bandwidth, R:
packet delivery ratio, L: route lifetime. For each of of the corresponding tolerance limits for ith and jth
these parameters, the symbol w is used to represent parameters.
relative importance or weight, prefix Δ is used to Note that the unit of aggregation parameter,
represent tolerance limit, and subscripts max/min are WAQ, is time. Further, it will have positive values
used to represent either the maximum or minimum and its values may come out to be greater than 1
value of the parameter. This notation is summarized depending the values of its constituent QoS
in Table 1. parameters. In what follows, we define an
_________________________ aggregation factor, whose value lies between 0 and
1 1.
There can be long list of QoS parameters, however, we consider
only the parameters defined above.
_________________________
3
2 In this way, we have converted all parameters to a single unit
Note that it is a different issue that who assigns the weights to
i.e. time. This is done so that we are able to aggregate the effect of
the parameters and shall be discussed later in this paper.
different parameters on the QoS.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 18


Table 3: Example 2 – Values of QoS parameters.
Parameter Weight Min Max Tolerance
Limit (%)
End-to-End 0.30 2.0 - 1.0
Delay
Delay Jitter 0.10 0.3 - 1.0
Figure 1: Adapting QoS through user feedback. Bandwidth 0.45 2.0 - 3.0
Packet 0.1 - 0.80 2.0
Definition 2: Let the QoS parameters, Delivery
Ratio
Pi , Pjmax , and their tolerance limits, TLi , and TL j ,
min
Route 0.05 - 10 2.0
be defined as in Definition 1. We define a factor that Lifetime
we call Weighted Aggregate QoS Factor (WAQF) as
follows.
Table 4: Default values of QoS parameters.
WAQ
WAQF = Parameter Value Tolerance
∑ ( Pi + TLi ) + ∑ ( Pjmax + TL j )
min
Limit (%)
i j End-to-End Delay 5.00 2.0
(5) Delay Jitter 0.01 2.0
where, WAQ is given by (4) as part of Definition 1. Bandwidth 10.0 2.0
It is worth mentioning that WAQF has no unit as it is Packet Delivery 0.90 2.0
simply a ratio bearing the units of time in both the Ratio
numerator as well as the denominator of the Route Lifetime 10.0 2.0
expression defining it.
In what follows, we discuss an example Table 5: Sets of weights assigned to QoS
incorporating different weights and the values of the parameters.
QoS parameters mentioned above. Set No. Set of Weights
Example 1: Let the weights, min/max values, S1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
S2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
and tolerance limits assigned by the source for
S3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1
different QoS parameters be as given in Table 2.
S4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1
In Example 1, the end user has given the highest
S5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6
relative importance by assigning a weight 0.40 to the
end-to-end delay. The maximum value of the delay is
specified to be 3.0 milliseconds, however, the user Table 6: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor
may accept upto a tolerance limit 1.0%. This means WAQF as a function of bandwidth.
that user may accept a value of the end-to-end delay Bandwidth WAQ WAQF
upto 3.01 milliseconds. The second parameter is 1 3.40964 0.2
delay jitter. For that the user has specified a weight 2 3.30760 0.2
of 0.20, the maximum value to be 0.2 milliseconds, 3 3.27359 0.2
and a tolerance limit of 1.0%. This means that the 4 3.25658 0.2
user can accept the value of delay jitter upto 0.202 5 3.24638 0.2
milliseconds. The third parameter is bandwidth 6 3.23957 0.2
7 3.23471 0.2
reserved for the flow. The user has specified a
8 3.23107 0.2
weight of 0.25, the minimum value of bandwidth to 9 3.22824 0.2
be 2.0 Mbps, and a tolerance limit of 3.0%. In other 10 3.22597 0.2
words, the user may accept the bandwidth upto 1.96
Mbps. The fourth parameter, packet delivery ratio is
assigned a weight of 0.10, the minimum value 80% Table 7: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor
and a tolerance limit of 2.0%. This means that the WAQF as a function of FileSize.
user may accept the packet delivery ratio upto 78%. FileSize WAQ WAQF
The last parameter is route lifetime 4 that is assigned 1 3.22957 0.2
a weight of 0.05, the minimum value 10 2 3.24638 0.2
3 3.26678 0.2
milliseconds, and a tolerance limit of 2.0%. In other
4 3.28719 0.2
words, the user may accept the value of the route
5 3.30760 0.2
failure time upto 9.8 milliseconds. 6 3.32801 0.2
____________________________
4 7 3.34842 0.2
There can be a debate whether one should consider the 8 3.36883 0.2
minimum value or the maximum value of route failure time. The
user would prefer to specify the minimum value of route failure 9 3.38923 0.2
time, so that there are no route failures during packet 10 3.40964 0.2
transmissions. However, from the point of view of network, one
would like to maximize the value of route failure time.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 19


Table 8: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor important parameter is end-to-end delay. Other
WAQF as a function of Δ . parameters may not be so important for a particular
Δ WAQ WAQF application, therefore, those are assigned relatively
1 3.22597 0.2 low weights. For rest of the parameters, we assume a
2 3.40957 0.2 similar scenario as in Example 1.
3 3.59317 0.2 In Example 2, PBW =0.515463917. The value of
4 3.77677 0.2 aggregation parameter, WAQ, comes out to be
5 3.96037 0.2
1.447258763. The value of denominator is 15.233.
6 4.14397 0.2
The value of the aggregation factor, WAQF, comes
7 4.32757 0.2
8 4.51170 0.2
out to be 0.095008124. Note that the aggregation
9 4.69477 0.2 factor is 28.31% smaller as compared to that in
10 4.87837 0.2 Example 1. The reason is that in case of WAQ, the
contribution of end-to-end delay component has
become half of that in Example 1, and the
Table 9: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor contribution of delay jitter has also been decreased.
WAQF as a function of sets of weights. The total decrease of these two parameters is
Set of Weights WAQ WAQF
approximately 0.6. The contribution due to
S1 4.06298 0.251892
bandwidth has increased by a value of approximately
S2 1.61788 0.100304
S3 1.66400 0.103163
0.103. As a result, the net effect is a decrease by a
S4 2.07198 0.128457 value of approximately 0.5 in the value of WAQ.
S5 6.71298 0.416184 The aggregation factor, WAQF, has changed
accordingly.
Let the file size be 1 Mb, and the maximum In what follows, we discuss a framework for
bandwidth be Bmax = X Mbps. As a result, 1/X adapting QoS through user feedback.
seconds is consumed in sending a file of the 3 ADAPTIVE QOS THROUGH USER FEED-
specified size over the specified bandwidth. For a BACK
variation or tolerance limit of Δ in a given
bandwidth X, the value of the parameter Pk for Fig. 1 shows a framework for adapting QoS
bandwidth is using user feedback. The steps in our framework are
1 as follows.
PBW = . (6) • The source or the user specifies the values
X − ( X ×Δ)
of different QoS parameters with their
Therefore, for a tolerance limit of 3.0% in the
minimum/maximum values and tolerance
value of bandwidth which is 2.0 Mbps (as shown in
limits.
Table 2 for Example 1), the value of PBW is • The QoS parameters alongwith their
1 respective values are given to the QoS
= 0.515463917. Further, in case of
2 − (2× 0.03) Manager.
packet delivery ratio which is given by (3), assume • If QoS Manager receives QoS parameters
that Δ be 1 time unit, so that PPDR is affected by the for a packet of the flow for the first time, it
sorts the parameters according to their
packet delivery ratio only and that is R. For Example relative importance or weights. After, that
1, the value of aggregation parameter, WAQ, comes the QoS Manager calls a protocol or a
out to be 1.948065979. The value of denominator is method to take care of the parameter that is
14.69946392. The value of the aggregation factor, relatively the most important. After that it
WAQF, comes out to be 0.132526328. takes measures to take care of the next
Note that in Example 1, the end-to-end delay is relatively important parameter (if possible),
assigned the highest weight or priority. This is an and so on.
example of delay-sensitive application. Depending • The packet is then delivered to the
upon the weight assigned to a QoS parameter, there destination according to its QoS
can be other types of applications as well. For that specifications and the source is informed
consider another example with different weights and accordingly.
different values of corresponding QoS parameters.
• If the source or the user is satisfied with the
Example 2: Let the weights, min/max values,
QoS of the packet delivered, the next packet
and tolerance limits assigned by the source for
is sent to the destination.
different QoS parameters be as given in Table 3.
• If the source is not satisfied with the QoS of
In Example 2, the bandwidth is assigned the
the packet delivered, it informs the QoS
highest relative importance. This is an example of
Manager about the change it wishes to have
bandwidth-sensitive application. The next relatively

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 20


in the QoS. The QoS Manager tries to Manager extracts the values of QoS parameters,
adjust the QoS parameters accordingly. tolerance limit, and relative importance. If the sum of
Note that the source specifies the values of QoS all relative importance or weight is greater than 1,
parameters, their minimum and/or maximum values, the QoS specifications are referred back to the
relative importance, and tolerance limit for each source. Otherwise, the QoS Manager marks whether
parameter. As mentioned above, QoS Manager sorts a parameter is “insignificant” or “significant”.
the parameters according to their relative importance. We assume that if the weight assigned to a
The QoS Manager calls appropriate methods or particular parameter is less than 1/(2k), where k is the
protocols for providing the QoS. The fact that which number of QoS parameters, then the parameter is
protocol has to be called first depends upon the insignificant, otherwise it is significant. If a
relative importance of the parameters. Depending parameter is insignificant, the QoS Manager need
upon the relative importance of QoS parameters, not bother about it. For all significant parameters, the
different methods are required to be called. weights of the parameters are arranged in descending
Further, the functionality of QoS Manager 5 order. The first parameter in this order is the most
resides at every node in the network. As mentioned significant parameter. An appropriate protocol is
earlier, we confine to wireless networks using 802.11 called to provide QoS for the most significant
and the nodes in that are operating in ad hoc mode. parameter so obtained. A qosReply packet is sent to
However, the same can be extended with some the source by the QoS Manager. Upon receiving a
modifications to other types of wireless networks as qosReply packet, the source sends a TestQoS
well. There might be a question that in ad hoc packet. The TestQoS packet is delivered to the
networks, nodes have limited resources so why do destination and a flag named statusPi is set to be
we have QoS with user feedback. It should be noted “done” for the QoS parameter, Pi . The source, if
that provision of user feedback in our approach
satisfied sends the extent upto that he/she is satisfied.
should require little more computations. In general,
If the satisfaction of the source falls below 50%, the
the energy and power consumption during
source shall specify his/her desired QoS parameters
transmissions is significantly larger than that of
again, and the above process shall continue. When
computations. We believe that the provision of user
the user is satisfied by the QoS provided to TestQoS
feedback shall not consume a significant amount of
packets, he/she will start sending actual packets.
energy rather it will add few more computations and
would be feasible with current technological trends.
In what follows, we describe what are the
methods and protocols that may need to be called for
a QoS specification.

4 METHODS FOR AGGREGATED QOS

In this section, we present methods and protocols


that the QoS Manager needs to call for providing the
desired QoS. Note that the input to the QoS Manager
is a set of parameters with their respective values,
tolerance limits, and relative importance. The first
and the foremost task that the QoS Manager needs to Figure 2: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor
perform is sorting of the QoS parameters according WAQF as functions of bandwidth.
to their relative importance or weight. Another set of
input is the user feedback, in case when some form
of QoS has been provided to the flow but the user is
not satisfied with the QoS. Once the QoS parameters
have been sorted, appropriate methods and/or
protocols are required to be called, to provide the
given level of QoS.
Algorithm 1 describes what are the actions that
are taken by the QoS Manager. When a sources
needs to send packets of a flow, it sends a
qosEnquiry packet to the QoS Manager along with
the specification of QoS parameters. The QoS
________________________ Figure 3: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor
5
The component QoS Manager is not only manages the QoS, WAQF as functions of FileSize.
however, it is also responsible for other functions like resource
reservation, call admission control, and negotiating the QoS.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 21


__________________________________________________________________________________________
Algorithm 1: Marking of significant parameters by QoS Manager
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Let i ∈ enum P: {Delay, Jitter, Bandwidth, Delivery Ratio, Lifetime}, 1 ≤ i ≤ k , k =| P | , where |.| denotes the
cardinality. For parameter i, let wi : weight, Vi : value, δi : tolerance limit.
1: if UserSatisfactionPi ≤ 0.5 then
2: statusPi = "notdone"
3: Get wi , Vi , δi for all i such that statusPi = "notdone"
4: if ∑ w > 1 then
i
i

5: Refer back the QoS parameters to the source


1
6: else if 0 ≤ wi ≤ then
2k
7: Mark Pi : "insignificant"
8: else
9: Mark Pi : "significant"
10: end if
11: For all Pi that are marked "significant", arrange wi in descending order
12: For max( wi ) , call a protocol to provide the QoS for parameter Pi
13: Deliver the packet to destination
14: set stausPi = "done"
15: end if
___________________________________________________________________________

There is an issue about how long should one be


allowed so as not to waste time in setting up of the
desired QoS. This depends upon how many attempts
are being made for a QoS parameter. We limit these
attempt to 3 irrespective of the user satisfaction.
After third attempt, we assumed that the most
significant parameter is taken care of.
In what follows, we discuss some empirical
results.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Figure 4: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor
WAQF as functions of Δ . Let us first discuss some results pertaining to the
effect of aggregation of QoS parameters.

5.1 Effect of Aggregation


We have defined the weighted aggregation QoS
parameter, WAQ, and weighted aggregation QoS
factor, WAQF, in Section 2. For the results in this
subsection, the values of different QoS parameters
and their tolerance limits are shown in Table 4. The
default weight assigned to each QoS parameter is
equal and is 0.20. The default value of FileSize is 1
bandwidth unit (e.g. 1 Mbps, if the bandwidth is
expressed in Mbps). The default value of time
duration for which a desired packet delivery ratio is
Figure 5: The QoS parameter WAQ and the factor needed, Δ is 1 time unit.
WAQF versus sets of weights.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 22


Table 6 shows the empirical values of the QoS parameter, Pi . The source, if satisfied sends the
aggregation parameter, WAQ, and that of the QoS extent upto which he/she is satisfied. If the
aggregation factor, WAQF, as functions of satisfaction of the source falls below 50%, the source
bandwidth. It is observed from Table 6 that the QoS shall specify his/her desired QoS parameters again,
aggregation parameter, WAQ, decreases with the and the above process shall continue. When the user
increase in the bandwidth. The decrease in WAQ is is satisfied by the QoS provided to TestQoS packets,
not linear (see Figure 2). The values of the QoS he/she will start sending actual packets.
factor remain constant. The reason is that for equal The TestQoS packets are simply overheads 6 .
weights assigned to individual QoS parameters, the The number of these packets depends upon the
amount of increase in numerator and the extent of user satisfaction 7 . However, since there is
denominator of the QoS aggregation factor, WAQF a cost associated with user perceived QoS, therefore,
(as defined by (5), is almost the same. Hence, the number of attempts made by the user for a
WAQF remains the same and is equal to the weight desired level of QoS is restricted to 3. The user may
assigned to each individual QoS parameter. select any one level of QoS that suits to his/her needs
Table 7 shows the empirical values of the QoS out of that provided by these attempts.
aggregation parameter, WAQ, and that of the QoS Note that we mentioned it earlier that nodes are
aggregation factor, WAQF, as functions of FileSize. operating in ad hoc mode and the type of network we
It is observed from Table 7 that the QoS aggregation are interested in, is supposed to use 802.11 standards.
parameter, WAQ, increases with the increase in the A consequence of having user feedback is that some
FileSize. The decrease in WAQ is linear (see Figure of the energy is consumed by the TestQoS packets
3). which would have been used for some other useful
Table 8 shows the empirical values of the QoS task. However, we would like to remind that these
aggregation parameter, WAQ, and that of the QoS packets are very small in size and that we have
aggregation factor, WAQF, as functions of Δ . We limited these packets to only a few (say 3). Although,
mentioned earlier that Δ is the time duration for there is some additional energy consumption,
which the specified packet delivery ratio is required. however, that is the price to be paid to have user
It is observed from Table 8 that the QoS aggregation feedback about the QoS. However, we believe that it
parameter, WAQ, increases with the increase in Δ . would not be too large to be afforded.
The decrease in WAQ is linear (see Figure 4). The
values of the QoS factor, WAQF, remain constant 5.3 Probability of User Satisfaction
for the reason mentioned above. In order to evaluate the probability of user
The sets of weights assigned to the QoS satisfaction, let us assume a simple scenario in which
parameters in the following order <end-to-end delay, ps is the probability that the user is satisfied after an
delay jitter, bandwidth, packet delivery ratio, route attempt has been made, i.e. after sending a TestQoS
lifetime> are shown in Table 5. It is observed that the packet. The probability that the user is not satisfied
value of the QoS aggregation parameter, WAQ, and
after sending a TestQoS packet will then be 1− ps .
that of aggregation factor, WAQF, are the largest for
the set of weights, S6, and is the smallest for the set Let us assume that each attempt is made
of weights, S2 (see Figure 5). The reason being that independently. Then, the probability that the user is
in case of S6, the contribution of the largest valued satisfied in k such attempts out of n attempts have
QoS parameter i.e. route lifetime is multiplied by the been made, will then be governed by
largest weight among S6. However, the situation in
⎛ n⎞
PkUS = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ psk (1− ps ) .
case of S2 is just reverse of that in S6. Note that the n− k
(7)
next largest values of WAQ and WAQF are for the ⎜⎝k ⎠⎟
set of weights, S2. In that case the contribution of the
next large valued parameter i.e. end-to-end delay is The above equation is an expression of the
multiplied by the largest weight among the set of binomial distribution for Bernoulli trials. The
weights S1. probability getting exactly one success (i.e. user is
________________________
5.2 Effect of User Feedback 6
There will be overheads for a protocol that is used to get the
Recall that when the significant parameters are desired level of QoS. However, those overheads will depend upon
found. The QoS Manager selects and calls the specific protocol.
7
appropriate protocols depending upon the QoS Although, the level of user satisfaction is not a measurable
parameters. A qosReply packet is sent to the source quantity, however, depending upon the feedback received by
letting them to answer a set of questions, one may be able to get a
by the QoS Manager. Upon receiving a qosReply feel of the level of user satisfaction. Either the number of
packet, the source sends a TestQoS packet. The questions successfully answered by an end-user, or by some other
TestQoS packet is delivered to the destination and a measure, may be taken as the user satisfaction. Therefore, let us
assume that a user satisfaction of 50% means that 50% of the
flag named statusPi is set to “done” for the QoS
questions have successfully answered by the end-user.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 23


satisfied in exactly one of the attempts) is given by between the QoS expected by the end-user
and the QoS that may be provided by the
⎛3⎞ network. However, we left it on to the end-
P1US = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ p1s (1− ps ) .
2
(8) user to decide about the trade-off depending
⎜⎝1⎠⎟
upon his/her requirements.
• We discussed overheads incurred in
We want that the user to be satisfied in at least adapting the QoS to the level of expectance
one of the attempt out of three attempts have been of the user.
made. The probability that the user is satisfied in In summary, we discussed a framework for an
atleast one of the three attempts is given by aggregated and dynamic QoS based on user
satisfaction. Further validation of the framework
⎛ 3⎞ forms our future work.
ψ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ psk (1− ps ) .
3− k
(9)
⎜⎝k ⎠⎟
7 REFERENCES
For ps = 0.5 , ψ = 0.875 . It means that if the [1] S.C. Lo, G. Lee, W.T. Chen, J.C. Liu,
probability of success (i.e. the probability that the “Architecture for Mobility and QoS Support in
user is satisfied after an attempt) is assumed to be All-IP Wireless Networks”, IEEE Journal on
0.5, then the probability of satisfaction of the user in Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC), vol.
at least one of these attempts is 0.875. As mentioned 22, no. 4, May 2004.
earlier, the user may select the QoS that fits best to [2] B. Li, L. Li, B. Li, K.M. Sivalingam, X.R. Cao,
his/her needs, if he wishes to do so. “Call Admission Control for Voice/Data
Note that, in this paper, wherever we referred to Integrated Cellular Networks: Performance
the aggregation of QoS parameters, we mean the Analysis and Comparative Study”, IEEE Journal
aggregation of only those parameters whose on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC),
combined effect may be computed in a reasonable vol. 22, no. 4, May 2004.
amount of time (i.e. polynomial time). The [3] N. Passas, E. Zervas, G. Hortopan, and L.
parameters that we considered in this paper are only Merakos, “A Flow Rejection Algorithm for QoS
for the purpose of example. One has to see which Maintenance in a Variable Bandwidth Wireless
parameters can be computationally combined before IP Environment”, IEEE Journal on Selected
actually aggregating their effect. In case, one wishes Areas in Communications (JSAC), vol. 22, no. 4,
to see the effect of the parameters that cannot be May 2004.
combined computationally, one may use a technique [4] Dutta, W. Chen, O. Altintas, H. Schulzrinne,
called QoS filtering. In that, if one wishes to seek “Mobility Approaches for All-IP Wireless
QoS based on parameters ( A1 , A2 ,..., An ) . One should Networks”, Proceedings of 6th World Multi
first seek the QoS based on one of these parameters, Conference on Systematics, Cybernetics and
say A1 , and then on the resulting set of A1 , one Informatics (SCI), July 2002.
[5] M. Ghaderi, R. Boutaba, “Towards All-IP
should seek QoS based on A2 , and so on. Further,
Wireless Networks: Architectures and Resource
which parameter should be considered first or what Management Mechanism”, InderScience
should be the order of parameters in the QoS filtering International Journal on Wireless and Mobile
will depend upon what is the relative importance of Computing (IJWMC), 2005.
the parameters considered. [6] J. Liu, V. Issarny, “QoS-Aware Service Location
in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, Proceedings of
6 CONCLUSION IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data
Management (MDM), pp. 224-235, 2004.
Providing QoS in a mobile ad hoc network is a [7] H. Zhai, X. Chen, Y. Fang, “How Well Can the
challenging task due to inherent characteristics of IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Support Quality of
such a network. In this paper, we proposed a Service?”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless
framework for provision of QoS in a mobile ad hoc Communications, vol. 4, no. 6, November 2005.
network. Our contributions are as follows. [8] C.S.R. Murthy, B.S. Manoj, Ad Hoc Wireless
• We proposed that one can aggregate the Networks: Architectures and Protocols, Pearson
effect of QoS parameters depending upon Education, New Delhi, 2005.
the importance or weights assigned to each [9] H.J. Chao, X. Guo, Quality of Service Control in
parameter. High-Speed Networks, John Wiley, New York,
• In our framework, we tried to incorporate 2002.
the level of user satisfaction about the QoS [10]Zanella, D. Miorandi, S. Pupolin, P. Raimondi,
provided by the network. “On Providing Soft-QoS in Wireless Ad hoc
• We proposed that there can be a trade-off Networks”, Proceedings of International

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 24


Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia [15] S. Nelakudity, Z.L. Zhang, R.P. Tsang, D.H.C.
Computing (WPMC), October 2003. Du, “Adaptive Proportional Routing: A
[11]V. Kone, S. Nandi, “QoS Constrained Adaptive Localized QoS Routing Approach”, IEEE/ACM
Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, Transactions on Networking, vol. 10, no. 6,
Proceedings of 9th IEEE International December 2002.
Conference on Information Technology (ICIT), [16] Y.S. Chen, Y.C. Tseng, J.P. Sheu, P.H. Quo,
pp. 40-45, December 2006. “An On-demand, Link-State, Multipath QoS
[12]M. Mirhakkak, N. Schult, D. Thomson, Routing in A Wireless Mobile Ad hoc Network”,
“Dynamic Quality-of-Service for Mobile Ad hoc Elsevier Journal on Computer Communications,
Networks”, Technical Report, Mitre 2003.
Corporation, http://www.mitrecorporation.net/ [17] S. Wu, K.Y.M. Wong, B. Li, “A Dynamic Call
work/tech_papers/tech_papers_00/thomson\mp_ Admission Policy With Precision QoS
adhoc/thomson_adhoc.pdf, 2000. Guarantee Using Stochastic Control for Mobile
[13]B. Li, “QoS-Aware Adaptive Services in Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Transaction on
Ad hoc Networks”, Proceedings of IEEE Networking, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 257-271, April
International Workshop on Quality of Sevice 2002.
(IWQoS), pp. 251-268, 2001.
[14]A.M. Abbas, K.A.M. Soufi, “LANM: Lifetime
Aware Node-Disjoint Multipath Routing for
Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, Proccedings of IET
International Conference on Information and
Communication Technology in Electrical
Sciences (ICTES), 2007.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 25


Impact of Node Density on Cross Layer Design for Reliable Route Discovery
in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

B.Ramachandran S.Shanmugavel
Dept. of Electronics & Communication Engg. Dept. of Electronics & Communication Engg.
S.R.M. University Anna University
Chennai – 603 203 Chennai – 600 025
profbram@yahoo.com ssv@annauniv.edu

Abstract : AODV and DSR send control packets only when route
The mobile nature of nodes and dynamic discovery or route maintenance is done. When a route
topology of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) lead is created or repaired, the control packets, particularly
to route failures and requiring the transmission of RREQ packets flooded by source is network wide
control packets. It is important to reduce the number of broadcast. Moreover, the number of control packets
control packets to save resources and to improve the increased rapidly with network size and topology
overall performance of the network. Ad-hoc On- changes.
demand Distance Vector (AODV) is appealing as an The primary goal of an ad-hoc network
efficient on demand routing protocol because of low routing protocol is correct and efficient route
routing overhead and high performance. However, establishment between a pair of nodes so that messages
AODV is not robust against topology variations as it may be delivered in a timely manner. Route
uses weak links due to long hops introduced by shortest construction should be done with a minimum of
path metric. In this paper we propose a mobility overhead and bandwidth consumption. The on-demand
adaptive cross layer design to enhance the performance routing protocols create route only when desired by the
of AODV routing protocol by establishing stable source node. When a node requires a route to a
routes. The adaptive decision making according to the destination, it initiates a route discovery process within
speed of mobile nodes on Route Request (RREQ) the network. This process is completed once a route is
packet forwarding results in stable routes. We also test found or all possible route permutations have been
the impact of node density in the network on our examined. Once a route has been established, it is
algorithm, to tell, when to invoke the our cross layer maintained by a route maintenance procedure or until
design in mobile ad-hoc networks. To demonstrate the the route is no longer desired. The Ad-hoc On-Demand
efficiency of our protocol and its impact on network Distance Vector routing protocol builds on the
connectivity, we present simulations using network Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)
simulator, GloMoSim. algorithm. It is an improvement on DSDV because it
Keywords: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, AODV, Routing typically minimizes the routing load by creating routes
Overhead, Stable Route, and Cross Layer Design. on a demand basis.
AODV [2] is a pure on-demand route
I. Introduction acquisition system, since node that are not on a
Recent growing interest on potential selected path do not maintain routing information or
commercial usage of MANETs has led to the serious participate in routing table exchanges. When a source
research in this energy and bandwidth constrained node desires to send a message to some destination and
network. It is essential to reduce control packet does not already have a valid route to that destination,
overhead as they consume resources. Routing in it initiates a “route discovery” process to locate the
MANETs is non trivial. Since mobile nodes have destination. It broadcasts a route request packet to its
limited transmission capacity, they mostly neighbours, which then forward to their neighbours and
intercommunicate by multi-hop relay. Multi-hop so on, until either the destination or an intermediate
routing is challenged by limited wireless bandwidth, node with a “fresh enough” route to the destination is
low device power, dynamically changing network located. During the process of forwarding the RREQ,
topology, and high vulnerability to failure and many the intermediate nodes record in their route tables the
more. To meet those challengeous, many routing address of the neighbor from which the first copy of
protocols have been proposed for MANET [1]. They the broadcast packet is received thereby establishing a
are categorized as proactive and reactive protocols. reverse path. If additional copies of the same RREQ
Proactive protocols such as DSDV periodically send are later received, these packets are discarded. Once
routing control packets to neighbors for updating the RREQ reaches the destination or an intermediate
routing tables. Reactive routing protocols such as node with a fresh enough route, the destination /

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 26


intermediate node responds by a unicast route reply signal strength changing rate is used to predict the link
(RREP) packet back to the neighbor from which it first available time between two nodes to find out a
received the RREQ. (The route maintenance process satisfying routing path in [6], which reports
and other details of AODV are not considered here as improvement in route connection time. In [7], route
they are out of scope of this paper). fragility coefficient (RFC) is used as routing metric, to
AODV prefers longer hops to form shortest cause AODV to find a stable route. Mobility aware
path, which in turn makes route with weaker links. The agents are introduced in ad-hoc networks and Hello
presence of node mobility may induce route failures packets of AODV protocol is modified in [8] to
(link failures) frequently. Many studies have shown enhance mobility awareness of node to force it to avoid
that the on demand approach is relatively quite highly mobile neighbor nodes to be part of routes and
efficient under a wide range of scenarios. But when ultimately to reduce the re-route discovery. On
seen in isolation, route discovery component is the receiving the Hello Packet with GPS co-ordinates of
major bottleneck in on demand protocols. Since route the originator, mobility agent compares them with
discovery is done via network wide flooding, it incurs previous ones and hence has awareness about the
significant routing overhead and eats greater network mobility of the originator with references to itself.
resources. Actually, the longer distance between In [9], an AODV based protocol which uses a
intermediate nodes on the route rises route maintenance backbone network to reduce control overhead is
cost, reduces the packet transmission rate (due to proposed. The destination location is given by GPS and
increased packet loss), and induces frequent route transmitted to source by the backbone network to limit
failures [3]. the route search zone. But formation of an additional
In our previous work, we proposed a cross backbone network and GPS enabled service are extra
layer design extension to AODV in order to form stable burden for infrastructure-less ad-hoc network
routes. It reduces route failures and hence, keeps implementation. In order to cope with problems such as
routing overheads as low as possible, at the cost of the poor performance of wireless links and mobile
lengthy routes with more hops. In this paper, we go terminals including high error rate, power saving
further in enhancing AODV performance, by using requirements and quality of service, a protocol stack
mobility based adaptive cross layer design to optimize that considers cross layer interaction is required [10].
the trade off between route stability and number of Multi-hop routing, random movement of the
hops. Our objective is to form reliable routes in order nodes and other features unique to ad-hoc networks
to reduce number of routing control packets, and thus results in lots of control signal overhead for route
conserving network resources. discovery and maintenance. This is highly
The proposed mobility adaptive cross layer unacceptable in bandwidth-constrained ad-hoc
design couples the route discovery process with networks. Usually the mobile devices have limited
physical layer related received signal strength computing resources and severe energy constraints.
information and speed of mobile nodes to built stable Currently ad hoc routing protocols are researched to
and optimum routes. As these constraints on received work mainly on the network layer. It guarantees the
signal strength and node speed will certainly have an independency of the network layer. However each
impact on network connectivity, we also study the layer needs to do redundant processing and
suitability of our algorithm under various node density unnecessary packet exchange to get information that is
levels. The remainder of this paper is organized as easily available to other layers. This increases control
follows. In section II, we present the related work and signals resulting in wastage of resources such as
emphasize the need for cross layer design. Section III bandwidth and energy. Due to these characteristics,
describes the proposed mobility adaptive cross layer there is lot of research work happening in the
algorithm. The simulation model, results and analysis performance optimization of ad-hoc networks.
are presented in section IV. Finally we conclude our However, most of the research works are based on
discussion in section V. optimization at individual layer. But optimizing a
particular layer might improve the performance of that
II. Related Work layer locally but might produce non-intuitive side
As an optimization for the current basic effects that will degrade the overall system
AODV, in [4], a novel stable adaptive enhancement for performance. Hence optimization across the layers is
AODV routing protocol is proposed, which considers required through interaction among layers by sharing
joint route hop count, node stability and route traffic interlayer interaction metrics [11]. By using cross layer
load as a route selection metric. A QoS routing interaction, different layers can share locally available
protocol based on AODV to provide higher packet information. This is useful to design and standardize an
delivery ratio and lower routing overheads using a adaptive architecture that can exploit the inter-
local repair mechanism is proposed in [5]. The received dependencies among link, medium access, networking

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 27


and application protocols. The architecture where each The fixed threshold value used is independent
layer of the protocol stack responds to the local of speed of mobile nodes and it may not be justified to
variations as well as to the information from other low speed nodes. Hence, in this new adaptive cross
layers is a major challenge [12]. layer design, we propose adaptive decision making of
Cross layer interaction schemes that can RREQ forwarding in accordance with speed of mobile
support adaptability and optimization of the routing nodes which is discussed in the following section.
protocols can discover and maintain the routes based
on current link status, traffic congestion, signal strength III. Mobility Adaptive Cross Layer Design
etc. Usually routing layer is not concerned with signal Routing protocol may let route / link failure
strength related information handling. Lower layer happen which is detected at MAC layer by
takes care of signal strength related issues. Signal retransmission limits, but dealing with route failure in
strength can be useful to know the quality of link to this reactive manner results in longer delay,
select for best effort packet forwarding and to achieve unnecessary packets loss and significant overhead
power conservation [13]. Only the link with signal when an alternate new route is discovered. This
strength above the threshold value can forward the problem becomes more visible especially when mobile
packet. Routing algorithm can exploit signal nodes move at high speed where route failure is more
characteristics related information for such benefits. probable due to dynamic topology changes and
In the previous work on Reliable AODV [14], negative impact of control packet overhead on network
we used signal strength information as interlayer resources utilization is of more significance. We
interaction parameter. The strength (received power) of emphasize that routing should not only be aware of, but
RREQ broadcast packet is passed to the routing layer also be adaptive to node mobility. Hence we propose
by the physical layer. In the routing layer the signal mobility adaptive cross layer design.
strength is compared with a pre-defined threshold In this cross layer design a node receiving
value. If the signal strength is greater than the signal, measures its strength and passes it from
threshold, the routing layer continues the route physical layer to routing layer. We also assumed that
discovery process. Otherwise the Reliable AODV information about speed of the node is available to it.
drops the RREQ packet. This leads to formation of Hence the signal strength, when receiving RREQ
routes with strong links where adjacent nodes are well packet which is a MAC broadcast, is passed to routing
within the transmission range of each other. So, even layer along with the speed information of the node. The
when the nodes are moving, the probability of route AODV routing protocol’s route discovery mechanism
failure due to link breakages would be less with is modified to use the above two parameters in making
Reliable AODV, compared to the existing Basic a decision on forwarding / discarding the RREQ
AODV. The threshold value is set suitably with packet.
reference to the nodes’ transmission power which The received signal strength is measured and
dictates the transmission range. The essence of used to calculate the distance between the transmitting
Reliable AODV is illustrated in Fig.1 where the node and receiving nodes. The two ray propagation model is
A sends a RREQ which is received by its neighbors B considered, where the loss coefficient value used is 2
and C. As the received signal strength at node B as the maximum transmission range (dmax) of nodes is
exceeds the threshold, it forwards the RREQ but the 350 meters which corresponds to 10dBm transmission
node C drops the RREQ because it is close to the power. Hence the received signal strength can be
transmission range boundary of node A and hence has expressed as
a weak link to node A. Pr = Pt (λ/ 4πd)2 (1)
Where, Pt - Transmission Power
λ - Wavelength in meters
and d - Distance between transmitting and
receiving nodes
Also the unity gain omni directional
transmitting and receiving antennas are considered.
When the RREQ packet is presented with
received signal strength information to the AODV
implementation of the node, it calculates its distance
from transmitting node using,
d = Sqrt (Pt / Pr) * (λ / 4π) (2)
Next, the receiving node calculates its
distance to the transmission range boundary of the
Fig. 1 Reliable AODV

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 28


transmitting node using the known maximum standard with RTS / CTS extension and provide link
transmission range (dmax) as, layer feedback to routing layer. The CBR traffic of 4
db=dmax– d (3) packets per sec, with 512 bytes packet size is used.
The minimum time needed for a node to go There are two randomly chosen source-destination
out of the transmission range boundary of the pairs and each source generates 4200 packets.
transmitting node depends its distance from the Simulations are run for 1200 seconds and each data
boundary and the speed as given below. point represents an average of at least four runs with
tb = db / Speed (4) different seed values.
If the source specifies a minimum route life- Identical mobility and traffic scenarios are
time (tl), in its RREQ packet, any intermediate node used across the three protocol variants. The fixed signal
receiving that packet can calculate its safe distance strength threshold used in AODV-Fixed variant is -
from transmission range boundary using its speed 78dBm whereas AODV-Adaptive used received signal
information as strength and speed of mobile nodes passed from
ds = tl * Speed (5) physical layer through cross layer interaction. The
It is now possible to the node to make a minimum route life-time requirement is set as 4
decision on forwarding the RREQ. That is, the decision seconds. We used the following five parameters to
rule inserted in AODV route discovery mechanism is, evaluate the performance of the protocol variants: 1)
{If (db ≥ ds), Number of routes selected (implies route failures), 2)
then forward RREQ Number of RREQ packets transmitted (counted hop-
else drop RREQ }. (6) by-hop basis), 3) Packet delivery ratio, 4) Number of
Hence the route discovery mechanism of Hops and 5) Average end-to-end delay.
AODV routing protocol is made adaptive to the node
speed, which leads to the formation of more stable
(reliable) routes. The parameter tl, the minimum route
life-time, is application specific.
This adaptive algorithm will certainly reduce
the hop count and hence the average end-to-end delay
of data packets than those incurred with fixed signal
strength threshold based RREQ processing. To show
the efficiency of our new adaptive algorithm,
simulation results are presented in the next section.

IV. Simulation Model and Result Analysis


The simulation for evaluating the problem is
implemented within the GloMoSim library [15].
GloMoSim provides a scalable simulation environment
for wireless network systems. It is designed using the
parallel discrete event simulation capability provided Fig 2. Route Failure Frequency
by PARSEC, a C based simulation language developed
by parallel computing laboratory at University
California at Los Angels, for sequential and parallel
execution of discrete event simulation models. The
simulation area is 1000 x 1000 square meters size,
where nodes are placed uniformly. The transmission
power and receiver threshold level of nodes are 10dBm
and -81dBm respectively. The random way point
mobility model is used. In this model, each node
chooses a random destination and move towards that
destination with a random speed chosen between the
minimum and maximum values specified. The node
then waits there for the specified pause time and
continues it movement as described above. The
bandwidth of shared wireless channel is assumed to be
2 MHz. The physical layer employs two ray
propagation model. The nodes use the distributed co-
ordination function of IEEE 802.11 WLAN [16] Fig 3. Routing Overhead

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 29


In the experiment to study the effect of
mobility, the maximum speed of nodes is varied
between 0-25 m/sec, where 49 nodes are used in the
simulation. Fig 2 shows the number of routes used by
three protocol variants. The Fixed and Adaptive
AODVs result in reduced number of routes selected,
i.e. reduced number of route failures that reflect the
formation of reliable (more stable) routes. Hence the
number RREQ sent by nodes also got reduced as
shown Fig 3. We could also infer that usage of fixed
threshold value leads to reduced connectivity,
particularly at very low speed ranges, which make
AODV-fixed to suffer with increased RREQ broadcast
during route search process. The improvement in
packet delivery ratio is reflected in Fig 4.
Both AODV-Fixed and AODV-Adaptive
variants outperform AODV-Basic, because of stable
Fig 4. Reliable Packet Delivery route formation. But this improvement is at the cost of
increased number of hops, which is shown in fig 5.
This figure also highlights the need of mobility
adaptive route discovery which optimizes routes with
speed information and helps in reducing the average
end-to-end delay of data packets significantly than
those incurred with fixed threshold usage. Fig 6 shows
the delay performance of three protocol variants.
Further, in order to explore the impact of node
density on the proposed new cross layer algorithm, we
conducted another experiment, in which the node
density is varied between 16 and 64 nodes in 1000 x
1000 sqm area. The maximum speed of mobile nodes
is set as 25 m/sec. The imposed signal strength
threshold and minimum route life-time constraints
reduce network connectivity, which is shown in Fig 7.
The number of routes used by AODV-Fixed variant is
relatively low at very low node density, which does not
imply formation of stable routes but reflects scarcity of
Fig 5. Average Path Length network connectivity. The repeated search for
connectivity increases the RREQ broadcasts in AODV-
Fixed variant which is presented Fig 8. But, the
performance of AODV-Adaptive excels in this regard.
Hence, the control packet overhead is under control
even in lightly densed network with our adaptive
algorithm.
The packet delivery ratio suffers when these
constraints are enforced in lightly densed networks.
The improvement is visible only when network
density increases beyond a particular level as shown in
Fig 9. So, it is clear that cross layer design using signal
strength threshold is useful and improves network
performance in highly densed networks where
redundantly available links ensure required network
connectivity. Where as the new adaptive algorithm
makes a trade off in this regard between the basic and
fixed AODV variants. Hence when to invoke cross
layer algorithm is also an important design issue.
Fig 6. Delay Performance

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 30


V. Conclusion
We observe that the cross layer
AODV with fixed threshold reduces the number of
route failures and routing overheads, at the cost of
increased hop counts and average end-to-end delay.
Certainly the proposed mobility adaptive algorithm
for route discovery optimizes the above trade off. The
AODV-Adaptive variant reduces number of hops and
delay to a greater extent and brings them closer to
those of AODV-Basic variant. It is important to note
that both cross layer AODV variants improve the
packet delivery ratio, but at the cost of slightly
increased end-to-end delay. However, the reduced
route failures and routing overheads obtained are very
attractive for mobile ad-hoc networks which are highly
resources constrained. Finally, it is worth to note that
impact on network connectivity due to signal strength
Fig 7. Node density vs Route Failures threshold enforcement is serious in lightly densed
networks and hence, the proposed cross layer design is
well suited for highly densed networks.

References:
[1] Mohammad Ilyas, “The Hand Book of Ad-hoc
Wireless Networks”, CRC Press, 2003.
[2] C E Perkins, E M Royer and S R Das, “ Ad-
hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing
Protocol”, IETF RFC 3651, July 2003.
[3] B.Awerbuch, D.Holmer and H.Rubens, “High
Throughput Route Selection in Multi-rate Ad-hoc
networks”, in Proc. of First working Conf. on
Wireless On-demand Network Systems, 2004.
[4] X.Zhong et al., “Stable Enhancement for AODV
Routing Protocol”, in proc. of 14th IEEE Conf. on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communication, vol 1, pp 201-205,2003.
[5] Y.Zhang and T.A. Gulliver, “Quality of Service for
Fig 8. Node Density vs Routing Overhead Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing”, in
proc.of IEEE International Conf. on Wireless
Mobile Computing, Networking and
Communications, vol 3, pp 192-193, 2005.
[6] R.S.Chang and S.J.Leu, “Long-lived Path Routing
with Received Signal strength for Ad-hoc
Networks”, in proc. of 1st International
Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing,
2006.
[7] G.Quddus et al., “Finding A Stable Route Through
AODV by Using Route Fragility Coefficient as
Metric”, In proc. of International Conf. on
Networking and Services, pp 107- 113, 2006.
[8] M.Idrees et al., “Enhancement in AODV Routing
Using Mobility Agents”, in proc. of IEEE
Symposium on Emerging Technologies, pp 98-
102, 2005.
[9] D.Espes and C.Teyssie, “Approach for Reducing
Control Packets in AODV-based MANETs”, in
Fig 9. Node Density vs PDR proc. of 4th European Conf. on Universal Multi-

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 31


service Networks, pp 93-104, Toulouse, France,
2007.
[10] G Carneiro et al., Cross Layer Design in 4G
Wireless Terminals, IEEE Wireless Commn., vol
11, no 2, pp 7-13, April 2004.
[11] T S Rappaport, et al., Wireless Commn: Past
event and a future perspective, IEEE
Communication Magazine, vol 40, no 5 (50th
Anniversary ), pp 148-161, 2002.
[12] V.Srivastava and M.Motani, “Cross Layer design
: A Survey and The road Ahead”, IEEE
Communication Magazine, vol. 43, no.12, pp 112-
119, dec2005.
[13] B. Ramachandran and S. Shanmugavel, “A
Power Conservative Cross Layer Design for
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks” , Information
Technology Journal, vol 4, no 2, pp 125-131,
2005.
[14] B.Ramahandran and S.Shanmugavel, “Reliable
Route Discovery for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”,
in proc of IETE International Conf. on Next
Generation Networks, pp CP 26.1-26.6, Mumbai,
India, 2006.
[15] GloMoSim User Manual,
http://pcl.cs.ucla.edu/project/glomosim
[16] LAN IEEE Std 802.11, Part 11: Wireless
MAC & PHY Layer Specifications, 1999.

UbiCC Journal - Volume 3 32

You might also like