JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO.

1, FEBRUARY 2013 61
Provisioning of QoS Adaptability in Wired-Wireless
Integrated Networks
Mian Guo, Shengming Jiang, Quansheng Guan, and Huachao Mao
Abstract: The increasing number of mobile users and the popular-
ity of real-time applications make wired-wireless integrated net-
work extremely attractive. In this case, quality of service (QoS)
adaptability is particularly important since some important fea-
tures of the integrated network call for QoS adaptability, such as
mobility, bursty applications and so on. Traditional QoS schemes
include integrated service (IntServ) and differentiated service
(DiffSev) as well as their variants. However, they are not able to
balance well between scalability and QoS granularity. For exam-
ple, IntServ faces the scalability problem, while DiffServ can only
provide coarse granular QoS. In addition, they are also unable to
efciently support QoS adaptability. Therefore, a per-packet dif-
ferentiated queueing service (DQS) was proposed. DQS was origi-
nally proposed to balance between scalability and QoS granularity
in wired networks and then extended to wireless networks. This pa-
per mainly discusses how to use DQS to support QoS adaptability
in wired-wireless integrated networks. To this end, we propose a
scheme to determine dynamic delay bounds, which is the key step
to implement DQS to support QoS adaptability. Simulation studies
along with some discussions are further conducted to investigate
the QoS adaptability of the proposed scheme, especially in terms of
its support of QoS adaptability to mobility and to bursty real-time
applications.
Index Terms: Differentiated queueing service (DQS), quality of ser-
vice (QoS) adaptability, wired-wireless integrated networks.
I. INTRODUCTION
The number of wireless users increases exponentially, and
meanwhile, real-time applications become more and more pop-
ular. For example, Cisco has estimated that in the near future
almost 66 percent of the mobile applications will be video [1].
Therefore, the motivation to provide integral seamless Internet
services to any user anytime, anywhere and anyhow drives the
integration of wired and wireless networks. Among all mech-
anisms required to support seamless services in this integrated
network, end-to-end quality of service (QoS) support is particu-
larly important [2], [3]. This is because the particular properties
of the various access networks make it difcult to provide uni-
formand stable QoS especially for real-time applications, which
are much sensitive to QoS uctuation.
Manuscript received December 17, 2011; approved for publication by Phone
Lin, Division III Editor, July 4, 2012.
This work was supported by the National Fundamental Research and Devel-
opment Programs of China (2011CB707003) and the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (61101083) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities of China (2012ZM0021 and 2012ZZ0031), SCUT.
The authors are with the School of Electronic and Information Engineer-
ing, South China University of Technology, P. R. China, email: {mian.guo123,
huachaomao}@gmail.com, {shmjiang, eeqshguan}@scut.edu.cn.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/JCN.2013.000011
The Internet engineering task force (IETF) has standardized
two QoS models for the Internet: The per-ow integrated ser-
vices (IntServ) and per-class differentiated services (DiffServ).
IntServ can provide distinct per-hop services for every granted
ow. However, it faces the scalability problem since routers in
the IntServ network have to maintain state information for each
granted ow. DiffServ tries to handle the scalability problem by
using packet classication and packet marking schemes and ag-
gregating ows belonging to the same class into one ow. In
this case, the router only needs to process a limited number of
classes, and each class is treated independently. Obviously, Diff-
Serv may provide coarse QoS granularity for the ows aggre-
gated into the same class. Now, most end-to-end QoS schemes
can provide non-seamless QoS support in the wired-wireless in-
tegrated networks [4][8]. That is to say, these schemes provide
end-to-end QoS support by partitioning the network into back-
bone and access segments, with DiffServ being used in the back-
bone segment while IntServ is used in the access segment. In
this case, a QoS parameter mapping between the backbone and
the access segments should be carried out at the network bor-
der. However, QoS parameter mapping may lead to other prob-
lems, such as extra mapping delays per packet, which may make
such parameter mapping become a performance bottleneck.
Recently, a per-packet differentiated queueing service (DQS)
approach was proposed for wired networks initially and then,
extended to wireless networks [9][11]. DQS tries to balance
between implementation scalability and QoS granularity mainly
by using two mechanisms. The rst mechanism is that DQS ex-
plicitly requires each packet to carry its QoS requirements by
itself in terms of end-to-end delay bound and packet loss prefer-
ence for QoS scalability. The second mechanism is the enhance-
ment of buffer admission control (BAC), by which each arriving
packet is properly placed in the queue according to its QoS re-
quirement and those of all the already queued packets. In this
case, the output scheduler simply picks up the packet at the head
of line for service.
In this paper, we study how to use DQS to cost-efciently
support end-to-end QoSs in the network integrated of wired and
wireless segments, particularly focusing on the provisioning of
QoS adaptability to mobility and to bursty applications. To this
end, we propose a scheme to determine the adaptive delay bound
for every arriving packet at the router so that QoS adaptabil-
ity can be provided by positioning the arriving packets in the
queue according to their instantaneous delay bounds. Simula-
tion studies show that, the proposed scheme can yield highest
QoS-efciency in comparison with IntServ and DiffServ. Fur-
ther studies show that the scheme is also cost-efcient by pro-
viding similar QoS-efciency while consuming less resources in
comparison with the DQS implementation for wireless networks
1229-2370/13/$10.00 c 2013 KICS
62 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013
proposed by [10].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
provides an overview of the QoS provisioning of IntServ, Diff-
Serv, and DQS. Section III discusses the proposed scheme
to determine the delay bound for every arriving packet at
any router. Section IV analyzes the performance of our pro-
posal. Section V discusses the QoS adaptability of the proposed
scheme in comparison with IntServ and DiffServ and Section VI
further evaluates the QoS adaptability of the proposed scheme
through simulation study. Finally, the paper is summarized in
Section VII.
II. QOS PROVISIONING OF INTSERV, DIFFSERV, AND
DQS
This section provides an overview of the QoS provisioning of
IntServ, DiffServ, and DQS. The implementation of DQS is also
discussed.
A. Delay Guarantee of IntServ, DiffServ, and DQS
For IntServ, if an end-to-end delay bound is given, the delay
bound to be provided by every router is calculated during the
resource reservation procedure along the path before the con-
nection begins. Once the per-router delay bound is calculated
and granted, it is stored at each router and would not be changed
until a new resource reservation procedure is initiated. IntServ
usually uses delay-based scheduler to support different delay
bounds. The most general one is the earliest deadline rst (EDF)
scheduler [12]. DiffServ tries to reduce queueing delays by al-
locating a much higher service rate than the actual arrival rate to
low-latency trafc. Different implementations can be adopted,
such as class-based weighted fair queueing and weighted round
robin scheduling algorithms, etc. Generally, DiffServ gives the
highest service priority to the class required delay guarantee and
adopts strict priority queueing for scheduling [13]. With DQS,
if the delay bound of an arriving packet at the current router is
given, the BAC only allow this packet to enter into the queue
if its delay bound can be provided by the current router, and
if its insertion into the queue will not under-provision QoS to
the existing packets. All packets in the queue are positioned in
an ascending order according to their allowable dwelling time
at the router. If the BAC works well, all the packets inside the
queue can be served within their delay bounds.
B. Implementation of DQS
Obviously, accurately estimating the delay bound of ev-
ery arriving packet according to its end-to-end delay require-
ment is a key to providing QoS adaptability. The original de-
lay bound for each arriving packet at router i is calculated by
D

i1
j=1

d
j

n
j=i+1

d
j
[9], where D refers to the end-to-
end delay bound of this packet and

d
j
is the delay bound at
router j. When j<i,

d
j
is the actual delay that the packet has
experienced at node j. However, it is difcult for node i to deter-
mine

d
j
for j>i. In practice, an estimation algorithm is needed
to approximate

d
j
for j>i.
In [10], a periodical broadcast mechanism is proposed to es-
timate the delay between nodes inside wireless networks. With
this proposal, a node periodically sends a probe packet contain-
ing a time stamp and its delay table to its neighbors. When a
neighbor receives this packet, it rstly calculates the difference
between these two time stamps, thus obtains an approximated
one-way latency between the upstream node and itself. Then, it
updates the delay table with the updated latency. When the pe-
riod is due, it marks its own time stamp and its own delay table
in a probe packet and sends it to others. Such operation repeats
throughout the whole wireless network. Since such periodical
broadcast consumes network resources while wireless resources
are so precious and scarce that, this proposal is somewhat un-
economical, especially when part of nodes do not deliver trafc
during a long period of time.
III. A PROPOSAL
In order to enable DQS to support QoS adaptability in the
integrated networks, we have to accurately determine the maxi-
mum delay bound of a packet in the current router by estimating
the delay bounds at downstream routers. To this end, we pro-
pose a scheme to calculate the dynamic delay bounds for the
arriving packets at routers in the integrated network. According
to the particular properties of various sub-networks, we propose
three different algorithms to calculate delay bounds for routers
in different locations.
Since the delay bound estimation algorithms need delay in-
formation from other routers, in the following dynamic delay
bound calculation, we assume the clocks are synchronous or
time stamps from different sources can be mapped into a wall
clock in the current router.
A. Calculation of Dynamic Delay Bounds at a Border Router
Scheduling packets according to their service priorities can
avoid emergent packets overdue when congestion happens.
Since long queueing delay is likely to happen at border routers
when the network is congested, and meanwhile, delay bounds
uniquely determine the service priority of an arriving packet in
the DQS model. So, accurately estimating the delay bound for
every arriving packet at the border router is very important to
DQS. In this sense, we try to accurately estimate the delay from
the border router to the destination node inside the wireless net-
work and store it at the border router. The detailed algorithm as
illustrated in Fig. 1 is described below.
As shown in Fig. 1, when the wireless border router i receives
a packet to be delivered into the wireless network, it checks its
delay table to look for the delay between itself and the destina-
tion node. If the delay is not found, it uses (2) to calculate the
delay bound that the arriving packet can tolerate at the current
router. Otherwise, assume the delay

D
n
between the current bor-
der router and the destination node n stored in the delay table.
Then, (1) is used to calculate the delay bound for the arriving
packet.
d
i
= D

i1
j=1

d
j


D
n
(1)
where d
i
represents the delay bound that the packet can tolerate
at the border router i, D is the tolerable end-to-end delay of this
packet, and

d
j
represents the actual delay that this packet has
experienced at router j.
GUO et al.: PROVISIONING OF QOS ADAPTABILITY IN WIRED-WIRELESS INTEGRATED... 63
Border router
Destination node
Packet arrives.
The delay exists in
the delay table?
Use (4) to
calculate the delay
bound.
Use (2) to
calculate the delay
bound.
Yes No
Encapsulate extra
information to this
packet .
Queue this packet for
forwarding.
Packet arrives .
Use (3) to calculate
the delay.
Period is due?
Send a delay update
packet to the border
router.
Update the delay table.
Time out for this
destination?
Delete the record .
End
Receive the delay
update packet .
Transmit the
packet.
Begin
Yes
No
Transmit the
delay update
packet .
Yes
Begin
No
Update the local delay
table.
End
Fig. 1. The algorithm to determine the delay bound of an arriving packet
at the border router.
Simultaneously, a time stamp and the border routers address
as extra information are encapsulated into the header of that
packet for later delay calculation at the destination. Then, this
packet is queued for forwarding.
If the packet is successfully delivered to the destination, the
destination calculates the delay

D

n
from the border router to
itself by deducing the time stamp marked by the border router
in the packet header. Then, it calculates the average delay

D
n
by (

D

n
+

D

n
(N 1))/N, where

D

n
is the last average delay
and N is the total number of packets currently received by the
destination within a period, which is the time interval that the
source receives a delay feedback from the destination.
Then, the destination updates the local delay table with this
new average delay. Note that, the delay table only stores the
information on the delay from the border router to this node.
When the above period is due, the destination sends back a
delay update packet to the wireless border router, informing it
of the latest delay from the border router to this destination.
When the border router receives a delay update packet from
the destination, it updates the delay table.
The border router also uses a timer for each destination. If the
delay information of some destination has not been updated for
a period of time, we assume that this destination is inactive or
unreachable, and delete its record accordingly to save the stor-
age resource and avoid large deviation of delay bounds.
B. Calculation of Dynamic Delay Bounds in Wireless Networks
Packets from applications may travel over more than one hop
inside a wireless domain. In order to efciently utilize the pre-
cious wireless resources as well as obtaining a certain accuracy
Table 1. Summary of the proposed delay bound calculation.
Location of the current router Delay bound d
i
In wired domain (D

i1
j=1

d
j


D
n
)/h
i
At wireless border D

i1
j=1

d
j


D
n
Within wireless domain (D

i1
j=1

d
j
)/h
i
of approximated delay bounds, we try to exploit some infor-
mation available from the routing layer to acquire the number
of remaining hops from the current node to the destination. We
also assume that nodes along the remaining wireless path provi-
sion the same delay bounds for the packet. Thus, (2) is used to
determine the delay bound of an arriving packet at any wireless
node inside the domain.
d
i
=
D

i1
j=1

d
j
h
i
(2)
where d
i
is the delay bound that the packet can tolerate at wire-
less node i, D is the tolerable end-to-end delay of this packet,

d
j
is the actual delay that this packet has experienced at node j,
and h
i
is the number of remaining hops from the current wire-
less node to the destination along the path.
C. Calculation of Dynamic Delay Bounds in Wired Networks
Since routers inside wired networks are easier to provide
stringent per-hop services than routers inside wireless networks,
we assume that the wired routers downstream and the current
router can guarantee the same per-hop delay for the arriving
packet. Therefore, the delay bound is calculated by
d
i
=
D

i1
j=1

d
j


D
n
h
i
(3)
where

D
n
is an estimated delay from the last hop of the wired
network to the wireless destination, which is obtained by using
the algorithm proposed in subsection III-A (see Fig. 1). If the
arriving packet is forwarded to a wired destination,

D
n
is set to
zero. h
i
is the number of remaining hops fromthe current router
to the wireless border router along the path.
D. Summary
Our proposal to calculate the dynamic delay bound for an
arriving packet at routers in the wired-wireless integrated net-
works is summarized in Table 1.
IV. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Among various performance metrics, end-to-end delay and
packet loss rate are common and important in measuring QoS
provisioning. Generally, the packet loss rate is referred to as
the ratio of the number of packets that are lost in the interior
routers due to congestion to the total number of packets that are
sent by the source. However, according to the service discipline
of DQS, overdue packets may also be actively dropped by the
BAC. Hence, the lost packets in DQS include packets lost by
congestion and the dropped overdue packets.
64 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013
A. Goodput
Here, we also dene goodput to measure the ratio of the num-
ber of successfully received packets that meet their end-to-end
delay requirements to the total number of packets that are sent
by the source. Assume every ow can be modeled with an expo-
nentially bounded burstiness (EBB) [14]. Then, at router i along
the path, the arrival trafc of owj at any time interval [t
0
, t
0
+t]
satises P{A
j
[t
0
, t
0
+ t]
j
t > x} ae
bx
, t 0, t
0
0,
where
j
is the upper mean arrival rate and a and b as well is
constant. Herein, A(t) represents the accumulative amount of
trafc during time interval t. Although the available bandwidth
may vary in wireless networks, we can assume a statistical ser-
vice rate allocated to ow j is r
j
i
. Similarly, although the per-
hop and per-packet delay bounds of a ow in our proposal may
be distinct, we dene d
j
i
as the statistical delay bound of ow j
at router i. In this case, the queue length distribution of this ow
at router i is given by
F(x)=1P(q
j
i
>x) = 1P(sup
tsd
j
i
{A
j
(t)A
j
(s)r
j
i
(ts)>x})
1
ae
bx
1e
b(r
j
i
j)
, xr
j
i
d
j
i
. (4)
And the probability density function can be calculated by
f(x)=dF/dxabe
bx
/(1e
b(r
j
i
j)
). So the average queue
length can be obtained by
E(q
j
i
) =

r
j
i
d
j
i
0
xf(x)dx
ae
br
j
i
(br
j
i
d
j
i
+1 e
br
j
i
d
j
i
)
be
br
j
i
d
j
i
(e
br
j
i
e
bj
)
. (5)
Then, the average queueing delay given by the router is de-
duced by

d
j
i
=E(q
j
i
)/r
j
i
. Accordingly, the average end-to-end
delay for the ow j is given by

D
j
=

H
i=1

d
j
i
, where H is the
number of routers the ow should experience when it is trans-
mitted from the source to the destination.
If we let the buffer size for the ow be larger than r
j
i
d
j
i
, then
the lost packets only include dropped overdue packets. Simi-
lar to the stochastic delay bound probability calculation adopted
in [15], in our proposal, for ow j at router i, the probability of
the actual delay exceeds the delay bound is bounded by
P
j
i
{

d
j
i
>d
j
i
}=P{sup
t0
{A
j
(t)r
j
i
(t+d
j
i
)}>0}
ae
br
j
i
d
j
i
1e
b(r
j
i
j)
.
(6)
According to [16], the packet loss rate can be approximated
by Plr
j
i
{

d
j
i
>d
j
i
}=P
j
i
{

d
j
i
>d
j
i
}, where is a constant. There-
fore, similar to [15], the nal packet loss rate of ow j is given
by
Plr
j
= 1
H

j=1
(1 Plr
j
i
). (7)
Since the buffer size is large enough, we can assume that all
the received packets in our proposal meet their end-to-end delay
requirements. Accordingly, goodput is approximated by
G
j
= 1 Plr
j
. (8)
The analysis model throws light on the factors that have im-
pact on the performance of our proposal. On the other hand,
comparing the analytical and simulation results requires com-
plex statistical bandwidth and delay bounds. Due to the space
limitation, it will be our future work.
B. Resource Consumption
The motivation of our proposal is to balance between cost-
efciency and end-to-end QoS provisioning efciency. Obvi-
ously, the algorithm proposed in subsection III-A to determine
the delay from a wireless border router to a wireless destination
also consumes resources. Therefore, here we mainly focus on
the cost-efciency in terms of overhead and storage consump-
tion by the scheme proposed in subsection III-A(also see Fig. 1)
in comparison with the proposal of Teng [10] for wireless net-
works.
As shown in Fig. 1, the proposed scheme has two types of
overhead. The rst one is the extra overhead in the header of
the arriving packets at the border router. It consists of a time
stamp and the border routers address. The other type is from
the delay update packet, which contains the delay from the bor-
der router to the destination and the destinations address. As-
sume both our scheme and the one proposed by Teng use media
access control (MAC) address to represent the wireless nodes
address. Since the overhead for a time stamp and a MAC ad-
dress are 2 bytes and 6 bytes, respectively [17], the data packet
in the proposed scheme consumes extra overhead of 8 bytes per
packet. The payload of the delay update packet is 10 bytes per
packet. In the proposal of Teng [10], every node periodically
broadcasts a hello probe packet to their neighbors. The broad-
cast information consists of a delay table containing all address
pair and the delays between these address pair as well as a time
stamp of the source node. Obviously, in this scheme, there are
14 bytes per record in the delay table, thus the maximum length
of a probe packet can reach (14n(n1)+2) bytes, where n is
the number of nodes in the wireless network. Accordingly, the
whole process consumes much larger network resources as com-
pared with our scheme.
As to the storage consumption, in the proposal of Teng [10],
each node is required to store the delay information for every
node pair, which consumes lots of storage resources if the num-
ber of nodes is large. Differently, in our proposal, only the bor-
der router and the active destination nodes are required to store
the delay information.
Accordingly, our proposal is more cost-efcient with less
overhead and consuming less storage resources in comparison
with the scheme proposed by Teng.
C. Effects of Delay Bound Estimation Errors
As mentioned in subsection II-A, the delay bound in the pro-
posal determines whether this packet can be inserted into the
queue as well as the queueing position at current router. Gener-
ally, mobility may affect the accuracy of the estimation. In fact,
the estimation errors of delay bounds may cause packets to be
dropped by the BAC or to experience longer delay than its end-
to-end delay bound, resulting in G = 1 Plr.
Therefore, the following formula is used to investigate the
deviation of the estimation to ow j in a network that the buffer
GUO et al.: PROVISIONING OF QOS ADAPTABILITY IN WIRED-WIRELESS INTEGRATED... 65
size is large enough.

j
=
1

Plr
j

G
j
1 (9)
where

Plr
j
and

G
j
are statistical packet loss rate and goodput,
respectively. Accordingly, the mean deviation and variance
of the proposal are obtained as = E(
j
) and
2
= E(
j

)
2
(j [1, N]), where N is the total number of input ows in
the network. As approximates zero, the smaller is, the more
accurate the estimation is.
V. QOS ADAPTABILITY
In this section, we further discuss QoS adaptability to mobil-
ity and to bursty applications.
A. QoS Adaptability to Mobility
QoS adaptability to mobility is required in wired-wireless in-
tegrated networks since mobility will cause QoS uctuation and
the wireless channel quality is very sensitive to mobility.
Mobile nodes commonly move at various speeds. Generally,
nodes move at lowspeed experience small uctuation of channel
quality while high speed can cause big uctuation. For exam-
ple, if a mobile node moves far away from the sender node or a
relay node, the increasing speed can increase packet loss rate or
prolong average delays. However, if it moves towards the above
nodes, the opposite results will be yielded.
Both IntServ and DiffServ adapt to mobility by dynamic QoS
negotiation and resource reservation at the call level. Protocols
such as resoure reservation protocol (RSVP) are used to carry
out resource reservation for a granted ow in IntServ or for an
aggregated class in DiffServ, respectively. However, while chan-
nel conditions vary frequently, it is impractical to frequently ini-
tiate resource reservation and QoS re-negotiation in ad hoc mo-
bile networks. Particularly, with DiffServ, it is almost impossible
to dynamically adjust the QoS for an aggregated ow following
dynamic changes of an individual ow because of its aggrega-
tion mechanism.
Our scheme can be easily adaptive to mobility due to its per-
packet service granularity. According to the service discipline
of DQS, the per-hop service to every arriving packet is deter-
mined by the packets position in the queue. This position is
determined instantly according to the arriving packets tolerable
QoS at the current router, such as delay bound. According to our
scheme, this delay bound is dynamically adjusted according to
the delay that this packet has experienced at the upstream nodes
and the delay that the packet will experience at the remaining
journeys. In this sense, the prolonged delay caused by mobil-
ity can be compensated by dynamically adjusting the packets
dwelling time at routers along the path. For example, the ter-
minal movement affects the channel quality, resulting in delay
uctuation over this segment of the path. With our scheme, the
packet to be delivered to this terminal is likely to be served ahead
at upstream nodes so that the prolonged delay caused by the
movement is compensated. Consequently, QoS adaptability to
mobility is yielded.
2 Source 1
Source 2
...
Source n
1
4
3
13
5
11
8
7
16
17
Router 1
Router 2
Router 3
Border router
The ad hoc network Traffic sources
Backbone
Fig. 2. The wired-wireless integrated network model for the simulation.
B. QoS Adaptability to Applications
Since real-time applications are much sensitive to QoS uc-
tuation, the QoS provisioning should be adaptive to real-time
applications in order to provide a stable QoS support.
IntServ provides QoS for real-time applications by reserving
adequate bandwidth and buffer resource for every granted ow,
e.g., reserving service rate larger or equal to the peak arrival rate.
However, if the trafc load of the granted application is low, the
reserved resource will be wasted. This is because that less ows
can be granted to the network if large bandwidth resources are
reserved to bursty low trafc load applications. It is particularly
uneconomical to do so in the wireless network since wireless
resources are scarce and precious. Furthermore, it is difcult to
reserve stable resources in wireless networks due to the dynamic
nature of wireless channel capacity.
Similar to IntServ, DiffServ provides QoS for bursty trafc by
provisioning much larger bandwidth than the mean arrival rate
of the bursty trafc, namely capacity over-provisioning. How-
ever, the lack of a per-ow granularity makes it possible for the
applications to congest each other. For example, in a bursty pe-
riod of a ow, all ows belonging to that class suffer QoS dete-
rioration [18].
Differently, our scheme adapts to bursty applications by al-
locating an adaptive delay bound for every arriving packet at
routers along the path. Every packets delay bound at a router is
determined by its end-to-end delay requirement, the actual de-
lay at upstreamrouters as well as the delay bound at downstream
nodes. During the period of a burst, a number of packets may
experience long queueing delays at a router while other packets
prolong their delays at other routers. However, their end-to-end
delays may still be bounded since the sum of their per-router
delays along the path would not exceed the end-to-end delay
bound according to the adaptive delay bound calculation algo-
rithm proposed in Section III.
VI. SIMULATION EVALUATION
This section further evaluates the QoS adaptability of the pro-
posed scheme by investigating the QoS efciency for real-time
applications through simulation in NS-2 in comparison with
IntServ and DiffServ, particularly in terms of the adaptability
to mobility and to bursty applications discussed in Section V.
Simulation studies are also conducted to evaluate the efciency
of our algorithmin wireless networks in comparison with the al-
gorithm proposed by Teng [10] to extend the discussion of sub-
section II-B and subsection IV-B. Finally, the accuracy of the
proposal is investigated.
66 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013
The simulated wired-wireless network topology is shown in
Fig. 2, which consists of a wired network and a wireless ad hoc
network based on the 802.11b standard. The wired network in-
cludes multiple trafc sources and three xed backbone routers.
The ad hoc network has 20 nodes randomly distributed in a grid
of 800 m 800 m with a transmission rate of 2 Mbps. A wire-
less border router with a capacity of 5.5 Mbps interconnects
the wired and wireless networks. Since the capacity of the ad
hoc network is limited here, we set the bandwidth of the wired
routers to 10 Mbps.
Reference [19] points out that the optimal capacity per-node
approximates (C/

n) for a destination non-vanishing far

away, where C is per-node capacity and n is the number of
nodes in a disk of unit area. If both mobility and delay require-
ments are considered, the per-node capacity may be far lower.
Therefore, we constrain our simulated trafc to a reasonable
load to keep throughput as high as possible while given good
QoS performance in static optimal situation. Then, we investi-
gate the performance in various situations.
In general, real-time applications are much sensitive to de-
lay while some packet losses may not obviously degrade the
decoding quality. Accordingly, we do not retransmit lost pack-
ets in this paper. However, we may consider the effect of re-
transmition in the future work.
We use the following performance metrics in the discussion.
End-to-end delay: The time taken by a successfully received
packet traveling from source to destination.
Goodput: The ratio of the number of successfully received
packets that satised their end-to-end delay requirements to
the total number of packets that are sent by the source.
Packet loss rate: The ratio of the number of packets that are
lost due to congestion or delay bound violation to the total
number of packets that are sent by the source.
Overhead: The extra per node throughput that are transmitted
between routers for delay calculation.
Storage: The average number of records that per node should
store for delay calculation.
A. QoS Adaptability versus Mobility
In this case, multiple voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) ows
are sent from the wired trafc sources to the nodes randomly lo-
cated in the ad hoc network. The data rate of each VoIP ow is
set to 80 kbps according to the G.711 standard, while its end-
to-end delay bound is set to 150 ms. Two scenarios are sim-
ulated. The rst one is that 10 VoIP ows are sent from the
wired sources to 10 wireless destination nodes with only one
destination moving. The other scenario is that, all destinations
randomly move at the maximum speed of 100 m/s and the num-
ber of VoIP ows is increased. In both scenarios, all nodes are
randomly distributed around the wireless border router at the be-
ginning, and then the mobile nodes move randomly within the
grid during the simulation.
Here, IntServ conducts resource reservation and adopts EDF
to schedule ows throughout the wired-wireless network. Ac-
cording to [12], the reserved rate and bucket depth for each ow
per router is set to 80 kbps and 1000 bytes, respectively. Dur-
ing the simulation, if the connection setup is unsuccessful or the
connection is interrupted due to temporary channel quality dete-
rioration, the resource reservation procedure will be re-initiated
after a period of time until it is successful. For DiffServ, since
every ow has a distinct address pair, we constrain the arrival
rate of each ow to 80 kbps by using the token bucket at the net-
work boundary according to [20]. All ows are aggregated to the
highest per-hop behavior (PHB) group and obtain the same per-
hop service according to their similar trafc characteristics and
end-to-end delay requirements. At the wireless border router,
all VoIP ows are set to the highest service priority. A strict
priority queueing is used to schedule them inside the wireless
network. Non-compliant packets will be queued to the lowest
priority queue. With the proposed scheme based on DQS, we
mark 150 ms as the end-to-end delay bound in the header of
each VoIP packet when it is generated. If a packet is rejected
by the BAC from queueing it in the QoS guaranteed queue, the
packet is queued in the best-effort queue. If a packet is overdue
in an intermediate node, it is dropped immediately.
As discussed in subection IV-A, the buffer size is constrained
by the delay bound and the service rate. If the buffer size is larger
than

N
i=1
r
i
d
i
, where r
i
is the service rate for ow i, d
i
is
the delay bound of ow i, and N is the number of ows, then
the lost packets only consist of dropped overdue packets in our
proposal. As to both IntServ and DiffServ, if the buffer size is
larger than that threshold, some packets will stay a long time in
the queue and thus, will become overdue when they are served.
However, if the buffer length is shorter than that threshold, some
normal packets will be discarded. Therefore, the buffer sizes of
the above three schemes are all set to 150 packets, which is a
small larger than

N
i=1
r
i
d
i
, such that the normal packets will
not be discarded.
We rst look at the QoS performance of the ow to the mo-
bile node for scenario 1 as depicted in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3,
when the mobile node moves at a low speed, all the three QoS
schemes can guarantee the QoS of all VoIP ows; however, as
the speed increases, their performance declines obviously. The
reason is that, during a nodes movement, the node may suf-
fer serious interference and/or travel to a blind zone, in which
the node is isolated and cannot communicate with other nodes.
Since the node (note that here only one node is moving) is lo-
cated around the wireless border router at the beginning of sim-
ulation, the channel quality may suffer slightly when the node
moves at a low speed. However, as the speed increases, the in-
terference between it and the other active nodes and the proba-
bility for it to walk into blind zones become high, and accord-
ingly, the channel quality uctuates more frequently as the speed
increases, resulting in performance deterioration. Overall, the
end-to-end delay given by the proposed scheme is obviously
lower than those given by the other two schemes as shown in
Fig. 3(a). The goodput given by the proposed scheme is also
higher than those given by the other two as shown in Fig. 3(b).
As for the performance of all ows including ows to the
mobile destination and to the static destinations as depicted
in Fig. 4, the simulation results show that, although both our
proposal and IntServ schedule packets according to their delay
bounds, they yield different QoS performance. The main rea-
son is their distinct mechanisms to obtain the delay bound for
each packet. With our proposal, the per-hop service priority of
every packet is determined by each packets instantaneous delay
GUO et al.: PROVISIONING OF QOS ADAPTABILITY IN WIRED-WIRELESS INTEGRATED... 67
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Speed (m/s)
E
n
d

t
o

e
n
d

d
e
l
a
y

(
s
)
Delay bound
(a)
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Speed (m/s)
G
o
o
d
p
u
t
(b)
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Speed (m/s)
P
a
c
k
e
t

l
o
s
s

r
a
t
e
IntServ
DiffServ
The proposal
(c)
Fig. 3. The performance of the ow to mobile node for scenario 1: (a) End-to-end delay, (b) goodput, and (c) packet loss rate. There are total 10
ows, the end-to-end delay is 0.15 s, and only one destination moves.
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Speed (m/s)
E
n
d

t
o

e
n
d

d
e
l
a
y

(
s
)
Delay bound
(a)
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Speed (m/s)
G
o
o
d
p
u
t
(b)
2 5 10 20 60 80 100
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Speed (m/s)
P
a
c
k
e
t

l
o
s
s

r
a
t
e
IntServ
DiffServ
The proposal
(c)
Fig. 4. The performance of all ows for scenario 1: (a) End-to-end delay, (b) goodput, and (c) packet loss rate. There are total 10 ows, the
end-to-end delay is 0.15 s, and only one destination moves.
bound at the router. This delay bound is dynamically determined
by considering the effect of mobility. Generally speaking, the
per-hop delay bound of a packet toward a mobile node is prob-
ably smaller than those toward a static node. Therefore, they
may have higher service priorities at interior routers. That is to
say, upstreamrouters may shorten their queueing delay. Accord-
ingly, before the destination node becomes unreachable, most
packets can still be delivered to the mobile destination within
their delay bounds.
However, with IntServ, since the delay bound of every ow at
a router is determined at the call level, the service priority of a
ow toward a mobile node cannot be adjusted dynamically ac-
cording to the instantaneously uctuating channel quality. Con-
sequently, the efciency of QoS support in delivering packets to
the mobile destination with IntServ is lower in comparison with
the proposed scheme, resulting in a worse QoS performance as
shown in Fig. 3. The movement of mobile nodes also leads to
the channel quality uctuations for other nodes because nodes
in the ad hoc network have to compete for wireless resources
with neighbors. Since IntServ is unable to quickly adapt to such
instantaneous channel quality uctuation as mentioned earlier, it
also provides a worse QoS performance for static ows in com-
parison with our proposal, resulting in worse QoS performance
as illustrated in Fig. 4. Due to the coarse granularity and static
QoS mechanism, it is not surprise to see the worst QoS per-
formance given by DiffServ in terms of end-to-end delay and
goodput.
Note that, the packet loss rate given by DiffServ increases
faster than those given by the other schemes as the speed in-
creases as illustrated in Figs. 3(c) and 4(c). The reason is that
all ows have the same trafc characteristic and QoS require-
ments as well as path situations, so they are serviced in a rst in
rst out (FIFO) manner with DiffServ. Accordingly, as the speed
increases, the prolonged transmission delay from the wireless
border router to the mobile node increases the queueing delay
of packets to other nodes and may cause congestion, as dis-
cussed in subsection V-B. However, since both our proposal and
IntServ use delay-based scheduling, the prolonged transmission
delay from the border router to the mobile node has small effect
on the packets to other nodes.
The simulation results for scenario 2 further reect their
different QoS adaptabilities to mobility. As shown in Fig. 5,
the QoS differences between the three QoS schemes become
more and more obvious as the number of ows increases. Since
both our proposal and IntServ use delay-based packet schedul-
ing, they can bound the end-to-end delay approximately to 150
ms. However, due to their different adaptabilities to mobility,
the goodput given by our proposal obviously higher than that
given by IntServ as the number of ows increases as shown in
Fig. 5(b). Since DiffServ is least adaptive to mobility, it is not
surprise to nd that the end-to-end delay given by DiffServ in-
creases fast and its goodput decreases nearly to zero when the
number of ows reaches 12.
68 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013
1 5 9 13 17 20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Number of VoIP flows
E
n
d

t
o

e
n
d

d
e
l
a
y

(
s
)
Delay bound
(a)
1 5 9 13 17 20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Number of VoIP flows
G
o
o
d
p
u
t
(b)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Number of VoIP flows
P
a
c
k
e
t

l
o
s
s

r
a
t
e
IntServ
DiffServ
The proposal
(c)
Fig. 5. Simulated results for scenario 2: (a) End-to-end delay, (b) goodput, and (c) packet loss rate. All nodes move, the maximum speed is 100 m/s,
and the end-to-end delay is 0.15 s.
B. QoS Adaptability versus Applications
Due to the network capacity constraint, in scenario 3, we send
totally 6 bursty video ows from the sources in the wired net-
work to the destinations located in the ad hoc network. The mean
rate of each ow is set to 320 kbps and the peak rate is about 460
kbps. The maximumpacket size is 600 bytes and the end-to-end
delay bound of each ow is 200 ms. In order to investigate QoS
adaptability to bursty applications, here the nodes inside the ad
hoc network are set to be stationary.
According to [12], we reserve 460 kbps for every ow per
router along the path and use EDF to schedule all packets for
IntServ. The per-ow delay bound at a router is calculated by
C
tot
/R+D
tot
, where C
tot
is set to the maximum packet size
of the ow, R is the reserved rate for the ow, and D
tot
is set
to MTU/c, here c is the constant service rate of the router and
MTU is the maximum transmission unit of the network. Diff-
Serv constrains the arrival rate to 460 kbps for each destination
at the edge of the DiffServ domain. If the amount of instant traf-
c exceeds the negotiated rate, the extra trafc will be degraded
or dropped. All ows are aggregated to the highest class at the
edge and acquire the same per-hop service according to their
similar trafc characteristic and QoS requirements. At the wire-
less border router, these bursty ows are mapped to the highest
service priority and a strict priority queueing scheme is used to
schedule them in the wireless network. Our proposal just marks
200 ms as the end-to-end delay bound for every packet when it
is generated.
Similar to the reasons mentioned in subsection VI-A, the
buffer sizes of the three schemes are set to 500 packets in this
simulation, which is enough for the burst by considering the
delay requirements and the channel capacity constraints. Other
implementation issues are similar to those mentioned in subsec-
tion VI-A.
When multiple bursty real-time ows simultaneously feed
into the network, the accumulative queue length of the bottle-
neck router will increase quickly. Accordingly, many packets
may experience especially long queueing delays. Since all the
bursty ows in the simulation have similar trafc characteristic,
paths and end-to-end QoS requirements, they acquire identical
per-hop service in both IntServ and DiffServ. Particularly with
DiffServ, the lack of per-ow granularity makes heavy conges-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Simulation time (s)
R
a
t
e

(
k
b
p
s
)
Arrival rate
IntServ
DiffServ
The proposal
Fig. 6. Rate of bursty real-time ow 3 for scenario 3.
tion during the period of bursts, resulting in much longer queue-
ing delays as shown in Table 2. Accordingly, DiffServ yields the
longest average end-to-end delay and lowest goodput as shown
in Table 2.
Differently, with our proposal, although a packet may expe-
rience a long queueing delay at the bottleneck router, its per-
hop queueing delay can be shortened at other routers according
to the per-packet adaptive delay bound mechanism proposed in
Section III. Therefore, more packets can meet their end-to-end
delay requirements in comparison with both IntServ and Diff-
Serv. Accordingly, the QoS performance given by our proposal
is the best with the shortest average end-to-end delay and high-
est goodput as shown in Table 2.
The adaptability of our scheme to applications can be further
demonstrated in Fig. 6, where the effective service rate given by
our proposal is quite closer to the arrival rate while that given by
DiffServ deviates much during the period of bursts. Therefore,
it is not surprise to see that the goodput given by our proposal is
stable while the goodput given by DiffServ uctuates much as
illustrated in Table 2.
Note that, although the average goodput given by our scheme
is higher than that given by IntServ, the goodput of some ows
given by IntServ may be better than that given by our scheme
as shown in Table 2. The reason is that, the per-ow QoS pro-
GUO et al.: PROVISIONING OF QOS ADAPTABILITY IN WIRED-WIRELESS INTEGRATED... 69
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Number of flows
G
o
o
d
p
u
t
VoIP the proposal
VoIP Teng
Video the proposal
Video Teng
(a)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
10
0
10
1
Number of flows
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

(
k
b
p
s
/
n
o
d
e
)
The proposal
Teng
(b)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
Number of flows
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

(
r
e
c
o
r
d
/
n
o
d
e
)
The proposal
Teng
(c)
Fig. 7. Cost-efciency comparison between our proposal and Tengs (the number of VoIP ows against the number of video ows is 1:1) (scenario
4): (a) Goodput, (b) overhead, and (c) storage consumption.
Table 2. Performance for bursty real-time ows (scenario 3).
Flow
End-to-end delay (s) Goodput Packet loss rate
IntServ DiffServ
Propo-
IntServ DiffServ
Propo-
IntServ DiffServ
Propo-
sal sal sal
1 0.179 0.191 0.143 0.979 0.721 0.969 0.008 0.015 0.029
2 0.179 0.192 0.124 0.973 0.702 0.965 0.011 0.021 0.032
3 0.181 0.192 0.124 0.886 0.684 0.967 0.027 0.027 0.031
4 0.181 0.193 0.124 0.908 0.664 0.961 0.038 0.036 0.035
5 0.180 0.192 0.125 0.953 0.642 0.960 0.026 0.048 0.036
6 0.179 0.193 0.124 0.977 0.623 0.967 0.010 0.064 0.032
Mean 0.180 0.192 0.128 0.946 0.673 0.965 0.020 0.035 0.031
visioning mechanism may provide better service for a ow to-
ward a quite stable destination but providing the worse services
for other ows toward unstable destinations when they have the
same trafc characteristic, end-to-end QoS requirements, and
travel along the same path. Differently, our scheme tries to pro-
vide fair goodput for these ows by scheduling every packet ac-
cording to its QoS requirement. Thus, as shown in Table 2, the
goodput of every ow given by our proposal is quite closer to
that of the average one.
C. Cost-Efciency
Our scheme determines the delay bound at nodes in the wire-
less network in a way quite different from the proposal of
Teng [10], which was discussed earlier in subsection II-B. As
discussed in subsection IV-B, our scheme is cost-efcient by
consuming lower network resources. In the following, we fur-
ther validate the cost-efciency of our proposal by comparing
with the proposal of Teng in wireless networks.
To this end, we send VoIP and bursty video trafc from the
wireless border router to the nodes inside the ad hoc network in
scenario 4. The trafc characteristic and QoS requirements of
both types of applications are similar to those used in subsec-
tions VI-A and VI-B, respectively. During the simulation, every
node moves at speeds ranging from 2 m/s to 100 m/s and each
ow is transmitted to a distinct wireless node. We investigate the
efciency by increasing the number of ows.
As shown in Fig. 7(a), the goodput of both applications given
by our scheme is quite closer to that given by Teng. However,
the overhead and storage consumption are far lower as shown in
Figs. 7(b) and 7(c). The reason for the similar goodput is that,
the queue length at a wireless node inside the ad hoc network is
far shorter than that at the border router since the trafc load in
an interior node is far lower than that in a border router. There-
fore, scheduling packets according to their QoS requirements at
the border router is much important for QoS provisioning than
at an interior wireless node. Accordingly, both schemes acquire
similar goodput as shown in Fig. 7(a) since they have considered
the delay from the border router to the destination node.
As discussed in subsection IV-B, our proposal transmits delay
related information between border routers and active destina-
tion nodes. This information is encapsulated in the header of the
arriving packets at the border router. So the overhead increases
with the number of ows as shown in Fig. 7(b). On the con-
trary, the overhead with the proposal of Teng is proportional to
the number of nodes. So the overhead is a constant if the num-
ber of nodes is xed. However, the overhead consumption by
the proposal of Teng is always higher than that by our proposal
as shown in Fig. 7(b) because every delay probe packet used
in the proposal of Teng has to carry delays between all address
pairs. Regarding the storage consumption, similar to the over-
head consumption, both the border router and the active desti-
nation nodes only record delays between these nodes with our
proposal while all nodes have to record delays for all address
pairs with the proposal of Teng. Thus, the storage consumption
given by our proposal is far lower than that given by the pro-
posal of Teng as shown in Fig. 7(c). Therefore, our proposal is
quite efcient by yielding the lower resource consumption while
acquiring similar QoS as compared with the proposal of Teng.
70 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013
Table 3. Deviation of the estimation.
Scenario 1 2 3 4
Mean () 0.0085 0.0138 0.0030 0.0230
Variance (
2
) 1.9e-05 9.5e-05 1.3e-06 5.0e-04
D. Estimation Errors
As discussed in subsection IV-C, the delay bound is deter-
mined approximately. The straight effect of estimation errors
reects in G=1Plr. Table 3 lists the mean deviation and vari-
ance of the delay bound estimation errors in various simulation
scenarios discussed in the paper.
As shown in Table 3, the mean and variance given by scenar-
ios 2 and 4 are obviously higher than those given by the other
two scenarios, which shows that the deviation increases as more
nodes are moving. However, the deviation is still within an ac-
ceptable range.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
QoS adaptability support to mobility and trafc burstiness is
important since these features are common in wired-wireless in-
tegrated networks with dynamic trafc loads and wireless net-
work capacity. This paper proposed a scheme to dynamically
determine the delay bounds at the packet level based on DQS
to support QoS adaptability in such kind of networks. Simula-
tion studies show that, the proposed scheme can provide bet-
ter QoS adaptability in this kind of network in terms of better
QoS performance in comparison with both IntServ and DiffServ.
The proposal is also more cost-efcient than another DQS-based
scheme proposed by Teng with similar QoS performance but
consuming less network resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank the editor and the reviewers for their constructive
comments, which have improved the quality of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] 4G americas, 4G mobile broadband evolution: 3GPP release 10 and
beyond-HSPA+, SAE/LTE and LTE-Advanced. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.4gamericas.org/
[2] A. Sanchez-Esguevillas, B. Carro-Martinez, and V. Poosala, Future con-
vergent telecommunications services: Creation, context, P2P, QoS, and
charging, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 5859, Jan. 2011.
[3] P. TalebiFard, T. Wong, and V. C. M. Leung, Access and service conver-
gence over the mobile Internet - A survey, Comput. Netw., vol. 54, no. 4,
pp. 545557, Mar. 2010.
[4] M. A. Callejo-Rodrigitez, J. Enriquez-Gabeiras, W. Burakowski, A.
Beben, J. Sliwinski, O. Dugeon, E. Mingozzi, G. Stea, M. Diaz, and L.
Baresse, EuQoS: End-to-end QoS over heterogeneous networks, in Proc.
K-INGN, 2008, pp. 177184.
[5] S. Senkindu and H. A. Chan, Enabling end-to-end quality of service in
a WLAN-wired network, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mil. Commun., 2008,
pp. 17.
[6] P. Stuckmann and R. Zimmermann, European research on future Internet
design, IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1422, 2009.
[7] X. Dong, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Song, and R. Feng, End-to-end QoS
provisioning in future cognitive heterogeneous networks, in Proc. ICCPA,
2009, pp. 425429.
[8] R. Good, D. Waiting, and N. Ventura, Quality of Service Provisioning in
the IP Multimedia Subsystem. IGI Global, 2010, pp. 443463.
[9] S. Jiang, Granular differentiated queueing services for QoS: Structure and
cost model, Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1322, 2005.
[10] X. Teng, S. Jiang, G. Wei, and G. Liu, A cross-layer implementation
of differentiated queueing service (DQS) for wireless mesh networks, in
Proc. IEEE VTC Spring, 2008, pp. 22332237.
[11] S. Jiang, Differentiated Queueing Service (DQS) for End-to-End QoS Pro-
visioning: An Evaluation from Per-Flow, Per-Class to Per-Packet. Nova
Science: NY, 2011, pp. 1328.
[12] J. Boudec and P. Thiran, Network Calculus - A Theory of Deterministic
Queuing Systems for the Internet. Springer, 2004.
[13] T. Szigeti and C. Hattingh, End-to-End QoS Network Design: Quality of
Service in LANs, WANs, and VPNs. Cisco Press, 2004, p. 768.
[14] O. Yaron and M. Sidi, Performance and stability of communication net-
works via robust exponential bounds, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 1, no.
3, pp. 372385, June 1993.
[15] S. Jiang, Future Wireless and Optical Networks: Networking Modes and
Cross-Layer Design. Springer, 2012.
[16] H. S. Kim and N. B. Shroff, Loss probability calculations and asymptotic
analysis for nite buffer multiplexers, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 9,
no. 6, pp. 755768, Dec. 2001.
[17] ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11:1999(E) Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Layer
(PHY) Specications, ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.11, 1999.
[18] T. Szigeti, End-to-End QoS Network Design. Cisco Press, 2004.
[19] M. Grossglauser and D. Tse, Mobility increases the capacity of ad-hoc
wireless networks, in Proc. INFOCOM, 2001, pp. 13601369.
[20] S. Vegesna, IP Quality of Service. Cisco Press, 2001.
Mian Guo (S11) received her B.Eng. degree and
M.S. degree in South China University of Technol-
ogy, China, in 2002 and 2007, respectively. She is cur-
rently a Ph.D. student with the School of Electronic
and Information Engineering, South China Univer-
sity of Technology. From 2002 to 2010, she worked
in China Unicom Maoming Branch, China. Her ma-
jor research area is quality of service provisioning for
wired-wireless integrated networks.
Shengming Jiang (A96-M00-S07) received his
B.Eng. degree from Shanghai Maritime Institute,
China, in 1988, DEA and Dr. degrees, respectively
from University of Paris VI and University of Ver-
sailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines, France, in 1992
and 1995. Currently, he is a Professor in the School of
Electronic and Information Engineering, South China
University of Technology. His major research area is
communication networks.
Quansheng Guan (S09-M11) received the B.Eng.
degree in Electronic Engineering from Nanjing Uni-
versity of Post and Telecommunications, China, in
2006 and the Ph.D. degree from South China Univer-
sity of Technology, China, in 2011. He is currently
faculty member with the School of Electronic and
Information Engineering, South China University of
Technology. His research areas include topology con-
trol, routing and cooperative communications for mo-
bile ad hoc networks, and cognitive networks.
Huachao Mao received the B.Eng. degree from South
China University of Technnology, China, in 2010. He
is currently a postgraduate with the School of Elec-
tronic and Information Engineering, South China Uni-
versity of Technology. His research areas include
cross-layer architecture design for multi-hop wireless
networks, especially for congestion control in such
kind of networks.