Accepted Manuscript

Frequency-Domain Contention and Polling MAC Protocols in IEEE

802.11 Wireless Networks: A Survey

Haithem Al-Mefleh, Osameh Al-Kofahi

PII: S0140-3664(18)30012-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.07.023
Reference: COMCOM 5742

To appear in: Computer Communications

Received date: 6 January 2018

Revised date: 23 May 2018
Accepted date: 19 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Haithem Al-Mefleh, Osameh Al-Kofahi, Frequency-Domain Contention and
Polling MAC Protocols in IEEE 802.11 Wireless Networks: A Survey, Computer Communications
(2018), doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.07.023

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Frequency-Domain Contention and Polling MAC Protocols in IEEE 802.11 Wireless

Networks: A Survey

Haithem Al-Mefleha,∗, Osameh Al-Kofahia

a Computer Engineering Department, Yarmouk University, Irbid, 21163, Jordan

Abstract

T
Shifting from the time domain to the frequency domain is an interesting recent direction that has been exploited to

IP
improve the performance of wireless networks. It is shown that the frequency-domain based proposals are of obvious
benefits especially for higher rates and densities which are important attributes of the next-generation wireless networks.
In this survey paper, we provide an overview of the concept of frequency-domain based contention and polling MAC

CR
protocols, and we show how these schemes could enhance the performance of wireless networks. We also attempt to
provide a comprehensive survey of such schemes including related proposals for the next-generation IEEE 802.11ax
wireless networks. In addition, we compare the surveyed protocols based on factors like the evaluation methods, the
number of contention rounds, the conveyed signals, and the purpose of each protocol. We further address different

US
challenges and issues of frequency-domain schemes including the hidden terminal problem, the number of subcarriers,
TDMA-like transmissions, coexistence, the number of antennas, machine to machine networks, overlapping networks,
and synchronization. Finally, we highlight different possible directions for future work.
AN
Keywords: Wireless networks, IEEE 802.11, Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols, PHY

1. Introduction where users compete for the channel. In the backoff pro-
cedure, each user randomly picks a number of time slots
M

Today, IEEE 802.11-based transceivers are almost em- (during which the channel must be idle) to wait before at-
bedded everywhere; in computers, phones, TVs, routers, tempting to transmit. Moreover, the standard defines two
etc. [1]. In addition, there is a high dependency on WiFi modes of operation within DCF. First, the basic mode ad-
ED

(or wireless networks that are mostly implemented follow-
ing the IEEE 802.11 standard) to access the Internet [1].
Hence, over the last few years, the IEEE 802.11 standard
([2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) has evolved dramatically to support dif-
PT
vocates the exchange of data and ACK (acknowledgement)
frames directly after the end of the contention period. Sec-
ond, RTS/CTS (Request to Send/Clear to Send) mode
demands the exchange of short control frames (RTS and

ferent growing demands of users. The standard is adopting
new physical layers and technologies to achieve very high
rates and support a higher number of users. Correspond-
ingly, vast research has been pushing for improving the
CE
CTS) before the Data/ACK transmission. The RTS/CTS
mode mitigates the performance penalty due to collisions
and the hidden terminal problem ([8, 9]).
QoS support was added with the IEEE 802.11e EDCA

efficiency of the wireless networks specially those based on
the IEEE 802.11 standard.
The IEEE 802.11 standard provides the PHY (Physical)
and MAC (Medium Access Control) specifications for wire-
AC
(Enhanced Distributed Channel Access) and HCF (Hybrid
Coordination Function) ([3, 10]). Also, the IEEE 802.11e
introduced the TXOP (Transmission Opportunity) con-
cept which specifies the maximum time for each trans-

less networks. The standard initially provided low PHY
rates and included two basic MAC functions: a best ef-
fort DCF (Distributed Coordination Function), and PCF
(Point Coordination Function) [7]. PCF is a contention-
free access scheme where a central controller (normally the
access point, or AP) polls each user for data transmission.
On the other hand, DCF is based on a CSMA/CA (Carrier
Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance) scheme
∗ Corresponding Author
Email addresses: almehai@yu.edu.jo (Haithem Al-Mefleh),
osameh@yu.edu.jo (Osameh Al-Kofahi)
Preprint submitted to Elsevier
mission. EDCA divides packets into classes based on
their type (video, audio, etc.). Then, each class follows
DCF with different configurations (like different backoff
times) allowing service differentiation based on the pack-
ets’ classes. On the other hand, a polling method in HCF
can be used to provide QoS ([11, 12, 13]). The AP sched-
ules users’ transmissions based on their demands.
Additional higher rates were also presented by the fol-
lowing generations of the IEEE 802.11 standard. Impor-
tant features that allowed for the higher rates include
the use of OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Mul-
tiplexing) modulation, MIMO (Multiple-Input Multiple-
May 23, 2018
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Output) technology, frame aggregation, block acknowl-
edgments, channel bonding [14], and TXOP sharing [15].
Moreover, a new generation, the IEEE 802.11ax draft
([16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]), is being developed to
further boost the efficiency of IEEE 802.11-based net-
works for high-dense scenarios. Features of the IEEE
802.11ax include the OFDAM (Orthogonal Frequency Di-
vision Multiple Access) access, MU-MIMO (Multi-User
MIMO) method, and in-band full-duplex communications.
Also, the IEEE 802.11ax draft is endorsing new MAC ac-
cess methods to benefit from the advanced physical amend-
ments.
With the ongoing development of the IEEE 802.11
standard, various work is proposed to increase the effi-
ciency of different operations of the standard ([19, 23]).
Research identified different sources of overhead and is-
sues that would degrade the performance of the network
([18, 20]). Overheads include the contention time ([24]),
the inter-frame spacing ([25]), control packets and headers
([25, 26, 27]), and collisions ([28]). Moreover, results show
that the performance declines as the PHY rate gets higher
that the contention procedure is kept the same resulting
in a very high overhead of contention specially for higher
data rates. Thus, numerous algorithms are proposed to
US
specially for short frames ([29, 30]). Basically, it is because
AN
remove overheads and solve problems (like the hidden ter-
minal problem) that may arise in IEEE 802.11 networks
([15, 18]).
There is much of research that considered different en-
M
hancements of wireless networks. To reduce collisions and
the number of time slots per contention, dynamic and
adaptive algorithms are proposed ([31, 32]). Also, binary
count-down algorithms with jamming signals are utilized
ED
([23, 33]). Alternatively, learning protocols attempt to
emulate a TDMA-like access with almost zero-collisions
([34, 35]). On the other hand, different protocols are de-
signed to take advantage of multi-user MIMO technology
PT
[36] and the possibilities of MPR (Multi-Packet Reception)
([37, 38]) techniques. Also, research exploited pipelined
procedures ([39, 40, 41, 42]) where the channel is divided
CE
into different subchannels, and each subchannel is used for
a part of the communication. For example, data exchange
could take place in one channel while other nodes continue
contending on another channel. A similar area of research
AC
considers running backoff per subchannel ([43, 44]). To
remove (or reduce) the overhead of control frames, attach-
ment of control information ([45, 46, 47, 48]) exploits some
of the OFDM subcarriers of the data frames to convey
control signals (like RTS). Another approach is to replace
the whole control frames with short bursts or jam signals
([23, 29]). Moreover, an interesting direction of research
proposes shifting from time-domain to frequency-domain
([49, 50]) in OFDM-based wireless networks. Results of
such schemes show much of lessening of the contention
time and collisions. Also, OFDMA access is considered
to allow multiple users to transmit concurrently, and it is
included in the IEEE 802.11ax draft ([18, 20, 51]).
2
In this survey paper, we focus on the contention and
polling MAC schemes that are based on the frequency-
domain. We attempt to provide a comprehensive survey
of such schemes. Also, this survey includes a review of
recent related proposals that are related to the new IEEE
802.11ax draft. First, we explain the concept of frequency-
based polling and contention, and we describe how it could
enhance the performance of wireless networks. Then, we
summarize different frequency-domain based contention
and polling protocols and their various operations. There-
after, we further compare the surveyed protocols based on
factors including the evaluation methods, number of con-
T
tention rounds, types of conveyed signals, and the purpose
of each protocol. Additionally, we explain some problems
IP
and issues that are related to the frequency-domain based
schemes. We discuss the effect of diverse factors includ-
ing the hidden terminal problem, the number of antennas,
CR
the number of subcarriers and subchannels, TDMA-like
scheduling, synchronization, coexistence, overlapping net-
works, machine to machine networks, and support of QoS
(Quality of Service). We also address some directions for
future work related to the frequency-domain based proto-
cols.
The paper is organized as follows. First, an introduction
is provided in Section 1. Second, important background
information is summarized in Section 2. Third, we explain
the concept of contention and polling in the frequency-
domain in Section 3. Fourth, different frequency-domain
protocols are reviewed in Section 4 and Section 5, respec-
tively. Fifth, we summarize and discuss several features,
challenges, and future directions in Section 6. Finally, we
conclude the paper in Section 7.
2. Background
In this section, we summarize the basic MAC operations
of the IEEE 802.11, OFDM, and OFDMA.
The IEEE 802.11 DCF utilizes a CSMA/CA with a
BEB (Binary Exponential Backoff) mechanism as shown
in Fig. 1. Each node randomly chooses a number, say BO,
within the range [0, CW ], where CW stands for contention
window. Then, the node must sense the channel to be idle
for a DIFS (DCF Interframe space) period. Then, the
node must wait for a backoff period of BO time slots. The
node decrements its backoff counter by one for each idle
slot, and it transmits only when its backoff counter reaches
zero. Upon a successful reception, the receiver replies with
an ACK frame after an SIFS (short IFS) period. On the
other hand, collisions occur when two nodes have the same
backoff value. Each colliding node doubles its CW , picks
a new backoff value, and retries to send the packet. The
IEEE 802.11 DCF also supports RTS/CTS mode as shown
Fig. 2; short control frames (RTS and CTS) are exchanged
by the transmitter and the receiver before the actual data
transmission. The RTS/CTS mode alleviates the time
wasted by collisions of long frames and reduces the hid-
den terminal problem. Finally, the IEEE 802.11e EDCA
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

adds service differentiation. Packets are classified based on
the traffic type, and each class is given different contention
parameters. For example, priority gets higher for smaller
CW values. In addition, the TXOP (Transmission Oppor-
tunity) configuration parameter is added to limit the time
a node can access the channel per contention.
Figure 1: IEEE 802.11 DCF, basic operation
the frequency domain instead of time-domain. Fig. 3 il-
lustrates the difference between both domains. In time-
domain algorithms, a node arbitrarily selects the number
of time slots to wait before transmitting. Winners are
nodes with the least number of idle slots to wait. Colli-
sions occur when more than one winner exist (i.e. more
than one node have the same backoff value). On the other
hand, in frequency-domain, a node sends a signal (which
can be a busy tone, a signature, or a normal message) on
a subcarrier (or a subchannel) that is randomly selected.
Hence, winners are identified using some rule like nodes
selecting the lowest subcarrier ID. Collisions occur when

T
more than one winner exist following the contention rules.

IP
CR
Figure 2: IEEE 802.11 DCF, RTS/CTS operation

The IEEE 802.11 PCF is an optional polling scheme.

The AP sends a polling packet, the corresponding receiver
transmits its data, and then the AP replies with an ACK
frame. Also, SIFS is used as the interframe space period
between every two packets. The process is repeated for all
nodes to be polled, and polling and ACK frames maybe
US
AN
piggybacked (one packet is used as an ACK to the current
transmitter, and as a polling packet to the next node).
The OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex- Figure 3: Time-Domain v.s. Frequency-Domain contention resolu-
ing) modulation is utilized in the IEEE 802.11 to achieve tion
higher rates. With OFDM, the whole bandwidth is divided
M

into a number of orthogonal subcarriers, and each subcar-
rier is labeled with an ID (identifier). In other words, each
subcarrier (or a subchannel which is a group of subcarri-
ED
Frequency-domain MAC protocols mainly aim at reduc-
ing the time, number of slots, needed to resolve contention.
However, more slots may be required depending on the
number of contending nodes. Thus, for a high number of

ers) can be used as a separate channel allowing for parallel

transmissions. On the other hand, OFDMA (Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiple Access) is based on OFDM
and allows multiple nodes to transmit and receive concur-
PT
users, both frequency-domain and time-domain are used.
In general, each slot is called a round as shown in Fig. 4.
Winners of round k move to round k + 1, and winners of
contention are the winners of the last round. Fig. 4 is an

rently. OFDMA is used in different broadband networks

like the IEEE 802.16 and LTE [52, 53]. For dense networks, example with two rounds.
the IEEE 802.11ax amendment exploits the OFDMA tech-
nology allowing parallel contention and polling. In other
CE

words, the performance is augmented because of the possi-

bility of having multiple winners of contention and polling
multiple users concurrently.
AC

3. Frequency-Domain Contention and Polling for

OFDM Wireless Networks

In this section, we discuss the basic idea of contention

and polling in the frequency domain in subsection 3.1.
Then, we identify surveyed protocols based on their fea-
tures in subsection 3.2. In the following sections, we elab-
orate with details of different related protocols and issues.
3.1. Contention and Polling in the Frequency-Domain
Frequency-domain contention resolution is proposed for
OFDM wireless networks and enables users to contend in
3
Figure 4: Frequency-Domain contention with two rounds
To understand the performance gain of frequency-
domain contention, let us assume a 9us slot time and
a 34us DIFS period. Then, the time per contention in
the IEEE 802.11 DCF (which is time-domain) is on av-
erage about 97us (i.e. with 7 contention slots). On
the other hand, in some frequency-contention protocols
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(like T2F [54]), the contention period is only 44.4us for antennas at least (i.e. could transmit and receive simul-
two rounds. In addition, while collision rates highly in- taneously). Of course, it is acceptable to assume having
crease with the number of nodes in DCF, they are stable more than one antenna due to the use of MIMO. In ad-
and low in frequency-domain contention protocols. For dition, the contention process can be of only one round
example, a collision probability of 0.03 is reported in a or multiple rounds. We elaborate on these features and
two-rounds T2F when 52 subcarriers are utilized for con- related issues in Section 6.
tention. Hence, much of the contention overhead is re-
duced when shifting contention into the frequency-domain.
Polling in the frequency domain is generally demon-
strated by Fig. 5. Initially, the AP transmits a polling re-
quest. Then, each node transmits a signal over its own sub-
carrier which is unique and is assigned a priori. The signal

T
can be as simple as a busy tone indicating that the node is
ready to transmit (or receive). Then, the AP could assign

IP
resources accordingly. More details of frequency-domain
polling schemes will be given in Section 5. Frequency-
domain polling aims at reducing the overhead of the inter-

CR
frame space times and polling control frames (especially
when a node is not ready to be polled) in time-domain
polling as shown in Fig. 6.

US Figure 7: Frequency-domain operations

In Section 4, we summarize contention protocols in

AN
three categories: contention, QoS, and collision resolution.
Then, polling schemes are described in Section 5. We also
consider three possible subcategories based on signal type.
Moreover, for each category, we present different proposals
M

in a chronological order. However, similar works are im-

Figure 5: Frequency-Domain polling
mediately mentioned for two reasons: to not repeat similar
explanations, and to show any possible relations between
different schemes.
ED

4. Frequency-Domain Based Contention Schemes

Figure 6: Time-Domain polling We review the frequency-domain contention schemes in
PT

three groups based on the main objective of these schemes.

Frequency-domain MAC protocols require the ability of
multiple nodes to detect and send signals on individual 4.1. Contention
subcarriers in parallel. Therefore, both time and frequency
CE

Here, we review protocols used for contention in three

synchronizations are required. Additionally, detection er-
subgroups based on the type of used signals: bursts, sig-
rors and failures are possible in frequency-domain schemes.
natures, and messages.
We elaborate on these challenges in subsection 6.1.
AC

3.2. Frequency-Domain Based Protocols
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the surveyed protocols can be
identified as contention or polling schemes. Moreover, we
organize different contention schemes based on the pur-
pose of each protocol: contention, QoS support, and col-
lision resolution. Also, each node applying one of these
protocols would send a signal to contend for the chan-
nel (in contention schemes) or to request to be polled (in
polling schemes). The signal can be a message, a burst, or
a signature. Moreover, while some protocols are designed
for nodes with a single antenna (i.e. can only receive or
transmit at a time), others assume that each node has two
4
4.1.1. Bursts
MCBC (Multi-Carrier Burst Contention) [55] is an elim-
ination scheme of R rounds with two time slots (a con-
tention slot followed by a feedback slot) per round. Also,
frequency-domain contention is employed during each con-
tention slot. MCBC operation with 3 rounds is illustrated
in Fig. 8, and it is summarized in the following points in
order:
• After the channel is sensed idle for a DIFS period,
each contending user becomes a nominee with a prob-
ability of p. In Fig. 8, nominees of Round 1 are n1 to
n8.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 8: MCBC operation
• Round 1:
– For the contention slot: each nominee sends a
US
burst signal on a subcarrier (that is selected ran-
domly from one of F predetermined subcarriers).
AN
In the example of Fig. 8, F = 6 and thus subcar-
riers that can be activated are f 1 to f 6. In con-
trast, a non-nominee would listen to the chan-
nel during this slot, and it becomes a referee if
M
a burst is detected. Then, each referee would
record the highest index (named fmax , or f 6 in
Round 1 as shown in Fig. 8) of all active sub-
carriers.
ED
– For the feedback slot: a referee node transmits
a burst on fmax subcarrier (In Fig. 8 example,
referees transmit a burst on f 6 during the feed-
PT
back slot of Round 1). A nominee who detects
a burst on its selected subcarrier becomes a con-
tender; i.e. it continues contention during the
next round. Hence, n1 to n3 are the winners of
CE
Round 1 in our example of Fig. 8.
• The operation of Round 1 is repeated for all subse-
quent rounds. At end, a winner of the last round
AC
starts to transmit an RTS frame. Accordingly, col-
lisions occur when more than one user win the con-
tention, and a successful transmission completes oth-
erwise. In Fig. 8, n1-n3 are winners of Round 1, n1
and n2 are winners of Round 2, and the winner of the
last round is n1 with no collisions.
In [56], MCBC is evaluated for ad hoc networks in indoor
fading environments with no direct line of sight. Rayleigh
fading is modeled, and energy detection (instead of pream-
ble detection) is assumed for sensing. To enhance perfor-
mance under fading, the authors suggest to use shorter
frames, to enable RTS/CTS mode, and to activate two or
5
more subcarriers at the same time. In [57], MCBC is ap-
plied for wireless vehicular networks. The paper provides
theoretical analysis, simulation evaluations, and a hard-
ware implementation of MCBC. Also, adaptive operations
are added (the probability to become a nominee, the use
of non-uniform distribution to choose a subcarrier to acti-
vate, and a prediction scheme for time synchronization).
T2F (Time to Frequency) ([54, 58]) is a frequency-
domain backoff scheme of two rounds as shown in Fig. 9.
Each round is one slot of time, and thus there is a total
of two time slots per contention. Moreover, T2F assumes
that each user is supplied with two antennas. In other
T
words, each user can transmit and receive at the same
time. For the first round, each user randomly selects one
IP
of the available 52 subcarriers (f 1 to f 52) and transmits
a burst on the selected subcarrier (say f m). At the same
time, the user receives all signals and decides the lowest
CR
subcarrier (fmin ) that is active. The user continues to
contend when its selected subcarrier is the same as fmin
(i.e. when fm = fmin ). Fig. 9 shows that fmin = f 2 in
slot 1, and thus the winners of the first round are n1 and
n2. The process is repeated during the second round to
determine the winner of the contention (the one who ac-
tivates the subcarrier with the lowest index). In Fig. 9,
n2 is the winner of the second round and so the winner of
contention.
Figure 9: T2F
T2F allows all users who activate one of the least K
subcarriers during the first round to be winners of that
round. After the second round, these users transmit in
a TDMA-like schedule in the order of their bursts. To
illustrate we provide an example in Fig. 10 with K = 2.
Then n2 and n3 are winners of the first round, and they
would transmit in the order n2 and then n3.
Back2F (Back to Frequency) protocol [59] is another
frequency-domain contention scheme whose operation has
much resemblance to that of T2F. An important difference
is that Back2F approximately emulates the IEEE 802.11
fairness by adjusting backoff values (selected subcarriers)
after losing a contention using deduction. For example,
assuming the scenario in Fig. 10, the highest frequency of
winners in the first round is f 3. Then, a losing node like
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

transmit successfully while a hidden node like n1 is

stalling its access to the channel. Also, the number
of competing nodes (or the collision level) is reduced
improving the performance of the network. However,
the hidden node problem is not solved. In our exam-
ple, n1 may start to transmit while n2 is transmitting
because n1 is unaware of the ongoing transmission.

T
Figure 10: The TDMA-like transmission in T2F

IP
n1 running Back2F would burst f 1 (or f 4 − f 3) during

CR
the first round of the next contention period.
REPICK (REversed contention and PIggy-backed
ACK) [29] divides the subcarriers into identification and
contention subcarriers. Moreover, each user is assumed to
have two antennas with the ability to receive and transmit
concurrently. Also, each user is uniquely assigned one of
the identification subcarriers. The operation of REPICK
is summarized by the example given in Fig. 11 and also by
US
AN
the following:

• Frequency-domain contention of one round is em-

ployed over the contention subcarriers. Each user
randomly activates one of the contention subcarriers,
M

and the winner is the one who activates the subcar-

rier with the lowest subcarrier number. Also, when
the sender has more packets to send, it adds an addi- Figure 11: REPICK with three senders (n1, n2, and n3) and one
ED

tional byte to indicate the next contention subcarrier receiver (R)

selected (say fnext ).
FICA (Fine-grained Channel Access) ([30, 60]) is based
• As an acknowledgment, the receiver activates the sub- on the argument that the IEEE 802.11 is inefficient be-
PT

carrier assigned to the sender. In addition, the re-
ceiver activates the senders next contention subcar-
rier (fnext ). In other words, the receiver contends on
behalf of the sender to mitigate the hidden terminal
CE
cause it allows only one user to access the whole chan-
nel. Even for a small packet, the user must contend for
the channel wasting the network time (the backoff time).
The problem is augmented for higher PHY rates which are

problem. presented in new standards like the IEEE 802.11ac. Ac-

cordingly, FICA proposes an OFDMA-like access method
• To enhance performance in the existence of the hid- where the channel is divided into several orthogonal sub-
den terminal problem, REPICK includes a mechanism channels (a subchannel is a group of subcarriers), and
AC

that is called transmission retreat. Each sender keeps
track of the number of missing ACKs in a variable
(say counter). When an ACK is not received, the
sender increments the value of counter and defers ac-
cessing the channel for a number of rounds that is ran-
domly chosen from the range [0, counter]. Thus, hid-
den nodes probabilistically contend at different times
decreasing the collision probability. To illustrate, as-
sume n1 and n2 are two hidden nodes with the same
values of counter variables (say 3). Then, n1 and
n2 may randomly delay their contention for 3 and 0
rounds, respectively (i.e. n2 does not refrain from
contention). Thus, n2 would have a higher chance to
6
K subcarriers per subchannel are reserved for contention.
Then as shown in the example given in Fig. 12, users could
contend for the channel concurrently, and later they would
transmit data simultaneously to enhance the performance
of the network. Operations of FICA are summarized in
the following:
• After the channel is idle for a period of DIFS, con-
tention of one round in the frequency domain is fol-
lowed during a period that is called M-RTS period.
Each user randomly chooses one subcarrier (say f m)
from the K subcarriers within the subchannel to ac-
cess. Then the user sends a special signal (works as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
an RTS) on its selected f m subcarrier as shown in
the M-RTS period of Fig. 12. For each subchannel, a
receiving node would reply by sending a special signal
(operates as a CTS) on the highest frequency during
the M-CTS period signifying who can transmit for
that subchannel.
• In FICA, the special signals (those operating as RTS
and CTS) are spread over more than one subcarrier to
include additional information in contention. Further-
more, different subcarriers are replicated four times
for reliability. For example such information consists
of a tag identifying the type of the signal (32 sub-
carriers), a hash vector to identify the receiver (160
subcarriers), a NAV (Network Allocation Value) value
(64 subcarriers), and guard subcarriers (32 subcarri-
ers). Thus, FICA works only for OFDM architectures
with a very large number of subcarriers.
• More collisions are expected when the contention level
increases. To solve the problem, a higher number of
contention subcarriers can be allocated, or multiple
M-RTS symbols can be employed. Alternatively, for
reliability and performance reasons, FICA introduces
an adaptive procedure (based on the number of colli-
US
AN
sions) to limit the number of subchannels that a user
may contend for within each round.
M
ED
PT
Figure 12: An example of FICA with two subchannels
CE
In [61], the authors propose a scheme based on FICA
to increase the supported number of users in a WLAN
network. Subchannels are only used during data trans-
missions. In other words, contention subcarriers are not
AC
related to a specific subchannel. During M-RTS, a number
of subcarriers are allocated for contention over the whole
channel. Later, a successful user (a user with no collisions
in M-RTS) is assigned one of the available subchannels by
the AP. Obviously, the number of users who can trans-
mit is limited by the number of subchannels. Another
difference from FICA, the proposed scheme requires that
each user contends for the channel with a probability of
p. The authors also attempt to analytically find optimal
p and optimal number of contention subcarriers, and they
suggest a scheme applied at the AP to penalize violating
users. Finally, the paper presents neither an evaluation
nor a comparison.
7
The paper in [62] is also based on FICA. The authors
propose to adapt both the number (like with FICA) and
the width of accessible subchannels. Adapting the chan-
nel width would reduce the time wasted as illustrated by
Fig. 13. The paper provides theoretical analysis and op-
timizations of the number and the width of subchannels.
On the other hand, Aileron ([63, 64]) extends FICA by
adding frame aggregation. In other words, each node can
transmit more than one frame following the contention
period. Hence, the utilization is improved for scenarios of
non-homogeneous traffic and network status at different
nodes.
T
IP
CR
Figure 13: An example of an improvement over FICA, [62]
In WiFi-BA [65], users start contention in the frequency
domain for one round after sensing the channel idle for
some time (like DIFS). Time-domain contention follows
only when multiple users are detected. The operation of
WiFi-BA is demonstrated in Fig. 14 and is summarized as
follows.
• Frequency-Domain: Initially, each user randomly se-
lects a k-bit number (say N ) where k presents the
number of contention subcarriers. Then, the user ac-
tivates every subcarrier for which the corresponding
bit is ′ 1′ in N . At the same time, each user would
listen to the channel as WiFi-BA assumes multiple
antenna devices. Only eight subcarriers are used for
contention (k = 8), and thus collisions are expected
to be high. Therefore, when a node detects collisions
by sensing high magnitudes on its inactive subcarri-
ers, a binary-count down approach (in time-domain)
follows to resolve collisions.
• Time-Domain: Starting from the MSB (Most Signif-
icant Bit) of the binary number, the user transmits
its code (for a duration of one symbol) when the bit
is ′ 1′ . Otherwise, the user listens to the channel (for
a duration of one symbol), and it aborts contention
when detecting any signals. Once no collisions are
detected (users are capable of transmitting and lis-
tening at the same time), or all bits are checked, the
user would start data transmission.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 14: WiFi-BA
A similar approach is also provided in [66] and [67]. FD-
OOAT (Frequency-Domain On-Off Accumulative Trans-
mission) [68] is another similar approach but only one
frequency-domain round of contention is employed, the
transmitted signal is repeated over multiple subchannels,
an AP is assumed, and thus multi-user detection is possi-
ble.
US
AN
In [69], the authors define a problem with WiFi-BA and
provide a solution. They state that WiFi-BA introduces
a new type of collisions (collisions between data and the
contention signals). To illustrate, assume nodes A and B
select ”0110” and ”0010” respectively. Then both nodes
M
see the code ”0110” on the channel. Accordingly, node
A starts data transmission, but node B starts the time-
domain contention. The solution provided is to have a
ED
node like B (that sees a code different than its transmitted
code) to sense the channel before going to the time-domain
contention.
DiFuse [70] utilizes frequency-domain contention to op-
PT
timally select a node in a MU-MIMO network. The AP
selects one node which then replies with its CSI (Channel
State Information). Then, each node maps its capacity
gain (based on the overheard CSI) to a subcarrier, and all
CE
nodes transmit concurrently. A success occurs when only
one node activates the highest subcarrier. The process is
repeated until finally the AP selects one of the nodes. A
similar approach for MU-MIMO networks is given in [71]
AC
but with contention in both frequency and time domains.
4.1.2. Signatures
D-Fi ([72, 73]) also is similar to FICA, but each user
transmits its unique signature (previously assigned by the
AP) for contention over a number of subchannels. At the
same time, each user transmits some bits for channel esti-
mation over the same subchannel. Later, the AP applies
Bloom filters [74] to resolve signatures; i.e. resolve colli-
sions when more than one user are sending signatures over
the same contention subchannel. Then, the AP allocates
subchannels to different users based on a proportional fair-
8
ness algorithm.
FC-MAC [75] is proposed for a one-hop OFDM wireless
network. Also, FC-MAC assumes multiple antennas and
a maximum of k subcarriers (f 1 to f k). At first, each
node is assigned a distinct signature which is a PN se-
quence number. When a node has data to transmit, it
would randomly generate a contention vector (say CV ) of
k bits. Then, the node would send (with one antenna)
its signature on a subcarrier when the corresponding bit
in the CV is ′ 1′ . To improve the reliability of signatures’
detection, the length of a PN sequence is set to 20 bytes.
Simultaneously, with all other antennas, the node would
T
listen to the channel receiving a composite of all transmit-
ted contention vectors. Because of the use of PN sequence
IP
numbers, match filters can be used to detect different sig-
natures. A node abort contention in case it is unable to
detect any signature. Accordingly, the winner is the node
CR
who used the minimum contention vector. In [76], a very
similar approach with PN sequences is also introduced.
4.1.3. Messages
In Generalized CSMA/CA ([77, 78]), an OFDMA chan-
nel is divided into a number of subchannels. A node with
data to transmit would randomly select a time-domain
backoff value. Then, for each time slot, the user decre-
ments its backoff value by the number of idle subchan-
nels. When the backoff counter reaches zero, the node
arbitrarily selects one of the idle subchannels to start its
own transmission. Hence, the efficiency is affected because
the number of subchannels utilized for data transmissions
is restricted by the number of nodes. Moreover, the trans-
missions on different subchannels are not controlled; each
node could start and finish transmission independently.
Accordingly, CM-CSMA/CA [43] adapts the number of
subchannels to the number of nodes, assumes that only
one data frame can be transmitted per subchannel, and
uses a distinct backoff counter for each subchannel allevi-
ating the need to re-contend for all subchannels. Similar to
Generalized CSMA/CA, an approach is considered in [79]
while also applying the RTS/CTS handshaking to reduce
the overhead caused by collisions of data packets. In [80], a
similar approach to CM-CSMA/CA is followed. However,
nodes compete only after receiving a special message from
the AP. Also, nodes send RTS packets to request access of
the channel. Then, the AP sends an ACK frame (to ac-
knowledge the received RTS frames). Later, acknowledged
nodes transmit over their assigned subchannels.
The IEEE 802.11ax draft ([52, 81]) provides a new con-
tention scheme which utilizes the new physical capabil-
ities. The whole channel is divided into small units of
transmission slots (in frequency and time), and each unit
is called a resource unit (RU) as shown in Fig. 15. Then,
the AP sends a TF-R (Trigger Frame for Random access)
frame after contending for the channel. The TF-R frame
indicates which RUs can be used for contention and the
number of rounds. Each station randomly sets a backoff
timer (represents which round is used) and decrements it
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
for each idle round. When the timer is zero, the station
selects randomly one of the RUs during the reached round.
Then, the station would send a bandwidth request includ-
ing at least the queue size. Collisions occur when multiple
stations transmit during the same RU. Thereafter, the AP
transmits a TF (Trigger Frame) which contains a transmis-
sion schedule (built by the AP based on the successfully
received requests) to be followed. Such schedule would in-
dicate which stations are allowed to transmit and the RUs
that should be used by each of these stations. Finally,
the AP sends an M-BA (Multiple Block Acknowledgment)
frame.
Figure 15: IEEE 802.11ax new contention scheme
OMAX (OFDMA based Multiple Access for IEEE
802.11ax) [82] utilizes contention in both domains (time
and frequency) as illustrated in Fig. 16. The first round
US
AN
is of fixed size time-domain contention (the Backoff stage
in Fig.16). Like DCF, each node randomly selects a back-
off time (a number of slots). However, the backoff time
is decremented by the number of available subchannels
M
for each time slot. When the backoff time becomes zero,
the node transmits an RTS frame on a randomly selected
subchannel. With OMAX, the whole channel is sensed.
In other words, once a transmission is seen, others de-
ED
fer accessing the channel until the next contention period.
Accordingly, following the concurrent RTS transmissions,
the AP sends back a G-CTS (Group-CTS) frame indi-
cating which nodes can use which subchannels. Nodes
PT
transmit their data concurrently, and the AP sends back
a G-ACK (Group-ACK) frame. C-OFDMA (Concurrent
OFDMA) [83] allows nodes to transmit concurrently like
with OMAX. However, individual subchannels are sensed
CE
instead of the whole channel during the DIFS period and
backoff slots. Also, each node decrements its backoff
counter by one when at least one subchannel is idle. Hence,
AC
nodes contend for all subchannels based on backoff time
and CSMA/CA.
Figure 16: OMAX
TF-CSMA/CA (Time and Frequency CSMA/CA) [84]
is a distributed MAC protocol that takes advantage of
9
both domains (time and frequency) in contention. The
time-domain backoff procedure is equivalent to that used
in the IEEE 802.11. However, lower values of contention
window are used (for both CWmin and, CWmax ). A node
also randomly selects the band (center frequency and the
bandwidth) to be used for its data transmission. When col-
lisions are detected, in addition to the time-domain back-
off, a node also would backoff in the frequency-domain. In
other words, the node changes the transmission band with
high probability. On the other hand, following a successful
transmission, the node would change its band with a small
probability. Here, it is assumed that no other nodes are
T
using that band, and thus the successful node could keep
using the same band. Finally, to reduce waste of band-
IP
width, each node also halves its bandwidth with a small
probability after sensing another node’s transmission. In
other words, the node would free some bandwidth to be
CR
used by others.
FD-Backoff [85] is a one round frequency-domain backoff
scheme that follows the procedure shown in Fig. 17. With
FD-Backoff, each node randomly picks one of the data
subcarriers and sends its RTS packet on to that subcar-
rier. The receiver, as identified in the RTS frame, replies
with a CTS packet. Then, data and ACK frames are ex-
changed. The authors point out that there is no much
overhead added because of transmitting the RTS packet
over only one subcarrier (the transmission time of the RTS
packet with one subcarrier is approximately the same as
when using the whole channel with the IEEE 802.11a/g/n
standards). The work of [86] is similar to FD-Backoff but
assumes that each node has two antennas. Another differ-
ence, the work of [86] provides a two-rounds version like
with T2F (see Fig. 9); the nodes choosing one of the least
L frequencies during the first round would contend in the
second round. In [87], the authors show how to detect and
penalize violating nodes when the protocol of [86], and
thus FD-Backoff, is applied. Likewise, Multiband CSMA
with RTS/CTS [88] applies a similar approach to that of
FD-Backof. However, each node also waits for a random
number of time slots following the DIFS period. Hence, a
node cannot transmit its RTS once it finds any subchannel
to be busy.
Figure 17: FD-Backoff
HMAC [89] employs a hybrid access scheme for an
OFDMA WLAN where frequency-domain contention is
applied. HMAC is demonstrated in Fig. 18. First, the
AP polls nodes for the downlink data, and nodes reply
(with messages like RTS) using the assigned subchannels.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
At the same time, polled nodes use these special messages
to inform the AP about their uplink data. Moreover, the
un-polled nodes could use the unassigned subchannels to
send similar messages when they have any uplink data.
Here, random access in frequency-domain is utilized. Sec-
ond, concurrent downlink transmissions take place. Using
assigned subchannels, the AP sends downlink data to each
node which then replies with an ACK. Third, the AP polls
nodes for uplink data specifying which nodes can transmit
and on which subchannels. Then, all uplink data trans-
missions occur concurrently. Finally, the AP sends a block
acknowledgement.
Figure 18: HMAC
OJRC-MAC (OFDMA-based Joint Reservation and Co-
operative MAC) protocol [90] employs an RU-based reser-
US
AN
vation scheme to reduce collisions in an IEEE 802.11ax
network. Instead of sending a transmission request during
the random-access period, each node sends both data and
a reservation request on the randomly selected RU. Then,
M
the AP replies with multiple ACKs for successful trans-
missions. For the next random-access period, each node
with a successful reservation is assigned the same RU. On
the other hand, contention is performed only with the un-
ED
reserved RUs.
Remarks:
Both MCBC and T2F could provide low collision rates
PT
for a high number of nodes. However, MCBC has a longer
contention time and allows only one winner per contention.
On the other hand, T2F allows TDMA-like schedules
CE
which would enhance the performance. REPICK works for
only a low number of nodes because it assigns a part of the
subcarriers for identification purposes. On the other hand,
WiFi-BA uses time-domain once a collision is detected in
AC
the frequency-domain competition (the first round). Thus,
the performance with WiFi-BA may suffer as collisions can
be severe in the first round as shown in [54]. FICA is
similar to T2F but also allows channelization for parallel
contention and transmissions. Accordingly, overheads of
interframe spacing and contention are reduced. However,
FICA assigns a part of the available subcarriers to convey
additional information in contention. Also, FICA follows
one round of contention. Hence, FICA may have a higher
collision rate when compared to T2F with a comparable
OFDM architecture. Compared to burst-based schemes,
signature-based schemes are expected to provide higher
successful rates. This is because collided signatures may
10
be resolved allowing a node to distinguish who is trans-
mitting. However, a signature usually takes a longer time
than a burst, or it requires many subcarriers. For example,
while the signature length in FC-MAC (a signature-based
scheme) is about 42us [75], a burst is only 5.2us in T2F.
Hence, the contention period could be longer in signature-
based schemes. In message-based schemes, the contention
period is longer as messages are used. Moreover, colli-
sion rates are higher because backoff values are selected
from subchannels instead of subcarriers. Therefore, most
of such protocols additionally adopt a time-domain con-
tention scheme.
T
4.2. QoS Support
IP
4.2.1. Bursts
In [57], QoS features are suggested for MCBC (see sub-
CR
section 4.1). Basically, different subcarriers are assigned
for different priorities and emergency messages during the
contention slot of the first round. In addition, a user would
activate both contention and feedback subcarriers to as-
sure emergent messages.
With WiFi-BA (see subsection 4.1), different messages
could be assigned different priorities as the most significant
bits would provide a higher precedence. For example, a
user who selects the number ”1xxxxxxx” has a higher
priority than another user with the number ”0xxxxxxx”
(x means it does not matter whether the value is ′ 1′ or
′ ′
0 ).
Medley [91] is an OFDMA-based MAC designed to pro-
vide a delay-fair access to accommodate different service
requirements in a WLAN. Medley is built on FICA (see
subsection 4.1) as shown in Fig. 12. Medley makes changes
to different operations of FICA to enhance the scalabil-
ity (or to increase the number of supported users) of
the WLAN. There is no relation between the contention
subcarriers and the data subchannels. As illustrated by
Fig. 19, subchannels in M-RTS are divided into groups,
and each group is further divided into n blocks (B1,
B2,...,Bn); where a block is a number of subcarriers. Each
group is associated with a different service class. Conse-
quently, each node in a group represents its demand (the
number of required subchannels) as an n-bit binary num-
ber. Then, starting from the MSB (most significant bit),
if the bit is ′ 1′ , the node sends a burst over a randomly
selected subcarrier of Bn. The operation is repeated for
all subsequent bits. Later in the M-CTS period, the AP
resends the bursts seen during the M-RTS, and thus nodes
learn subchannels’ allocations. Finally, Medley utilizes an
AIMD (additive-increase, multiplicative-decrease) proce-
dure to control the number of used subchannels in order
to reduce collisions.
WT2F (Weighted T2F) [92] changes the first round of
T2F (see subsection 4.1) in order to provide service dif-
ferentiation. Different priority levels are assigned various
ranges of subcarriers. Accordingly, each user randomly se-
lects the subcarrier to activate from the range related to
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 19: Grouping of subcarriers in Medley
its priority level. As illustrated in Fig. 20 while high pri-
ority stations select from the range [1, F ], the low priority
users choose from the range [1, F max]. Finally, propor-
tional fairness of the two-priority levels case is analyzed.
US
AN
Figure 20: Different ranges of subcarriers in WT2F with two priority
levels
M
4.2.2. Signatures
QoS-Fi [93] extends D-Fi (see subsection 4.1) to sup-
ED
port QoS like the IEEE 802.11e EDCA access mechanism.
Merely, each station is assigned four signatures with dif-
ferent lengths. Accordingly, a station uses a longer sig-
nature for a higher priority packet. This is similar to the
distributed prioritized-mechanism provided in the IEEE
PT
802.11e EDCA.
WFC (Weighted Frequency-Domain Contention) [94] at-
tempts to provide service differentiation instead of abso-
CE
lute priority. In WFC, different ranges of subcarriers are
allocated for different priority levels. WFC assumes that
each user has a unique signature, signatures are known by
all users, and each user can listen and receive simultane-
AC
ously. Moreover, WFC follows two rounds of contention
like that of T2F as shown in Fig. 9. The following sum-
marizes WFC and its differences from T2F:
• Round 1: Each user randomly activates a subcar-
rier from a range that is based on priority. Assum-
ing only two levels, the subcarrier ranges [1, S] and
[F + 1, F max] are for high and low priority levels
respectively; where (F < S < F max) as shown in
Fig. 21. At the same time, each user listens to the
channel to conclude who the winners are (those acti-
vated the minimum subcarrier). All winners proceed
to the next round.
11
• Round 2: A winner of Round 1 sends its signature
over the whole channel and listens to the channel con-
currently. Collision detection is applied to excluded
colliding nodes, and winners would transmit in order.
Figure 21: Subcarrier ranges in WFC with two priority levels
T
4.2.3. Messages
IP
QoS-OFDMA [95] extends OMAX (see subsection 4.1)
to support QoS. After the backoff stage (in Fig. 16), a node
CR
with a higher priority sends more than one RTS frame.
When one of these RTS frames is received successfully by
the AP, the AP assigns the whole channel to the high
priority node.
CBQO (Channel Bonding based QoS-aware OFDMA)
[96] follows a similar approach to that in Fig. 16. However,
channel bonding is used where a wide channel consists of
K adjacent 20MHz channels, and one of these channels is
set as primary. Moreover, each 20MHz channel is made up
of several OFDMA subchannels. For backoff, nodes moni-
tor the primary channel. For every idle slot of the primary
channel, a node decrements its backoff counter by the num-
ber of non-primary channels. Otherwise, the node defers
its access attempt and starts over when the primary chan-
nel is idle for a DIFS period. Once the backoff counter
reaches zero, the node sends its RTS on a randomly se-
lected subchannel. For QoS traffic, the node would send
another RTS on another random subchannel. Moreover, a
node also transmits a tone signal on the first primary sub-
channel to preserve synchronization; i.e. prevent nodes
from transmitting as long as an RTS is ongoing on a none-
primary channel.
Remarks:
The surveyed QoS schemes are mostly extensions to con-
tention methods, and thus they inherit similar limitations.
Basically, they assign different resources (like subcarriers)
to various QoS levels. With bursts and signatures, sepa-
rate ranges of subcarriers or longer signatures are utilized
for different types of traffic respectively. Alternatively, in
message-based schemes, priority can be assured by sending
more requests on different subchannels. Accordingly, per-
formance of lower priority traffic may be affected as they
contend with a lower number of resources. This in turn
may affect the performance of all nodes in the network,
and hence more resources are required for scenarios with
higher densities.
4.3. Collision Resolution
All surveyed collision resolution schemes use messages.
Fast Retrial [97] proposes frequency backoff for collision
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

resolution in OFDMA wireless networks; see Fig. 22 for delay performance especially for nodes not involved in the
an illustration. When a user’s request collides, the user re- collision resolution.
sends the request message on a randomly selected ranging
subchannel (a group of subcarriers) during the next slot.
5. Frequency-Domain Based Polling Schemes
Finally, when a maximum number of retries is reached,
the user switches back to time-domain contention. Note In this section, we review frequency-domain based
that Fast Retry assumes that users know about collisions polling schemes.
during the same slot used for transmitting requests. An-
other similar approach is OARSB (Opportunistic access 5.1. Bursts
with random subchannel Backoff) [98]. However, OARSB
In PAMAC (Physical layer Assisted MAC) [100], an AP
proposes an improvement by which nodes choose from the
broadcasts a request message. Then each user activates
best L subchannels (a subset of all subchnnels available).
its preassigned subcarrier signifying its status (no data,

T
Analysis and simulation studies are provided in both works
low priority, medium priority, or high priority). To con-
of Fast Retry and OARSB. In OFDM-RR (OFDM reser-

IP
vey the status information, the subcarriers are distributed
vation random access) [53], the authors propose a similar
over four non-contiguous OFDM symbols. The user sends
approach for OFDMA femtocells. However, only one node
the first bit on symbols 1 and 2, and the second bit on
utilizes the whole channel after resolving collisions of re-

CR
symbols 3 and 4. For example, sending ”11” means high
quest messages.
priority traffic. Based on the parallel received signals, the
EBF (Exponential Backoff in Frequency) [99] is pro-
AP broadcasts a single burst subcarrier to indicate which
posed for femtocells with small number of nodes. A node
users can transmit.
could transmit multiple packets (all are of equal and fixed
size) concurrently using different channels. The access
method simply starts by having a node transmit over
all channels. If a collision occurs (a collision in any of
the selected channels), the node divides channels into two
US HT-MIMO [101] is a MAC protocol that considers
a MIMO and OFDM based WLAN. HT-MAC applies
polling in both uplink and downlink as show in Fig. 23
and Fig. 24 respectively. Basically, for IEEE 802.11n with
AN
4 antennas at the AP, thirteen subcarriers are assigned for
groups. Then, the node probabilistically picks one of the
each antenna at the AP, and these subcarriers are divided
two groups. The process is repeated as long as there are
into: 8 subcarriers to identify a node, 2 subcarriers to spec-
collisions and the number of used channels is greater than
ify the antenna on the node, and 3 subcarriers to define the
one.
type of a control message. By activating or deactivating
M

these subcarriers, the AP can encode the needed control

messages to different nodes concurrently. In the uplink,
as illustrated in Fig. 23, the AP first senses the channel
ED

to be idle for DIFS. Then the AP contends for the chan-

nel to send SC-Poll frame. The SC-Poll frame informs all
nodes which antennas they should use. Then, each node
replies with a SC-CTS frame, followed by the CT-Data,
PT

using the antenna indicated in the SC-Poll frame. Finally,

the AP broadcasts the acknowledgment information. A
similar approach is followed in the downlink as shown in
Figure 22: Fast Retrial collision resolution Fig. 24.
CE

Remarks:
AC

In Fast Retry, a node can access only one subchannel.

Instead, an OARSB node can request a fixed number of
subchannels. Alternatively, EBF allows a node to dynam-
ically select the number of subchannels to access. Also,
data packets instead of requests are transmitted with EBF
resulting in a higher cost of collisions. In contrast, OFDM-
RR does not allow channelization. Consequently, some of
these protocols may underutilize the channel when there is
a low number of nodes. For example, only 2 subchannels
could be accessed after resolving collisions in a network
with 2 nodes and 4 subchannels. On the other hand, colli-
sions increase as the number of nodes gets higher. Thus, a
longer time is required to resolve collisions degrading the
12
Figure 23: HT-MIMO, Uplink
DOMINO [102] also takes benefit of an OFDM polling
method as explained in Fig. 25. DOMINO assumes that
each node joining the WLAN is preassigned a distinct
subchannel by the AP. Then, the AP would broadcast a
polling message to query the queue status of nodes. In
response, each node waits for one time slot, and then the
node sends its queue size using its unique subchannel. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

nodes and their assigned subchannels (a distinct subchan-

nel for each node). For downlink as shown in Fig. 27, each
node replies with an ACK frame on its assigned subchan-
nel. Thereafter, the AP transmits downlink data on the
nodes unique subchannel. On the other hand as illustrated
in Fig. 28, the node transmits its buffer status (in a request
Figure 24: HT-MIMO, Downlink
packet) on its unique subchannel for the uplink transmis-
sions. Accordingly, the AP transmits a schedule to be
followed by different nodes on their distinct subchannels
in parallel.

T
IP
CR
Figure 25: Rapid polling in DOMINO

Figure 27: Downlink Polling

AP builds a transmission schedule based on the received
feedback. Finally, a CP (cyclic prefix) precedes every sym-
bol to deal with fading.
FDP-MAC (Frequency Domain Polling MAC) [50] uti-
lizes frequency-domain polling as explained in the exam-
ple of Fig. 26. The AP transmits a request message, and
US
AN
each user replies by activating its preassigned subcarrier
when it has data to transmit. Then, the AP sends a mes-
sage that includes a TDMA schedule to be followed by all
users. In TDMA portion, each user is given a fixed-length
M

slot time which consists of the data packet time and a
synchronization time (2 µs). Finally, an aggregate ACK
is sent back by the AP. PFDP-MAC (Priority-aware Fre-
quency Domain Polling MAC) [103] boosts FDP-MAC to
ED
Figure 28: Uplink Polling
In [105], a similar polling approach is proposed for up-
link transmissions in an OFDMA IEEE 802.11ax network

support different priorities of data. Each user is assigned
a number of subcarriers; one subcarrier for every level of
priority. Also, a heuristic approach is provided to mini-
mize the probability that packets of a given station do no
PT
where messages are used to transmit queues feedback. In
addition to the size information, conveyed feedback mes-
sages provide channel estimations. Finally, similar strate-
gies are found in ([106, 107, 108]) with throughput analy-

reach the AP within a number of slots. sis.

Remarks:
CE

FDP-MAC may have a low utilization as no size feed-

back is exchanged; a node only indicates its desire to be
polled. PAMAC and PFDP-MAC are similar and provide
higher utilization as nodes (in each one of them) provide
AC

general status feedback. Alternatively, DOMINO could

Figure 26: An example of FDP-MAC with only n1 and n2 have
packets to transmit, and these users are assigned f1 and f2 subcarriers
respectively
further enhance the efficiency as each node specifies the
number of backlogged packets (with a maximum value
that depends on assigned subcarriers per node). The work
of [105] is similar to DOMINO but has the advantage of
being based on IEEE 802.11ax. Finally, we think that
HT-MIMO has the lowest utilization because the AP polls
nodes without knowing their status.

5.2. Messages
6. Summary, Discussion, and Future Directions
In [104], polling in the frequency-domain is proposed for
both uplink and downlink directions. In both cases, the In this section, we summarize and discuss several fea-
AP initially broadcasts a polling frame indicating selected tures and issues of the frequency-domain contention and
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
polling MAC protocols in subsection 6.1. In addition, we
address some possibilities for future work in subsection 6.2.
6.1. Summary and Discussion
6.1.1. Summary
In Table 1, we compare different protocols included in
this survey paper. First, the table specifies the purpose
of each protocol (contention, QoS, polling, and collision
resolution). Second, the table gives the type of used sig-
nals (burst, signature, or message). Third, we indicate
the underlying technology assumed (OFDM, or OFDMA).
Fourth, the number of rounds used in contention schemes
is stated. Finally, the table shows what type of evalua-
tion is used (simulation, analysis, and real implementa-
tion). Note more than one evaluation method may be
available. Different protocols provide real implementations
using Sora software radio (like in FICA [60]), FPGA (like
in PAMAC [100]), or USRP/GNURadio (like in T2F [54]).
On the other hand, many protocols (specially OFDMA-
based schemes) simply assume the feasibility of the im-
plementation based on previous works. Table 2 summa-
rizes different implementation platforms. Note that COTS
(Consumer Of The Shelf) devices are not suitable to imple-
ment these protocols as they deviate greatly from the stan-
US
AN
dard 802.11 operations (e.g., D-Fi [72]). Flexible open-
source drivers like the Atheros ath9k enable the user to
fine tune and control almost every detail in the operation
of the 802.11 protocol, but they do not allow to change
M
its behavior [18]. Finally, Table 3 lists different simulation
environments, and Table 4 shows the type of analysis per-
formed as specified by each of the corresponding works.
ED
6.1.2. Different Signals
A node would send a signal to contend for the channel.
Similarly, a node would send a signal to inform the AP that
PT
it is ready to transmit or receive data in polling schemes.
In frequency-based protocols, signals from different nodes
are transmitted concurrently utilizing OFDM capabilities.
CE
In general, a node would send a burst, a signature, or a
message. A burst is a tone signal that is transmitted with
no information [23], and it can be as short as one OFDM
symbol. A receiver is required only to recognize a burst
AC
by energy detection. In contention, a collision occurs when
at least two nodes activate the same subcarrier in the last
contention round. On the other hand, in polling each node
is normally assigned a unique subcarrier. Hence, the node
simply activates its subcarrier informing the AP that it is
ready to transmit (or receive) as in FDP-MAC [50]. Alter-
natively, a signature is a sequence of bits that can be used
to uniquely identify a node. The bits are transmitted ei-
ther as bursts (like in D-Fi [73]) or PN sequence numbers
(like in FC-MAC [75]). First, with bursts, a subcarrier
is assigned for each bit in the signature. Thereafter, a
node sends a burst on the subcarrier when its signatures
corresponding bit is ′ 1′ . All signatures are transmitted in
14
parallel. Then, a receiving node uses a filtering mechanism
to recognize all signatures. Hence, winners of contention
or order of transmissions can be identified. For example,
in Fig 29, we assume the signatures ”0001” and ”1000” for
nodes A and B respectively, and only f 1...f 4 are the avail-
able subcarriers. Then, A activates f 4 and B activates f 1.
The AP receives the burst ”1001”, then applies filtering to
recognize both original signatures of A and B. Conse-
quently, the AP could assign resources to different nodes
based on the recognized signatures. On the other hand, a
PN sequence number is a binary number that is transmit-
ted using modulation but with no preambles. Matching
T
filters are required to recognize different signatures trans-
mitted on every subcarrier. For signature schemes, as-
IP
suming a unique signature per node, collisions may happen
when signatures cannot be recognized correctly. For exam-
ple, each of two contending nodes may incorrectly assume
CR
itself a winner because of detection errors, errors in filter-
ing, etc. Finally, messages are simply control (like RTS)
or data frames transmitted based on the underlying PHY
layer. Collisions of messages occur when transmissions of
frames overlap in time and frequency. Sending messages
directly in contention is simpler but has the drawback that
their collisions cause larger overheads.
Figure 29: An example: burst signatures
The following are some issues related to the burst and
signature types:
• There is a limit on the maximum number of parallel
signatures that can be recognized. This is due to lim-
itations of the filters used and the effects of parallel
transmissions on the channel state.
• Each node is assigned a unique signature. Hence,
there is a need to assign and maintain signatures
based on different activities (like joining and leaving
the network) specially for ad-hoc networks where no
central control exists.
• When bursts are involved, nodes are required to gen-
erate and detect burst signals on individual subcarri-
ers. Also, the performance is affected by false alarms
(like detecting noise as a burst, or sensing an idle state
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Summary
Sim: Simulation, Imp: Implementation
Protocol Usage Request Rounds Technology Sim Analysis Imp
Fast Retrial [97] CR Message 1 OFDMA Yes Yes
OARSB [98] CR Message 1 OFDMA Yes Yes
EBF [99] CR Message 1 OFDMA Yes Yes
OFDM-RR [53] C, CR Message 1 OFDMA Yes Yes
MCBC [55, 56, 57] C Burst 3 OFDM Yes Yes Yes
T2F [54, 58] C Burst 2 OFDM Yes Yes

T
WT2F [92] C, QoS Burst 2 OFDM Yes
Back2F [59] C Burst 2 OFDM Yes Yes

IP
REPICK [29] C Burst 1 OFDM Yes Yes
FICA [60, 30] C Burst 1 OFDM Yes Yes
D-Fi [72, 73] C Signature 1 OFDM Yes Yes

CR
[61] C Burst 1 OFDM Yes
[62] C Burst 1 OFDMA Yes Yes
QoS-Fi [93] C, QoS Signature 1 OFDM Yes Yes
WiFi-BA [65] C Burst 2* OFDM Yes
[66]
[67]
FD-OOAT [68]
Medley [91]
C
C
C
C, Qos
US
Burst
Burst
Burst
Burst
2*
2*
1
1
OFDM
OFDM
OFDM
OFDMA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
AN
TF-CSMA/CA [84] C Message 2* OFDM Yes Yes
FD-Backoff [85] C Message 1 OFDM Yes Yes
[88] C Message 2* OFDM Yes
FC-MAC [75] C Signature 1 OFDM Yes Yes
M

[76] C Signature 1 OFDM Yes

DiFuse [70] C Burst 1 OFDM Yes Yes
WFC [94] C, QoS Burst, Signature 2 OFDM Yes Yes
OMAX [82] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes
ED

QoS-OFDMA [95] C, QoS Message 2* OFDMA Yes

C-OFDMA [83] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes
CBQO [96] C, QoS Message 2* OFDMA Yes
HMAC [89] C Message 1 OFDMA Yes
PT

[77, 78] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes

[79] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes
CM-CSMA/CA [43] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes
[80] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes
CE

IEEE 802.11ax [52, 81] C Message 2* OFDMA

OJRC-MAC [90] C Message 2* OFDMA Yes Yes
PAMAC [100] P Burst OFDM Yes Yes
AC

HT-MIMO [101] P Burst OFDM Yes Yes

DOMINO [102] P Burst OFDM Yes Yes
FDP-MAC [50] P Burst OFDM Yes
PFDP-MAC [103] P Burst OFDMA Yes
[104] P Message OFDMA Yes
[105] P Message OFDMA Yes Yes
* : one round is time-domain
C : Contention
CR : Collision Resolution
QoS : Quality of Service,
P : Polling

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

there is a need for a feedback slot for every contention

Table 2: Implementation Platforms
Protocol Implementation Platform slot in order for nodes to identify the contention result.
Consequently, the contention duration is longer affecting
MCBC [55, 56, 57] Altera EP2C35 FFPGA
the performance of the network compared to the multiple
T2F [54, 58] USRP/GNURadio
antennas situations.
Back2F [59] USRP/GNURadio
FICA [60, 30] Sora software defined radio
6.1.4. Synchronization
D-Fi [72, 73] USRP/GNUradio
With frequency-domain schemes, nodes are supposed to
QoS-Fi [93] USRP/GNURadio
start transmitting at the same time. However, signals are
WiFi-BA [65] FPGA of USRP E110
detected at different times by different nodes due to essen-
[66] USRP/GNURadio
tial propagation delays. Hence, there is a need for a form of
[67] USRP/GNURadio
time synchronization. In a one-collision domain, the wire-
Medley [91] Sora software defined radio

T
less medium activities could be sufficient to synchronize
DiFuse [70] USRP/GNURadio
nodes. For example, nodes contend for the channel follow-
PAMAC [100] Virtex-IV FPGA/a front-end radio

IP
ing the reception of a trigger frame sent by the AP in an
DOMINO [102] USRP/GNURadio
IEEE 802.11ax network. In addition, for bursts, transmit-
ting for a somewhat longer duration is utilized to provide

CR
Table 3: Simulation Environment synchronization in schemes like T2F specially when no AP
Protocol Simulation Environment is assumed. In T2F, a node transmits a jamming signal on
EBF [99] NS-3 the selected subcarrier for a period of (TF F T + 2Pd ) con-
FC-MAC [75] Qualnet sisting of one FFT and twice the maximum propagation
[76]
OMAX [82]
QoS-OFDMA [95] NS-2
CBQO [96]
Qualnet
NS-2

NS2
US delay (Pd ).
Frequency synchronization is also essential to prevent
misdetections. This has been addressed by using subcar-
rier spacing. For example, only a small subset of subcarri-
AN
HMAC [89] Simulation programmed with C++ ers is used to have a high frequency spacing in MCBC; only
[80] Matlab 6 subcarriers for contention. Also, nodes may synchro-
OJRC-MAC [90] NS-2 nize following feedback from an AP. Finally, in [109], the
PAMAC [100] Qualnet authors argue that frequency synchronization is hard to
M

HT-MIMO [101] Matlab achieve in frequency-domain contention schemes. Also, the

FDP-MAC [50] OPNET authors show (using simulation and analysis) that the ac-
PFDP-MAC [103] Event driven programmed with C++ tual performance of networks with frequency-domain con-
tention is affected as nodes could detect wrong subcarriers
ED

resulting in failures, collisions, and unfair access.

on an activated subcarrier). Finally, synchronization
is required as we discuss later in this subsection. 6.1.5. Number of Subchannels and Subcarriers
Different protocols use all subcarriers or arrange them
PT

• Since any node could generate bursts, security should
be considered for protocols that are based on using
bursts. A harmful node may simply send a burst on
the highest priority subcarrier all time preventing le-
CE
into subchannels. Then, all or a subset of the subcarri-
ers, or subchannels, are exploited for contention or polling.
Assume that B is the channel bandwidth with k total sub-

carriers, c subchannels, and m subcarriers per subchannel.

gitimate nodes from accessing the channel. Accordingly, if t seconds is the time to transmit a message
with the whole bandwidth, then mBt/k seconds is the
6.1.3. Number of Antennas transmission time of the same message over m subcarri-
AC

Some schemes, like T2F [54], assume that each node ers. Hence, the lower the value of m (or the higher the
could transmit and receive simultaneously. Such assump- value of c), the higher the delays when messages or signa-
tion is reasonable due to the implementation of MIMO tures are transmitted in a frequency-domain contention or
technology. Hence, each node could contend and deter- polling protocol. In addition, for contention protocols, the
mine the result of contention through the same slot. With higher the number of subcarriers (or subchannels) used
multiple antennas at each node, the transmitted signal in contention, the lower the collision rate. The lowest
could affect the detection of signals at the receiving an- collision rate could be achieved when all subchannels are
tenna. The self-transmitted signal is strong enough that it used in contention and m = 1. This is because there is a
could leak to adjacent subcarriers. Frequency spacing can lower probability that two nodes choose the same subcar-
be utilized to tackle this problem as in T2F. On the other rier (or subchannels). Finally, the number of subcarriers
hand, different schemes, like MCBC [55], are designed for utilized in frequency-domain have an impact on the relia-
nodes with a single antenna. In other words, each node bility of the system. Using a higher number of subcarriers
either transmits or receives at a time. In such scenarios, would increase the challenge of proper detection (due to
16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4: Analysis
Protocol Analysis
Fast Retrial [97] Delay, Throughput
OARSB [98] Delay, Throughput
OFDM-RR [53] Throughput
MCBC [55, 56, 57] Delay, Throughput
REPICK [29] Throughput
EBF [99] Delay
D-Fi [72, 73] Collision probability
[61] Optimal attempt probability/number of bands
[62] Throughput
[67] Collision probability

T
FD-OOAT [68] Robustness to delay
TF-CSMA/CA [84] Quick convergence, Staying in good states

IP
FD-Backoff [85] Efficiency gain
FC-MAC [75] Success/collision probability

CR
WFC [94] Throughput
OMAX [82] Throughput
C-OFDMA [83] Throughput
Generalized CSMA/CA [77, 78] Throughput
[79]
[80]
OJRC-MAC [90]
HT-MIMO [101]
US
Throughput
Throughput
Throughput
Throughput
AN
[105] Throughput

the increased sensitivity to frequency synchronization, and A protocol with feedback slots, like MCBC, solves the
power leakage into adjacent subcarriers), and it would in- problem to some level. After feedback, each node knows
M

crease the time to process all subcarriers [65]. about any hidden transmissions. In our example, the feed-
back slot conveys that f 1 and f 3 are activated. Thereafter,
B recognizes that it has lost the contention. However, B
6.1.6. Hidden Terminal Problem
ED

may start to burst the channel while A is transmitting

Most of the frequency-domain contention proposals do
not appropriately address the hidden terminal problem.
As an example, let us consider a one-round T2F network
with two hidden nodes: A and B. Moreover, assume that
PT
when the channel is sensed idle longer than DIFS. Also, if
B should wait long enough for A to complete its transmis-
sion, the performance would be affected since idle times

are introduced. The problem is further complicated due

A and B burst f 1 and f 3 respectively. As a result, each to different packet sizes and PHY rates.
node believes it is the winner. Hence both nodes start
In [110], the authors propose to allocate a jamming an-
to transmit resulting in a collision. Thereafter, each node
tenna to mitigate the hidden terminal problem in a scheme
CE

contends again for the channel after waiting a DIFS period.

like FICA with half-duplex nodes. The idea is to assign
Hence, collisions are repeated all the time. The example
a jamming channel for every data subchannel. Then, the
scenario is illustrated in Fig. 30.
receiver would send a burst on the corresponding jamming
channel as an ACK to the sender. The use of jamming to
AC

solve the hidden terminal problem in wireless networks is

described in [23].

6.1.7. TDMA-Like Schedules

In polling schemes, TDMA scheduling is simply achieved
by adhering to the directions of the AP. On the other hand,
nodes may transmit in a TDMA-like fashion following the
contention period in some of the frequency-domain compe-
tition protocols. Each node learns its turn from the order
of its signal in the contention period. Also, a transmitting
node may piggyback the identification of the next node
Figure 30: An example: hidden nodes in T2F to transmit. Unfortunately, this could not work all the
17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

time because of undecodable packets. A node cannot tell
when its turn to transmit when it is unable to decode one
of the transmitted packets. Another cause of unexpected
problems is the hidden terminal problem. Let us consider
a T2F network with three nodes: A, B, and C. Assume
A and C are hidden nodes, and A, B, and C burst f 1,
f 2, and f 3 respectively. Hence, A assumes that it should
transmit first, and B assumes it is the second to transmit.
However, C also assumes it is the second node to trans-
mit as it cannot overhear the transmission of A. Then, A
starts to transmit. At the same time, C would go into con-
tention as it may find the channel idle longer than DIFS
Fig. 33, then the winning node (say n1) starts to transmit
and the other node (n2) waits its turn. However, n2 lis-
tening (using CCA or Clear Channel Assessment) to ch2
may be unable to detect the transmission of n1 on a differ-
ent channel (ch1). Thereafter, n2 could go into contention
period causing a collision with the ongoing transmission of
n1. Third, one of the aforementioned two scenarios would
occur when one node chooses from the shared subcarriers,
and the other node selects from the unshared subcarriers.
Accordingly, frequency-domain based schemes could fail
for OBSSs and would be unfair to nodes in the overlap-
ping regions.

T
period. Hence, the result is a collision at B, and B misses
its turn to transmit.

IP
6.1.8. QoS Support
The AP would provide QoS by building appropriate

CR
schedules when polling is activated. Alternatively, dif-
ferent methods are applied to achieve service differentia-
tion in some of the frequency-domain contention schemes. Figure 31: An example of two overlapping networks
First, QoS is realized by assigning different ranges of con-
tention frequencies per a QoS level like in WFC [94]. Sec-
US
ond, higher or longer signatures are applied for higher pri-
ority packets like in QoS-Fi [93]. Third, a node may trans-
mit more than once per contention emphasizing a higher
AN
priority. For example, a QoS-OFDMA [95] node trans-
mits more than one RTS frame for a higher priority traffic.
However, in all aforementioned methods, the range of con-
tention subcarriers (or subchannles) could be insufficient,
M

and thus, collisions increase when there is a high number

of nodes per a service level.

6.1.9. Overlapping Networks

ED

Normally, APs are deployed with overlapping regions

to improve coverage in many intended scenarios like a
residential environment [22]. In such scenarios, overlap-
ping APs (Overlapping Basic Service Sets - OBSSs) should
PT

use different non-overlapping channels (i.e. channels with

no mutual subcarriers) to prevent interferences. Unfortu-
nately, this may not be achieved in high density networks Figure 32: An example: unshared subcarriers
CE

due to the limited number of frequencies. Hence, due to

the higher densities of nodes in the next-generation net-
works, different nodes would be within range and yet asso- 6.1.10. Coexistence
ciated with different APs. Moreover, these nodes almost Most of the frequency-domain contention schemes are
AC

would be operating on overlapping channels. As a result,
we expect that frequency-domain MAC schemes would fail
in such scenarios. To illustrate consider the example of two
OBSSs as shown in Fig. 31; AP 1 and n1 utilizing chan-
nel ch1 with (f 1...f 6) subcarriers, and AP 2 and n2 using
channel ch2 with (f 5...f 10) subcarriers. Here, ch1 and
ch2 overlap as they have shared subcarriers (f 5 and f 6).
Accordingly, the following scenarios are possible. First,
when both nodes select from the non-shared subcarriers
as illustrated in Fig. 32, then each of them is unaware of
the other node contention. As a result, both nodes start
to transmit resulting in collisions at APs. Second, when
both nodes select from the shared subcarriers as shown in
18
not backward compatible with the IEEE 802.11. Hence,
they would cause severe problems for coexisting nodes.
For example, to compete for the channel, T2F nodes al-
ways send bursts after the channel is sensed idle for DIFS.
Consequently, an IEEE 802.11 node may never be able
to access the channel. The IEEE 802.11ax protocol (and
hence all related enhancements) is backward compatible as
the AP first contends for the channel to initiate the new
random access scheme as illustrated in Fig. 15.
In addition, research and industry are considering the
coexistence of WLANs and the LTE in the unlicensed 5G
spectrum (LTE-U/LAA) ([22, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,
117, 118, 119, 120]). Mainly, the LTE technology is the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 33: An example: shared subcarriers
one invading the WiFi spectrum, so usually, it is the duty
of LTE systems designers to be concerned with the co-
existence with WiFi not the other way around. That is
why LTE and WiFi coexistence schemes are out of the
scope of our survey. In summary LTE-U/LAA introduce
US
AN
coexistence solutions like LBT (Listen Before Talk), CCA
(Clear Channel Assessment), and CSAT (Carrier Sensing
Adaptive Transmission: following on/off periods based on
channel status). On the other hand, frequency-domain
M
operations are more aggressive than in the legacy IEEE
802.11. With frequency-contention, nodes sense the chan-
nel to be idle for almost a fixed and shorter time, then
they send concurrent signals over the channel to compete,
ED
and finally they send data. Hence, this could impact the
performance of LTE network. As a result, LTE and WiFi
coexistence approaches should be reevaluated in the case
of frequency-domain schemes and IEEE 802.11ax.
PT
6.1.11. Future Networks
M2M (Machine to Machine) communication would be
CE
an important part of the next-generation wireless net-
works [121]. Also, there is a need to support new
paradigms of M2M communications including mMTC
(massive Machine-Type Communication) with a very high
AC
number of devices and cMTC (critical Machine-Type
Communication) with ultra-reliability and low latency re-
quirements ([26, 121, 122, 123]). Mostly, packets are short
in an MTC, and thus it is essential that overheads are
made minimal [26]. This requirement can be achieved
with the surveyed frequency-domain proposals as they do
minimize overheads including contention time, collisions,
interframe spaces, and control frames. In addition, for
downlink there is a challenge due to different statuses of
nodes that can be sleeping or active. It is difficult to en-
tirely predict which nodes are active due to sleeping cy-
cles and what type and size of traffic is available at each
node. Frequency-domain polling might provide a quick
19
handshaking method between an AP and its associated
nodes for an efficient and timely access. Also, such polling
schemes can be used for uplink to remove contention (and
thus collisions) and provide faster access. For example, ac-
tive nodes could simultaneously inform the AP about their
statuses using any of the polling schemes discussed in Sec-
tion 5. Moreover, control frames may be replaced with
shorter signals reducing delays of transmissions. However,
surveyed polling schemes assume a unique subchannel per
node which poses a difficulty due to the limited number
of subchannels. Also, the massive number of nodes in
contention schemes could lead to inadequate collision lev-
T
els. Accordingly, further improvements are required. We
also argue that integrated polling and contention in the
IP
frequency-domain should be analyzed to support mMTC
and cMTC networks.
Full-duplex technology also is expected to be an impor-
CR
tant part of next-generation wireless network [124], and
it would improve the delay performance and efficiency in-
cluding the case of short packets [125]. Recently, differ-
ent proposals exploit contention in the frequency-domain
instead of time-domain for full-duplex MAC protocols
([125, 126, 127, 128]). For example, in [127], each node ac-
tivates a subcarrier for one round following a DIFS period.
Thereafter, the AP specifies the primary and secondary
transmitters. Also, a one round similar to T2F is uti-
lized to resolve contentions in the full-duplex MAC proto-
col proposed in [126]. Moreover, cognitive radio solutions
are crucial to fairly share the wireless bandwidth in future
networks [129]. Frequency-domain contention can be used
to reduce the time required by different operations in cog-
nitive wireless networks. In each of ([130, 131]), contention
and cooperative sensing are performed concurrently in the
frequency-domain. In [132], the idea of frequency-domain
contention is applied to accelerate the cooperative sens-
ing and reporting in cognitive industrial wireless networks.
Further analysis and improvements are possible, and real
implementations are still required for full-duplex and cog-
nitive technologies with frequency-domain operations.
6.2. Future Directions
In the following, we describe some possible directions for
future work.
• Contention and polling in frequency-domain could be
integrated. The result would be hybrid protocols that
could further enhance the performance as they should
limit contention to only new nodes. Hence, collisions
are much reduced, and backoff periods might be short-
ened with proper designs of these protocols.
• Almost all frequency-domain backoff schemes do not
properly consider the hidden terminal problem. Many
of such protocols simply assume that RTS/CTS and
reattempting transmissions are sufficient to tackle the
problem. We believe that this is not the case specially
for dense networks like in an IEEE 802.11ax scenario.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Moreover, there is a need to carefully investigate the
frequency-domain contention in multi-hop ad hoc and
overlapping networks.
• Many frequency-domain protocols require modifica-
tions to the IEEE 802.11 standard PHY layer, and
they increase the complexity of the wireless devices.
The additional circuitry could result in faster deple-
tion of energy. For example, nodes are transmit-
ting most of the time in frequency-domain backoff
schemes. To burst the channel for every contention
round may impact the energy consumption at each
node. This could be of high significance when con-
sidering different types of nodes like in IoT (Inter-
net of Things) and mobile devices. Furthermore,
new proposals are generally compared to the IEEE
802.11 with basic configurations. However, there have
been numerous proposals to optimize the IEEE 802.11
without any changes to the PHY layer. Hence, we
believe that it is necessary to evaluate such proposals
against the OFDM frequency-domain contention and
polling schemes while considering different trade-offs
(energy, complexity, throughput, delay, etc.).
• For wireless networks, there have been interesting
works to find different estimates specially the num-
US
AN
ber of active nodes [23]. In [133], the authors propose
exploiting the frequency-domain to estimate the num-
ber of neighbor nodes in a vehicular network. Such
estimates could be utilized to improve the perfor-
M
mance of the network. We believe that the same con-
tention signals in the frequency-domain could also be
used to estimate the number of nodes in the network.
Subsequently, contention parameters (like number of
ED
rounds) could be adapted to achieve a higher perfor-
mance.
• The IEEE 802.11ax utilizes nine RUs for frequency-
PT
domain contention. Hence, applying a scheme like
T2F could increase the performance of the network by
having a high number of RUs. Accordingly, it would
be helpful to compare the current IEEE 802.11ax pro-
CE
posals and schemes like that of T2F. Also, practical
and coexistence issues must be carefully considered.
• Building a standard simulation module of frequency-
AC
domain operations in a well-known network simulator
(like NS-2, OPNET, and NS-3).
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we attempted to provide a comprehensive
survey of frequency-domain based contention and polling
MAC schemes proposed for wireless networks. The survey
included a review of recent proposals related to the next-
generation IEEE 802.11ax. First, we clarified the mean-
ing of the frequency-based polling and contention opera-
tions, and we discussed how they could improve the perfor-
mance of wireless networks. Then, we reviewed different
20
frequency-domain based contention and polling protocols.
Next, we compared the surveyed protocols based on many
features including the evaluation methods, the number of
contention rounds, the underlying PHY technology, and
the types of conveyed signals. We also discussed differ-
ent features and issues that are related to the frequency-
domain protocols like the number of antennas, the number
of subcarriers, QoS support, TDMA-like transmissions,
synchronization, coexistence, overlapping networks, and
the hidden terminal problem. Finally, we proposed differ-
ent directions for future work.
T
References
IP
[1] Zhang, R., Cai, L., Pan, J.: MAC protocols for high data-rate
wireless networks. Resource Management for Multimedia Ser-
vices in High Data Rate Wireless Networks, pp. 9–42 (2017)
CR
[2] IEEE standard for information technology- telecommunica-
tions and information exchange between systems- local and
metropolitan area networks- specific requirements part ii:
Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physi-
cal layer (PHY) specifications. IEEE Std 802.11g-2003
(Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11, 1999 Edn. (Reaff 2003) as
amended by IEEE Stds 802.11a-1999, 802.11b-1999, 802.11b-
1999/Cor 1-2001, and 802.11d-2001) pp. i–67 (2003). DOI
10.1109/IEEESTD.2003.94282
[3] IEEE standard for information technology–local and metropoli-
tan area networks–specific requirements–part 11: Wireless LAN
medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifi-
cations - amendment 8: Medium access control (mac) quality of
service enhancements. IEEE Std 802.11e-2005 (Amendment to
IEEE Std 802.11, 1999 Edition (Reaff 2003) pp. 1–212 (2005).
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2005.97890
[4] IEEE standard for information technology– local and metropoli-
tan area networks– specific requirements– part 11: Wireless
LAN medium access control (MAC)and physical layer (PHY)
specifications amendment 5: Enhancements for higher through-
put. IEEE Std 802.11n-2009 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11-
2007 as amended by IEEE Std 802.11k-2008, IEEE Std 802.11r-
2008, IEEE Std 802.11y-2008, and IEEE Std 802.11w-2009) pp.
1–565 (2009). DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2009.5307322
[5] IEEE standard for information technology–telecommunications
and information exchange between systems–local and
metropolitan area networks–specific requirements–part 11:
Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical
layer (PHY) specifications–amendment 4: Enhancements for
very high throughput for operation in bands below 6 GHz.
IEEE Std 802.11ac(TM)-2013 (Amendment to IEEE Std
802.11-2012, as amended by IEEE Std 802.11ae-2012, IEEE
Std 802.11aa-2012, and IEEE Std 802.11ad-2012) pp. 1–425
(2013). DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.7797535
[6] IEEE Std 802.11a-1999: Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Ac-
cess Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications
Amendment 1: High-speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz band
[7] IEEE Std 802.11b-1999: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Higher-Speed
Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band
[8] Al-Mefleh, H., Chang, J.M.: Turning hidden nodes into helper
nodes in IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN networks. In: International
Conference on Research in Networking, pp. 824–835. Springer
(2008)
[9] Kosek-Szott, K.: A survey of MAC layer solutions to the hidden
node problem in ad-hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks 10(3), 635–
660 (2012)
[10] Malik, A., Qadir, J., Ahmad, B., Yau, K.L.A., Ullah, U.: Qos
in IEEE 802.11-based wireless networks: a contemporary re-
view. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 55, 24–46
(2015)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[11] Wan, Z., Xiong, N., Ghani, N., Vasilakos, A.V., Zhou, L.: Adap-
tive unequal protection for wireless video transmission over
IEEE 802.11 e networks. Multimedia Tools and Applications
72(1), 541–571 (2014)
[12] Viegas, R., Guedes, L.A., Vasques, F., Portugal, P., Moraes,
R.: A new MAC scheme specifically suited for real-time indus-
trial communication based on IEEE 802.11 e. Computers &
Electrical Engineering 39(6), 1684–1704 (2013)
[13] Yu, X., Navaratnam, P., Moessner, K.: Resource reservation
schemes for IEEE 802.11-based wireless networks: A survey.
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 15(3), 1042–1061
(2013)
[14] Mammeri, S., Yazid, M., Bouallouche-Medjkoune, L., Mazouz,
A.: Performance study and enhancement of multichannel ac-
cess methods in the future generation VHT WLAN. Future
Generation Computer Systems (2017)
[15] Charfi, E., Chaari, L., Kamoun, L.: PHY/MAC enhancements
and QoS mechanisms for very high throughput WLANs: A sur-
vey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 15(4), 1714–
1735 (2013)
[16] Asai, Y.: Advanced progress in IEEE 802.11 WLAN standard-
ization. In: Microwave Conference (APMC), 2014 Asia-Pacific,
pp. 911–913. IEEE (2014)
[17] Bellalta, B.: IEEE 802.11ax: High-efficiency WLANs. IEEE
Wireless Communications 23(1), 38–46 (2016)
[18] Bellalta, B., Bononi, L., Bruno, R., Kassler, A.: Next generation
directions and open challenges. Computer Communications 75,
1–25 (2016)
[19] Ali, R., Kim, S.W., Kim, B.S., Park, Y.: Design of MAC layer
resource allocation schemes for IEEE 802.11 ax: Future direc-
US
IEEE 802.11 wireless local area networks: Current status, future
AN
tions. IETE Technical Review pp. 1–25 (2016)
[20] Omar, H.A., Abboud, K., Cheng, N., Malekshan, K.R., Gam-
age, A.T., Zhuang, W.: A survey on high efficiency wireless local
area networks: next generation WiFi. IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials 18(4), 2315–2344 (2016)
M
[21] Cheng, N., Shen, X.S.: Next-generation high-efficiency WLAN.
In: 5G Mobile Communications, pp. 651–675. Springer (2017)
[22] Afaqui, M.S., Garcia-Villegas, E., Lopez-Aguilera, E.: IEEE
802.11 ax: Challenges and requirements for future high effi-
ciency WiFi. IEEE Wireless Communications 24(3), 130–137
ED
(2017)
[23] Al-Mefleh, H., Al-Kofahi, O.: Taking advantage of jamming in
wireless networks: A survey. Computer Networks 99, 99–124
(2016)
[24] E. Magistretti, K. K. Chintalapudi, B. Radunovic, and R. Ram-
PT
jee, “WiFi-Nano: Reclaiming WiFi efficiency through 800 ns
slots,” in Proceedings of the 17th annual international confer-
ence on Mobile computing and networking. ACM, 2011, pp.
37–48.
[25] C. Chen, H. Zhao, T. Qiu, R. Hou, and A. K. San-
CE
gaiah, “A multi-station block acknowledgment scheme
in dense IoT networks,” Computer Communications,
vol. 119, pp. 179 – 190, 2018. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140366417
AC
312033
[26] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Toward massive, ul-
trareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short
packets,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711–
1726, 2016.
[27] L. Wang, K. Wu, and M. Hamdi, Attachment Transmission in
Wireless Networks. Springer, 2014.
[28] R. Ali, N. Shahin, R. Bajracharya, B.-S. Kim, and S. W. Kim,
“A Self-Scrutinized Backoff Mechanism for IEEE 802.11 ax in
5G Unlicensed Networks,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 1201,
2018.
[29] Feng, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, Q., Li, B.: Use your frequency
wisely: Explore frequency domain for channel contention and
ACK. In: INFOCOM, 2012 Proceedings IEEE, pp. 549–557.
IEEE (2012)
[30] Fang, J., Tan, K., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Shi, L., Zhang, J.,
21
Zhang, Y., Tan, Z.: Fine-grained channel access in wireless
LAN. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) 21(3),
772–787 (2013)
[31] Zhang, C., Chen, P., Ren, J., Wang, X., Vasilakos, A.V.: A
backoff algorithm based on self-adaptive contention window up-
date factor for IEEE 802.11 DCF. Wireless networks 23(3),
749–758 (2017)
[32] Al-Mefleh, H.: SEMP: Self-elimination mac protocol for IEEE
802.11 wireless networks. Wireless Personal Communications
94(3), 755–776 (2017)
[33] Kedžo, I., Ožegović, J., Kristić, A.: BPC–a binary priority
countdown protocol. Ad Hoc Networks 11(3), 747–764 (2013)
[34] Fang, M., Malone, D., Duffy, K.R., Leith, D.J.: Decentralised
learning MACs for collision-free access in WLANs. Wireless
networks 19(1), 83–98 (2013)
T
[35] Sanabria-Russo, L., Barcelo, J., Bellalta, B., Gringoli, F.: A
high efficiency MAC protocol for WLANs: Providing fairness
IP
in dense scenarios. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking
(TON) 25(1), 492–505 (2017)
[36] Jung, D., Lim, H.: Opportunistic MAC protocol for coordi-
nating simultaneous transmissions in multi-user MIMO based
CR
WLANs. IEEE Communications Letters 15(8), 902–904 (2011)
[37] Sachdeva, G., Sharvani, G.: Design and implementation of an
efficient and adaptive asynchronous MPR MAC protocol for
WLAN. In: Advanced Computing & Communication Tech-
nologies (ACCT), 2015 Fifth International Conference on, pp.
[38]
595–601. IEEE (2015)
Er-Rahmadi, B., Ksentini, A., Meddour, D.E.: Enhanced up-
link multi-users scheduling for future 802.11 ax networks: wait-
to-pick-as-available enhanced. Wireless Communications and
Mobile Computing 16(17), 3104–3122 (2016)
[39] Lv, S., Dong, X., Lu, Y., Du, X., Wang, X., Dou, Y., Zhou,
X.: 3D pipeline contention: Asymmetric full duplex in wireless
networks. In: INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE, pp. 790–798.
IEEE (2014)
[40] Yang, B., Li, B., Yan, Z., Yang, M.: A channel reservation
based cooperative multi-channel MAC protocol for the next gen-
eration WLAN. Wireless Networks (2017). URL https://doi-
org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1355-3
[41] Xu, F., Zhao, Q., Zeng, Y., Yang, J., Dai, H., Dang, P.: A
novel OFDM-based MAC protocol for wireless LANs. In: Com-
munications and Networking in China (ChinaCom), 2015 10th
International Conference on, pp. 222–226. IEEE (2015)
[42] Zhao, Q., Xu, F., Yang, J., Zhang, Y.: CSMA/CQ: A novel
SDN-based design to enable concurrent execution of channel
contention and data transmission in IEEE 802.11 networks.
IEEE Access 5, 2534–2549 (2017)
[43] Wang, X., Wang, H.: A novel random access mechanism for
OFDMA wireless networks. In: Global Telecommunications
Conference (GLOBECOM 2010), 2010 IEEE, pp. 1–5. IEEE
(2010)
[44] LEE, G., KIM, C.: Centralized contention based MAC for
OFDMA WLAN. IEICE Transactions on Information and Sys-
tems 100(9), 2219–2223 (2017)
[45] Cidon, A., Nagaraj, K., Katti, S., Viswanath, P.: Flashback:
Decoupled lightweight wireless control. ACM SIGCOMM Com-
puter Communication Review 42(4), 223–234 (2012)
[46] Wang, L., Wu, K., Hamdi, M.: Recent advances in wireless
communications. In: Attachment Transmission in Wireless Net-
works, pp. 7–15. Springer (2014)
[47] Feng, B., Zhang, C., Wei, L., Fang, Y.: Piggybacking
lightweight control messages on physical layer for multicarrier
wireless LANs. In: International Conference on Wireless Algo-
rithms, Systems, and Applications, pp. 68–79. Springer (2016)
[48] Ji, X., Wang, J., Liu, M., Yan, Y., Yang, P., Liu, Y.: Hitchhike:
A preamble-based control plane for SNR-sensitive wireless net-
works. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 15(2),
1239–1251 (2016)
[49] Feng, L.: Comparison of frequency-domain contention schemes
in wireless LANs. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, International Journal of Computer, Electrical, Au-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
tomation, Control and Information Engineering 10(1), 72–76
(2015)
[50] Lin, J., Liang, W., Yu, H., Xiao, Y.: Polling in the frequency
domain: a new MAC protocol for industrial wireless network
for factory automation. International Journal of Ad Hoc and
Ubiquitous Computing 20(4), 211–222 (2015)
[51] Li, B., Qu, Q., Yan, Z., Yang, M.: Survey on OFDMA based
MAC protocols for the next generation WLAN. In: Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WC-
NCW), 2015 IEEE, pp. 131–135. IEEE (2015)
[52] Deng, D.J., Chen, K.C., Cheng, R.S.: IEEE 802.11 ax:
Next generation wireless local area networks. In: Heteroge-
neous networking for quality, reliability, security and robust-
ness (QShine), 2014 10th international conference on, pp. 77–82.
IEEE (2014)
[53] Mutairi, A., Roy, S.: An OFDM-aware reservation random ac-
cess protocol for interference mitigation in OFDMA femtocells.
IEEE Transactions on Communications 63(1), 301–310 (2015)
[54] Sen, S., Choudhury, R.R., Nelakuditi, S.: Listen (on the fre-
quency domain) before you talk. In: Proceedings of the 9th
ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, p. 16.
ACM (2010)
[55] Roman, B., Stajano, F., Wassell, I., Cottingham, D.: Multi-
carrier burst contention (MCBC): Scalable medium access con-
trol for wireless networks. In: Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference, 2008. WCNC 2008. IEEE, pp. 1667–
[56]
1672. IEEE (2008)
Roman, B.A., Chatzigeorgiou, I., Wassell, I.J., Stajano, F.:
Evaluation of multi-carrier burst contention and IEEE 802.11
with fading during channel sensing. In: Personal, Indoor and
Mobile Radio Communications, 2009 IEEE 20th International
US
AN
Symposium on, pp. 57–61. IEEE (2009)
[57] Roman, B., Wassell, I., Chatzigeorgiou, I.: Scalable cross-layer
wireless access control using multi-carrier burst contention.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 29(1), 113–
128 (2011)
M
[58] Sen, S., Choudhury, R.R., Nelakuditi, S.: Listen before you
talk, but on the frequency domain. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile
Computing and Communications Review 14(4), 7–9 (2011)
[59] Sen, S., Roy Choudhury, R., Nelakuditi, S.: No time to count-
down: Migrating backoff to the frequency domain. In: Pro-
ED
ceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Mobile
computing and networking, pp. 241–252. ACM (2011)
[60] Tan, K., Fang, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Shi, L., Zhang, J.,
Zhang, Y.: Fine-grained channel access in wireless LAN. In:
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 40,
PT
pp. 147–158. ACM (2010)
[61] Sarkar, T.K., Bodas, T.: A FICA based contention scheme for
WLAN with non cooperation. In: Communications (NCC),
2013 National Conference on, pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013)
[62] Yin, J., Mao, Y., Leng, S., Jiang, Y., Khan, M.A.: Access gran-
CE
ularity control of multichannel random access in next-generation
wireless LANs. Computer Networks 91, 135–150 (2015)
[63] Chai, E., Shin, K.G.: Low overhead control channels in wireless
networks
AC
[64] Chai, E., Shin, K.G.: Low-overhead control channels in wireless
networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 14(11),
2303–2315 (2015)
[65] Huang, P., Yang, X., Xiao, L.: WiFi-BA: Choosing arbitra-
tion over backoff in high speed multicarrier wireless networks.
In: INFOCOM, 2013 Proceedings IEEE, pp. 1375–1383. IEEE
(2013)
[66] Huang, P., Yang, X., Xiao, L.: Adaptive channel bonding in
multicarrier wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth
ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking
and computing, pp. 297–300. ACM (2013)
[67] Huang, P., Yang, X., Xiao, L.: Dynamic channel bonding: en-
abling flexible spectrum aggregation. IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing 15(12), 3042–3056 (2016)
[68] Wang, G., Wu, J., Zhou, G., Li, G.Y.: Collision-tolerant media
access control for asynchronous users over frequency-selective
22
channels. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications
12(10), 5162–5171 (2013)
[69] Zeng, Y., Zhao, Q.: A novel collision analysis for multiple-
subcarrier frequency-domain contention. In: International Con-
ference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications, pp.
37–46. Springer (2017)
[70] Lee, K.h., Yoo, J., Kim, C.k.: DiFuse: distributed frequency
domain user selection for multi-user MIMO networks. Wireless
Networks pp. 1–18 (2016)
[71] Zhou, A., Wei, T., Zhang, X., Liu, M., Li, Z.: Signpost: Scalable
MU-MIMO signaling with zero CSI feedback. In: Proceedings
of the 16th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing, pp. 327–336. ACM (2015)
[72] Lee, S., Kim, C.K.: D-fi: A diversity-aware Wi-Fi using an
OFDM-based Bloom filter. In: Network Protocols (ICNP), 2012
T
20th IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2012)
[73] Lee, S., Choi, J., Yoo, J., Kim, C.K.: Frequency diversity-aware
IP
Wi-Fi using OFDM-based Bloom filters. IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing 14(3), 525–537 (2015)
[74] Broder, A., Mitzenmacher, M.: Network applications of Bloom
filters: A survey. Internet mathematics 1(4), 485–509 (2004)
CR
[75] Lv, S., Zhang, Y., Li, W., Lu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, X., Zhou,
X.: Frequency-code domain contention in multi-antenna multi-
carrier wireless networks. Journal of Communications and Net-
works 18(2), 218–226 (2016)
[76] Lv, S., Dong, X., Shen, H., Wang, X., Zhou, X.: Signature-
[77]
based fast access coordination in multicarrier wireless networks.
In: General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (URSI GASS),
2014 XXXIth URSI, pp. 1–4. IEEE (2014)
Kwon, H., Seo, H., Kim, S., Lee, B.G.: Generalized CSMA/CA
protocol for OFDMA systems. In: Global Telecommunications
Conference, 2008. IEEE GLOBECOM 2008. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
IEEE (2008)
[78] Kwon, H., Seo, H., Kim, S., Lee, B.G.: Generalized CSMA/CA
for OFDMA systems: protocol design, throughput analysis, and
implementation issues. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Commu-
nications 8(8) (2009)
[79] Wang, J., Kang, G., Zhang, P.: A two-dimensional medium
access control protocol based on OFDMA and CSMA/CA. In:
Wireless Telecommunications Symposium (WTS), 2011, pp. 1–
5. IEEE (2011)
[80] Wang, Y., Luo, T., Li, J.: A hybrid multi-channel based
medium access control mechanism for WLAN (2013)
[81] Deng, D.J., Lien, S.Y., Lee, J., Chen, K.C.: On quality-of-
service provisioning in IEEE 802.11 ax WLANs. IEEE Access
4, 6086–6104 (2016)
[82] Qu, Q., Li, B., Yang, M., Yan, Z.: An OFDMA based concur-
rent multiuser MAC for upcoming IEEE 802.11 ax. In: Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WC-
NCW), 2015 IEEE, pp. 136–141. IEEE (2015)
[83] Haile, G., Lim, J.: C-OFDMA: Improved throughput for next
generation WLAN systems based on OFDMA and CSMA/CA.
In: Intelligent Systems Modelling & Simulation (ISMS), 2013
4th International Conference on, pp. 497–502. IEEE (2013)
[84] Herzen, J., Banchs, A., Shneer, V., Thiran, P.: CSMA/CA in
time and frequency domains. In: Network Protocols (ICNP),
2015 IEEE 23rd International Conference on, pp. 256–266.
IEEE (2015)
[85] Alvi, S.A., Baig, A., Sattar, K.: Frequency-domain backoff
mechanism for OFDM-based wireless LANs. Arabian Journal
for Science and Engineering 41(12), 4995–5008 (2016)
[86] Alvi, S.A., Baig, A.: Contention resolution in wireless LANs
using frequency-domain backoff. In: Wireless and Mobile Com-
puting, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE
8th International Conference on, pp. 84–91. IEEE (2012)
[87] Alvi, S.A., Baig, A.: No more hidden backoff: Advertise backoff
in frequency domain. In: Telecommunication Networks and
Applications Conference (ATNAC), 2014 Australasian, pp. 217–
222. IEEE (2014)
[88] Mawlawi, B., DORe, J.B., Lebedev, N., Gorce, J.M.: Multiband
CSMA/CA with RTS-CTS strategy. In: Wireless and Mobile
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2014
IEEE 10th International Conference on, pp. 628–633. IEEE
(2014)
[89] Lee, J., Kim, C.: An efficient multiple access coordination
scheme for OFDMA WLAN. IEEE Communications Letters
21(3), 596–599 (2017)
[90] Zhang, Y., Li, B., Yang, M., Yan, Z., Zuo, X.: An OFDMA-
based joint reservation and cooperation mac protocol for the
next generation WLAN. Wireless Networks (2017). URL
https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11276-017-1567-1
[91] Lu, F., Voelker, G.M., Snoeren, A.C.: Managing contention
with Medley. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 14(3),
579–591 (2015)
[92] Zhang, H., Zhao, Q., Dang, P., Dai, H., Ma, Z.: A weighted
T2F scheme for WLANs. In: Mobile and Wireless Technology
2015, pp. 75–82. Springer (2015)
[93] Lee, S., Choi, J., Yoo, J., Kim, C.K.: Providing quality-of-
service for frequency-aware Wi-Fi using OFDM-based variable-
length Bloom filters. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Commu-
nications and Networking 2014(1), 152 (2014)
[94] Zhang, H., Zhao, Q., Ma, Z., Xu, F.: Design and analysis of
weighted frequency-domain contention in wireless LANs. IEEE
Access 5, 1639–1648 (2017)
[95] Zhou, H., Li, B., Yan, Z., Yang, M., Qu, Q.: An OFDMA based
multiple access protocol with QoS guarantee for next generation
WLAN. In: Signal Processing, Communications and Comput-
ing (ICSPCC), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1–6.
IEEE (2015)
[96] Zhou, H., Li, B., Yan, Z., Yang, M.: A channel bonding based
QoS-aware OFDMA MAC protocol for the next generation
WLAN. Mobile Networks and Applications 22(1), 19–29 (2017)
US
AN
[97] Choi, Y.J., Park, S., Bahk, S.: Multichannel random access in
OFDMA wireless networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications 24(3), 603–613 (2006)
[98] Chang, Y.J., Chien, F.T., Kuo, C.C.J.: Opportunistic access
with random subchannel backoff (OARSB) for OFDMA uplink.
M
In: Global Telecommunications Conference, 2007. GLOBE-
COM’07. IEEE, pp. 3240–3244. IEEE (2007)
[99] Mutairi, A., Roy, S.: Exponential backoff in frequency-domain
for random access in OFDMA femtocells. In: Wireless Com-
munications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2013 IEEE,
ED
pp. 464–469. IEEE (2013)
[100] Saha, D., Dutta, A., Grunwald, D., Sicker, D.: PHY aided
MAC - A new paradigm. In: INFOCOM 2009, IEEE, pp. 2986–
2990. IEEE (2009)
[101] Shen, H., Lv, S., Sun, Y., Dong, X., Wang, X., Zhou, X.: Con-
PT
current access control using subcarrier signature in heteroge-
neous MIMO-based WLAN. Multiple Access Communications
pp. 109–121 (2012)
[102] Zhou, W., Li, D., Srinivasan, K., Sinha, P.: Domino: Rela-
tive scheduling in enterprise wireless LANs. In: Proceedings of
CE
the ninth ACM conference on Emerging networking experiments
and technologies, pp. 381–392. ACM (2013)
[103] Zheng, M., Lin, J., Liang, W., Yu, H.: A priority-aware fre-
quency domain polling mac protocol for OFDMA-based net-
AC
works in cyber-physical systems. IEEE/CAA Journal of Auto-
matica Sinica 2(4), 412–421 (2015)
[104] H. Lou, X. Wang, J. Fang, M. Ghosh, G. Zhang, and R. Olesen,
“Multi-user parallel channel access for high efficiency carrier
grade wireless LANs,” in Communications (ICC), 2014 IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 3868–3870.
[105] Karaca, M., Bastani, S., Priyanto, B.E., Safavi, M., Landfeldt,
B.: Resource management for OFDMA based next generation
802.11 WLANs. In: Wireless and Mobile Networking Confer-
ence (WMNC), 2016 9th IFIP, pp. 57–64. IEEE (2016)
[106] B. Bellalta and K. Kosek-Szott, “Ap-initiated multi-user
transmissions in IEEE 802.11 ax WLANs,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1702.05397, 2017.
[107] O. Sharon and Y. Alpert, “Scheduling strategies and through-
put optimization for the downlink for IEEE 802.11 ax and IEEE
802.11 ac based networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04818,
23
2017.
[108] O. Sharon and Y. Alpert, “Scheduling strategies and through-
put optimization for the uplink for IEEE 802.11 ax and IEEE
802.11 ac based networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10657,
2018.
[109] Zhang, H., Zhao, Q., Xu, F.: Impact of integer carrier fre-
quency offset on the performance of frequency-domain con-
tention. Electronics Letters 53(14), 970–972 (2017)
[110] Zarinni, F., Das, S.R.: btFICA MAC protocol for high data
rate WLANs. In: Computer Communications and Networks
(ICCCN), 2012 21st International Conference on, pp. 1–9. IEEE
(2012)
[111] F. M. Abinader, E. P. Almeida, F. S. Chaves, A. M. Caval-
cante, R. D. Vieira, R. C. Paiva, A. M. Sobrinho, S. Choudhury,
E. Tuomaala, K. Doppler et al., “Enabling the coexistence of
T
LTE and Wi-Fi in unlicensed bands,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 54–61, 2014.
IP
[112] S. Yun and L. Qiu, “Supporting WiFi and LTE co-existence,”
in Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2015 IEEE Con-
ference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 810–818.
[113] H. Zhang, X. Chu, W. Guo, and S. Wang, “Coexistence of
CR
Wi-Fi and heterogeneous small cell networks sharing unlicensed
spectrum,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.
158–164, 2015.
[114] Y. Song, K. W. Sung, and Y. Han, “Coexistence of Wi-Fi and
cellular with listen-before-talk in unlicensed spectrum,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 161–164, 2016.
[115] Z. Guan and T. Melodia, “CU-LTE: Spectrally-efficient and
fair coexistence between LTE and Wi-Fi in unlicensed bands,”
in INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Con-
ference on Computer Communications, IEEE. IEEE, 2016,
pp. 1–9.
[116] B. Chen, J. Chen, Y. Gao, and J. Zhang, “Coexistence of LTE-
LAA and Wi-Fi on 5 GHz with corresponding deployment sce-
narios: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–32, 2017.
[117] X. Wang, S. Mao, and M. X. Gong, “A survey of LTE Wi-Fi
coexistence in unlicensed bands,” GetMobile: Mobile Comput-
ing and Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 17–23, 2017.
[118] P. Gawlowicz, A. Zubow, and A. Wolisz, “Enabling cross-
technology communication between LTE unlicensed and WiFi,”
in IEEE INFOCOM, 2018.
[119] G. Naik, J. Liu, and J.-M. Park, “Coexistence of wireless tech-
nologies in the 5 GHz bands: A survey of existing solutions and
a roadmap for future research,” IEEE Communications Surveys
& Tutorials, 2018.
[120] S. Zinno, G. Di Stasi, S. Avallone, and G. Ventre, “On a fair
coexistence of LTE and Wi-Fi in the unlicensed spectrum: A
survey,” Computer Communications, vol. 115, pp. 35–50, 2018.
[121] S. Chen, R. Ma, H.-H. Chen, H. Zhang, W. Meng, and J. Liu,
“Machine-to-machine communications in ultra-dense networks–
A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 1478–1503, 2017.
[122] H. Ji, S. Park, J. Yeo, Y. Kim, J. Lee, and B. Shim, “Introduc-
tion to ultra reliable and low latency communications in 5G,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05565, 2017.
[123] C. Bockelmann, N. Pratas, H. Nikopour, K. Au, T. Svens-
son, C. Stefanovic, P. Popovski, and A. Dekorsy, “Massive
machine-type communications in 5G: Physical and MAC-layer
solutions,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 9, pp.
59–65, 2016.
[124] S. K. Sharma, T. E. Bogale, L. B. Le, S. Chatzinotas, X. Wang,
and B. Ottersten, “Dynamic spectrum sharing in 5G wireless
networks with full-duplex technology: Recent advances and re-
search challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 674–707, Firstquarter 2018.
[125] M. Luvisotto, A. Sadeghi, F. Lahouti, S. Vitturi, and M. Zorzi,
“RCFD: A novel channel access scheme for full-duplex wireless
networks based on contention in time and frequency domains,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, pp. 1–1, 2018.
[126] Luvisotto, M., Sadeghi, A., Lahouti, F., Vitturi, S., Zorzi, M.:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RCFD: A frequency-based channel access scheme for full-duplex

wireless networks. In: Communications (ICC), 2016 IEEE In-
ternational Conference on, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2016)
[127] Lee, J., Ahn, H., Kim, C.: An OFDMA two-symbol coordi-
nation MAC protocol for full-duplex wireless networks. In: In-
formation Networking (ICOIN), 2017 International Conference
on, pp. 344–348. IEEE (2017)
[128] Ma, Z., Zhao, Q., Zhang, H.: Providing differentiated services
for full-duplex wireless LANs. In: International Conference on
Mobile and Wireless Technology, pp. 65–74. Springer (2017)
[129] F. Hu, B. Chen, and K. Zhu, “Full spectrum sharing in cogni-
tive radio networks toward 5G: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 6,
pp. 15 754–15 776, 2018.
[130] Wang, L., Wu, K., Xiao, J., Hamdi, M.: FCM: Frequency
domain cooperative sensing and multi-channel contention for

T
CRAHNs. In: Global Communications Conference (GLOBE-
COM), 2012 IEEE, pp. 422–426. IEEE (2012)

IP
[131] Wang, L., Wu, K., Xiao, J., Hamdi, M.: Harnessing frequency
domain for cooperative sensing and multi-channel contention
in CRAHNs. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications
13(1), 440–449 (2014)

CR
[132] Zheng, M., Liang, W., Yu, H., Song, M.: SMCSS: A quick
and reliable cooperative spectrum sensing scheme for cognitive
industrial wireless networks. IEEE Access 4, 9308–9319 (2016)
[133] Kong, L., Chen, X., Liu, X., Rao, L.: FINE: Frequency-
divided instantaneous neighbors estimation system in vehicular
networks. In: Pervasive Computing and Communications (Per-
Com), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 172–177.
IEEE (2015) US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

24