DUPLEXING, MULTIPLEXING, AND MULTIPLE ACCESS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR
MESH NETWORKS
David W. Matolak
Ohio University
Athens, OH
ABSTRACT
Wireless mesh networks have seen much attention in
recent years, and are still a topic of much interest. These
networks have application in tactical military systems as
well as commercial systems. The question of which
duplexing, multiplexing, and multiple access techniques
are preferable for mesh networks is also a subject of some
study, but this particular topic has seen surprisingly little
attention. It appears that time-division, or “bursted”
waveforms are currently favored in many systems. In this
paper we provide a basic comparison of time, frequency,
and time-frequency schemes, highlighting their similarities
and differences. We also provide a straightforward
analysis of network capacity, with results that indicate that
time-frequency approaches may be superior to the other
more commonly employed techniques in some cases, such
as for long-range, high data rate networks.
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless mesh networks have been a subject of great
interest for some time [1]. Because of their advantages,
they are seeing attention in both commercial [2] and
tactical military communication systems [3]. Example
mesh network advantages can include reduced delay
(compared with relaying), connection of a local or “edge”
network to a “backbone” system, extension of system
range, etc. When some or all of the network platforms
(also called nodes) are mobile, the mesh network can be
termed a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) [4]. Mesh
networks can employ single or multiple hops to convey
messages to destinations [5]. When each node can reach all
other nodes in a single hop, the network is termed a “full
mesh.” When there is no centralized control or connection
to any type of backbone network, the networks are also
often termed “peer-to-peer.”
Specific topics of study in this area include many subjects
that span multiple layers of the communications protocol
stack, and the body of work is large. Here we cite only
representative examples, and broadly cover MANETs as
well as mesh networks. These topics include routing [6],
capacity [7], duplexing, multiplexing, and multiple access
(DM/MA) [8], connectivity [9], cross-layer design [10],
and physical layer issues that affect most of the previous
978-1-4244-2677-5/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
topics, e.g., [11], [12]. In terms of commercial systems,
nearly all studies address terrestrial networks, either
indoors or out, mobile or non-mobile, whereas a primary
military application is that of airborne networks [13]-[15].
Two recent works on airborne networks for commercial
applications are [16], [17].
Despite the large number of publications on MANETs and
mesh networks, surprisingly few address the appropriate
choice of duplexing, multiplexing and multiple access
scheme, and the conditions in which one scheme may be
preferable to another. Most studies either avoid the issue
and address a specific technique, sometimes associated
with a specific technology, e.g., IEEE 802.11 [2], or avoid
the issue by casting the problem in the most theoretical
manner possible, e.g., [7]. Commercial applications often
only cover short ranges, and compared to many military
systems, offer low to moderate data rates. In these
commercial applications, time division duplexing (TDD)
and time division multiple access (TDMA) are most
common [18]. These time division techniques appear to be
popular in military applications as well, e.g., [15]. In this
paper we address the selection of duplexing, multiplexing
and MA by analyzing and comparing characteristics of
time, frequency, and time-frequency division approaches
for a simple full mesh network. The use of code division
(via either frequency hopping, FH, or direct sequence, DS,
spread spectrum) offers an additional dimension for
resource allocation, but for brevity we reserve the
investigation of these techniques for future work.
In Section II, we describe the basic characteristics of our
example network. Section III describes each of the three
types of DM/MA schemes in this context, and in Section
IV we provide a straightforward comparison of these
schemes in terms of multiple characteristics. We conclude
with a summary in Section V.
II. NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS
For simplicity we consider a full mesh network of n
equivalent nodes. The nodes are arranged arbitrarily in
space, and any two nodes are capable of forming a link
with each other. For a given DM/MA scheme, the nodes
are assumed to be equivalent with the exact same
capabilities, including available transmission power,
bandwidth, receiver noise temperature, omni-directional
antennas, modulation/demodulation scheme, and signal
processing complexity; the network is ad hoc without any
centralized administration or control. The total available
bandwidth is W Hz for all schemes, and transmission rates
are uniform across the network, which means that for any
two-node pair, the average one-way data rate is Rb
bits/second. The DM/MA schemes operate such that all
transmissions are orthogonal, and no interference exists.
Orthogonality is achieved in either the time or frequency
domains, or both.
Any node has a total power available for transmission of
PTotal watts, during any time period. This is the power
available at the transmitter’s antenna input, and is the
“average power when transmitting,” which does not take
into account duty cycle for bursted transmissions. That is,
for bursted waveforms that use some form of time
division—with, for example, a duty cycle of 1/m—the long
term average power will be PTotal/m. We define PTotal in this
manner because any amplifier employed will have a peak
power constraint, and this is the power value that directly
determines the maximum possible transmitted and
received energy per bit, Eb, which directly translates to
system error probability performance (e.g., bit error ratio,
BER, or frame error ratio, FER).
For a network of n nodes, there is a total of ⎛⎜ n ⎞⎟ =n(n-1)/2
⎜ ⎟
⎝2⎠
one-way pairings, hence twice this number, or L=n(n-1)
total “channels” are required for full connectivity, where
the term channels represents either time slots, frequency
channels, or a specific time-slot/frequency-channel pair,
depending upon the DM/MA scheme. For orthogonal
transmissions, with an average transmission rate of Rb for
each one-way link, the L links then require a total
bandwidth of approximately W≅LRb, for all the DM/MA
schemes we consider. The aggregate data rate carried by
the network is also LRb. We assume that propagation path
loss is proportional to range (distance) d to the power α.
Similar to the “uniformity” of node capabilities, we also
assume equal ranges between all pairs of nodes. Even
though this is an idealized geometric condition (and can
not strictly be achieved in three-dimensional space when
n>4), we use this assumption to provide a simple means to
conduct our comparisons. For non-equal ranges between a
transmitting node and its n-1 receiving nodes, the total
power can be apportioned accordingly, but the power
available for transmission on any single link can never
exceed PTotal if all n-1 links are active. For analysis and
comparison, we assume for simplicity that the equal-range
2 of 7
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
condition holds, or alternatively assume that the longest-
range link attains the required data rate of Rb at the
minimum required received signal energy, and shorter-
range links can attain a larger received signal energy and
hence larger received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
The terms duplexing, multiplexing, and multiple access are
sometimes difficult to distinguish for mesh networks, as
we will show. Generally, duplexing refers to how a node
separates transmissions from receptions. Multiplexing
refers to the combination of signals (e.g., packets), and
multiple access to the means by which multiple signals are
separated, and both of these terms can refer to either
transmissions or receptions.
III. DUPLEXING, MULTIPLEXING/MA SCHEMES
A. Frequency Division
In our frequency division scheme, only the frequency
domain is used to separate transmissions in different
directions and transmissions/receptions of multiple users.
With L total links in the network, the bandwidth W must be
divided into L frequency channels. Since each one-way
link’s data rate is Rb, each channel’s bandwidth is
approximately WF≅W/L≅Rb1. This “channelization” in the
frequency domain is illustrated in Fig. 1. For brevity we
refer to this scheme as the “F” scheme.
Tx12 Tx21
… Txij Txji … Txn-1,n
f
~Rb
W~LRb
Fig. 1. Frequency division channel arrangement for mesh network of L=n(n-1)
links.
In Fig. 1, transmission from node i to j takes place in
channel Txij. Note that Txij is shown as adjacent to that for
transmission in the opposite direction (Txji), but this
specific arrangement likely would not be the actual
assignment, for reasons of “co-site interference” mitigation.
In general for the F scheme, a separation of up to ~W/2 Hz
can be attained for these alternate-direction channels. Fig.
1 also omits the essential guard bands that would be
required between channels in practice.
Since each node has power PTotal available for transmitting
simultaneously to n-1 other nodes, the per link
transmission power is
1
This RF bandwidth is proportional to the data rate, with the exact
constant of proportionality determined by the modulation and coding.
PF = PTotal /[β(n-1)].
where β is the power amplifier backoff used to avoid non-
linear distortion when a multi-carrier signal is transmitted.2
Generally 1≤β≤n-1 for n-1 carriers, with the upper limit
applicable when no linearization, “pre-distortion, or peak-
to-average power ratio (PAPR) reduction techniques are
used. These techniques are fairly well established, so that
implementations would likely have β<n-1.
For data rate Rb, the transmitted bit energy on any link is
Eb,F = PF /Rb = PTotal /[β(n-1)Rb].
and the received energy per bit is proportional to (2)
divided by dα.
If only k<n-1 links need rate Rb, more power is available
for transmission to these k nodes. This enables either
transmission at Rb bits/second at a larger range than if all
n-1 nodes were receiving (or transmission at rate larger
than Rb to each of these k nodes, if bandwidth permits)—
analogous comments will apply to the other DM/MA
schemes. The aggregate network data rate is still upper
bounded by LRb, since the total transmission power per
node is fixed. Worth noting is that each node is
simultaneously transmitting to n-1 other nodes, and at the
same time receiving from all n-1 nodes, since in a pure FD
scheme (with omnidirectional antennas), this is the only
way to attain a data rate of Rb on all one way links. Fig. 2
illustrates a simple 3-node mesh network, with fij~Txij.
2 and within each band, user signals are divided via time
f12
1 f21 f23 f
32
f13
f31
3 In the case of mesh networks, since there are multiple
Fig. 2. Three-node mesh network.
B. Time Division
In time division schemes, only the time domain is used to
separate transmissions among users and in different
directions, and hence this can be thought of as the “dual”
to the F scheme. We abbreviate this as the “T” scheme.
With L links to sustain, the time axis is divided into L
equal time slots of slot duration Tslot. The set of L
consecutive slots can be viewed as a frame of length
Tf=LTslot; see Fig. 3. Notation is analogous to that in Fig. 1,
2
We assume linear modulations, e.g., PSK or QAM.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(1) as are comments on placement of Txij and Txji channels;
additionally, guard times are not shown.
To attain an average data rate of Rb per one-way link, the
per-slot data rate must be Rb,T=LRb, which requires the
same total bandwidth as in the F case, W≅LRb. With PTotal
available at any node during any time slot, and recalling
L=n(n-1), the transmitted bit energy is
Eb,T = PTotal /Rb,T= PTotal /[n(n-1)Rb]. (3)
… …
(2) Tx12 Tx21 Txij Txji Txn-1,n
Tslot t
Tf=LTslot
Fig. 3. Time division slot arrangement for a mesh network of L=n(n-1) links
C. Time-Frequency Division
These are “hybrid” or “two-dimensional” schemes in
which time and frequency resources are both divided
among the n users. In centralized (“star” or “hub and
spoke” topology) systems, such TDD/FDMA and
FDD/TDMA schemes can be clearly distinguished, since
there are only two “directions” of transmission, but for
mesh networks this is not the case. To elaborate, in the
centralized system the FDD/TDMA scheme divides the
available spectrum into two bands (an “uplink” and a
“downlink” band). Transmission in the two bands takes
place in only the two directions (to or from the “base”),
slots. This approach is used in GSM cellular systems. The
TDD/FDMA centralized case can be described as having
time divided into only two slots (an uplink and downlink
slot), and when a user transmits in either slot, it does so on
one of the several available frequency channels.
directions of transmission, the distinction between these
two approaches disappears. We consider four distinct TF
schemes here. Fig. 4 provides an illustration of the
resource allocation for TF scheme TF1 for n=3 nodes. Fig.
4 shows n-1=2 frequency channels and n=3 time slots,
yielding L=n(n-1) orthogonal channels. During each slot,
only one node is receiving, and this node does so
simultaneously from the other n-1 nodes on the n-1
frequency channels; each of the n nodes has its own
receiving time slot.
3 of 7
 f
f
f2 Tx31 Tx32 Tx23
… Tx3 f3 Tx31 Tx32
f1 Tx21 Tx12 Tx13
Tx2 f2 Tx23 Tx21 …
Rx1 Rx2 Rx3 t
Fig. 4. Illustration of time and frequency allocations for n=3 2D TF1 scheme. Tx1 f1 Tx12 Tx13
Actual assignment of frequency channels to the n-1 t
transmitting nodes during each time slot is arbitrary, but in Fig. 6. Time and frequency allocations for n=3 2D TF3 scheme.
general, at least some of the nodes must be able to both
transmit and receive on all n-1 frequency channels (during The final TF scheme is shown in Fig. 7. For this scheme
different time slots). Each frequency channel has each frequency channel is dedicated to reception by a
bandwidth approximately W/(n-1), and for average rate Rb, given user, and the slot data rates, per link transmit powers,
transmission during each slot must be at Rb,TF1=nRb. With and energy per bit are the same as that for scheme three.
available transmit power PTotal during any slot, the
transmitted bit energy is f

Eb,TF1 = PTotal /Rb,TF1 = PTotal /[nRb]. (4) Rx3 f3 Tx13 Tx23

The second TF scheme is shown in Fig. 5, with n time Rx2 f2 Tx32 Tx12 …
slots and n-1 frequency channels, but here time slots are
assigned to transmissions by a given node, hence multi-
carrier transmission is required. The per-slot data rate is Rx1 f1 Tx21 Tx31
Rb,TF2=nRb, and the power per link is PTotal/[β(n-1)]. The
transmitted bit energy is then t
Fig. 7. Time and frequency allocations for n=3 2D TF4 scheme.
Eb,TF2 = PTotal /[β(n-1)Rb,TF2] = PTotal /[βn(n-1)Rb]. (5)
IV. COMPARISON OF DM/MA SCHEMES
f
A. Quantitative Comparison
f2 Tx13 Tx23 Tx32
… For all schemes, we can compare relative ranges by
comparing the distances at which all obtain the same
f1 Tx12 Tx21 Tx31 received bit energy, assuming the same available PTotal and
the same average data rate Rb. The received bit energy is
Tx1 Tx2 Tx3 t equal to the transmitted bit energy divided by dα. For any
of the schemes, we have
Fig. 5. Time and frequency allocations for n=3 2D TF2 scheme.
Eb,rec’d = PT/link /[Rbxdα] (7)
The third TF scheme is illustrated in Fig. 6, with n-1 time
slots and n frequency channels; each frequency channel is where the power per link in each scheme is PT/link, and the
dedicated to one user, and each node uses only single transmitted data rate is Rbx. For example, for the T and F
carrier transmission. Similar to the previous schemes, we schemes, we have
have Rb,TF3=(n-1)Rb, per link transmit power is PTotal, and
transmitted bit energy is PT
Eb ,rec 'd , F = . (8)
β (n − 1) Rb d α
Eb,TF3 = PTotal/Rb,TF3=PTotal/[(n-1)Rb] (6)

4 of 7
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PT summary of the comparisons among all six schemes we
Eb ,rec 'd ,T = (9) have described is shown in Table I.
n( n − 1) Rb d α
Two rows of Table I compare the peak and average
where we’ve abbreviated PTotal by PT. Hence with equal PT,
transmit powers required of nodes in each scheme
equal average Rb and equal Eb, we have the following
(assuming a constant envelope modulation for simplicity).
range relationship between these two schemes:
One might claim that since the T scheme has a lower
1/ α
average power (because of its duty cycle), that the
dF ⎛ n ⎞ comparison is not fair. The counter argument to this is that
=⎜ ⎟ (10)
d T ⎜⎝ β ⎟⎠ all schemes require a power amplifier that can generate PT
watts for transmission. Some schemes use PT continuously,
so that dF>dT since generally β<n-1. Alternatively if we set whereas others do not. The best schemes in terms of range
the ranges of the two schemes to be equal, the data rate (or Rb) are TF3 and TF4, but TF1 is close, and does not
relationship for the two schemes is require the node to simultaneously transmit and receive.
The last row of Table I lists received SNRs, with
SNR=Prec’d/(N0B) with Prec’d equal to the per-link
Rb , F ⎛n⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (11) transmitted power divided by dα, B the occupied
Rb,T ⎝β ⎠ bandwidth per transmission, and N0 the thermal noise
density.
Hence for the same received SNR, the F scheme generally
has a larger range or larger data rate than the T scheme. A

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF DUPLEXING, MULTIPLEXING/MA SCHEME CHARACTERISTICS

Duplexing/MA Scheme
Characteristic F T TF1 TF2 TF3 TF4
# time slots 1 L n n n-1 n-1
# frequency L 1 n-1 n-1 n n
channels
Node Tx duty 1 1/n (n-1)/n 1/n 1 1
cycle
Node Rx duty 1 1/n 1/n (n-1)/n 1 1
cycle
Occupied W/L W W/(n-1) W/(n-1) W/n W/n
BW/transmission
Data rate per Rb LRb nRb nRb (n-1)Rb (n-1)Rb
transmission
Transmitted power PT /[β(n-1)] PT PT PT /[β(n-1)] PT PT
per link
Energy per bit PT /[β(n-1)Rb] PT /[LRb] PT /[nRb] PT /[βLRb] PT /[(n-1)Rb] PT /[(n-1)Rb]
(transmitted)
Node peak power PT PT PT PT PT PT
Node average PT/β PT/n PT(n-1)/n PT/β PT PT
power
# carriers/Tx n-1 1 1 n-1 1 1
Simultaneous Tx yes no no no yes yes
and Rx (node)?
Relative range (for ⎛ 1 ⎞
1/ α
⎛ 1 ⎞
1/ α
⎛1⎞
1/ α
⎛ 1 ⎞
1/α
⎛ 1 ⎞
1/ α
⎛ 1 ⎞
1/ α

equal Rb , Eb) ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ β ( n − 1 ) ⎠ ⎝ n( n − 1) ⎠ ⎝n⎠ ⎝ βn(n − 1) ⎠ ⎝ n −1⎠ ⎝ n −1⎠
Received SNR per PT n PT PT (n − 1) PT PT n PT n
link β d α N 0W α
d N 0W d α N 0W α
β d N 0W α
d N 0W α
d N 0W

5 of 7
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Using the relationships described, our full mesh network
can very easily be analyzed in terms of channel capacity.
Assuming an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)
channel, the one-way per link capacity in bits/second is
given by [19]
B schemes require each node to transmit simultaneously on
C= log 2 [1 + SNR ]
J n-1 frequency channels. In practice this can make it
with B the bandwidth of the channel in Hz, J the duty
cycle, or equivalently, the total number of time slots, and
the SNR is the received signal-to-noise ratio. With our
assumptions on equal data rates and node capabilities,
the total network capacity will be L times the value in
(12). For our three schemes, we have BF=W/L, BT=W,
BTF1=BTF2=W/(n-1), and BTF3=BTF4=W/n; and JF=1,
JT=L, JTF1=JTF2=n, and JTF3=JTF4=n-1, so for all three
schemes, B/J= W/L.
From these relationships, (12), and the SNRs in Table I,
it is easy to deduce that CTF3=CTF4>CTF1>CF>CT>CTF2.
Fig. 8 plots C/W versus “normalized distance” d for n=3
and α=2. For convenience in Fig. 6 we assume
PTotal/[N0W]=1, and d takes values in the range of 2 to 20.
The ordinate scale of Fig. 6 is logarithmic simply to
separate the curves for clarity, but the relative
relationships among the capacity values for all schemes
stay the same for any other values of n and α. For the
schemes that require multi-carrier transmission, we use
the worst case value of backoff β=n-1; hence with PAPR
reduction, these schemes (F and TF2) could improve.
The aim of the plot is not to show absolute capacity
values, but rather the relative values among the schemes.
0
10
-1
10
C/W (bps/Hz)
10
-2
10
-3
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Normalized Distance d
Fig. 8. Per-link relative spectral efficiency for six duplexing, multiplexing/MA
schemes vs. normalized distance d, for a constant total transmission power
and bandwidth, n=3, and α=2
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. Additional Remarks on Comparison
Clearly the selection of DM/MA technique depends
upon more than range and data rate, even for our single
full mesh example. One comment is that we have made
no restrictions on node complexity. The F and TF2
(12)
difficult to change the value of n unless adjacent
frequency channels can be easily combined and/or
divided. (One potential way of doing this is to employ
OFDMA, with a selectable number of subcarriers, in
addition to RF filtering.) It is clear that changing the
number of nodes in the T or TF schemes can be easier to
accomplish simply by the addition of more time slots,
with the penalty being increased latency. Practically,
nodes would likely be designed to accommodate some
maximum value of n.
In general, latency will be smallest for the F scheme, as
there is no “wait time” built into this DM/MA scheme as
is true for the others. The latency for the T scheme will
be largest, and that of the TF schemes in between.
Particularly for long range applications, where guard
times in the TF and T schemes may be appreciable,
latency can be a problem. This is especially true for
some applications like voice over IP, TCP, etc., since
with large guard times, to make time slots efficient in
terms of actual data transfer versus guard times, time
slots must be larger, and this will increase latency. One
advantage of the T scheme that is often proffered is the
ease with which asymmetric data transfer is
accomplished. Although true, in many topologies, this
means that either latency increases for those nodes not
requiring higher data rates, or that all nodes must accept
the largest duty cycle rate, as occurs for example in hub-
CF
CT
and-spoke topologies when one spoke requires say a
CTF1
50% duty cycle. Hence this advantage of the T scheme
CTF2 does not always apply.
CTF3=CTF4
Implementation of the multi-channel F scheme and TF
schemes is clearly a challenge as n increases, but most
examples describing real systems have a number of
network nodes that is typically small, e.g., fewer than 20
[3], [14], [15]. Interestingly, this tends to align with
theoretical findings from information theory, in which
the required “connectivity” of any node to ensure that a
16 18 20
path exists from any node to any other, is on the order of
loge(n) [9]. For 20 nodes, this means any node need not
be able to connect to more than ⎡log e ( 20 )⎤ = 3 other
nodes at any given time. For the pure F scheme with n=3,
6 total frequency channels are required, which could be
6 of 7
feasible with development of an adaptable stop-band
filter and high-rate signal processing techniques such as
fast sampling and transmultiplexing [20]. This offers a
possible solution to the F scheme’s node “gender”
problem cited in [3]. The TF schemes require even fewer
frequency channels, and some are single carrier, and TF1
does not require simultaneous transmission and
reception for any node.
Given the same power amplifier, the TF schemes may be
good alternatives to the F scheme. As with the F and T
schemes, if the number of nodes changes, the TF node
requires either adjustment of frequency channels or
adjustment of the number of time slots, or both.
For both commercial and military applications, other
considerations also arise, such as the “tier” in which a
node exists (e.g., “backbone” versus “edge”), the use of
low power (e.g., handheld) terminals with more severe
power constraints, and the use of directional antennas,
etc. These considerations, in addition to others such as
the study of other node topologies, use of spread
spectrum, and development of other, potentially more
“global” system performance metrics [21], provide
ample area for future work.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we cited examples from the large body of
work on mesh networks and MANETs, followed by a
straightforward comparative analysis of several
duplexing, multiplexing/MA schemes. When all
schemes employ the same power amplifier, we showed
that the TF schemes have clear advantages in terms of
range and data rate over the competing schemes that use
only time or frequency division (although the pure F
scheme can be competitive with effective PAPR
reduction). We also discussed other network and node
implementation issues that indicate that despite the
appeal and fairly widespread usage of time division
approaches, in many cases the use of time-frequency or
frequency division may be preferable.
7 of 7
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - Atilim Universitesi. Downloaded on October 07,2023 at 09:38:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
REFERENCES
[1] I. F. Akyildiz, X. Wang, W. Wang, “Wireless Mesh Networks: A Survey,”
Journ. Computer Networks (Elsevier), March 2004.
[2] J. D. Camp, E. W. Knightly, “The IEEE 802.11s Extended Service Set
Mesh Networking Standard,” IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 46, no.8, pp. 120-125,
August 2008.
[3] J. Yang, J. Boyd, D. Laney, J. Schlenzig, “Next Generation Half-Duplex
Common Data Link,” Proc. MILCOM ’07, Orlando, FL, 29-31 October 2007.
[4] G. Aggelou, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
2005.
[5] M. Haenggi, D. Puccinelli, “Routing in Ad Hoc Networks: A Case for
Long Hops,” IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 93-101, October 2005.
[6] F. Li, Y. Wang, “Routing in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey,”
IEEE Vehicular Technology Mag., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 12-22, June 2007.
[7] P. Gupta, P. R. Kumar, “The Capacity of Wireless Networks,” IEEE Trans.
Information Theory, vol. 46, pp. 388-404, March 2000.
[8] A. Otyakmaz, R. Schoenen, S. Dreier, B. H. Walke, “Parallel Operation of
Half- and Full-Duplex FDD in Future Multi-Hop Mobile Radio Networks,”
Proc. 14th European Wireless Conf., Prague, Czech Republic, 22-25 June
2008.
[9] F. Xue, P. R. Kumar, “The Number of Neighbors Needed for Connectivity
of Wireless Networks,” Wireless Networks (ACM Journal), vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
169-181, March 2004.
[10] C. Comaniciu, H. V. Poor, “On Energy-Efficient Cross-Layer Design:
Joint Power Control and Routing for Ad Hoc Networks,” EURASIP Journ.
Wireless Comm. & Networking, Article ID 60706, Volume 2007.
[11] K. Stamatiou, J. G. Proakis, “Assessing the Impact of Physical Layer
Techniques on Ad Hoc Network Performance,” Physical Communication
Journal (Elsevier), vol. 1, pp. 84-91, 2008.
[12] G. Ferrari, S. A. Malvassori, O. K. Tonguz, “On Physical Layer-Oriented
Routing with Power Control in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” Proc. IET
Communications, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 306-319, 2008.
[13] L. Schiavone, “Airborne Networking—Approaches and Challenges,”
Proc. MILCOM ’04, Monterey, CA, Oct. 31- Nov. 3, 2004.
[14] D. J. Van Hook, M. O. Yeager, J. D. Laird, “Automated Topology
Control for Wideband Directional Links in Airborne Military Networks,”
Proc. MILCOM ’05, Atlantic City, NJ, 17-20 October 2005.
[15] P. Griessler, J. B. Cain, R. Hanks, “Modeling Architecture for DTDMA
Channel Access Protocol for Mobile Network Nodes using Directional
Antennas,” Proc. MILCOM ’07, Orlando, FL, 29-31 October 2007.
[16] K. Karras, T. Kyritsis, M. A. Amirfeiz, S. Baiotti, “Aeronautical Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. 14th European Wireless Conference, Prague, Czech
Republic, 22-25 June 2008.
[17] C. Rokitansky, M Ehammer, T. Graupl, M. Schnell, S. Brandes, S.
Gligorevic, C. Rihacek, M. Sajatovic, “B-AMC—A System for Future
Broadband Aeronautical Multicarrier Communications in the L Band,” Proc.
IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conf., Dallas, TX, 21-25 October 2007.
[18] P. W. C. Chan, et. al., “The Evolution Path of 4G Networks: FDD or
TDD?” IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 42-50, December 2006.
[19] T. M. Cover, J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed.,
Wiley Publishers, Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
[20] f. j. harris, Multirate Signal Processing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 2004.
[21] Information Theory for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (ITMANET) DARPA
IPTO program, http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/itmanet/itmanet.asp