1 / 33

Power Control for Distributed MAC Protocols in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

Power Control for Distributed MAC Protocols in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. Wei Wang, Vikram Srinivasan, and Kee-Chaing Chua National University of Singapore IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING OCTBER 2008. Outline. Introduction Related Work Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems

alton
Download Presentation

Power Control for Distributed MAC Protocols in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Power Control for Distributed MAC Protocols in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Wei Wang, Vikram Srinivasan, and Kee-Chaing Chua National University of Singapore IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING OCTBER 2008

  2. Outline • Introduction • Related Work • Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems • Discussions on RTS/CTS-Based Systems • Experimental Results • Conclusion • Comments

  3. Introduction • In wireless network, • both the space and time utilized for transmissions as shared resource • Efficient utilization of this limited resource is key to improving the performance of ad hoc networks • Transmission power control • Reducing the transmission power causes less interference to nearby receivers • More links can be activated simultaneously • Improving the overall throughput to the network

  4. Introduction (cont’d) • Common belief that • Using just-enough power to reach the receiver will both reduce the transmission power consumption and increase the network throughput • Linear power assignment [6] achieves a just-enough received power level for the receiver • Centralized vs. Distributed • Distributed MAC protocols • Disseminate collision avoidance information (CAI) • Carry the CAI… • RTS/CTS exchange, physical carrier sensing, or busy tone [6] T. Moscibroda and R. Wattenhofer, “The Complexity of Connectivity in Wireless Networks,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2006.

  5. Introduction (cont’d) • Linear power assignment • Achieves the same received power level at the receiving end for different link length • All receivers have the same tolerance for future interference no matter how close the transmitter-receiver pair is • Clear the same size of region around the receiver (CTS) • A short link with linear power assignment may need to block senders in a large region for a collision-free transmission wastes the limited space-time resource.

  6. Introduction (cont’d) • Basic trade-off between • Transmission power (transmitter) • determines how much interference the link has introduced to the channel • Interference tolerance (receiver) • determines how many future transmissions are blocked by the link • If the transmitter reduces its power, the receiver is more susceptible to interference and will have to block transmissions in a larger area.

  7. Introduction (cont’d) • Use simple model (RTS/CTS, fixed rate) • Investigate this basic trade-off in distributed MAC systems • Transmission floor of a link • the union of the RTS/CTS region • In order to increase the aggregated throughput • minimize the transmission floor used in each transmission subject to the SINR constraint of capture threshold β

  8. Introduction (cont’d) • Contributions • Optimal RTS/CTS-based MAC scheme • Minimize the transmission floor • Routing mechanisms • Favor short hops over long hops give at most a constant factor improvement in network throughput • power control should reside at the MAC layer and not at the routing layer • Extend the results drawn from the RTS/CTS system to other distributed MAC systems • Changing the transmission rate with respect to the link distance can at most increase the throughput by a factor of 2

  9. Related Work • Two major objectives for power control • Improve the space-time utilization • Save the energy used in transmission • Physical carrier sensing [8][9] • Protecting long-distance transmissions in 802.11 • Sensing area is centered at the transmitter • Reserves a larger transmission floor than the CTS area • Busy-tone-based approach [3][4] • To avoid collision, the receiver will send a busy tone in a separate channel to inform nearby nodes • A single channel solution [5] (POWMAC) • Centralized link scheduling [6][12] • Construct an efficient scheduling algorithm for network connectivity

  10. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems • System Model and Assumptions • Assumptions • A node has no knowledge of future transmissions in the vicinity before they occur • RTS messages and data packets are transmitted at the same power level • Node i is sending data to node j with transmission power Pt(i), the distance between node i and j is dij,andthe received power at node j is Pr(i)(j) Antenna Gain Path-loss Factor 2~4

  11. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • The SINR at the receiver is larger than a predefined capture threshold β • where Pr(k)(j) is the interference caused by the simultaneous transmission of node k, and Pn(j) is the noise level at node j.

  12. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Use the metric of Transport Capacity [2] to evaluate the performance of a network • define its transport throughput as the sum of products of the rate and link length over all simultaneously active links • Transport throughput is measured in bit-meters per second

  13. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • RTS range can serve • as a measurement of how much interference the sender introduces to its neighbors when transmitting the RTS/data packet • CTS range can serve • as the measurement of “interference” introduced by the receiver that blocks future transmissions around it. • Goal • minimizes the overall “interference” so that the spatial utilization can be increased.

  14. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Each link can only independently minimize its own transmission floor, to improve the spatial utilization of the whole network • Theorem 1 • For a transmitter-receiver pair (i,j) separated by the distance of dij, the minimum transmission floor reserved by the RTS/CTS-based system isΘ(β1/αdmaxdij), where dmax is the maximum transmission range used in the network.

  15. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • The maximal interference that the receiver j can tolerate • If a node k is transmitting at the maximal power Pmax and has a distance of dkj to the receiver and if we have

  16. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Define, • which is the distance threshold within which a node transmitting at Pmax can interfere with node j’s reception from node i. • The transmission range of CTS for node j should be at least dint(j) Precv is the receiver sensitivity CTS transmission power

  17. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • The transmission power Pt(j) of the CTS is inversely proportional to the transmission power Pt(i) of data and RTS. • When we reduce the power of the data packet, we need to increase the power of CTS accordingly, since the receiver is more vulnerable to interference The maximal transmission range

  18. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • The transmission range of CTS and RTS, respectively • dc= • dr= • will satisfy,

  19. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Let the area of the transmission floor be Aij(dc,dr) • Result (when dc* = dr* ) • The area of reserved floor is Θ(β1/αdmaxdij), when using the optimal power control scheme

  20. Power Control For RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Comparison with linear power assignment • a transmission power to guarantee a fixed receiving power level of ρPrecv • The transmission range of CTS is dint(j) = (β/ρ) 1/αdmax which is a constant comparable to dmax • When nodes i and j are very close to each other, node j still needs to send the CTS to clear a transmission floor with an area proportional to πdmax2

  21. Discussions on RTS/CTS-Based Systems • Routing-Layer Choice • Uniform Link Length vs. Heterogeneous Link Length • Theorem 2. For a network deployed in a field with area A, if all links are using the same transmission range of d and the transmission rate of R, the maximal total transport throughput of the network is • for a fixed maximal transmission range, no matter how small the link length d chosen by the routing layer is, the transport throughput can at most be improved by a constant factor

  22. Discussions on RTS/CTS-Based Systems (cont’d) • Link Asymmetry • cause fairness problems in RTS/CTS-base systems • The nearby long link (k,l) cannot hear the RTS/CTS of link (i,j),so it will always assume that the channel is idle, even when (i,j) is transmitting. In the optimal power control scheme • The transmission power for node i in this scheme is large enough so that node k cannot interfere link (i,j) once the transmission of node i has started

  23. Experiment Result • Simulation Setup • Parameters Used in simulation • Maximal transmission rage dmax ≒250m • Single channel system • String topology

  24. Experiment Result (cont’d) • Comparison to Other Power Control Schemes • NTPC (no power control) • TPC-O (optimal power control) • RTS, CTS, and data are sent at the optimal power • TPC-L1 (linear power assignment 1) • Use linear power assignment for RTS and data • ensures that the received power is just 3 dB above Precv. • CTS is sent using maximal power to prevent collisions • TPC-L2 (linear power assignment 2) • CTS power is the same as RTS/data • TPC-E (power control for energy saving) • RTS/CTS  Maximal Power, data  linear power assignment

  25. Experiment Result (cont’d) The collision rate of TPC-L2 rises when d is close to 150 m, where node B’s CTS cannot be heard by node C. Yet, it will interfere with node D’s reception.

  26. Experiment Result (cont’d)

  27. Experiment Result (cont’d) • Random Networks • 500m * 500m network with 200 randomly deployed nodes. • randomly choose 20 source destination pairs that are apart by more than 250 m

  28. Experiment Result (cont’d) • Random Networks • Routing Scheme 1 • The next-hop node is chosen to be the one that is closest to the destination and is not more than 250 m from the source. • Routing scheme 2 • This scheme is similar to scheme 1 but restricts the next-hop node to be within 100 m. • Routing scheme 3 • This scheme prefers shorter links. The next-hop node is selected as the closest node to the current transmitter among nodes that provide a positive progress toward the destination.

  29. Experiment Result (cont’d)

  30. Experiment Result (cont’d)

  31. Experiment Result (cont’d) Fig. 9. Experiment results on random networks of different sizes with optimal power control (a) Average link length. (b) Aggregated throughput (c) Transport throughput.

  32. Conclusions • Investigated the trade-off between transmission power and interference tolerance in distributed MAC systems • The transport throughput is determined by the maximal transmission range rather than the choice of routing protocols

  33. Comments • Discuss power control in RTS/CTS-based system in multi-dimension • Plentiful experiment result

More Related