Interference aware fair rate control in wireless sensor networks ifrc
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 37

Interference-Aware Fair Rate Control in Wireless Sensor Networks (IFRC) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Interference-Aware Fair Rate Control in Wireless Sensor Networks (IFRC). Sumit Rangwala Ramakrishna Gummadi, Ramesh Govindan, Konstantinos Psounis. Wireless network of N nodes Data transmission over multiple hops to a single node

Download Presentation

Interference-Aware Fair Rate Control in Wireless Sensor Networks (IFRC)

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Interference aware fair rate control in wireless sensor networks ifrc

Interference-Aware Fair Rate Control in Wireless Sensor Networks (IFRC)

Sumit Rangwala

Ramakrishna Gummadi, Ramesh Govindan, Konstantinos Psounis


Problem definition

Wireless network of N nodes

Data transmission over multiple hops to a single node

“Design a distributed algorithm to dynamically allocate fair and efficient rate to each flow”

f11

f13

f15

f19

f20

Problem Definition

Neighbor

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

16

20

21


Motivation a wireless sensor network for collecting structural vibrations

Motivation: A Wireless Sensor Network for Collecting Structural Vibrations

  • Nodes measured vibrations and transmitted it to a central node

    • Over multiple hops

  • Preconfigured rates for each flow

    • Led to congestion

      • More than an hour to receive 10 min of vibration data in a 15 node network


Assumptions

f11

f13

f15

f19

f20

Assumptions

Neighbor

  • CSMA MAC (without RTS/CTS)

  • Link-layer retransmissions

  • Routing Tree

  • One flow originating per node

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

16

20

21

Assumptions consistent with current practice in sensornets


Challenges

fi

fj

Challenges

  • Goal

    • Max-min allocation

  • Wireless Networks

    • Transmission rate from a node to its neighbor depends on neighborhood traffic

    • Flows affecting this transmission rate are not merely flows traversing a node.

A

m

n

B

Flows that affect each others' rate may not traverse a common link or node


Challenges1

Challenges

  • Transmission rate along 16 →14

    • Dependent on traffic on various other links

      • 20 → 16, 21 → 16, 14 → 12

      • 17 →14, 13 →11, 12 →10

10

Neighbor

  • Transmission rate along 16 →14

    • Dependent on traffic on various other links

      • 20 → 16 (a) , 21 → 16 (b), 14 → 12 (c)

      • 17 →14 (d), 13 →11 (e), 12 →10 (f)

  • Transmission rate along 16 →14

    • Dependent on traffic on various other links

      • 20 → 16 (a) , 21 → 16 (b), 14 → 12 (c)

      • 17 →14 (d), 13 →11 (e), 12 →10 (f)

  • Transmission rate along 16 →14

    • Dependent on traffic on various other links

      • 20 → 16 (a) , 21 → 16 (b), 14 → 12 (c)

      • 17 →14, 13 →11, 12 →10

Child/Parent

f

11

12

e

c

13

14

15

d

  • The rate of flows traversing 16 →14 (flows from 20, 21, and 16)

    • … is affected by rate of:

      • Flows originating from 17, 14, 13, 12,

      • As well as 15, 18, 19

16

17

18

19

a

b

20

21


Definition potential interferer

Definition: Potential Interferer

Interfering links

l1 interferes with a link l2 if transmission along l1 prevents

  • initiation of a transmission along l2 or

  • successful reception of a transmission along l2.

    Potential interferer

    Node n1 is a potential interferer of node n2 if

  • flow originating from node n1 uses a link that interferes with the link n2 → parent(n2).

10

Neighbor

Child/Parent

f

11

12

e

c

13

14

15

d

For CSMAand many-to-one traffic

potential interferer (ni) includes

  • neighbors of ni

  • neighbors of parent(ni)

  • Descendents of all the above nodes

16

17

18

19

a

b

20

21


Ifrc design

IFRC Design

  • Congestion Detection

    • Based on avg. queue length

  • Congestion Sharing

    • To all the potential interferers

  • Rate Adaptation

    • AIMD

rlocal (rate of flow from this node)

Forwarding Traffic

Queue at each node

Packet transmitted until queue is empty (with retransmission)

IFRC adapts rate of flow originating at a node,

not the rate of flows traversing the node


Congestion detection and rate adaptation

Congestion Detection and Rate Adaptation

  • Congestion Detection

    • Based on queue length calculated as

      qavg = wq * qinst + (1- wq) * qavg

    • Thresholding

  • Rate Adaptation

    • Every 1/rate sec (Additive Increase)

      rate= rate + δ/ rate

    • On local congestion (Multiplicative Decrease)

      rate= rate/2


Congestion sharing

Congestion Sharing

  • Each node piggybacks on every transmitted packet

    • Its own rate (rlocal) and its congestion state

    • Rate and congestion state of its most congested child


Congestion sharing1

Congestion Sharing

Rule 1:

Local rate of a node should not be greater than that of its parent

(rlocal <rparent)

Rule 2:

For any congested neighbor or congested child of a neighbor

Local rate should not be greater than the rate of the congested node

(rlocal <rcongested node)

10

Neighbor

Child/Parent

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

These rules are sufficient to signal all potential interferers


Parameter selection

Queue Threshold

Network size and topology

Avg. depth of the tree

Queue Threshold

Parameter Selection

  • Additive Increase

    • δ = rate of increase

  • Analytically characterize δ to ensure stability


Evaluation on sensor testbed

32

4

31

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

3

30

5

29

6

2

21

20

7

1

28

27

25

19

18

16

14

13

12

9

8

26

24

23

22

15

11

17

10

4th Floor

Evaluation on Sensor Testbed

  • Platform

    • Tmote Sky

    • TinyOS 1.1.15

  • Setup

    • 40 node testbed

      • Network diameter = 8 hops

    • Static routing tree

      • Depth of the Tree = 9 hops

      • Link quality varied from 66% to 96%

  • Each experiment was conducted for an hour

Base Station


Topology

Topology

Base Station


Per flow goodput and packet reception

Per Flow Goodput and Packet Reception

Average goodput as well as the instantaneous goodput is fair


Comparison with optimal

Comparison with Optimal

IFRC achieves 80% of the optimal fair rate

IFRC achieves 60% of the optimal fair rate

IFRC achieves 60-80% of the optimal fair rate


Rate adaptation and instantaneous queue length

Rate Adaptation and Instantaneous Queue Length

Max Buffer Size = 64

Not a single drop due to queue overflow


Weighted fairness

Weighted Fairness

  • IFRC works without modification

    • Sending rate = weight* rlocalpkts/sec

w = 1

w = 2

w = 1

IFRC assigns rate proportional to node weight


Multiple sink

Multiple Sink

  • Two base stations rooted at 1 and 41

    • Nodes get rates that are fair across trees

  • IFRC is efficient

    • Node 4,5 and 6 get greater (but equal) rates

      • Their flows don’t traverse the most congested region.


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Analysis of set of flows that share congestion at a node

    • Potential interferers

  • Design and implementation of low-overhead rate control mechanism

  • Analysis of IFRC’s steady-state behavior

    • Provide guidelines for parameters selection


Thank you

Thank You

  • For more Information

    • http://enl.usc.edu/~srangwal/projects/ifrc.html

  • Code

    • Tinyos contrib

      • tinyos-1.x/contrib/usc-ifrc

    • ENL public CVS

      • http://enl.usc.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs/viewcvs.cgi/ifrc


Backup slides

Backup Slides


Definition fair and efficient allocation

Definition: Fair and Efficient Allocation

  • fiflow originating from node i

  • Fiflows routed through node I

  • At each node i, define Ғito be the union of Fi and all sets Fj

    • where j is either a neighbor of i, or a neighbor of i’s parent. These flows are flows from i’s potential interferers.

  • Allocate to each flow in Ғia fair and efficient share of the nominal bandwidth B. Denote by fl,ithe rate allocated at node i to flow l.

  • Repeat this calculation for each node.

  • Assign to flthe minimum of fl,i over all nodes i.

10

Neighbor

Child/Parent

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


Related work

Sensornets

Graceful, fair, degradation under load [Hull et al. (Fusion), Wan et al. (CODA)]

Centralized rate allocation [Sankarasubramaniam et al. (ESRT), Ee et al.]

AIMD-based rate adaptation without congestion sharing [Woo et al.]

Wireless ad-hoc networks

Congestion sharing heuristics for any-to-any communication [Xu et al. (NRED)]

Related Work

Unlike prior work, we precisely identify the set of potential interferers

These heuristics don’t precisely identify the set of potential interferers


Congestion detection

Congestion Detection

  • Based on queue length calculated as EWMA

    qavg = wq * qinst + (1- wq) * qavg

  • Multiple thresholds

    • Lower threshold L

    • Upper thresholds U(k) = U(k-1) + I/2k-1

      • U(0) = U

Local Congestion

L

U

U + I

U + 3I/2

Local Congestion


Rate adaptation

Rate Adaptation

  • Slow start

    • Starts with rate = rinit

    • Every 1/ ratesec

      • rate= rate + Φ

  • Slow start ends when

    • node itself get congested

    • constrained by other nodes to reduce its rate

      • Congestion sharing


Congestion detection and rate adaptation1

every 1/ri sec

ri = ri+δ/ri

ri = ri /2

ri = ri /2

ri = ri /2

L

U

U + I

U + 3I/2

every 1/ri sec

ri = ri+δ/ri

ri remains unchanged

Congestion Detection andRate Adaptation

Rate adaptation with changing queue size


Base station

Base Station

  • Maintains rbase station, like rlocal of any other node, to share congestion across nodes

  • Follows the same algorithm for rate adaptation with one exception

    • Decreases rbase stationonly when a child of base station is congested.

      • It does not decreases its rate when any other neighbor is congested or any child of a neighbor is congested.


Parameter selection steady state

Parameter Selection (Steady State)

  • Additive increase

  • Constraint on ε

  • U0 and U1 based on [Floyd et al.]

  • Rule of thumb for Fj

    • (n = size of network)


Evaluation tree

Evaluation (Tree)


Parameters used

Parameters Used


Comparison with optimal1

Comparison with Optimal

Max Queue Length

IFRC achieves 60-80% of the optimal fair rate


Node addition

Node Addition

Nodes join


Node deletion

Node Deletion

Nodes leave


Ifrc no link layer retransmissions

IFRC (No Link Layer Retransmissions)


Subset of node

Subset of node

  • Special case of weighted fairness

    • nodes with no data to send ≡ weight = 0


Multiple sink trees

Multiple Sink (Trees)

Base Stations


  • Login