oar an opportunistic auto rate media access protocol for ad hoc networks n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
OAR: An Opportunistic Auto-Rate Media Access Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

OAR: An Opportunistic Auto-Rate Media Access Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 63 Views
  • Uploaded on

OAR: An Opportunistic Auto-Rate Media Access Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks. B. Sadeghi, V. Kanodia, A. Sabharwal, E. Knightly Presented by Sarwar A. Sha. Highest energy per bit. Lowest energy per bit. 802.11b – Transmission rates. Different modulation methods for transmitting data.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'OAR: An Opportunistic Auto-Rate Media Access Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks' - reagan-luna


Download Now 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
oar an opportunistic auto rate media access protocol for ad hoc networks

OAR: An Opportunistic Auto-Rate Media Access Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks

B. Sadeghi, V. Kanodia, A. Sabharwal, E. Knightly

Presented by Sarwar A. Sha

802 11b transmission rates

Highest energy per bit

Lowest energy per bit

802.11b – Transmission rates
  • Different modulation methods for transmitting data.
    • Binary/Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
    • Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
  • Each packs different quantities of data into the modulation.
  • The highest speed has most dense data and is most vulnerable to noise.

1 Mbps

2 Mbps

5.5 Mbps

11 Mbps

Time

transmission throughput
Transmission Throughput
  • Why would a node ever want to slow down?
    • Longer transmission distance
    • More robust modulation
    • Moving node rapidly changes channel conditions
  • Must adapt to channel conditions based on SNR

Image courtesy of G. Holland

background
Background

IEEE 802.11 multi-rate

  • Support of higher transmission rates in better channel conditions
  • Auto Rate Fallback(ARF)
    • Use history of previous transmissions to adaptively select future rates
    • Error free transmissions indicates high channel quality
    • Lucent ARF implemention reduces rate after 2 lost ACKs, then attempts to speed up after a time interval
  • Receiver Based Auto Rate(RBAR)
    • Use RTS/CTS to communicate a transmission rate based on channel quality. Receiver determines rate.
motivation

B

C

A

Motivation
  • Consider the situation below
    • ARF?
    • RBAR?
motivation1

Timeshare

A

C

B

B

C

A

Motivation
  • What if A and B are both at 56Mbps, and C is often at 2Mbps?
  • Slowest node gets the most absolute time on channel?

Throughput Fairness vs Temporal Fairness

opportunistic scheduling
Opportunistic Scheduling

Goal

  • Exploit short-time-scale channel quality variations to increase throughput.

Issue

  • Maintaining temporal fairness (time share) of each node.

Challenge

  • Channel info available only upon transmission
coherence interval

Coherence Interval

OAR Transmission

Coherence Interval
  • The time duration over which a channel is statistically likely to remain stable.
  • This interval ranges from (122ms) - (5ms) based on node motion at speeds of (1 m/s) - (20 m/s).
  • OAR was designed such that transmissions do not exceed the coherence interval “most” of the time.
opportunistic auto rate oar
Opportunistic Auto Rate (OAR)
  • Poor connections transmit one data packet per RTS/CTS connection.
  • Good connections, hence faster rate, transmit multiple data packets.
  • But maintain temporal fairness between good & bad connections by balancing the time using channel, not the number of packets.
    • i.e. (1 packet@2Mbps ~= 5 fast packets@11Mbps)
  • OAR: Higher overall throughput, while maintaining temporal fairness properties of single rate IEEE 802.11
oar protocol
OAR Protocol
  • Rates in IEEE 802.11b: 2, 5.5, and 11 Mbps
  • Number of packets transmitted by OAR ~
oar protocol rbar based

ACK

DATA

CTS

RTS

destination

source

OAR Protocol (RBAR Based)

Review: Receiver Based AutoRate (RBAR) [Bahl’01]

  • Receiver controls the sender’s transmission rate
  • Control messages sent at Base Rate
oar protocol multi packet

ACK

ACK

ACK

DATA

DATA

DATA

CTS

RTS

destination

source

OAR Protocol (Multi-packet)

OAR - Opportunistic Auto Rate

  • Once access granted, it is possible to send multiple packets if the channel is good
performance comparison

RBAR

R

D1

R

D2

R

D3

Transmitter

C

A

C

A

C

A

Receiver

OAR

Observation II

The total time in contention by OAR is approximately equal to total time spent in contention by single-rate IEEE802.11 for an experiment spanning T seconds

Observation I

Time spent in contention per packet by RBAR is exactly equal to the average time per packet spent in contention for single-rate IEEE802.11

R

D1

D2

D3

Transmitter

C

A

A

A

Receiver

Performance Comparison

IEEE 802.11

R

D1

Transmitter

C

A

Receiver

mac access delay simulation
MAC Access Delay Simulation
  • Back to back packets in OAR decrease the average access delay
  • Increase variance in time to access channel
  • Figure
    • On the left is 2Mbps
    • On the right is 5.5 Mbps
simulations
Simulations
  • Three Simulation experiments
    • Fully connected networks: all nodes in radio range of each other
      • Number of Nodes, channel condition, mobility, node location
    • Asymmetric topology
    • Random topologies
  • Implemented OAR and RBAR in ns-2 with extension of Ricean fading model [Punnoose et al ‘00]
1 fully connected setup
#1 Fully Connected Setup
  • Every node can communicate with everyone
  • Each node’s traffic is at a constant rate and continuously backlogged
  • Channel quality is varied dynamically
1 fully connected throughput results
#1 Fully Connected Throughput Results
  • OAR has 42% to 56% gain over RBAR
  • Increase in gain as number of flows increases
  • Note that both RBAR and OAR are significantly better than standard 802.11 (230% and 398% respectively)
  • Variation in line of sight (K), mobility, and location distribution throughput all showed improvements with OAR.
2 asymmetric topology setup
#2 Asymmetric TopologySetup

Low speed (L)

High Speed (H)

B

A

  • Asymmetric topology simulated above in 4 different combinations of channel conditions
    • A and B are simulated at slow (2Mbps) and fast (11Mbps)
    • Each combination of slow/fast i.e. LL, HL, LH, HH compared between A & B concurrently communicating
  • Sender of Flow B hears A and knows when to contend for channel, but sender in A has to discover a time slot
2 asymmetric topology results
#2 Asymmetric Topology Results
  • OAR maintains time shares of IEEE 802.11
  • Significant gain over RBAR
3 random topologies setup
#3 Random TopologiesSetup
  • A pair are moved across a communication range
  • Nodes are uniformly distributed over area similar to test setup #1
3 random topologies results
#3 Random TopologiesResults
  • Gains are similar as before despite changes
  • Throughput is 40-50% improved as compared to RBAR despite motion of a node pair.
integration with ieee 802 11
Integration with IEEE 802.11
  • Options to hold the channel and send multiple packets
    • Fragmentation*
      • A mechanism in IEEE 802.11 to send multiple frames
      • Each frame/ACK acts as virtual RTS/CTS
      • Use of more-fragment-flag in Data packets
    • Contention window set to zero
    • Packet bursting (802.11e)
      • Transmit as many frames as you like up to threshold

*Method used in study

discussion issues
Discussion Issues
  • Not enough packets to fill a slot
    • If running at “Good” 11Mbps with 5 packets allowed, but only have 2 packets to send. Then other nodes NAV tables are wrong (silent for 5 instead of 2).
      • Authors Fix: “More Fragments” indicator in the data packet. Upon hearing, nodes revert to RBAR.
      • Problem: Hidden terminals would still have incorrect NAV tables, and would remain silent longer than needed. (Unless the data ACK has a “More Fragments ACK.”)
discussion issues1
Discussion Issues
  • Channel condition changes during multi-packet transmission.
    • Channel gets worse
      • Later packets get corrupted
    • Channel gets better
      • Wasted channel capacity waiting for packets to finish
    • Authors propose adding RSH messages to notify receiver of these updates and adapt the rate.
      • The RSH is in the header of the data packet, and would allow changing speed mid transmission.
discussion issues2
Discussion Issues
  • Ad Hoc Networks considerations
    • Needed more variety in the network topology. Fully connected isn’t very interesting in Ad Hoc Networks
    • Data traffic patterns. I.e. short bursts of traffic vs continuous traffic.
    • No power considerations studied or mentioned
discussion issues3
Discussion Issues
  • Increase variance in time to access channel
    • Real-time traffic (like voice) is impacted. Sometimes there would be more delay before you hear “something.”
    • Short term fairness gets worse!
    • Trade throughput for a higher worst case time to access channel
ad