- •Introduction
- •Increasing Demand for Wireless QoS
- •Technical Approach
- •Outline
- •The Indoor Radio Channel
- •Time Variations of Channel Characteristics
- •Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
- •The 5 GHz Band
- •Interference Calculation
- •Error Probability Analysis
- •Results and Discussion
- •IEEE 802.11
- •IEEE 802.11 Reference Model
- •IEEE 802.11 Architecture and Services
- •Architecture
- •Services
- •802.11a Frame Format
- •Medium Access Control
- •Distributed Coordination Function
- •Collision Avoidance
- •Post-Backoff
- •Recovery Procedure and Retransmissions
- •Fragmentation
- •Hidden Stations and RTS/CTS
- •Synchronization and Beacons
- •Point Coordination Function
- •Contention Free Period and Superframes
- •QoS Support with PCF
- •The 802.11 Standards
- •IEEE 802.11
- •IEEE 802.11a
- •IEEE 802.11b
- •IEEE 802.11c
- •IEEE 802.11d
- •IEEE 802.11e
- •IEEE 802.11f
- •IEEE 802.11g
- •IEEE 802.11h
- •IEEE 802.11i
- •Overview and Introduction
- •Naming Conventions
- •Enhancements of the Legacy 802.11 MAC Protocol
- •Transmission Opportunity
- •Beacon Protection
- •Direct Link
- •Fragmentation
- •Traffic Differentiation, Access Categories, and Priorities
- •EDCF Parameter Sets per AC
- •Minimum Contention Window as Parameter per Access Category
- •Maximum TXOP Duration as Parameter per Access Category
- •Collisions of Frames
- •Other EDCF Parameters per AC that are not Part of 802.11e
- •Retry Counters as Parameter per Access Category
- •Persistence Factor as Parameter per Access Category
- •Traffic Streams
- •Default EDCF Parameter Set per Draft 4.0, Table 20.1
- •Hybrid Coordination Function, Controlled Channel Access
- •Controlled Access Period
- •Improved Efficiency
- •Throughput Improvement: Contention Free Bursts
- •Throughput Improvement: Block Acknowledgement
- •Delay Improvement: Controlled Contention
- •Maximum Achievable Throughput
- •System Saturation Throughput
- •Modifications of Bianchi’s Legacy 802.11 Model
- •Throughput Evaluation for Different EDCF Parameter Sets
- •Lower Priority AC Saturation Throughput
- •Higher Priority AC Saturation Throughput
- •Share of Capacity per Access Category
- •Calculation of Access Priorities from the EDCF Parameters
- •Markov Chain Analysis
- •The Priority Vector
- •Results and Discussion
- •QoS Support with EDCF Contending with Legacy DCF
- •1 EDCF Backoff Entity Against 1 DCF Station
- •Discussion
- •Summary
- •1 EDCF Backoff Entity Against 8 DCF Stations
- •Discussion
- •Summary
- •8 EDCF Backoff Entities Against 8 DCF Stations
- •Discussion
- •Summary
- •Contention Free Bursts
- •Contention Free Bursts and Link Adaptation
- •Simulation Scenario: two Overlapping QBSSs
- •Throughput Results with CFBs
- •Throughput Results with Static PHY mode 1
- •Delay Results with CFBs
- •Conclusion
- •Radio Resource Capture
- •Radio Resource Capture by Hidden Stations
- •Solution
- •Mutual Synchronization across QBSSs and Slotting
- •Evaluation
- •Simulation Results and Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •Prioritized Channel Access in Coexistence Scenarios
- •Saturation Throughput in Coexistence Scenarios
- •MSDU Delivery Delay in Coexistence Scenarios
- •Scenario
- •Simulation Results and Discussion
- •Conclusions about the HCF Controlled Channel Access
- •Summary and Conclusion
- •ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2
- •Reference Model (Service Model)
- •System Architecture
- •Medium Access Control
- •Interworking Control of ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 and IEEE 802.11
- •CCHC Medium Access Control
- •CCHC Scenario
- •CCHC and Legacy 802.11
- •CCHC Working Principle
- •CCHC Frame Structure
- •Requirements for QoS Support
- •Coexistence Control of ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 and IEEE 802.11
- •Conventional Solutions to Support Coexistence of WLANs
- •Coexistence as a Game Problem
- •The Game Model
- •Overview
- •The Single Stage Game (SSG) Competition Model
- •The Superframe as SSG
- •Action, Action Space A, Requirements vs. Demands
- •Abstract Representation of QoS
- •Utility
- •Preference and Behavior
- •Payoff, Response and Equilibrium
- •The Multi Stage Game (MSG) Competition Model
- •Estimating the Demands of the Opponent Player
- •Description of the Estimation Method
- •Evaluation
- •Application and Improvements
- •Concluding Remark
- •The Superframe as Single Stage Game
- •The Markov Chain P
- •Illustration and Transition Probabilities
- •Definition of Corresponding States and Transitions
- •Solution of P
- •Collisions of Resource Allocation Attempts
- •Transition Probabilities Expressed with the QoS Demands
- •Average State Durations Expressed with the QoS Demands
- •Result
- •Evaluation
- •Conclusion
- •Definition and Objective of the Nash Equilibrium
- •Bargaining Domain
- •Core Behaviors
- •Available Behaviors
- •Strategies in MSGs
- •Payoff Calculation in the MSGs, Discounting and Patience
- •Static Strategies
- •Definition of Static Resource Allocation Strategies
- •Experimental Results
- •Scenario
- •Discussion
- •Persistent Behavior
- •Rational Behavior
- •Cooperative Behavior
- •Conclusion
- •Dynamic Strategies
- •Cooperation and Punishment
- •Condition for Cooperation
- •Experimental Results
- •Conclusion
- •Conclusions
- •Problem and Selected Method
- •Summary of Results
- •Contributions of this Thesis
- •Further Development and Motivation
- •IEEE 802.11a/e Simulation Tool “WARP2”
- •Model of Offered Traffic and Requirements
- •Table of Symbols
- •List of Figures
- •List of Tables
- •Abbreviations
- •Bibliography
78 |
5. Evaluation of IEEE 802.11e with the IEEE 802.11a Physical Layer |
5.1.3.2Calculation of Access Priorities from the EDCF Parameters
With the assumption of σ -persistent CSMA, it is now possible to derive a method to determine the access priorities from the EDCF parameters. A scenario of three rather than the available number of four ACs is used for the sake of simplicity. The ACs are labeled with “High,” “Medium,” and “Low,” according to their priorities. A fundamental approximation taken here is that, once the characteristics of the backoffs of the ACs are found with the modified Bianchi model, these characteristics are assumed to remain constant even in contention with other ACs.
That means that for example the expected size of the contention window per AC are as found in the isolated scenario, mutual influences between the ACs on this expected size are neglected. Note that this assumption is taken for all ACs. What is determined here is the access priority, not the actual resulting capacity share (throughput). This resulting capacity share is calculated based on the access priorities by considering all ACs.
When calculating the access priorities, care must be taken about the fact that the different ACs start their backoffs at different slots, according to the AIFSN parameter. As a first step, the contention windows are therefore shifted by the AIFSN parameters, hence,
E AIFS [AC ]+CW [AC ] = AIFS [AC ]+ E CW [AC ] = AIFS [AC ]+ σ [AC1 ].
The access probability of the backoff entities of an AC at a certain slot is in the following referred to as ξslot [AC ] with1 ≤ slot ≤ max (CWmax [AC ])+1 .
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 backoff entities per AC[higher] |
|
|
|
higher pr. |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
medium pr. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
0.5 |
AIFSN[higher pr.]=2 |
|
|
3 backoff entities per AC[medium] |
|
|
lower pr. |
|
||||||||
prob(access) |
|
|
3 backoff entities per AC[lower] |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3 |
AIFSN[medium pr.]=2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIFSN[lower pr.]=9 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
34 |
43 |
52 |
61 |
70 |
79 |
88 |
97 |
106 |
115 |
124 |
133 |
142 |
151 |
160 |
169 |
|
25 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slot [ s] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5.11: Access probability per slot for 3 backoff entities per AC, each AC operating isolated. Three ACs with EDCF parameter sets as defined in Table 5.2. Note that a legacy backoff is assumed, i.e., earliest backoff is DIFS when AIFSN=2.
5.1 HCF Contention-based Channel Access |
79 |
|
0.6 |
AIFSN[higher pr.]=2 |
|
|
8 backoff entities per AC[higher] |
|
|
|
higher pr. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
medium pr. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 backoff entities per AC[medium] |
|
|
lower pr. |
|
|||||
prob(access) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 backoff entities per AC[lower] |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
AIFSN[medium pr.]=2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIFSN[lower pr.]=9 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
34 |
43 |
52 |
61 |
70 |
79 |
88 |
97 |
106 |
115 |
124 |
133 |
142 |
151 |
160 |
169 |
|
25 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slot [ s] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5.12: Access probability per slot for 8 backoff entities per AC, each AC operating isolated. Three ACs with EDCF parameter sets as defined in Table 5.2.
The largest value of the maximum size of the contention window defines over how many slots the access probabilities are calculated. Usually this is the value of the lowest priority AC. Of course, in saturation, ACs with smaller CWs and thus
typically higher priorities access the channel with probability 1 within their CWs.
The access probability for slot < AIFS [AC ] is ξslot [AC ]= 0 , because for slots earlier than AIFS [AC ], backoff entities of this AC will not access the channel.
However, the access probability for slot >CWmax [AC ]+ AIFS [AC ] is also given byξslot [AC ]= 0 , because for slots later thanCWmax [AC ], backoff enti-
ties of the respective AC will not access the channel neither. It is again emphasized that CWmax [AC ] is in this study defined by not only the EDCF parame-
ters known from 802.11e, but also depending on a number of parameters such as |
||||
the RetryCounter [AC ], |
the PF [AC ], and |
the |
initial |
contention window |
size,CWmin [AC ]7. |
See Section 4.2.2.3, |
p. 50, |
for |
the definition of |
CWmax [AC ] in 802.11e. Using the assumption explained in the previous sec-
tion, especially Equation (5.4), the access probability to a particular slot follows from the geometric distribution
ξ |
[AC ]=1 − 1 − |
σ [AC ] 1 −σ [AC ] slot −AIFS[AC ] |
N [AC ] |
(5.5) |
||
slot |
|
( |
( |
) |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
if AIFS [AC ]< slot ≤CWmax [AC ], and 0 otherwise.
5.1.3.2.1Markov Chain Analysis
The access probability functions of the three ACs, and thus the share of capacity per AC can be derived from a Markov model, illustrated in Figure 5.13. It represents the process s (t ) of all contending backoff entities of the three considered
7 More parameters than defined in the 802.11e MAC enhancements are evaluated in this thesis.
80 |
5. Evaluation of IEEE 802.11e with the IEEE 802.11a Physical Layer |
priorities. In what follows, this process is referred to as CSMA regeneration cycle. The system alternates between states representing idle phases during which the backoff phase is ongoing and a busy phase during which at least one backoff entity transmits a frame. Takagi and Kleinrock (1985) call this a regeneration cycle. Each alternation is a “probabilistic replica” (Takagi and Kleinrock, 1985) of the previous alternation.
Four states “C,” “H,” “M,” and “L,” represent the system in the busy phase during ongoing transmissions, and a number of states “1,” “2,”..., “CWmax+1” represent the system during the backoff (idle phase). There is one state for each slot of the backoff, beginning with slot =1 , which is equivalent to AIFSN =1 and thus AIFS =PIFS = 25 µs . According to 802.11e, the earliest time when backoff entities access the channel is one slot after AIFS. Thus, the second slot represents the first possible access time SIFS+2 ×aSlotTime for backoff entities that operate according to the HCF contention-based channel access, without regard to the individually selected AIFSN [AC ] parameter. The access probability per slot of the set of backoff entities of one AC is given by Equation (5.5), The access probability for slots earlier than AIFSN [AC ] is 0.
The last slot possible for access is determined by the value ofCWmax +1 ; it is calculated as the maximum of all contention window sizes per ACs:
CWmax = max (CWmax [High],CWmax [Medium],CWmax [Low]).
Typically, but not necessarily, CWmax =CWmax [Low], since a large value implies a lower priority in channel access. If the backoff entities of one AC operate with a smaller value for CWmax [AC ] than given in Equation (5.5), then the access probability for this slot is set to 0. If at least one backoff entity of the AC “High” attempts to transmit by accessing the channel as the first backoff entity, for example by accessing the channel at the first slot, and if no other backoff entity from the other ACs accesses the channel at this slot or earlier, then the system changes from state slot (idle) to state “H” (busy). At least one high priority frame exchange is then ongoing. Note that this includes collisions of frames transmitted by backoff entities that belong to this priority “High.” The states “M” and “L” represent the busy periods for the ACs “Medium” and “Low,” respectively. However, if more than one backoff entity of different ACs start their transmission attempts at the same slot, a collision of frames transmitted by backoff entities that belong to different ACs occurs and the system changes to the state “C.” From the four states “C,” “H,” “M,” and “L,” the system always transits back to state “1.”
5.1 HCF Contention-based Channel Access |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
C: |
inter-AC collision |
|
|
|
H: |
high priority access |
|
|
||||||
|
|
M: |
medium priority access |
|
|
|
L: |
low priority access |
|
|
||||||
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|||||||
|
C |
|
|
|
H |
|
M |
L |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
P1,C |
|
P |
|
|
|
|
P1,M |
P1,L |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
1,H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
P1,2 P |
|
|
|
P2,M |
|
|
P2,L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
P2,C |
|
2,H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2,3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pslot-2, slot-1 |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slot-2,L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pslot-1,C |
|
Pslot-1,H |
|
|
|
slot-1,M |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
slot-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pslot-1, slot |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
Pslot,C |
|
Pslot,H |
|
|
|
slot,M |
|
|
slot,L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
slot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pslot, slot+1 |
|
PCWmax+1,H |
|
PCWmax+1,L |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PCWmax+1,M |
|
|
|
||||
|
|
PCWmax+1,C |
|
PCWmax, CWmax+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
CWmax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1 |
|
|
CWmax = max(CWmax[AC]) |
|
Figure 5.13: State transition diagram for the Markov chain of the CSMA regeneration cycle process. There are states C, H, M, L representing a busy system. There are states 1, 2, 3..., CWmax+1 representing an idle system. Time is progressing in steps of a slot. The state of the chain changes with the state transition probabilities indicated here.
5.1.3.2.2 State Transition Probabilities Let
P {s (t +1)= AC|s (t )= slot}= Pslot , AC , AC H, M, L, P {s (t +1)=C|s (t )= slot}= Pslot ,C ,
P {s (t +1)= slot +1|s (t )= slot}= Pslot ,slot +1, slot =1…CWmax +1 be the transition probabilities as indicated in Figure 5.13, and let
lim P {s (t )= AC}= pAC , |
AC H, M, L, |
t →∞ |
|
lim P {s (t )=C}= pC , |
|
t →∞ |
|
lim P {s (t )= slot}= pslot , |
slot =1…CWmax +1 |
t →∞ |
|