- •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
82 |
5. Evaluation of IEEE 802.11e with the IEEE 802.11a Physical Layer |
be the stationary distributions of all states of the backoff process s (t ). The transition probabilities in this model can be easily derived from the definitions given earlier in this section. At a particular slot, the probability that the system changes to one of the three states “H,” “M,” “L” is given by the probability that at least one backoff entity of this AC accesses the channel at this slot, and none of the backoff entities of the other ACs access this same slot:
Pslot ,H
Pslot ,M
Pslot ,L
=ξslot [High] (1 −ξslot [Medium]) (1 −ξslot [Low]),
=ξslot [Medium] (1 −ξslot [High]) (1 −ξslot [Low]),
=ξslot [Low] (1 −ξslot [High]) (1 −ξslot [Medium]).
The probability that at a particular slot, a collision of frames transmitted by backoff entities of different ACs occurs, is given by
P |
=ξ |
slot [ |
High |
] |
ξ |
slot [ |
Medium |
] |
1 −ξ |
slot [ |
Low |
]) |
+ |
slot ,C |
|
|
|
|
( |
|
|
ξslot [High] ξslot [Low] (1 −ξslot [Medium])+
ξslot [Medium] ξslot [Low] (1 −ξslot [High])+
ξslot [High] ξslot [Medium] ξslot [Low].
Finally, the probability that the system changes from one idle slot to the next idle slot state is derived from the probability that no backoff entity attempts to transmit at this slot:
|
|
|
0, |
slot >CWmax |
|
Pslot ,slot +1 |
= |
|
|
|
else . |
1 −(Pslot ,H + Pslot ,M + Pslot ,L + Pslot ,C ), |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that, depending on the position of the backoff windows, some transition probabilities are 0 for the respective AC:
(slot < AIFSN [AC ])or (slot >CWmax [AC ]) Pslot , AC = 0 .
5.1.3.2.3The Priority Vector
The stationary distributions of the states of the Markov model are not needed to
calculate the access priorities of |
the ACs. Instead, it is sufficient to calculate a |
|||||
vector that |
determines the |
transition |
probabilities per AC |
to |
states |
|
{C, H, M, L}from |
a particular |
idle state |
{1, 2, ..., CWmax+1}. |
From the |
||
definitions of |
the |
stationary distributions, |
the transition probabilities |
from |
state “1” to the states “H,” “M,” “L,” and “C” can be derived. These four transition probabilities define the actual priority in channel access. The stationary distribution of state “H” is given by
5.1 HCF Contention-based Channel Access |
|
|
|
83 |
||
|
CWmax +1 |
slot −1 |
|
|
=: η[AC=High] p1 . |
|
pH = P1,H + |
∑ |
Pslot ,H ∏ Pi ,i +1 |
|
p1 |
(5.6) |
|
|
slot =2 |
i =1 |
|
|
|
|
|
=: η AC=High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(this defines the relative priority of the AC "High") |
|
|
|
In this equation, a new parameter η High is defined that determines the relative priority of the AC “High.” The stationary distributions of the states “M,” “L,” and “C” are similarly defined:
|
|
|
CWmax +1 |
slot −1 |
|
|
=: η[Medium] p1 |
|
|
pM |
= P1,M + ∑ |
Pslot ,M |
∏ Pi ,i +1 |
p1 |
, |
||||
|
|
|
slot =2 |
i =1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CWmax |
+1 |
slot −1 |
|
p1 =: η[Low] p1, |
|
|
pL |
= P1,L |
+ |
∑ |
Pslot ,L |
∏ Pi ,i +1 |
|
(5.7) |
||
|
|
|
slot =2 |
i =1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CWmax +1 |
slot −1 |
|
|
|
|
|
pC |
= P1,C |
+ |
∑ |
Pslot ,C |
∏ Pi ,i +1 |
|
p1. |
|
|
|
|
|
slot =2 |
|
i =1 |
|
|
|
|
The priority vector η is found as
η = (ηH ,ηM ,ηL )= ∑η1[AC ](η[High],η[Medium],η[Low]). (5.8)
AC
The stationary distribution p1 is given in the following equation as p1 = pH + pM + pL + pC .
The priority vector η determines the relative priorities of the three ACs. Once the system changes from ongoing transmission to the backoff phase s(t), the system will change to one of the states “H,” “M,” “L” according to the priority vectorη . With the help of the priority vectorη , the saturation throughput
Thrpshare (or the share of capacity) that an arbitrary number of backoff entities of each of the three ACs may achieve when all backoff entities operate in paral-
lel, can be calculated. Any number of backoff entities per AC is possible in this model, and any setup of the EDCF parameters. The achievable saturation throughput Thrpshare for the three ACs is approximated by
|
|
Thrp |
[High] η |
H |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thrp |
=Thrp |
η = Thrp |
sat |
[Medium] η |
M |
. |
(5.9) |
||
share |
sat |
|
[Low] η |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Thrp |
L |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
sat |
|
|
|
|