1 / 36

Jungmin So and Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Multi-Channel MAC for Ad Hoc Networks: Handling Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Using A Single Transceiver. Jungmin So and Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1. 1. 2. defer. Motivation. Multiple Channels available in IEEE 802.11 3 channels in 802.11b

dora
Download Presentation

Jungmin So and Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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. Multi-Channel MAC for Ad Hoc Networks: Handling Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Using A Single Transceiver Jungmin So and Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  2. 1 1 2 defer Motivation • Multiple Channels available in IEEE 802.11 • 3 channels in 802.11b • 12 channels in 802.11a • Utilizing multiple channels can improve throughput • Allow simultaneous transmissions Single channel Multiple Channels

  3. 1 2 Problem Statement • Using k channels does not translate into throughput improvement by a factor of k • Nodes listening on different channels cannot talk to each other • Requires modification of coordination schemes among the nodes • Constraint: Each node has only a single transceiver • Capable of listening to one channel at a time • Goal: Design a MAC protocol that utilizes multiple channels to improve overall performance • Modify 802.11 DCF to work in multi-channel environment

  4. 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function • Virtual carrier sensing • Sender sends Ready-To-Send (RTS) • Receiver sends Clear-To-Send (CTS) • RTS and CTS reserves the area around sender and receiver for the duration of dialogue • Nodes that overhear RTS and CTS defer transmissions by setting Network Allocation Vector (NAV)

  5. 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function A B C D Time A B C D

  6. 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function RTS A B C D Time A RTS B C D

  7. NAV CTS 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function CTS A B C D Time A RTS B C SIFS D

  8. NAV NAV DATA CTS 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function DATA A B C D Time A RTS B C SIFS D

  9. NAV NAV ACK DATA CTS 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function ACK A B C D Time A RTS B C SIFS D

  10. NAV NAV ACK CTS DATA 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function A B C D Time A RTS B C Contention Window SIFS D DIFS

  11. 802.11 Power Saving Mechanism • Time is divided into beacon intervals • All nodes wake up at the beginning of a beacon interval for a fixed duration of time (ATIM window) • Exchange ATIM (Ad-hoc Traffic Indication Message) during ATIM window • Nodes that receive ATIM message stay up during for the whole beacon interval • Nodes that do not receive ATIM message may go into doze mode after ATIM window

  12. 802.11 Power Saving Mechanism Beacon Time A B C ATIM Window Beacon Interval

  13. Issues in Multi-Channel Environment Multi-Channel Hidden Terminal Problem

  14. A C B Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Channel 1 Channel 2 RTS A sends RTS

  15. A C B Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Channel 1 Channel 2 CTS B sends CTS C does not hear CTS because C is listening on channel 2

  16. A B Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Channel 1 Channel 2 DATA RTS C C switches to channel 1 and transmits RTS Collision occurs at B

  17. Related Work Previous work on multi-channel MAC

  18. Nasipuri’s Protocol • Assumes N transceivers per host • Capable of listening to all channels simultaneously • Always have information for all channels • Disadvantage: High hardware cost

  19. Wu’s Protocol [Wu00ISPAN]Dynamic Channel Assignment • Assumes 2 transceivers per host • One transceiver always listens on control channel • Negotiate channels using RTS/CTS/RES • RTS/CTS/RES packets sent on control channel • Sender includes preferred channels in RTS • Receiver decides a channel and includes in CTS • Sender sends DATA on the selected data channel

  20. Wu’s Protocol (cont.) • Advantage • No synchronization required • Disadvantage • Each host must have 2 transceivers • Control channel bandwidth is an issue • Too small: control channel becomes a bottleneck • Too large: waste of bandwidth • Optimal control channel bandwidth depends on traffic load, but difficult to dynamically adapt

  21. MMAC • Assumptions • All channels have same BW and none of them are overlapping channels • Nodes have only one transceiver • Transceivers are capable of switching channels but they are half-duplex • Channel switching delay is approx 250 us, avoid per packet switching • Nodes synchronized: Begin their beacon intervals same time

  22. MMAC • Steps – • - Divide time into beacon intervals • At the beginning, nodes listen to a pre-defined channel for ATIM window duration • Channel negotiation starts using ATIM messages • Nodes switch to the selected channel after the ATIM window duration

  23. MMAC • Preferred Channel List (PCL) • For a node, PCL records usage of channels inside Tx range • HIGH preference – always selected • MID preference – others in the vicinity did not select the channel • LOW preference – others in the vicinity selected the channel

  24. MMAC • Channel Negotiation • Sender transmits ATIM to the receiver and includes its PCL in the ATIM packet • Receiver selects a channel based on sender’s PCL and its own PCL • Receiver sends ATIM-ACK to sender including the selected channel • Sender sends ATIM-RES to notify its neighbors of the selected channel

  25. Channel Negotiation Common Channel Selected Channel A Beacon B C D Time ATIM Window Beacon Interval

  26. Channel Negotiation Common Channel Selected Channel ATIM- RES(1) ATIM A Beacon B ATIM- ACK(1) C D Time ATIM Window Beacon Interval

  27. Channel Negotiation Common Channel Selected Channel ATIM- RES(1) ATIM A Beacon B ATIM- ACK(1) ATIM- ACK(2) C D ATIM Time ATIM- RES(2) ATIM Window Beacon Interval

  28. Channel Negotiation Common Channel Selected Channel ATIM- RES(1) RTS DATA Channel 1 ATIM A Beacon Channel 1 B CTS ACK ATIM- ACK(1) ATIM- ACK(2) CTS ACK Channel 2 C Channel 2 D ATIM DATA RTS Time ATIM- RES(2) ATIM Window Beacon Interval

  29. Performance Evaluation Simulation Model Simulation Results

  30. Simulation Model • ns-2 simulator • Transmission rate: 2Mbps • Transmission range: 250m • Traffic type: Constant Bit Rate (CBR) • Beacon interval: 100ms • Packet size: 512 bytes • ATIM window size: 20ms • Default number of channels: 3 channels • Compared protocols • 802.11: IEEE 802.11 single channel protocol • DCA: Wu’s protocol • MMAC: Proposed protocol

  31. Wireless LAN - Throughput 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 MMAC MMAC DCA DCA Aggregate Throughput (Kbps) 802.11 802.11 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 Packet arrival rate per flow (packets/sec) Packet arrival rate per flow (packets/sec) 30 nodes 64 nodes MMAC shows higher throughput than DCA and 802.11

  32. Multi-hop Network – Throughput 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1500 1000 500 0 MMAC MMAC DCA DCA Aggregate Throughput (Kbps) 802.11 802.11 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 Packet arrival rate per flow (packets/sec) Packet arrival rate per flow (packets/sec) 3 channels 4 channels

  33. Analysis • For DCA: BW of control channel significantly affects the performance and it’s difficult to adapt control channel BW • - For MMAC: • ATIM window size significantly affects performance • ATIM/ATIM-ACK/ATIM-RES exchanged once per flow per beacon interval – reduced overhead • ATIM window size can be adapted to traffic load

  34. Conclusion • MMAC requires a single transceiver per host to work in multi-channel ad hoc networks • MMAC achieves throughput performance comparable to a protocol that requires multiple transceivers per host

  35. Future Work • Dynamic adaptation of ATIM window size based on traffic load for MMAC • Efficient multi-hop clock synchronization • Routing protocols for multi-channel environment

  36. Thank you! Sanhita Ganguly

More Related