1 / 37

Wireless Networking Understanding the departure from wired networks, Case study: IEEE 802.11 (WiFi)

Wireless Networking Understanding the departure from wired networks, Case study: IEEE 802.11 (WiFi). Many Motivations for Wireless. Unrestricted mobility / deployability Unplugged from power outlet Significantly lower cost No cable layout, service provision Low maintenance Ease

shasta
Download Presentation

Wireless Networking Understanding the departure from wired networks, Case study: IEEE 802.11 (WiFi)

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. Wireless NetworkingUnderstanding the departure from wired networks,Case study: IEEE 802.11 (WiFi)

  2. Many Motivations for Wireless • Unrestricted mobility / deployability • Unplugged from power outlet • Significantly lower cost • No cable layout, service provision • Low maintenance • Ease • Direct communication with minimum infratructure

  3. From Links to Networks • Variety of architectures • Single hop networks • Multi-hop networks

  4. Internet The Wireless Future …

  5. No Free Lunch • Numerous challenges • Channel fluctuation • Lower bandwidth • Limited Battery power • Disconnection due to mobility • Security • …

  6. Question Is … Can’t we use the rich “wireline” knowledge ? In solving the wireless challenges

  7. The Answer Wireless channel: A dispersive medium The PHY and MAC layer completely dissimilar The whole game changes

  8. On Our Agenda • Key Physical layer behavior • From Wired to Wireless • The principles of wireless medium access control • Collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) not detection • The emergence of 802.11 (WiFi)

  9. Medium Access Control

  10. The Channel Access Problem • Multiple nodes share a channel • Pairwise communication desired • Simultaneous communication not possible • MAC Protocols • Suggests a scheme to schedule communication • Maximize number of communications • Ensure fairness among all transmitters A B C

  11. The Trivial Solution • Transmit and pray • Plenty of collisions --> poor throughput at high load A B C

  12. The Simple Fix Don’t transmit • Transmit and pray • Plenty of collisions --> poor throughput at high load • Listen before you talk • Carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) • Defer transmission when signal on channel A B C Can collisions still occur?

  13. CSMA collisions spatial layout of nodes Collisions can still occur: Propagation delay non-zero between transmitters When collision: Entire packet transmission time wasted note: Role of distance & propagation delay in determining collision probability

  14. CSMA/CD (Collision Detection) • Keep listening to channel • While transmitting • If (Transmitted_Signal != Sensed_Signal)  Sender knows it’s a Collision  ABORT

  15. 2 Observations on CSMA/CD • Transmitter can send/listen concurrently • If (Sensed - received = null)? Then success • The signal is identical at Tx and Rx • Non-dispersive The transmitter can DETECT if and when collision occurs

  16. Unfortunately … Both observations do not hold for wireless Leading to …

  17. Wireless Medium Access Control C D A B Signal power SINR threhold Distance

  18. Wireless Media Disperse Energy A cannot send and listen in parallel C D A B Signal power Signal not same at different locations SINR threhold Distance

  19. Collision Detection Difficult • Signal reception based on SINR • Transmitter can only hear itself • Cannot determine signal quality at receiver

  20. Calculating SINR B A C

  21. Red < Blue = collision Red signal >> Blue signal C D X A B Signal power SINR threhold Distance

  22. Important: C has not heard A, but can interfere at receiver B C is the hidden terminal to A C D X A B Signal power SINR threhold Distance

  23. Important: X has heard A, but should not defer transmission to Y Y X is the exposed terminal to A C D X A B Signal power SINR threhold Distance

  24. Hidden and Exposed Terminal Problems Critical to wireless networks even today

  25. Idea! C D X A B Signal power SINR threhold Sensitivity threshold Distance

  26. Idea! Do not transmit in this region Will this solve the wireless MAC problem? C D X A B Signal power SINR threhold T Sensitivity threshold Distance

  27. The Emergence of 802.11 • Wireless MAC proved to be non-trivial • 1992 - research by Karn (MACA) • 1994 - research by Bhargavan (MACAW) • Led to IEEE 802.11 committee • The standard was ratified in 1999

  28. RTS = Request To Send CTS = Clear To Send IEEE 802.11 with Omni Antenna M Y S RTS D CTS K

  29. IEEE 802.11 with Omni Antenna silenced M Y silenced S Data D ACK silenced X K silenced

  30. But is that enough?

  31. RTS CTS RTS/CTS • Does it solve hidden terminals ? • Assuming carrier sensing zone = communication zone E F A B C D E does not receive CTS successfully  Can later initiate transmission to D. Hidden terminal problem remains.

  32. Hidden Terminal Problem • How about increasing carrier sense range ?? • E will defer on sensing carrier  no collision !!! RTS E F CTS A B C D Data

  33. Hidden Terminal Problem • But what if barriers/obstructions ?? • E doesn’t hear C  Carrier sensing does not help RTS E F CTS A B C D Data

  34. Exposed Terminal • B should be able to transmit to A • RTS prevents this E RTS CTS A B C D

  35. Exposed Terminal • B should be able to transmit to A • Carrier sensing makes the situation worse E RTS CTS A B C D

  36. Thoughts ! • 802.11 does not solve HT/ET completely • Only alleviates the problem through RTS/CTS and recommends larger CS zone • Large CS zone aggravates exposed terminals • Spatial reuse reduces  A tradeoff • RTS/CTS packets also consume bandwidth • Moreover, backing off mechanism is also wasteful The search for the best MAC protocol is still on. However, 802.11 is being optimized too. Thus, wireless MAC research still alive

  37. Questions?

More Related