1 / 30

Efficient Interference-Aware TDMA Link Scheduling for Static Wireless Networks

Efficient Interference-Aware TDMA Link Scheduling for Static Wireless Networks. Outline Introduction—TDMA Assumptions Interference Models Implementation of Interference free algorithms Results Conclusion References. Oluwasoji O. Omiwade. Wireless Networks.

barid
Download Presentation

Efficient Interference-Aware TDMA Link Scheduling for Static Wireless Networks

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. Efficient Interference-Aware TDMA Link Scheduling for Static Wireless Networks • Outline • Introduction—TDMA • Assumptions • Interference Models • Implementation of Interference free algorithms • Results • Conclusion • References Oluwasoji O. Omiwade

  2. Wireless Networks • Major Problem: Reduction of capacity due to interference • Caused by simultaneous transmissions • Solution: Use multiple channels/multiple Radios? • No. Can only alleviate; Cannot eliminate • What Then?

  3. TDMA • Two ways to solve: • Utilize a random access and MAC layer scheme • Carefully construct a transmission schedule (TDM)

  4. Assumptions • Time is slotted • Time is synchronized • Time slots assigned between [1, T] • All links must be interference aware: no scheduled transmission results in collision(s). • Complexity of finding optimal TDMA? • NP Complete.

  5. Paper's Uniqueness • Previous Work: • Assumed Unit Disk Graph (UDG) • General Graph Model • Both don't capture the true wireless network features • General Graph: 2 nodes must be within communicable distance • UDG: Better; • But communication still impossible if barrier or path fading occurs

  6. Paper Contributions • Main: Provide centralized and distributed link scheduling algorithms • Other Contributions • More realistic model: No UDG or General Graph • Both weighted and unweighted flow • Some links demand more than other • Theoretical Perfomance Guarantee for centralized and distributed algorithms • Layer Independence

  7. Transmission/Interference • Our graph is directed • Transmission Range: ti • Nove vj receives signal from vi if |vi-vj| <= ti • Interference Range: ri • |vi-vj| <= ri and vj is not the intended recipient • Typically ri = 2-4 times vi

  8. Some Definitions and Assumptions • There is only one radio • Primary Interference: receiving from a source while sending • Secondary Interference: receiving from 2 or more sources • Our model must combat both of these • Two models proposed • Fixed Protocol Interference Model (fPrIM) • RTS/CTS Model

  9. Wireless Network Interference Models • Fixed Power Protocol Interference Model (fPrIM) • RTS/CTS Model

  10. Fixed Power Protocol Interference Model (fPrIM) • Each node vi has its own fixed transmission power • Each node also has an interference range • Transmission from vi to vj successful if |vk-vj| > rk for every node vk • Only if transmitting in the same time slot!!!

  11. RTS/CTS Model • Similar but RTS and CTS, not power, govern interference • i.e Interference Region Determined by RTS/CTS

  12. Concrete Differentiation • How are they different • In fPrIM BA and CD can be assigned the same, but not in RTS/CTS

  13. Network Assumptions • The comm links are predetermined. E.g through AODV • Or can be predicted from routes • Comm network G (V, E) • Derive Conflict Graph: F(G,R), F(G,f) • R-->RTS/CTS; f-->fPrIM • Why a Conflict free graph? • Will help us create a TDMA schedule

  14. Conflict Graph (CG) • Model interference as CG • Link in G is represented by vertex in CG • Edge in CG if the two links interfere • ‘Clique’ in CG • Clique = set of links that interfere with each other • e.g. AED, ADC, ABC • Cliques are local structures • Only one link in a clique may be active at once Courtesy of Smart-Nets Rsrch; UC-Berkeley

  15. Problem • To schedule without any interference • F(G,D2): Conflict Graph for RTS/CTS • F(G,P): Conflict Graph for fPrIM • We will find algorithms that schedule without interference, so that throughput is maximized • Maximum throughput ==> Smallest T • Why smallest T?

  16. Problem: Interference-free Link Scheduling • This problem is essentially the vertex coloring problem (VCP). • Similar Algorithms for VCP are applicable • Centralized Scheduling • Distributed Scheduling • Centralized faster [by a constant factor] • But distributed sends less messages [desirable]

  17. Algorithms • We start out simple:

  18. Algorithm 1 • Centralized algorithm that performs very well. • Needs no more than the product of a constant factor and the minimum schedule period.

  19. Problems • If ti equals ri, then Algorithm1 may not be close to optimal anymore • Performance is Degraded • Algorithm 2 solves this problem

  20. Algorithm 2

  21. Something More Interesting • A Distributed Coloring Algorithm:

  22. Fast Distributed Algorithm • “Fast” in terms of messages not complexity

  23. Results for the Presented Algorithms • Simulation Studies • Links were allowed to have weights: traffic load measures • Number of Nodes: 40 to 200 • One AP • About 500 meters x 500 meters • ti's randomly picked between 90 and 100 meters; where • Ri = Product(rand(1.5,2), ti) • 100 randomly sampled networks reported

  24. Blur • Be prepared for blurred fonts in the results • Don't worry; I'll explain the results

  25. Results: No Traffic Load Information

  26. No Traffic Load Information

  27. Non Uniform Traffic Load

  28. Non Uniform Traffic Load

  29. Conclusion • Wireless networks are essential • Communication in a mesh, sensor benefit greatly from link scheduling • Link scheduling can be • Centralized • Distributed • Centralized is faster, but not preferable

  30. References • Whei Zhao Wang et al. Efficient Interference-Aware TDMA Link Scheduling for Static Wireless Networks. MobiCom '06. • Quality of Service for Flows in Ad-Hoc Networks. SmartNet Research Group. Dept of EECS, UC Berkeley

More Related