1 / 34

Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF

Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF. Khaled Turki, Jin-Meng Ho, Sid Schrum, Matthew Shoemake and Don Shaver Texas Instruments Inc. Simulation Environment. Simulation platform: OPNET MAC schemes simulated: p-DCF as described in 01/139

jena-sherman
Download Presentation

Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF

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. Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF Khaled Turki, Jin-Meng Ho, Sid Schrum, Matthew Shoemake and Don Shaver Texas Instruments Inc. Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  2. Simulation Environment • Simulation platform: OPNET • MAC schemes simulated: • p-DCF as described in 01/139 • v-DCF as described in 01/132 and 01/133 • 802.11-1999 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  3. Parameters • Buffer size = 2 Mbits • Packet lifetime = 500 ms • PHY = 11 Mbps- DSSS Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  4. Scenarios • 20 streams • 15 STA • Bi-directional streams • Packet length = 1500 bytes and 250 bytes • Packet length distribution : Constant • Arrival process : Exponential inter-arrival times Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  5. Contention-Based Access:CSMA with Adaptive Contention -- State Transition Diagram ESTA active Calculate PP No Medium idle for DIFS or EIFS? Yes Yes Recalculate PP Any TCPP changed? Yes No No No Transmission permitted? (X PP?) Slot idle? Yes Transmit a frame Yes Contention continued? No Stop Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  6. Scenario 1 • Aggregate load 6 Mbps • 20 Streams • 15 STA • 4 Priorities • 5 Streams per priority • Inter-arrival time exponentially distributed • Packet length: Constant 1500 Bytes Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  7. Aggregate Offered Load Offered Load (Mbits/sec) Offered Load (Mbits/sec) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  8. v-DCF Results Scenario 1 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  9. V-DCF Results • For priority differentiation the following three cases are considered • CW_min[ 7,15,31,63], QIFS[DIFS] • CW_min[31],QIFS [ DIFS+3 slots, DIFS+2 slots, DIFS+1 slot, DIFS] • {CW_min[ 7],QIFS [DIFS]},{CW_min[15], QIFS[DIFS+1 slot]} {CW_min[31],QIFS [ DIFS+2 slots]},{CW_min[63], QIFS[DIFS+3 slots]} Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  10. v-DCF 1 Unstable TC Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  11. v-DCF v-DCF CW differentiation only 350 CW_min=63 CW_min=31 CW_min=15 300 CW_min=7 Legacy 250 200 Average Delay (ms) 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Simulation Time (sec) Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  12. V-DCF Priorities • Priority 0 (lowest):CW_min[31] QIFS [DIFS+3 slots] • Priority 1: CW_min[31] QIFS [DIFS+2 slots] • Priority 2: CW_min[31] QIFS [DIFS+1slot] • Priority 3(highest): CW_min[31] [DIFS] Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  13. v-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  14. v-DCF Legacy Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  15. V-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  16. v-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  17. p-DCF Results Scenario 1 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  18. p-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  19. p-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  20. p-DCF p-DCF- 50 ms probability update interval 20 TCPP 0 TCPP 1 18 TCPP 2 TCPP 3 16 Legacy 14 12 Delay (ms) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Simulation Time (sec) Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  21. p-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  22. Simulation Resultsp-DCF and v-DCF Scenario 2 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  23. Scenario 2 • Aggregate load 3 Mbps • 20 Streams • 15 STA • 4 Priorities • 5 Streams per priority • Inter-arrival time exponentially distributed • Packet length: Constant 250 Bytes Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  24. Aggregate Offered Load Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  25. Simulation Results v-DCFScenario 2 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  26. v-DCF 2 Unstable TC’s Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  27. v-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  28. V-DCF Results VIDEO SCENARIO Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  29. Throughput Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  30. Delay Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  31. Simulation Results p-DCFScenario 2 Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  32. p-DCF 1 Unstable TC Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  33. p-DCF p-DCF 1000 TCPP 0 TCPP 1 900 TCPP 2 TCPP 3 800 Legacy 700 600 Average Delay (ms) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Simulation Time (sec) Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

  34. Conclusions • Several simulations have been performed in order to evaluate the performance of two EDCF proposals (v-DCF and p-DCF) • The probabilistic approach (p-DCF)shows performance superiority over v-DCF at higher loads and large STA population. • Delay and delay variance • Dropped frame rate • Stability in terms of frame delay • V-DCF achieves differentiation by introducing additional delay among traffic categories (TC’s) • Starvation effect is also observed in v-DCF Khaled Turki et. al ,Texas Instruments

More Related