260 likes | 431 Views
Distributed Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio 802.11 Mesh Networks Bong Jun Ko (IBM T.J. Watson Research) Vishal Misra (Columbia University) Jitendra Padhye (Microsoft Research) Dan Rubenstein (Columbia University). Wireless Mesh Networks.
E N D
Distributed Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio 802.11 Mesh Networks Bong Jun Ko (IBM T.J. Watson Research) Vishal Misra (Columbia University) Jitendra Padhye (Microsoft Research) Dan Rubenstein (Columbia University)
Wireless Mesh Networks • WMN: Multi-hop wireless network infrastructure for local/residential area networks. • Goal: better channel utilization higher network capacity. • For scalability and adaptability, light-weight distributed solution is desirable.
x Our Philosophy • Why focus on channel assignment? • Decouple channel assignment and end-to-end routing. • Routing protocols adapt to dynamic traffic load, link quality, and even channel configuration(e.g., MR-LQSR1) . • Channel assignment focuses on quickly-stabilizing channel configuration based on physical topology. • More scalable than centralized, joint-optimization approaches. • There are K channels, and assume (for now) every node can transmit and receive from all channels simultaneously. • Approach: For each node, minimize the number of other interfering nodes on the same channel. x Node x’s interference range 1. R. Draves et al., “Routing in Multi-Radio, Multi-Hop Wireless Mesh Networks”, Mobicom 2004.
DistributedGreedy Channel Selection • Let each node select its own channel. • Whenever it is needed, each node changes to a channel that minimizes the number of other nodes on the same channel in the interference range. Q : Will this process converge? x x y y
> (+1) (-1) DistributedGreedy Channel Selection • Let each node select its own channel. • Whenever it is needed, each node changes to a channel that minimizes the number of nodes on the same channel in the interference range. Q : Will this process converge? YES! • Proof : • N(x): # of nodes on the same channel for node x. • xN(x) decreases monotonically. x x y Local optimization improves global optimization metric – Self-stabilizing!
Experience with 802.11 Mesh Networks • Practical limitations • Current 802.11 transceivers can send or receive through only one channel at a time. • Neighboring nodes need to be at the same channel. • Conflicting goals: connectivity vs better utilization. • Multi-radio stations • 1 common, default channel for all nodes • Variable channels selected by channel assignment algorithm • Links of variable channels: express way • Links of common channel: local roads
Performance Evaluation • Experiments on a 14-node testbed. • A default channel from 802.11a • Variable channels from 802.11g • Interference range : 3 hops • Routing protocol : MR-LQSR (Multi-Radio Link Quality Source Routing) • Aware of multi-radio, multi-channel environment • Preference given to channel-diverse paths • Measure end-to-end throughput of multiple, concurrent TCP flows with random source-destination pairs • Compare to • samech : all nodes are assigned the same channel for additional radio • rand : each node is assigned a channel uniformly at random for additional radio
Individual TCP Throughput • CDF of all TCP flow throughputs in all experiments. • Flows over longer paths benefit the most.
Aggregate TCP Throughput • Measured average TCP throughput of all flows in each experiment, and took median value of 5 experiments. • 50% higher than samech / 20% higher than random.
Conclusion • Developed a fully-distributed, self-stabilizing channel assignment algorithm for multi-hop wireless networks. • Experiments on multi-radio 802.11 mesh network testbed. • Our mechanism shows improvements in network throughput by 50% and 20% compared to homogeneous and random assignments, respectively. • Open Problems • Theoretical running time and bounds of the distributed greedy algorithm? • Formal time-scale decomposition in radio resource control (e.g., channel, power, rate, route control).
Other Results Channel Utilization (in %) of 802.11g channels Protocol Dynamics
Dealing with Delay and Asynchrony • Solution : a 3-way handshake protocol for distributed mutual exclusive operation. • REQUEST → ACCEPT or REJECT → UPDATE or ABORT
3-way Handshake Protocol x REQUEST REQUEST specifies: • Intended channel change • Perceived channels of other nodes
3-way Handshake Protocol x ACCEPT
3-way Handshake Protocol x UPDATE When a node ACCEPTed a REQUEST, it “freezes” its channel until corresponding response (UPDATE or ABORT) is received.
3-way Handshake Protocol y y x
3-way Handshake Protocol y x REQUEST
3-way Handshake Protocol y x REJECT
3-way Handshake Protocol y x ABORT
3-way Handshake Protocol REQUEST y x REQUEST
3-way Handshake Protocol REJECT y x ACCEPT Break ties by predefined order of nodes - if x < y, y will be accepted to change.
3-way Handshake Protocol UPDATE y x ABORT