1 / 29

Distributed Channel Management in Uncoordinated Wireless Environments

Outline. IntroductionBackgroundMAXchop AlgorithmPractical ConsiderationsSimulationsImplementationConclusion. Introduction. Wireless 802.11 hotspots: uncoordinatedUnsatisfactory and unpredictable network performancePrimary focus: fairness problemChannel assignment: channel-hopping. Key Compo

skipper
Download Presentation

Distributed Channel Management in Uncoordinated Wireless Environments

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. Distributed Channel Management in Uncoordinated Wireless Environments Arunesh Mishra, Vivek Shrivastava, Dheeraj Agarwal, Suman Banerjee, Samrat Ganguly University of Wisconsin & NEC Labs Presented by: Anuradha Kadam February 27, 2007

    2. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    3. Introduction Wireless 802.11 hotspots: uncoordinated Unsatisfactory and unpredictable network performance Primary focus: fairness problem Channel assignment: channel-hopping

    4. Key Components Channel Hopping Switching Overhead Impact on TCP Partially Overlapped channels Client-driven Assignment

    5. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    6. Background Channel Assignment Techniques Non-overlapping channels Static approach unfairness Least Congested Channel Search (LCCS) - distributed CFAssign using Randomized Compaction (RaC) - centralized

    7. Background Using Partially Overlapped channels Partially Overlapped Channels not considered harmful As physical separation increased, amount of interference decreased and this led to increase in throughput At lower separation levels, throughput can be increased by increasing channel separation. Increase spatial re-use by careful selection

    8. Channel Hopping

    9. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    10. MAXchop Algorithm

    11. MAXchop Algorithm Initialize Bootup or periodically (a week) Initialize channel assignment with pseudo-random hopping sequence Hop End of hopping period (Nsts) Computes new hopping sequence Based on information about hopping sequences of interfering APs. Compute MinMax Returns a color from C such that it distributes the interference equally among all neighbors of x. For simplicity, assume color is chosen randomly

    12. MAXchop Algorithm Partially Overlapped channels ?(u,i,x,j) if AP u on channel i interferes with AP x on channel j Return binary value or an accurate estimate of interference Px(u) I(i,j) received power if tx and rx on channels i and j Received power should be above a certain threshold to cause interference binary value ?(u,i,x,j) = Px(u) I(i,j) accurate estimation

    13. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    14. Practical Considerations Implementing Channel Switching Client-AP coordination Beacon message Channel Switch Overhead 20 ms for Prism 2.5, 6 ms for Atheros Triggered during low periods of activity Slot duration large Gains v/s overhead

    15. Practical Considerations Interfering APs estimation Client driven AP driven Asynchrony in hopping different hopping periods asynchronous time slots over long periods performance is same

    16. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    17. Simulations Packet-level simulations Hotspot topologies derived from Wigle Compare against LCCS and RaC AP locations for dense urban area Partitioned into 12 non-interfering topologies

    18. Simulations

    19. Simulation Methodology NS-2 simulator Slot durations loosely synchronized Switch latency of 20ms Two metrics: Aggregate network throughput Fairness in per-AP throughput Jains fairness index 5 clients on average

    20. Simulation-Results (1) Sample Topology 27 APs with uneven density 8 suffer considerable interference Remaining had similar throughputs

    21. Simulation-Results (1)

    22. Simulation-Results (2)

    23. Simulation-Results (2) 12 urban topologies Evaluate only partially-overlapping channels. Channel hopping improves fairness over LCCS by an average of 42%. Ch. Hopping gives performance improvement of 30%.

    24. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    25. Implementation Five APs One client/AP Typical hotspot area Different methods of channel assignment NOV-LCCS, NOV-MAXchop, POV-MAXchop, POV-static TCP/UDP throughputs

    26. Results - TCP Throughput gains: 15.13% by POV-MAXchop over NOV-chop & 15.05% by POV-static over NOV-LCCS

    27. Results - UDP Throughput gains: POV-MAXchop improves by 10% Improvement in fairness

    28. Outline Introduction Background MAXchop Algorithm Practical Considerations Simulations Implementation Conclusion

    29. Conclusion Channel hopping: simple and efficient method Good fairness properties Utilize partially overlapped channels Provide throughput gains in dense networks.

More Related