5.

3 Multiple Access Protocols and LANs

In the introduction to this chapter, we noted that there are two types of network links: point-to-point links, and broadcast links. A point-to-point link consists of a single sender on one end of the link, and a single receiver at the other end of the link. Many link-layer protocols have been designed for point-to-point links; PPP the point-topoint protocol! and "#$% are two such protocols that we&ll cover later in this chapter. 'he second type of link, a broadcast link, can have (ultiple sending and receiving nodes all connected to the sa(e, single, shared broadcast channel. 'he ter( )broadcast) is used here because when any one node trans(its a fra(e, the channel broadcasts the fra(e and each of the other nodes receives a copy. *thernet is probably the (ost widely deployed broadcast link technology; we&ll cover *thernet in detail in section +.+. In this section we&ll take step back fro( specific link layer protocols and first e,a(ine a proble( of central i(portance to the data link layer: how to coordinate the access of (ultiple sending and receiving nodes to a shared broadcast channel - the so-called multiple access problem. -roadcast channels are often used in local area networks (LANs), networks that are geographically concentrated in a single building or on a corporate or university ca(pus!. 'hus, we&ll also look at how (ultiple access channels are used in $A.s at the end of this section. /e are all fa(iliar with the notion of broadcasting, as television has been using it since its invention. -ut traditional television is a one-way broadcast i.e., one fi,ed node trans(itting to (any receiving nodes!, while nodes on a co(puter network broadcast channel can both send and receive. Perhaps a (ore apt hu(an analogy for a broadcast channel is a cocktail party, where (any people gather together in a large roo( the air providing the broadcast (ediu(! to talk and listen. A second good analogy is so(ething (any readers will be fa(iliar with - a classroo( - where teacher s! and student s! si(ilarly share the sa(e, single, broadcast (ediu(. A central proble( in both scenarios is that of deter(ining who gets to talk i.e., trans(it into the channel!, and when. As hu(ans, we&ve evolved an elaborate set of protocols for sharing the broadcast channel )0ive everyone a chance to speak.) )#on&t speak until you are spoken to.) )#on&t (onopoli1e the conversation.) )2aise your hand if you have 3uestion.) )#on&t interrupt when so(eone is speaking.) )#on&t fall asleep when so(eone else is talking.)!. %o(puter networks si(ilarly have protocols - so-called (ultiple access protocols - by which nodes regulate their trans(ission onto the shared broadcast channel. As shown in 4igure +.5-6, (ultiple access protocols are needed in a wide variety of network settings, including both wired and wireless local area networks, and satellite networks. 4igure +.5-7 takes a (ore abstract view of the broadcast channel and of the nodes sharing that channel. Although technically each node accesses the broadcast channel through its adapter, in this section we will refer to the node as the sending and receiving device. In practice, hundreds or even thousands of nodes can directly co((unicate over a broadcast channel.

Fi ure 5.3-!" A broadcast channel interconnecting four nodes. -ecause all nodes are capable of trans(itting fra(es, (ore than two nodes can trans(it fra(es at the sa(e ti(e. /hen this happens, all of the nodes receive (ultiple fra(es at the sa(e ti(e, that is, the trans(itted fra(es collide at all of the receivers. 'ypically, when there is a collision, none of the receiving nodes can (ake any sense of any of the fra(es that were trans(itted; in a sense, the signals of the colliding fra(e beco(e ine,tricably tangled together. 'hus, all the fra(es involved in the collision are lost, and the broadcast channel is wasted during the collision interval. %learly, if (any nodes want to fre3uently trans(it fra(es, (any trans(issions will result in collisions, and (uch of the bandwidth of the broadcast channel will be wasted. In order to ensure that the broadcast channel perfor(s useful work when (ultiple nodes are active, it is necessary to so(ehow coordinate the trans(issions of the active nodes. 'his coordination 8ob is the responsibility of the multiple access protocol. 9ver the past thirty years, thousands of papers and hundreds of Ph.#. dissertations have been written on (ultiple access protocols; a co(prehensive survey of this body of work is :2o( 6;<=> 4urther(ore, do1ens of different protocols have been i(ple(ented in a variety of link-layer technologies. .evertheless, we can classify 8ust about any (ultiple access protocol as belonging to one of three categories: c#annel partitionin protocols, random access protocols, and takin -turns protocols. /e&ll cover these categories of (ultiple access protocols in the following three subsections. $et us conclude this overview by noting that ideally, a (ultiple access protocol for a broadcast channel of rate R bits per second should have the following desirable characteristics: 6. /hen only one node has data to send, that node has a throughput of R bps. 7. /hen M nodes have data to send, each of these nodes has a throughput of R/M bps. 'his need not necessarily i(ply that each of the M nodes always

have an instantaneous rate of R/M , but rather that each node should have an average trans(ission rate of R/M over so(e suitably-defined interval of ti(e. 5. 'he protocol is decentrali1ed, i.e., there are no (aster nodes that can fail and bring down the entire syste(. ?. 'he protocol is si(ple, so that it is ine,pensive to i(ple(ent.

5.2.1 Channel Partitioning Protocols

2ecall fro( our early discussion back in section 6.?, that 'i(e #ivision Multiple,ing '#M! and 4re3uency #ivision Multiple,ing 4#M! are two techni3ues that can be used to partition a broadcast channel&s bandwidth a(ong all nodes sharing that channel. As an e,a(ple, suppose the channel supports N nodes and that the trans(ission rate of the channel is R bps. '#M divides ti(e into time $rames not to be confused the unit of data, the fra(e, at the data link layer! and further divides each ti(e fra(e into N time slots. *ach slot ti(e is then assigned to one of the N nodes. /henever a node has a fra(e to send, it trans(its the fra(e&s bits during its assigned ti(e slot in the revolving '#M fra(e. 'ypically, fra(e si1es are chosen so that a single fra(e can be trans(itting during a slot ti(e. 4igure +.5-5 shows a si(ple fournode '#M e,a(ple. 2eturning to our cocktail party analogy, a '#M-regulated cocktail party would allow one partygoer to speak for a fi,ed period of ti(e, and then allow another partygoer to speak for the sa(e a(ount of ti(e, and so on. 9nce everyone has had their chance to talk, the pattern repeats. '#M is appealing as it eli(inates collisions and is perfectly fair: each node gets a dedicated trans(ission rate of R/N bps during each slot ti(e. "owever, it has two (a8or drawbacks. 4irst, a node is li(ited to this rate of R/N bps over a slot&s ti(e even when it is the only node with fra(es to send. A second drawback is that a node (ust always wait for its turn in the trans(ission se3uence - again, even when it is the only node with a fra(e to send. I(agine the partygoer who is the only one with anything to say and i(agine that this is the even rarer circu(stance where everyone at the party wants to hear what that one person has to say!. %learly, '#M would be a poor choice for a (ultiple access protocol for this particular party. /hile '#M shares the broadcast channel in ti(e, 4#M divides the R bps channel into different fre3uencies each with a bandwidth of R/N! and assigns each fre3uency to one of the N nodes. 4#M thus creates N )s(aller) channels of R/N bps out of the single, )larger) R bps channel. 4#M shares both the advantages and drawbacks of '#M. It avoids collisions and divides the bandwidth fairly a(ong the N nodes. "owever, 4#M also shares a principal disadvantage with '#M - a node is li(ited to a bandwidth of 2@., even when it is the only node with fra(es to send. 5.!.!. %andom Access Protocols 'he second broad class of (ultiple access protocols are so-called rando( access protocols. In a rando( access protocol, a trans(itting node always trans(its at the full rate of the channel, na(ely, 2 bps. /hen there is a collision, each node involved in the collision repeatedly retrans(it its fra(e until the fra(e gets through without a collision. -ut when a node e,periences a collision, it doesn&t necessarily retrans(it the fra(e right away. Instead it waits a random delay before retransmitting the frame . *ach node involved in a collision chooses independent rando( delays. -ecause after a collision the rando( delays are independently chosen, it is possible that one of the

nodes will pick a delay that is sufficiently less than the delays of the other colliding nodes, and will therefore be able to )sneak) its fra(e into the channel without a collision. 'here are do1ens if not hundreds of rando( access protocols described in the literature :2o( 6;;=, -ertsekas 6;;7>. In this section we&ll describe a few of the (ost co((only used rando( access protocols - the A$9"A protocols :Abra(son 6;A=, Abra(son 6;<+> and the %arrier Bense Multiple Access %BMA! protocols :Cleinrock 6;A+>. $ater, in section +.+, we&ll cover the details of *thernet :Metcalfe 6;AD>, a popular and widely deployed %BMA protocol.

CSMA - Carrier Sense Multiple Access

In both slotted and pure A$9"A, a node&s decision to trans(it is (ade independently of the activity of the other nodes attached to the broadcast channel. In particular, a node neither pays attention to whether another node happens to be trans(itting when it begins to trans(it, nor stops trans(itting if another node begins to interfere with its trans(ission. In our cocktail party analogy, A$9"A protocols are 3uite like a boorish partygoer who continues to chatter away regardless of whether other people are talking. As hu(ans, we have hu(an protocols that allow allows us to not only behave with (ore civility, but also to decrease the a(ount of ti(e spent )colliding) with each other in conversation and conse3uently increasing the a(ount of a(ount of data we e,change in our conversations. Bpecifically, there are two i(portant rules for polite hu(an conversation:

Listen before speaking. If so(eone else is speaking, wait until they are done. In the networking world, this is ter(ed carrier sensin - a node listens to the channel before trans(itting. If a fra(e fro( another node is currently being trans(itted into the channel, a node then waits )backs off)! a rando( a(ount of ti(e and then again senses the channel. If the channel is sensed to be idle, the node then begins fra(e trans(ission. 9therwise, the node waits another rando( a(ount of ti(e and repeats this process. If someone else begins talking at the same time, stop talking. In the networking world, this is ter(ed collision detection - a trans(itting node listens to the channel while it is trans(itting. If it detects that another node is trans(itting an interfering fra(e, it stops trans(itting and uses so(e protocol to deter(ine when it should ne,t atte(pt to trans(it.

'hese two rules are e(bodied in the fa(ily of &'MA %arrier Bense Multiple Access! and &'MA(&) %BMA with %ollision #etection! protocols :Cleinrock 6;A+, Metcalfe 6;AD, $a( 6;<=, 2o( 6;;=> . Many variations on %BMA and %BMA@%# have been proposed, with the differences being pri(arily in the (anner in which nodes perfor( backoff. 'he reader can consult these references for the details of these protocols. /e&ll study the %BMA@%# sche(e used in *thernet in detail in Bection +.+. "ere, we&ll consider a few of the (ost i(portant, and funda(ental, characteristics of %BMA and %BMA@%#.

5.!.! *akin -*urns Protocols 2ecall that two desirable properties of a (ultiple access protocol are (i) when only one node is active, the active node has a throughput of 2 bps, and (ii) when M nodes are active, then each active node has a throughput of nearly R/M bps. 'he A$9"A and %BMA protocols have this first property but not the second. 'his has (otivated researchers to create another class of protocols -- the takin -turns protocols. As with rando(-access protocols, there are do1ens of taking-turns protocols, and each one of these protocols has (any variations. /e&ll discuss two of the (ore i(portant protocols here. 'he first one is the pollin protocol. 'he polling protocol re3uires one of the nodes to be designated as a )(aster node) or re3uires the introduction of a new node serving as the (aster!. 'he (aster node polls each of the nodes in a roundrobin fashion. In particular, the (aster node first sends a (essage to node 6, saying that it can trans(it up to so(e (a,i(u( nu(ber of fra(es. After node 6 trans(its so(e fra(es fro( 1ero up to the (a,i(u( nu(ber!, the (aster node tells node 7 it can trans(it up to the (a,i(u( nu(ber of fra(es. 'he (aster node can deter(ine when a node has finished sending its fra(es by observing the lack of a signal on the channel.! 'he procedure continues in this (anner, with the (aster node polling each of the nodes in a cyclic (anner. 'he polling protocol eli(inates the collisions and the e(pty slots that plague the rando( access protocols. 'his allows it to have a (uch higher efficiency. -ut it also has a few drawbacks. 'he first drawback is that the protocol introduces a polling delay, the a(ount of ti(e re3uired to notify a node that it can trans(it. If, for e,a(ple, only one node is active, then the node will trans(it at a rate less than 2 bps, as the (aster node (ust poll each of the inactive nodes in turn, each ti(e the active node sends its (a,i(u( nu(ber of fra(es. 'he second drawback, which is potentially (ore serious, is that if the (aster node fails, the entire channel beco(es inoperative. 'he second taking-turn protocol is the token-passin protocol. In this protocol there is no (aster node. A s(all, special-purpose fra(e known as a token is e,changed a(ong the nodes in so(e fi,ed order. 4or e,a(ple, node 6 (ight always send the token to node 7, node 7 (ight always send the token to node 5, node . (ight always send the token to node 6. /hen a node receives a token, it holds onto the token only if it has so(e fra(es to trans(it; otherwise, it i((ediately forwards the token to the ne,t node. If a node does have fra(es to trans(it when it receives the token, it sends up to a (a,i(u( nu(ber of fra(es and then forwards the token to the ne,t node. 'oken passing is decentrali1ed and has a high efficiency. -ut it has its proble(s as well. 4or e,a(ple, the failure of one node can crash the entire channel. 9r if a node accidentally neglects to release the token, then so(e recovery procedure (ust be invoked to get the token back in circulationE 9ver the years (any token-passing products have been developed, and each one had to address these as well as other sticky issues. 5.!.3 Local Area Networks Multiple access protocols are used in con8unction with (any different types of broadcast channels. 'hey have been used for satellite and wireless channels, whose

nodes trans(it over a co((on fre3uency spectru(. 'hey are currently used in the upstrea( channel for cable access to the Internet see Bection 6.+!. And they are e,tensively used in local area networks $A.s!. 2ecall that a LAN is a co(puter network that is concentrated in a geographical area, such as in a building or on a university ca(pus. /hen a user accesses the Internet fro( a university or corporate ca(pus, the access is al(ost always by way of a $A.. 4or this type of Internet access, the user&s host is a node on the $A., and the $A. provides access to the Internet through a router, as shown in 4igure +.5-;. 'he $A. is a single )link) between each user host and the router; it therefore uses a link-layer protocol, which incorporates a (ultiple access protocol. 'he trans(ission rate, 2, of (ost $A.s is very high. *ven in the early 6;<=s, 6= Mbps $A.s were co((on; today, 6== Mbps $A.s are co((on, and 6 0bps $A.s are available.

Fi ure 5.3-+" Fser hosts access an Internet /eb server through a $A.. 'he broadcast channel between a user host and the router consists of one )link). In the 6;<=s and the early 6;;=s, two classes of $A. technologies were popular in the workplace. 'he first class consists of the *thernet $A.s also known as <=7.5 $A.s :I*** 6;;<b, Bpurgeon 6;;;>!, which are rando(-access based. 'he second class of $A. technologies are token-passing technologies, including token ring also known as I*** <=7.+ :I*** 6;;<>! and F I also known as 4iber #istributed #ata Interface :Gain 6;;?>!. -ecause we shall e,plore the *thernet technologies in so(e detail in Bection +.?, we focus our discussion here on the token-passing $A.s. 9ur discussion on token-passing technologies is intentionally brief, since these technologies have beco(e relatively (inor players in the face of relentless *thernet co(petition. .evertheless, in order to provide e,a(ples about token-passing technology and to give a little historical perspective, it is useful to say a few words about token rings. In a token ring $A., the N nodes of the $A. hosts and routers! are connected in a ring by direct links. 'he topology of the token ring defines the token-passing order. /hen a node obtains the token and sends a fra(e, the fra(e propagates around the entire ring, thereby creating a virtual broadcast channel. 'he node that sends the

fra(e has the responsibility of re(oving the fra(e fro( the ring. 4##I was designed for geographically larger $A.s so called MA.s, that is, (etropolitan area networks!. 4or geographically large $A.s spread out over several kilo(eters! it is inefficient to let a fra(e propagate back to the sending node once the fra(e has passed the destination node. 4##I has the destination node re(ove the fra(e fro( the ring. Btrictly speaking, 4##I is not a pure broadcast channel, as every node does not receive every trans(itted fra(e.! Hou can learn (ore about token ring and 4##I by visiting the 5%o( adapter page :5%o(>.

References
,Abramson -+./0 .. Abra(son, )'he Aloha syste(,) !FI"# $onf. "ro%., Iol. 5A, 6;A= 4all Goint %o(puter %onfernce, A4IPB Press, Montvale, ..G., 6;A=, pp. 7<67<+. ,Abramson -+150 .. Abra(son, )#evelop(ent of the Alohanet,) I*** 'ransactions on Infor(ation 'heory,) Iol. I'-56, .o. 5 March 6;<+!, pp. 66;-675. ,2ertsekas -++!0 #. -ertsekas and 2. 0allager, #ata .etworks, Becond *dition, Prentice "all, *nglewood %liffs, .ew Gersey, 6;;7. ,3&om -+++0 http:@@www.5co(.co(@products@nics.ht(l ,2o s -+110 #. -oggs, G. Mogul, and %. Cent, )Measured capacity of an *thernet: (yths and reality;) "ro% !$M #ig%omm &'((, pp. 777 - 75? ,3444 -++10 I***, 'oken 2ing Access Method IB9@I*% <<=7-+: 6;;< and <<=7-+ : 6;;<@A(d 6!, 6;;<. Bee the <=7.+ standards page at http:@@www.<=7+.org@<=7.+@docu(ents@ ,3444 -++1b0 I***, )%arrier sense (ultiple access with collision detection %BMA@%#! access (ethod and physical layer specifications.) Bee the I*** <=7.5 publication catalog at http:@@standards.ieee.org@catalog@I***<=7.5.ht(l ,5ain -++60 2. Gain, )4##I "andbook : "igh-Bpeed .etworking Fsing 4iber and 9ther Media,) Addison-/esley 2eading MA, 6;;?!. ,7leinrock -+.50 $. Cleinrock and 4. A. 'obagi, )Packet Bwitching in 2adio %hannels: Part I -- %arrier Bense Multiple-Access Modes and 'heir 'hroughput#elay %haracteristics,) I))) *ransa%tions on $omm+ni%ations, Iol. %9M-75, .o. 67, pp. 6?==-6?6D, #ec. 6;A+. ,Lam -+1/0 B. $a(, A %arrier Bense Multiple Access Protocol for $ocal .etworks,) %o(puter .etworks, Iolu(e ?, pp. 76-57, 6;<=. ,Metcal$e -+.80 2. Metcalfe, #. -oggs, )*thernet: #istributed packet switching for local co(puter networks,) $omm+ni%ations of the !$M, 6; A! 6;AD!, pp. 5;+-?=?. ,Molle 1.0 M. Molle, )Bpace 'i(e Analysis of %BMA Protocol,) I))) ,o+rnal on #ele%ted !reas in $omm+ni%ations, 6;<A. ,Pick#olt9 -+1!0 2. Pickholt1, #. Bchilling, $. Milstein, )'heory of Bpread Bpectru( %o((unication - a 'utorial,) I))) *ransa%tions on $omm+ni%ations, %ol. %9M-5=, .o. + May 6;<7!, pp. <++-<<?. ,%om -++/0 2. 2o( and M. Bidi, )Multiple Access Protocols: Perfor(ance and Analysis,) Bpringer-Ierlag, .ew Hork, 6;;=. :'pur eon -+++0 %. Bpurgeon, )%harles Bpurgeon&s *thernet /eb Bite,) http:@@wwwhost.ots.ute,as.edu@ethernet@ethernet-ho(e.ht(l ,:iterbi -++50 A. Iiterbi, $ M!- "rin%iples of #pread #pe%tr+m $omm+ni%ation, Addison-/esley, 2eading MA 6;;+!.