2018 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs), Sept.
19-20, 2018
Modified Rate Control for Collision-Aware in
Minstrel-HT Rate Adaptation Algorithm
Rizka Albar Teuku Yuliar Arif
Electrical and Computer Engineering Electrical and Computer Engineering
Syiah Kuala University Syiah Kuala University
Banda Aceh, Indonesia Banda Aceh, Indonesia
rizka.a91@mhs.unsyiah.ac.id yuliar@unsyiah.ac.id
Abstract—The rate adaptation algorithm in the IEEE
802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) is used to
control the rate for frame transmission. In the Linux kernel,
Minstrel-HT is used as the default rate adaptation to control
the rate in the IEEE 802.11n/ac WLANs. But if there are
frames collisions in the channel caused by the hidden terminal
problem, then Minstrel-HT degrade data rate resulting in
throughput also become decreased. The use of RTS/CTS
transmission mode in Minstrel-HT is based on RTS-Threshold,
resulting in throughput also decreasing as transmission
overhead increases when there are no collisions in the channel.
Previous works have proposed dynamic RTS/CTS activation
method but it is only used for legacy WLANs. In this paper, we
propose a modified rate control in Minstrel-HT that takes into
account the development of PHY and MAC in the IEEE
802.11n/ac WLANs and we call it as Minstrel with Collision
Detection for High Throughput (Minstrel-CDHT). The
modifications we propose are as follows, if the transmission is
not successful, then the first retransmission is done by enabling
RTS/CTS mode. If the transmission fails again, it is assumed
that the failure is not caused by the collision and the following
retransmission is done by disabling RTS/CTS mode. We
implement and evaluate this algorithm using NS-3 network
simulator. The simulation results show, when the collision
occurs in the channel, our proposed algorithm produces higher
throughput than the original Minstrel-HT and Minstrel-HT
with static RTS/CTS.
Keywords—Rate Adaptation; Collision-Aware; Minstrel-HT
Algorithm; High Throughput; IEEE 802.11n/ac.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks
(WLAN) there is a rate adaptation algorithm to determine the
most suitable data rate for frame transmission. If the highest
rate is used, then it can generate high throughput, but at the
same time can cause Frame Error Rate (FER) to be high. On
the other hand, for the lowest rate used, then it can produce a
low throughput but gives an advantage that is low FER.
Therefore the rate adaptation algorithm must succeed in
determining the best data rate to produce optimal throughput
and low FER.
Minstrel [1] is the default rate adaptation algorithm used
in the Linux kernel [2] to control the use of data rate in IEEE
802.11 WLAN's interfaces. Minstrel uses a sampling method
to find the rate used for frame transmission. The sampling
rate is done by transmitting a 10% frame using a randomly
selected sample rate from all available rates. The sampling
rate process generates statistical data from each sampling
rate, i.e. throughput estimation and the probability of
transmission success. Then the sampling rate is stored into
the retry chain table and sorted by the pair of best throughput
978-1-5386-6140-6/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Rizal Munadi
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Syiah Kuala University
Banda Aceh, Indonesia
rizal.munadi@unsyiah.ac.id
rate and its maximum retry count (r0/c0), second best
throughput rate and its maximum retry count (r1/c1), best
probability rate and its maximum retry count (r2/c2) and the
lowest available rate and its maximum retry count (r3/c3).
This retry chain table is always refreshed at the beginning of
every 100ms period according to the statistical data update of
the new sampling rate process.
The updated retry chain table is then used to control the
rate for transmitting 90% of other frames in the normal
transmission period. So at the beginning of the normal
transmission period, the frame is always transmitted using r0
to allow high throughput. If frame transmission fails then
retransmission still uses r0 until retry count value equal to
c0. If retransmission fails then the next retransmission is
changed using a lower rate in the retry chain table that is r1.
If the frame transmission always fails, then this rate control
procedure is always applied until retransmission uses the
lowest rate available in the retry chain table, i.e. r3. So in the
original Minstrel algorithm, this rate reduction decision
regardless of whether or not the transmission failure is
caused by channel error or by collision error.
Some papers have evaluated Minstrel's performance. In
[1] Minstrel performance is shown better than the proposed
rate control in [3] and [4]. D. Xia, et al., in [5] and [6] have
conducted experimental studies of Minstrel performance
versus fixed rates using a wireless IEEE 802.11g wireless
access point device. They have found that Minstrel
performance is better in static wireless channels than
dynamic channels. Minstrel performance is also better in
channels that change from good quality to poor quality than
from in the channel from poor quality to good quality.
Studies in [7] and [8] have also shown better performance of
Minstrel than the proposed rate control algorithms in [9] and
[10].
Several other papers have also proposed improving the
Minstrel algorithm to improve its performance. In [11], they
proposed the addition of the Transmit Power Control (TPC)
function and they called it Minstrel-Piano. The algorithm
succeeded in reducing the transmission power on the
transmitter side but with the same performance. In [12], they
proposed a Minstrel-based multicast rate adaptation for live
multimedia streaming applications. In [13], they proposed an
enhancement in order for Minstrel to be applied in the IEEE
802.11n/ac WLAN [14] and they called it as Minstrel-HT. In
[15] and [16], they showed the evaluation and proposed an
improvement of Minstrel-HT performance.
In this paper, we propose a modified rate control in
Minstrel-HT to increase throughput, especially when a
collision occurs in an IEEE 802.11n/ac WLANs. Some
7 ICELTICs 2018, Banda Aceh - Indonesia
papers have proposed RTS/CTS activation modes
dynamically and adaptively for rate adaptation algorithms. In
[17] iRTS is proposed, but limited to MadWiFi-based
WLAN devices. In [18] they proposed collision-aware rate
adaptation, developed from algorithm proposed in [19], but
the algorithm was not based on Minstrel. In [20], they
proposed Adaptive RTS (A-RTS) created using the hidden
detection tool, but their primary focus was rate adaptation
that considered frame aggregation for mobile applications.
The modified rate control for Minstrel-HT that we
propose is as follows. If the frame transmission fails, the first
retransmission is performed by enabling RTS/CTS mode. If
the transmission fails again, it is assumed that failure is not
caused by the collision and the following retransmission is
done by disabling RTS/CTS mode. We implemented and
evaluated the proposed algorithm using the NS-3 network
simulator. The simulation results show, when the collision
occurs in the channel, our proposed algorithm produces
higher throughput than the original Minstrel-HT and
Minstrel-HT with static RTS/CTS.
The next section of this paper is organized as follows.
Part II describes the literature review related to Minstrel rate
adaptation algorithm. Part III describes the simulation
methods for evaluating the proposed algorithm. The results
and discussion of the proposed algorithm are shown in
Section IV. Finally, Part V presents the conclusion
II. LITERATUR REVIEW
A. Related Work
Collision error is caused by a collision between two
frames in a wireless medium that is transmitted by different
nodes. The collision is primarily caused by a hidden terminal
problem in a WLAN channel, where when a node transmits a
frame, it is not known by another node because it is far from
the sender's node position. The hidden terminal node always
assumes the wireless channel is idle because the signal
transmitted by the sending node is not detected by the hidden
terminal node. As a result, hidden terminal nodes can also
transmit frames when other nodes are transmitting frames in
a wireless channel. In addition, collisions may also be caused
by backoff problems in DCF and EDCA channel access
methods [21].
To overcome the collision frame in the wireless channel
caused by the hidden terminal problem, IEEE 802.11n/ac has
provided Request to Send / Clear to Send (RTS/CTS)
transmission mode. However, the activation method of the
RTS/CTS transmission mode is only based on the length of
the transmitted frame threshold. If frame length is less than
RTS-threshold, frame transmission does not use RTS/CTS
mode. Similarly, if the frame length is greater than RTS-
threshold then the frame transmission always uses RTS /
CTS mode, although there is no collision in the network. As
a result, the throughput becomes decreased due to the
addition of overhead of RTS/CTS handshake even in the
wireless channel there is no collision.
The static RTS/CTS mode activation method is also
currently used in the Minstrel-HT algorithm. If the length of
the transmitted frame is smaller than the RTS-threshold, then
Minstrel-HT transmits the frame without RTS/CTS
handshake. If the collision occurs continuously in the normal
transmission period, Minstrel-HT decreases the rate from
8
r0/c0 to r1/c1, from r1/c1 to r2/c2 or from r2/c2 to r3/c3
without activating RTS/CTS mode. As a result, the
throughput becomes decreased as a result of changes in rate
from high rate to low rate. Similarly, if the length of the
transmitted frame is longer than RTS-threshold, then
Minstrel-HT transmits the frame using RTS/CTS mode. But
when there is no collision, then transmission using RTS/CTS
mode causes the throughput also to decrease due to the
addition of overhead of RTS/CTS handshake. Therefore a
dynamic RTS/CTS mode activation method is required in
Minstrel-HT to generate optimal throughput in IEEE
802.11n/ac WLANs.
Based on the literature search and as far as we know, a
few papers have proposed activation methods of RTS/CTS
mode dynamically and adaptively. In [17] iRTS is proposed
but is limited to MadWiFi-based WLAN devices. In [18], the
collision-aware rate adaptation for high throughput WLANs
is proposed, they developed it from [19], but the algorithm is
not based on Minstrel. In [20], Adaptive RTS (A-RTS) is
proposed that is developed using a hidden detection tool, but
their main objective is adaptation rate and frame aggregation
length to decrease transmission failure of A-MPDU sub-
frame caused by node mobility effect.
B. Proposed Modified Rate Control for Minstrel-HT
Minstrel-HT algorithm has three main parts, namely the
retry chain mechanism, rate decision process and statistical
calculation [1], [13]. The modifications we propose in this
paper are only in the rate decision process for rate control in
the normal transmission period. We do not modify anything
for rate control in the transmission period using the sampling
rate. We also do not modify anything in the other two main
parts and leave it the same as the original.
The modified rate control we propose is based on our
observations, when a transmission failure occurs Minstrel-
HT responds with retransmission using the same rate as long
as the maximum count has not been reached, regardless of
the cause of the transmission failure due to channel error or
collision error. If the collision continues and the maximum
count is reached, the original rate control in Minstrel-HT
changes retransmission using a lower rate. In the algorithm
we propose, we modify the rate control procedure as follows:
if the transmission is not successful, then the first
retransmission is done by enabling RTS/CTS mode. If the
transmission fails again, then the transmission failure is
assumed not to be caused by the collision and the following
retransmission is done by disabling RTS/CTS mode. The
Minstrel-HT algorithm we have modified then we call
Minstrel with Collision Detection for High Throughput
(Minstrel-CDHT). Detailed proposed rate control
modifications in Minstrel-HT are shown in Pseudocode 1.
III. RESEARCH METHOD
We implemented and evaluated the proposed algorithm
using the NS-3 network simulator. Modified rate control on
Minstrel-HT we apply in [22] and we call it Minstrel-CDHT.
Our proposed algorithm is evaluated based on two simulation
scenarios as shown in Fig. 1. The first scenario (Fig. 1a) aims
to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm in
controlling the rate at which transmission failure occurs due
to channel error. The second scenario (Fig. 1b) intends to
evaluate the performance of the rate control on the collision
error caused by the hidden terminal problem.
Pseudocode 1. Modified rate control for Minstrel-HT algorithm
1: Begin
2: retry++
3: if (sampling == false) then
4: if (retry == 1) then
5: if (!rtsOn) then a) Simulation topology for the first scenario
6: TurnOnRts ();
7: rtsCounter = rtsWnd;
8: txrate = r0;
9: else if (retry == 2) then
10: if (rtsOn) then
11: TurnOffRts ();
12: txrate = r0;
13: else if (retry < c0) then
b) Simulation topology for the second scenario
14: txrate = r0;
15: else if (retry < ( c0 + 1) then
16: txrate = r1; Fig. 1. Simulation topology
17: else if (retry < ( c0 + 2) then
18: if (!rtsOn) then TABLE I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
19: TurnOnRts ();
20: rtsCounter = rtsWnd; Parameters Description
21: txrate = r1; Number of AP 1
22: else if (retry < ( c0 + 3) then Number of STA 1 (1st scenario), 2 (2nd scenario)
23: if (rtsOn) then
24: TurnOffRts (); STA to AP max. distance 100m (1st scenario), 5m (2nd scenario)
25: txrate = r1; PHY Model YansWifiPhy
26: else if (retry < ( c0 + c1)) then Energy detection threshold -96.0 dBm
27: txrate = r1; CCA mode threshold -99.0 dBm
28: else if (retry < (c0 + c1 + 1) then
29: txrate = r2; Tx Power 16.02 dBm
30: else if (retry < (c0 + c1 + 2)) then Tx/Rx gain 1 dB
31: if (!rtsOn) then Rx noise figure 7 dB
32: TurnOnRts (); Number of Tx/Rx antenna 2/3/4
33: rtsCounter = rtsWnd;
34: txrate = r2; Guard interval 800ns (GI), 400ns (Short-GI)
35: else if (retry < (c0 + c1 + 3)) then Bandwidth 20/40 MHz
36: if (rtsOn) then Frequency 5 GHz
37: TurnOffRts (); LogDistancePropagationLoss (1st scen.)
38: txrate = r2; Channel loss model
RangePropagationLoss (2nd scen.)
39: else if (retry <= (c0 + c1 + c3)) then
Channel delay model ConstantSpeed
40: txrate = r2;
41: else Error model NistErrorRateModel
42: if (retry < 1 + c2) then MAC model HT-MAC
43: txrate = r1; Max. A-MPDU length 65535 bytes
44: else if (retry <= 1 + c1 + c2) then 0 byte (enable RTS/CTS mode)
45: txrate = r2; RTS/CTS threshold
65535 bytes (disable RTS/CTS mode)
46: end
EDCA access category Best effort
IP network/Transport IPv4/UDP
In the first scenario, there is an Access Point (AP) and
Application model OnOffApplication
one station (STA) connected to this AP that is configured
Data rate 600 Mbps
with HT-PHY and MAC IEEE 802.11n. At the beginning of
Packet size 1500 bytes
the simulation time, the STA is at the nearest distance of 1 m
and capable of communicating with the AP at the highest Start time 0.5 s
data rate according to the channel width configuration, guard Simulation time 100.0 s
interval, and the number of spatial streams (SS). If AP and
For the entire simulation, the STA continuously sends a
STA are configured using a channel width of 20 MHz, GI
1500 byte UDP packet to the AP to saturate the channel. The
and 4SS then the highest rate has index 31 (MCS-31, 130
packet is transmitted without and by enabling the A-MPDU
Mbps). Similarly, if configured using channel width of
scheme through the best effort EDCA access category IEEE
40MHz, SGI and 4SS then the highest rate has index 127
802.11e [23]. On the STA side, we enable Callbacks to
(MCS-31, 600 Mbps) [14].
print every change of rate for packet transmission. We
During simulation, the STA moves at a constant speed of calculate the throughput on the AP side and we show the
1 m/s away from the AP causing degradation of channel throughput changes in the graph based on the increase in
quality and triggering channel error. In this first scenario, we STA and AP distance from 1 to 100m. All the simulation
use LogDistancePropagationLoss for channel loss parameters used in the first scenario are shown in Table I.
model and NistErrorRateModel for error model in NS- In the second scenario, we placed the STA on the right
3.26. The simulation stops when the STA is 100 m from the side of AP and is 5 m away. To trigger the hidden terminal
AP and is able to communicate at the lowest rate with index problem, we put another STA at a distance of 5m left of the
0 (MCS-0, 6.5 Mbps). We also simulate Minstrel-HT AP. In this simulation, we changed the channel model to
(without RTS/CTS) and use static RTS/CTS (S-RTS) as a RangePropagationLossModel and the error model still
benchmark to assess the algorithm we propose.
uses NistErrorRateModel. Both STAs continuously

9
Fig. 2. Rate adaptation with PHY/MAC configuration: channel width
20 MHz, GI, 4 spatial streams and A-MPDU scheme is disabled.
Fig. 4. Throughput with PHY/MAC configuration: channel width 20
MHz, GI, 4 spatial streams and A-MPDU scheme is disabled
transmit UDP packets 1500 bytes to AP to trigger collisions
in the channel. We also enable Callback to print any
change in STA rate, so Minstrel-CDHT response to error
collision can be observed. We calculate the throughput on
the AP side and we show the throughput generated in the
graph based on the number of spatial streams used. We also
simulate Minstrel-HT and Minstrel-HT/S-RTS as a
benchmark to assess the performance of each algorithm
against collisions in the IEEE 802.11n WLANs. All second
scenario simulation parameters are also shown in Table I.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this section, we show the performance resulted by a
modified rate control in the Minstrel-CDHT algorithm. Our
analysis is done by comparing it with original Minstrel-HT
and Minstrel-HT/S-RTS. The three algorithms we simulated
in the two scenarios as described in section III.
A. Minstrel-CDHT Performance in Dynamic Channel
Condition
We first analyse the performance of each algorithm's rate
control on channel quality changes, as shown in Fig. 2.
When STA moves 1m / s away from AP, which means
channel quality is changing from good to bad, the simulation
results show all three algorithms have the same response. At
10
Fig. 3. Rate adaptation with PHY/MAC configuration: channel width 20
MHz, GI, 4 spatial streams, and A-MPDU scheme is enabled.
Fig. 5. Throughput with PHY/MAC configuration: channel width 20 Hz,
GI, 4 spatial streams and A-MPDU scheme is enabled
the beginning of the simulation, when the STA starts to
move, Minstrel-CDHT performs a sampling rate and
successfully finds the highest rate (MCS-31) for frame
transmission. The highest rate continues to be used as long as
there is no transmission failure. As the channel continues to
deteriorate and the number of retransmitting reaches its
maximum, a lower rate starts to be used. Each 100ms period
is a new sampling rate to obtain the rate that best fits the
channel conditions. The random rate chosen by Minstrel-
CDHT is the same as Minstrel-HT and Minstrel-HT/S-RTS.
This is because the modified rate control we propose is only
for collision errors, and not for channel errors.
Fig. 3 shows the response rate control of the three
algorithms to the channel quality change and the frame is
transmitted using the A-MPDU scheme. The three
algorithms at the beginning of the simulation also show the
same response, which was able to find the highest MCS at
the beginning of the frame transmission. But different
responses are shown when A-MPDU sub-frames begin to
experience transmission failures due to deteriorating channel
quality. The simulation results show that Minstrel-CDHT
uses the same MCS as the original Minstrel-HT, in contrast
to the Minstrel-HT / S-RTS seen more frequently changing
MCS randomly for retransmission of the A-MPDU sub-
frame.
 Fig. 4 shows the effect of distance change on the
throughput of each algorithm in the IEEE 802.11n WLAN.
AP and STA are configured using 20 MHz channel width,
the short guard interval is disabled, four spatial streams and
A-MPDU scheme are disabled. Minstrel-CDHT produces an
average throughput equal to Minstrel-HT. This means our
proposed algorithm produces the same performance as the
original algorithm even though we have modified the rate
control section. While Minstrel-HT/S-RTS produces the
lowest throughput when the channel conditions are good.
This is due to the additional overhead of the frame always
transmitted using RTS/CTS even though there is no collision
in the channel. Minstrel-CDHT has the highest average
throughput of 44 Mbps equal to Minstrel-HT, while
Minstrel-HT/S-RTS's highest throughput is only 33 Mbps.
In Fig. 5, AP and STA are configured using 20 MHz
channel width, the short guard interval is disabled, four
spatial streams and A-MPDU scheme are enabled. Minstrel-
CDHT produces an average throughput equal to Minstrel-
HT. This again confirms our proposed algorithm yields the
same performance as the original algorithm in the
transmission scheme using A-MPDU even though we have
modified the rate control section. While Minstrel-HT/S-RTS
produces the lowest throughput when the channel conditions
are good. This is due to the additional overhead of the frame
always transmitted using RTS/CTS even though there is no Fig. 6. Rate adaptation in collision channel with PHY/MAC
collision in the channel. Minstrel-CDHT has the highest configuration: channel width 20 MHz, GI, 4 spatial streams and A-
average throughput of 230 Mbps, the same as Minstrel-HT's MPDU scheme is disabled.
highest throughput, while Minstrel-HT/S-RTS's highest
throughput is only 220 Mbps. This proves that our proposed
algorithm succeeded in not enabling the RTS/CTS
transmission mode when the transmission failure was not
caused by the collision, resulting in more efficient
transmission overhead.

B. Minstrel-CDHT in Collision Channel Condition

In this section, we show the results of the second scenario
simulation. In the simulation, the STA located 5m to the
right of AP, starting at 0.5s seconds transmits continuously
frame to AP. STA hidden terminal located at 5m left AP,
starting seconds to 1.0s also transmits frames continuously to
AP using constant rate to create collision in the channel. The
constant rate used by our STA hidden terminal is equal to the
highest rate available on the STA, i.e. 2SS = MCS15, 3SS =
MCS23 and 4SS = MCS31. We observed for 5s of
simulations to evaluate the response of each algorithm to the
collision.
Fig. 6 shows the adaptation rate of each algorithm in the
event of a collision. When the collision starts at 1.0s,
Minstrel-CDHT maintains the highest data rate according to
the PHY configuration used, i.e. MCS15 for 2SS, MSC23 for
3SS and MCS31 for 4SS. The same condition is shown by
the Minstrel-HT/S-RTS algorithm, but the frame is always
transmitted using RTS/CTS mode even if the channel does
not occur collision. In contrast to Minstrel-HT, the data rate
is always reduced randomly in response to collisions.
To observe the maximum throughput generated by each
algorithm in the event of a collision, we extended the
simulation duration to 10.0s. We calculate the throughput on
the AP side, where we only calculate the data successfully
received without using the A-MPDU scheme. Fig. 7 shows
Minstrel-CDHT resulting in higher throughput than the other
two algorithms. This proves that our proposed algorithm
Fig. 7. Throughput in collision channel with PHY/MAC configuration:
channel width 20 MHz, GI, 4 spatial streams and A-MPDU scheme is
disabled.
successfully controls the rate under the conditions of
collision by activating the RTS/CTS transmission mode
dynamically in the event of a collision in the wireless
channel. In contrast to Minstrel-HT/S-RTS that always
transmit frames using RTS/CTS mode, although there is no
collision in the channel, causing lower throughput than our
proposed algorithm.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have proposed a modification for rate
control in Minstrel-HT to increase throughput, especially
when a collision occurs in WLAN IEEE 802.11n/ac. The
modifications we have proposed are only in the rate decision
process for rate control in the normal transmission period. In
original Minstrel-HT, in case of transmission failure, the
retransmission is performed using the same rate as long as
the maximum count has not been reached, regardless of the
cause of the transition failure caused by the error or collision

11
error. If the collision continues and the maximum count is
reached, then the original rate control in Minstrel-HT,
retransmission is changed using a lower rate causing the
throughput to decrease. In our proposed algorithm, if the
transmission fails, the first retransmission is done by
enabling RTS/CTS mode. If the frame transmission fails
again, it is assumed that failure is not caused by the collision
and the following retransmission is done by disabling
RTS/CTS mode. Our proposed algorithm is called Minstrel
with Collision Detection for High Throughput (Minstrel-
CDHT). We have implemented and evaluated the proposed
algorithm using the NS-3 network simulator. The simulation
results show, when the collision occurs in the channel, our
proposed algorithm produces higher throughput than the
original Minstrel-HT and Minstrel-HT with static RTS/CTS.
REFERENCES
[1] Rate Adaptation for 802.11 Wireless Networks: Minstrel,
http://blog.cerowrt.org/papers/minstrel-sigcomm-final.pdf.
[2] F. Fietkau and D. Smithies, “Linux Wireless Minstrel High
Throughput”, https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documen
tation/mac80211/ratecontrol/minstrel.
[3] S. Wong, H. Yang, S. Lu and V. Bharghavan, "Robust Rate
Adaptation for 802.11 Wireless Networks," in Proceedings of ACM
MOBICOM, 2006.
[4] Onoe Rate Control, http://madwifi.org/browser/trunk/ath rate/onoe.
[5] D. Xia, J. Hart and Q. Fu, "On the performance of rate control
algorithm Minstrel," 2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications - (PIMRC),
Sydney, NSW, 2012, pp. 406-412.
[6] D. Xia, J. Hart and Q. Fu, "Evaluation of the Minstrel rate adaptation
algorithm in IEEE 802.11g WLANs," 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), Budapest, 2013, pp. 2223-
2228.
[7] R. Copeland, “A Study of 802.11 Bitrate Selection in Linux.” (2012),
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-of-802-.-11-Bitrate-
Selection-in-Linux-Copeland.
[8] W. Yin, P. Hu, J. Indulska, “Rate control in the mac80211
framework: Overview, evaluation and improvements,” Computer
Networks, vol. 81, pp. 289-307, March 2015.
[9] M. Lacage, M.H. Manshaei, and T. Turletti, “IEEE 802.11 rate
adaptation: a practical approach,” Proceedings of the 7th ACM
international symposium on Modeling, analysis and simulation of
wireless and mobile systems, pages 126–134, 2004.
[10] LinuxWireless Project, PID Specification, http://linuxwireless.sipso
lutions.net/en/developers/Documentation/mac80211/RateControl/PID
12
[11] T. Huehn and C. Sengul, "Practical Power and Rate Control for
WiFi," 2012 21st International Conference on Computer
Communications and Networks (ICCCN), Munich, 2012, pp. 1-7.
[12] E. Coronado, R. Riggio, J. Villalón and A. Garrido, "SDN@Play: A
multicast rate adaptation mechanism for IEEE 802.11 WLANs," 2017
14th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking
Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, 2017, pp. 700-703.
[13] F. Fietkau. MinstrelHT: New Rate Control Module for 802.11n,
http://lwn.net/Articles/376765/, March 2010.
[14] R. Karmakar, S. Chattopadhyay and S. Chakraborty, "Impact of IEEE
802.11n/ac PHY/MAC High Throughput Enhancements on Transport
and Application Protocols—A Survey," in IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2050-2091, Fourth quarter
2017.
[15] T. Y. Arif, R. Munadi and Fardian, “Evaluation of the Minstrel-HT
Rate Adaptation Algorithm in IEEE 802.11n WLANs,” International
Journal of Simulation Systems, Science & Technology, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 11.1-11.7, March 2017.
[16] Y. Daldoul, D. E. Meddour, and A. Ksentini, “IEEE 802.11n/ac Data
Rates under Power Constraints”, International Conference on
Communications, Kansas City, USA, 20-24 May 2018.
[17] Seongho Byeon, Hyewon Lee, Joo Il Kim, Woon Sun Cho and S.
Choi, "Designing adaptive RTS for MadWifi-based WLAN
device," 2012 Fourth International Conference on Ubiquitous and
Future Networks (ICUFN), Phuket, 2012, pp. 15-16.
[18] S. F. Arief, T. Y. Arif, R. Munadi, “Collision-Aware Rate Adaptation
Algorithm for High-Throughput IEEE 802.11n WLANs,” The 6th
International Conference on Information and Communication
Technology (ICoICT 2018), Bandung, Indonesia, May 3-4, 2018, in
press.
[19] S. Kim, L. Verma, S. Choi and D. Qiao, "Collision-aware rate
adaptation in multi-rate WLANs: Design and
implementation", Computer Network, vol. 54, no. 17, pp. 3011-3030,
June. 2010.
[20] S. Byeon, K. Yoon, C. Yang and S. Choi, "STRALE: Mobility-aware
PHY rate and frame aggregation length adaptation in WLANs," IEEE
INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications,
Atlanta, GA, 2017, pp. 1-9.
[21] T. Y. Arif and R. F. Sari, "DCF and EDCA throughput improvement
using Selective Anomalous Slot Avoidance (SASA)," 2013 19th
IEEE International Conference on Networks (ICON), Singapore,
2013, pp. 1-7.
[22] Minstrel-HT in NS-3 network simulator documentation, https://
www.nsnam.org/doxygen/minstrel-ht-wifi-manager_8cc_source.html.
[23] T.Y. Arif, R.F. Sari, "Performance Comparison of Video Traffic Over
WLAN IEEE 802.11e and IEEE 802.11n", The Fourth International
Conference on Mobile Ubiquitous Computing, Systems, Services and
Technologies (UBICOMM), Florance, Italy, 2010, pp. 317-323.
.