0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

6 просмотров16 страницOct 31, 2008

UBICC Journal 174 174

© Public Domain

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Public Domain

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

6 просмотров16 страницUBICC Journal 174 174

Public Domain

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

National School of Computer Science

University of Manouba, 2010 Tunisia

Emails: ines.korbi@gmail.com Leila.saidane@ensi.rnu.tn

ABSTRACT

Real time applications are characterized by their delay bounds. To satisfy the

Quality of Service (QoS) requirements of such flows over wireless

communications, we enhance the 802.11 protocol to support the Deadline

Monotonic (DM) scheduling policy. Then, we propose to evaluate the performance

of DM in terms of throughput, average medium access delay and medium access

delay distrbution. To evaluate the performance of the DM policy, we develop a

Markov chain based analytical model and derive expressions of the throughput, the

average MAC layer service time and the service time distribution. Therefore, we

validate the mathematical model and extend analytial results to a multi-hop

network by simulation using the ns-2 network simulator.

medium access delay, Throughput, Probabilistic medium access delay bounds.

medium access backoff policy. Therefore, we focus

Supporting applications with QoS requirements on performance evaluation of the DM policy in terms

has become an important challenge for all of achievable throughput, average MAC layer

communications networks. In wireless LANs, the service time and MAC layer service time

IEEE 802.11 protocol [5] has been enhanced and the distribution. Hence, we follow these steps:

IEEE 802.11e protocol [6] was proposed to support First, we propose a Markov Chain

quality of service over wireless communications. framework modeling the backoff process of

In the absence of a coordination point, the IEEE n contending stations within the same

802.11 defines the Distributed Coordination broadcast region [1].

Function (DCF) based on the Carrier Sense Multiple Due to the complexity of the mathematical

Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) model, we restrict the analysis to n

protocol. The IEEE 802.11e proposes the Enhanced contending stations belonging to two traffic

Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) as an extension categories (each traffic category is

for DCF. With EDCA, each station maintains four characterized by its own delay bound).

priorities called Access Categories (ACs). The From the analytical model, we derive the

quality of service offered to each flow depends on throughput achieved by each traffic

the AC to which it belongs. category.

Nevertheless, the granularity of service offered Then, we use the generalized Z-transforms

by 802.11e (4 priorities at most) can not satisfy the [3] to derive expressions of the average

real time flows requirements (where each flow is MAC layer service time and the service

characterized by its own delay bound). time distribution.

As the analytical model was restricted to

Therefore, we propose in this paper a new two traffic categories, analytical results are

medium access mechanism based on the Deadline extended by simulation to different traffic

Monotonic (DM) policy [9] to schedule real time categories.

flows over 802.11. Indeed DM is a real time

Finally, we consider a simple multi-hop

scheduling policy that assigns static priorities to flow

scenario to deduce the behavior of the DM

packets according to their deadlines; the packet with

policy in a multi hop environment.

the shortest deadline being assigned the highest

priority. To support the DM policy over 802.11, we

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In maximum achievable throughput. The native model

section 2, we review the state of the art of the IEEE is also extended in [10] to a non saturated

802.11 DCF, QoS support over 802.11 mainly the environment. In [12], the authors derive the average

IEEE 80.211e EDCA and real time scheduling over packet service time at a 802.11 node. A new

802.11. In section 3, we present the distributed generalized Z-transform based framework has been

scheduling and introduce the new medium access proposed in [3] to derive probabilistic bounds on

backoff policy to support DM over 802.11. In section MAC layer service time. Therefore, it would be

4, we present our mathematical model based on possible to provide probabilistic end to end delay

Markov chain analysis. Section 5 and 6 present bounds in a wireless network.

respectively throughput and the service time

analysis. Analytical results are validated by 2.2 Supporting QoS over 802.11

simulation using the ns-2 network simulator [16]. In 2.2.1 Differentiation mechanisms over 802.11

section 7, we extend our study by simulation, first to Emerging applications like audio and video

take into consideration different traffic categories, applications require quality of service guarantees in

second, to study the behavior of the DM algorithm in terms of throughput delay, jitter, loss rate, etc.

a multi-hop environment where factors like Transmitting such flows over wireless

interferences or routing protocols exist. Finally, we communications require supporting service

conclude the paper in section 8. differentiation mechanisms over such networks.

proposed to provide some QoS enhancements over

2.1 The 802.11 protocol the IEEE 802.11 WLAN. Indeed, [4] assigns

2.1.1 Description of the IEEE 802.11 DCF different priorities to the incoming flows. Priority

Using DCF, a station shall ensure that the classes are differentiated according to one of three

channel is idle when it attempts to transmit. Then it 802.11 parameters: the backoff increase function, the

selects a random backoff in the contention Inter Frame Spacing (IFS) and the maximum frame

window 0 , CW 1 , where CW is the current length. Experiments show that all the three

window size and varies between the minimum and differentiation schemes offer better guarantees for

the maximum contention window sizes. If the the highest priority flow. But the backoff increase

channel is sensed busy, the station suspends its function mechanism doesn’t perform well with TCP

backoff until the channel becomes idle for a flows because ACKs affect the differentiation

Distributed Inter Frame Space (DIFS) after a mechanism.

successful transmission or an Extended Inter Frame

Space (EIFS) after a collision. The packet is In [7], an algorithm is proposed to provide

transmitted when the backoff reaches zero. A packet service differentiation using two parameters of IEEE

is dropped if it collides after maximum 802.11, the backoff interval and the IFS. With this

retransmission attempts. scheme high priority stations are more likely to

The above described two way handshaking access the medium than low priority ones. The above

packet transmission procedure is called basic access described researches led to the standardization of a

mechanism. DCF defines a four way handshaking new protocol that supports QoS over 802.11, the

technique called Request To Send/Clear To Send IEEE 802.11e protocol [6].

(RTS/CTS) to prevent the hidden station problem. A

station S j is said to be hidden from S i if S j is 2.2.2 The IEEE 802.11e EDCA

The IEEE 802.11e proposes a new medium

within the transmission range of the receiver of S i access mechanism called the Enhanced Distributed

and out of the transmission range of S i . Channel Access (EDCA), that enhances the IEEE

2.1.2 Performance evaluation of the 802.11 802.11 DCF. With EDCA, each station maintains

DCF four priorities called Access Categories (ACs). Each

Different works have been proposed to evaluate access category is characterized by a minimum and a

the performance of the 802.11 protocol based on maximum contention window sizes and an

Bianchi’s work [1]. Indeed, Bianchi proposed a Arbitration Inter Frame Spacing (AIFS).

Markov chain based analytical model to evaluate the

saturation throughput of the 802.11 protocol. By Different analytical models have been proposed

saturation conditions, it’s meant that contending to evaluate the performance of 802.11e EDCA. In

stations have always packets to transmit. [17], Xiao extends Bianchi’s model to the prioritized

Several works extended the Bianchi model either schemes provided by 802.11e by introducing

to suit more realistic scenarios or to evaluate other multiple ACs with distinct minimum and maximum

performance parameters. Indeed, the authors of [2] contention window sizes. But the AIFS

incorporate the frame retry limits in the Bianchi’s differentiation parameter is lacking in Xiao’s model.

model and show that Bianchi overestimates the Recently Osterbo and Al. have proposed

different works to evaluate the performance of the backoff value is inferred from the deadline

IEEE 802.11e EDCA [13], [14], [15]. They proposed information.

a model that takes into consideration all the

differentiation parameters of the EDCA especially 3 SUPPORTING DEADLINE MONOTONIC

the AIFS one. Moreover different parameters of QoS (DM) POLICY OVER 802.11

have been evaluated such as throughput, average

service time, service time distribution and With DCF all the stations share the same

probabilistic response time bounds for both saturated transmission medium. Then, the HOL (Head of Line)

and non saturated cases. packets of all the stations (highest priority packets)

will contend for the channel with the same priority

Although the IEEE 802.11e EDCA classifies the even if they have different deadlines.

traffic into four prioritized ACs, there is still no Introducing DM over 802.11 allows stations

guarantee of real time transmission service. This is having packets with short deadlines to access the

due to the lack of a satisfactory scheduling method channel with higher priority than those having

for various delay-sensitive flows. Hence, we need a packets with long deadlines. Providing such a QoS

scheduling policy dedicated to such delay sensitive requires distributed scheduling and a new medium

flows. access policy.

2.3 Real time scheduling over 802.11 3.1 Distributed Scheduling over 802.11

To realize a distributed scheduling over 802.11,

A distributed solution for the support of real- we introduce a priority broadcast mechanism similar

time sources over IEEE 802.11, called Blackburst, is to [18]. Indeed each station maintains a local

discussed in [8]. This scheme modifies the MAC scheduling table with entries for HOL packets of all

protocol to send short transmissions in order to gain other stations. Each entry in the scheduling table of

priority for real-time service. It is shown that this

node S i comprises two fields S j , D j where S j is

approach is able to support bounded delays. The

main drawback of this scheme is that it requires the source node MAC address and D j is the

constant intervals for high priority traffic; otherwise deadline of the HOL packet of node S j . To

the performance degrades very much. broadcast HOL packets deadlines, we propose to use

the two way handshake DATA/ACK access mode.

In [18], the authors introduced a distributed

priority scheduling over 802.11 to support a class of

When a node S i transmits a DATA packet, it

dynamic priority schedulers such as Earliest

Deadline First (EDF) or Virtual Clock (VC). Indeed, piggybacks the deadline of its HOL packet. Nodes

the EDF policy is used to schedule real time flows hearing the DATA packet add an entry for S i in

according to their absolute deadlines, where the their local scheduling tables by filling the

absolute deadline is the node arrival time plus the corresponding fields. The receiver of the DATA

delay bound. packet copies the priority of the HOL packet in ACK

To realize a distributed scheduling over 802.11, before sending the ACK frame. All the stations that

the authors of [18] used a priority broadcast did not hear the DATA packet add an entry for S i

mechanism where each station maintains an entry for using the information in the ACK packet.

the highest priority packet of all other stations. Thus,

stations can adjust their backoff according to other 3.2 DM medium access backoff policy

stations priorities. Let’s consider two stations S 1 S2and

The overhead introduced by the broadcast transmitting two flows with the same deadline D1

priority mechanism is negligible. This is due to the ( D1 is expressed as a number of 802.11 slots). The

fact that priorities are exchanged using native DATA two stations having the same delay bound can access

and ACK packets. Nevertheless, authors of [18] the channel with the same priority using the native

proposed a generic backoff policy that can be used 802.11 DCF.

by a class of dynamic priority schedulers no matter if Now, we suppose that S 1 and S 2 transmit flows

this scheduler targets delay sensitive flows or rate

sensitive flows. with different delay bounds D1 and D2 such as

D1 D2 , and generate two packets at time instants

In this paper, we focus on delay sensitive flows t 1 and t 2 . If S 2 had the same delay bound as S 1 ,

and propose to support the fixed priority Deadline

Monotonic (DM) policy over 802.11 to schedule its packet would have been generated at time t '2 such

delay sensitive flows. For instance, we use a priority as t '2 t 2 D 21 , where D 21 D 2 D1 .

broadcast mechanism similar to [18] and introduce a

At that time, S 1 and S 2 would have the same

new medium access backoff policy where the

priority and transmit their packets according to the

802.11 protocol. following assumptions:

Thus, to support DM over 802.11, each station

uses a new backoff policy where the backoff is given Assumption 1:

by: The system under study comprises n contending

The random backoff selected in 0 , CW 1 stations hearing each other transmissions.

according to 802.11 DCF, referred as BAsic

Backoff (BAB). Assumption 2:

The DM Shifting Backoff (DMSB): Each station S i transmits a flow Fi with a delay

corresponds to the additional backoff slots that bound Di . The n stations are divided into two

a station with low priority (the HOL packet

traffic categories C1 and C 2 such as:

having a large deadline) adds to its BAB to

have the same priority as the station with the C1 represents n1 nodes transmitting flows

highest priority (the HOL packet having the with delay bound D1 .

shortest deadline). C 2 represents n 2 nodes transmitting flows

Whenever a station S i sends an ACK or hears with delay bound D2 , such as D1 D2 ,

an ACK on the channel its DMSB is revaluated as D 21 D 2 D1 and n1 n 2 n .

follows:

Assumption 3:

DMSBS i DeadlineHOLS i DTmin S i (1) We operate in saturation conditions: each station has

immediately a packet available for transmission after

the service completion of the previous packet [1].

Where DTmin S i is the minimum of the HOL

packet deadlines present in S i scheduling table and Assumption 4:

DeadlineHOLS i is the HOL packet deadline of A station selects a BAB in a constant contention

node S i . window 0 ,W 1 independently of the transmission

attempt. This is a simplifying assumption to limit the

Hence, when S i has to transmit its HOL packet

complexity of the mathematical model.

with a delay bound Di , it selects a BAB in the

contention window 0 , CW min 1 and computes the Assumption 5:

WHole Backoff (WHB) value as follows: We are in stationary conditions, i.e. the n stations

have already sent one packet at least.

WHBS i DMSBS i BAB S i (2)

Depending on the traffic category to which it

belongs, each station S i will be modeled by a

The station S i decrements its BAB when it

Markov Chain representing its whole backoff (WHB)

senses an idle slot. Now, we suppose that S i senses process.

the channel busy. If a successful transmission is

heard, then S i revaluates its DMSB when a correct 4.1 Markov chain modeling a station of category

ACK is heard. Then the station S i adds the new C1

Figure 1 illustrates the Markov chain modeling a

DMSB value to its current BAB as in equation (2).

station S 1 of category C1 . The states of this Markov

Whereas, if a collision is heard, S i reinitializes its

DMSB and adds it to its current BAB to allow chain are described by the following quadruplet

colliding stations contending with the same priority R , i , i j , D21 where:

as for their first transmission attempt. S i transmits

R : takes two values denoted by C 2 and

when its WHB reaches 0. If the transmission fails, S i

doubles its contention window size and repeats the ~ C 2 . When R ~ C 2 , the n 2 stations of

above procedure until the packet is successfully category C 2 are decrementing their shifting

transmitted or dropped after maximum backoff (DMSB) during D21 slots and

retransmission attempts.

wouldn’t contend for the channel. When

R C 2 , the D21 slots had already been

4 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE DM elapsed and stations of category C 2 will

POLICY OVER 802.11 contend for the channel.

i : the value of the BAB selected by S 1 in

In this section, we propose a mathematical

model to evaluate the performance of the DM policy

0 ,W 1 .

using Markov chain analysis [1]. We consider the

Figure 1: Markov chain modeling a category C1 Station

of the station S 1 . i 1..W 1 , j 0.. minD21 1, i 1 .

D21 : corresponds to D 2 D1 . We choose

the negative notation D21 for stations of Now, If S1 is in one of the states

C1 to express the fact that only stations of C 2 , i , i D21 , D21 , i D21 1..W 1 and at

category C 2 have a positive DMSB equal to least one of the n 1 remaining stations (either a

D21 . category C1 or a category C 2 station) transmits,

Initially S 1 selects a random BAB and is in then S1 moves to one of the states

one of the states ~ C 2 , i , i , D 21 , i 0..W 1 . ~ C 2 , i D21 , i D21 , D21 , i D21 1..W 1 .

During D21 1 slots, S 1 decrements its backoff if

Markov chain modeling a station of

none of the n1 1 remaining stations of category

4.2

category C2

C1 transmits. Indeed, during these slots, the n 2 Figure 2 illustrates the Markov chain modeling

a station S 2 of category C 2 . Each state of S 2

stations of category C 2 are decrementing their

Markov chain is represented by the quadruplet

DMSB and wouldn’t contend for the channel.

i , k , D21 j , D21 where:

When S1 is in one of the states i : refers to the BAB value selected by S 2 in

~ C 2 , i , i D21 1, D21 , i D 21 ..W 1 and 0 ,W 1 .

senses the channel idle, it decrements its th

D21 slot. k : refers to the current BAB value of S 2 .

But S 1 knows that henceforth the n 2 stations of D 21 j : refers to the current DMSB of S 2 ,

category C 2 can contend for the channel (the D21 j 0 , D21 .

slots had been elapsed). Hence, S 1 moves to one of D21 : corresponds to D D .

2 1

the states C 2 , i , i D21 , D 21 , i D21 ..W 1 .

When S 2 selects a BAB, its DMSB equals

However, when the station S 1 is in one of the D 21 and is in one of the states i , i , D 21 , D 21 ,

states ~ C 2 , i , i j , D 21 , for i 1..W 1 , i 0..W 1 . During D 21 slots, only the n1

j 0.. minD 21 1, i 1 and at least one of the stations of category C1 contend for the channel.

n1 1 remaining stations of category

C1

transmits, then the stations of category C 2 will If S 2 senses the channel idle during D21 slots, it

reinitialize their DMSB and wouldn’t contend for moves to one of the states i , i ,0 , D 21 , i 0..W 1 ,

channel during additional D21 slots. Therefore, S 1 where it ends its shifting backoff.

Figure 2: Markov chain modeling a category C 2 Station

i 0..W 1 , the n 2 1 other stations of category j 0..D 21 1

C 2 have also decremented their DMSB and can 2 : the set of states of S 2 , where stations

contend for the channel. Thus, S 2 decrements its of category C 2 contend for the channel

BAB and moves to the state i , i 1,0 , D 21 , (pink states in figure 2).

i 2..W 1 , only if none of the n 1 remaining 2 i , i ,0 , D21 , i 0..W 1

stations transmits. i , i 1,0 , D 21 , i 2..W 1

i 2..W 1 , and at least one of the n 1 one the states of 1 , stations of category C 2 are in

remaining stations transmits, the n 2 stations of one of the states of 2 . Similarly, when stations of

category C 2 will reinitialize their DMSB and S 2 category C1 are is in one of the states of 1 ,

moves to the state i 1, i 1, D21 , D21 , stations of category C 2 are in one of the states of

i 2..W 1 .

2.

4.3 Blocking probabilities in the Markov chains Hence, we derive the expressions of S1

According to the explanations given in blocking probabilities p 11 and p 12 shown in

paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, the states of the Markov figure 1 as follows:

chains modeling stations S 1 and S 2 can be divided

into the following groups: p 11 : the probability that S 1 is blocked given

that S 1 is in one of the states of 1 . p 11 is

1 : the set of states of S 1 where none of the

the probability that at least a station S 1' of

n 2 stations of category C 2 contends for the

the other n1 1 stations of C1 transmits

channel (blue states in figure 1).

1 ~ C 2 , i , i j , D 21 , i 0..W 1, given that S 1' is in one of the states of 1 .

j 0.. minmax0 , i 1, D 21 1 p 11 1 1 11 n1 1 (3)

where 11 is the probability that a station S 1'

1 : the set of states of S 1 where stations of

of C1 transmits given that S 1' is in one of

category C 2 can contend for the channel

the states of 1 :

(pink states in figure 1).

1 C 2 , i , i D 21 , D 21 , i D 21 ..W 1

11 Pr S 1' transmits 1

~ C2 ,0 ,0 , D21

1

2 : the set of states of S 2 where stations of (4)

W 1 min max 0 ,i 1,D21 1

category C 2 do not contend for the channel

i 0

1~ C2 ,i ,i j , D21

(blue states in figure 2). j 0

1R ,i ,i j , D21 is defined as the probability of

p 22 : the probability that S 2 is blocked

the state R , i , i j , D21 , in the stationary

given that S 2 is in one of the states of 2 .

conditions and 1 1 R ,i ,i j , D21

is the p 22 1 1 12 n1 1 22 n2 1 (9)

probability vector of a category C1 station.

The blocking probabilities described above

p 12 : the probability that S 1 is blocked allow deducing the transition state probabilities and

given that S 1 is in one of the states of 1 . having the transition probability matrix Pi , for a

p 12 is the probability that at least a station station of traffic category C i .

S 1' of the other n1 1 stations of C1 Therefore, we can evaluate the state

probabilities by solving the following system [11]:

transmits given that S 1' is in one of the states

of 1 or at least a station S '2 of the n 2 i Pi i

stations of C 2 transmits given that S '2 is in

ij 1

j

(10)

one of the states of 2 .

p 12 1 1 12 n1 1 1 22 n2 (5) 4.4 Transition probability matrices

4.4.1 Transition probability matrix of a

where 12 is the probability that a station category C1 station

S 1' of C1 transmits given that S 1' is in one Let P1 be the transition probability matrix of

the station S 1 of category C1 . P1 i , j is the

of the states of 1 .

12 Pr S 1' transmits 1 probability to transit from state i to state j . We

have:

C2 ,D21 ,0 , D21

1

W 1

(6) P1 ~ C 2 , i , i j , D 21 , ~ C 2 , i , i j 1, D 21

i D21

1C2 ,i ,i D21 , D21

1 p11 , i 2..W 1, j 0.. mini 2 , D 21 2

(11)

P1 ~ C 2 , i ,1, D 21 , ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 , D 21 1 p11 ,

and 22 the probability that a station S 2' of i 1.. minW 1, D 21 1

C 2 transmits given that S 2' is in one of the (12)

states of 2 . P1 ~ C 2 , i , i D 21 1, D 21 , C 2 , i , i D 21 , D 21

1 p 11 , i D 21 ..W 1

12 Pr S 2' transmits 2 (13)

2 0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 P1~ C2 , i , i j , D21 , ~ C2 , i j , i j , D21

(14)

W 1 W 1

(7) p11 , i 2..W 1, j 1.. mini 1, D21 1

i ,i ,0 ,D21

2 i ,i 1,0 ,D21

2

i 0 i2 P1~ C2 , i , i , D21 , ~ C2 , i , i , D21 p11 ,

(15)

i 1..W 1

2i ,k ,D21 j ,D21 is defined as the probability

of the state i , k , D21 j , D 21 , in the P1C2 ,i ,i D21 , D21 ,~ C2 ,i D21 ,i D21 , D21

p12 ,i D21 1..W 1

stationary condition. 2 2 i ,k ,D21 j ,D21

(16)

is the probability vector of a category C 2

station. P1C2 ,i ,i D21 , D21 ,C2 ,i 1,i 1 D21 , D21

1 p12 ,i D21 1..W 1

In the same way, we evaluate p 21 and p 22 the

(17)

blocking probabilities of station S 2 shown in

figure 2: 1

P1~ C2 ,0 ,0 , D21 , ~ C2 , i , i , D21 ,

p 21 : the probability that S 2 is blocked W (18)

given that S 2 is in one of the states of 2 . i 0..W 1

p 21 1 1 11 n1

(8)

If D 21 W then:

P1C2 , D21 ,0 , D21 , ~ C2 , i , i , D21

1

, 11 f 11 , 12 , 22

W (19) f , ,

12 11 12 22

i 0..W 1

22 f 11 , 12 , 22

under the constraint

By replacing p11 and p 12 by their values in

equations (3) and (5) and by replacing P1 and 1 11 0 , 12 0 , 22 0 , 11 1, 12 1, 22 1

in (10) and solving the resulting system, we can (28)

R ,i ,i j , D21

express 1 as a function of 11 , 12 and Solving the above system (28), allows deducing

22 given respectively by equations (4), (6) and the expressions of 11 , 12 and 22 , and deriving

(7). the state probabilities of Markov chains modeling

category C1 and category C 2 stations.

4.4.2 Transition probability matrix of a

category C2 station

Let P2 be the transition probability matrix of 5 THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS

the station S 2 belonging to the traffic category C 2 .

The transition probabilities of S 2 are: In this section, we propose to evaluate Bi , the

normalized throughput achieved by a station of

P2 i , i , D21 j , D21 , i , i , D21 j 1, D21 traffic category C i [1]. Hence, we define:

(20)

1 p21 , i 0..W 1, j 0..D21 1

Pi ,s : the probability that a station Si

P2 i , i , D21 j , D21 , i , i , D21 , D21 p21 , belonging to traffic category C i transmits a

(21)

i 0..W 1, j 0..D21 1 packet successfully. Let S 1 and S 2 be two

stations belonging respectively to traffic

P2 i , i ,0 , D21 , i , i 1,0 , D21 1 p22 , categories C1 and C 2 . We have:

(22)

i 2..W 1

P1,s Pr S1 transmits successfully 1 Pr1

P2 1,1,0 , D21 , 0 ,0 ,0 , D21 1 p22 (23) Pr S1 transmits successfully 1 Pr 1

11 1 p11 Pr 1 12 1 p12 Pr 1

P2 i , i ,0 , D21 , i , i , D21 , D21 p22 ,

(24) (29)

i 1..W 1

P2 ,s Pr S 2 transmits successfully 2 Pr 2

P2 i , i 1,0 , D21 , i 1, i 1, D21 , D21 p22 ,

(25) Pr S 2 transmits successfully 2 Pr 2

i 2..W 1

22 1 p 22 Pr 2

P2 i , i 1,0 , D21 , i 1, i 2 ,0 , D21 1 p22 , (30)

(26)

i 3..W 1 Pidle : the probability that the channel is idle.

1

P2 0 ,0 ,0 , D21 , i , i , D21 , D21 , i 0..W 1 (27)

W The channel is idle if the n1 stations of

category C1 don’t transmit given that these stations

By replacing p 21 and p 22 by their values in are in one of the states of 1 or if the n stations

equations (8) and (9) and by replacing P2 and 2 (both category C1 and category C 2 stations) don’t

in (10) and solving the resulting system, we can

transmit given that stations of category C1 are in

i ,k ,D21 j ,D21

express 2 as a function of 11 , 12 one of the states of 1 . Thus:

and 22 given respectively by equations (4), (6)

R ,i ,i j , D21

and (7). Moreover, by replacing 1 and Pidle 1 11 n1 Pr 1 1 12 n1 1 22 n2 Pr 1

2i ,k ,D21 j ,D21 by their values, in equations (4), (6) (31)

and (7), we obtain a system of non linear equations Hence, the expression of the throughput of a

as follows: category C i station is given by:

Pi ,s T p 8 and we depict the throughput achieved by the

Bi different stations present in the network as a

2

PIdle Te Ps T s 1 PIdle

n P

i 1

i i ,s

Tc

function of the contention window size W ,

D 21 1 . We notice that the throughput achieved

(32) by category C1 stations (stations numbered from

S 11 to S 14 ) is greater than the one achieved by

Where Te denotes the duration of an empty

category C 2 stations (stations numbered from S 21

slot, Ts and Tc denote respectively the duration of

to S 24 ).

a successful transmission and a collision.

2

1 PIdle

i 1

ni Pi ,s

corresponds to the

average time required to transmit the packet data

payload. We have:

Ts T PHY TMAC T p T D SIFS

(33)

TPHY T ACK T D DIFS

Tc TPHY TMAC T p TD EIFS (34)

durations of the PHY header, the MAC header and

the ACK packet [1], [13]. TD is the time required to Figure 3: Normalized throughput as a function of

transmit the two bytes deadline information. the contention window size D 21 1, n 8

Stations hearing a collision wait during EIFS before

resuming their packets. Analytically, stations belonging to the same

traffic category have the same throughput given by

For numerical results stations transmit 512 equation (32). Simulation results validate analytical

bytes data packets using 802.11.b MAC and PHY results and show that stations belonging to the same

layers parameters (given in table 1) with a data rate traffic category (either category C1 or category

equal to 11Mbps. For simulation scenarios, the C 2 ) have nearly the same throughput. Thus, we

propagation model is a two ray ground model. The

conclude the fairness of DM between stations of the

transmission range of each node is 250m. The

same category.

distance between two neighbors is 5m. The EIFS

parameter is set to ACKTimeout as in ns-2, where:

For subsequent throughput scenarios, we focus

on one representative station of each traffic

ACKTimeout DIFS T PHY T ACK T D SIFS

category. Figure 4, compares category C1 and

(35)

category C 2 stations throughputs to the one

Table 1: 802.11 b parameters. obtained with 802.11.

Data Rate

Slot 20 µs for different values of D 21 . Indeed as D 21

SIFS 10 µs increases, the category C1 station throughput

DIFS 50 µs increases, whereas the category C 2 station

PHY Header 192 µs throughput decreases. Moreover as W increases,

MAC Header 272 µs the difference between stations throughputs is

ACK 112 µs reduced. This is due to the fact that the shifting

Short Retry Limit 7 backoff becomes negligible compared to the

contention window size.

For all the scenarios, we consider that we are in

n Finally, we notice that the category C1 station

presence of n contending stations with stations obtains better throughput with DM than with

2

for each traffic category. In figure 3, n is fixed to

802.11, but the opposite scenario happens to the expression of the average service time and the

category C 2 station. service time distribution. The service time depends

on the duration of an idle slot Te , the duration of a

successful transmission Ts and the duration of a

collision Tc [1], [3],[14]. As Te is the smallest

duration event, the duration of all events will be

T

given by event .

T

e

C1 station:

Let TS 1 Z be the service time Z-transform of

a station S 1 belonging to traffic category C1 . We

Figure 4: Normalized throughput as a function of

define:

the contention window size (different D 21 values)

H 1R ,i ,i j , D21 Z : The Z-transform of the

In figure 5, we generalize the results for

different numbers of contending stations and fix the time already elapsed from the instant S 1 selects a

contention window size W to 32. basic backoff in 0 ,W 1 (i.e. being in one of the

states ~ C 2 , i , i , D21 ) to the time it is found in the

state R , i , i j , D 21 .

Moreover, we define:

11

Psuc : the probability that S 1 observes a

successful transmission on the channel,

while S 1 is in one of the states of 1 .

11

Psuc n1 1 11 1 11 n1 2 (36)

12

Psuc : the probability that S 1 observes a

successful transmission on the channel,

while S 1 is in one of the states of 1 .

Figure 5: Normalized throughput as a function of 12

Psuc n1 1 12 1 12 n1 2 1 22 n2

the number of contending stations (37)

n2 22 1 22 n2 1 1 12 n1 1

All the curves show that DM performs service

differentiation over 802.11 and offers better We evaluate H 1R ,i ,i j , D21 Z for each state

throughput for category C1 stations independently

of S 1 Markov chain as follows:

of the number of contending stations.

Ts

1 11 Te

6 SERVICE TIME ANALYSIS H 1~ C2 ,i ,i , D21 Z Psuc Z

W

In this section, we evaluate the average MAC

Tc

layer service time of category C1 and category C 2 min i D21 1,W 1

p11 Psuc 11

T

Z e H 1~ C 2 ,k ,i , D21 Z

the time interval from the time instant that a packet k i 1

12 Te

contend for transmission to the time instant that

Ĥ 1C 2 ,i D21 ,i , D21 Z Psuc Z 12 T

p11 Psuc Z e

either the packet is acknowledged for a successful

transmission or dropped [3].

(38)

We propose to evaluate the Z-Transform of the Where:

MAC layer service time [3], [14], [15] to derive an

Ĥ 1C ,i D ,i , D Z H 1C ,i D ,i , D Z Ts

TS1 Z Z Z

2 21 21 2 21 21

Te

if i D 21 W 1 (39) 2 21

m c

T

Ĥ 1C2 ,i D21 ,i , D21 Z 0 Otherwise 1 p12 H 1C2 ,D21 ,0 , D21 Z Te

Z p11H 1~C ,0 ,0 , D Z

2 21

i 0

We also have:

p12 H 1C 2 ,D21 ,0 , D21 Z i

H 1~ C2 ,i ,i j , D21 Z Tc

T

Ts Tc

Z e p11 H 1~ C2 ,0 ,0 , D21 Z p12 H 1C 2 ,D21 ,0 , D21 Z

11 Te 11 T

1 Psuc Z p11 Psuc Z e

i 2..W 1, j 1..mini 1, D21 1

(40) (44)

1 p11 Z D21 H 1~ C2 ,i ,i , D21 Z 6.1.2 Service time Z-transform of a category

H 1C2 ,i ,i D21 , D21 Z C2 station:

Ts Tc

11

1 Psuc Z Te p11 11 T

Psuc Z e

1 p12 ZH 1C2 ,i 1,i 1 D21 , D21 Z ,i D21 ..W 2 time Z-transform of a station S 2 of category C 2 .

We define:

(41)

H 2i ,k ,D21 j ,D21 Z : The Z-transform of the

H 1C2 ,W 1,W 1 D21 , D21 Z time already elapsed from the instant S 2 selects a

1 p11 Z D21

H 1~ C 2 ,W 1,W 1, D21 Z basic backoff in 0 ,W 1 (i.e. being in one of the

(42)

Ts Tc states i , i , D 21 , D 21 ) to the time it is found in the

11

1 Psuc Z

Te 11

p11 Psuc Z

Te

state i , k , D21 j , D21 .

Moreover, we define:

1 p11 ZH 1~ C2 ,1,1, D21 Z

H 1~ C2 ,0 ,0 , D21 Z 21

Ts Tc Psuc : the probability that S 2 observes a

11 Te 11 T

1 Psuc Z p11 Psuc Z e successful transmission on the channel,

min W 1,D21 1 while S 2 is in one of the states of 2 .

1

1 p11 Z H 1

i2

~ C 2 ,i ,1, D21 Z

W

21

Psuc n1 11 1 11 n1 1 (45)

(43)

22

Psuc : the probability that S 2 observes a

If S 1 transmission state is ~ C 2 ,0 ,0 , D 21 , successful transmission on the channel,

the transmission will be successful only if none of while S 2 is in one of the states of 2 .

the n1 1 remaining stations of C1 transmits. 22

Psuc n1 12 1 12 n1 1 1 22 n2 1

Whereas when the station S 1 transmission state is (46)

n2 1 22 1 22 n2 2 1 12 n1

C 2 , D21 ,0 , D 21 , the transmission occurs

successfully only if none of n 1 remaining We evaluate H 2i ,i ,D21 j ,D21 Z for each state

stations (either a category C1 or a category C 2

of S 2 Markov chain as follows:

station) transmits.

1

H 2i ,i ,D21 ,D21 Z , i 0 and i W 1 (47)

If the transmission fails, S 1 tries another W

transmission. After m retransmissions, if the Ts

1 22 Te

packet is not acknowledged, it will be dropped. H 2i ,i ,D21 ,D21 Z Psuc Z

Thus, the Z-transform of station S 1 service time is: W

Tc

Z

Te

H 2i 1,i ,0 ,D21 Z , i 1..W 2

22

p 22 Psuc

(48)

To compute H 2i ,i ,D21 j ,D21 Z , we define Tc

m 1

Z , such as: TS 2 Z p 22 Z H 20 ,0 ,0 ,D21 Z

Te

j

Tdec

0

Tdec Z 1 (49) Ts Tc

i

m

1 p 21 Z

1 p 22 Z Te H 2

0 ,0 ,0 ,D21 Z p 22 Z

Te

H 20 ,0 ,0 ,D21 Z

j

Tdec Z i 0

Ts Tc

21 Te

(55)

1 Psuc Z 21 T j 1

p 21 Psuc Z e Tdec Z

6.2 Average Service Time

for j 1..D 21

From equations (44) (respectively equation

(50) (55)), we derive the average service time of a

category C1 station ( respectively a category C 2

So:

station). The average service time of a category C i

station is given by:

H 2i ,i ,D21 j ,D21 Z H 2i ,i ,D21 j 1,D21 Z j

Tdec Z ,

X i TS i1 1 (56)

i 0..W 1, j 1..D21 , i , j 0 , D 21

(51)

And:

Where TS i1 Z , is the derivate of the service

H 2i ,i 1,0 ,D21 Z 1 p 22 ZH 2i 1,i ,0 ,D21 Z time Z-transform of a category C i station [11].

1 p 22 ZH 2i ,i ,0 ,D21 Z By considering the same configuration as in

Ts Tc figure 3, we depict in figure 5, the average service

22 Te

1 Psuc Z 22 T D21

p 22 Psuc Z e Tdec Z time of category C1 and category C 2 stations as a

function of W . As for the throughput analysis,

stations belonging to the same traffic category have

i 2..W 2 nearly the same average service value. Simulation

(52) service time values coincide with analytical values

given by equation (56). These results confirm the

H 2W 1,W 2 ,0 ,D21 Z fairness of DM in serving stations of the same

1 p 22 ZH 2W 1,W 1,0 ,D21 Z category.

Ts Tc (53)

22 Te

Tdec Z

22 Te D21

1 Psuc Z p 22 Psuc Z

we have:

D21

Z

1 p 22 ZH 21,1,0 ,D21 Z

Ts Tc (54)

22 Te

Tdec Z

22 Te D21

1 Psuc Z p 22 Psuc Z

Figure 6: Average service time as a function of the

contention window size D 21 1, n 8

Therefore, we can derive an expression of S 2

Z-transform service time as follows:

In figure 7, we show that category C1 stations

obtain better average service time than the one

obtained with 802.11 protocol. Whereas, the

opposite scenario happens for category C 2 stations

independently of n , the number of contending exceeds 0.01s equals 0.2%. Whereas, station S 2

stations in the network. service time exceeds 0.01s with the probability

57,6%. Thus, DM offers better service time

guarantees for the stations with the highest priority.

window size and set it to 64. We notice that

category C1 and category C 2 stations service time

curves become closer. Indeed, when W becomes

large, the BAB values increase and the DMSB

becomes negligible compared to the basic backoff.

The whole backoff values of S 1 and S 2 become

closer and their service time accordingly.

number of contending stations

inverting the service time Z transforms given by

equations (44) and (55). But we are most interested

in probabilistic service time bounds derived by

inverting the complementary service time Z

transform given by [11]:

Figure 9: Complementary service time distribution

~ 1 TS i Z for different values of D21 ( W 64 )

X i Z (56)

1 Z

In figure 10, we depict the complementary

In figure 8, we depict analytical and simulation service time distribution for both category C1 and

values of the complementary service time

category C 2 stations and for different values of n ,

distribution of a category C1 and a category C 2

the number of contending nodes.

stations for different values of D21 and W 32 .

Figure 8: Complementary service time distribution distribution for different values of the contending

for different values of D21 , W 32 stations

All the curves drop gradually to 0 as the delay Analytical and simulation results show that

increases. Category C1 stations curves drop to 0 complementary service time curves drop faster

when the number of contending stations is small for

faster than category C 2 curves. Indeed, when both category C1 and category C 2 stations. This

D21 4 slots, the probability that S 1 service time means that all stations service time increases as the

number of contending nodes increases. by different traffic categories stations as a function

of the minimum contention window size CW min

such as CW min is always smaller than CW max ,

7 EXTENTIONS OF THE ANAYTICAL

RESULTS BY SIMULATION CW max 1024 and K =1.

Analytical and simulation results show that

The mathematical analysis undertaken above throughput values increase with stations priorities.

showed that DM performs service differentiation Indeed, the station with the lowest delay bound has

over 802.11 protocol and offers better QoS the maximum throughput.

guarantees for highest priority stations

Nevertheless, the analysis was restricted to two Moreover, figure 12 shows that stations

traffic categories. In this section, we first generalize belonging to the same traffic category have the

the results by simulation for different traffic same throughput. For instance, when n is set to 15

categories. Then, we consider a simple multi-hop (i.e. m 3 ), the three stations each traffic category

and evaluate the performance of the DM policy have almost the same throughput.

when the stations belong to different broadcast

regions.

In this section, we consider n stations

contending for the channel in the same broadcast

region. The n stations belong to 5 traffic categories

where n 5m and m is the number of stations of

the same traffic category. A traffic category C i is

characterized by a delay bound Di , and

Dij Di D j is the difference between the

deadline values of category C i and category C j

stations. We have:

Dij i j K (57) Figure 12: Normalized throughput: different

Where K is the deadline multiplicity factor stations belonging to the same traffic category

and is given by:

Di 1,i Di 1 Di K (58) In figure 13, we depict the average service

time of the different traffic categories stations as a

function of K , the deadline multiplicity factor. We

Indeed, when K varies, the Dij the difference notice that the highest priority station average

between deadline values of category C i and service time decreases as the deadline multiplicity

category Cj stations also varies. Stations factor increases. Whereas, the lowest priority

station average service time increases with K .

belonging to the traffic category C i are numbered

from S i 1 to S im .

Figure 11: Normalized throughput for different the deadline multiplicity factor K

traffic category stations

In the same way, the probabilistic service time

In figure 11, we depict the throughput achieved bounds offered to S 11 (the highest priority station)

are better than those offered to station S 51 (the Flows packets are routed using the Ad-hoc On

lowest priority station). Indeed, the probability that Demand (AODV) protocol. Flows F1 and F2 are

S 11 service time exceeds 0.01s=0.3%. But, station respectively transmitted by stations S 1 and S 2

S 51 service time exceeds 0.01s with the probability with delay bounds D1 and D2 and

of 36%. D 21 D 2 D1 =5 slots. Flows F3 and F4 are

transmitted respectively by S 3 and S 4 and have

the same delay bound. Finally, F5 and F6 are

transmitted respectively by S 5 and S 6 with delay

bounds D5 and D6 and D65 D6 D5 = 4 slots.

by F1 is smaller than the one achieved by F2 .

Indeed, both flows cross nodes 6 and 7, where F1

got a higher priority to access the medium than F2

when the DM policy is used. We obtain the same

results for flows F and F . Flows F3 and F4

5 6

Figure 14: Complementary service time have almost the same throughput since they have

distribution CWmin 32 , n 8 equal deadlines.

model results and show once again that DM

performs service differentiation over 802.11 and

offer better guarantees in terms of throughput,

average service time and probabilistic service time

bounds for flows with short deadlines.

In the above study, we considered that

contending stations belong to the same broadcast

region. In reality, stations may not be within one

hop from each other. Thus a packet can go through

several hops before reaching its destination. Hence,

factors like routing protocols or interferences may

preclude the DM policy from working correctly. Figure 16: Normalized throughput using DM

policy

In the following paragraph, we evaluate the

performance of the DM policy in a multi-hop Figure 17 show that the complementary

environment. Hence, we consider a 13 node simple service time distribution curves drop to 0 faster for

mtlti-hop scenario described in figure 15. Six flows flow F1 than for flow F2 .

are transmitted over the network.

Figure 15: Simple multi hop scenario distribution

The same behavior is obtained for flow F5 and (PHY) specification, IEEE (1999).

F6 , where F5 has the shortest delay bound. IEEE 802.11 WG: Draft Supplement to Part 11:

Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and

physical layer (PHY) specifications: Medium

Hence, we conclude that even in a multi-hop Access Control (MAC) Enhancements for

environment, the DM policy performs service Quality of Service (QoS), IEEE 802.11e/D13.0,

differentiation over 802.11 and provides better QoS (January 2005).

guarantees for flows with short deadlines. J. Deng, R. S. Chang: A priority Scheme for IEEE

802.11 DCF Access Method, IEICE

Transactions in Communications, vol. 82-B,

8 CONCLUSION no. 1, (January 1999).

J.L. Sobrinho, A.S. Krishnakumar: Real-time traffic

In this paper we proposed to support the DM over the IEEE 802.11 medium access control

policy over 802.11 protocol. Therefore, we used a layer, Bell Labs Technical Journal, pp. 172-

distributed backoff scheduling algorithm and 187, (1996).

introduced a new medium access backoff policy. J. Y. T. Leung, J. Whitehead: On the Complexity of

Then we proposed a Markov Chain based Fixed-Priority Scheduling of Periodic, Real-

mathematical model to evaluate the performance of Time Tasks, Performance Evaluation

the DM policy in terms of throughput , average (Netherlands), pp. 237-250, (1982).

medium access delay and medium access delay K. Duffy, D. Malone, D. J. Leith: Modeling the

distribution. Analytical and simulation results 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function in

showed that DM performs service differentiation Non-saturated Conditions, IEEE/ACM

over 802.11 and offers better guarantees in terms of Transactions on Networking (TON),

throughput, average service time and probabilistic Vol. 15 , pp. 159-172 (February 2007)

service time bounds for flows with small deadlines. L. Kleinrock: Queuing Systems,Vol. 1: Theory,

Moreover, DM achieves fairness between stations Wiley Interscience, 1976.

belonging to the same traffic category. P. Chatzimisios, V. Vitsas, A. C. Boucouvalas:

Throughput and delay analysis of IEEE 802.11

Then, we extended by simulation the analytical protocol, in Proceedings of 2002 IEEE 5th

results obtained for two traffic categories to International Workshop on Networked

different traffic categories. Simulation results Appliances, (2002).

showed that even if contending stations belong to P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: Delay and

K traffic categories, K 2 , the DM policy offers Throughput Analysis of IEEE 802.11e EDCA

better QoS guarantees for highest priority stations. with Starvation Prediction, In proceedings of

Finally, we considered a simple multi-hop scenario the The IEEE Conference on Local Computer

and concluded that factors like routing messages or Networks , LCN’05 (2005).

interferences don’t impact the behavior of the DM P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: Queueing Delay

policy and DM still provides better QoS guarantees Analysis of 802.11e EDCA, Proceedings of

for stations with short deadlines. The Third Annual Conference on Wireless On

demand Network Systems and Services

(WONS 2006), France, (January 2006).

9 REFERENCES P.E. Engelstad, O.N. Osterbo: The Delay

Distribution of IEEE 802.11e EDCA and

G. Bianchi: Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.11 DCF, in the proceeding of 25th IEEE

802.11 Distributed Coordination Function, International Performance Computing and

IEEE J-SAC Vol. 18 N. 3, (March 2000). Communications Conference (IPCCC’06),

H. Wu1, Y. Peng, K. Long, S. Cheng, J. Ma: (April 2006), USA.

Performance of Reliable Transport Protocol The network simulator ns-2,

over IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN: Analysis and http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.

Enhancement, In Proceedings of the IEEE Y. Xiao: Performance analysis of IEEE 802.11e

INFOCOM’02, June 2002. EDCF under saturation conditions, Proceedings

H. Zhai, Y. Kwon, Y., Fang: Performance Analysis of International Conference on

of IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol in wireless Communication (ICC’04), Paris, France, (June

LANs, Wireless Computer and Mobile 2004).

Computing, (2004). V. Kanodia, C. Li: Distribted Priority Scheduling

I. Aad and C. Castelluccia: Differentiation and Medium Access in Ad-hoc Networks”,

mechanisms for IEEE 802.11, In Proc. of IEEE ACM Wireless Networks, Volume 8,

Infocom 2001, (April 2001). (November 2002).

IEEE 802.11 WG: Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium

Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer