Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
16 and IEEE
802.11 based Wireless Networks
Mohammad M. Siddique, Bernd-Ludwig Wenning,
Carmelita Gorg
Department of Communication Networks
University of Bremen, Germany
Email: [mms, wenn, cg]@comnets.uni-bremen.de
I. I NTRODUCTION
AND
R ELATED W ORK
Maciej Muehleisen
Chair of Communication Networks
RWTH Aachen University
Germany
Email: mue@comnets.rwth-aachen.de
Frame n
Downlink Subframe
MAP PDU 1
PDU bD
Idle
Frame n + 1
T
T
G
Uplink Subframe
PDU 1
R
T
G
PDU bU Idle
Random
Access
Fig. 2.
Fig. 1.
C. IEEE 802.16
paper is concluded in Section VI.
II. M EDIUM ACCESS C ONTROL M ETHOD
A. IEEE 802.11
The IEEE 802.11 standard defines channel access mechanisms for WLAN namely the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) and the Point Coordination Function (PCF). The
DCF [2] is a contention based random channel access scheme
based on the Carrier Sense Multiple access/Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol.
However, it has been widely found like in [12] that the DCF
and the PCF have limitations supporting QoS. This motivates
the development of 802.11e [13] to provide user level QoS.
Wireless multimedia extension (WME) [14] is the commercial
version of IEEE 802.11e based WLANs.
B. IEEE 802.11e and Hybrid Coordination Function
IEEE 802.11e [13] defines a coordination function called
Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF). The HCF includes
two channel access mechanisms: the Enhanced Distributed
Channel Access (EDCA) and the HCF Controlled Channel
Access (HCCA). Fig. 1 gives an overview of the IEEE
802.11e superframe structure in the time domain. In HCCA
the Hybrid Coordinator (HC), which is located in the access
point (AP), has control over the channel. One main feature
introduced in HCF is the Transmission Opportunity (TXOP).
A TXOP specifies the duration of time in which a station
can occupy the medium uninterrupted and exchange multiple
consecutive frames with only Short Interframe Space (SIFS)
spacing between an acknowledgement (ACK) and the next data
frame. A station is granted a TXOP (called polled TXOP) by
the HC through a CF-Poll frame. Other stations in the network
set their network allocation vector (NAV) according to the
duration field of the CF-Poll frame to stop their transmissions.
Another special improvement in the HCCA is the contention
free burst, known as Contention Access Phase (CAP), which
Fig. 3. Timing diagram for channel access by collocated IEEE 802.11 and
802.16 systems; possible interference and collisions events
Fig. 4. Systems provide idle periods and shift their frame start to enable
coexistence
T allocothers =
T Down
RI
T Down + T Dothers
T Dothers
RI
T Down + T Dothers
(1)
(2)
TABLE I
S YSTEM PARAMETERS
Carrier Frequency
MCS
Bandwidth
5.470 GHz
BPSK 1/2
20 MHz
802.11
Slot Duration
SIFS, PIFS and DIFS
CWMin and CWMax
ACK Duration
9 s
16, 25 and 36 s
15 and 1023
44 s
802.11e
RCA Interval
CF-Poll and QoS-Null Duration
10 ms
56 s and 56 s
Frame length
1 Symbol duration
Preamble+FCH
MAP
DL subframe
TTG
UL subframe
Random Access
RTG
10 ms (720 Symbols)
1/72 ms
3 Symbols
4 Symbols
355 Symbols
2 Symbols
328 Symbols
26 Symbols
2 Symbols
Common
802.16
Fig. 5. Timing diagram for channel access by collocated IEEE 802.11 and
802.16 system with Regular Channel Access (RCA) method; mitigate the
interference and collisions
(3)
The evaluation has been done by a simulation environment called Open Source Wireless Network Simulator (openWNS) [16]. In the framework of this paper a combined
simulation platform for simulating the heterogeneous scenario
is modeled and published as open source under Lesser General
Public License (LGPL) in [17]. To understand the characteristics of the effects of interference and collisions in the systems,
a scenario with one Base station and one Subscriber Station
for the 802.16 system and one Access Point and one station
for the 802.11 system is considered. This also resembles the
apartment scenario mentioned before, where other orthogonal
frequency channels in the unlicensed band are occupied by
other systems. The system parameters are listed in Table I.
Both systems are using the most robust modulation scheme of
binary phase shift keying (BPSK) with a coding rate of 1/2,
which can provide 6 Mbit/s of Data rate at the physical layer.
Each Simulation is run for 500 seconds. In each simulation
run, the static offered traffic for both systems during the span
of simulation duration is considered.
The results are shown in three steps.
1) Scenario1: Legacy 802.11 and 802.16 systems.
2) Scenario2: Legacy 802.11 and RCA enabled 802.16
systems
3) Scenario3: RCA enabled 802.11 and 802.16 systems.
For evaluation, throughput measured on top of the MAC layer
is considered.
A. Scenario1: Legacy 802.11 and 802.16 systems
Here, 2 Mbps (1 Mbps DL + 1 Mbps UL) traffic load and
Protocol Data Units (PDUs) of 375 bytes in the case of 802.16
system and 2 Mbps traffic load and PDUs of 1480 bytes in the
case of 802.11 system are configured as offered traffic load.
PDU Inter arrival times follow an exponential distribution. The
x 10
Throughput / bps
802.16
802.11
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4
6
x 10
severe. In this case, the channel is idle for about half of the
time. At low loads of 1 Mbps and 2 Mbps, no data loss
occurs in the IEEE 802.11 system. A trend of decreasing
802.16 throughput like in Scenario1 is observed, the level
of throughput is higher than in the case of Scenario1 as the
number of collisions between the systems is less. The overall
throughput is improved which resembles better utilization of
resources (20 percent more than in Scenario1). The downlink
only results give a hint towards the achievable performance
if the 802.16 downlink and uplink traffic flows are scheduled
directly after each other in the beginning of the superframe or
the uplink subframe is filled from the back as presented in [10].
To see the impact of offered 802.16 traffic in a coexistence
scenario, Fig. 8 is depicted. Increasing the offered load of
both systems results in more collisions and overheads.
6
x 10
Throughput / bps
0
0
Fig. 8.
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Offered IEEE 802.11 Traffic / bps
3.5
4
6
x 10
x 10
802.16
802.11
x 10
Throughput / bps
Throughput / bps
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Offered IEEE 802.11 Traffic / bps
3.5
802.16
802.11
x 10
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Offered IEEE 802.11 Traffic / bps
3.5
4
6
x 10
x 10
Throughput / bps
0
0
Fig. 10.
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Offered IEEE 802.11 Traffic / bps
3.5
4
6
x 10
VI. C ONCLUSION
AND
O UTLOOK