Fairness for Extend DCCP Congestion Control in Wireless Sensor Networks

LIU Yong-Min 1, 2, JIANG Xin-Hua 2, NIAN Xiao-Hong 2

1. College of Vocational Technology, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
E-mail: lym37212004@126.com
2. School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
E-mail: lym37212002@yahoo.com.cn

Abstract: This TCP is primarily designed for wired networks and became very efficient and robust with years of
enhancements. However, experiments and research showed that TCPs congestion control algorithm performs very
poorly over Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) with severe unfairness among flows. Because the deployment of a sensor
network causes unpredictable patterns of connectivity and varied node density, resulting in uneven bandwidth
provisioning on the forwarding paths. This paper studies TCPs fairness issues in WSNs, and designs an Extended
congestion control algorithm based on the characteristics of the WSNs. The protocol is designed as extension to DCCP
(Datagram Congestion Control Protocol) with a new congestion control component. We also implemented this
congestion control algorithm in NS2. Simulation results show improvements on fairness achieved by using Extend
congestion control algorithm.
Key Words: Max-min Fairness, Datagram Congestion Control Protocol, congestion control, wireless sensor networks

IEEE 802.11 wireless links, the work here also assumes that
1 INTRODUCTION the MAC layer is an IEEE 802.11-like random access
WSN typically consists of a large number of tiny wireless protocol.
sensor nodes (often referred to as nodes or motes) that are
densely deployed [1]. Nodes measure some ambient
conditions in the environment surrounding them. These
measurements are, then, transformed into signals that can
be processed to reveal some characteristics about the
phenomenon. The data collected is routed to special nodes,
called sink nodes (or Base Station, BS), typically in a
multi-hop basis. Then, the sink node sends data to the user.
Depending on the distance between the user and the
network, a gateway may be needed in order to bridge both,
either through the Internet or satellite. Two sensors are
neighbors if they can directly communicate with each other.
As is shown in the figure 1. Fig 1. Wireless Sensor Networks.
Sensor networks have a wide range of applications in
habitat observation, health monitoring, object tracking, The sensors share the same wireless media and each packet
battlefield sensing, etc. They are different from traditional is transmitted as a local broadcast in the neighborhood. We
wireless networks in many aspects [2,3]. Particularly, assume the existence of a MAC protocol, which ensures
sensor nodes are limited in computation capability, memory that, among the neighbors in the local broadcast range, only
space, communication bandwidth, and above all, energy the intended receiver keeps the packet and the other
supply. neighbors discard the packet. The sensors are statically
located after deployment. We study data packets sent from
Nowadays, nodes are intended to be small and cheap. sensors to base stations. The base stations are connected via
Consequently, their resources are limited (typically, limited an external network to a data collection center. A data
battery, reduced memory and processing capabilities). packet may be sent to any base station as long as there is a
Because of the restrained transmission power, wireless forwarding path.
sensor nodes can only communicate locally, with a certain
number of local neighbors. So, nodes have to collaborate in Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is a reliable,
order to accomplish their tasks: sensing, signal processing, end-to-end transport protocol, which is widely used for data
computing, routing, localization, security, etc. services and is very efficient for wired networks. However,
Consequently, WSN are, by its nature, collaborative experiments and research showed that TCPs congestion
networks [4]. As most wireless Networks are built based on control algorithm performs very poorly over Wireless
sensor networks with degraded throughputs [5]. Research
therefore has focused on further improving TCP to address
This project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of P. R. the special characteristics of Wireless sensor networks.
China under Grant (60474029, 60774023, 60774045), China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation under Grant (2005038558).

978-1-4244-2723-9/09/$25.00 
c 2009 IEEE 4732
Currently, the vast majority of the traffic in the Internet
relies upon the congestion control mechanism provided by
TCP. However, applications such as streaming video and
Internet Telephony prefer timeliness to reliability. The
reliability and in-order delivery algorithm provided by TCP
often results in arbitrary delay, and TCPs rate control
AIMD (Additive Increase and Multiplicative Decrease)
algorithm causes very sharp bandwidth change upon the
detection of one packet loss. Consequently, such
applications often choose UDP, with either their own
congestion control mechanisms implemented on top of it or
none at all. Long-lasting UDP flows without any
congestion control mechanism present a potential threat to
the network. Also, congestion control mechanisms are
difficult to implement and may behave incorrectly.
A sensor is congested if it receives more traffic than its
maximum forwarding rate. The nature of sensor
deployment leads to unpredictable patterns of connectivity
and varied node density, which causes uneven bandwidth
provisioning on the forwarding paths. The data sources are
often clustered at sensitive areas under scrutiny and may
take similar paths to the base stations. When data converge
toward a base station, congestion may occur at sensors that
receive more data than they can forward.
Congestion causes many problems. When a packet is
dropped, the energy spent by upstream sensors on the
packet is wasted. The further the packet has traveled, the
greater the waste. When a sensor X is severely congested, if
the upstream neighbors attempt to send to X, their efforts
(and energy) are deemed to be wasted and, worse yet,
counter-productive because they compete for channel
access with neighboring sensors. Finally, and above all, the
data loss due to congestion may jeopardize the mission of
the application. While fusion techniques [6] can be used for
data aggregation, applications may require some specifics
(e.g., exact locations of the reporting sensors) to be kept [1],
which place a limit on how much the fusion can do.
2 RELATED WORK
2.1 Congestion control
TCP provides a connection-oriented, reliable data
transmission. The basic idea of TCP congestion control is
that TCP senders probe the network for available resources,
and increase the transmission rate until packet losses are
detected. TCP takes packet loss as indication of network
congestion and triggers appropriate congestion control
schemes.
The problem of congestion control in sensor networks is
largely open. A typical approach is for a congested sensor
to send backpressure messages to its neighbors [7], which
reduce their data rates and may further propagate the
backpressure messages upstream. However, the important
issue of ensuring fairness among the sensors during their
rate reduction is not addressed by this approach.
In ESRT [8], by monitoring the congestion notification bit
carried in the packet header, the base station decides a
common rate for all sensors such that no packet will be lost
in the network. This approach achieves fairness but is too
pessimistic because every sensor must conform its rate to
2009 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2009)
the worst rate in the most congested area. Directed
Diffusion [9] and SPEED [10] were not specifically
designed for congestion control, but they may be adapted
for this purpose to a certain degree.
2.2 TCP Fairness
TCP flows experience severe unfairness in wireless sensor
networks. TCPs window-based congestion control adjusts
the congestion window size every RTT. Flows with longer
RTT increase the congestion window slower than flows
with shorter RTT. At the network routers, an unfair
packet-dropping scheme, such as a simple FIFO drop tail
scheme, may cause some flows to experience more losses
than others. Medium access at a gateway is inherently
unfair when using a MAC protocol such as IEEE 802.11.
Upstream flows (from senders to the gateway) tend to
occupy the whole media and the downstream flows (from
the gateway to receivers) almost stop transmission when
multiple upstream and downstream flows co-exist.
Unfairness between the upstream and downstream flow
throughputs is extremely high, with a ratio of up to 800
between them [11]. In a Wireless sensor network, IN TCP
flows (from the wired part to the wireless part) get more
bandwidth than the coexisting OUT TCP flows (from the
wireless part to the wired part) [12]. IN flows obtain a much
higher share of the bandwidth when mixed flows exist due
to exposed and hidden node effects. TCPs own timeout and
back-off schemes further worsen the unfairness.
The max-min flow control was first proposed by Faffe [13]
to distribute the network bandwidth fairly among a set of
best effort flows. The name max-min comes from the
strategy of maximizing the bandwidth allocated to those
flows that receive the minimum bandwidth. Much further
research [14,15] has been done since then. All these works
assume that each flow has a fixed routing path. Two basic
properties of the max-min flow control are:
z Fairness property.
At each link, any passing flow is entitled to an equal share
of the link capacity unless the flow is limited to a smaller
bandwidth at another link on its path.
z Maximum throughput property.
The entire capacity of a link must be allocated to the flows
unless every passing flow has a bottleneck link elsewhere
which limits the bandwidth that the flow can receive.
A bottleneck algorithm that assigns the max-min bandwidth
to every flow was described in [16, 17] and is repeated here:
Find the global bottleneck link that has the smallest
bandwidth per flow. Assign an equal share of the links
capacity to each passing flow. Remove the link and the
passing flows from the network. When a flow is removed,
the capacities of all links on its routing path are reduced by
the bandwidth assigned to the flow. Repeat the above
process until every flow is assigned a bandwidth and
removed from the network.
In general, TCP works poorly in Wireless sensor Networks.
This is caused by the high bit error rate over wireless links,
as well as TCPs built in congestion control algorithm
working with the contention based media access of IEEE
802.11. A large amount of research has focused on
improving the fairness issues discussed above.
4733
 2.3 TCP Fairness improvements
A wireless network has different properties than a wired
network. For example, the capacity of a wireless link
between two neighbors is not fixed but depends on the
amount of background communication in the
neighborhood. MAC-layer fairness in wireless networks
was studied in [18,19]. Flow-level proportional fairness in
FDMA/CDMA networks was studied in [20] under the
assumption that each flow has a single routing path.
Max-min fairness among one-hop flows in FDMA/CDMA
networks was studied in [21]. Fairness in TDMA networks
was studied in [22] under the assumption of a tree routing
structure from all data sources to a sink. The TAP fairness
in wireless backhaul networks was investigated in [23],
which achieves temporal fairness instead of throughput
fairness. However, the paper does not provide an algorithm
that computes the TAP rates.
Several researchers have studied TCP fairness. In [11], TCP
unfairness among upstream and downstream flows is
demonstrated and investigated. A gateway is used to
forward traffic, and the buffer size in the gateway plays a
key role in obtaining fair sharing of the medium among
upstream and downstream flows. [11] shows via simulation
that, when equal number of downstream and upstream
flows exist, the average throughput ratio between the
upstream and downstream flows can go up to 800. The
reason is that upstream flows ACKs clutter the gateway
buffer and cause the buffer to overflow. Downstream flows
experience timeouts and transmit only with a window of
0-2 packets because of the packet drops at the gateway
buffer. Upstream flows normally can reach their maximum
window size. Because of the cumulative nature of TCP
ACKs, small losses of ACKs do not affect the window size.
The proposed solution is to advertise the available buffer
size to the sender. The gateway keeps the number of current
TCP flows in the system. If the buffer size at the gateway is
B and the number of flows is N, then the receiver window
of all the TCP flows are set to the minimum of advertised
receiver window or [B/N] by modifying the receiver
window field of ACKs traversing the gateway. Through
simulation and test bed implementation, this proposal
shows a very good fairness, with the throughput ratio of
upstream and downstream flows being 1 in the simulation
and 1.007 in the test bed. The study is based on the
assumption that all the losses happen in the gateway due to
buffer overflow and all RTTs are the same among flows.
In [12], the TCP fairness problem in a combined wireless
and wired network is investigated. The study shows that IN
flows get significant more bandwidth than OUT flows. This
unfairness is the joint result of the MAC layers exposed
nodes and hidden nodes problem and TCPs timeout and
back-off schemes. In a study performed on the test bed, it is
found that when the maximum congestion window size is
smaller than a certain value (8 in the test), the two flows
share the bandwidth fairly and the aggregate throughput
reaches the upper limit. The problem is that this window
size could not be preconfigured. A similar study is
conducted in a pure sensor network, and the optimal
congestion window size is found to be 1-2 packets. For
4734 2009 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2009)
connections with a long propagation delay, such a small
window size will affect the efficiency.
To improve fairness over a combined wired and sensor
network, a non-work-conserving scheduling algorithm
working with IEEE 802.11 MAC is proposed in [24]. In the
proposal, the normal FIFO work conserving scheduling
scheme is replaced, which treats routing packets (generated
by routing protocols) as high priority packets over data
packets (generated by applications), and puts the high
priority packets in the queue before all data packets upon
arrival. The head of the queue is sent to the MAC after
knowing that the MAC is ready to send another packet. A
timer is set after a data packet is sent to the MAC. Only
after the timer expires can the queue send another data
packet. The routing packets have high priority and dequeue
immediately after knowing that the MAC is ready. No timer
is set after a routing packet is sent. The duration of the timer
is based on the queue output rate and is the sum of three
parts: transmission delay without contention; transmission
delay based on recent queue output (choosing from four
predefined values based on the queue output rate); and a
random value uniformly distributed from zero to the value
of the second part. The timer adds extra adaptive delay in
the scheduling, so the more aggressively a node is sending
packet, the more severely it is penalized, thereby nodes
failing to grab the medium can compete with the fast
sending nodes now.
Through simulations, [24] shows that the severe unfairness
among flows can be eliminated while the aggregate
throughput experiences a small degradation. Also, the
maximum congestion window size does not adversely
impact fairness in this scheme, so unlike the previous
schemes there is no need to pre-configure the maximum
congestion window size or to modify the advertised
receiver window.
It is well known that proportional or temporal fairness is
more appropriate in a multi-rate wireless network [23,25],
where max-min fairness may cause severe throughput
degradation. That is NOT the case for a single-rate wireless
sensor network, which is the subject of this paper. We study
the sensor networks whose transceivers operate at a single
transmission rate.
In summary, a range of proposals has addressed how to
increase TCP fairness, with varying degrees of success.
However, these approaches are all limited by their intent to
keep at least the TCP semantics unchanged, if not the TCP
implementations at each node, often resulting in
improvement in one aspect (such as throughput) while
trading off another aspect (such as fairness). Also, some of
the proposals are only applicable in pure wireless nodes.
However, we believe that the more relevant network
architecture is Wireless Sensor Networks. Finally, none of
these proposals will address the congestion control problem
for streaming UDP flows in such networks. In the next
section, we discuss a new DCCP protocol that improves on
fairness (compared to TCP), and can be suitable for both
reliable data transfer and streaming media flows.
3 Extended DCCP Congestion Control
3.1 Standard DCCP
If a sensor receives more data than it can forward,
congestion will occur and the sensor will have to drop the
excess packets. In order to avoid congestion, the upstream
sensors must redirect packets to other paths. If all
forwarding paths from an active sensor to the base stations
are congested, the sensor must generate data at a reduced
rate. The problem becomes interesting when many active
sensors share forwarding paths in an arbitrary way. For
each active sensor, we want to find the highest possible rate
that does not cause congestion at a downstream node. We
also want all active sensors to have equal access to the
transmission capacity of the network, no matter how
different their forwarding paths are.
Fig 2. The architecture of DCCP.
The purpose of DCCP is to provide a standard way to
introduce congestion control and congestion control
negotiations into multimedia applications, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) defined the Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol [26] in 2006, as an alternative
to UDP for unicast multimedia applications that prefer
timeliness of data to reliability. This new transport protocol
is designed for deployment as a standard feature in end
hosts (PCs, VoIP codecs, and other internet-enabled
multimedia appliances). This is to say, DCCP [26] is a new
protocol designed for applications that require the
flow-based semantics of TCP, but prefer timely delivery to
in-order delivery, or a congestion control mechanism
different from what TCP provides. DCCP aims to be a
minimal overhead and general-purpose transport-layer
protocol providing only two core functions: The
establishment, maintenance and teardown of an
unreliable packet flow, and Congestion control of that
packet flow. The architecture of DCCP is shown in the
figure 2.
3.2 Extended DCCP Scheme
To improve the performance of WSNs throughout, the
Extended DCCP was proposed in this section. It utilizes
DCCP with the congestion control mechanism specified in
a new Congestion Control Identifier (CCID). We also
added an optional ACK based reliability layer on top of the
DCCP connection, similar to TCPs reliability scheme. The
new CCID profile defines when acknowledgments are sent
and how to identify the true reasons of packet loss.
Additional ECN support and ELFN support is used to
provide network-detected information to the sender.
To implement reliable transmission based on DCCP and
provide a comparable level of reliability as TCP does, we
added the following functions to DCCP: Buffering of
received packets at the receivers, retransmission of lost or
2009 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2009)
corrupted packets by the senders, detection and deletion of
duplicated packets at the receivers, and in-order delivery of
received packets to the application program at the receivers.
In extended protocol, the sender has four states: Normal
State, Congestion State, Failure State (route change or
link failure) and Error State (transmission error). Rate
based congestion control is used to avoid the frequent slow
starts. The most important task is to design the rate equation
for each state, which is the key for fairness.
To determine the available end-to-end bandwidth, we
adopted the delay based rate estimation mechanism in
FAST TCP [27]. The sender maintains two RTT values,
one is base RTT (baseRTT), which is the minimum
recorded RTT, and the other is exponentially averaged RTT
(avgRTT). Each time the sender goes into the failure state,
the baseRTT will be reset by the round trip time of a probe
packet and its corresponding acknowledgment, after being
temporarily saved as old baseRTT. The sending rate after
the route establishment is proportional to baseRTT/Old
baseRTT.
In the Normal State, the sender adjusts the rate proportional
to baseRTT/avgRTT.
In the Congestion State, when ECN mark without packet
loss happened, the rate adjustment is the same as in Normal
State. But when packet loss happened, the sending rate will
halve. This idea is based on FAST TCP for High-Speed
Long-Distance Networks, which showed proportional
fairness under no congestion or mild congested situations
when packet loss occurs infrequently.
In the Failure State, probe packets are send out to monitor
the network situation. The rate of sending probe packets can
be set to one packet per RTO like in Fixed RTO, but it
should be studied further by experiments.
In the Error State, the rate is set to *rate, calculated using
the above scheme, where  ranges from 0.5 to 1, according
to the error rate.
A simplified DCCP with rate-based congestion control is
implemented based on the TCP implementation in NS2.
Because wireless Sensor nodes do not support ECN and the
limitation of getting network detected link failure in NS2,
the implementation has only two states: Congestion State
and Normal State.
In the implementation, ACKs are sent back to the sender
whenever the receiver receives a packet. ACKs have the
ACK Vector option as specified in the DCCP specification.
ACK vectors contain packet reception information
(whether they are received, not received or ECN marked).
Also, the ACK Vector can be used to return information
about several packets to make sure the sender receives
information though some ACKs may be lost.
A weighted average RTT (0.75*RTT +0.25*current RTT)
is calculated using the timestamp echo contained in the
ACKs. The congestion window (cwnd) size is adjusted
accordingly reseting the cwnd every RTT based on the
average RTTs collected and keep the same cwnd for this
RTT as in FAST TCP. This management of cwnd is similar
to the approach in TCP. A timeout timer (RTO) is set for the
transmitted packets. In Congestion State, the sender sends
every RTO, which probed packets with only headers until
an ACK is received. Upon successfully receiving an ACK,
4735
 the sender resets the RTT and baseRTT, sets the cwnd size
to cwnd*Old BaseRTT/baseRTT, and enters the Normal
State again.
4 EXPERIMENT AND SIMULATION
The test scenario used in the simulation is shown in Figure
3 (inspired by [27]). In the simulation, data is sent from the
wired node to the wireless nodes (1 and 4) that are two hops
away from the access point; or from those wireless nodes to
the wired node via the access point. All wireless nodes are
stationary in the simulation. All data flows are 10MB FTP
flows. We adopt the fairness index fi [28] to evaluate the
inter-session fairness between multiple sessions of the
same bottleneck. fi is defined as follows: if there are N
concurrent connections in the network and the throughput
achieved by connection Kth is equal to R(K). As is shown in
(1)
(1)
Assume that the demand of the flow throughput is
infinite. We say max-min fairness is achieved when fi
approaches unity, i.e., the throughputs of all sessions are
equal. The fairness index lies between 0 and 1, 1 being the
fairest situation where every flow gets equal throughput.
Fig 3. Wireless sensor network simulated scenario.
In a set of experiments, two flows traversing a chain of
nodes (4 hops) were tested using TCP Reno. Both DCCP
and TCP are end-to-end sliding window protocols. Data
packets are transmitted in both directions: packets are sent
from the senders to the receivers and acknowledgements
are sent from the receivers to the senders. Senders are
allowed to send a window of packets before receiving the
acknowledgment. This window starts at a constant size and
is later controlled by the congestion control algorithms
implemented in the protocols. Acknowledgments are valid
when sequence numbers of acknowledged packets are
within the range of the current window.
Each flow could be either an IN flow or an OUT flow, and
we also varied the RTT for mixed flow scenarios. To
evaluate various alternatives, we measured the fairness for
each flow. Table 1 shows the respective Fairness Index
results for TCP, DCCP and Extended DCCP as transport
protocol under 2 flows throughput.
Overall, the simulation results show that DCCP flows have
good inter-flow fairness due to the modified congestion
control algorithm, which uses a rate based window control
algorithm based on the feedback from the
acknowledgments. Compared with TCPs congestion
control, the Extend congestion control algorithm shows
improved inter-flow fairness for all combinations of IN and
4736 2009 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2009)
OUT flows. While TCP shows severe unfairness when the
two flows are mixed (see Table 1).
Table 1. The performance for 2 flows Fairness of TCP, DCCP
and Extended DCCP.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
TCP was designed for wired networks, and has benefited
from substantial research efforts over the years. Yet it
shows severe inter-flow fairness challenges over multi-hop
wireless networks, as shown in Section 2. Section 2 reviews
a number of proposals to enhance TCP, with some of the
proposed protocols showing quite promising results.
However, none of these improvements will benefit UDP
streams that are often used in streaming media content.
Section 3 gives a high-level overview of a
congestion-control approach based on DCCP that could be
beneficial to both unreliable data streams and reliable data
transfers. Simulation results in NS2 confirm that the
approach improves fairness, providing users with fairness
in multi-hop wireless access network.
Our contribution is to provide a theoretical foundation for
the study of fairness in sensor networks from the max-min
perspective. The proposed algorithm may be used in a
centralized scheme that collects information from the
network, computes max-min rates, and then disseminates
the rates to the sensors. We also implemented this
congestion control algorithm in NS2. Simulation results
show improvements on fairness achieved by using
Extended DCCP congestion control algorithm.
The work presented here will be further extended in the
following areas to verify and improve the design. We will
conduct more performance runs to verify the test results
under multiple-flow scenarios. We will study the impact of
additional loss scenarios caused by broken links during an
active flow on fairness. We will also study and improve
fairness when mixed Extended DCCP and TCP flows
co-exist. The core congestion control protocol can be
further optimized by tuning the rate control formula and
retransmission timer to optimize the packet sending rate
and adding new features to the implementation in the
simulation such as support of ECN, to provide additional
information for the sender to identify network condition
and to adjust the sending rate accordingly.
Finally, we are very interested in implementing the
proposed congestion control protocol in wireless sensor
network test bed to verify the simulation results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Here, we express the thanks for the profession who have
given the supports and suggestions to this paper, especially
the class of students and teachers were led by Professor
NIAN Xiao-Hong and Professor LU Wu-Yi. Finally, we
would also like to thank the teacher YANG Sheng-Yue. All
of them are teacher in School of Information Science and
Engineering, Central South University.
REFERENCES
[1] Akyildiz, I., Su, W., Sankarasubramaniam, Y., Cayirci, E.,
A Survey on Sensor Networks, IEEE Communications
Magazine, Aug. 2002, pp. 102-109.
[2] E. Biagioni and K. Bridges, The Applications of Remote
Sensor Technology to Assist the Recovery of Rare and
Endangered Species, Intl J. High Performance Computing
Applications, Apr. 2003.
[3] H.T. Kung and D. Vlah, Efficient Location Tracking Using
Sensor Networks, Proc. IEEE Wireless Comm. and
Networking Conf. (WCNC 03), Mar. 2003.
[4] Gracanin, D., Adams, K., Eltoweissy, M., Data Replication
in Collaborative Sensor Network Systems, in Proc. 25th
IEEE International Performance, Computing, and
Communications Conference (IPCCC 2006), 10-12 April
2006, pp. 389-396.
[5] Md, O, R., Muhammad, M, M., Choong, S, H. A QoS
Adaptive Congestion Control in Wireless Sensor Network,
The 10th International Conference on Advanced
Communication Technology (ICACT 2008), pp.941-946.
Phoenix Park, Republic of Korea, Feb 2008.
[6] W.R. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, Adaptive
Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wireless Sensor
Networks, Proc. MobiCom 99, Aug. 1999.
[7] C.-Y. Wan, S.B. Eisenman, and A.T. Campbell, CODA:
Congestion Detection and Avoidance in Sensor Networks,
Proc. ACM Conf. Embedded Networked Sensor Systems
(SenSys 03), Nov. 2003.
[8] Y. Sankarasubramaniam, O. Akan, and I. Akyildiz, ESRT:
Eventto-Sink Reliable Transport in Wireless Sensor
Networks, Proc. MobiHoc 03, June 2003.
[9] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, J. Heidemann,
and F. Silva, Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor
Networking, ACM/IEEE Trans. Networking, vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 2-16, Feb. 2002.
[10] T. He, J.A. Stankovic, C. Lu, and T.F. Abdelzaher, SPEED:
A Stateless Protocol for Real-Time Communication in
Sensor Networks, Proc. Intl Conf. Distributed Computing
Systems (ICDCS 03), May 2003.
[11] S. Pilisof, R. Ramjee, D. Raz, Understanding TCP Fairness
Over Wireless LAN, Proc. of the 22nd Annual Joint Conf. of
IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, pp. 863872,
April 2003.
[12] K. Xu et al., TCP Behavior across Multihop Wireless
Networks and the Wired Internet, Proc. of the 5th Int.
Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia, pp. 207218,
Seattle, USA, Sept. 2002.
2009 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2009)
[13] J.M. Faffe, Bottleneck Flow Control, IEEE Trans. Comm.,
vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 954-962, July 1981.
[14] F. Bonomi and K. Fendick, The Rate-Based Flow Control
Framework for the Available Bit Rate ATM Service, IEEE
Network, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 25-39, Mar./Apr. 1995.
[15] L. Georgiadis, P. Georgatsos, K. Floros, and S. Sartzetakis,
Lexicographically Optimal Balanced Networks,
IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 10, no. 6, 2002.
[16] Dong Suwon. Analysis of Impact on Random Packet Losses
in Congestion Control: Explicit Form, Proc. IEEE
INFOCOM 2007.
[17] Q. Ma, P. Steenkiste, and H. Zhang, Routing
High-Bandwidth Traffic in Max-Min Fair Share Networks,
Proc. ACM Special Interest Group Data Comm.
(SIGCOMM 96), Aug. 1996.
[18] T. Nandagopal, T. Kim, X. Gao, and V. Bharghavan,
Achieving MAC Layer Fairness in Wireless Packet
Networks, Proc. MobiCom 00, Aug. 2000.
[19] H. Luo, J. Cheng, and S. Lu, Self-Coordinating Localized
Fair Queueing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Trans.
Mobile Computing, vol. 3, no. 1, Jan.-Mar. 2004.
[20] Y. Yi and S. Shakkottai, Hop-by-Hop Congestion Control
over a Wireless MultiHop Network, Proc. INFOCOM 04,
Mar. 2004.
[21] K Miller, T Harks,.Utility Max-Min Fair Congestion
Control with Time-Varying Delays. Proc. IEEE INFOCOM
2008.
[22] A. Sridharan and B. Krishnamachari, Max-Min Fair
Collision-Free Scheduling for Wireless Sensor Networks,
Proc. Workshop Multihop Wireless Networks (MWN 04),
Apr. 2004.
[23] V. Gambiroza, B. Sadeghi, and E.W. Knightly, End-to-End
Performance and Fairness in Multihop Wireless Backhaul
Networks, Proc. MobiCom 04, Sept.-Oct. 2004.
[24] L. Yang et al., Improving Fairness among TCP Flows
crossing Wireless Ad Hoc and Wired Networks, Proc. of the
4th ACM Int. Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking &
Computing, pp. 5763, Annapolis, USA, 2003.
[25] B. Radunovic and J. LeBoudec, Rate Performance
Objectives of MultiHop Wireless Networks, Proc.
INFOCOM 04, Mar. 2004.
[26] Kohler E., Handley M., Floyd S., Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP), RFC 4340, IETF, March 2006.
[27] C. Jin, D. Wei, S. H. Low, FAST TCP: Motivation,
Architecture, Algorithms, Performance, Proc. of the 23rd
Conf. of the IEEE Communication Society, pp. 8-94, Hong
Kong, China, March 2004.
[28] R. Jain, The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis:
Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement,
Simulation, and Modeling. John Wiley and Sons, 1991.
4737