MULTISERVICES OVER WIMAX

Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Karachi

Saqib Naeem, Noman Saghir, Junaid R Malik
saqibnaeem22@hotmail.com, n_saghir82@hotmail.com, junaidrmalik@gmail.com

Introduction What is WiMAX?

Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) has Standards associated to WiMax
been serving enterprises and operators Worldwide Interoperability for
for years, to the great satisfaction of Microwave Access (WiMax) is the
its users. However, the new IP-based common name associated to the IEEE
standard developed by the IEEE 802.16a/REVd/e standards. These
802.16 is likely to accelerate adoption standards are issued by the IEEE
of the technology. It will expand the 802.16 subgroup that originally
scope of usage thanks to: the covered the Wireless Local Loop (WLL)
possibility of operating in licensed and technologies with radio spectrum from
unlicensed frequency bands, unique 10 to 66 GHz. Recently, these
performance under Non-Line-of-Sight specifications were extended below 10
(NLOS) conditions, Quality of Service GHz.
(QoS) awareness, extension to • In January 2003, the IEEE
nomadicity, and more. approved 802.16a as an amendment
In parallel, the WiMax forum, to IEEE 802.16- 2001, defining (Near)
backed by industry leaders, will Line-Of-Sight capability.
encourage the widespread adoption of • In July 2004, IEEE
broadband wireless access by 802.16REVd, now published under the
establishing a brand for the technology name IEEE 802.16-2004, introduces
and pushing interoperability between support for indoor CPE (NLOS) through
products. additional radio capabilities such as
The purpose of this Paper is to antenna beam forming and OFDM sub-
highlight and assess the value of channeling.
WiMax as the right solution to: • Early 2005, an IEEE 802.16e
• extend the currently limited variant will introduce support for
coverage of public WLAN (hotspots) to mobility.
citywide coverage (hot zones) - the See Figure 1 for the applications
same technology being usable at home associated with each of these
and on the move, standards.
• blanket metropolitan areas for
mobile data-centric service delivery,
• offer fixed broadband access in
urban and suburban areas where
copper quality is poor or unbundling
difficult,
• bridge the digital divide in low-
density areas where technical and
economic factors make broadband
deployment very challenging.
In addition to these uses, this
paper will highlight other potential
applications, such as telephony or an
effective point-to-multipoint
backhauling solution for operators or
enterprises. WiMax can offer very high data rates
and extended coverage. However,
 • 75Mbit/s capacity for the base
station is achievable with a 20 MHz
channel in best propagation conditions.
But regulators will often allow only
smaller channels (10 MHz or less)
reducing the maximum bandwidth.
• Even though 50 km is
achievable under optimal conditions
and with a reduced data rate (a few
Mbit/s), the typical coverage will be
around 5 km with indoor CPE (NLOS)
and around 15 km with a CPE
connected to an external antenna
(LOS).
WiMAX product availability
Mass deployment of WiMAX products is
planned in two main steps:
• Mid-2005, availability of the
802.16REVd chipset, allowing the
development of cost optimized CPE
operating indoors (NLOS),
• In 2006, availability of
802.16e chipsets embedded in laptops
and later on in other mobile devices,
enabling Portable Internet.
We believe that current pre-WiMAX
products and initial 802.16a WiMAX
products available in early 2005,
operating similarly to current
proprietary equipment (LOS, not cost-
optimized CPE) and at similar cost, will
not be widely deployed, because the
operator needs to go and install the
antenna at the customer premise,
which is uneconomical for residential
customer as proved in the early days
of ADSL installation. This said 802.16a
will certainly be used for at least two
years on the market window of
backhauling of operator’s sites:
wireless transmission of WiFi hotspot
traffic to the nearest ISP point of
presence, or data leased lines
concentration, or 3G new small site
backhauling.
Market for WiMAX
WiMAX will boost today's highly
fragmented BWA market thanks to
standardization and interoperability,
state-of-the-art radio efficiency with
NLOS capability, and strong support
from the radio equipment
manufacturers and chipset industries.
WiMax will also target the data-centric
mobility market with the introduction
of lower power consumption chipsets.
The strong support from some of the
most important chipsets
manufacturers such as Intel is a key
enabler for the success of WiMAX,
since it will lead to wide availability of
affordable WiMAX-enabled terminals
(e.g., laptops, PDAs, etc.).
WiMAX, a complement to fixed and
mobile access
WiMAX integrates perfectly into
existing fixed and mobile networks,
complementing them when needed.
This section gives a more detailed
analysis of WiMAX integration into
fixed and the mobile markets.
WiMAX for fixed wireless access
Nationwide broadband access has
become a priority in many countries.
In most developed countries, the
average broadband coverage will reach
90% in the coming years. Still, in
some rural areas of such countries,
broadband coverage will not exceed
50%.
The service gap can be categorized by
two characteristics: the type of area
(rural or urban) and the level of
national development (see Table 1).
In developed countries, DSL service
deployment has been massive in urban
and sub-urban deployments, whereas
coverage of remote areas - smaller
towns and rural areas - is lagging
behind.
Hurdles to overcome are the poor line
quality of the installed copper base,
the large distances to the central
offices or cabinets, or the low
population density. In this context, While nomadicity offers connectivity
WiMAX, with its QoS support, longer within the coverage area of a single
reach, and data rates similar to DSL, is base station, Portable Internet implies
naturally positioned as a viable first session continuity throughout the
mile option to offer broadband access network. In addition a new generation
to residential users. of networks with multi-access (3G, Wi-
In emerging countries, the main focus Fi, WiMAX, DSL, FTTU, etc.) enable
of broadband deployment is on urban end-users to enjoy an "Always Best
and sub-urban areas, and will remain Connected" experience when accessing
so in the near future. The low POTS their applications via the best available
penetration and the low quality of the network at home, on the pause, or on
copper pair prevent mass scale DSL the move. See Figure 2. WiMAX
deployment and foster the need for becomes an additional radio access
alternate broadband technologies. In solution in the global network
this context, WiMAX is positioned as architecture.
an excellent option. Moreover, the
possibility of offering broadband Fig 2
services in combination with voice
services will gradually lead to
narrowband WLL substitution.
WiMax is of interest for large
enterprises with several locations in
the same metropolitan area.
WiMax will permit Operator's bypass
under license conditions: building a
metropolitan private network of IP
lines at a very low cost (no civil
works). The comparison to leased lines
rental fee is in favor of WiMax even for
two sites only.

WiMAX for Portable Internet

WiMAX, the natural complement to
mobile and Wi-Fi networks Mobile
networks offer full mobility, nation-
wide coverage voice support and
moderate data rates.
WiMAX can then be positioned as a
complementary solution by offering
higher bandwidth when required, in
particular in dense urban areas.
Public WLAN, while offering clear
benefits, is limited in coverage and
mobility capabilities. WiMAX by-passes
these limitations and offers broadband
connectivity in larger areas (hot
zones). Wi-Fi and WiMAX solutions are
also complementary, with Wi-Fi being
more adapted for short-range, indoor
connections (in particular in the
enterprise and at home) and WiMAX
for long- range outdoor connections.
From nomadicity to Portable Internet
WiMAX, the obvious choice for
operators
By integrating WiMAX into their
networks, mobile operators can boost
their service with high bandwidth,
when necessary, the same applications
(messaging, agenda, location-based
services …) being offered on both
networks with a single billing and
subscriber profile.
Mobile operators can also reuse
existing radio sites and backhauling
equipment to facilitate the deployment
of WiMAX.
WiMAX Technology Challenge

WiMAX, more flexibility and
security
Unlike WLAN, WiMAX provides a
media access control (MAC) layer that
uses a grant-request mechanism to
authorize the exchange of data. This
feature allows better exploitation of
the radio resources, in particular with
smart antennas, and independent
management of the traffic of every
user.
This simplifies the support of real-time
and voice applications.
One of the inhibitors to widespread
deployment of WLAN was the poor
security feature of the first releases.
WiMAX proposes the full range of
security features to ensure secured
data exchange:
• Terminal authentication by
exchanging certificates to prevent
rogue devices.
• User authentication using the
Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP).
• Data encryption using the
Data Encryption Standard (DES) or
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES),
both much more robust than the
Wireless Equivalent Privacy (WEP)
initially used by WLAN. Furthermore,
each service is encrypted with its own
security association and private keys.
Supporting IP in Wireless
The Internet Protocol (IP) has become
the networking protocol of choice for
modern communication systems.
Internet-based protocols are now
beginning to be used to support not
only data but also voice, video, and
multimedia. Voice over IP is quickly
emerging as a formidable competitor
to traditional circuit-switched voice
and appears likely to displace it over
time. Video over IP and IPTV are also
emerging as potential rivals to
traditional cable TV. Because more and
more applications will migrate to IP,
IP-based protocols and architecture
must be considered for broadband
wireless systems.
A number of arguments favor the use
of IP-based protocols and architecture
for broadband wireless. First, IP-based
systems tend to be cheaper because of
the economies of scale they enjoy
from widespread adoption in wired
communication systems. Adopting IP
architecture can make it easier to
develop new services and applications
rapidly. The large IP application
development community can be
leveraged. An IP-based architecture
for broadband wireless will enable
easier support for such applications as
IP multicast and any cast. An IP-based
architecture makes it easy to integrate
broadband wireless systems with other
access technologies and thereby
enable converged services.
IP-based protocols are simple and
flexible but not very efficient or robust.
These deficiencies were not such a
huge concern as IP evolved largely in
the wired communications space,
where transmission media, such as
fiber-optic channels, offered abundant
bandwidth and very high reliability. In
wireless systems, however,
introducing IP poses several
challenges:
(1) Making IP-based protocols more
bandwidth efficient,
(2) Adapting them to deliver the
required QoS (delay, jitter,
throughput, etc.) when operating in
bandwidth-limited and unreliable
media, and
(3) Adapting them to handle terminals
that move and change their point of
attachment to the network.
MAC-Layer Overview
The primary task of the WiMAX MAC
layer is to provide an interface
between the higher transport layers
and the physical layer. The MAC layer
takes packets from the upper layer—
these packets are called MAC service
data units (MSDUs)—and organize
them into MAC protocol data units
(MPDUs) for transmission over the air.
For received transmissions, the MAC
layer does the reverse. The IEEE
802.16-2004 and IEEE 802.16e-2005
MAC design includes a convergence
sub layer that can interface with a
variety of higher-layer protocols, such
as ATM, TDM Voice, Ethernet, IP, and
any unknown future protocol. Given
the predominance of IP and Ethernet
in the industry, the WiMAX Forum has
decided to support only IP and
Ethernet at this time. Besides
providing a mapping to and from the
higher layers, the convergence sub
layer supports MSDU header
suppression to reduce the higher layer
overheads on each packet.
The WiMAX MAC is designed from the
ground up to support very high peak
bit rates while delivering quality of
service similar to that of ATM and
DOCSIS. The WiMAX MAC uses a
variable-length MPDU and offers a lot
of flexibility to allow for their efficient
transmission. For example, multiple
MPDUs of same or different lengths
may be aggregated into a single burst
to save PHY overhead. Similarly,
multiple MSDUs from the same higher-
layer service may be concatenated into
a single MPDU to save MAC header
overhead. Conversely, large MSDUs
may be fragmented into smaller
MPDUs and sent across multiple
frames.
Figure 3 shows examples of various
MAC PDU (packet data unit) frames.
Each MAC frame is prefixed with a
generic MAC header (GMH) that
contains a connection identifier8
(CID), the length of frame, and bits to
qualify the presence of CRC, sub
headers, and whether the payload is
encrypted and if so, with which key.
The MAC payload is either a transport
or a management message. Besides
MSDUs, the transport payload may
contain bandwidth requests or
retransmission requests. The type of
transport payload is identified by the
sub header that immediately precedes
it. Examples of sub headers are
packing sub headers and
fragmentation sub headers.
WiMAX MAC also supports ARQ, which
can be used to request the
retransmission of unfragmented
MSDUs and fragments of MSDUs. The
maximum frame length is 2,047 bytes,
which is represented by 11 bits in the
GMH.
Figure 3 Examples of various MAC
PDU frames
Quality of Service
What is QoS? This rather elusive term
denotes some form of assurance that a
service will perform to a certain level.
The performance level is typically
specified in terms of throughput,
packet loss, delay, and jitter, and the
requirements vary, based on the
application and service.
The form of assurance can also vary
from a hard quantitative measure,
such as a guarantee that all voice
packets will be delivered with less than
100ms delay 99 percent of the time—
to a soft qualitative guarantee that
certain applications and users will be
given priority over others.
Resource limitations in the network are
what make providing assurances a
challenge.
Although typically, the most-
constrained resource is the wireless
link, the other intermediate nodes and
links that have to be traversed for an
end-to-end service also have resource
limitations. Each link has its own
bandwidth-capacity limits, and each
node has limited memory for buffering
packets before forwarding.
Overbuilding the network to provide
higher bandwidth capacity and larger
buffers is an expensive and inefficient
way to provide quality, particularly
when the quality requirements are
very high. Therefore, more clever
methods for providing QoS must be
devised and these methods must take
into account the particular needs of
the application or service and optimize
the resources used. Different
applications require a different mix of
resources. For example, latency-
intolerant applications require faster
access to bandwidth resources and not
memory, whereas latency-tolerant
applications can use memory
resources to avoid packets being
dropped, while waiting for access to
bandwidth resources. This fact may be
exploited to deliver QoS efficiently. In
short, a QoS-enabled network should
provide guarantees appropriate for
various application and service types
while making efficient use of network
resources.
VoIP over WiMAX
In spite of the growing popularity of
data services, voice services still
remain the major revenue earner for
the network service providers. The two
most popular ways of providing voice
services are the packet switched
telephone networks (PSTN) and the
wireless cellular networks. Deployment
of both these forms of networks
requires infrastructures that are
usually very expensive.
Alternative solutions are being sought
that can deliver good quality voice
services at a relatively lower cost. One
way to achieve low cost is to use the
already existing IP infrastructure.
Protocols used to carry voice signals
over the IP network are commonly
referred to as voice over IP (VoIP)
protocols.
In more common terms, it signifies the
phone service (voice) over the
Internet using IP
Let us consider the working of a typical
VoIP system. A simplified VoIP
architecture is shown in Figure. First,
the voice signal is sampled and
digitized.
Then it is encoded into VoIP frames.
There are many popular encoders
available, for example, G.711,
G.723.1, G.729. The VoIP frames are
then packetized and transmitted using
RTP/UDP/IP. At the receiver side, the
VoIP frames are de-packetized and
processed through a play out buffer.
The function of the play out buffer is
nothing but to smooth out the playing
delay, that is, to smoothen the delay
jitter caused during transmission
through the network.
At the end, the voice signal is
retrieved from the VoIP frames and is
played out at the user’s speakers.
As VoIP packets travel through the
network, there is evidently some
congestion and channel-related losses.
Also, the packets suffer delay
depending on the congestion at the
intermediate routers. Both loss and
delay of packets adversely affect the
quality of VoIP calls, which is generally
expressed in terms of R-score.
FIGURE 4
A simplified VoIP architecture.
Quality of VoIP and R-Score
The quality of the reconstructed voice
signal is subjective and therefore is
measured by the mean opinion score
(MOS). MOSis a subjective quality
scores that ranges from 1 (worst) to 5
(best) and is obtained by conducting
subjective surveys. Though these
methods provide a good assessment
technique, they fail to provide an on-
line assessment that might be used for
adaptation purpose.
The ITU-T E-Model [6] has provided a
parametric estimation for this purpose.
It defines an R-score [6, 7] that
combines different aspects of voice
quality impairment. It is given by
R = 100 − Is − Ie − Id + A
Where Is is the SNR impairments
associated with typical switched circuit
networks paths, Ie is an equipment
impairment factor associated with the
losses due to the codecs and network,
Id represents the impairment caused
by the mouth-to-ear delay, and A
compensates for the above
impairments under various user
conditions and is known as the
expectation factor.
R-score. The R-score ranges from 0 to
100 and a score of more than 70
usually means a VoIP call of decent
quality.
Supporting VoIP over WiMAX
With the sensitivity of VoIP with
respect to loss and delay known, let us
consider the adaptive schemes at the
MAC layer to dynamically construct the
MPDUs. Once a connection is set up,
the aim behind forming variable sized
MPDUs is such that it strikes a balance
between the lost packets and the delay
incurred. The final aim is to improve
the quality of VoIP calls and at the
same time increase the number of
streams that can be accommodated.
As new wireless access technologies
are being developed, WiMAX is
emerging as one of the promising
broadband technologies that can
support a variety of real-time services.
Since extension of VoIP calls over
wireless networks is inevitable, we
study the feasibility of supporting VoIP
over WiMAX.
We discuss a combination of
techniques that can be adopted not
only to enhance the performance of
VoIP but also to support more number
of VoIP calls. The proposed schemes,
adhering to the MAC layer specification
of WiMAX, make use of the flexible
features—mainly the size of the
protocol data units. We enable the
ARQ, use FEC, construct MPDUs by
aggregating multiple MSDUs, and
dynamically allocate one or multiple
minislots to every VoIP call. The
performance of the VoIP calls is
studied with respect to R-score. We
exploit the difference in sensitivity of
R-score toward loss and delay for
recovering as many packets as
possible at the cost of increased delay.
Exhaustive simulation experiments
reveal that the feedback-based
technique coupled with
retransmissions, aggregation, and
variable size MPDUs not only increases
the R-score (and consequently the
MOS) but also the number of VoIP
streams.
Multimedia Session Management
A session may loosely be defined as a
set of meaningful communications
between two or more users or devices
over limited time duration. In the
context of multimedia
communications, the term session
includes voice telephony, audio and
video streaming, chat and instant
messaging, interactive games, virtual
reality sessions, and so on. A session
may also have multiple connections
associated with it; for example, a
video conference, in which the audio
and video parts are separate
connections.
Session management encompasses
more than transfer of bits from a
transmitter to a receiver.
It includes support for locating and
getting consent from the parties
involved in the communication,
negotiating the parameters and
characteristics of the communication,
modifying it midstream as necessary,
and terminating it. For traditional IP
data applications, such as Web
browsing and e-mail, session
management is rather simple. For
example, for a Web download, a DNS
(domain name server) is used to
identify the appropriate Web site, TCP
is used to reliably transfer the content,
and the application itself—hypertext
transfer protocol (HTTP)—is used to
provide basic session management.
Session management follows a “one
size fits all” policy, with everyone
pretty much getting to view the same
Web pages without being able to
specify preferences in any meaningful
way. IP multimedia communications,
however, need a more robust session
management scheme, primarily
because of the need to support a large
variety of applications and terminals.
Such session management tasks as
capabilities negotiation become very
important when different terminals
support different encoding schemes,
for example. Or say, if one party
wants to listen to the audio while
others receive both video and audio of
a multicast stream.
Clearly, there is a need for a session-
control protocol to support multimedia
services, including telephony using IP.
The ITU standard H.323 was the
protocol that traditionally served this
purpose in most IP telephony and
multimedia systems. Recently, a much
more simple and lightweight protocol,
called the session initiation protocol
(SIP), has emerged as the leading
contender for this task and it will likely
become the standard session control
protocol used in WiMAX networks. SIP
has already been chosen as the
session control protocol for third
generation (3G) cellular networks. Also
needed is a transport-layer protocol
that meets the requirements of
multimedia communications. Real-time
transport protocol (RTP) was designed
for this purpose. SIP and RTP work
well together to provide the session-
control and media-transport functions
required for IP multimedia sessions.
Security
Security is a broad and complex
subject, and this section provides only
a brief introduction to it.
We cover the basic security issues,
introduce some terminology, and
provide a brief overview of some of
the security mechanisms, using
examples that are relevant to
broadband wireless services, especially
WiMAX.
Well-designed security architecture for
a wireless communication system
should support the following basic
requirements:
• Privacy: Provide protection from
eavesdropping as the user data
traverses the network from source to
destination.
• Data integrity: Ensure that user
data and control/management
messages are protected from being
tampered with while in transit.
• Authentication: Have a mechanism
to ensure that a given user/device is
the one it claims to be. Conversely,
the user/device should also be able to
verify the authenticity of the network
that it is connecting to. Together, the
two are referred to as mutual
authentication.
• Authorization: Have a mechanism
in place to verify that a given user is
authorized to receive a particular
service.
• Access control: Ensure that only
authorized users are allowed to get
access to the offered services.
Security is typically handled at
multiple layers within a system. Each
layer handles different aspects of
security, though in some cases, there
may be redundant mechanisms. As a
general principle of security, it is
considered good to have more than
one mechanism providing protection
so that security is not compromised in
case one of the mechanisms is broken.
Table 2 shows how security is handled
at various layers of the IP stack. At the
link layer, strong encryption should be
used for wireless systems to prevent
over-the-air eavesdropping. Also
needed at the link layer is access
control to prevent unauthorized users
from using network resources:
precious over-the-air resources.

Table 2 Examples of Security

Mechanisms at Various Layers of the
IP Stack

Figure 5 IEAP architecture

IP for Wireless: Issues and

Mobility Management
Two basic mechanisms are required to
allow a subscriber to communicate
from various locations and while
moving. First, to deliver incoming
packets to a mobile subscriber, there
should be a mechanism to locate all
mobile stations (MS)—including idle
stations—at any time, regardless of
where they are in the network. This
process of identifying and tracking a
MS’s current point of attachment to
the network is called location
management. Second, to maintain an
ongoing session as the MS moves out
of the coverage area of one base
station to that of another,
mechanism to seamlessly transition, or
hand off, the session is required. The
set of procedures to manage this is
called handoff management. Location
management and handoff
management together constitute
mobility management.
Potential Solutions
The Internet Protocol is a network-
layer protocol following a modular
design that allows it to run over any
link layer and supports carrying a
variety of applications over it. The
modularity and simplicity of IP design
have led to a remarkable growth in the
number of applications developed for
it. The remarkable success of the
Internet has made IP the network-
layer protocol of choice for all modern
communication systems; not only for
data communications but also voice,
video, and multimedia
communications. WiMAX has chosen IP
as the protocol for delivering all
services.
IP’s modularity and simplicity are
achieved by making a number of
assumptions about the underlying
network. IP assumes that the link
a
layers in the network are generally
reliable and introduce very few errors.
IP does not strive for efficient use of
network resources; rather, it assumes
that the network has sufficient
resources. Some of these assumptions
do not hold well in a wireless network;
as a result running IP over wireless
networks introduces problems that
need to be addressed. In this section,
we cover two such problems. The first
problem results from the error-prone
nature of wireless links, the second,
from the bandwidth scarcity of wireless
links.
Conclusions
WiMAX defines a flexible all-IP-based
network architecture that allows for
the exploitation of all the benefits of
IP. The reference network model calls
for the use of IP-based protocols to
deliver end-to-end functions, such as
QoS, security, and mobility
management.
• WiMAX offers very high
spectral efficiency, particularly when
using higher-order MIMO solutions.
WiMAX has a very flexible MAC layer
that can accommodate a variety of
traffic types, including voice, video,
and multimedia, and provide strong
QoS. WiMAX supports a number of
advanced signal-processing techniques
to improve overall system capacity.
These techniques include adaptive
modulation and coding, spatial
multiplexing, and multi user diversity.
QoS is of two types: one based on per
flow handling and one based on
aggregate handling.
Per flow handling offers better QoS but
has scalability issues. Most IP
networks today rely on aggregate
handling.
• The IETF has developed a
number of architectures and protocols
for providing QoS in an IP network.
Three major emerging IP QoS
technologies are integrated services,
differentiated services, and multi
protocol label switching.
• The session initiation protocol
(SIP), a simple, flexible, and powerful
text-based protocol, has rapidly
established itself as the protocol of
choice for multimedia session control
in IP networks.
• Wireless network designs
should include support for basic
security mechanisms, such as
encryption, authentication, and access
control. The IEEE 802.16e-2005, along
with the WiMAX architecture, has
support for robust and flexible security
mechanisms.
• To support mobile users,
broadband wireless networks should
incorporate mechanisms for location
management and handoff
management. Developing good
handoff mechanisms is critical to the
performance of mobile networks.
References
1. IEEE 802.16 Standard—Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks—Part 16,
IEEE Std 802.16a-2003.
2. J. Ye, X. Shen, and J. W. Mark, Call
admission control in wideband CDMA
cellular networks by using fuzzy logic,
IEEE Trans. Mobile Comp., vol. 4, no.
2, pp. 129–141, March–April 2005.
3. S. Shen, C. J. Chang, C. Huang, and
Q. Bi, Intelligent call admission control
for wideband CDMA cellular systems,
IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 3,
no. 5, pp. 1810–1821, September
2004.
4. D. Niyato and E. Hossain, Delay-
based admission control using fuzzy
logic for OFDMA broadband wireless
networks, Proc. IEEE ICC’06, vol. 12,
pp. 5511–5516, June 2006.
5. Y.-C. Liang, R. Zhang, and J. M.
Cioffi, Transmit optimization for MIMO-
OFDM with delay-constrained and no-
delay-constrained traffic, IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 8, pp.
3190–3199, August 2006.
6. I. Koutsopoulos and L. Tassiulas,
Cross-layer adaptive techniques for
throughput enhancement in wireless
OFDM-based networks, IEEE/ACM
Trans. Network., vol. 14, pp. 1056–
1066, October 2006.
7. I. Kim, I.-S. Park, and Y. H. Lee,
Use of linear programming for dynamic
Sub carrier and bit allocation in multi-
user OFDM, IEEE Trans. Vehicular
Technol., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1195–
1207, July 2006.
8. J. Bandara, X. Shen, and Z.
Nurmohamed, A fuzzy resource
controller for non-real-time traffic in
wireless networks, Proc. IEEE ICC’00,
vol. 1, pp. 75–79, June 2000.
9. J. Mar and C.-Y. Kao, Cascade fuzzy
radio resource management using
SDMA scheduling in TD-CDMA system, VTC’99, vol. 2, pp. 1419–1427, May
Proc. IEEE WCNC’06, vol. 2, pp. 991– 1999.
996, April 2006. 20. H. Liao, L. Tie, and Z. Du, A
10. L. Giupponi, R. Agusti, J. Perez- vertical handover decision algorithm
Romero, and O. Sallent, A novel joint based on fuzzy control theory, Proc.
radio resource management IEEE IMSCCS’06, vol. 2, pp. 309–313,
approaches with reinforcement April 2006.
learning mechanisms, Proc. IEEE
IPCCC’05, pp. 621–626, April 2005.
11. L. Giupponi, R. Agusti, J. Perez-
Romero, and O. Sallent, Joint radio
resource management algorithm for
multi-RAT networks, Proc. IEEE
GLOBECOM’05, vol. 6, November–
December 2005.
12. D. Soud and H. B. Kazemian, A
fuzzy approach to connection
admission control in 802.11b wireless
systems, Proc. IEEE IECON’03, vol. 2,
pp. 1914–1919, November 2003.
13. C.-L. Chen and P.-C. Hsiao,
Supporting QoS in wireless MAC by
fuzzy control, Proc. WCNC’05, vol. 2,
pp. 1242–1247, March 2005.
14. A. Zhu and J. Hu, Adaptive call
admission control for multi-class CDMA
cellular systems, Proc. IEEE
APCC/OECC’99, vol. 1, pp. 533–536,
October 1999.
15. B. AliPanahi and M. Karzand, A
novel soft handoff algorithm for fair
network resources distribution, Proc.
IEEE WOCN’05, pp. 255–259, March
2005.
16. G. Edwards and R. Sankar, Hand-
off using fuzzy logic, Proc. IEEE
GLOBECOM’95, vol. 1, pp. 524–528,
November 1995.
17. G. Edwards and R. Sankar, A
predictive fuzzy algorithm for high
performance microcellular handoff,
Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM’97, vol. 2, pp.
987–990, November 1997.
18. M. S. Dang, A. Prakash, D. K.
Anvekar, D. Kapoor, and R. Shorey,
Fuzzy logic based handoff in wireless
networks, Proc. IEEE VTC’00 spring,
vol. 3, pp. 2375–2379, May 2000.
19. N. D. Tripathi, J. H. Reed, and H.
F. VanLandingham, Fuzzy logic based
adaptive handoff algorithms for
microcellular systems, Proc. IEEE