4 views

Uploaded by Farrukh Tanveer

Wow!!!

- Sdcch Study
- manual ap belair modelo 50-100-200
- MOS
- Cisco Press - IP Quality of Service - Vegesna(2001)
- QoS Child Service Policy for Priority Class
- L80216-10_0002
- 93-0262-02-03_7750_SR_OS_MS-ISA-Guide_r3
- 01-UMTS Evolution & QoS
- A.S0008-C_v2.0_090106
- Power Saver2
- ZTE-drop
- RP-000447
- QoS_In_UMTS
- 1-s2.0-S1570870504000459-main
- RRC and RRM
- sg245189(i5 Remote Journal).pdf
- SIMCOM_FAQ_EN 1.01
- Module1-Living in a Centric Network Bt
- Queuing Theory II
- 2011 Network Coding Kulkarni

You are on page 1of 83

Sciences

Department of Electrical Engineering

Modeling as Non-Preemptive Priority

Queues: Delay and Throughput Analysis

Farah Nadeem

Degree of MS Electrical Engineering

2014

Advisor

Dr. Arshad Hussain

Certificate of Approval

It is certified that the research work presented in this thesis, entitled IEEE 802.11 EDCA

Steady State Modelling as Non-Preemptive Priority Queues: Delay and Throughput

Analysis was conducted by Farah Nadeem under the supervision of Dr. Arshad Hussain.

No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree.

This thesis is submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering

at the

National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences

Lahore, PAKISTAN

June, 2014

Candidate Name: Farah Nadeem

Signature: ______________________

Examination Committee:

a) Name: Dr. Arshad Hussain

Signature: ______________________

Professor

Dept. of Electrical Engineering

National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

b) Name: Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rahman

Signature: ______________________

Associate Professor

Computer Science Department

National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

c) Name: Dr. Asim Loan

Signature: ______________________

Professor

Dept. of Electrical Engineering

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore

Dr. Arshad Hussain_____________________________________________________

Head of Department of Electrical Engineering, National University of Computer and Emerging

Sciences, Lahore Campus

Authors Declaration

I, Farah Nadeem, Roll No. 12L-5102, certify that the work is original and has not been

previously submitted for assessment in any other course or institution, except where specifically stated.

Farah Nadeem

Roll Number: 12L-5102

ii

Plagiarism Undertaking

I, Farah Nadeem, Roll No. 12L-5102, certify that the ideas, experimental work, results

and conclusions set out in this thesis are entirely my own effort under the guidance of Dr.

Arshad Hussain, except where otherwise indicated and acknowledged.

Farah Nadeem

Roll Number: 12L-5102

iii

Abstract

In a bid to deliver the stringent quality of service (QoS) guarantees to real time multimedia applications, the IEEE 802.11e enhanced distribution channel access (EDCA) has

been incorporated in the original IEEE 802.11 standard. Both simulations and analytical

modeling have been extensively used by the research community for studying the service

differentiation mechanism of the EDCA. Provision of requisite delay and throughput for

real time traffic entails differentiated parameters including contention window size, nonuniform back-off and channel access time. Given these features, most analytical models

do not accurately capture EDCA performance. In addition, more accurate models are

complex, often employing techniques including fixed point iteration, which needs to be

evaluated from scratch for each new scenario. This thesis builds an analytical model that

accurately captures the differentiation mechanism of IEEE 802.11 EDCA. Each access category has been modeled as a single dimension M/G/1 non-preemptive priority queue. The

basic purpose of this model is to provide service delay. Including the effect of contention

free bursting, a framework has been developed for the medium access (MAC) layer delay

and further, the aggregate queuing delay for real time traffic in saturation and non-ideal

channel conditions. The throughput has also been calculated. The framework does not

require iterative solution. Results show close agreement between the analytical model

and simulation. This model has the capability to provide a solid foundation for effective

admission control, since accurate delay prediction, in addition to throughput, is required

for effective resource utilization when additional streams are admitted.

iv

Acknowledgments

It has been a privilege to work under the guidance of Dr. Arshad Hussain (Professor &

Head of Department of Electrical Engineering, NUCES, Lahore). I would like to thank

him for his invaluable guidance, patience and motivation.

I would like to extend my gratitude to Professor Shafiq ur Rahman (Head of Department of Computer Sciences, NUCES Lahore) who gave his valuable time for evaluation of

my work. I would also like to thank Dr. Bushra Anjum (Department of Computer Science,

NUCES Lahore) and Dr. Asim Loan (Department of Electrical Engineering, University

of Engineering and Technology, Lahore) for their insightful feedback. In addition, I would

like to acknowledge the valuable review and suggestions made by Dr. Imran Cheema

(Department of Electrical Engineering, NUCES, Lahore).My special thanks to my friends

and family, in particular my son, Mustafa. Their constant encouragement and support

has made this milestone possible.

Contents

Certificate of Approval

Authors Declaration

ii

Plagiarism Undertaking

iii

Abstract

iv

Acknowledgments

Notation

1 Introduction

2.1

Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2

Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.2

3.3

3.3.1

3.4

Prior Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.4.1

3.4.2

G/G/1 Queues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

18

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.3.1

E[Vbo ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.3.2

E[Vbusy ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

vi

vii

CONTENTS

4.5

Steady State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.5.1

4.6

E[Vbusy ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

29

5.1

Simulation Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2

Computational Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.3

5.4

5.3.1

5.3.2

Retransmission Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.3.3

Vacation Time V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.3.4

Delay Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.3.5

Throughput Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.3.6

5.3.7

5.4.1

5.4.2

Retransmission Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.4.3

Vacation Time V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.4.4

Delay Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.4.5

Throughput Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.4.6

5.4.7

5.5

5.6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.6.1

System Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.6.2

45

6.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.2

55

60

List of Figures

3.1

4.1

5.1

First Moment of Busy Time for VO AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . 31

5.2

Second Moment of Busy Time for VO AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . 31

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

Throughput Results VO AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.8

5.9

. . . . . 32

. . . . 34

5.10 First Moment of Busy Time for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . 37

5.11 Second Moment of Busy Time for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . 37

5.12 Retransmission Probability for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . . 38

5.13 First Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . . . . . 39

5.14 Second Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . . . . 39

5.15 Delay Results: Analytical Vs Simulation: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . 40

5.16 Throughput Results for VI AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.17 Effect of Retransmission Probability on System Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.18 Jitter Results: Simulation: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.19 Comparison with Tadayons Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.20 Effect of Retransmission Probability on System Throughput VO AC . . . . . . . 43

5.21 Effect of Retransmission Probability on System Throughput VI AC . . . . . . . . 44

5.22 Effect of Retransmission Probability on Delay and Jitter VO AC . . . . . . . . . 44

5.23 Effect of Retransmission Probability on Delay and Jitter VI AC . . . . . . . . . . 44

6.1

6.2

6.3

2

E[Tbusy

] under heavy loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.4

viii

List of Tables

3.1

5.1

MAC Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2

EDCA Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.3

Traffic Specification

6.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

ix

Notation

Utilization factor

AC

Access Category

ACK

Acknowledgment

AIF SV I

AIF SV O

BE

Best Effort

BK

Background

CAC

CBR

CDF

CSM A/CA

CWmax

CWmin

DCF

DIF S

DCF IFS

EDCA

EIF S

Extended IFS

F IF O

IF S

Inter-Frame Space

steady state

Ni

nT XOP

M AC

pV I

pV O

PCF

P DF

PHY

Physical

QoS

Quality of Service

Ri

NOTATION

RTP/UDP/IP

RTS/CTS

RV

Random Variable

Tbusy

TM AC

Tno ack

Tslot

Slot Length

TCP/IP

T XOP

Transmission opportunity

Vacation Interval

VV I

VV O

Vbo

Vbusy

VBR

VI

Video

VO

Voice

VoIP

Voice over IP

Wi

WmV I

WmV O

Yi

Chapter 1

Introduction

It is evident that wireless communication technology has enjoyed unprecedented success

both in terms of deployment and development. One of the most popular examples is Wi-Fi,

which is pervasive across professional and personal usage alike. Originally, the evolution

of Wi-Fi was to support data traffic, while voice, and later video traffic, were handled

by dedicated cellular systems. However, the focus has been shifting towards providing

support for heterogeneous traffic, both by cellular and Wi-Fi networks. This presents

challenges when it comes to providing adequate quality of service to users.

The Wi-Fi standard is also known as the IEEE 802.11. Given the mass deployment and

popularity of the IEEE 802.11, extensive effort has gone into providing a solid framework

for quality of service (QoS) provision for real time traffic. A major contribution towards

this end is the IEEE 802.11e [1]. Like the legacy IEEE 802.11, the 802.11e provides both

a centralized medium access mechanism, and a decentralized mechanism, the enhanced

distributed channel access (EDCA). Service differentiation is introduced to provide higher

priority to voice and video traffic in a bid to ensure greater throughput and smaller delays,

so as to provide better performance.

While the 802.11e provides a basic framework for QoS, to ensure acceptable performance, particularly under heavy loads, effective admission control is required. For this

purpose, accurate delay prediction is required for voice and video streams. While extensive

work has been put into analytical modeling for delay prediction, less focus has been on

developing tractable models for real time applications. Thus there is a dearth of simpler

models for run time admission control.

Given the nature of the delays that occur due to contention for channel access and

actual transmission, it is possible to model this process as a single dimensional queue.

The time for contention can be viewed as a reservation (vacation) interval from the perspective of classical queuing theory, which precedes each packet transmission. While the

differentiated channel access parameters are designed so as to provide higher priority to

voice and video, the vacation interval of each access categorys (ACs) (higher or lower

priority) queue overlaps the transmissions of other ACs; thus the priority is catered for

3

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This approach has been adopted in this work towards developing a computationally

easier model that truly incorporates the unique parameters of EDCA that serve to provide

QoS to voice and video traffic. The main contribution of this model is that it simplifies

the analysis problem to a single dimension queue, which effectively predicts the delays

associated with real time traffic under dynamic network scenarios. The prioritization and

effect of channel access parameters, namely the arbitrary inter frame space (AIFS) and

contention window (CW) size, are catered for within the vacation interval.

The rest of the document is organized as follows: section 2 details the issue addresses

and describes the unique contributions of this work towards delay and throughput analysis

of Wi-Fi networks. Section 3 gives an insight into the background of the problem, including

the details of the IEEE 802.11 and significance of MAC layer delay, as well as the summary

of the existing analytical models for EDCA performance metrics and the applicability of

queuing theory for the analytical framework. Section 4 introduces the proposed model:

classic single dimension partially gated queuing model with vacations. The concluding

sections present the simulation results and future work. Since the focus is on delay for

real time voice and video traffic, the analysis is conducted for VO and VI access categories.

It can be easily extended for best effort and background traffic.

Chapter 2

Contributions

Detailed bellow is the problem at hand, which has been addressed by this work. In

addition, the unique contributions of this work in the field of analytical modeling of EDCA

have been discussed.

2.1

Problem Statement

There has been a great focus on deriving analytical models to accurately capture the

service differentiation mechanism of the IEEE 802.11 EDCA and translate it to accurate

results for delay and throughput. The best case scenario has always been at making a

descriptive model based solely on the number of active stations within an area. This has,

however, lead to very complex models that become computationally intractable. Even at

very high complexity, these models fail to capture all results of the EDCA. This thesis has

addressed this gap in analytical models by providing a queuing theory based framework

for analysis of service delay, over all waiting time, and throughput results for real time

voice and video access categories. The model presents the access categories as single

dimensional non-preemptive priority queues. The model caters to both the channel access

differentiation parameters (CW and AIFS) as well as TXOP. Theoretically, this model

presents a tractable and complete framework for analysis of performance metrics at the

MAC layer of the enhanced distributed channel access.

2.2

Contributions

Most analytical models for throughput and delay results are based on three or four dimensional Markov Chain models, followed by standard queuing models. The alternate

approach has been to develop very complex probability distributions for the service time

to facilitate calculation of waiting time and delays. In this context, the main contribution

of this work has been to reduce the framework for delay and throughput analysis for EDCA

to single dimension queues. Although this approach presents a reduction in complexity

as compared to most existing models, the entire set of features of the EDCA is catered

5

for. Thus this model is novel in terms of decreased complexity and greater accuracy.

A novel contribution of this work has been the application of the memoryless property

to arrive at elegant expressions for vacation time for EDCA. While various other works

have applied the description of a memoryless process, it has been angled to arrive at a

Markov chain model. In this context, a recent work presented by Bianchi [2] indicates that

this may not be the accurate case. An alternate approach is presented here that offers a

comprehensive analysis utilizing the memoryless nature of the transmission/retransmission

process.

Real time traffic requires guarantees in terms of throughput, delay and jitter. The

model developed in this thesis helps to highlight the effect of erroneous transmission on

these metrics. From the developed mathematical framework, it becomes apparent that

beyond an error probability of 0.25, the expected value of delay becomes infinite. From

here, it can be extended to the case of jitter: beyond a value of error probability of 0.0625,

the expected value of jitter becomes infinite. This presents a limit on the probability of

packet retransmission caused by both collisions and channel impairments. While this fact

seems to predict severely limited service in case of heavy load, simulations show that this

is not the case. Since the protocol employed is carrier sense multiple access with collision

avoidance (CSMA-CA), the process of back-off window initiation ensures that the error

probability settles down after a short period of high packet transmission errors. Thus the

protocol ensures that the retransmission probability remains within bound; however, the

increasing back-off window size means that the delay increases.

Chapter 3

Review

The details of the medium access mechanism that characterize the enhanced distributed

channel access are described in this section. This serves as a basis to highlight the complexities related to analytical modeling and analysis of the same. Existing models are also

detailed, with particular emphasis on steady state Markov chain models. In this regard,

it is pertinent to mention the research already conducted in this area.

3.1

Background

The details of the MAC layer for IEEE 802.11 are presented in this section. Primary focus

is on the binary exponential back-off process of the collision avoidance process, which

lends itself to analytical modeling. The inherent nature of this protocol dictates that the

service time is probabilistic. This feature has been exploited for the purpose of creating

frameworks for analysis. In addition, the importance of the MAC layer delay is also

given, which is the aggregate of the service time and the queuing delay under saturation

conditions. Service delay at the MAC layer is defined as the time that a packet arrives at

the head of queue till it is either transmitted with a corresponding ACK (acknowledgment)

received, or it is dropped due to expiration of retry limit.

3.1.1

Being designed for the wireless medium, legacy DCF builds upon carrier sense multiple

access/ collision avoidance (CSMA/CA). Although a centralized medium access mechanism, point coordination function (PCF), is also specified by the original standard, the

decentralized mechanism has gained wider applicability. This is due to simplicity, ease

of implementation and support for flexible network configurations. Collision avoidance is

achieved through the back-off algorithm and the inter-frame space (IFS) inset [1].

The back-off algorithm is implemented as follows: when a packet arrives at the head

of queue, if the medium is sensed idle for a DCF IFS (DIFS), it is transmitted. If the

7

medium is sensed busy, the back-off process is initiated, whereby the station randomly

picks a back-off counter value from the interval [0,CWmin]. The counter is decremented

every time the medium is sensed idle for a DIFS, frozen otherwise. When the counter

attains a value of zero and the channel is idle, the packet is transmitted. The correct

reception of the packet is confirmed via an ACK from the receiving station. In case more

than one station transmits simultaneously, there is a collision on the medium. The collision

is sensed by all the listening stations by the erroneous check-sum. When the transmitting

station senses the collision, it doubles the contention window size and repeats the back-off

process. For each subsequent collision, the contention window is doubled till it reaches the

maximum contention window size. The packet is dropped if the transmission retry limit

is reached and the packet suffers a collision. To ensure prompt sending of ACK when a

packet is received correctly, the receiving station waits a short IFS (SIFS) before transmitting. This precludes channel contention. In addition to the ACK, a four way hand shaking

procedure Request to send/Clear to send (RTS/CTS) is also offered by the mechanism.

This is particularly useful for larger packet sizes, but induces greater overheads for smaller

packet sizes.

Here it is pertinent to mention that packet loss occurs from both collision and channel

impairments. From the perspective of a station, both are treated the same, and are not

differentiable. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, the term error probability refers to

both channel outage and collision. The expected retransmission probability incorporates

both the probabilities of collision and channel imperfections.

p = 1 (1 pch )(1 pcoll )

(3.1)

Where p is the retransmission probability, pch is the channel outage probability and pcoll

is the expected collision probability.

The entire traffic originating from a station forms a single first out first in (FIFO)

queue. Hence all traffic streams have equal channel access priority. To provide real time

traffic flows with higher priority, EDCA introduces service differentiation based on the

nature of traffic; the arriving traffic is categorized into four access categories (ACs), VO

(voice), VI (video), BE (best effort) and BK (background), in descending order of priority.

Each AC then contends independently for the medium. Channel access parameters are assigned different values for each AC; thus each AC has a different channel access priority [1].

The parameters employed to this end are the arbitrary IFS (AIFS) instead of the

uniform DIFS, different minimum and maximum contention windows, and an additionally

defined parameter transmission opportunity (TXOP). TXOP, when set to a non-zero value,

allows the channel to transmit multiple packets in succession once it has gained medium

access. Channel access differentiation ensures delay requirements are met, while TXOP

additionally guarantees greater throughput. To increase the probability of greater channel

access to colliding stations immediately following a collision, an extended IFS (EIFS) is

defined. The concept of virtual collision caters to the scenario when two ACs within a

station simultaneously decrement their back-off counters to zero; the higher priority AC

is given channel access, while the lower priority AC undergoes the post collision back-off

process. The different EDCA intervals are illustrated in fig 3.1.

To achieve the necessary service guarantees, values of channel access parameters are

assigned so that higher priority ACs have a higher channel access probability than lower

priority ACs. These parameters are the arbitrary IFS (AIFS) instead of the uniform DIFS,

and differentiated CWmin and CWmax . In addition, TXOP is defined for each category.

This enables contention free bursting for an AC once it has obtained channel access, for

a duration that does not exceed the TXOP limit for that AC. The AC that has stringent

delay requirements, VO, is assigned smaller AIFS, CWmin and CWmax than other ACs.

Since the VI AC has the greatest throughput requirement, it is provided longer medium

access through larger TXOP limit. In addition, an extended IFS (EIFS) is defined by the

standard. The purpose is to provide the stations that were involved in a collision greater

likelihood to access the channel as compared to other stations in the post collision period.

When two ACs within the same station simultaneously decrement their back-off counters

to zero, a virtual collision occurs. Channel access is granted to the higher priority stream

and the lower priority stream undergoes the post-collision back-off process, with doubled

CW (up to CWmax ).

3.1.2

The MAC layer delay is the aggregate of service time and queuing delay. It is an important

performance metric, particularly from the perspective of real time multimedia applications.

Effective algorithms for admission control require that the delay for such applications is

kept within bound when new sessions are admitted within the existing resources. The

importance of the queuing delay is manifest. MAC frames transmit packets from upper

layers including Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) or RealTime Transport Protocol/ User Datagram Protocol/Internet Protocol (RTP/UDP/IP).

Higher layer protocols are indifferent to the working of the MAC layer, and will observe

the total delay the packet is subjected to, but not the different causes associated with

it [3, Pp. 623]. Consequently, both the queuing delay and the medium access delay are

necessary for meaningful analysis of the delay of 802.11e EDCA.

10

In unsaturated cases, with less generated traffic, the average length of queue is usually

less than a packet, and the medium access delay is dominant. This case represents a

scenario where there are channel resources freely available to cater for the traffic, hence

ensuring QoS is not an issue. An addition to that, the medium access delay then is usually

in the order of few milliseconds, and is not significant in the context of overall end-to-end

delay experienced for Internet communication. When the channel becomes saturated,

features of 802.11e EDCA for service differentiation become significant. In cases when

saturation condition is reached, and the inter arrival time becomes comparable to the

mean service delay, the queuing delays begins to grow dramatically, while the service

times attains a somewhat constant value (dependent on the number of active stations) [4].

In this scenario, both the considerations of finite buffer size, and expiration of a packets

useful life due to extensive delay, come into consideration.

3.2

A two dimensional Markov chain model for binary exponential back-off in DCF was originally proposed by Bianchi [5], and forms the basis of subsequent models proposed for both

DCF and EDCA. Bianchi models the exponential back-off for the DCF using a discrete

time two dimensional Markov chain. One dimension caters to the back-off counter value,

which is non-Markovian since it is dependent on the number of retries suffered. Thus the

second dimension describes the back-off stage. A significant contribution of this model

is a constant collision probability, p which stems from the decoupling assumption. A

point of interest is the time scale adopted; the interval between consecutive time slots may

include the event of back-off counters freezing, this indicates that the interval is likely to

span an entire packet transmission. Thus the time between two consecutive time slots does

not relate directly to the system time. The model yields an elegant expression for transmission probability, since the constant collision probability allows for Markovian analysis.

In case the retry limit is not considered, as in this model, the resulting expression is closed

form. In actual DCF and EDCA, the probability of decrementing of back-off counter

and transmission is conditional on the state of the channel. This has not been explicitly

catered for in the model.

In [2], Bianchi presented a thorough and accurate framework for analysis of EDCA

throughput. Instead of a constant collision probability assumption, the modeling relies on

the evolution of the back-off counter with time. This ultimately leads to a bi-dimensional

stochastic process which models the back-off counter and the retransmission stage. This

is, however, not a Markov chain. Each AC [k = 0, 1, 2, 3] is modeled independently so as

to incorporate the service differentiation mechanism. The system is defined as having c

ACs, i.e. k = 1, ..., c. There are nk stations of each AC. The modeling for each AC starts

with the evolution of the back-off counter value, which is denoted by stochastic process

bk (.) Defining k as the difference between the kth AIFS (AIFS of AC k) and the minimum

11

AIFS, the initial random time in a cycle before transmission event (x(t)) is given as:

x(t) = min (bk (t) + k )

k=1,..,n

(3.2)

Over time, the back-off counter value attains a steady state distribution, which is represented as:

Bk (j) = lim P bk (t) = j

t

(3.3)

Where the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the back-off counter value is given

by:

(

k (i) =

0

Pi1

i0

s=0 Bk (s)

otherwise

(3.4)

The model hinges around the steady state distribution of the back-off counter value. From

the perspective of one particular station h, the probability (Qh (i)) that no other station

transmits before the ith time slot is given by:

Qc

Qh (i) =

k (i k )]nk

1 h (i h )

k=1 [1

(3.5)

Probability Th (i) that h sees the first transmission at time slot i is given by Th (i) =

Qh (i) Qh (i + 1).

From there on, the model moves to the bi-dimensional stochastic process representing

the retransmission stage sk (t), sk 0, 1, ?Rk (where Rk is the retransmission limit for AC

k) and the back-off counter value bk (t), bk 0, 1, ...CWSk (where CWSk is the contention

window at the Sk retransmission stage). Steady state transition probabilities expressed

in terms of Th (i)&Qh (i), as opposed to p in case of DCF. Defining the steady state

distribution of the bi-dimensional process sk (t), bk (t):

Y

k

t

(3.6)

This in turn is used to find the steady state distribution for the back-off counter:

Rk Y

X

Bk (j) =

(s, j)

(3.7)

s=0 k

The set of above equations is solved recursively using fixed point iteration until convergence is achieved. The model is then used to demonstrate that variation in the collision

probability. The model has been used for throughput performance. This work presents a

more accurate model for the EDCA with a computational complexity comparable to that

of multi-dimensional models. The assumptions made in this work include ideal channel

conditions, saturation condition, no internal collisions and TXOP disabled. The significant

contribution of this work has been to illustrate that the collision probability no longer remains constant, but changes significantly with each passing time slot after a channel event.

The results presented in the paper depict close agreement between the analytical model

and the simulated results for throughput performance.

3.3

12

Since the decentralized mechanism has enjoyed greater success, EDCA has been the focus

of several analytical models, which have been introduced to study its effectiveness in providing QoS support, particularly in terms of throughput and delay.

Extensive research has been conducted on the QoS support provided by the EDCA.

Since EDCA aims at providing support for real time traffic, the primary focus has been on

studying throughput and delay. A survey of models existing in literature provides insight

into the research directions and the limitations of existing works. This section explores

the prominent contributions made to date in the area of delay and throughput analysis

for the purpose of efficient admission control. This includes analytical modeling of EDCA

for throughput; modeling of service delay for DCF and EDCA and extensions to queuing

delay for overall MAC layer delay.

Various analytical models have been put forward to predict throughput in different

network scenarios; often these frameworks use bi-dimensional Markovian chain to model

EDCA. For the analysis of delay, which is particularly important for voice and video traffic, service time distribution for DCF and EDCA has also been modeled in literature. In

saturation conditions, however, the service delay solely does not depict the service provided, since queuing delay becomes a dominating factor as traffic loads increase. Hence

queuing analysis has been conducted based on service delay distribution, since it has direct

bearing on the QoS of delay sensitive applications. Primarily, the area of queuing delay

has been explored for DCF.

The main purpose behind these models is to provide a solid basis for analysis of the

EDCAs service differentiation mechanism under steady state conditions. Thus they are

theoretically rigorous and achieve a high level of accuracy. To accurately capture the

nature of the binary exponential back-off and the AIFS differentiation mechanism, existing models are usually very complex. The basis is generally multi-dimensional Markov

chain models [68] and bi-dimensional stochastic process [2]. Even with this basis, several

assumptions have to be made to make the analysis possible, the foremost being an assumption of a steady network with fixed number of active stations. Generally, in the case

of wifi networks, this is not the case, since the number of active stations changes frequently.

A comprehensive expression for the pdf of service delay has been derived in [9] for

DCF. The expression relies on a steady state analysis based on a bi-dimensional Markov

chain model, which makes it difficult to extend for EDCA. Also, under heavy traffic loads,

the delays are under-predicted; in admission control, this would yield unacceptable delays.

The basic analytical model has also been extended for overall delay using queuing

analysis. This work, while extensively done for DCF, has been less explored for EDCA.

A main contribution in this regard is the work presented in [10]. Comprehensive analysis

13

has been conducted, however, as most other analytical models, the underlying assumption

is that of steady state network. In terms of results, the model severely over-predicts the

delays.

The main thrust of analytical modeling of the performance of 802.11 EDCA is on

estimation of throughput, frame dropping rate and the average delay of MAC layer. In

EDCA, AIFS differentiation leads to collision probabilities that differ during different time

slots following any channel event (transmission, collision etc.). In order to capture this

effect, the constant collision probability can no longer be applied. However, this then takes

away the desirable tractability of the Markovian analysis. In order to retain this analysis,

EDCA has been modeled along the same lines as the bi-dimensional Markov model, incorporating more states to model the differentiation parameters [7, 8, 11]. These models are

increasingly complex, and build upon an assumption that is violated in actual EDCA. A

significantly different approach has been adopted in Bianchis model presented in section

3.2.

The service time (delay) represents a probabilistic distribution. Attempts have been

made to model this distribution; building upon analytical frameworks, service delay has

been studied in several works [9, 10, 12]. In [12], the delay distribution for DCF has been

derived based on the Markov chain model. A subsequent conclusion drawn in this work

has been to approximate the service time as a Poisson distribution.This work has been

extended in [10] for EDCA. In a recent work by Tadayon et al. on DCF [9] the probability generating function (PGF) of service time distribution has been derived, which in

turn yields the first and higher moments of service delay, incorporating imperfect channel

conditions. However, both the first and second moments of service delay, as predicted by

the analytical model, fall behind the simulation results under high traffic conditions.

While Markov chain models are abundant in literature, there has been less focus on

predicting the queuing delay. Given four different service time distributions and four different inter arrival processes, the EDCA represents a multi-class system. Existing queuing

models in literature treat each AC as an independent single server queue. While extensive work has not been done for EDCA, queuing delay of DCF has been derived using

different queuing disciplines. These include, in order of increasing complexity: M/G/1

[1214], M/GI/1/K [15], G/M/1 [10] and G/G/1 [8, 10, 16]. The disciplines M/G/1 and

G/G/1 interpret the 802.11 MAC as a single server which follows a general distribution

(in terms of service time). For meaningful queuing analysis, either the service distribution

itself is needed, or estimates of the first two moments of the distribution are needed. An

alternative approach is to approximate the service time with a distribution that is easier

to analyze, particularly Poisson [17]. An alternate approach for finding the service delay

entails finding the average of the back-off counter [9], and modeling the behavior of the

back-off counter as it evolves over time. The average value of the back-off counter represents, in the steady state, the number of non-transmitting slots that a station undergoes

14

between two successive successful transmissions.

The most comprehensive queuing analysis for EDCA has been in conducted by Chen

et al. [10]. Being one of the few results presented for EDCA queuing analysis, this model

sets a benchmark. The probability distribution for the service delay has been derived

from the Markov chain model. The model relies on constant collision probability, and

approximates the service distribution by treating the model as a signal flow graph. Based

on an earlier work on DCF [12], the service time distribution has also been modeled as

a Poisson distribution, in addition to a general distribution. Since the service time has

either been taken as general or approximated using Poisson, this has led to either the

G/G/1 or G/M/1 discipline. However, in both cases, the results diverge significantly from

the simulation results, particularly in the case of higher traffic loads. This presents a contradiction in terms of the approximation used; the approximation should become exact as

traffic load increases, instead of diverging. The key contributions and assumptions of the

above models are summarized in table 3.1.

Models

Problem Addressed

Assumptions

Methodology

Results

EDCA Throughput

[2]

Analytical model for

saturation throughput of EDCA

Saturation

conditions; Independent

station

behavior;

Perfect channel; No

virtual

collisions;

TXOP disabled

DCF Service Delay

[9]

Service delay distribution for DCF

EDCA

Queuing

Delay [10]

Queuing analysis for

EDCA

Saturation

conditions;

Imperfect

channel;

Constant

collision probability

bidimensional stochastic process for the

binary exponential

back-off

Analytical throughput results agree

with

simulation

results

chain model

Both

saturation

and non-saturation

conditions; Perfect

channel;

Constant

collision probability;

Infinite buffer size;

TXOP disabled; No

virtual collisions

First and second delay of service delay

from bi-dimensional

Markov

chain;

G/G/1 and G/M/1

queuing disciplines

Analytical

model

significantly underpredicts first and

second moment of

service delay under

heavy traffic

Both

analytical

models significantly

over predict delay, particularly at

higher traffic loads

15

The focus on steady state results has left a gap in terms of analytically tractable

models for the purpose of real time admission control. This has provided motivation

for developing a simpler model for delay analysis, which is based on a single dimensional

queue for each access category (AC). The idea is that a simpler model, that does not make

limiting assumptions about the network, can provide a better framework for estimating

performance metrics such as delay and throughput in real deployment scenarios.

3.3.1

Prior Research

In the context of analytical modeling of EDCA and call admission control for the same,

two works have been previously conducted [17, 18] (Appendix A and B). The analytical

model presented in [18] is based on a multidimensional Markov chain model, and aims at

capturing AIFS differentiation at less complexity. The results are comparable with models

of greater intricacy; this can be explained based on the fact that even four dimensional

Markov chain models can only go so far in capturing all the features of the EDCA. Thus

added states only cause a very small increase in analytical accuracy. In this context, the

existing work aims to simplify the problem to a more tractable single dimensional queuing

model.

The measurement based call admission control algorithm presented in [17] relies on

the instantaneous error probability to make decisions regarding adding new streams to

the system. While this simple algorithm provides favorable results in terms of balance

between network utilization and QoS, the system still admits greater flows than optimal.

In this regard, there is a need to introduce better criteria for admission control, particularly

in terms of the bound on probability of error/retransmission for real time access categories

and data traffic. The existing work builds on these deficiencies, incorporating other factors

that effect system performance in addition to error probability. What is of particular

interest is the bound on error probability that guarantee acceptable quality of service for

real time traffic such as delay, jitter and throughput. While in [17], the upper limit on

error probability have been picked as a qualitative measure, an effort has been made in

this work to quantify these limits based on analytical results.

3.4

EDCA

The purpose of queuing analysis is to model the delays and lengths of queues. In the context of data networks, this provides a powerful tool for predicting delays. For the queuing

model to be accurate, traffic models are required which effectively describe the statistical

nature of the actual network traffic. Thus the overall results of the queuing analysis are

dependent on the selection of appropriate traffic models. Selection of traffic models, in

turn, is dependent on the nature of the traffic and the type of network under consideration

[19].

16

The two main parameters describing network traffic are: packet length and packet

inter-arrival distributions, the latter of which is of prime importance.Commonly used

traffic models for real time and best effort traffic include [20]:

Video traffic: Variable Bit Rate (VBR) video traffic is bursty, and shows strong

correlation. Applied models include On/Off traffic model, Markov models including

Markov modulated Poisson process.

Web Traffic: On/Off sources, Poisson, fluid models.

Voice traffic: Constant Bit Rate (CBR)

While voice traffic presents the simplest case, being constant bit rate, video and data

traffic pose a greater challenge. However, as indicated in [19, 20], Poisson arrival lends

well to analysis in queuing systems, and for most cases, gives a fairly accurate model for

most types of internet traffic.

Kendalls notation [21, Pp. 17] is used to describe and classify the queue. The standard

description using three factors is A/S/c, where A denotes the inter-arrival time, S denotes

the service time distribution and c denotes the number of servers. Additional factors may

be used to denote the buffer size, size of population to be served. When just three factors

are specified, then it is assumed that the buffer size and population being served are being

served are infinite and the queuing discipline is FIFO.

For the purpose of our analysis, the most important arrival and service distributions

are Poisson (or Markovian), denoted by M and general, denoted by G, and the system is a

single server system, i.e. c=1. The key parameters of interest in queuing analysis are the

mean waiting time in queue (W), total waiting time, i.e. queuing delay and service time

(T) and number of waiting packets in queue (N) [22, Pp. 153].

These parameters are defined in terms of the mean traffic arrival time E[t] = 1 , service

time with mean E[X] =

1

,

utilization factor = . In addition, two factors that are also employed are the coefficient

of variance of the service time, Cb2 =

b2

E[X 2 ]

a2

E[t2 ]

A fundamental relation is established between the waiting time and queue length by the

Littles Theorem [22, Pp. 152] N = T .

3.4.1

The classic queuing theory utilizes the M/G/1 and the G/M/1 queues abundantly. The

assumption is that either the arrival process or the service time is Markovian; the other

distribution is general. These queues are duals of each other, thus the same analysis with

transformation is applicable to both queues. The Pollaczek-Khinchin (P-K) Formula is the

best descriptor for these queues. Coming to the M/G/1 queue, where the arrival process is

17

Markovian, and the service distribution is general (with a finite first and second moment),

the mean waiting time is given as:

E[T ] =

E[X 2 ]

2(1 )

(3.8)

From Littles theorem and 3.8, the mean number of waiting packets in the system is

given by:

E[N ] = +

2 E[X 2 ]

2(1 )

(3.9)

From the above equation, we see that there is a linear increase in N with variance of

service time. The average time spent in system by a data packet is given as:

E[W ] = E[X] +

E[X](1 + Cb2 )

2(1 )

(3.10)

3.4.2

G/G/1 Queues

When both the arrival times and service times are general independent and identically

distributed, the relevant queuing discipline is G/G/1. Let I denote the random variable

(RV) representing the idle time (I =

(1)

,

E[W ] =

a2 + b2 + E[t2 ](1 2 ) I 2

2E[t](1 )

2I

(3.11)

An approximation to the above result is given by the Kingmans formula for the G/G/1

Queue [24], where the waiting time in the queue (Wq ) is given by:

E[Wq ] E[X]

Ca2 + Cb2

(1 )

2

(3.12)

Another commonly used approximation under heavy traffic is given in [22, Pp. 206],

i.e. as 1, approximation to the waiting time is:

E[W ] =

a2 + b2

2(1 )

(3.13)

This represents the upper bound on the waiting time in queue for heavy traffic loads.

Chapter 4

Throughput

The QoS support for real time voice and video streams provided by the IEEE 802.11

EDCA depend on the delay each frame suffers. The QoS support can be broken down into

three aspects; throughput, delay and jitter. This work deals with delay and throughput

analysis. Jitter, which is the variation in successive delays, is left as an open area.

The delay is the aggregate of the actual transmission and the time spent waiting in

queue while the preceding packets are served. After a frame arrives at the head of queue,

the binary exponential back-off process is initiated if the medium is sensed busy. This

causes an additional time waiting at the head of queue in addition to the actual transmission time. In this section, a thorough analytical model is presented for modeling the

expected delay for each access category. The model includes the effect of all differentiation

parameters; minimum and maximum contention window sizes, AIFS, and the transmission

opportunity.

4.1

The service time for all access categories is difficult to characterize, since it is a function

of the number of active stations of each AC, the individual data rates, the channel condition etc. The best fit for this situation is a general distribution. Coming to the arrival

process, voice traffic is CBR, which is deterministic. Video traffic is variable in nature,

and is dependent on the codec used. While it is not exactly a Poisson process, surveys

[20, 25] show that this is a reasonable approximation; in most cases the variability within

the traffic arrival will conform to that of a Poisson process. In addition, the Markovian

approximation offers high computational tractability, thus it has remained a well used

analysis tool. Since the system is time shared, the server is inherently 1. Thus the most

appropriate queuing discipline is the M/G/1 for the EDCA.

The basis for the analytical framework is established by viewing each access category

(VO, VI, BE and BK) as an independent single dimensional queue. Each queue is a lim18

19

ited service, partially gated system with vacation/reservation. This implies that after each

packet arrives at the head of queue, the server immediately goes on vacation. This vacation accounts for the randomly selected back-off counter value, other possible collisions

and transmissions within this interval and the collisions that the station it self suffers and

the back-off counter picked from the subsequently doubled contention window.

For any arriving packet, the waiting time in queue is the sum of the residual time

Ri (the time remaining for the currently ongoing transmission/vacation), the service time

of all the preceding packets

Ni

,

well as its own vacation time Yi . In case of T XOP being enabled, the vacation interval

does not precede each packet transmission, but several consecutive packet transmissions,

as dictated by the T XOPlimit .

From [22, Eq 3.63, Pp 198], the expected waiting time for the ith arriving packet Wi

is given by:

E[Wi ] = E[Ri ] +

E[Ni ]

+ E[Yi ]

(4.1)

As i the system attains steady state. From Littles theorem, N = W and using

=

E[W ] = E[R] + E[W ] + E[Y ]

(4.2)

A major focus of the delay analysis is on developing an expression for the vacation time

that precedes each transmission. The problem of finding the queuing delay necessitates

using the first two moments of the vacation time. However, the PDF of the vacation time

is not required. This indicates that complex models, as presented in [9], although necessary for accurate analysis of the protocol, are not required for delay analysis in particular.

The main advantage of this approach is that the model remains analytically tractable,

and robust enough to be applied in a dynamic environment, where the retransmission

probability and the channel busyness is constantly changing. This is not possible for most

other analytical models, which start with an assumption of steady state, implying that a

new station may not appear on the station, or an existing station may not stop transmitting. Furthermore, in current models, channel conditions, if taken into account [9], are

held to be constant, which is also inaccurate for the wireless environment.

4.2

The parameters such as arrival distribution, service time, vacation etc., will differ for voice

and video ACs. To consider the relation between the two ACs, it is established, based

on contention window and AIFS differentiation, that voice will almost always have higher

20

priority. However, when any packet is being transmitted from say voice AC, the other

queues, whether voice or video, will be undergoing vacation. Similarly, when a video

packet is being transmitted, all other queues, both voice and video, will be undergoing vacation. Thus the transmission interval of one queue will overlap with the vacation interval

of all other queues. Thus the priority is being catered for within the vacationing.

For the mean residual time, consider figure 4.1.

We will derive the general expression for queuing delay, which can be used for voice

and video by using the relevant parameters plugged into equations (4.1-4.2).

R=

E[X 2 ] (1 )E[V 2 ]

+

2

2E[V ]

(4.3)

The expected time due to vacation considering a partially gated system, is given by:

Y =

(1 + )E[V ] (1 )

(E[V ])2

2

2E[V ]

(4.4)

Since the system under consideration is a limited service system, the waiting time in

eq (4.2) is extended by a factor E[V ]W since each packet causes a vacation interval.

E[W ] =

21

(4.5)

E[R] + E[Y ]

1 E[V ]

Plugging the values of E[V ] and E[R] from eq 4.3 and 4.4 into 4.5, we get the result

for the waiting time:

E[W ] =

1

2(1 E[V ])

E[X ] +

E[V ]

+ (1 + )E[V ]

(4.6)

For each AC (VO, VI, BE, BK) the parameters , E[V ], E[V

2]

and

E[X 2 ]

will be differ-

When the TXOP is enabled (primarily for video AC), the average vacation time is

deterministically reduced for each packet. When the TXOP is set to a non zero value,

the AC can transmit multiple packets once it has gained access to the medium. Each

transmission is separated by a SIFS, so no other contending station can gain access to the

medium. The number of packets transmitted nT XOP is determined by the TXOP setting.

In terms of the queuing analysis, this can be explained as follows: instead of a vacation

interval preceding each packet transmission, one vacation interval precedes a fixed number

of packet transmissions (nT XOP ). Thus (4.5) is modified as:

E[W ] = E[R] + E[W ] + E[Y ] +

1

nT XOP

E[V ]E[W ]

(4.7)

E[W ] =

1

2(1

1

nT XOP

E[V ])

E[X ] +

E[V ]

+ (1 + )E[V ]

(4.8)

The main result of this analysis is given by 4.8. This caters for the transmission opportunity (T XOP ) explicitly, and AIFS and CW differentiation within the vacation interval.

The main results for overall delay each packet suffer is summarized by 4.6 and 4.8. This

model presents a significant difference from most existing models, particularly Markov

chain based frameworks, in that iterative solution is not required.

In the above derived expression for waiting time, the service time and arrival rates are

known; the only unknowns remaining are the first and second moment of vacation time.

The following section deals with these two expressions for dynamic network conditions;

the subsequent section details the work for steady state conditions.

22

4.3

After each packet arrives at the head of queue, contention for channel access starts, which

continues until the station has gained medium access, and successfully transmits the

packet. In this model, this time constitutes the reservation or vacation interval that precedes each transmission. This includes, in addition to the time spent during the back-off

process, the time spent due to collision and subsequent unsuccessful transmissions. Thus

the vacation time is dependent on the number of transmitting stations, and the probability of re-transmission, which is the combined effect of both channel outage and collision.

The total vacation/reservation interval (V ) preceding transmission of each data frame

can be attributed to two reasons, increasing back-off window following each failed transmission attempt (Vbo ) and other transmissions/collisions occurring within the back-off

period (Vbusy ).

E[V ] = E[Vbusy ] + [Vbo ]

(4.9)

E[V 2 ] = E[(Vbo + Vbusy )2 ]

(4.10)

possible to find the first and second moment, which is adequate for queuing analysis.

4.3.1

E[Vbo ]

The IEEE 802.11 MAC layer protocol dictates that the back-off window doubles after each

unsuccessful transmission attempt, starting at the minimum contention window size (Wm ,

which will be the integer value of the contention window times Tslot ), until the maximum

contention window size is reached, or the retry limit (R) is exceeded. The vacation due

to back-off (Vbo ) is the number of idle slots that the station traverses before successful

transmission. Since the number of slots traversed increases in case of failed transmission

attempt, Vbo is a function of the retransmission (collision) probability (p).Since the collision probability p, and the minimum contention window size Wm , are different for VO

and VI ACs, both will have dissimilar vacation due to back-off.

In case the retry limit is reached, and the packet suffers another collision, the packet

is dropped. However, in usual traffic load, this event occurs very rarely, as is validated

by the analytical model presented in [2]. Thus practically, this case can be ignored; this

leads to a simpler analysis. The vacation time due to back-off Vbo is a memoryless process;

the probability of success (or failure) remains the same after each retransmission. In

case where the retry limit is not considered, the first moment (or expectation) of Vbo

can be derived in terms of (p) and the minimum contention window size Wm . In case of

a successful transmission, the expected waiting time is the same as that of the average

23

contention window size. In case of a collision/failed attempt, the expected vacation time

doubles from that of the previous attempt. This can be derived as follows for the generic

case, which can be tailored for both VO and VI (and also for BE and BK):

= (1 p)E[Wm ] + p(E[Wm ] + 2E[Vbo ])

E[Vbo ] =

E[Wm ]

1 2p

(4.11)

2

E[Vbo2 ] = (1 p)E[Wm

] + pE[(Wm + 2Vbo )2 ]

1

2

E[Wm

] + 4pE[Wm ]E[Vbo ]

=

1 4p

E[Vbo2 ] =

2]

E[Wm

(E[Wm ])2 4p

+

,

1 4p

(1 2p)(1 4p)

4p < 1

(4.12)

The case of retry limit can similarly be considered; the above geometric distribution is

then replaced by a truncated geometric distribution. However, in actual network scenarios,

the probability of the retry limit being reached is negligibly small. Hence analysis without

inclusion of the retry limit is close to the actual results.

4.3.2

E[Vbusy ]

Besides the exponentially increasing back-off window, the factors that contribute to the

vacation interval are the other channel events (N ) that occur during the back-off counter

decrement, i.e. other successful transmissions and collisions, where the stations back-off

counter remains frozen. The total time that the channel is busy due to these events (Tbusy )

is a random variable, dependent on the number of other transmitting flows.

If the packet does not suffer a re-transmission, the vacation Vbusy will consist of the time

that the channel is busy due to transmission from other stations, plus the necessary AIFS

(TM AC ). In case the packet undergoes a retransmission, the vacation will consist of the

AIFS, the time to transmit the packet and establish that a collision has occurred (Tno ack ),

as well as the entire duration (Vbusy ) that will occur due to a retransmission attempt. Just

as in the case of the vacation due to back-off, the process Vbusy is memoryless and lends

well to a closed form result. Following the same principle as adopted for vacationing due

to back-off, E[Vbusy ] depends on the number of transmission attempts, increasing in case

of failed transmission. Defining the probability of these events in terms of p, we have the

first moment of Vbusy given by (4.13):

24

p

1

= E[Tbusy ] +

(TM AC ) +

Tno ack

1p

1p

E[Vbusy ] = E[Tbusy ] +

1

p

(TM AC ) +

Tno ack

1p

1p

(4.13)

Equation (4.13) is intuitively descriptive of the vacation due to channel events and retransmissions. The wait includes the time that the channel is busy due to other stations

transmissions (Tbusy ), the AIFS initiated for each transmission attempt, which follows a

geometric distribution (events till the successful transmission); and the time to establish

a failed transmission up until the last successful attempt, which also follows a geometric

distribution (events before the successful transmission).

Here the main parameter to be determined is E[Tbusy ]. Under stable conditions, i.e.

when the delays are bounded, both the first and second moment exist for Tbusy . Just

like the retransmission probability (p), these two parameters from the perspective of any

station, can be maintained and updated at runtime.

Assuming that the first and second moment of Tbusy exist, and are know, using (4.9)

and the subsequent results derived in (4.13), the first moment of the vacation time (when

retry limit is not considered) is given as:

E[V ] =

E[Wm ]

1

p

+ E[Tbusy ] +

TM AC +

Tno ack

1 2p

1p

1p

(4.14)

For the second moment, the same result can be derived by putting in the requisite

values in (4.10).

E[V 2 ] =

1

2

2

(1 + p)(TM

AC + pTno ack ) + 2pTM AC Tno ack

2

(1 p)

2]

E[Wm

2E[Wm ]

1

(E[Wm ])2 4p

+

(TM AC + pTno ack ) +

+

1 2p

1p

1 4p

(1 2p)(1 4p)

1

E[Wm ]

2

+ E[Tbusy ] + 2E[Tbusy ]

(TM AC + pTno ack ) +

1p

1 2p

(4.15)

Equations (4.14-4.15) completely describe the vacation interval for the purpose of queuing analysis.

4.4

We can use (4.14 4.10) to study several special cases, i.e. the expected vacation time

when the retransmission probabilities are small. This occurs when there are few transmit-

25

ting stations, or when the traffic load is light.

When there are very few contending stations, the retransmissions are caused by channel

conditions, rather than collisions. In this case it can be assumed that 1 p 1, and the

above equations simplify as:

E[V ] = E[Tbusy ] + TM AC + pTno ack + E[Wm ]

(4.16)

2

2

E[V 2 ] = TM

AC + pTno ack + 2pTM AC Tno ack + 2E[Wm ](TM AC + pTno ack )

2

2

+ E[Wm

] + (E[Wm ])2 4p + 2E[Tbusy ](TM AC + pTno ack + E[Wm ]) + E[Tbusy

]

(4.17)

When there is a moderate number of contending flows, the retransmissions occur both

due to channel outage and collision. However, if p remains small, such that p2 0, then

the expressions for first moment remains the same as (4.14), however the second moment

simplifies as:

E[V 2 ] =

2E[Tbusy ]E[Wm ]

1

2

(p(TM AC + Tno ack )2 + TM

AC ) +

1 2p

1 2p

2

2E[Wm ]

E[Wm ] (E[Wm ])2 4p

+

(TM AC + pTno ack ) +

+

1 3p

1 4p

1 6p

2E[Tbusy ]

2

+

]

(TM AC + pTno ack ) + E[Tbusy

1p

(4.18)

In the case when the retransmission probability is very small, and it can be assumed

to be zero, we arrive at very simplified expression for both the first and second moment:

E[V ] = E[Tbusy ] + TM AC + E[Wm ]

(4.19)

2

2

E[V 2 ] = TM

AC + 2E[Wm ]TM AC + E[Wm ]

(4.20)

2

+ 2E[Tbusy ](TM AC + E[Wm ]) + E[Tbusy

]

In case where the number of active stations is very small, E[Tbusy ] approaches zero.

In this case, when the packet arrives at the head of queue, and the medium is sensed free

for an AIFS, the packet will be transmitted without back-off. Thus E[V ] = TM AC ; this

case will occur with very small probability, and is catered for within this model, since

E[Wm ] caters for the case where the randomly picked back-off counter is zero. The above

expressions are generic, and will differ for VO and VI, and can be found by plugging in

the requisite values of pV O and pV I .

Here the vacation time has been defined as the total time that a packet waits at the

26

head of queue until initiation of successful transmission. The conventional approach has

been to estimate the collision probability (or its average) based on complex analytical

models. Here it has been proposed that the retransmission probability can be estimated

and updated at runtime, which can then be used to periodically update the delay results

for decisions to allow or reject new flows. Another factor that effects the transmission

time is number of other stations transmitting during the back-off interval. Again, from

the perspective of multi-dimensional models, this represents a complex expression based

on the per station transmission probabilities and the number of contending higher and

lower priority flows. However, just as in the case of retransmission probability, this time

too, can be estimated at runtime.

4.5

Steady State

The above model has been derived for actual, dynamic conditions where the IEEE 802.11

is employed. For the sake of completeness, the analysis is extended to steady state and

saturation conditions. Here steady state refers to a stationary process; saturation implies

that each queue will always have a packet to transmit.

In case the assumption of steady state is made, i.e. the number of active stations

remains constant, we can derive a purely analytical expression in terms of expected transmission and the retransmission probability p. These parameters can be calculated from

the rigorous analytical model for EDCA developed by Bianchi [2].

4.5.1

E[Vbusy ]

In this case, the expression for Vbusy will be developed in terms of a random number

of random events. The factors that contribute to the vacation interval are the other

channel events (N ) that occur during the back-off counter decrement, i.e. other successful

transmissions and collisions. Again, defining the probability of these events in terms of

the retransmission probability, we have the first moment given by (4.21):

p

1

= E[N ]E[Tbusy ] +

(TM AC ) +

Tno ack

1p

1p

E[Vbusy ] = E[N ]E[Tbusy ] +

1

p

(TM AC ) +

Tno ack

1p

1p

(4.21)

Here the main parameter to be determined is N . One possible way of solving this

problem is to determine E[Nb ], the number of expected events during the minimum backoff window. Using Nb and borrowing from eq 4.11-4.12 above, E[N ] and E[N 2 ] can then

be derived as:

E[N ] =

E[Nb ]

1 2p

(4.22)

27

The second moment can be similarly derived:

E[N 2 ] =

E[Nb2 ]

(E[Nb ])2 4p

+

,

1 4p (1 2p)(1 4p)

4p < 1

(4.23)

This analysis is valid for steady state, since the number of events tend to increase as

the number of retransmission attempts increase, as all contending stations remain similarly active at all times.

Thus the number of other channel events is a random sum of random variables. From

[26, Eq 7.48, Pp 255], the second moment of this sum is given as:

E[(N Tbusy )2 ] = (E[Tbusy ])2 E[N 2 ] + T2busy E[N ]

(4.24)

Using 4.9 and the subsequent results derived, the first moment of the vacation time

(when retry limit is not considered) is given as:

E[V ] =

E[Wm ]

E[Nb ]

p

1

+

E[Tbusy ] +

TM AC +

Tno ack

1 2p

1 2p

1p

1p

(4.25)

2

] + 2E[Vbo ]E[Vbusy ]

E[V 2 ] = E[Vbo2 ] + E[Vbusy

(4.26)

2]

E[Wm

(E[Wm ])2 4p

+

)

1 4p

(1 2p)(1 4p)

E[N ]E[Tbusy ]

E[Wm ] 1

p

+2

(

TM AC +

+

Tno ack )

1 2p 1 p

(1 2p)

1p

2

p + p2 2

(E[Nb ])2 4p

1+p 2

2 E[Nb ]

+

T

+

(E[T

])

(

+

)

+ 2 TM

busy

AC

p

(1 p)2 no ack

1 4p (1 2p)(1 4p)

E[Nb ]E[Tbusy ]TM AC

E[Nb ]

p

+ T2busy

+2

+2

TM AC Tno ack

1 2p

(1 p)(1 2p)

(1 p)

p

E[Nb ]

+2

E[Tbusy ]Tno ack

2

(1 p) (1 2p)

E[V 2 ] = (

E[V 2 ] =

(E[Tbusy ])2

1

(E[Wm ])2 4p

(E[Nb ])2 4p

2

(E[Wm

]+

)+

(E[Nb2 ] +

)

(4.27)

1 4p

1 2p

1 4p

1 2p

E[Nb ]

1

2

2

+

((1 + p)(TM

+ T2busy

AC + pTno ack ) + 2pTM AC Tno ack )

1 2p (1 p)2

2E[Wm ] E[Nb ]

1

+

(

E[Tbusy ] +

(TM AC + pTno ack ))

1 2p 1 2p

1p

2E[Nb ]E[Tbusy ]

+

(TM AC + pTno ack )

(1 2p)(1 p)

In case p is very small, such that p2 0, the above equation (4.15) simplifies as:

E[V 2 ] =

28

(E[Tbusy ])2

(E[Wm ])2 4p

(E[Nb ])2 4p

)+

(E[Nb2 ] +

)

1 4p

1 2p

1 4p

1 2p

E[Nb ]

1

2

+ T2busy

+

(p(TM AC + Tno ack )2 + TM

AC )

1 2p (1 2p)

2E[Wm ] E[Nb ]

1

+

(

E[Tbusy ] +

(TM AC + pTno ack ))

1 2p 1 2p

1p

2E[Nb ]E[Tbusy ]

+

(TM AC + pTno ack )

(1 2p)(1 p)

2

2

(E[Wm

]+

First and second moments for voice and video ACs will differ, and are defined from

the above equations (4.14-4.15) by using NbV O , pV O , WmV O , NbV O and NbV I , pV I , WmV I ,

NbV I .

4.6

Throughput

Since the model has been designed to compute the expected delay, it is redundant to go

through the same methodology to find the system throughput. It is an easier approach to

find the expected value of throughput from Littles Theorem. If we denote the per station

throughput by T h, per station delay by D, packet size by Psize , the average throughput

as a function of delay is given by:

Th =

1

Psize

D

(4.28)

This equation can be used to find the throughput once the delay has been calculated.

Thus the complete performance characterization can be obtained from the queuing framework.

Chapter 5

For verification of the developed model, simulation was done on the network simulator 3

(NS-3) [27].

The simulation includes voice, video, and background traffic. The details of the traffic

sources and corresponding parameters have been selected taking into account the actual

deployment scenarios.

5.1

Simulation Setup

The IEEE 802.11g standard has been chosen for the simulation, since it is the currently

employed PHY standard. The parameters for MAC specifications [1, table 17-15] are listed

in table 5.1. The corresponding EDCA parameters are given in table 5.2 [1, table 7-37].

Table 5.1: MAC Parameters

Slot Time

SIFS

DIFS

Data Rate

Tno ack

Max MPDU

CWmin

CWmax

9 s

16 s

34 s

54Mbps

46s

4095 bytes

15

1023

One access point was simulated, serving as a sink for the traffic generated by stations.

Each station transmits all three traffic streams. The number of transmitting stations increase at regular intervals, going from one up to 40 stations (3-120 flows). Each increment

follows after a fixed interval, giving enough time to study the network.

Each station computes the time the channel remains busy due to transmissions from

other stations between two successive successful transmissions of its own. The collision/retransmission probability for each AC is also maintained and updated every 10ms.

29

30

Table 5.2: EDCA Parameters

AC (Priority)

AIFSN

CW min

CW max

TM AC

M SDU life

Voice

3

2

3

7

34s

300ms

Video

2

2

7

15

34s

500ms

Frame Size (Bytes)

Traffic Nature

Voice

104

160

CBR

Video

384

220 (average)

VBR

Background

200

128

CBR

The nature of the voice, video and background traffic has been chosen to reflect actual

real time data over the Internet. Voice and background data have been simulated as CBR,

while video data has been simulated as VBR. The details are shown in table 5.3 [25].

5.2

Computational Efficiency

The results obtained from the simulation have been tabulated in the following sections.

Within the simulation, the results for the error probability and busy time have been

continuously updated. The analytical results have also been applied for every changing

network condition. A point of interest is the efficiency of the analytical system. Since the

calculations do not involve fixed point iterations, the system is far more tractable than

multi-dimensional Markov chain models. As an example, using an Intel core i7rprocessor,

if the data for a simulation with a fixed setup is analyzed for delay and throughput, the

total computational time for one set of results is 0.023 seconds.

The only hurdle that might appear is the constant collection of statistics at the terminals. However, this is not an issue since the data collection is limited to each node itself;

there needs to be no centralized data and delay analysis. For facilitation of admission

control algorithms, the delay results per AC can be communicated to the AP only when

the system parameters, e.g. retransmission probability, change beyond a certain threshold.

5.3

First the voice access category is considered. The results, for the simulation and the

analytical model, have been presented in the form of graphs.

31

5.3.1

For a changing network scenario, the busy time has been measured between each successive

packet transmission. From this data, the first and second moment of the busy time have

been tabulated.

E[Tbusy ]

The following plot (figure 5.1) shows the values for expected busy time, E[Tbusy ] plotted

against increasing number of stations.

x 10

x 10

3.5

5

3

4

2.5

2

ms

ms

1.5

2

1

1

0.5

0

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.1: First Moment of Busy Time for VO AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

The above figures indicate that the busy time increases with the number of transmitting

stations; beyond a certain point the busy time undergoes significant increment. Also, from

figure 5.1 it is evident that the busy time shows considerable variation when not averaged.

This can be attributed to the dynamic nature of the network, as well as the fact on of

the traffic sources in the network, i.e. video, is VBR. Thus the number of active stations

within any time span vary.

2

E[Tbusy

]

Figure 5.2 shows the second moment of busy time, E[Tbusy ] plotted against increasing

number of stations, as obtained from the contending VO ACs.

4

4

x 10

x 10

2.5

3.5

3

2

Seconds2

Seconds2

2.5

1.5

1.5

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.2: Second Moment of Busy Time for VO AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

32

The second moment of busy time shows variation similar to that of the first moment.

It is notable that the values of the second moment of busy time is comparatively small in

the context of QoS provisioning. Another fact that becomes apparent is that the second

moment shows a decrease in the heavy load scenario. This can be attributed to the

fact that as the traffic increases beyond a certain point, the busy time starts remaining

uniformly large, thus the variation decrease, and correspondingly the second moment.

5.3.2

Retransmission Probability

0.12

0.012

0.1

0.01

0.08

0.008

Probability

Probability

Figure 5.3 shows the retransmission/collision probability against the number of stations.

0.06

0.006

0.04

0.004

0.02

0.002

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.3: Retransmission Probability for VO AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

The figures indicate that the retransmission probability shows significant variation,

particularly when new stations start transmitting. It can be observed that in the instantaneous case, the error probability goes up to 0.5. However, from figure 5.3, it can be seen

that the average retransmission probability never grows out of bound, i.e. the average does

not cross 0.05. There is no distinct trend that increasing transmitting flows necessarily

means increasing retransmission probability. This can be explained due to initiation of

back-off process:

When new flows are suddenly added to the system, collisions momentarily shoot up;

Following this, post collision back-off counters are doubled, enabling the system to

settle down into steady state whereby the collision probability goes down.

An important conclusion that can be drawn is that the collision/retransmission probability does not solely indicate the delays that will occur in transmission.

33

5.3.3

Vacation Time V

Based on the collected data for busy time and the error probability, the first and second

moment of vacation time has been calculated.

E[V ]

Figure 5.4 and ?? shows the first moment of vacation time, as computed by equation

2 ] from the above data set.

(4.14), using the values of p, E[Tbusy ] and E[Tbusy

3.5

5

3

4

2.5

2

ms

ms

1.5

2

1

1

0.5

0

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.4: First Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

E[V 2 ]

The second moment (4.15) is shown in figure 5.5 (instantaneous) and ?? (averaged).

4

4

x 10

x 10

6

2

Seconds2

Seconds2

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.5: Second Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

Comparing the two sets of figures (5.1-5.2) and (5.4-5.5), we see that the first and

second moments of vacation time closely follow the first and second moment of busy time.

This can be explained by the fact that , as long as p remains within bound, the major

contributors in 4.14 and 4.15 are the first and second moments of Tbusy respectively.

5.3.4

Delay Results

Using the results presented above in equation (4.6), the analytical results for delay have

been calculated and compared to the simulation results, shown in figure 5.6 (instantaneous)

34

and ??(averaged).

0.03

0.045

E[W] Simulation

Delay Results: Analytical

0.04

E[W] Analytical

0.025

0.035

0.02

seconds

Seconds

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.015

0.01

0.005

0.005

0

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.6: Delay Results: Analytical Vs Simulation: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

It can be seen that at high traffic loads, the results show close agreement with the

simulation results. The apparent discrepancy at lower loads can be explained by the fact

that the analytical model assumes that the contention window keeps on doubling every

failed transmission attempt, In actual fact, the window for VO AC doubles just once. At

larger delays, this issue no longer remains as significant in the presence of delays caused

by busy time. In the context of actual delay requirements for voice, the over prediction is

not significant, since it runs in the order of few milliseconds.

5.3.5

Throughput Results

Using Littles Theorem, the delay results have been used to tabulate throughput results.

The comparison is shown in fig 5.7.

4

11

x 10

Simulation

Analytical

10

bits/sec

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

It can be seen that the results under predict the per station throughput at lower loads,

since the delay is slightly over predicted. At higher loads, the results show close agreement

with the simulation.

Presented results indicate that the delay results depend largely on the vacation times,

which in turn are function of the busy time and the error probability. However, it can be

35

seen that even under heavy traffic loads, the error probability remains within bounds.

An interesting feature that comes to light is that since the vacation time follows the

busy time (both first and second moment), and the probability of error always remains

within a small bound, the approximate delay results (equation 4.26, ??) are very close

to the actual analytical results. This offers an even more tractable solution to the delay

model.

36

5.3.6

It is of particular interest to note how the system throughput for one particular access

category suffers as the average transmission probability goes up. This data has been taken

from the simulation alone. Figure (5.8) depicts the effect of the retransmission probability

on the decrease in system throughput that is primarily brought on by addition in the

expected values of the busy time. It becomes evident that as the probability goes beyond

0.2, the system throughput falls bellow the required average. Within the actual simulation,

these instances occur very rarely.

7

System Throughput

Acceptable Throughput

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Retransmission Probability

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

5.3.7

The following figure (5.9) shows the simulation jitter results for voice access category.

4

4

x 10

1.2

x 10

2

Jitter (Second2)

Jitter (Second2)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Just as in the case of delay, we see a steady increase in jitter with increasing the number

of stations. However, even under heavy loads, the jitter remains within acceptable limits.

37

5.4

The results for the video AC show a close similarity to those of voice AC. These results

have been tabulated and presented bellow.

5.4.1

E[Tbusy ]

The following plot (figure 5.10) shows the values for expected busy time, E[Tbusy ] plotted

against increasing number of stations.

3

x 10

0.014

0.012

2.5

0.01

Seconds

Seconds

2

0.008

0.006

1.5

1

0.004

0.5

0.002

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.10: First Moment of Busy Time for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

The above figures indicate that the busy time increases with the number of transmitting

stations. Again, as in the case of voice, it is evident from figure 5.10 that the busy time

shows considerable variation.

2

E[Tbusy

]

Figure 5.11 shows the second moment of busy time, E[Tbusy ] plotted against increasing

number of stations, as obtained from the contending VI ACs.

4

3

x 10

x 10

1.8

1.6

1.4

2

Seconds2

Seconds2

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

Figure 5.11: Second Moment of Busy Time for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

The second moment of busy time shows variation similar to that of the first moment.

The values of second moment of busy time are small in the context of acceptable delays.

38

5.4.2

Retransmission Probability

Figure 5.12 shows the retransmission/collision probability against the number of stations.

0.04

0.016

0.035

0.014

0.03

0.012

0.01

Probability

Probability

0.025

0.02

0.008

0.015

0.006

0.01

0.004

0.005

0.002

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

Figure 5.12: Retransmission Probability for VI AC: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

As in the case of voice, the figures indicate that the retransmission probability shows

significant variation. From figure 5.12, it can be seen that the average retransmission

probability never grows out of bound, i.e. the average does not cross 0.1. This bound that

the error probability remains within can be attributed to the initiation of the back-off

process. The retransmission probability is not the sole metric of interest in predicting

delays and throughput.

39

5.4.3

Vacation Time V

E[V ]

Figure 5.13 shows the first moment of vacation time, as computed by equation (4.14),

2 ]. The first figure shows instantaneous values,

using the values of p, E[Tbusy ] and E[Tbusy

3

3

x 10

3.5

2.2

x 10

1.8

1.6

Seconds

Seconds

2.5

1.5

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.4

0

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

0.2

40

10

15

20

25

N

) umber of Station

30

35

40

Figure 5.13: First Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

E[V 2 ]

The second moment (4.15) is shown in figure 5.14.

4

4

x 10

x 10

6

1.8

5

1.6

1.4

Seconds2

Seconds2

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

1

0.2

0

0

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

Figure 5.14: Second Moment of Vacation Time: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

Comparing the two sets of figures (5.10-5.11) and (5.13-5.14), the first and second

moments of vacation time closely follow the first and second moment of busy time. As

long as p remains within bound, the major contributors in 4.14 and 4.15 are the first and

second moments of Tbusy respectively.

5.4.4

Delay Results

Using the results presented above in equation (4.6), the analytical results for delay have

been calculated and compared to the simulation results, shown in figure 5.15.

40

0.06

0.03

E[W] Simulation

E[W] Analytical

0.05

E[W] Simulation

E[W] Analytical

0.025

0.02

seconds

Seconds

0.04

0.03

0.015

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.005

10

15

20

25

Number of Station

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Figure 5.15: Delay Results: Analytical Vs Simulation: a)10ms intervals, b)20s intervals

AS was the case in voice, the results show closer agreement at higher loads then at

less traffic. In the case of video, however, the divergence is less. This further supports the

theory regarding the discrepancy. In case of video, the contention window size doubles

only once, however, the largest contention window size for video is double that of voice,

lending for a better approximation.

5.4.5

Throughput Results

Per station throughput has been calculated from the delay using 4.28. The results are

shown in fig 5.16.

5

x 10

Simulation

Analytical

3.5

bits/sec

2.5

1.5

0.5

1

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

The results are indicative of the same trends as that for voice AC; the busy time

steadily increases at higher traffic loads, as does the average error probability. The later

remains within bound of 0.02. The delay results closely follow the simulation at higher

traffic loads.

41

5.4.6

The following figure (5.17) depicts the effect of increasing retransmission probability on

system throughput for video access category. In this case, we see that the system throughput falls bellow the acceptable minimum at lower error probability than the video AC.

This can be attributed to the greater throughput requirements for video.

11

Minimum Acceptable Throughput

System Throughput

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Retransmission Probability

0.5

0.6

5.4.7

The following figure (5.18) shows the simulation jitter results for voice access category.

4

4

x 10

x 10

1.6

1.4

Jitter (Second2)

Jitter (Second2)

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

Just as in the case of delay, we see a steady increase in jitter with increasing the number

of stations. However, even under heavy loads, the jitter remains within acceptable limits.

42

5.5

For the sake of a complete picture in terms of delay prediction, it is meaningful to compare

the presented model with existing analytical models for delay prediction. For this purpose,

the work presented by Tadayon et. al [9], hereon referred to as Tadayons Model. This work

specifically deals with delay analysis. Since it is for DCF, a new simulation was conducted

in which only one type of traffic was generated; The parameters were set to that of best

effort traffic. A relatively light load was generated, with a total of 20 transmitting stations.

The delay results obtained from the simulation as well as both models were plotted against

probability of retransmission. The results are shown in figure 6.3.

0.01

Tadayons Model

Presented Model

Simulation Results

0.009

0.008

0.007

seconds

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Retransmission Probability

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

AN inspection shows the results presented both by [9] and the existing work substantiated. The current work offers greater accuracy in terms of delay prediction for higher

loads, or when the retransmission probability is higher. Tadayons work shows high accuracy in cases of lower load, or when the collision probability is lower. The practice of

categorizing the overall system load in terms of retransmission probability has been adhered to in this analysis for the sake of consistency with the work compared with. From

the perspective of delay analysis in its entirety, both analytical frameworks offer distinct

advantages. However, in the case of heavy loads, the presented work has a clear edge.

This scenario is of the most significance for the purpose of admission control and network

planning.

43

5.6

Given the analytical modeling, the impact of error or retransmission probability poses limitations on system performance for delay, throughput and jitter if it grows beyond certain

bounds.

To analyze this phenomena, a simulation was conducted with very high traffic load (60

Mbps over a 54Mbps channel) with high path loss. The resulting system performance for

voice and video access category is summarized in the following graphs.

5.6.1

System Throughput

Figures 5.20 5.21 illustrate the impact of increasing error probability on overall system

through put for voice and video ACs respectively. The results show that there is a sharp

drop in throughput once the error probability crosses 0.25. This corroborates the results

derived for the analytical framework.

6

5.5

x 10

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Retransmission Probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

5.6.2

Per station delay as a function of increasing error probability is analyzed for voice and video

ACs respectively. Here the impact of error probability increasing beyond 0.25 becomes

more pronounced. A comparison of both per station delay and jitter is shown in 5.22 and

5.23. In the case of voice AC, the jitter starts increasing rapidly once the retransmission

probability increases beyond 0.05. This effect is also present in VI AC, although it is

less marked. The reason for this may be attributed to the larger packet size for video at

the same data rate as voice; thus the number of transmissions tend to be more evenly

distributed.

44

6

x 10

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Retransmission Probability

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.12

Per Station Delay

Jitter

0.1

Seconds

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Retransmission Probability

0.5

0.6

Jitter

0.05

0.045

0.04

Second

0.035

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Retransmission Probability

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Chapter 6

Based on the results presented in the preceding section, several interesting conclusions can

be drawn about delay analysis of IEEE 802.11 EDCA.

It is possible to arrive, theoretically and practically, at high accuracy analysis with

very less computational cost as compared to multidimensional Markov chain models or

complex probability generating functions. A considerable impact being that iterative

solution/calculation are not required. Considering the fact that the purpose of delay

analysis is primarily:

Call admission control: effective utilization of network resources while providing

acceptable quality of service, or

study of the effect of contention and channel access parameters on system performance.

Given both these scenarios, live monitoring of network statistic, such as the time that

the channel is observed busy between two successive successful transmissions or the error

probability, is highly achievable. This approach offers two major advantages over existing

models:

The computation element becomes considerably easier, and

The analytical model no longer depends primarily on the error probability; this

makes the model more accurate, particularly at higher collision probabilities.

These points are borne out by the agreement between analytical and simulation results,

as well as the computational speed of the algorithm and removal of fixed point iteration

and inversion of probability generating functions.

From the results presented in section 4, we see that the first and second moments of

the vacation time are function of the retransmission probability (p) and the expected time

that channel remains busy due to the transmission of other stations.

From the results, two important approximations have been drawn about scenarios with

very light traffic load and heavy traffic load:

45

46

to the vacation is given by:

E[V ] E[Vbusy ]

Under heavy load p 1, E[V ] is dominated by E[Vbo ], and a good approximation

to the vacation is given by:

E[V ] E[Vbo ]

An important consideration is the fact that in current IEEE 802.11 implementations,

the parameters such as Tno ack , TM AC are very short (in the order of seconds), thus in

terms of delay analysis for the purpose of QoS support, these parameters, or multiples

thereof, do not pose a significant contribution to the overall delay. Thus, as long as (p)

remains within bound, the terms associated with (p) in equations(4.14, 4.15, 4.25, 4.27)

remain very small in comparison to the time attributed to the delay by the terms containing

2 ]. From the results for first and second moment of the busy time and

E[Tbusy ] and E[Tbusy

vacation time (figure (6.1)) this becomes apparent. This is particularly applicable for the

current PHY standards of the IEEE 802.11, e.g. g and n. Thus effectively we can model

the vacation time with the busy time.

E[V ] E[Tbusy ]

(6.1)

2

]

E[V 2 ] E[Tbusy

(6.2)

This makes a considerable impact on the calculation efficiency, further bringing down

the computation expense by a sizable margin.

3

Delay Results

x 10

E[V]

E[V2]

E[Tbusy]

E[Tbusy2]

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

30

35

40

An interesting effect observed was the behavior of busy time under heavy traffic loads.

Two points came to light, the first being that the increase in busy time slows down with

increasing contending stations; this can be explained by the doubling in contention window

47

sizes with every collisions. Most stations are under going back-off instead of transmitting.

The second is that the variability decreases; delays due to other transmissions become

uniformly large.

x 10

E[Tbusy]

4.5

4

Seconds

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of Stations

40

45

50

55

60

55

60

2.5

x 10

E[Tbusy]

Seconds

1.5

0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of Stations

40

45

50

2

Figure 6.3: E[Tbusy

] under heavy loads

either delay or throughput, it does have an impact on the overall system performance. A

very important result is the impact of error probability on the system performance if it

grows beyond bound. If the error probability goes beyond 0.25, the throughput will drop

to an extent that it makes the system unusable. While this bound is the upper limit on

acceptable delay and throughput, another result that can be drawn is regarding jitter.

Since jitter is the second moment of delay, the analytical model derived above indicates

that a finite jitter requires the error probability to be bounded, in the steady state, by

0.0625.

This limit, in view of existing works, seems very small. However, simulation of the

IEEE 802.11 with up to 120 transmitting streams indicates that even under heavy traffic

loads, the error probability in the steady state will never go beyond these limits. In the in-

48

stantaneous events that this bound is exceeded, the simulations show that the throughput

drops drastically to an unacceptable limit. In case this bound is exceeded, real time communication will no longer be possible due to unacceptable delay and jitter performance,

as illustrated in figure 6.4.

0.12

Per Station Delay

Jitter

0.1

Seconds

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Retransmission Probability

0.5

0.6

6.1

Referring back to table 3.1, the developed model can be compared to the existing works.

In comparison with [2], the proposed work offers a far more tractable solution, with an

extension to throughput results. There is a many fold enhancement in computational

efficiency; the model in [2] requires fixed point iteration for convergence to a solution for

a fixed network scenario, if the scenario changes by even a single transmitting station, the

entire set of calculations have to be repeated again. The presented model adapts to the

changing environment far more quickly since there are no iterative calculations involved.

The model presented by Bianchi et. al, although accurate as compared to other Markov

chain models, does not cater for transmission opportunity parameter; this issue has also

been dealt with in the current work. In addition, one of the most limiting conditions,

that of stationary process, is no longer required. This allows for a model that adapts to

changing conditions and traffic loads without having to reformulate the problem.

Coming over to the delay results presented in [9], we see that, again, the presented

model is far more analytically tractable. Although important from a purely theoretical

perspective, the probability density function of the service time is not of extreme importance when analyzing from the perspective of system performance. Just the first two

moments of service time are required, or in this case referred to as the vacation time.

However, a factor more significant than the complexity is the accuracy. The framework

presented by Tadayon et. al under predicts the delay under heavy traffic loads. This can

cause unacceptable delays when applied for admission control. In contrast, the presented

49

work offers far greater match with simulation results at higher traffic loads. In addition,

since the model was developed for DCF, it does not cater for transmission opportunity,

which is factored in within this work. A point to note is the range of error probabilities over which the analytical model in [9] seems to predict acceptable performance; this

seems to be an overly optimistic result, since the analytical model developed in this work

indicates that the delay/throughput performance becomes unacceptable when the error

probability goes beyond 0.25, while jitter has a far smaller tolerance, i.e. 0.0625.

Coming over to the queuing model presented in [10], there are two areas that make for

meaningful comparison. The first is the development of the service time distribution; the

basis is a Markov chain, which assumes a stationary process. This again necessitates a set

of fixed point iteration based calculation for every new network scenario. This severely

impairs computational efficiency when it comes to predicting performance metrics in real

time systems, as opposed to the proposed model. The second aspect is that of accuracy;

the results presented in [10] substantially over predict the delay at higher traffic loads. The

presented model offers a far greater agreement between simulation and analytical results

at higher traffic loads. A comparison with existing work (table 3.1) is provided in table 6.1.

Bianchis

Model

for

EDCA Throughput [2]

Service Delay [9]

Queuing Delay [10]

Presented Work

Problem Addressed

DCF

Assumptions

Perfect channel; No virtual

collisions; TXOP disabled

channel; Constant collision

probability; Infinite buffer

size; TXOP disabled; No virtual collisions

Results

agree with simulation results,

solution based on fixed point

iteration

under-predicts first and second moment of service delay

under heavy traffic, PDF generated through complex inversion for each network scenario

particularly at higher traffic

loads, fixed point iteration required for service delay distribution for each network scenario

and throughput analysis of

EDCA

Both saturation and nonsaturation conditions; Imperfect channel; Dynamic network: number of active stations and channel are variable;

AIFS, CW and TXOP are enabled

Analytical model accurately

predicts both delay and

throughput

under

heavy

traffic loads; The analytical

model adapts to changing

conditions at runtime:

a

set of recursive solution is

not required for each new

scenario; System is analytically tractable for runtime

deployment

50

Models

6.2

51

In this work, delay and throughput analysis of the IEEE 802.11 EDCA has been extensively studied. Existing models aim to comprehensively capture the features of the

enhanced distributed channel access to arrive at accurate analytical frameworks for performance metrics, primarily delay and throughput. The nature of the back-off process

coupled with the service differentiation parameters make this a complex problem. Based

on this premise, the model developed in this thesis aims to address both the issue of complexity and accuracy. A novel approach of measuring actual network conditions including

error probability and the time the channel is busy, resolves both the issues at hand. The

effect of all active stations within the network are captured by these parameters; the ensuing analysis is then a simple application of non-preemptive priority queuing. The effect

of TXOP, AIFS and CW are all catered for, which is a great step up from most other

models. The results show a high level of accuracy, comparable with the most complex

existing models.

The most significant aspect of this work in comparison with other existing analytical results is that of high applicability to dynamic network conditions. The environment

changes due to the channel conditions, or the number of active stations increasing or decreasing; the model provides updated results without lengthy recursive calculations. This

gives an edge over models that are based on the assumption of stationarity, employ iterative solutions, or both. Borne out by the comparison presented above in this section, this

feature offers an edge both in terms of accurate analysis and run time application.

An inherent limitation of the analytical model presented in this work stems from that

the fact that it based on averaging. This accounts for the decreased accuracy under light

traffic loads. The system performance is not adequately captured in this scenario. This

limitation can be addressed by incorporating the retry limit and the maximum contention

window size into the analytical work. However, this leads to cumbersome analysis, and

from the perspective of admission control, this is not necessary; at lower loads, the system

throughput is less in comparison with the system capacity and stringent admission control

is not required. The analytical tractability of this work comes from run time estimation

of both the error/retransmission probability and the time that the channel stays busy between successive successful transmissions of any station. In this context, the model alone

is not enough to predict the delay based solely on the number of active stations. This is

an inherent limitation of this work, and form a good area for future exploration.

This work can be extended to the analytical formulation of jitter, which is a very

important, and largely overlooked, service metric for real time traffic. Another important

direction for future consideration is the extension of this work to the centralized channel

access mechanism, the hybrid coordination channel access (HCCA). This would ensure

that the entire system is analytically modeled, thus providing a complete picture of the

achievable service by the system under changing network conditions.

Bibliography

[1] IEEE standard for information technology-part 11: Wireless lan medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (phy) specifications, IEEE Std 802.11-2012 (Revision

of IEEE Std 802.11-2007), pp. 12793, 2012.

[2] I. Tinnirello and G. Bianchi, Rethinking the ieee 802.11 e edca performance modeling

methodology, Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 540553,

2010.

[3] A. Tanenbaum and D. Wetherall, Computer Networks. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010.

[Online]. Available: http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=I764bwAACAAJ

[4] P. E. Engelstad and O. N. sterb, Queueing delay analysis of ieee 802.11 e edca,

IFIP WONS, 2006.

[5] G. Bianchi, Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535547,

2000.

[6] N. C. Taher, Y. G. Doudane, B. El Hassan, and N. Agoulmine, First step towards

an efficient admission control: A complete analytical model for 802.11 e EDCA for

throughput and delay prediction, in IM09. IFIP/IEEE International Symposium

onIntegrated Network Management-Workshops, 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 217224.

[7] M. Gas, K. Kosek-Szott, M. Natkaniec, and A. Pach, 3D Markov chain-based saturation throughput model of IEEE 802.11 EDCA, Electronics letters, vol. 47, no. 14,

pp. 826827, 2011.

[8] J. Y. Lee and H. S. Lee, A performance analysis model for IEEE 802.11 e EDCA

under saturation condition, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 57, no. 1,

pp. 5663, 2009.

[9] N. Tadayon, E. Askari, S. Assa, and M. Khabazian, A novel analytical model for

service delay in ieee 802.11 networks, 2012.

[10] X. Chen, H. Zhai, X. Tian, and Y. Fang, Supporting qos in ieee 802.11 e wireless

lans, Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 22172227,

2006.

52

53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

model for 802.11 e edca under saturation conditions, in Computer Systems and

Applications, 2009. AICCSA 2009. IEEE/ACS International Conference on. IEEE,

2009, pp. 800807.

[12] H. Zhai, Y. Kwon, and Y. Fang, Performance analysis of ieee 802.11 mac protocols

in wireless lans, Wireless communications and mobile computing, vol. 4, no. 8, pp.

917931, 2004.

[13] Y. Zheng, K. Lu, D. Wu, and Y. Fang, Performance analysis of ieee 802.11 dcf in binary symmetric channels, in Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005. GLOBECOM05. IEEE, vol. 5.

[14] P. E. Engelstad and O. Osterbo, Analysis of the total delay of ieee 802.11 e edca

and 802.11 dcf, in Communications, 2006. ICC06. IEEE International Conference

on, vol. 2.

[15] M. Ozdemir

and A. B. McDonald, An m/mmgi/1/k queuing model for ieee 802.11 ad

hoc networks, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Performance

evaluation of wireless ad hoc, sensor, and ubiquitous networks. ACM, 2004, pp. 107

111.

[16] O. Tickoo and B. Sikdar, Queueing analysis and delay mitigation in ieee 802.11 random access mac based wireless networks, in INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-third annualjoint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies, vol. 2. IEEE,

2004, pp. 14041413.

[17] A. Hussain, F. Nadeem et al., Measurement based call admission control (cac) to

improve qos for ieee 802.11 e wlan, in New Technologies, Mobility and Security

(NTMS), 2014 6th International Conference on.

802.11 e edca through analytical model, International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 101113, 2014.

[19] B. Chandrasekaran, Survey of network traffic models, Waschington University in

St. Louis CSE, vol. 567, 2009.

[20] N. I. Sarkar, Impact of traffic arrival distributions on an 802.11 ad hoc network:

modeling and performance study, 2012.

[21] E. Gelenbe, G. Pujolle, and J. Nelson, Introduction to queueing networks.

Wiley

Chichester, 1998.

[22] D. P. Bertsekas, R. G. Gallager, and P. Humblet, Data networks.

Prentice-Hall

[23] L. Kleinrock, Theory, Queuing systems.

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[24] J. F. C. Kingman, On queues in heavy traffic, 1962.

[25] C. Lewis and S. Pickavance, Selecting Mpls Vpn Services.

[26] A. Papoulis and S. U. Pillai, Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes.

Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2002.

[27] NS-3. Available online at http://www.nsnam.org.

Appendix A

55

56

to improve QoS for IEEE 802.11e WLAN

Arshad Hussain

Najeeb ul Hassan

Farah Nadeem

Member, IEEE

Department of Electrical Engineering

National University of Computer

& Emerging Sciences

Lahore, Pakistan

Email: arshad.hussain@nu.edu.pk

Vodafone Chair

Mobile Communications Systems

Dresden University of Technology

Dresden, Germany,

Email: najeeb ul.hassan@tu-dresden.de

Department of Electrical Engineering

National University of Computer

& Emerging Sciences

Lahore, Pakistan

Email: L125102@lhr.nu.edu.pk

provides for quality of service (QoS) provisioning, effective

admission control is required to ensure requisite delay and

throughput for real time traffic. To this end, several admission

control algorithms have been proposed. In this paper, we

propose a measurement based admission control algorithm, with

an aim to provide dynamic adaptability at low computational

complexity, without reliance on complex analytical throughput

calculation. The information of percentage drop at each station

under heavy load is utilized to ensure acceptable performance

for real time traffic. The proposed algorithm also provides

prioritized QoS and presents considerable improvement over

existing algorithms of similar complexity, striving at a balance

between efficient channel resource utilization and service

requirements.

Keywords: IEEE 802.11 MAC; EDCA; Admission Control; QoS

I. I NTRODUCTION

With the advent of wireless technology, portable communication devices have become increasingly pervasive, as have

real time multimedia services. Supporting these applications

pose formidable challenge because of their quality of service

(QoS) requirements in terms of throughput and delay in an

inherently dynamic environment.

The IEEE 802.11e [1] provides a basic framework for

QoS provisioning. This set of amendments to the medium

access control (MAC) layer specifies a distributed access

approach, called enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA).

The purpose is to support priority based service differentiation

in the MAC layer. However, this framework can successfully

provide QoS only if accompanied by effective admission

control; admission of new flows has to be restricted to prevent

overloading in the QoS basic service set (QBSS). Otherwise,

the system undergoes performance degradation, particularly

in terms of delay and effective throughput. A call admission

control (CAC) algorithm ensures that a new traffic stream will

not degrade the QoS requirements of already existing streams,

while connections that can be handled within existing resources are accommodated; thus achieving a balance between

optimal resource utilization and service provisioning.

802.11e CAC [1] which has been proposed for the WLAN

QoS-enabled access point (QAP) operating in infrastructure

mode. Based on the results, and ascertained issues, we then

propose a measurement based admission control strategy to

provide the differentiated services QoS for real-time traffic in

EDCA which works for enhanced performance as compared to

the original IEEE 802.11e CAC, offering dynamic adaptability

with changing channel conditions.

The paper is organized as follows: section II gives a

brief description of functionality of EDCA channel access

mechanism, section III details related work and contributions

in the field of admission control, while section IV describes the

proposed CAC scheme. In section V, performance comparison

for existing and the proposed CAC algorithms is done via

simulation on the network simulator (NS-2) [2]. The last

section concludes the paper with a discussion on the results

and an insight into possible future direction.

II. F EATURES IN IEEE 802.11e EDCA

EDCA is the enhanced version of the IEEE 802.11 contention based legacy distributed coordination function (DCF).

EDCA is intended to provide service differentiation to various

traffic types by providing distributed access to the medium

based on priority. Each station implements multiple access

categories (ACs), each with an independent queue. In order

of decreasing priority, the ACs are voice, video, best effort

and background. Contention parameters, namely the minimum

and maximum contention window (CW) and arbitrary interframe space (AIFS), are chosen so as to provide the highest

priority AC, voice, with highest channel access probability.

The operation of each ACs access function is similar to DCF

and its details can be found in [1]. An additional feature in

802.11e is EDCA transmission opportunity (TXOP). This is

defined as the period for which a channel access function has

the right to access the medium after a successful contention,

with the maximum duration defined in TXOPLimit. Another

important feature in 802.11e is the MAC service data units

(MSDU) life time for real-time traffic. This feature drops

a frame from transmit queue if it has waited beyond the

57

delay bound limit associated with this category. For the higher

priority ACs, the standard mandates the implementation of

CAC.

The IEEE 802.11e specifies a sample CAC algorithm [1].

When a mobile node in a QBSS initializes real-time multimedia traffic, it seeks admission from the QAP by sending

it an add traffic stream (ADDTS) request frame. The request

frame contains the traffic specification information (TSPEC),

including average data rate (), nominal MSDU size (L),

physical rate (R) and surplus bandwidth allowance (BW s ).

The node calculates the BW s (which is the time required

for retries) based on the retransmission probability, pe , and

probability of any given frame being dropped (Pdrop ). The

QAP also computes the medium time, tm , which is the time

required by the requesting AC.

The QAP maintains variable network utilization characteristic for EDCA (N U CEDCA ). This is defined as the time utilized for EDCA per unit time, which, along with the medium

time, determines whether a new stream can be admitted. A

TXOP for the new connection in beacon time (tbnc ) is allowed

as long as the following relation holds:

tbnc > N U CEDCA + tm .

(1)

channel time is sent in response to the requesting access

category. Otherwise, admission is denied.

This CAC sets the baseline for admission control. However, it leaves open many issues that need to be addressed,

particularly adaptation to dynamically changing network and

channel conditions. This is primarily due to a static assumption

for the re-transmission probability, pe , which is not the case

in realistic network configurations.

III. R ELATED W ORK

Given the shortfalls in the de facto proposed CAC, extensive effort has been put into designing and implementing

effective CAC algorithms. Like most other scenarios, this

poses a tractability versus efficacy paradigm. Algorithms that

are complex require heavy computation at the QAP, while

simplistic solutions often lead to either under-utilization of

the channel or unacceptable delay performance caused by too

many admitted streams. In this regard, several solutions have

been proposed [3][8]. A performance analysis for feedback

based admission control has been conducted in [9]. Dynamic

bandwidth allocation using closed loop algorithm have also

been proposed, and a survey to the effect has been conducted

in [10], detailing the performance of CAC schemes.

Several efforts focus on transmission of voice only, however,

a solution that can support a realistic mix of traffic is required.

Barry et al. [3] have proposed a virtual MAC algorithm

that passively monitors the channel by virtual MAC frames

and estimates local service level (i.e., throughput and delay)

by the measurement of virtual frames. In addition, a virtual

source (VS) algorithm allows application parameters to be

tuned according to dynamic channel conditions by utilizing

virtual MAC. However, virtual MAC calculations complicate

Valaee and Li [11] have presented a measurement-based

admission procedure using a sequence of probe packets for

ad-hoc networks. Shah et al. [4] present a measurement based

admission control algorithm using data packets to measure

the network load. This scheme recommends communication

over application layer, which creates heavy overhead. Pong

and Moors [5] suggest calculating the achievable throughput

based on collision statistics and changing the priority of flows

by modifying the minimum contention window, CWmin . This

algorithm changes the EDCA parameters frequently which is

generally not recommended, and the time complexity of this

algorithm is exponential. Kuo and Lu [12] have made use

of expected value of throughput and delay for admit traffic;

requests are accepted if the expected values correspond to

the QoS requirements of traffic being admitted as well as

the existing traffic. A guaranteed delay scheduler has been

proposed in [9], which offers improved performance over basic

admission control schemes, but at additional computational

complexity.

IV. A DMISSION C ONTROL FOR EDCA

Recent works have maintained a focus on complex admission control algorithms, both in terms of computational

expense and modification to EDCA parameters. In this paper

we focus on the design of a simple CAC algorithm that can

be applied to all sorts of traffic with lesser modification in the

IEEE 802.11e standard. The proposed CAC also provides prioritized QoS and it is computationally relatively inexpensive;

additionally, none of the specifications of EDCA are violated.

The proposed CAC algorithm is measurement based, and

depends on the number of retries a frame requires for successful transmission. The frame dropping frequency depends

on both the contention and channel error, which are dynamic

in nature. Hence the number dropped is also variable. The

main strength of this scheme is the ability to adapt to changing

scenario in terms of both traffic loss and channel outage. Using

this information, each flow updates the value of pe . The value

of pe is assumed to be 0.1 at the start of operation when a

connection is initiated. This is a realistic figure for a network

with average number of transmitting stations, and is derived

from the analytical model presented in [13].

Let M [i] be the number of MSDUs transmitted by ith AC

of QoS-aware station (QSTA) and Me [i] be the number of

unsuccessful attempts. Then the probability of error at ith AC

can be calculated as,

Pe [i] =

Me [i]

M [i] + Me [i]

(2)

medium, the collision faced by different ACs will be different.

Each node uses Pe [i] to estimate the BW s and uses it in the

re-negotiation phase.

A significant contribution of the algorithm is to statistically

ensure that the admitted flows do not get severely affected

by dynamic variability of the channel. Therefore, the QSTA

58

TABLE I

EDCA PARAMETERS FOR S IMULATION

AC (Priority)

AIFSN

CW min

CW max

TXOP Limit (ms)

Admission Required

MSDU Life Time (ms)

Voice

3

2

7

15

3

Yes

50

Video

2

2

15

31

5

Yes

100

TABLE II

S UMMARY P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON OF THE CAC A LGORITHMS

Background

0

7

31

1023

0

No

No limit

Admitted flows

Throughput (kb/s)

Delay (ms)

Percentage Drop

(M [i] & Me [i]) and communicates these numbers to the QAP

at regular intervals using empty fields in MAC header. The

QAP maintains the record of percentage drop at each station

and total percentage drop for voice and video flows. Minimum

requirements for both voice and video have been extensively

studied; the acceptable packet drop for both streams have

been established [14], and the upper limit for acceptable

performance is given by:

P ercentageDropvoice < 0.05

P ercentageDropvideo < 0.1

(3)

compares the two test statistics N U C and percentage drop

of the admitted flows with corresponding thresholds; if both

satisfy the threshold, the new request is entertained. Thus

the admission is granted if equations (1) and (3) hold. The

algorithm is initialized with an assumed pe , which is based on

analytical results. The dynamic environment is catered for at

each new request event and thus acceptable QoS is maintained

for both existing and new streams.

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS

A Simulation model of the IEEE 802.11e EDCA operating

in infrastructure mode has been constructed using NS-2. All

stations remain within the QBSS during the simulations. The

simulation uses standard 802.11b PHY module with maximum

data rate up to 11 Mbps using a noiseless channel. EDCA

simulation parameters have been listed in table I.

Three different types of traffic (voice, video, and background) have been simulated. Voice and background are taken

as CBR and video is taken as VBR. Hence, the simulation

closely reflects network load conditions in real-life scenarios.

Throughput, access delay and percentage drop have been

calculated for the purpose of analysis. Throughput is the

number of bits successfully transmitted per second. Access

delay is the time the head-of-line data packet spends at the

MAC layer before being successfully transmitted. The realtime applications have a delay bound after which the frame is

useless; the percentage of packet drop for high priority traffic

represents the fraction of frames which were discarded due to

the violation of the delay bound.

The original CAC proposed in [1] has been simulated and

its performance under increasing load is given in table II. The

Type

Voice

Video

Voice

Video

Voice

Video

Voice

Video

IEEE

23

21

1

3

20

42

17

27

6

4

0.4

1

3

5

0

0

Proposed

18

17

1

3

17

39

7

12

the percentage drop increases. However, the algorithm keeps

admitting new flows, reaching a point where the QoS of

the admitted flows degrades to the extent where the existing

connections become useless. Again, the primary impediment

to performance is that the value of pe is static and does not

take into account the wireless channel variability. This results

in the CAC admitting too many flows and overloading the

system, causing too many packet drops and degrading realtime communication requirements beyond acceptable limits.

A. 11 Mbps Channel

Here, 25 mobile nodes have been simulated, as well as a

base station, which serves as a sink for the flows. Each node

generates the same mix of offered traffic; voice, video and

background. Simulation starts with 25 background flows with

incrementally added voice and video flows. The simulation

has been performed using three different algorithms, namely,

IEEE 802.11e reference CAC, Pong & Moors CAC, and the

proposed CAC. Table II shows the summary of the comparison

results of these CAC algorithms.

The detailed performance curves of these algorithms in

terms of bandwidth, delay and percentage drop for video flows

have been plotted in Figs. 1 to 3. The bandwidth achieved

by the video flows in proposed CAC algorithm is higher

than Pong & Moors CAC and equal to the IEEE reference

CAC. In IEEE reference CAC and proposed CAC the average

delay of voice and video flows are 20 msec and 42 msec

respectively, which is within acceptable range. In Pong &

Moors CAC the average delay remains constant throughout

the simulation, also in the acceptable range. The percentage of

packet drops in IEEE reference CAC for voice and video flows

are unacceptable as they reach 15% and 30% respectively. The

reason is that the reference CAC admits 23 voice and 21 video

flows and hence its performance degrades significantly. At the

other extreme, Pong & Moors CAC only admits 6 voice and 4

video flows (too conservative), hence, there is no issue of any

packet drop, but the channel is under-utilized. In the proposed

CAC the percentage drop of voice and video flows are 7% and

12% respectively. This is at the boundary of the delay bound as

it admits 18 voice and 17 video flows, thus achieving balance

between channel utilization and performance.

59

are applied

control mechanism for EDCA. The comparison with other

CAC algorithms via simulation demonstrates that the proposed

algorithm admits more flow without overloading the system to

the point of unacceptable service degradation. The proposed

CAC strikes a balance between too conservative (Pong &

Moors CAC) and too liberal (IEEE 802.11e CAC) algorithms.

The cost is very little as the empty fields of MAC frame are

utilized to transmit channel effect at particular mobile station.

As a future direction, work is being done on developing an

analytical model for overall MAC layer delay for EDCA. This

model can then be used to form the basis for a more robust

admission control algorithm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research has partly been sponsored by the Pakistan Telecommunication Cooperation R&D fund under grant

R&DF/A-23/2004-05.

R EFERENCES

Fig. 2. Mean delay for video flows when different CAC algorithms are applied

Fig. 3. Percentage drop for video flows when different CAC algorithms are

applied

VI. C ONCLUSION

In this paper, we have analyzed the importance of the

admission control mechanism in WLAN for providing QoS

to real-time flows. We have extensively analyzed the performance of the IEEE reference 802.11e CAC algorithm via

simulation and observed that under heavy loads, it degrades

the performance of the system by introducing high delay

and large percentage drop for frames. To remedy this at

lower computational cost than existing CAC algorithms, we

Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE Std 802.11-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.11-2007), pp.

12793, 2012.

[2] S. Mccanne, S. Floyd, and K. Fall, NS2 (network simulator 2).

[Online]. Available: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/ns

[3] M. Barry, A. Campbell, and A. Veres, Distributed control algorithms

for service differentiation in wireless packet networks, in Proc. of 20th

Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications

Societies(IEEE-INFOCOM), vol. 1, Apr. 2001, pp. 582 590.

[4] K. N. S.H. Shah, K. Chen, Dynamic bandwidth management for singlehop ad hoc wireless networks, Special Issue on Algorithmic Solutions

for Wireless, Mobile, Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks, ACM/Kluwer

MONET, pp. 195 203, 2004.

[5] D. Pong and T. Moors, Call admission control for IEEE 802.11 contention access mechanism, in Proc. of IEEE Global Telecommunications

Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2003, pp. 174 178.

[6] Q.-l. Wu, Z.-j. Huang, and S.-y. Wang, Heterogeneous voice flowsoriented call admission control in IEEE 802.11 e WLANs, International

Journal of Electronics, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 122, 2013.

[7] I. Iskandar and Y. Bandung, Supporting QoS in multimedia over 802.11

e wireless network with adaptive framework, in Cloud Computing and

Social Networking (ICCCSN), 2012 International Conference on. IEEE,

2012, pp. 14.

[8] D. B. Rawat, D. C. Popescu, and M. Song, Performance enhancement

of EDCA access mechanism of IEEE 802.11 e wireless LAN, in Radio

and Wireless Symposium, 2008 IEEE. IEEE, 2008, pp. 507510.

[9] G. Piro, L. A. Grieco, G. Boggia, and P. Camarda, QoS in wireless

LAN: A comparison between feedback-based and earliest due-date

approaches, Computer Communications, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 298308,

2012.

[10] A. M. Abbas and O. Kure, Quality of service in mobile ad hoc

networks: a survey, International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous

Computing, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 7598, 2010.

[11] S. Valaee and B. Li, Distributed call admission control for ad hoc

networks, in Proc. of IEEE 56th Vehicular Technology Conference

(VTC-Fall), Sep. 2002, pp. 1244 1248.

[12] Y.-L. Kuo, C.-H. Lu, E. Wu, and G.-H. Chen, An admission control

strategy for differentiated services in IEEE 802.11, in Proc. of IEEE

Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2003, pp.

707 712.

[13] I. Tinnirello and G. Bianchi, Rethinking the IEEE 802.11 e EDCA performance modeling methodology, Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions

on, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 540553, 2010.

[14] K. C. Mansfield Jr and J. L. Antonakos, Computer Networking From

LANs to WANs: Hardware, Software and Security. CengageBrain. com,

2009.

Appendix B

60

61

DOI 10.1007/s10776-014-0238-8

Through Analytical Model

Muhammad Fahad Usman Arshad Hussain

Farah Nadeem

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract The IEEE 802.11e EDCA is designed to provide quality of support for real time applications with

stringent latency and throughput requirements. Theoretical

frameworks for analysis of throughput performance of

wireless LAN employing exponential back-off exist

extensively. Several models rely on simplification

assumptions that preclude their direct applicability to the

enhanced distributed coordination access (EDCA) which

uses heterogeneous protocol parameters, while other

models are exceedingly complex to analyze. In this paper, a

tractable analytical model is proposed for saturation

throughput of the IEEE 802.11e EDCA. The prioritization

through channel access parameters including the AIFS and

contention window is catered for within a three dimensional Markov chain. The integration of back-off counter

freezing and retry limit enhance the models precision. Its

validation is done by simulation on NS-2. Practical applicability of the model is established based on accuracy and

computational efficiency. The model is utilized for

throughput analysis of the EDCA under saturated traffic

loads.

Keywords IEEE 802.11e EDCA Wireless networks

Performance analysis Saturation throughput

M. F. Usman

Mentor Graphics, Lahore, Pakistan

e-mail: fahad_usman@mentor.com

Notations

Steady state probability of the state representing

aki;j

back-off stage i, back-off counter j, and previously

sensed medium state k

CWmax Maximum contention window size

CWmin Minimum contention window size

m

Maximum back-off stage after which the value of

contention window is not increased

nh

Number of contending higher priority flows

nl

Number of contending lower priority flows

p0

Probability that the medium is busy after after an

idle slot

p1

Probability that the medium is busy after after a

busy slot

Pc

Probability that a given time slot contains a

collision

Pi

Probability that a given time slot is idle

Ps

Probability of a successful transmission in a time slot

PL

Length of payload in bits

r

Retry limit

S

Saturation throughput

TXOP Transmission opportunity

Tc

Time spent due to a collision

Ts

Time spent due to a successful transmission

Wi

Back-off window at the ith back-off stage

r

Time slot duration

h

Probability that a higher priority flow accesses

s0

the medium after a busy slot

Probability of medium access by a lower priority flow

sh1

FAST NUCES, Lahore, Pakistan

e-mail: farah.nadeem@nu.edu.pk

1 Introduction

A. Hussain

e-mail: arshad.hussain@nu.edu.pk

wireless LANs now form an essential component of

123

62

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

communication networks. As they have become ubiquitous, so have real time multimedia applications over

wireless medium. This poses substantial challenges, since

real time applications have inherently greater sensitivity to

delay and throughput than best effort services. The original

IEEE 802.11 standard, designed for best effort services, is

fundamentally lacking in mechanisms to support quality of

support (QoS); thus providing priority based service differentiation is an essential requirement while dealing with

real time applications.

Although the IEEE 802.11 defines several PHY layer

specifications, e.g. the 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g, the

medium access control (MAC) layer is same for all. To

introduce a framework that facilitates service guarantees,

enhancements have been suggested at the MAC layer. The

focus is on providing decentralized or distributed prioritization mechanisms as a first step towards furnishing real

time applications including voice over IP and live high

definition TV (HDTV) streaming with requisite latency and

throughput. To this end, the IEEE 802.11e [1] standard has

been proposed which has now been incorporated in the

IEEE 802.11. For the IEEE 802.11e, the distributed channel access mechanism is the enhanced distributed coordination access (EDCA), falling under the ambit of

prioritization via channel access parameters. The extent to

which EDCA succeeds in providing QoS support remains

an ongoing research area. In this respect, theoretical

framework for performance analysis is crucial. Generally,

essential levels of service are provided via admission

control algorithms, which determine whether new stations

can be handled while maintaining the required access

delay, jitter and throughput for existing real time flows of

the stations. These algorithms require performance prediction in terms of metrics to operate, which are provided

by analysis models. Since the throughput, defining successful data transmission per unit time, is an important

metric for ensuring whether an application will receive

services consistent with the given quality criterion, the

central goal of the analysis is to predict throughput under

both saturated and unsaturated traffic loads. In this context,

several models have been put forth in literature; however,

these models often rely on simplification assumptions that

fail to take into account salient features of the standard. In

the cases where attempts have been made to factor in all

details of the standard, the resulting models are exceedingly complex, which precludes extensions and run-time

analysis.

To address these issues, this paper proposes an analytical model to accurately capture service differentiation

mechanism of the IEEE 802.11e EDCA at less computational cost, making it applicable to call admission control

and runtime optimization. The fundamental framework is a

three dimensional (3-D) discrete time Markov model, an

123

the original IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function

(DCF). The model is applied for throughput performance

analysis of the EDCA under saturation conditions. The rest

of the paper is arranged as follows: Sect. 2 introduces DCF

and EDCA, related works and the contributions are summarized in Sect. 3. Section 4 details the proposed analytical framework, followed by model validation through

simulation results in Sect. 5. Section 6 concludes the

paper, with a discussion on the obtained results and the

future direction of work.

The EDCA builds upon the legacy IEEE 802.11 DCF,

which employs carrier sense multiple access with collision

avoidance. Although the original IEEE 802.11 standard

also specifies the point coordination function, which is a

centralized mechanism for medium access, DCF enjoys

more success due to the fact that distributed schemes entail

simpler implementation and lesser overheads, and accommodate more flexible network configurations. The rationale

behind listen before talk schemes for wireless access is that

collisions cannot be detected; hence they are avoided. This

is accomplished through two techniques, the back-off

algorithm and the interframe space (IFS) inset.

On the arrival of a MAC data frame at the head of

queue, it is transmitted if the medium is sensed idle for

prescribed time duration, which is referred to as the DCF

IFS (DIFS). If the channel is sensed busy, the transmission

is deferred, with the deferral time determined by the backoff algorithm. In DCF, exponential back-off is employed.

For the first transmission attempt, the back-off interval is

randomly chosen from a uniform interval 0; CWmin . The

back-off counter is decreased every time the medium is idle

for a DIFS, and frozen when an ongoing transmission is

sensed on the medium. The counter is resumed only when

the medium is again sensed free for a DIFS. On the backoff counter reaching zero, the station transmits the MAC

data frame. Successful frame transmission is indicated by

an acknowledgement (ACK) from the receiving station.

The station transmitting an ACK waits for a short IFS

(SIFS), (which is the IFS). This allows for immediate

transmission instead of the usual contention for channel

access. In case there is no ACK, there is assumed to be a

collision, and the station retransmits with CW augmented

to twice its previous value. For every successive retransmission, the process is repeated till CWmax is reached. After

this limit, the contention window size is held constant until

the retry limit is reached, upon which the packet is dropped

if still not transmitted successfully. In addition to the basic

ACK mechanism, the DCF also provides for a four way

63

terminal problem.

Since the channel access parameters are uniform for all

traffic, there is no prioritization as all streams have equal

probability of gaining channel access. To introduce service

differentiation, EDCA defines four different access categories

(ACs) based on the latency and throughput required. These

are, in decreasing list of priority: voice (VO), video (VI), best

effort and background. Each station maps traffic into one of

these four categories, which are then treated as virtual stations

and contend independently for medium access.

To achieve the necessary service guarantees, values of

channel access parameters are assigned so that higher priority ACs have a higher channel access probability than

lower priority ACs. These parameters are the arbitrary IFS

(AIFS) instead of the uniform DIFS, and differentiated

CWmin and CWmax . In addition, TXOP is defined for each

category. This enables contention free bursting for an AC

once it has obtained channel access, for a duration that does

not exceed the TXOP limit for that AC. The AC that has

stringent delay requirements, VO, is assigned smaller

AIFS, CWmin and CWmax than other ACs. Since the VI_AC

has the greatest throughput requirement, it is provided

longer medium access through larger TXOP limit. In

addition, an extended IFS is defined by the standard. The

purpose is to provide the stations that were involved in a

collision greater likelihood to access the channel as compared to other stations in the post collision period. When

two ACs within the same station simultaneously decrement

their back-off counters to zero, a virtual collision occurs.

Channel access is granted to the higher priority stream and

the lower priority stream undergoes the post-collision

back-off process, with doubled CW (upto CWmax ).

Given the significance of analytical modeling, several

theoretical frameworks have been proposed for the IEEE

802.11e EDCA [4, 5, 10, 1315]. The model proposed by

Bianchi in [3] forms the basis of several of these analytical

models. Bianchi models the exponential back-off for the

DCF using a discrete time two dimensional Markov chain.

One dimension caters for back-off counter value, which is

non-Markovian since it is dependent on the number of

retries suffered. Thus the second dimension describes the

back-off stage. The underlying basis for the steady state

model is the assumption of constant collision or retransmission probability; which in terms of the analysis leads to

a constant state transition probability, thus allowing for a

Markov chain. A point of interest is the time scale adopted

for the model; the interval between consecutive time slots

may include the event of back-off counters freezing, this

transmission. Thus the time between two consecutive time

slots does not relate directly to the system time. The model

yields an elegant closed form expression for transmission

probability. However, this result can only be achieved if

the retry limit is not considered, as in this model.

In actual DCF and EDCA operation, the probability of

decrementing of back-off counter and transmission is conditional on the state of the channel preceding the event,

which has not been catered for in the original work proposed

by Bianchi. Foh et al extended the model for saturation

throughput analysis of DCF [4]. The main contribution of

this model is the specific inclusion of the effects of freezing

back-off counters, which has been done through introduction

of a third variable indicating the state of the medium in the

previous time slot. Also, the primary assumption regarding

the concept of fixed transition probability is no longer

directly applicable in the case of EDCA due to AIFS differentiation mechanism; each AC has a different probability

of state transitioning at the same time instant. This probability may also not remain constant throughout the entire

time slot chosen for the analysis. Therefore extension of this

model for EDCA requires additional states to fully encapsulate the back-off counter freezing with different AIFS.

A detailed Markov chain model has been presented for

EDCA in [14] by creating two different Markov chains;

one for the lowest priority AC and one for the three higher

priority ACs. The draw back in this model is the lack of

inclusion of freezing counters for the higher priority chain.

The approach of an additional state has also been applied in

[15], which has been designed to analyze the back-off

based prioritization of the EDCA, i.e. varying CWmin and

CWmax . The fact that the model has not been designed to

cater for AIFS indicates its lack of accuracy.

Various steps have been taken towards further accuracy

enhancements for analytical modeling incorporating all the

features of the protocol [57, 10, 12, 13, 16]. The work

presented by [6] explores the effect of higher priority ACs

on lower priority ACs within the Markov chain model. The

model assigns counter decrement probability based on the

priority of the AC; this has led to an improved results in

terms of capturing AIFS differentiation. In an attempt to

simplify the analysis, [11] presented a mean value analysis,

that aims at accurate computation of saturation throughput

based on AC specific contention parameters (including the

AIFS, CWmin and CWmax ). An approach utilizing a one

dimensional Markov chain for transition through back-off

slots has been presented in [7, 8]. This analysis relies on

long term occupancy probabilities of time slots in different

contention zones; as in other Markov chain models, the

conditional collision and transmission probabilities are

derived then used for throughput computation based on

results similar to those presented in [3].

123

64

AIFS and TXOP limit, a complex four dimensional model

has been proposed in [12, 13]. The additional states indicate the period in which the system is, and the number of

time slots left till the culmination of that period. The

inclusion of retry limit, which dictates that a closed form

expression for transmission probability does not exist,

coupled with the increasing number of states of the Markov

chain, contribute to undue complexity, which is an

impediment to run-time applications. A 3-D Markov

model, proposed in [5], aims at accurately capturing the

differentiation mechanism of CW and AIFS for saturated

traffic conditions. A similar approach has been adopted in

[10]. The proposed framework in both cases include far

greater number of states than proposed in [4], and cater for

the same parameters, i.e. IFS and CW at the cost of added

complexity.

Thus, despite the fact that numerous analytical models

exist, there is a need to design a model that balances

accuracy and computational cost.

An analytical model is presented in this section to compute the

throughput of the IEEE 802.11e EDCA networks under saturation conditions. The basis for the model is a 3-D Markov

chain. As in several other works, the framework proposed is an

extension to the work by Bianchi [3]. The CW and AIFS

differentiation is handled within the Markov Chain, incorporating both freezing of back-off counters (as proposed in [4])

and retry limit. The addition of retry limit count enables the

calculation of frame drop rate and drop probability. Since the

probability of channel access is not influenced by TXOP limit,

the model does not incorporate this parameter.

VI and VO are modeled using a single Markov chain as

in [5] because both have the minimum AIFS, henceforth

referred to as the higher priority chain. For the sake of

simplicity, lower priority ACs are modeled using a single

chain, henceforth referred to as the lower priority chain.

We have assumed that the AIFS differs by one time slot for

the two categories. Thus the lower priority flows have to

wait for the medium to be idle for one time slot longer to

decrement the back-off counter or to transmit once the

counter has reached zero, as compared to the high priority

flows. Within this time slot, the medium is available to the

higher priority flows. The back-off stage i ranges from 0 to

r and is incremented after each collision. If there is a

collision at the rth retry, there is no successive retransmission and the packet is discarded. The assumption is

made that r[m, which corresponds to most practical

implementations. For every back-off stage, the initial value

123

probability, in the interval 0; 1; . . .; Wi , where the value of

Wi is given by:

i

0im

2 CWmin

Wi

m

2 CWmin

mir

The proposed Markov chain is defined by three variables

fi; j; kg, with i representing the back-off stage and j signifying the back-off counter value, similar to [3]. The

variable k assumes values either 0 or 1, depending on

whether the last sensed state of the medium was idle or

busy, respectively. Virtual collisions are not catered for

within this model. Since virtual collision cause less

overhead than actual collisions, this model will give a

lower performance bound for the system throughput

performance.

The Markov chain model for the higher priority flow is

shown in Fig. 1.

The non-null state transition probabilities in this model

corresponding to the medium being idle in the previous

time slot, i.e. k 0, are:

Pfi; j; 0ji; j 1; 0g 1 p0

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 3g

Pfi; j; 1ji; j; 0g p0

1 p0

Pf0; j; 1ji; 0; 0g

W0

p0

Pfi; j; 1ji 1; 0; 0g

Wi

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 2g

i 2 f0; r 1g; j 2 f0; W0 1g

i 2 f1; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 1g

back-off counter when a free slot is encountered, freezing

back-off counter on encountering a busy slot, successful

transmission, and collision. The parallel transitions corresponding to the medium being busy in the previous time,

i.e. k 1, are:

Pfi; j; 0ji; j 1; 1g 1 p1

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 2g

Pfi; j; 1ji; j; 1g p1

1 p1

Pf0; j; 1ji; 0; 1g

W0

p1

Pfi; j; 1ji 1; 0; 1g

Wi

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 1g

i 2 f0; r 1g; j 2 f0; W0 1g

i 2 f1; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 1g

Pf0; j; 1jr; 0; kg

1

W0

steady state probabilities aki;j . From the regularity of the

chain, in general we can write:

65

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

Fig. 1 Markov chain model for

higher priority flows

a1i;j

Wi 1 jp0 1 1

ai;0 i 2 f0; rg j 2 f1; Wi 1g

1 p1

1

a0i;j Wi 1 ja1i;0

i 2 f0; rg

j 2 f1; Wi 2g

a1i;0

i

Y

p1

x1

p0

Wx1 1 a10;0

Wx Wx

i 2 f1; rg

!

W

W

r

i 2

i 1

X

X

X

a0i;j

a1i;j 1

i1

j0

j0

123

66

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

lower priority flows

can then be evaluated in terms of a10;0 from (1)(4).

4.2 Model for Lower Priority Flows

The model for the lower priority AC, shown in Fig. 2,

caters for the longer AIFS. When the medium goes idle

after a busy slot, there is an alteration to a new state,

123

back-off counter can only decrement when the previous

time slot was free, i.e. k 0. Thus there are fewer transitions than in the higher priority chain.

In this case, transition probabilities corresponding to the

case where the medium was idle in the previous time slot,

analogous to the similar transitions of the higher priority

chain, are:

67

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

Pfi; j; 0ji; j 1; 0g 1 p0

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 2g

Pfi; j; 1ji; j; 0g p0

1 p0

Pf0; j; 1ji; 0; 0g

W0

p0

Pfi; j; 1ji 1; 0; 0g

Wi

i 2 f0; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 1g

i 2 f0; r 1g; j 2 f0; W0 1g

i 2 f1; r g; j 2 f0; Wi 1g

r

P

previous time slot, there are only two transitions:

Pfi; j; 0ji; j; 1g 1 p1

Pfi; j; 1ji; j; 1g p1

i 2 f0; r g;

i 2 f0; r g;

j 2 f0; Wi 1g

j 2 f0; Wi 1g

occurs to a state indicating the medium was sensed idle in

the previous slot; and when the medium is sensed busy

again and the state is unchanged, respectively. The transition describing the rth re-transmission is:

1

Pf0; j; 1jr; 0; 0g

W0

j 2 f0; W0 1g

a1i;j

analogous to [4], and it can be expressed as:

r

P

a0i;0

9

i0

sh0

Pi

1 p1 p0 Wi 1 j p1 Wi 2 j 1

ai;0

1 p1 1 p0

i 2 f0; rg

j 2 f1; Wi 2g

5

Similarly,

Wi j Wi 1 jp1 1

a0i;j

ai;0

1 p0

j 2 f0; Wi 2g

sh1

a1i;0

10

1 Pi

busy time slot due to their longer AIFS time. The probability that a lower priority station gains channel access in a

certain time slot is:

r

P

l

i0

a0i;0

11

Pi

Where a0i;0 are the states defined for the lower priority

flows. From a particular stations perspective, a time slot

is busy if at least one of the other stations transmits in

that time slot. The probabilities of a busy time slot, after

an idle or busy time slot, p0 and p1 , respectively, are

given by:

p0 1 1 sh0 nh 1 sl nl

p1 1 1

Pi

i 2 f0; rg

i0

12

sh1 nh

13

1 p1

1 p0 p1

14

6

Table 1 System parameters

i

Y

p0 Wx1 Wx1 1p1 1

1

ai;0

a0;0

Wx 1 p1 1 p0

x1

Parameter

name

Value

Parameter name

Value

Packet payload

8184 bits

Slot time r

50 ls

MAC header

224 bits

ACK timeout

300

ls

priority flows is:

!

W

r

i 1

X

X

a0i;j a1i;j 1

8

PHY header

192 bits

CWmin (higher

priority)

ACK

112 bits

CWmax (higher

priority)

16

RTS packet

header

CWmin (lower

priority)

16

CTS packet

header

CWmax (lower

priority)

32

Channel bit

rate

6 Mbit/s

AIFSN (higher

priority)

Propagation

delay

1 ls

AIFSN (lower

priority)

DIFS

34 ls

SIFS

16 ls

i1

i 2 f1; rg

j0

Having established Markov chains for both higher and

lower priority flows, the model is applied to compute the

probabilities governing medium utilization when both priority flows are contending for the medium. The probabilities that a high priority flow will gain medium accesses

123

68

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

for basic access method, with

minimum contention window

size 16 and retry limit 4

for RTS/CTS access method,

with minimum contention

window size 16 and retry limit 7

123

69

Fig. 5 Saturation throughput

for basic access method, with

minimum contention window

size 16 and retry limit 4

against initial contention

window size (W) (Basic Access

Method)

123

70

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

saturation throughput

is given by:

nh sh1 1 sh1 nh 1 1 Pi

Ps nh sh0 1 sh0 nh 1 1 sl nl Pi

15

nl sl 1 sl nl 1 1 sh0 nh Pi

The probability that a time slot contains a collision is given

by:

Pc 1 Pi Ps

16

used for successful payload data transmission over the total

time spent, given by:

S

Ps EfPLg

Pi r Pc Tc Ps Ts

17

values of Tc ; Ts and r in (17) gives us the saturation

throughput.

123

5 Model Validation

The system of non-linear equations formed by (9)(17)

have been numerically solved using Fixed Point Iteration

[9] in order to obtain the value of saturation throughput in

different network scenarios. These results are henceforth

referred to as Fahads model. The numerical results

obtained from our mathematical model have been validated

by comparing them with the results of computer simulation

using the EDCA implementation in [2] on the Network

Simulator 2 (NS-2).

The simulation topology in NS-2 consists of one access

point and a varying number of transmitting stations. Since

virtual collisions are not catered for, each station generates

just one type of traffic, either high or low priority. Saturation state has been obtained using constant bit-rate flows.

Throughput has been calculated by observing the combined

good-put of all the flows once saturation state is obtained.

Both the access mechanisms, basic and RTS/CTS, have

been simulated, with system parameters listed in Table 1.

71

Fig. 8 Time slots wasted due to

collision

successful transmission, and

collision for initial contention

window size 16

analysis, they propose models of far greater complexity

than the proposed model. Thus the comparison of the

results is conducted with the model proposed in [4], which

is of comparable computational complexity, henceforth

the analytical model, and the results obtained from [4] are

compared in Figs. 35. The results validate the models

accuracy, since it can be clearly observed that our model is

more accurate for all system configurations studied, both in

123

72

Int J Wireless Inf Networks

simulation results remains well within 1 % in almost all the

cases, which is practically very accurate.

The analytical model has been used to study the effects

of different parameters on the throughput performance of

EDCA, including effects of contention window size and

frame size, as well as collision probabilities, as shown in

Figs. 69.

Several aspects of the 802.11e EDCA have been

explored:

severely with increasing number of stations in basic

access mechanism, but it does not fall that rapidly when

RTS/CTS method. This can be explained by the fact

that only a very small RTS/CTS frame is involved in

collision, as opposed to basic access where the entire

payload is lost in a collision.

The basic access method shows variation in the

throughput with contention window size, which, in

case of RTS/CTS method, remains almost constant for

all contention window size, as indicated in Fig. 6. The

throughput in the case of basic access falls sharply with

increasing number of stations, particularly for smaller

contention windows. This is due to the fact that

collision probabilities rise with smaller contention

window sizes; basic mechanism suffers greater penalty

due to collision.

Larger frame sizes tend to give better throughput

performance as indicated in Fig. 7; the performance of

RTS/CTS method is severely affected for smaller frame

sizes since the increasing overhead becomes comparable with the payload data, effectively decreasing rate of

transmission.

Smaller initial or final contention window size leads to

greater time slots lost due to collision, since a smaller

contention window size increases collision probability.

The penalty is lower in all cases of RTS/CTS method

since only the RTS/CTS frames are involved in

collisions, as seen in Fig. 8.

Due to more contending flows, the probability of

collision progressively rises with increasing number of

stations, while that of having an idle slot decreases, as

shown in Fig. 9.

6 Conclusion

Throughput and delay performance are important performance parameters for wireless networks. In this paper, a

3-D Markov chain based analytical model has been proposed for evaluating saturation throughput of the IEEE

802.11e EDCA. The model has been designed to cater for

123

retry limit. Due to these features, this model provides

greater accuracy than other models with comparable

computational cost. This has been validated through simulation results in both basic and RTS/CTS access mechanisms. Results based on the model indicate how various

EDCA parameters affect throughput performance. The

inclusion of retry limit necessitates that there is no closed

form solution for the model. Thus a possible extension is to

enhance the efficiency of the model through developing a

method for accurate linear approximation to the set of nonlinear equations obtained. Since throughput prediction

plays a pivotal role in call admission control (CAC) algorithms, a future line of work is to develop a queuing based

analytical framework for throughput analysis of the EDCA

as a basis for an efficient CAC algorithm.

References

1. (2005) IEEE Std. 802.11e-2005, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium

Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications,

Amendment 8: Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality of Service Enhancements. Tech. rep.

2. Ansel P, Ni Q, Turletti T (2004) An efficient scheduling scheme

for IEEE 802.11 e. In: Proc. Modeling and Optimization in

Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks, pp 2426.

3. Bianchi G (2000), Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11

distributed coordination function. IEEE Journal on Selected

Areas in Communications 18(3):535547.

4. Foh CH, Tantra JW (2005), Comments on IEEE 802.11 saturation throughput analysis with freezing of backoff counters. IEEE

Communications Letters 9(2):130132.

5. Gas M, Kosek-Szott K, Natkaniec M, Pach A (2011), 3D Markov

chain-based saturation throughput model of IEEE 802.11 EDCA.

Electronics letters 47(14):826827.

6. Huang CL, Liao W (2007) Throughput and delay performance of

ieee 802.11 e enhanced distributed channel access (edca) under

saturation condition. Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on 6(1):136145.

7. Inan I, Keceli F, Ayanoglu E (2007a) Modeling the 802.11 e

enhanced distributed channel access function. In: Global Telecommunications Conference, 2007. GLOBECOM07. IEEE,

IEEE, pp 25462551.

8. Inan I, Keceli F, Ayanoglu E (2007b) Performance analysis of the

ieee 802.11 e enhanced distributed coordination function using

cycle time approach. In: Global Telecommunications Conference,

2007. GLOBECOM07. IEEE, IEEE, pp 25522557.

9. Jacques I, Judd C (1987) Numerical Analysis. Chapman and Hall:

London.

10. Lee JY, Lee HS (2009), A performance analysis model for IEEE

802.11 e EDCA under saturation condition. IEEE Transactions on

Communications 57(1):5663.

11. Lin Y, Wong VW (2006) Saturation throughput of ieee 802.11 e

edca based on mean value analysis. In: Wireless Communications

and Networking Conference, 2006. WCNC 2006. IEEE, IEEE,

vol 1, pp 475480.

12. Taher NC, Doudane YG, El Hassan B (2009a) A complete and

accurate analytical model for 802.11 e edca under saturation

conditions. In: Computer Systems and Applications, 2009.

73

13.

14.

15.

16.

pp 800807.

Taher NC, Doudane YG, El Hassan B, Agoulmine N (2009b)

First step towards an efficient admission control: A complete

analytical model for 802.11 e EDCA for throughput and delay

prediction. In: IM09. IFIP/IEEE International Symposium onIntegrated Network Management-Workshops, 2009, IEEE,

pp 217224.

Tantra JW, Foh CH, Mnaouer AB (2005) Throughput and delay

analysis of the IEEE 802.11 e EDCA saturation. In: ICC 2005.

2005 IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2005,

IEEE, vol 5, pp 34503454.

Xiao Y (2004) Performance analysis of IEEE 802.11 e EDCF

under saturation condition. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Communications, IEEE, vol 1, pp 170174.

Yan Y, Pan C (2007) An improved analytical model for ieee802.

11e enhanced distributed channel access. In: Information Technology Convergence, 2007. ISITC 2007. International Symposium on, IEEE, pp 135142.

received the B.S. in software

engineering and M.S. degree in

computer science from National

University of Computer and

Emerging Sciences, Lahore,

Pakistan, in 2003 and 2006,

respectively, with focus on

wireless networks and their

analysis. During his professional career he worked on different

networking

related

projects like peer to peer data

transfer applications and data

leak prevention firewalls. He is

currently working for Mentor Graphics Corporation as part of their

embedded Linux team, enabling various embedded devices to use the

latest versions of embedded Linux and applications. His areas of

interest include wireless networks, statistical analysis, theoretical

computer science and software for embedded systems.

B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the University of

Engineering and Technology,

Lahore, Pakistan, in 1984, M.S.

degree in electrical engineering

from George Washington University, USA, in 1988 and PhD

in electrical engineering from

Polytechnic University, New

York, USA, in 1993. He is a full

professor of electrical engineering at the National University of

Computer and Emerging Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan. He has

taught at Polytechnic University, New York, GIK Institute, Topi,

Pakistan, and National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan. From 1997 till June 2001, he worked in CresSoft as Deputy

Center Manager and Team Lead. Currently, he is professor and head

of electrical engineering department at the National University of

Computer and Emerging Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan. His areas of

interest include Statistical Communication, Computer Networks

modeling, and Wireless Networks.

Farah Nadeem received the

degree of B.S. in electrical

engineering from National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, in

2008. She is currently pursuing

the degree of M.S. electrical

engineering from National University of Emerging Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan. Her current

areas of interest include analysis

of and quality of service provisioning in WLANs.

123

- Sdcch StudyUploaded bykamal
- manual ap belair modelo 50-100-200Uploaded byWaldo Perez Marocho
- MOSUploaded bymnrafiq
- Cisco Press - IP Quality of Service - Vegesna(2001)Uploaded byAlthaff Mohideen
- QoS Child Service Policy for Priority ClassUploaded byharunib17
- L80216-10_0002Uploaded byaimen_riyadh
- 93-0262-02-03_7750_SR_OS_MS-ISA-Guide_r3Uploaded byYves Alain Songnetieu
- 01-UMTS Evolution & QoSUploaded byrani_7847
- A.S0008-C_v2.0_090106Uploaded byvinaytx
- Power Saver2Uploaded byKaren Bagtas David
- ZTE-dropUploaded byekta
- RP-000447Uploaded byJibJib Boonrutai
- QoS_In_UMTSUploaded byAchour Anis
- 1-s2.0-S1570870504000459-mainUploaded byAditya Wijayanto
- RRC and RRMUploaded byAshirbad Panda
- sg245189(i5 Remote Journal).pdfUploaded bysparvez
- SIMCOM_FAQ_EN 1.01Uploaded bySrinivasXes
- Module1-Living in a Centric Network BtUploaded byCao Hồng Minh
- Queuing Theory IIUploaded byAlain De La Cruz
- 2011 Network Coding KulkarniUploaded byPhu Tran
- 2017 RITI Bernal MejiaUploaded byalexis rocha
- 2960vs2960XUploaded byarma1987
- Blasch-Net-Centric Layered Sensing (ISIF08panel)Uploaded byAlancito Martinez
- widm22-lagesUploaded bypaulofpires
- Network Securtiy Review Question Kewal Krisan #300641581Uploaded byKewal Sharma
- 1 TCP-IP Protocol SuiteUploaded byVanitha MadhavaChar Joshi
- Adaptive Source Provision System (ASPS) for Proficient Freight Complementary in WiMAX NetworkUploaded byIJARTES
- Optimizing InternetUploaded byKarma Pema Dorje
- 124171975 Modeling and Simulation of 3G UMTS in OPNETUploaded bykd kd
- CS2302-Computer Networks - Anna University Engineering Question Bank 4 UUploaded bysamlaw

- fxUploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Yilmaz 2009Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Simon 2002Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Simon 2002Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Simon 2002Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- 1Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Abstract 2Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Re Checking yarUploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- Muhammad FarukhTanveer...Uploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- ACFrOgD1yAjA7V9njPRBoR3aSipFcNJD2YHdKFiDqrSVD4QJ_y8tAkxs8Fa79nVULPmbhN-sSZ8nymyfxE44ws_nWShz371iYsbnioNNJgKFIJ3xXmkW3Y3CKDgNPbg=_print=true&nonce=8jhughlbdnejm&user=06799466963179930636&hash=uj7nf0huip39jlqfppuj6gcpj0i6jp5mUploaded byFarrukh Tanveer
- DSPUploaded byAnonymous Gt2k0rpy6x

- Final PaperUploaded bySuchitra Jambawalikar
- The NetFlow, sFlow, CFlow, JFlow, IP-FIX Flow DilemmaUploaded byJoe Simmons
- IP Routing in 40 Short StepsUploaded bymadham1985
- Online Quiz Module 2 Chapter 02Uploaded byMuraliKrishnaSai
- ChipOx_96121_enUploaded byDaniel Hernandez
- CCNP4_lab_4_8Uploaded byTom Puddifoot
- dc1Uploaded byAlok Kumar
- UCTI SPACC Process to Process Delivery UDP and TCPUploaded byAshi Sharma
- HCF_SPEC_190_1.0.pdfUploaded byvikulov
- 48501132-TETRAUploaded byApril Martinez
- Chap 5 Data Link LayerUploaded bysreegpk
- Data Sheet - Cisco Catalyst 3560 SwitchUploaded byOscar Guz Gal
- Ns by ExampleUploaded byLe Vinh Hiep
- Uu InterfaceUploaded bySamira Shokry
- Intro to Comp NetwksUploaded byManu Dibango
- Linux Traffic GeneratorUploaded byCláudia Alves
- HCNA-HNTD Intermediate Lab Guide v2.1Uploaded byEminArslantay
- MAca ProtocolUploaded byJawad Ahmed
- ABCsIPv6Uploaded byilirgjikaj73
- Chapter 5Uploaded byjohn doe
- Home Automation Made Easy - Dennis C. BrewerUploaded byAnonymous IN80L4rR
- 0 Course IntroductionUploaded byVamsy Atluri
- 2009 Mar Oleg BerzinUploaded byNur Ayuni Mohd Isa
- General Network Engineer Interview Questions _ Part 5_5 General Knowledge Questions _ Syed Jahanzaib Personnel Blog to Share Knowledge !Uploaded byNavneetMishra
- cs341_proj2_20160920Uploaded byАлександр Мясников
- FT023-201111-ISO-A4Uploaded bydeitti222
- AE5510Uploaded byLê Hữu Thành
- Avaya Communication Manager g450 GatewayUploaded byz1r1200cc
- 03 PacketsUploaded byDush Akila
- 4086_VLANUploaded byquochung0606