On the Exploitation of CDF based Wireless Scheduling Udi Ben-Porat Tel-Aviv University, Israel Anat Bremler-Barr IDC Herzliya, Israel Hanoch Levy ETH Zurich,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mobility Increase the Capacity of Ad-hoc Wireless Network Matthias Gossglauser / David Tse Infocom 2001.
Advertisements

The strength of routing Schemes. Main issues Eliminating the buzz: Are there real differences between forwarding schemes: OSPF vs. MPLS? Can we quantify.
Opportunistic Scheduling Algorithms for Wireless Networks
Secure Multiparty Computations on Bitcoin
12.1 Chapter 12 Multiple Access Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Game Theory and Computer Networks: a useful combination? Christos Samaras, COMNET Group, DUTH.
Study Group Randomized Algorithms 21 st June 03. Topics Covered Game Tree Evaluation –its expected run time is better than the worst- case complexity.
Achieving Quality of Service in Wireless Networks A simulation comparison of MAC layer protocols. CS444N Presentation By: Priyank Garg Rushabh Doshi.
Explicit and Implicit Pipelining in Wireless MAC Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Joint work with Xue Yang, UIUC.
MIMO As a First-Class Citizen in Kate C.-J. Lin Academia Sinica Shyamnath Gollakota and Dina Katabi MIT.
1 A Novel Topology-blind Fair Medium Access Control for Wireless LAN and Ad Hoc Networks Z. Y. Fang and B. Bensaou Computer Science Department Hong Kong.
Udi Ben-Porat ETH Zurich Switzerland
Priority Queuing Achieving Flow ‘Fairness’ in Wireless Networks Thomas Shen Prof. K.C. Wang SURE 2005.
12.1 Chapter 12 Multiple Access Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Uncertainty and Consumer Behavior
$ Spectrum Aware Load Balancing for WLANs Victor Bahl Ranveer Chandra Thomas Moscibroda Yunnan Wu.
802.11n MAC layer simulation Submitted by: Niv Tokman Aya Mire Oren Gur-Arie.
Research on cognitive radios Presented by George Fortetsanakis.
A TCP With Guaranteed Performance in Networks with Dynamic Congestion and Random Wireless Losses Stefan Schmid, ETH Zurich Roger Wattenhofer, ETH Zurich.
Mobility Increases Capacity In Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks Lecture 17 October 28, 2004 EENG 460a / CPSC 436 / ENAS 960 Networked Embedded Systems & Sensor.
802.11n MAC layer simulation Submitted by: Niv Tokman Aya Mire Oren Gur-Arie.
Variables and Patterns Variables, Tables, and Coordinate Graphs.
Ns Simulation Final presentation Stella Pantofel Igor Berman Michael Halperin
Wireless scheduling analysis (With ns3) By Pradeep Prathik Saisundatr.
Budhaditya Pyne BEE-IV Roll No: Jadavpur University.
1 The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: Network Performance in Malicious Environment Udi Ben-Porat ETH Zurich, Switzerland Anat Bremler-Barr IDC Herzliya, Israel.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute CSCI-4210 – Operating Systems David Goldschmidt, Ph.D.
Fast Spectrum Allocation in Coordinated Dynamic Spectrum Access Based Cellular Networks Anand Prabhu Subramanian*, Himanshu Gupta*,
21 Mar 2002 First Israelli-Swedish Workshop on Next Generation Networking1 / 28 Stochastic Analysis of Wireless-fair Scheduling Hwee Pink Tan and Raphael.
Toward Optimal Utilization of Shared Random Access Channels Joseph (Seffi) Naor, Technion Danny Raz, Technion Gabriel Scalosub, University of Toronto.
1 11 Subcarrier Allocation and Bit Loading Algorithms for OFDMA-Based Wireless Networks Gautam Kulkarni, Sachin Adlakha, Mani Srivastava UCLA IEEE Transactions.
Evaluating the Vulnerability of Network Mechanisms to Sophisticated DDoS Attacks Udi Ben-Porat Tel-Aviv University, Israel Anat Bremler-Barr IDC Herzliya,
1 Evaluating the Vulnerability of Network Mechanisms to Sophisticated DDoS Attacks Udi Ben-Porat Tel-Aviv University, Israel Anat Bremler-Barr IDC Herzliya,
Multicast Scheduling in Cellular Data Networks Katherine Guo, Arun Netravali, Krishan Sabnani Bell-Labs Research Hyungsuk Won, Han Cai, Do Young Eun, Injong.
Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California CISS, Princeton University, March 2012 Wireless Peer-to-Peer Scheduling.
November 4, 2003APOC 2003 Wuhan, China 1/14 Demand Based Bandwidth Assignment MAC Protocol for Wireless LANs Presented by Ruibiao Qiu Department of Computer.
CS584 - Software Multiagent Systems Lecture 12 Distributed constraint optimization II: Incomplete algorithms and recent theoretical results.
End-to-End Performance and Fairness in Multihop Wireless Backhaul Networks V. Gambiroza, B. Sadeghi, and E. Knightly Department of Electrical and Computer.
Architectures and Algorithms for Future Wireless Local Area Networks  1 Chapter Architectures and Algorithms for Future Wireless Local Area.
Multiple Access.
LOCAL AREA NETWORKS. CSMA/CA In a wired network, the received signal has almost the same energy as the sent signal because either the length of the cable.
1 - CS7701 – Fall 2004 Review of: Detecting Network Intrusions via Sampling: A Game Theoretic Approach Paper by: – Murali Kodialam (Bell Labs) – T.V. Lakshman.
Ch 12. Multiple Access. Multiple Access for Shared Link Dedicated link – Point-to-point connection is sufficient Shared link – Link is not dedicated –
Cross-Layer Approach to Wireless Collisions Dina Katabi.
CS 484 Load Balancing. Goal: All processors working all the time Efficiency of 1 Distribute the load (work) to meet the goal Two types of load balancing.
Explicit and Implicit Pipelining in Wireless MAC Nitin Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Joint work with Xue Yang, UIUC.
Unit 2: Research & Statistics n Psychology deals with many experiments and studies n WHO? Every experimenter must decide on a SAMPLE, which is a group.
Partially Overlapped Channels Not Considered Harmful Article by Mishra, Shrivastava, Banerjee, Arbaugh Presentation by Chen Li.
1 11 Distributed Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio Mesh Networks Bong-Jun Ko, Vishal Misra, Jitendra Padhye and Dan Rubenstein Columbia University.
Physical layer continued. Limited Bandwidth Bandwidth is limited because of many reasons – The wire itself, if too long, is a capacitor and slows down.
October 28, 2005 Single User Wireless Scheduling Policies: Opportunism and Optimality Brian Smith and Sriram Vishwanath University of Texas at Austin October.
1 11 Frequency Reuse Techniques for Attaining both Coverage and High Spectral Efficiency in OFDMA Cellular Systems Zheng Xie and Bernhard Walke RWTH Aachen.
On Exploiting Diversity and Spatial Reuse in Relay-enabled Wireless Networks Karthikeyan Sundaresan, and Sampath Rangarajan Broadband and Mobile Networking,
Utility Dependence in Correct and Fair Rational Secret Sharing Gilad Asharov Yehuda Lindell Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Partially Overlapped Channels Not Considered Harmful Arunesh Mishra, Vivek Shrivastava, Suman Banerjee, William Arbaugh (ACM SIGMetrics 2006) Slides adapted.
Information Theory for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (ITMANET): The FLoWS Project Collision Helps! Algebraic Collision Recovery for Wireless Erasure Networks.
SERENA: SchEduling RoutEr Nodes Activity in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks Pascale Minet and Saoucene Mahfoudh INRIA, Rocquencourt Le Chesnay.
Process Scheduling. Scheduling Strategies Scheduling strategies can broadly fall into two categories  Co-operative scheduling is where the currently.
10.Deterministic Randomness 1.Random Sequences Random Sequences A sequence of numbers r 1, r 2,... is random if there are no discernible patterns.
Information Complexity Lower Bounds
Chapter 12 Multiple Access
6. Opportunistic Communication and Multiuser Diversity
Multiple Access Mahesh Jangid Assistant Professor JVW University.
Game Theory in Wireless and Communication Networks: Theory, Models, and Applications Lecture 2 Bayesian Games Zhu Han, Dusit Niyato, Walid Saad, Tamer.
Provision of Multimedia Services in based Networks
Scheduling Algorithms in Broad-Band Wireless Networks
Capacity of Ad Hoc Networks
Udi Ben-Porat ETH Zurich Switzerland
Presented By Riaz (STD ID: )
Multiple Access Control (MAC) Protocols
Presentation transcript:

On the Exploitation of CDF based Wireless Scheduling Udi Ben-Porat Tel-Aviv University, Israel Anat Bremler-Barr IDC Herzliya, Israel Hanoch Levy ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Wireless Scheduling Model:  Players: Base Station (scheduler) and Clients  Time is divided to separate time slots  At each time slot, data is sent to one user only  Clients have variable channel rate (capacity)  The scheduler assigns a client for transmission based on the reported channel rates of the users 2 Cisco talk - April 2009 Scheduler’s goals:  Good overall throughput performance of the system  Fairness among users (avoid starvation)

CDF Scheduler - Example Cisco talk - April Bob Rate ~ Uniform(0,100) Base station Priority by CDF value 60 kbps Alice Rate ~ Uniform(0,50) DATA Priority: V=0.9 (90% of the time Alice has worse channel than now) Priority: V=0.6 (60% of the time Bob has worse channel than now) 45 kbps Scheduler’s goals:  Good overall throughput performance of the system  Fairness among users (avoid starvation)

Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) Scheduling R – Channel rate of a user Point (x,y): y =F R (x)= Prob(R<x) Every time slot he reports his rate – r i His Priority value: V=F R (r i ) The CDF scheduler picks the user with the highest Priority value 4 REMON talk - Feb CDF Graph Channel Rate (kbps) CDF value (in [0,1]) 70 kbps kbps 0.9

CDF Scheduler - Characteristics CDF maintains time-share fairness:  All users get the same amount of time slots  Each user has equal chance to “win” a timeslot regardless of his channel rate distribution Our work – the vulnerability of CDF:  One user alone can’t fool the system  Coordinated selfish users destabilize FAIRNESS  Bigger time-share on the expense of others  Malicious users degrade the system even more 5 Cisco talk - April 2009

CDF Scheduler - Example Two users with different distributions:  Bob – Uniform(0, 100)  Alice – Uniform(0, 50) Cisco talk - April Time slot: Bob Rate - r Priority - V(r) Alice Rate - r Priority - V(r)

Our work – CDF Scheduler Exploits One user alone can’t fool the system Coordinated users can destabilize FAIRNESS.  Gain more time slots on the account of others Malicious users get e-1 (~ 170%) of what other users get (when both regular and mal. Are in equal numbers and should get equal time share) 7 Cisco talk - April 2009

Proved: No one-user-strategy Theorem: One user with no knowledge on the others cannot benefit throughput or time slots by reporting fake channel rates. Intuition:  No point pretending he has other channel rate distribution – every user gets equal time share regardless of his channel rate distribution.  No point reporting exaggerated rate which he can’t physically utilize (if he wins the time slot)  Reporting fake low rates only decreases his throughput (CDF follows time fairness, not throughput) 8 Cisco talk - April 2009

Coordinated Group Strategy Formally:  Group of users are cooperating to gain bigger time share  Each user shares with the group the CDF value of his channel rate (for the next time slot) Strategy:  Only the user with the maximal CDF value in the group reports his real channel rate (r i )  All others report fake channel rate r=0 9 Cisco talk - April 2009

Coordinated Group Strategy Such behavior influence the CDF functions that the scheduler learns about the users in the group This results in higher priority values given to the members of the group -> more bandwidth on the expense of others 10 Cisco talk - April 2009

Why Report Zero? Example  R = Bob’s real rate; R’= what Bob actually reports  Scenario A: Bob always report his real rate (R=R’) Bob’s CDF: P(R’ < x) = P(R < x)  Scenario B: Reports 0 every EVEN time slot In the ODD time slots - he reports his real rate Q: P(R’ < x) = ? A: P(this time slot is ODD)* P(R < x) + P(this time slot is EVEN) Bob’s CDF: P(R’ < x) = ½ + ½ P(R < x) 11 Cisco talk - April 2009

Coordinated Group Strategy Bob decides to report 0 every even timeslot V - real CDF value function V’ – The function according to his reports Cisco talk - April Channel Rate (kbps) CDF value kbps V’ = V

Why Report Zero? 13 Cisco talk - April 2009 The new CDF of the reported channel rates as seen by the scheduler is given by: V k = *(F Rk (r)) 2 Generally with n users: V k = (n-1)/n+(1/n)*(F Rk (r)) n 2 Coordinating Users – CDF Increase

Coordinated Group Strategy Why coordinate with others?  When reporting zero the user loses the time slot for sure  Coordination allows the user to report zero in time slots that he has no chance to win anyway  User can only Benefit from coordination with others Cisco talk - April Channel Rate (kbps) CDF value 0 100

Without Coordination Cisco talk - April Alice Uniform(0,100) Base station Priority by CDF value Bob Uniform(0,100) Mary Uniform(0,100) 27 kbps 50 kbps 31 kbps V = 0.31V = 0.27V = 0.5 DATA

Coordination Strategy - Example Bob and Mary decide to cooperate in order to increase the priority values they get. Every time slot one of them reports his real channel rate while the other reports zero channel rate. The one who reports his real channel rate is the one who is expected to be assigned with better priority value than the other 16 Cisco talk - April 2009

Coordination Strategy 17 Alice Uniform(0,100) Base station Priority by CDF value Bob Uniform(0,100) Mary Uniform(0,100) F = 0.31 F = kbps 50 kbps 31 kbps

Base station Priority by CDF value Coordination Strategy 18 Cisco talk - April kbps Mary Uniform(0,100) 31 kbps

Coordination Strategy Cisco talk - April Alice Uniform(0,100) Base station Priority by CDF value Bob Uniform(0,100) Mary Uniform(0,100) F = 0.31 F = kbps 50 kbps 31 kbps V = 0.55V = 0V = 0.5 DATA

Coordination Strategy Example Cisco talk - April Time slot: Alice Rate - r Priority - V(r) Bob Real Rate: Reported rate: Priority - V(r) Mary Real Rate: Reported rate: Priority - V(r) Time slots Alice lost due to the coordination of Bob and Mary.

CDF Exploits - Results Y-axis is the additional time share (in percents) that a coordinated user gains when he takes part in a coordinated group of size L (X-Axis). Participating in a coordinated group of 11 users is the most beneficial and increases the time share of the user by 28%. 21 Cisco talk - April 2009 Time Share Benefit (%)

CDF Exploits - Results The previous results are for time share benefit These results are independent of the channel rate distributions of the users (coordinated and regulars) Throughput benefit is strongly connected to the time share benefit but depends on the channel rate distribution 22 Cisco talk - April 2009

CDF Scheduler– Discrete model Limited set of possible channel rates: {r 1 < r 2 < …< r M } The only difference:  The way priority values are assigned Algorithm:  User k reports channel rate - r i  Assigned with random priority value: V ~ Uniform(F k (r i-1 ), F k (r i )) 23 Cisco talk - April 2009

Discrete model - Example Cisco talk - April Alice r1r1 r2r2 r3r3 Probability Rates r3r3 r2r2 r1r CDF Alice

CDF Scheduler - Example Cisco talk - April Base station Priority by CDF value Priority value: V=0.6 r2r r3r3 r1r Alice r2r2 0.6

CDF Scheduler– Discrete model Discrete CDF Scheduler:  Priority value for every user is still V~Uniform(0,1)  Therefore, preserves time-share fairness Coordinated group strategy:  Users share the range of their priority value  Users with no chance to win, report min. rate (r 1 )  Sometimes more than one user in the group may report his real rate  Benefit less than in the continuous model 26 Cisco talk - April 2009

CDF Scheduler– Discrete model Coordinated group strategy - Results: 27 Cisco talk - April 2009 Time Share Benefit (%) Throughput Benefit (%) Group Size (out of 30)

Discrete model - Malicious users Malicious users  Don’t care about their time/throughput share  Malicious strategy -> greater system degradation Malicious users strategy:  Every user chooses his “favorite rate” - R  Always only one user (in his turn) reports his R  All other users report other rate lower than their R Hard to detect – normal pattern of reported rates 28 Cisco talk - April 2009

Discrete model - Malicious users Malicious strategy - Example  10 malicious users  Each user: Report r 3 10% of the time (in his turn) Reports r 1 or r 2 90% of the time  In his turn, the user gets priority in [0.9,1]  Therefore, every time slot there’s a malicious user with priority value in [0.9,1] 29 Cisco talk - April r1r Malicious User r2r2 r3r3

CDF Scheduler - Example Cisco talk - April Base station Priority by CDF value 0.90 r3r Bad # r1r Bad # r1r Bad #3 Bad #1: V=0.95 r2r r2r2 r2r2 r2r2 r1r1 r3r3 r3r3 r3r3 r1r Alice His turn Alice: V=0.51

CDF Scheduler - Example Cisco talk - April Base station Priority by CDF value Bad # Bad # r1r Bad #3 Bad #2: V= r2r2 r3r3 r3r3 r2r2 r3r3 r1r1 r2r2 r2r2 r1r1 r3r3 r1r Alice His turn Alice: V=0.78

Malicious VS. Coordinated Users Coordinated users’ goal: more bandwidth Malicious users’ goal: harm the others Malicious users get e-1 (~ 170%) of what other users get (when both regular and mal. are in equal numbers and should get equal time share) Cisco talk - April System Loss (%)

Future Work Development of basic scheduling algorithms resilient to extreme conditions in next generation cellular networks. 33 Cisco talk - April 2009

Questions? 34 Cisco talk - April 2009