September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for 802.11s Mesh Networks Date: 2005-09-12 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared.

September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for s Mesh Networks Date: Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for s Mesh Networks Mathilde Benveniste, Avaya Labs Research Jeffrey Zhifeng Tao, Polytechnic University Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Outline Overview of IEEE 802.11s
September 2005 Outline Overview of IEEE s Common Control Channel (CCC) MMAC Protocol Performance Evaluation Conclusion and Discussion Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

IEEE 802.11s: Mesh Networking
September 2005 IEEE s: Mesh Networking Major applications: Public access Enterprise network Home network Military/Public Security Emergency/Rescue . . . Router BSS 1 BSS 2 BSS 3 Internet Mesh networking Portal Router BSS 1 BSS 2 BSS 3 Internet Legacy WLAN deployment Wireless Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

September 2005 CCC MMAC Framework References: IEEE /422, 05/610, 05/666, 05/707 Two logical channels Common control channel (CC) One or multiple mesh traffic (MT) channels Agnostic to the number of physical radios Single radio Both CC and MT share the same physical radio/frequency band Multiple radios A radio is dedicated to control channel Other radios carry multiple mesh traffic channels Dynamic channel assignment The handshake at the control channel can readily achieve dynamic channel assignment Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

CCC MMAC: Illustration
September 2005 CCC MMAC: Illustration Reserve MT channel 2 Reserve MT channel 1 MRTS MCTS MRTS MCTS MRTS MCTS MRTS Reserve MT channel 1 MCTS Reserve MT channel 3 CC 2440 GHz MT 1 MTXOP MTXOP 5220 GHz MT 2 MTXOP 5260 GHz MT 3 MTXOP 5300 GHz time Frequency Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Performance Evaluation
September 2005 Performance Evaluation Study 1: Saturation load Primary objective: demonstrate the effect of PHY rate and TXOP size on network goodput, under the saturation load Study 2: Queueing and access delay Primary objective: demonstrate the effect of the CCC protocol under a fixed offered load Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Collected Statistics Goodput Delay September 2005
Defer, Backoff, Transmit, Retransmit Buffer MSDU from LLC T0 T3 T1 Transmitter Receiver Wireless Channel Queueing Delay (T1 – T0) Media Access (T2 – T1) to LLC T2 Goodput PHY Hdr MAC Hdr Goodput Payload bits correctly received at the intended recipient per unit time Excludes the PHY and MAC headers Delay Queueing delay Channel access delay MSDU: MAC Service Data Unit PPDU: PHY Protocol Data Unit Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Simulation Settings September 2005 4 traffic streams
Constant payload size: 1500 bytes Exponential frame inter-arrival Physical layer rates 24Mbps and 54Mbps 6Mbps TXOP sizes 10 and 15 frames Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Channel/Radio Configuration
September 2005 Simulation Scenarios Simulation Scenario Channel/Radio Configuration EDCF Control and data frames share the same channel CCC 2MT 1 control channel, 2 data channels CCC 3MT 1 control channel, 3 data channels CCC 4MT 1 control channel, 4 data channels Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Study 1: Saturation load
September 2005 Study 1: Saturation load Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Goodput -- 10 frames/TXOP
September 2005 Goodput frames/TXOP EDCF (1 MT) CCC (2 MTs) (3 MTs) (4 MTs) Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Goodput -- 15 frames/TXOP
September 2005 Goodput frames/TXOP EDCF (1 MT) CCC (2 MTs) (3 MTs) (4 MTs) Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Goodput – PHY rate 24 Mbps September 2005
Compare the new saturation goodput for 10 frames/TXOP with 15 frames/TXOP 50% reduction of control channel traffic causes no improvement Control channel is not a bottleneck Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Goodput – PHY rate 54 Mbps September 2005
Compare the new saturation goodput for 10 frames/TXOP with 15 frames/TXOP 50% reduction of control channel traffic causes negligible improvement Control channel is not a bottleneck Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Summary of Goodput Results
September 2005 Summary of Goodput Results 10 frames/TXOP Number of MT channels PHY 24Mbps PHY 54Mbps 1 (i.e., EDCF) 20.20 Mbps 39.27 Mbps 2 38.97 Mbps 73.30 Mbps 3 58.63 Mbps Mbps 4 78.00 Mbps Mbps 15 frames/TXOP Number of MT channels PHY 24Mbps PHY 54Mbps 1 (i.e., EDCF) 20.58 Mbps 40.23 Mbps 2 39.60 Mbps 75.30 Mbps 3 59.55 Mbps Mbps 4 79.20 Mbps Mbps MT channel: mesh traffic channel Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Study 2: Queueing and access delay
September 2005 Study 2: Queueing and access delay Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Average Queueing Delay
September 2005 PHY rate: 24Mbps Load: 15 Mbps PHY rate: 54Mbps Load: 24 Mbps Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

Average Channel Access Delay
September 2005 Average Channel Access Delay PHY rate: 24Mbps Load: 15 Mbps PHY rate: 54Mbps Load: 24 Mbps Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

September 2005 Conclusions CCC multi-channel MMAC can achieve higher goodput than EDCF and lower delay and jitter The goodput increases as the number of available MT channels increases The control channel does not appear to be a bottleneck Avaya Labs, Polytechnic University

September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for 802.11s Mesh Networks Date: 2005-09-12 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for 802.11s Mesh Networks Date: 2005-09-12 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for 802.11s Mesh Networks Date: 2005-09-12 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "September 2005 Performance Evaluation of the CCC MMAC Protocol for 802.11s Mesh Networks Date: 2005-09-12 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback