A General Model of Wireless Interference
Post on 19-Jan-2016
29 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
1
A General Model of A General Model of Wireless InterferenceWireless Interference
Lili QiuLili Qiu, Yin Zhang, Feng Wang, Mi Kyung Han , Yin Zhang, Feng Wang, Mi Kyung Han
University of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas at Austin
Ratul MahajanRatul Mahajan
Microsoft ResearchMicrosoft Research
ACM MOBICOM 2007ACM MOBICOM 2007
September 12, 2007September 12, 2007
2
MotivationMotivation• Interference is critical to wireless
network performance
• Understanding the impact of wireless interference directly benefits many network operations– Routing– Channel assignment– Transmission power control– Transport protocol optimization– Network diagnosis
3
State of the ArtState of the Art• Non-measurement based interference models
– Inaccurate for real networks [Kotz03,Padhye05]• Interference range is twice the communication range
– Restricted scenarios• Single-hop networks (e.g., Bianchi’s model)• Multihop networks with 2-flows (e.g., Garetto et al.)
• Direct interference measurement– Lack scalability and predictive power
• Measurement-based interference model [Reis06] – Promising to achieve both accuracy and scalability– Restricted scenario
• Only two saturated broadcast sendersNeed a general measurement-based model!
4
Our ContributionsOur Contributions• A general interference model for IEEE 802.11
multihop wireless networks– Models non-binary interference among an arbitra
ry number of senders – Models both broadcast and unicast traffic– Models both saturated and unsaturated demands
• Easy to seed– Requires only O(N) broadcast measurements
• Highly accurate– Validated through experiments and simulations
5
Background on IEEE 802.11 DCFBackground on IEEE 802.11 DCF• Broadcast
– If medium is idle for DIFS, transmit immediately– Otherwise, wait for DIFS and a random backoff between [0,
CWmin]
• Unicast– Use ACKs and retransmissions for reliability– Binary backoff
• CW doubles after each failed transmission until CWmax• Restore CW to CWmin after a successful transmission
DIFS Data TransmissionRandomBackoff
DIFS Data TransmissionRandomBackoff
ACKTransmission
SIFS
6
Model OverviewModel Overview
given network traffic
demand
sender model
receiver model
throughput
goodput
pairwise RSS
• How it works– Measure pairwise RSS via broadcast probes
• One node broadcast at a time, other nodes measure RSS only requiring O(n) probes
– Use sender/receiver models to get throughput/goodput• Basic model: broadcast traffic• Extension to unicast traffic
7
Assumptions Assumptions • A sender can transmit if
– The total energy it received CCA threshold• A receiver can correctly receive a
transmission if its– RSS radio sensitivity– SINR SINR threshold
• Can easily extend to BER-based model
• Assume 1-hop traffic demands– Traffic is only sent over 1 hop and not
routed further– Multi-hop demands need to be first mapped
to 1-hop demands based on routing
8
Broadcast Sender: A Markov Broadcast Sender: A Markov ModelModel
• Challenge– Sender behavior depends on the set
of nodes currently transmitting• Solution
– Associate a state i with every possible set of transmitting nodes Si
– Enhance scalability by pruning low-probability states and transitions (see paper)
• Algorithm1. Compute individual node’s mode transitions in each st
ate2. Compute state transition probabilities M(i,j)3. Compute stationary probabilities i by solving LP4. Compute throughput of node m: tm = ∑i: mSi i
{} {1}
{1,2}{2}
9
Individual Node Mode TransitionsIndividual Node Mode Transitions
• – Im|Si=Wm+Bm+∑sSi\{m} Rsm
– Each term is modeled as a lognormal r.v. (validated experimentally)– Approximate the sum using a single moment-matching lognormal r.v.
•
• – Q(m) = 1 for saturated demands– Q(m) is estimated iteratively for unsaturated demands
]Pr[)|(]S|clear is mediumPr[ |i mSmi iISmC
DIFSCW
2/
1]clear is medium |0counterPr[
0]counter &clear is medium|data has Pr[m Q(m)
0 1
P00=1-P01 P11=1-P10
P01
P100: idle 1: transmitting
Q(m)DIFSCW/
)C(m|S
SmP
i
i
2
1
]S | data has m & 0counter
&clear is mediumPr[
)|(
i
01
per tx slots#
1)|(10 iSnP
10
State Transition ProbabilitiesState Transition Probabilities• Case 1: packet sizes are exponentially distributed
– Different nodes’ mode transitions are independent
– M(i, j) = n P{n’s mode in state i n’s mode in state j}
• Case 2: packet sizes are similar– Mode transitions are dependent due to synchronization
• Two nodes are in sync iff C(m|{n}) 0.1 and C(n|{m}) 0.1• A and B are in sync and have overlapping transmissions
their transmissions start and end at the same time
– Solution: fate sharing• m and n are in sync and both active in state i
they have the same mode in next state • Probability for a group of k nodes in sync to all transition from 1
to 0 is instead of
per tx slots#
1 k)per tx slots#
1(
11
Broadcast ReceiverBroadcast Receiver• Estimate slot-level loss rate
– Loss due to low RSS• Based on pairwise RSS measurement
– Loss due to low SINR• Our measurements show that RSS follows log-normal
distribution• Approximate with a single moment-matching lognormal r.v.
• How to get packet-level loss rate?– Pkt loss rate slot-level loss rate under partial collisions
(common in hidden terminal)
– Differentiate losses due to synchronized collisions and asynchronized collisions
• Synchronized collisions when a node is synchronized with at least one other node in the state
• Otherwise, asynchronized collisions
]Pr[| nmnrssSimn Rl
}Pr{|
| nSmn
mnSmn
i
i I
Rl
iSmn
mn
I
R
|
Slot loss=10%Pkt loss = 100%
12
Extensions to Unicast DemandsExtensions to Unicast Demands• Sender side extensions
– Compute average CW based on binary backoff– Incorporate ACK/SIFS overhead (in addition to DIFS)– Derive Q(m) to ensure demands (w/ retx) not exceeded
• Receiver side extensions– Include low RSS induced losses for both data and ACK– Include low SNR induced loss due to collisions between
data/ACK, ACK/data, ACK/ACK (in addition to data/data)
• Challenge– Inter-dependency between sending rate and loss rates
• Sending rates depend on loss rates due to binary backoff• Loss rates depend on sending rate due to interference
• Solution: use an iterative framework
13
Unicast Model: Iterative FrameworkUnicast Model: Iterative Framework
)()1()()(
)1(
mQmQmQ
LLLnew
mnnewmnmn
Compute CW and OH using Lmn
Compute i using M
Update and Qnew(m)
Initialize Lmn = 0, Q(m) = 1
Derive state transition matrix M
newmnL
if (!converged)
14
Evaluation MethodologyEvaluation Methodology• Qualnet simulation
– Controlled environment and direct assessment of individual components in our model
– Vary topologies, # senders, demand types, freq. band
• Testbed experiments– More realistic scenarios
• RF fluctuation, measurement errors, and variation across hardware
– UT traces• 22-node, 802.11 a/b/g NetGear WAG511, Madwifi, click• Vary # senders, demand types
– UW traces (Reis et al.)• 14-node testbed inside an office building• 2 saturated broadcast sender traces
15
Evaluation Methodology (Cont.)Evaluation Methodology (Cont.)• Compare with actual values and UW model
– Scatter plot– Root mean square error (RMSE):
• Overview of UW model – Applies only to 2 saturated broadcast senders– Uses O(N) probes to measure pairwise RSS– Sender model
• Estimate the deferral probability based on RSS from the other sender
– Receiver model• Estimate loss rate based on SNR by treating RSS from
the other sender as part of interference
P
actualesti
ii 2)(
16
Simulation Evaluation: Simulation Evaluation: Saturated BroadcastSaturated Broadcast
2 saturated broadcast
More accurate than UW 2-node model
(a) throughput (b) goodput
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 100 200 300 400 500G
oodp
ut
Sender-Receiver Pair ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0050)UW (RMSE=0.1664)Actual
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Thro
ughp
ut
Sender ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0028)UW (RMSE=0.1450)Actual
17
Simulation Evaluation: Simulation Evaluation: Saturated BroadcastSaturated Broadcast
10 saturated broadcast
Accurate for 10 saturated broadcast
(a) throughput (b) goodput
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500G
oodp
ut
Sender-Receiver Pair ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0189)Actual
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thro
ughp
ut
Sender ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0460)Actual
18
Simulation Evaluation:Simulation Evaluation:Unsaturated UnicastUnsaturated Unicast
10 unsaturated unicast
Accurate for unsaturated unicast
(a) throughput (b) goodput
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100G
oodp
ut
Sender-Receiver Pair ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0309)Actual
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thro
ughp
ut
Sender ID
Ours (RMSE=0.0388)Actual
19
Testbed EvaluationTestbed EvaluationUW traces: 2 saturated broadcast senders (30 mW)
(a) throughput (b) goodput
More accurate than UW-model for 2-sender
20
Testbed Evaluation (Cont.)Testbed Evaluation (Cont.)UT traces: 5 saturated broadcast senders (30 mW)
(a) throughput (b) goodput
Accurate for saturated broadcast
21
Testbed Evaluation (Cont.)Testbed Evaluation (Cont.)UT traces: 3 unsaturated broadcast senders (1mW)
(a) throughput (b) goodput
Accurate for unsaturated broadcast
22
Summary of Evaluation ResultsSummary of Evaluation Results• Achieve high accuracy under all types of
traffic demands– Unicast & broadcast; saturated &
unsaturated
• More accurate than state-of-art model for 2 saturated broadcast senders
• Higher errors in testbed than in simulations due to– RF fluctuation– Errors in estimating actual RSS especially
under high loss rates
23
ConclusionsConclusions• Main contributions
– A general interference model that handles • An arbitrary number of senders• Broadcast + unicast traffic• Saturated + unsaturated demands
– Validated by simulation and testbed evaluation
• Future work– Improve the accuracy of RSS estimation– Model-driven wireless network optimization
24
Thank you!Thank you!lili@cs.utexas.edulili@cs.utexas.edu
top related