Presentation on theme: "Distributed Control Algorithms for Service Differentiation in Wireless Packet Networks Michael Barry, Andrew T Campbell, Andras Veres"— Presentation transcript:
Distributed Control Algorithms for Service Differentiation in Wireless Packet Networks Michael Barry, Andrew T Campbell, Andras Veres
Distributed vs Centralized MAC Centralized –requires a base station –a base station schedules both up/downlink transmissions (e.g., polling) –better control over radio resources –service guarantees (fairness, delay, loss) –e.g.: cellular systems, GPRS Distributed –mobile hosts control their transmissions themselves –simple –robust (e.g., radio interference) –works in ad-hoc networks, or when channel is shared –e.g.: DCF mode
Distributed Service Differentiation Is it possible to achieve service differentiation using exclusively distributed algorithms? All components of the proposed service architecture are distributed 1. modified DCF MAC to support “soft” prioritization 2. passive channel quality monitoring at the mobile 3. estimation of achievable service quality 4. distributed admission control 5. SLA Management
IEEE DCF Distributed MAC algorithm –When a packet is to be sent, choose random defer time Tslot *Rand[0,CW] –Transmission attempt is made when defer time expires. Decrement when channel is idle Success reset CW to CWmin for next frame Failure increase CW to CW x 2, up to CWmax, and restart Highly random, unbounded delay Best-effort No fairness guarantees Frame Defer Time wait Station A Station B Station C wait
“Soft” Differentiated MAC The delay of a packet depends on the chosen random defer time and the remaining defer times of other hosts Adjust CW so that high priority packets are more likely to grab the channel –increase upper limit of defer time (CWmin) for low priority traffic (LP) –decrease CWmin for high priority traffic (HP) Channel busy HP LP CWmin Defer transmission
Service Differentiation - Analysis Impact of Different Contention Window Bounds
Service Differentiation - Simulation Service differentiation is statistical and relative –High priority packets experience lower delay on average Channel capacity is shared between classes Average Delay Throughput Increasing Traffic Delay[s] e+06 8e+05 6e+05 4e+05 2e e+06 Throughput [bps]
Channel Monitoring Soft Differentiation is not enough –most real-time services require absolute and not relative guarantees Admission control is needed to maintain continuous QoS –should be distributed and robust Passive Approach – is non intrusive, observes activity on the channel – extended to estimate QoS of a new session based observation Virtual Algorithms –Run in parallel to real apps and MAC –Test State of channel to estimate available level of service
Passive Virtual MAC Virtual MAC emulates a real MAC –receives virtual packets from a virtual application –chooses random defer time –observes channel and decrements timer –if timer expires, “transmits” –estimates collisions by observing transmission from other hosts –adjusts Cwmin (backoff), retransmits, etc... Radio channel state packet decr. timer collision! delay of virtual packet success!
Evaluation of V-MAC V-MAC delays are precise number of voice flows average delay[s] measured V-MAC
Distributed Admission Control A V-MAC runs using high priority virtual packets in mobile hosts before staring session –since it is passive it can be on, long before the session starts If V-MAC delay estimates exceed a conservative value, reject –the safety margin is required because of unanticipated interference, bursts in best-effort traffic, session dynamics in neighboring areas Algorithms run in both End Hosts –Provides comprehensive analysis of channel state –Lessens Impact of Hidden Nodes
Distributed Admission Control 10 Access Points, 100 mobiles, shared channel 50 mobiles generate Web traffic (TCP, Pareto file sizes) 50 mobiles generate voice (32kbps on/off) Admission Control –Admit new voice calls if delay is under 10 ms. –Web traffic always admitted AP and host positions Average Delay of admitted voice calls delay[s]
QoS management in Access Networks Supporting Fast Mobility in the access network Routing - Micromobility QoS: - Distributed Algorithms Security: - Ongoing, AAA SLAs: - Context Transfer Move QoS State as fast as routing information during handoff. SLA Tokens
Conclusions and Future Work Distributed algorithms can be used for service differentiation Soft guarantees are enough for many RT applications High priority service degrades “gracefully” with increasing low priority traffic load (we can forget admission control for best-effort) Passive V-MAC can efficiently estimate delays introduced by the MAC The distributed algorithm is robust in high interference, shared environment Tokens can be used to transfer state information in the network.