RARA: Rate Adaptation Using Rate-adaptive Acknowledgment...

RARA: Rate Adaptation Using RateRARA: Rate Adaptation Using Rate--adaptive adaptive Acknowledgment for IEEE 802.11 WLANsAcknowledgment for IEEE 802.11 WLANs

정하경

IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC) 2008, Las Vegas, USA

Hakyung Jung

School of Computer Science and Engineering

Seoul National University, Korea

IEEE 802.11 Rate AdaptationIEEE 802.11 Rate Adaptation

§ The 802.11 a/b/g/n standards allow the use of multiple transmission rates§ 802.11b, 4 rate options (1,2,5.5,11Mbps)

§ 802.11a, 8 rate options (6,9,12,18,24,36,48,54 Mbps)

2/14

§ 802.11g, 12 rate options (11a set + 11b set)

§ The method to select the transmission rate in real time is called “Rate Adaptation”

§ Rate adaptation is important yetunspecified by the 802.11 standards

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Sender Receiver

54MbpsSignal is good

Rate Adaptation ExampleRate Adaptation Example

3/14

§ Ideally, the transmission rate should be adjusted according to the channel condition

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Sender Receiver

Signal becomes weaker

12Mbps

Importance of Rate Importance of Rate AdaptationAdaptation

§ Rate adaptation plays a critical role to the throughput performance

§ Rate too high → loss ratio increases → throughput

4/14

§ Rate too high → loss ratio increases → throughput decreases

§ Rate too low → under-utilize the capacity →throughput decreases

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

OutlineOutline

§ Related work

§ Motivation

§ Proposed algorithm

5/14

§ Proposed algorithm

§ Simulation Results

§ Conclusion

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Related WorkRelated Work

§ Open-loop approach (ARF, AARF, CARA, RRAA, ...)

§ pros

• simple to implement

• standard compliant in general

§ cons

6/14

§ cons

• may misinterpret the causes of frame losses

§ Closed-loop approach (RBAR, OAR, …)

§ pros

• accurate channel estimation by receivers

§ cons

• RTS/CTS exchange overhead

• not conform to the 802.11 standard

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

MotivationMotivation

§ 802.11 requires ACK frames be transmitted at a rate, constrained by:§ Tx rate of ACK frame ≤ Tx rate of preceding DATA frame

§ ACK frame should be selected within basic rate set

7/14

§ ACK frame should be selected within basic rate set

§ What happens if we use the next lower(or higher) rate than the legacy ACK rate ?§ Still interoperable and possible to be used to inform the

transmitter of the channel condition information for the next data frame

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Proposed rate adaptation Proposed rate adaptation scheme: RARAscheme: RARA

§ When to increase the Tx rate

8/14

§ When to decrease the Tx rate

§ Not the scope of this work

§ Any schemes can be combined (ARF, CARA, ….)

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Operation ExampleOperation Example

1 2 3 4

11 12

AP 5 6 7 8 9 10

ARF operation

Data Transmission at 11Mbps

Data Transmission at 5.5Mbps

ACK Transmission at 2Mbps

ACK Transmission at 1Mbps

13 14 15 16

9/14

rSNR of MS

11Mbps

5.5Mbps

2Mbps

1Mbps

MS

RARA operation

1 2 3

13 14

AP

MS

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

15

16 17 18 19

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Simulation SetupSimulation Setup

§ ns-2 simulator§ 802.11b PHY & indoor environment

• Empirical BER vs. SNR curves (by Intersil)

• Transmission power: 15 dBm

10/14

• Background noise level: -94 dBm

• Large scale model: Shadowing model (path-loss exponent of 4)

• Small scale model: Ricean fading model (RiceanK 3 dBm)

• Basic rate set: 1 and 2 Mbps

• LLC/IP/UDP, MSDU length: 1500bytes, Saturated traffic

§ Testing schemes

• ARF, Adaptive-ARF(AARF), CARA

• RARA, RARA+CARA

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Simulation Results (1/3)Simulation Results (1/3)

§ One-to-one topology with various distance§ From 5 to 60 meters

11/14

§ From 5 to 60 meters

§ Throughput curve of RA schemes follows the outer envelope of those of single-rate schemes

§ RARA achieves better throughput over the entire range

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Simulation Results (2/3)Simulation Results (2/3)

§ Star topology with varying number of contending stations§ ARF and AARF shows § ARF and AARF shows

poor performance• Not able to differentiate

collisions from channel errors

§ RARA performs better than CARA• CARA acts the same with

ARF to decide when to increase Tx rate

12/14hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Simulation Results (3/3)Simulation Results (3/3)

§ One-to-one topology with varying Ricean parameter Kparameter K§ Every scheme performs

better as K increases

§ RARA achieves better than others for the entire range of K

13/14hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

ConclusionConclusion

§ We proposed a novel rate adaptation scheme,§ Receiver controls the ACK transmission rate as a means to

dictate the sender to adjust data transmission rate

§ Responsive to time-varying wireless channel owing to the accurate and instant feedback

14/14

§accurate and instant feedback

§ Compared with previous closed-loop schemes, adjusting ACK transmission rate is not costly

§ Future Works§ Analytical study

§ Comparison with closed-loop scheme e.g. RBAR

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Any Questions?Any Questions?

15/16

Thank you!!Thank you!!

hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.krIEEE CCNC 2008

Modified NAV operationModified NAV operation

IEEE CCNC 2008 hkjung@mmlab.snu.ac.kr 16/16