The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.04 - April (2009 vol.8)
pp: 514-527
Chi Pan Chan , The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Soung Chang Liew , The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
An Chan , The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
This paper investigates the many-to-one throughput capacity (and by symmetry, one-to-many throughput capacity) of IEEE 802.11 multihop networks, in which many sources send data to a sink. An example of a practical scenario is that of a multihop mesh network connecting source and relay nodes to an Internet gateway. In the trivial case where all source nodes are just one hop from the sink, the system throughput can approach L_{s}, where L_{s} is the throughput capacity of an isolated link consisting of just one transmitter and one receiver. In the nontrivial case where some source nodes are more than one hop away, one can still achieve a system throughput of L_{s} by sacrificing and starving the non-one-hop source nodes—however, this degenerates to an unacceptable trivial solution. We could approach the problem by the following partitioning: preallocate some link capacity aL_{s} (0 \leq a \leq 1) at the sink to the one-hop source nodes and then determine the throughput for the source nodes that are two or more hops away based on the remaining capacity L = (1 - a)L_{s}. The throughput of the one-hop nodes will be around aL_{s}. This paper investigates the extent to which the remaining capacity L can be used efficiently by the source traffic that is two or more hops away. We find that for such source traffic, a throughput of L is not achievable under 802.11. We introduce the notion of "canonical networks,” a general class of regularly structured networks that allow us to investigate the system throughput by varying the distances between nodes and other operating parameters. When all links have equal length, we show that 2L/3 is the upper bound for general networks, including random topologies and canonical networks. When the links are allowed to have different lengths, we show that the throughput capacity of canonical networks has an analytical upper bound of 3L/4. The tightness of the bound is confirmed by simulations of 802.11 canonical networks, in which we obtain simulated throughputs of 0.74L when the source nodes are two hops away and 0.69L when the source nodes are many hops away. We conjecture that 3L/4 is also the upper bound for general networks. Our simulations show that 802.11 networks with random topologies operated with AODV routing typically achieve throughputs far below 3L/4. Fortunately, by properly selecting routes near the gateway (or by properly positioning the relay nodes leading to the gateway) to fashion after the structure of canonical networks, the throughput can be improved by more than 150 percent: indeed, in a dense network, deactivating some of the relay nodes near the sink can lead to a higher throughput.
Wireless mesh networks, many-to-one, one-to-many, data-gathering networks, 802.11, Wi-Fi, multihop networks.
Chi Pan Chan, Soung Chang Liew, An Chan, "Many-to-One Throughput Capacity of IEEE 802.11 Multihop Wireless Networks", IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol.8, no. 4, pp. 514-527, April 2009, doi:10.1109/TMC.2008.130
[1] Wikipedia—IEEE 802.11s, IEEE_802.11s , 2008.
[2] P. Gupta and P.R. Kumar, “The Capacity of Wireless Networks,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 46, Mar. 2000.
[3] D. Marco, E.J. Duarte-Melo, M. Liu, and D.L. Neuhoff, “On the Many-to-One Transport Capacity of a Dense Wireless Sensor Network and the Compressibility of Its Data,” Proc. Second Int'l Workshop Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN '03), pp.1-16, Apr. 2003.
[4] E.J. Duarte-Melo and M. Liu, “Data-Gathering Wireless Sensor Networks: Organization and Capacity,” Computer Networks, vol. 43, pp. 519-537, Nov. 2003.
[5] IEEEStd 802.11, Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE CS LAN MAN Standards Committee, 1997.
[6] L.B. Jiang, “Improving Capacity and Fairness by Elimination of Exposed and Hidden Nodes in 802.11 Networks,” master's thesis, Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, June 2005.
[7] L.B. Jiang and S.C. Liew, “Removing Hidden Nodes in IEEE “Hidden-Node Removal and Its Application in Cellular WiFi Networks”,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp.2641-2654, Sept. 2007.
[8] P.C. Ng and S.C. Liew, “Throughput Analysis of IEEE 802.11 Multi-Hop Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 309-322, Apr. 2007.
[9] Wireless Communication Principles and Practice. IEEE Press, 2008.
[10] The Network Simulator NS-2,, 2008.
[11] L.B. Jiang and S.C. Liew, “Improving Throughput and Fairness by Reducing Exposed and Hidden Nodes in 802.11 Networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 34-49, Jan. 2008.
[12] C.P. Chan, S.C. Liew, and A. Chan, “Many-to-One Throughput Capacity of IEEE 802.11 Multi-hop Wireless Networks,” technical report, Dept. of Information Eng., The Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, appendix, to_one , 2008.
[13] K. Jain et al., “Impact of Interference on Multi-Hop Wireless Network Performance,” Proc. ACM MobiCom, Sept. 2003.
19 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool