Design, Implementation and Evaluation of an Efficient Opportunistic Retransmission Protocol
description
Transcript of Design, Implementation and Evaluation of an Efficient Opportunistic Retransmission Protocol
Design, Implementation and Evaluation of an Efficient Opportunistic
Retransmission ProtocolMei-Hsuan Lu Peter Steenkiste Tsuhan Chen
MobiCom 09
Outline
• Introduction• Estimating link quality• Protocol design• Collision and fairness• Multi-rate PRO• Evaluation
Introduction
• PRO - Protocol for Retransmitting Opportunistically
• IEEE 802.11 WLAN• S<->D distance
S
R
D
Estimating link quality
• Monitor success or failure of probe messages– Respond slowly to channel dynamics– Require extra bandwidth
• Monitor SNR of packets at receiver– – RSSI (received signal strength indicator)• Noisy• Thh
Estimating link quality
Protocol design
• Relay qualification• Relay selection• Relay prioritization• Retransmission
Protocol design
• Relay qualification– Relay->destination ≠ destination->relay– Thh, on-line calibration
• Relay selection (eligible relay)– Broadcast “I am qualified relay!”– Select the node has highest RSSI w.r.t destination– Add node nest highest …– Until the prob. of having a node hearing source >
threshold Thr
Protocol design
• Relay prioritization– Higher RSSI w.r.t destination -> higher priority -> smaller
CWmin(contention window size)
• Retransmission– Lack of ACK -> retransmit– Retransmission fail -> double CW, contend for channel
again– Terminate: an ACK heard or retry limit reached or a new
packet arrived– Re-ACK : to avoid collision, send “null” data packet
Collision and fairness
• Collision– Limiting number of eligible relays
• Fairness– More relays, more likely to gain access to channel– Mitigate unfairness: large initial CW, non uniform
selection of time slot in CW
Multi-rate PRO
• Rate adaption – reduce packet error rate by lowering bitrates (no relay)– SampleRate : probe-based– CHARM : SNR-based
• Combine PRO with CHARM– Transmission failed : eligible relay retransmit when
its rate ≥ source rate (having better link quality) – Aggressive rate selection
Evaluation
• Emulation– Static
• Overall• Per-relay
– Mobile– fairness
• Real world– Office building– Student lounge– 802.11g with multi-rate PRO
Emulation - static
• 3 environment scenarios– Freespace (outdoor)– Fading_k5 (small fading)– Fading_k0 (severe fading)
• 5 mechanisms– 802.11– 802.11 with CHARM– 802.11 with SampleRate– Mesh– Optimal PRO
Overall
Thr works well!
Per-relay
Emulation - mobile
SD
Emulation - fairness
S1 S2 D2D1
100m 100m
S1 S2 D2D1
100m 50m
Real world
• Office building– Night
• Student lounge– Day– Severe fading
• Experiment– 10 laptops as nodes– Take turns as the source and send packet to other 9
nodes one by one– Nodes other than source and destination serve as relay
High contention High fading
Real world – 802.11g with multi-rate PRO
High contention High fading