Friday, September 17, 2010

Quality-Of-Service Scheduling for WiMAX Networks



Add a note hereNicola Scalabrino, D. Miorandi, Francesco De Pellegrini, R. Riggio, Imrich Chlamtac, and E. Gregori
Add a note hereThe broadband wireless world is moving toward the adoption of WiMAX (the commercial name of the IEEE 802.16 standard) as the standard for broadband wireless Internet access. This will open up a very large market for industry and operators, with a major impact on the way Internet access is conceived today. On the other hand, the emergence of innovative multimedia broadband services is going to impose severe quality of service (QoS) constraints on underlying network technologies. In this work, after a brief review of the IEEE 802.16 standard, we intend to present an in-depth discussion of its QoS support features. We point out the scheduling algorithm as the critical point in QoS provisioning over such networks, and discuss architectural and algorithmic solutions for an efficient support of multimedia flows. Performance measurements obtained from an experimental test-bed are also presented. The chapter concludes with a description of the key research challenges in the area, and provides a roadmap for the research in the field.

Introduction

Add a note hereThe IEEE 802.16 standard, promoted by the WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) forum, will be the leading technology for the wireless provisioning of broadband services in wide area networks. Such technology is going to have a deep impact on the way Internet access is conceived, by providing an effective wireless solution for the last mile problem.

Add a note hereThe market for conventional last mile solutions (e.g., cable, fiber, and so on) presents indeed high entrance barriers, and it is thus difficult for new operators to make their way into the field. This is due to the extremely high impact of laborintensive tasks (i.e., digging up the streets, stringing cables, and so on) that are required to put the necessary infrastructure into place. On the other hand, the market is experiencing an increasing demand for broadband multimedia services , pushing toward the adoption of broadband access technologies. In such a situation, broadband wireless access (BWA) represents an economically viable solution to provide Internet access to a large number of clients, thanks to its infrastructure-light architecture, which makes it easy to deploy services where and when it is needed. Furthermore, the adoption of ad hoc features, such as self-configuration capabilities in the Subscriber Stations (SSs) would make it possible to install customer premises equipment without the intervention of a specialized technician, so boosting the economical attractiveness of WiMAX-based solutions. In this context, WiMAX is expected to be the key technology for enabling the delivery of highspeed services to the end users.

Add a note hereTypical BWA deployments will rely on a point-to-multipoint (PMP) architecture, as depicted in Figure 1a, consisting of a single Base Station (BS) wirelessly interconnecting several SSs to an Internet gateway. The standard also supports, at least in principle, mesh-based architectures, like the one plotted in Figure 1b. While WiMAX-based mesh deployments could play a relevant role in the success of such technology, the current standard is far from off ering a real support to such architecture. Therefore, we intend to restrict the scope of our work to the PMP architecture only.


Add a note hereFigure 10.1: Typical WiMAX system configuration—(a) point-to-multipoint; (b) mesh.
Figure 10.1: Typical WiMAX system configuration—(a) point-to-multipoint; (b) mesh.
Add a note hereIn terms of raw performance, WiMAX technology is able to achieve data rates up to 75 Mb/s with a 20 MHz channel in ideal propagation conditions. But regulators will often allow only smaller channels (10 MHz or less) reducing the maximum bandwidth. Although 50 km distance is achievable under optimal conditions and with a reduced data rate (a few Mb/sec), the typical coverage will be around 5 km in non-line-of-sight conditions and around 15 km with an external antenna in a line-of-sight situation. Moreover, such a wide coverage makes it possible, and economically viable to provide broadband connectivity in rural and remote areas, a market which is usually not covered by traditional service providers.

Add a note hereThe fundamental requirements for WiMAX to define itself as a possible winning technology are data reliability and the ability to deliver multimedia contents. Indeed, the provision of QoS guarantees will be a pressing need in the next generation of Internet, to enable the introduction of novel broadband multimedia applications. Users are actually getting more and more interested in broadband applications (e.g., video streaming, video conferencing, online gaming, and so on) that require assurances in terms of throughput, packet delay and jitter, to perform well. This applies also to WiMAX networks, which have also to face all the problems related to the hostile wireless environment, where time-varying channels and power emission mask constraints make it difficult to provide hard QoS guarantees. This entails the definition of a Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol which is able to effectively support such multimedia applications, while on the other hand, it efficiently exploits the available radio resources. The IEEE 802.16 standard encompasses four classes of services, with different QoS requirements and provides the basic signaling between the BS and the SS to support service requests/grants. However, the scheduling algorithms to be employed in the BS and the SS are not specified and are left open for the manufacturers to compete.

Add a note hereIn this paper, after a brief review of the standard fundamentals, we will provide an in-depth overview and discussion on the QoS support provided by WiMAX technology. Particular attention will be devoted to scheduling algorithms for WiMAX networks. We will survey the existing literature, and point out some common issues involved in well-known technologies (e.g., wireless ATM), from which a system designer can draw to design an efficient scheduler without starting from scratch. Performance measurements obtained from an experimental test-bed are also presented. This chapter concludes with an overview of the actual research challenges, pointing out and detailing the most promising directions to pursue for research in this field.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Frame Structure and Bandwidth Management in the MESH Mode



The 802.16 network supports only time division duplex (TDD) in the MESH mode. Figure 1 shows the corresponding frame structure. The time axis is divided into frames of a specified length decided by the mesh BS. Each frame is in turn composed of a control subframe and a data subframe. There are two types of control subframes, namely the network control subframe and the schedule control subframe. Network control subframes are used to transmit network configuration information as well as to allow new nodes to register and join the network. The schedule control subframe is used by nodes to transmit scheduling information, and to request and grant bandwidth for transmission. All data transmissions take place in the data subframe using slots previously reserved by the node for transmission. The control subframe is divided into a number of transmission opportunities and the data subframe is divided into a number of minislots. The length of the control subframe depends on the mesh configuration in use. This decides the number of transmission opportunities in the control subframe and the number of minislots in the data subframe. The MESH mode supports coordinated centralized scheduling, and coordinated as well as uncoordinated distributed scheduling for allocating bandwidth for transmission on individual links in the MESH mode of operation. The mesh configuration specifies a maximum percentage of minislots in the data subframe allocated to centralized scheduling. The remainder of the data subframe as well as any minislots not occupied by the current centralized schedule can be used for distributed scheduling.


Figure 1: MESH frame structure. Abbreviations—MAC, Medium Access Control; PDU, protocol data units.


In centralized scheduling, the bandwidth is managed in a more centralized manner than when using distributed scheduling. Thus, although the computation of the actual transmission schedule is done by the individual nodes independently (in a distributed manner), the grants for each individual node are controlled centrally by the BS in coordinated centralized scheduling (also called centralized scheduling). The BS uses centralized scheduling to manage and allocate bandwidth for transmissions up and down the routing tree (scheduling tree, see Figure 2 for an example) from the BS to the SSs up to a specified maximum hop limit. The routing tree is advertised by the BS periodically using MSH-CSCF messages. The BS in the mesh network gathers resource requests from individual SSs within the maximum hop range. Each SS in the scheduling tree accumulates the requests from its children and adds to it its own requirement for uplink bandwidth before forwarding the request upwards along the scheduling tree (uplink here implies transmission along a link in the scheduling tree from a SS to another SS that is closer to the BS; downlink will be considered to be a transmission down the tree in the opposite direction). The BS collects all the requests and transmits the grants to its children. The grants for each individual SS are then propagated down the scheduling tree hop-by-hop. Nodes use MSH-CSCH messages to propagate requests and grants for centralized scheduling.


Figure 2: Overview of scheduling in the MESH mode.


The grants propagated to the SSs in the scheduling tree do not contain the actual schedule. Each SS computes the schedule using a predetermined algorithm and the parameters obtained from the grant. Using centralized scheduling, transmissions can be scheduled only along the links in the scheduling tree. To reserve bandwidth for transmission on links not in the scheduling tree, distributed scheduling has to be used.

Distributed scheduling is used by a node to reserve bandwidth for transmission on a link to any other neighboring node (also for links included in the centralized scheduling tree). Nodes use distributed scheduling to coordinate their transmissions in their two-hop neighborhood. The nodes use a distributed election algorithm to compete for transmission opportunities in the schedule control subframe. A pseudo-random function (the mesh election algorithm specified in the 802.16 standard), with the node IDs of the competitors and the transmission opportunity number as input determines the winning node. The losing nodes compete for the next DSCH transmission opportunity until they win. The parameter XmtHoldoffExponent of each node determines the magnitude of transmission opportunities a node has to wait after sending a distributed scheduling message (MSH-DSCH) in a won transmission opportunity. 

The mean time a node has to wait between two won transmission opportunities for distributed scheduling messages depends on the number of nodes in the two-hop neighborhood, the node's own XmtHoldoffExponent, and the network topology. It show that the time a node has to wait between two distributed scheduling transmission opportunities it wins increases with an increase in the number of two-hop neighbors and moreover with an increase in the value of the XmtHoldoffExponent.
When using coordinated distributed scheduling, the nodes broadcast their individual schedules (available bandwidth resources, bandwidth requests, and bandwidth grants) using transmission opportunities won by the node in the schedule control subframe. The mesh election algorithm ensures that when a node wins a transmission opportunity in the schedule control subframe for transmission, no other node in its two-hop neighborhood will simultaneously transmit. Thus, it is ensured that the scheduling information transmitted by a node in the schedule control subframe can be received by all of the nodes' neighbors. To enable a conflict-free schedule to be negotiated each node maintains the status of all individual minislots in the frame. A minislot at any point in time may be either in status available (node can receive or transmit data in minislot), receive available (node can only receive data in minislot), transmit available (node can only transmit data in the minislot), or unavailable (node may not transmit or receive data in the minislot).
The schedule negotiated using coordinated distributed scheduling is such that it does not lead to conflict with any of the existing data transmission schedules in the two-hop neighborhood of the transmitter. On the other hand, nodes can also establish their transmission schedule by directed uncoordinated requests and grants between two nodes. In contrast to coordinated distributed scheduling requests and grants which are sent in the schedule control subframe, the uncoordinated requests and grants are sent in the data subframe. The latter scheduling mechanism is called uncoordinated scheduling. When a node SS3 wants to reserve slots for transmission to a neighbor node SS4, they exchange scheduling information using slots in the data subframe reserved for transmissions between the two nodes (see Figure 2). Nodes individually need to ensure that their scheduled transmissions do not cause collisions with the data as well as with control traffic scheduled by any other node in their two-hop neighborhood. Transmissions in the data subframe using slots reserved for transmission to a particular neighbor may not be received by all the other neighbors due to other simultaneous transmissions. Thus, the schedule negotiated using the data subframe (uncoordinated scheduling) may not be known to all the neighbors of the nodes involved in the uncoordinated schedule. The neighbors of these nodes may then schedule conflicting transmissions due to lack of the previous uncoordinated schedule information. Hence, uncoordinated scheduling may lead to collisions and is not suitable for long-term bandwidth reservations. Nodes use MSH-DSCH messages to transmit the bandwidth requests grants and negotiate schedules when using distributed scheduling (both coordinated as well as uncoordinated distributed scheduling).

In contrast, centralized scheduling allows the setup of a transmission schedule for transmissions only along links in the scheduling tree, and hence, is not very suitable for enabling a wireless mesh network in the traditional sense. We next outline our novel proposed QoS architecture for bandwidth management in the MESH mode. Without loss of generality and to avoid confusion in the following discussion we assume that the nodes in the mesh network use only distributed scheduling.

The proposed QoS architecture using distributed scheduling is easily extensible and can be adapted for use in centralized scheduling, too. The proposed architecture uses a combination of coordinated distributed scheduling and uncoordinated distributed scheduling to efficiently manage the bandwidth in the network.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

QoS Support in the 802.16 MESH Mode

In stark contrast to the PMP mode, the QoS in MESH mode is provisioned on a packet-by-packet basis. Thus, the per-connection QoS provisioning using the DSx messages as introduced previously is not applicable. This design decision helps to reduce the complexity of implementing the MESH mode considerably. However, the MESH mode even with this simplification is quite complex.
Add a note hereThe CID in the MESH mode is shown in Figure 1. The mesh CID is used to differentiate the forwarding service a PDU should get at each individual node. As can be seen from Figure 1 it is possible to assign a priority to each MAC PDU. Based on the priority the transmission scheduler at a node can decide if a particular PDU should be transmitted before another. The field reliability specifies the number of retransmissions for the particular MAC PDU (if needed). The drop precedence specifies the dropping likelihood for a PDU during congestion. Messages with a higher drop precedence are more likely to be dropped. In effect, QoS specification for the MESH mode is limited to specifying the priority of a MAC PDU, the reliability, and its drop precedence. Given the same reliability and drop precedence and MAC PDU type (see Figure 1), the MAC will attempt to provide a lower delay to PDUs with higher priority. This QoS mechanism, however, does not allow the node to estimate the optimal bandwidth requirement for transmissions on a particular link. This is because (just based on the previous interpretation as presented in the 802.16 standard), the node is not able to identify the expected arrival characteristics of the traffic and classify it into the different categories as traffic requiring UGS, rtPS, nrtPS, or BE service.


Figure 1: MESH connection identifier (CID).
Add a note here
Add a note hereTo summarize, QoS mechanisms in the MESH mode are not consistent with those provided for the PMP mode. In addition, the per-packet QoS specification for the MESH mode does not allow a node to optimally estimate the amount of bandwidth required for transmission on a link, as no information about the data scheduling service required for the traffic is included explicitly in the QoS specification in the mesh CID.
Add a note hereWe next give an overview of the existing bandwidth request and grant mechanisms specified for the MESH mode of 802.16. This is followed by a description of our proposed QoS architecture, which enables efficient bandwidth management in the MESH mode and allows support of the data scheduling services consistent with those outlined for the PMP mode.

Related Posts with Thumbnails