understanding radio irregularity in wireless networks torsten mütze, eth zürich joint work with...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Radio Irregularity in Wireless Networks
Torsten Mütze, ETH Zürichjoint work with Patrick Stüdi, Fabian Kuhn and Gustavo Alonso
Outline
Motivation Network Model Connectivity Interference
Motivation
Ideal:- circular transmission rangePath Loss Model (deterministic)
Connectivity?Capacity?
More realistic:- obstacles in the transmission path- non-isotropic antennasLog-normal Shadowing Model (randomized)
50 100 150 200
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Network Model (1)
0.5 1 1.5 2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Network Model (2)Path Loss Model
0.5 1 1.5 2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Log-normal Shadowing Model
[Hekmat, Mieghem 06; Bettstetter, Hartmann 05; Miorandi, Altman 05; Orriss, Barton 03]
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Radio irregularity is controlled througha single parameter, the shadowing deviation
Connectivity (1)Connectivity: probability of the network graph to be connected
Biased Analysis: Connectivity increase is caused by a higher expected
node degree (=enlarged radio transmission range)How to do a fair comparison between different levels of radio irregularity?
Expected node degree
[Bettstetter, Hartmann 05]
Connectivity (2)Normalization!When increasing , vary thetransmission power p0 as afunction of such that theexpected node degree remainsconstant
[Jonasson 01], [Roy, Tanemura 02]
Why?Edge length distribution
Longer connections help
Surprise: Connectivity increases withirregularity, even under constant nodedegree
Interference limits the throughput capacity of a network [Stüdi, Alonso 06]
Interference (1)
Interferers: smallest set of nodes that must not transmit concurrently to the communication from b to a
signal
interference + noisethreshold
Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio model (SINR)
ab
pab
I interferers
non-interferersI
Expected number of interferers for fixed pab
Biased Analysis: Interference increase is caused by a higher cumulated noiseNormalization! Keep the expected cumulated noise constant when varyingExpected number of interferers for fixed pab
Interference (2)Expected cumulated noise
a
Why?Power density function
More nodes with small/largetransmission power (=more non-interferers)
Surprise: Interference decreases with irregularity (under constant expected cumulated noise)
Summary Studied impact of log-normal shadowing on
connectivity and interference First unbiased analysis: fair comparison between
different levels of radio irregularity Beneficial impact of log-normal shadowing on
both connectivity and interference (improved connectivity, reduced interference)
Existing bounds on connectivity and capacity derived in a circular transmission range model are lower instead of upper bounds
Thank you!