Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
Congestion Control in ATM Networks and the Internet 125The most widely accepted notion of fairness is the max-min fairnesscriterion, and it is defined asτ⎛ M l ⎞a− ⎜ i + MR⎝⎜∑τ∑⎟i i ⎠⎟= 1 = 1Fair share = MRp+(3.76)τN−Mlwhere MRpis the minimum rate for a source p, ∑ i=1 MR is the sum of minimumrates of l active sources at the ingress node, a is the total availablebandwidth on the link, N is the number of active sources, and τ is theτsum of bandwidth of M active sources bottlenecked elsewhere. Note thatin many cases, the number of controllable sources is not accurately knownand, hence, the proposed scheme also can be used to alter some real-timetraffic as the real-time video is compressed and can tolerate boundeddelays.3.6.4 Simulation ScenariosTo show the performance of the proposed rate-based end-to-end congestioncontrol algorithm, we test it in the following scenarios.Example 3.6.1: Single SourceFigure 3.22a to Figure 3.22d show the plot of CBR traffic with time fora single source. The bandwidth of each link is 2 Mbps. The bottleneckbuffer size is taken at 10 packets. The bottleneck link delay is 2 msec,other link delays are at 10 msec. In the simulations, the bandwidth ofbottleneck Link0 between the routers was reduced from 2 to 0.5 Mbpsand various performance measures were observed in the Link0. Theassociated cumulative packets loss is shown in Figure 3.22a, the bufferutilization is shown in Figure 3.22b, the PLR is shown in Figure 3.22c,and network utilization is shown in Figure 3.22d. From this figure, itis clear that during congestion, the packets are stored in the buffer toprevent losses. When the bandwidth of the links between the nodes isreduced to 25%, the delay is significant as the control scheme appearsto minimize losses. Further, the losses happen only during transientconditions whereas no losses are observed during steady state. Finally,when there is no congestion, the time to transmit all the packets tookapproximately 60 msec more than without feedback because of packet
126 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks50454035CPL (packets)3025201510500 10 20 30 40Time:(s)50 60 70 80(a) Cumulative packet loss.1009080Buffer utilization (%)7060504030201000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time:(s)(b) Buffer utilization.FIGURE 3.22Performance in TQ scheme with single source: (a) cumulative packet loss, (b) buffer utilization,(c) PLR, and (d) network utilization.
- Page 98 and 99: Background 75Evaluating the first d
- Page 100: Background 77Section 2.4Problem 2.4
- Page 103 and 104: 80 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 105 and 106: 82 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 107 and 108: 84 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 109 and 110: 86 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 111 and 112: 88 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 113 and 114: 90 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 115 and 116: 92 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 117 and 118: 94 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 119 and 120: 96 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 121 and 122: 98 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netwo
- Page 123 and 124: 100 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 125 and 126: 102 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 127 and 128: 104 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 129 and 130: 106 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 131 and 132: 108 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 133 and 134: 110 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 135 and 136: 112 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 137 and 138: 114 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 139 and 140: 116 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 141 and 142: 118 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 143 and 144: 120 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 145 and 146: 122 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 147: 124 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 151 and 152: 128 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 153 and 154: 130 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 155 and 156: 132 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 157 and 158: 134 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 159 and 160: 136 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 161 and 162: 138 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 163 and 164: 140 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 165 and 166: 142 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 167 and 168: 144 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 170 and 171: 4Admission Controller Design for Hi
- Page 172 and 173: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 174 and 175: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 176 and 177: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 178 and 179: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 180 and 181: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 182 and 183: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 184 and 185: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 186 and 187: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 188 and 189: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 190 and 191: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 192 and 193: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 194 and 195: Admission Controller Design for Hig
- Page 196 and 197: Admission Controller Design for Hig
Congestion Control in ATM <strong>Networks</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Internet 125The most widely accepted notion of fairness is the max-min fairnesscriterion, <strong>and</strong> it is defined asτ⎛ M l ⎞a− ⎜ i + MR⎝⎜∑τ∑⎟i i ⎠⎟= 1 = 1Fair share = MRp+(3.76)τN−Mlwhere MRpis the minimum rate for a source p, ∑ i=1 MR is the sum of minimumrates of l active sources at the ingress node, a is the total availableb<strong>and</strong>width on the link, N is the number of active sources, <strong>and</strong> τ is theτsum of b<strong>and</strong>width of M active sources bottlenecked elsewhere. Note thatin many cases, the number of controllable sources is not accurately known<strong>and</strong>, hence, the proposed scheme also can be used to alter some real-timetraffic as the real-time video is compressed <strong>and</strong> can tolerate boundeddelays.3.6.4 Simulation ScenariosTo show the performance of the proposed rate-based end-to-end congestioncontrol algorithm, we test it in the following scenarios.Example 3.6.1: Single SourceFigure 3.22a to Figure 3.22d show the plot of CBR traffic with time fora single source. The b<strong>and</strong>width of each link is 2 Mbps. The bottleneckbuffer size is taken at 10 packets. The bottleneck link delay is 2 msec,other link delays are at 10 msec. In the simulations, the b<strong>and</strong>width ofbottleneck Link0 between the routers was reduced from 2 to 0.5 Mbps<strong>and</strong> various performance measures were observed in the Link0. Theassociated cumulative packets loss is shown in Figure 3.22a, the bufferutilization is shown in Figure 3.22b, the PLR is shown in Figure 3.22c,<strong>and</strong> network utilization is shown in Figure 3.22d. From this figure, itis clear that during congestion, the packets are stored in the buffer toprevent losses. When the b<strong>and</strong>width of the links between the nodes isreduced to 25%, the delay is significant as the control scheme appearsto minimize losses. Further, the losses happen only during transientconditions whereas no losses are observed during steady state. Finally,when there is no congestion, the time to transmit all the packets tookapproximately 60 msec more than without feedback because of packet