Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
Predictive Congestion Control for Wireless Sensor Networks 453120100Drop rate at the relay node for flow 1802.11Rate-basedDrop rate (Kbps)8060402000 5 10 15 20Time25 30 35 40FIGURE 9.7Drop rate at the relay node.0.50.4Rate-basedDPCWeight ∗ delay0.30.20.101 2 3 4 5Flow IDFIGURE 9.8Weighted delay with equal flow weights (const = 0.2).
454 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks0.50.4Rate-basedDPCWeight ∗ delay0.30.20.101 2 3 4 5Flow IDFIGURE 9.9Weighted delay with varying flow weights.plot should have equal values for all flows because the delay will beinversely proportional to the QoS parameter. The flows with higherweight value will have lower delay, and vice versa. Figure 9.8 showssimulation results for the case with equal flow weights. The proposedprotocol is fair for all flows, because it schedules packets and adjustsfeedback information using corresponding weights. Moreover, the endto-enddelays are smaller for the proposed protocol when compared tothe DPC protocol, because the congestion is mitigated and the packets aretransmitted without unnecessary delays. When the flow weights are varied,as in Figure 9.9, the DPC protocol becomes unfair because it does notdifferentiate between flows. By contrast, the proposed protocol maintainsfairness, because it can provide different service rates according to theflow weights. In general, the results for end-to-end delay are consistentwith the earlier throughput results.Example 9.4.2: Unbalanced Tree TopologyThe unbalanced tree topology consists of one flow (#1) being located closerto the destination and four flows (#2 to #5) located farther away from thedestination. Consequently, without adaptive weights, the first flow isfavored at the expense of the other four flows. In Figure 9.10, the throughput/weight(normalized weights) ratio for each flow is depicted. Theproposed protocol without weight adaptation performs better than the
- Page 426 and 427: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 428 and 429: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 430 and 431: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 432 and 433: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 434 and 435: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 436 and 437: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 438 and 439: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 440 and 441: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 442 and 443: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 444 and 445: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 446 and 447: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 448 and 449: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 450 and 451: Optimized Energy and Delay-Based Ro
- Page 452 and 453: 9Predictive Congestion Control for
- Page 454 and 455: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 456 and 457: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 458 and 459: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 460 and 461: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 462 and 463: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 464 and 465: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 466 and 467: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 468 and 469: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 470 and 471: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 472 and 473: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 474 and 475: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 478 and 479: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 480 and 481: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 482 and 483: Predictive Congestion Control for W
- Page 484 and 485: 10Adaptive and Probabilistic Power
- Page 486 and 487: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 488 and 489: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 490 and 491: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 492 and 493: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 494 and 495: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 496 and 497: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 498 and 499: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 500 and 501: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 502 and 503: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 504 and 505: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 506 and 507: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 508: Adaptive and Probabilistic Power Co
- Page 511 and 512: 488 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 513 and 514: 490 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 515 and 516: 492 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 517 and 518: 494 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 519 and 520: 496 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 521 and 522: 498 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 523 and 524: 500 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
- Page 525 and 526: 502 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Netw
454 <strong>Wireless</strong> <strong>Ad</strong> <strong>Hoc</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Sensor</strong> <strong>Networks</strong>0.50.4Rate-basedDPCWeight ∗ delay0.30.20.101 2 3 4 5Flow IDFIGURE 9.9Weighted delay with varying flow weights.plot should have equal values for all flows because the delay will beinversely proportional to the QoS parameter. The flows with higherweight value will have lower delay, <strong>and</strong> vice versa. Figure 9.8 showssimulation results for the case with equal flow weights. The proposedprotocol is fair for all flows, because it schedules packets <strong>and</strong> adjustsfeedback information using corresponding weights. Moreover, the endto-enddelays are smaller for the proposed protocol when compared tothe DPC protocol, because the congestion is mitigated <strong>and</strong> the packets aretransmitted without unnecessary delays. When the flow weights are varied,as in Figure 9.9, the DPC protocol becomes unfair because it does notdifferentiate between flows. By contrast, the proposed protocol maintainsfairness, because it can provide different service rates according to theflow weights. In general, the results for end-to-end delay are consistentwith the earlier throughput results.Example 9.4.2: Unbalanced Tree TopologyThe unbalanced tree topology consists of one flow (#1) being located closerto the destination <strong>and</strong> four flows (#2 to #5) located farther away from thedestination. Consequently, without adaptive weights, the first flow isfavored at the expense of the other four flows. In Figure 9.10, the throughput/weight(normalized weights) ratio for each flow is depicted. Theproposed protocol without weight adaptation performs better than the