Performance Evaluation of the IEEE MAC for QoS Claudio Cicconetti, Alessandro Erta, Luciano Lenzini, and Enzo Mingozzi IEEE Transactions On Mobile Computing, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JAN Outline Background Simulation Environment Performance Evaluation Conclusions Introduction This paper focus following Frame-based point-to-multipoint mode The BS in a Time Division Multiple Access Full-duplex Subscribe Stations IEEE Bandwidth request mechanisms unsolicited requests unicast polls broadcast/multicast polls, and piggybacking Simulation Environment The simulator is event-driven and was developed using C++ Performance Metrics gross subframe utilization The ratio between the OFDM symbols utilized in a subframe for data transmission Throughput the overall amount of net user data transfer delay a packet arrives at the MAC connection buffer of the source node to the next protocol layer at the destination node backlog gap difference between the BSs estimate of the backlog of a connection notification delay a new SDU is received by an SS and the time instant at which the BS receives a bandwidth request for this SDU BS and SS Schedulers Uplink Weighted Round Robin Downlink Deficit Round Robin Bandwidth Requests Management When BE or nrtPS becomes busy contention-based bandwidth request When SS has a busy connections piggybacking rtPS static allocation of periodic unicast polls ex: video 33ms VoIP 20ms nrtPS with unicast polls every 500ms Simulation Name N = S x C x W W : identical basic data sources C : connections per direction S : overall number of stations Simulation Parameters Repeat 20 times Run was 1200s Warmup period of 360s 95% confidence interval Performance Evaluation Throughput and Delay Analysis Bandwidth Request Analysis Evaluation of Multimedia Traffic Average delay VS number of SSs Minimum traffic unit is 147Kb/s (6 Web) Offered load is N x 147Kb/s (Best Effort) Throughput VS number of SSs DL : Management overhead UL : Contention Slot overhead Offered Load Partitioning The offered load N increase 10 to 90 6 WEB source (24.5 x 6 ~=147Kb/s) Utilization VS offered load Contention Slot BW min = 7 Throughput VS offered load Physical preambles Bandwidth Request Analysis Nc : a broadcast poll Np : piggybacked on PDUs Number of bandwidth requests per uplink subframe VS offered load N c : contention req. N p : piggybacked req. N > 50, N c Almost negligible Average delay VS BW min Capacity reserved for Contention bw-req Throughput VS BW min Evaluation of Multimedia Traffic The minimum traffic unit is 71.5Kb/s VoIP traffic has not reported in the paper CDF of the delay in the conn, source and SS cases with 30/60/90 videoconference sources the SS case incurs more overheads due to the transmission of a higher number of physical preambles compared to the conn and source cases in the conn case, the BS might schedule an uplink grant to another connection j before the unicast poll to connection i is due Notification delay VS offered load piggybacking/bandwidth stealing mechanisms for source and conn 95% of the delay VS offered load Backlog error VS time with 160 videoconference sources Conclusion There is a trade-off between average delay and throughput SSs are able to request uplink bandwidth to the BS efficiently using piggybacked bandwidth request Finally, paper have shown that rtPS outperforms nrtPS in terms of delay