Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Design and Analysis of Data Communication Problems in
Bluetooth Wireless Personal-Area Networks
Ting-Yu Lin (林亭佑 )
Department of Communication Engineering
National Chiao-Tung University, Bun Lab.
2
Agenda
Bluetooth Standard Overview Talk Structure Piconet Issues Addressing (Parts I & II) Scatternet Problems Resolving (Parts III & IV) Conclusions Future Directions References
3
Bluetooth Standard Overview
Master-driven short-range wireless radio technology Operate at 2.4 GHz unlicensed ISM band TDD/FHSS with nominal rate 1600 hops/sec and 23/79 fre
quencies available, each of 1 Mbps symbol rate Transmission range: 10, up to 100 meters Physical links:
- SCO (Synchronous Connection-Oriented) for voice
slot reservation at fixed intervals
- ACL (Asynchronous ConnectionLess) for data
polling access scheme
4
Bluetooth Standard Overview
Bluetooth protocol stack Addressing
- 48-bit Bluetooth Device Address (BD_ADDR)
- 3-bit Active Member Address (AM_ADDR)
- 8-bit Parked Member Address (PM_ADDR)
Four operational modes
- Active, Sniff, Hold, Park
5
Bluetooth Network Topology
Piconet
- Master can connect to at most 7 active/sniff/hold slaves simultaneously
per piconet
Scatternet
- Interconnecting multiple piconets to form a larger network
Bridge
Bridge
6
Packets Exchange Scenario
MASTER
SLAVE 1
SLAVE 2
SLAVE 3
ACLSCO SCO SCO SCOACLACL ACL
7
Bluetooth Frequency Hopping
8
Talk Structure
BlueRing-RelatedIssues
PiconetSniff Scheduling
(sniff mode)
PiconetPolling Policy(active mode)
Inter-PiconetCo-Channel Interference
Collision Analysis
Part I
Sniff Scheduling for Power Saving
< Low-power sniff mode in Bluetooth specification >
Slot pair
10
Sniff Scheduling
Problem Statement- Open issue: how to determine the sniff-related parameters based on
different traffic loads?- Goal: balancing tradeoff between power conservation and
traffic need
Deficiencies of Previous Works- Each slave is considered independently of others
- Most works are restricted to a naive exponential adjustment in either sniff interval or active window- The placement of active windows on the time axis when multiple sniffed slaves are involved is ignored
11
Sniff Scheduling
Architecture of Our Sniff Scheduling Protocol
LM Evaluator
LM Evaluator
LM Evaluator
Evaluator for Slave1
Evaluator for Slave2
Evaluator for SlavekResource
Pool
Scheduler
S1
SkSearching
S1
S2
Sk
Slave 1
Slave 2
Slave k
Master
.
.
.
.
.
.
Link Manager(LM)
S2
sniff related LMP packets
12
Sniff timing for slave k (unit = slot pair)
Basic Idea
Awake
Sleep
20
60
20 20 20 20
Slot occupancy = (active window size) / (sniff interval)
Our Evaluator is performed periodically to check the slot utilization status and determine an appropriate slot occupancy (reduction/increase/no change) for slave k
= 20/60 = 1/3
Evaluation Period
13
Evaluator
• Uk: the slot utilization of the sniff-attempt slots assigned to slave k. • Bk: the buffer backlog for slave k, indicating the number of packets currently qu
eued in the local Baseband buffer.• Wk: a weighted value derived from Uk and Bk to indicate the utilization ratio of t
ime slots assigned to slave k.
Bmax is the maximum buffer space and 0 ≦ α ≦ 1
Wk = βWk’ + (1-β) Wk Wk
’ is the history value, 0 ≦ β ≦ 1
• Tk,Nk,Ok: the current sniff parameters (sniff interval, active window size, and offset, respectively) associated with slave k.
• Sk: the desired slot occupancy of slave k derived by the following equation. This value is the expected ratio of the new Nk to the new Tk.
where 0 < δ < 1
14
Evaluator for slave k
Uk
Bk/Bmax
Calculator X (factor α)
Calculator Y (factor δ)
Wk Sk
Example Awake
Sleep
20
60
20 20 20 20
Evaluation Period
Uk = 16 (used) / 80 (reserved) = 0.2
Bk/Bmax = 7 (queued) / 50 (buffer size) = 0.14
Wk = 0.5 x 0.2 + 0.5 x 0.14 = 0.17α= 0.5
Sk = 0.17 x 1/3 (slot occupancy) / 0.8 = 0.07δ= 0.8
= 1/15
15
Evaluator for slave k
Possible sniff timings to satisfy 1/15 slot occupancy
15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30
2 2 2 2 2
4
60
4 4
8
120
8
16
Resource Pool (RP)20
60
20 20 20 20
Slave1
7 7
120
7
Slave2
120(max. sniff interva
l)
1-D
infinite vector V
2-D
finite matrix M
15 (min. sniff interval)
Recall that the Evaluator for Slave1 concludes that its slot occupancy
should be reduced from 1/3 to 1/15 Possible scheduling
Scheduling Policy
Slave1 must first give back the 1/3 slot occupancy
Scheduler tries to find a sniff pattern satisfying
1/15 slot occupancyOr 2/30
Or 4/60
Or 8/120 Two scheduling policies are proposed
- LSIF (Longest Sniff Interval First), which starts searching with the longest interval
- SSIF (Shortest Sniff Interval First), which starts searching with the shortest interval
18
Experimental Environment
2-state MMPP traffic model 5 slaves in the piconet α = 0.7 δ = 0.5 Resource Pool (RP) size = 100 x 4 = 400 (slot pairs)
19
AA: Always Active with Round Robin polling policy
AS_VSI: Always Sniff Varying Sniff Interval
AS_VAW:Always Sniff Varying Active Window
With Buffer Size ≧ 30
Our LSIF/SSIF achieve
(Compared to AA)
37 % reduction in
power consumption 16 % improvement in
throughput
(a) Power Consumption
(b) Throughput
Buffer Size Bmax
Buffer Size Bmax
20
Summary of Contributions
Features of Proposed Solution
- An adaptive sniff scheduling scheme is proposed to
consider multiple slaves simultaneously.
- Our scheduling is more accurate in determining the sniff-
related parameters based on slaves’ traffic loads.
- Our proposal includes the placement of active windows
of sniffed slaves on the time axis.
Part II
Link Polling Policy by Pattern Matching
Observations
1. Few works consider the asymmetric up-/down-link traffics between master and slave.
2. The incorporation of packet type selection into polling policy remains unaddressed before this work.
22
Pattern Matching Polling (PMP) This work focuses on the Bluetooth ACL link.
Assuming error-free, only DH1/3/5 are considered. Bandwidth Efficiency β is defined as the number of payload bytes
per non-empty slot.
β
23
Motivation (A Naive Greedy Polling Example)
Bandwidth Efficiency
β = (16*(20+2)) / (5+3) = 44
unit = bytes/slot
24β = (26*(20+2)) / (5+3+1+1) = 57.2 (23% improvement)
Motivation (A Pattern Matching Polling Example)
Bandwidth Efficiency
25
Two problems need further elaboration in PMP:
Pattern Matching Polling (PMP)
1. How to determine a most bandwidth efficient polling pattern?
2. Given a most efficient pattern, how to schedule polling timings?
26
Parameters- Consider a master-slave pair with λM and λS (bytes/slot) as their traffic loads.
- Let λH = max{λM , λS}, λL = min{λM , λS}, and ratio ρ = λH / λL.
- Denote by NH and NL the units with loads λH and λL , respectively.
- Use numbers 1/3/5 to represent DH1/DH3/DH5 packets.
- A polling pattern is a sequence of packet types that will be exchanged by a
master-slave pair.
Polling Patterns
27
28
Polling Patterns
A length-k pattern (k is a positive integer) consists of two k-tuples: (H1, H2, …, Hk) and (L1, L2, …, Lk), where Hi , Li = 1, 3, or 5, each representing a packet type.
Intuitively, the sequence of packets (H1, L1, H2, L2, …, Hk, Lk) will be exchanged by NH and NL, and the sequence will be repeated periodically, as long as the ratio ρ is unchanged and there is no bursty traffic.
29
Impact of Pattern Length
As k grows, the number of offered traffic ratios ρ will increase exponentially.
30
Bandwidth Efficiency
Given traffic loads λH and λL of a master-slave pair, we propose to select the polling pattern that gives the highest bandwidth efficiency β for use.
31
Let j be a positive integer ≦ k (within one iteration of the pattern)
Polling Timings
Γ1 Γ2 Γk
Reference point
32
Based on λH and λL, the most efficient polling pattern (5, 3) (1, 1) is selected. Γ1 = 16, Γ2 = 26, β = 57.2 (23% improvement)
Note that an overflow bit is also implemented in our PMP policy to prevent buffer overloading when bursty traffic occurs.
Pattern Matching Polling Example
Γ1 Γ2
33
Experimental Environment
7 active slaves in a piconet Buffer size for each slave = 2048 bytes Three other polling strategies are implemented
- NGP: Naive Greedy Polling (p.23)
- ERR: Exhaustive Round Robin(ref. A. Capone et. al.)
- StickyAFP: Sticky Adaptive Flow-based Polling(ref. A. Das et. al.)
34
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Piconet Traffic Load λ (bytes/slot)
Pic
onet
Thr
ough
put
(Kbp
s)
PMP (K=3)
PMP (K=5)
NGP
StickyAFP
ERR
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Piconet Traffic Load λ (bytes/slot)
Ave
rage
Del
ay(m
s)
PMP (K=3)
PMP (K=5)
NGP
StickyAFP
ERR
K: max. allowable
pattern length
(a) Piconet Throughput
(b) Average Delay
When λ≧ 65 (bytes/slot)
Our PMP achieves
(Compared to NGP)
17 % improvement in
throughput 14 % reduction in
average delay
35
Summary of Contributions
Features of Proposed Solution
- An efficient Pattern Matching Polling (PMP) policy is
proposed to handle asymmetric up-/down-link traffics
and exploit different Bluetooth packet types.
- The ultimate goal is to reduce the unfilled, or even null,
payloads in each busy slot.
When multiple links (master-slave pairs) exist, bandwidth efficiency of each single link does determine the max. allowable throughput within a piconet (piconet capacity).
Part III
BlueRing:A New Scatternet Topology for Bluetooth
37
BlueRing
Scatternet Structure Routing Protocol Topology Maintenance Mechanism
38
Motivation
Deficiencies of Previous Works
- Most star- or tree-shaped scatternet topologies suffer
from a communication bottleneck at the root as the
network enlarges.
- How to route packets once the scatternet is formed
remains unaddressed.
- Topology maintenance (fault-tolerance) issues are
not properly addressed.
39
BlueRing Structure
Upstream/Downstream Piconet Upstream/Downstream Master Upstream/Downstream Bridge
Master/Bridge interleaving
40
BlueRing Routing Protocol
General baseband packet format
Payload header formats: (a) single-slot packets and (b) multi-slot packets
41
BlueRing Routing Protocol Payload formats in BlueRing: (a) single-hop unicast communication,
(b) multi-hop unicast communication, and (c) scatternet broadcast communication
The fields in gray are what added by BlueRing
42
BlueRing Recovery Protocol We propose to use 2 DIACs (from 63 reserved DIACs), say DIAC1 and
DIAC2, to facilitate BlueRing recovery/extension. The general GIAC will be used to invite new hosts to join an existing Bl
ueRing. Bridge missing recovery: (a) DIAC1 discovering and (b) the reconnected
BlueRing.
43
Master missing recovery: (a) DIAC1 discovering and (b) the reconnected BlueRing.
BlueRing Recovery Protocol
44
BlueRing Extension Protocol
In BlueRing, each master should execute GIAC inquiry from time to time.
When the number of slaves belonging to a master exceeds a certain limit, sayα(α≧ 4), we will split it into two piconets.
The master should send out a split_request token to obtain split permission from all other masters (concurrent splitting avoidance).
45
(b)
Once the split request is approved by all piconets on the ring, the master detaches its upstream bridge and two non-bridge slaves.
A BlueRing extension example with α= 4
(a)
(c)
46
Experimental Environment
Only DH1 packets are simulated No mobility is modeled Each ACL connection could be intra- or inter-pico
net communication with data rate of 256K bps
47
Simulated topologies with 21 hosts
(a) Star-shaped structure with a piconet as the central gateway
(b) BlueRing with 3 piconets, each containing 7 slaves
(c) Single-piconet structure containing all 21 nodes in a single piconet (park mode is used)
( a )
( b )
48
(a) Throughput
(21 % increased, compared to Star-shaped)
(b) Average packet delays
(38 % reduced, compared to Star-shaped)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Simultaneous Connections (Traffic Load)
Ave
rage
Pac
ket D
elay
s(S
ec.)
BlueRing
Star-shaped
Single-piconet
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Simultaneous Connections (Traffic Load)
Thr
ough
put
(Kbp
s)
BlueRing
Star-shaped
Single-piconet
49
Summary of Contributions
Features of Proposed Solution
- Routing on BlueRing is stateless.
- BlueRing architecture is simple and scalable.
- Maintaining a BlueRing is an easy job.
Part IV
Collision Analysisfor a Multi-Piconet Environment
51
Collision Analysis(Multi-Piconet Environment)
Problem Statement
- Co-channel interference between Bluetooth piconets could have negative impact on the network throughput.
52
Motivation
Limitations of Previous Works (ref. A. El-Hoiydi et. al.)
- Only single-slot packets are considered.
- It is assumed that each piconet is fully-loaded. Thus, the results do not reflect general scenarios.
53
Analysis Approach
- Consider DH1/3/5 packets that lack for FEC error tolerance, and assume that they occupy the whole 1-slot, 3-slot, and 5-slot space, respectively.
- For N coexisting piconets, we first analyze the packet success probability for two interfering piconets that are neither time- nor frequency-synchronized.
Collision Analysis(Multi-Piconet Environment)
Goal- Derive the theoretical packet error probability and aggregate network throughput for a N-piconet environment.
54
Collision Analysis
Assume that all piconets have homogeneous packet arrival rates: λ1 for DH1, λ3 for DH3, and λ5 for DH5 (0 ≦λi ≦ 1 for i = 1, 3, and 5).
- Case I: fully-loaded traffic (λ1 + 3λ3 + 5λ5 = 1)
- Case II: non fully-loaded traffic (λ1 + 3λ3 + 5λ5 < 1)
Create a dummy 1-slot packet with arrival rate λ0 to represent an empty slot, where
55
Example with Fully-Loaded Traffic Parameters
- P0 = 78/79
- PS(i): the success probability for an i-slot packet Concept
- PS(1) = 1/9 . P0 . P0 (B1) + 1/9 . P0 . P0 (B2)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B3)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B4)
+ 1/9 . P0 . P0 (B5)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B6)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B7)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B8)
+ 1/9 . P0 (B9)
= 3/9 P02 + 6/9 P0
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9
Slot delimiters
1-slot 3-slot packet 5-slot packet
B?
Assuming λ1 =λ3 =λ5, the possibility of
each slot delimiter
A general probabilistic formula for PS(i) can be derived
56
Collision Analysis
Slot delimiters General formula
Possibility of each slot delimiter
57
Collision Analysis
can be solved recursively as follows:
58
Collision Analysis
Examples
Network throughput of X (a piconet)
Aggregate network throughput of N piconets is N × T
f(1) f(3)
59
Experimental Environment
79 channels are available DH1/3/5 packets are simulated Equal arrival rates for DH1/3/5 packets
(λ1 = λ3 = λ5)
60
N: number of piconets
The results suggest that when N > 42, network throughput starts to degrade as traffic load > 50%
Aggregate Network Throughput against traffic loads for various network sizes (N)
61
Summary of Contributions
Features of Proposed Analysis
- All available packet types (1-slot, 3-slot, and 5-slot) are
considered.
- Each piconet is not necessarily fully-loaded.
62
Conclusions
Sniff Scheduling (piconet)
- Pioneer work to 1. Consider multiple slaves simultaneously when assigning sniff parameters,
2. Schedule different sniff patterns to slaves with different traffic loads,
based on accurate calculation of traffic requirement.
Pattern Matching Polling (piconet)
- Pioneer work to 1. Address the asymmetric up-/down-link traffics between master and slave,
2. Incorporate packet type selection into polling policy.
63
Conclusions (Cont.)
BlueRing (scatternet)
- Pioneer work to propose a scatternet structure with corresponding 1. Simple stateless routing protocol and
2. Structure maintenance mechanism to handle node leaving/joining.
Collision Analysis (multi-piconet environment)
- Pioneer work to 1. Consider all packet types (1-slot, 3-slot, and 5-slot) and
2. Remove the assumption that each piconet is fully-loaded
in the analysis model.
64
Future Directions
Compaction/Re-organization strategies for the Resource Pool (sniff scheduling)
BlueRing performance analysis considering inter-piconet interference
A real implementation of the proposed BlueRing scatternet - Hardware support is uncertain (e.g., bridge functionality)
65
References
1. Ting-Yu Lin and Yu-Chee Tseng, “An Adaptive Sniff Scheduling
Scheme for Power Saving in Bluetooth,” IEEE Wireless
Communications, Dec. 2002.
2. Ting-Yu Lin, Yu-Chee Tseng, and Yuan-Ting Lu, “An Efficient
Link Polling Policy by Pattern Matching for Bluetooth Piconets,”
The Computer Journal (SCI), 2003.
3. Ting-Yu Lin, Yu-Chee Tseng, and Keng-Ming Chang, “Formation,
Routing, and Maintenance Protocols for the BlueRing Scatternet of
Bluetooths,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2003.
4. Ting-Yu Lin and Yu-Chee Tseng, “Collision Analysis for a Multi-
Bluetooth Picocells Environment,” IEEE Communications Letters, 2004.