Medium Access Control protocols for ad hoc wireless...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ad Hoc Networks xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/adhoc

Medium Access Control protocols for ad hocwireless networks: a survey

Sunil Kumar a,*, Vineet S. Raghavan b, Jing Deng c

a Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699, United Statesb Digital Television Group, ATI Technologies Inc., Marlborough, MA 01752, United States

c Department of Computer Science, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, United States

Received 17 October 2003; received in revised form 13 September 2004; accepted 8 October 2004

Abstract

Studies of ad hoc wireless networks are a relatively new field gaining more popularity for various new applications.In these networks, the Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols are responsible for coordinating the access from activenodes. These protocols are of significant importance since the wireless communication channel is inherently prone toerrors and unique problems such as the hidden-terminal problem, the exposed-terminal problem, and signal fadingeffects. Although a lot of research has been conducted on MAC protocols, the various issues involved have mostly beenpresented in isolation of each other. We therefore make an attempt to present a comprehensive survey of majorschemes, integrating various related issues and challenges with a view to providing a big-picture outlook to this vastarea. We present a classification of MAC protocols and their brief description, based on their operating principlesand underlying features. In conclusion, we present a brief summary of key ideas and a general direction for future work.� 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ad hoc networks; Wireless networks; MAC; Medium Access Control; Quality of Service (QoS); MANET

1. Introduction

Back in the 1970s, the Defense Advanced Re-search Projects Agency (DARPA) was involvedin the development of packet radio networks foruse in the battlefields. Around the same time, the

1570-8705/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reservdoi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2004.10.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 315 268 6602; fax: +1 315268 7600.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Kumar).

ALOHA [1] project used wireless data broadcast-ing to create single hop radio networks. This sub-sequently led to development of the multi-hop

multiple-access Packet Radio Network (PRNET),which allowed communication coverage over awide area. The term multi-hop refers to the factthat data from the source needs to travel throughseveral other intermediate nodes before it reachesthe destination. One of the most attractive featuresof PRNET was rapid deployment. Also, after

ed.

mailto:[email protected]

2 S. Kumar et al. / Ad Hoc Networks xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

installation, the whole system was self-initializingand self-organizing. The network consisted of mo-bile radio repeaters, wireless terminals and dedi-cated mobile stations. Packets were relayed fromone repeater to the other until data reached itsdestination.

With the development of technology, deviceshave shrunk in size and they now incorporatemore advanced functions. This allows a node toact as a wireless terminal as well as a repeaterand still be compact enough to be mobile. A self-organizing and adaptive collection of such devicesconnected with wireless links is now referred to asan Ad Hoc Network. An ad hoc network does notneed any centralized control. The network shoulddetect any new nodes automatically and inductthem seamlessly. Conversely, if any node movesout of the network, the remaining nodes shouldautomatically reconfigure themselves to adjust tothe new scenario. If nodes are mobile, the networkis termed as a MANET (Mobile Ad hoc NET-work). The Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF) has set up a working group named MAN-ET for encouraging research in this area [2].

Typically, there are two types of architectures inad hoc networks: flat and hierarchical [3,6]. Eachnode in an ad hoc network is equipped with atransceiver, an antenna and a power source. Thecharacteristics of these nodes can vary widely interms of size, processing ability, transmissionrange and battery power. Some nodes lend them-selves for use as servers, others as clients and yetothers may be flexible enough to act as both,depending on the situation. In certain cases, eachnode may need to act as a router in order to con-vey information from one node to another [4,5].

1.1. Applications

Coupled with global roaming capabilities andseamless integration with existing infrastructure,if any, ad hoc wireless networks can be used inmany new applications [6,8]. In case of naturalor other disasters, it is possible that existing com-munication infrastructure is rendered unusable.In such situations, an ad hoc wireless network fea-turing wideband capabilities can be set up almostimmediately to provide emergency communication

in the affected region. In mobile computing envi-ronments, mobile wireless devices that have thecapability to detect the presence of existing net-works can be used to synchronize data with theuser�s conventional desktop computers automati-cally, and download appointment/schedule data.A user carrying a handheld Personal Digital Assis-tant (PDA) device can download Context sensitive

data in a shopping mall or museum featuring suchwireless networks and services. The PDA would beable to detect the presence of the network and con-nect itself in an ad hoc fashion. Depending on theuser�s movement, the PDA can poll the networkfor relevant information based on its current loca-tion. For instance, if the user is moving throughthe clothing section of the shopping mall, informa-tion on special deals or pricing can be made avail-able. Similarly, ad hoc networks can be used intravel-related and customized household applica-tions, telemedicine, virtual navigation, etc.

1.2. Important issues

There are several important issues in ad hocwireless networks [3,6–8,70]. Most ad hoc wirelessnetwork applications use the Industrial, Scientificand Medical (ISM) band that is free from licensingformalities. Since wireless is a tightly controlledmedium, it has limited channel bandwidth that istypically much less than that of wired networks.Besides, the wireless medium is inherently error

prone. Even though a radio may have sufficientchannel bandwidth, factors such as multiple ac-cess, signal fading, and noise and interferencecan cause the effective throughput in wireless net-works to be significantly lower. Since wirelessnodes may be mobile, the network topology canchange frequently without any predictable pattern.Usually the links between nodes would be bi-direc-tional, but there may be cases when differences intransmission power give rise to unidirectional links,which necessitate special treatment by the MediumAccess Control (MAC) protocols. Ad hoc networknodes must conserve energy as they mostly rely onbatteries as their power source. The security issuesshould be considered in the overall network de-sign, as it is relatively easy to eavesdrop on wirelesstransmission. Routing protocols require informa-

Fig. 1. Illustration of the hidden and exposed terminalproblems.

S. Kumar et al. / Ad Hoc Networks xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

tion about the current topology, so that a routefrom a source to a destination may be found.However, the existing routing schemes, such as dis-tance-vector and link-state based protocols, leadto poor route convergence and low throughputfor dynamic topology. Therefore, a new set ofrouting schemes is needed in the ad hoc wirelesscontext [5,8].

MAC layer, sometimes also referred to as a sub-layer of the �Data Link� layer, involves the func-tions and procedures necessary to transfer data be-tween two or more nodes of the network. It is theresponsibility of the MAC layer to perform errorcorrection for anomalies occurring in the physicallayer. The layer performs specific activities forframing, physical addressing, and flow and errorcontrols. It is responsible for resolving conflictsamong different nodes for channel access. Sincethe MAC layer has a direct bearing on how reli-ably and efficiently data can be transmitted be-tween two nodes along the routing path in thenetwork, it affects the Quality of Service (QoS)of the network. The design of a MAC protocolshould also address issues caused by mobility ofnodes and an unreliable time varying channel [6–8].

1.3. Need for special MAC protocols

The popular Carrier Sense Multiple Access(CSMA) [9] MAC scheme and its variations suchas CSMA with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD)developed for wired networks, cannot be used di-rectly in the wireless networks, as explained below.

In CSMA-based schemes, the transmitting nodefirst senses the medium to check whether it is idleor busy. The node defers its own transmission toprevent a collision with the existing signal, if themedium is busy. Otherwise, the node begins totransmit its data while continuing to sense themedium. However, collisions occur at receivingnodes. Since, signal strength in the wireless med-ium fades in proportion to the square of distancefrom the transmitter, the presence of a signal atthe receiver node may not be clearly detected atother sending terminals, if they are out of range.As illustrated in Fig. 1, node B is within the rangeof nodes A and C, but A and C are not in each

other�s range. Let us consider the case where A istransmitting to B. Node C, being out of A �s range,cannot detect carrier and may therefore send datato B, thus causing a collision at B. This is referredto as the �hidden-terminal problem�, as nodes A andC are hidden from each other [10,11].

Let us now consider another case where B istransmitting to A. Since C is within B�s range, itsenses carrier and decides to defer its own trans-mission. However, this is unnecessary becausethere is no way C�s transmission can cause any col-lision at receiver A. This is referred to as the �ex-posed-terminal problem�, since B being exposed toC caused the latter to needlessly defer its transmis-sion [11]. MAC schemes are designed to overcomethese problems.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Aclassification of ad hoc network MAC schemes isgiven in Section 2. Details of various MACschemes in each class are discussed in Sections 3and 4. The summary and future research directionsare described in Section 5, followed by conclusionin Section 6.

2. Classification

Various MAC schemes developed for wirelessad hoc networks can be classified as shown inFig. 2. In contention-free schemes (e.g., TDMA,FDMA, CDMA), certain assignments are usedto avoid contentions [6]. Contention basedschemes, on the other hand, are aware of the riskof collisions of transmitted data. Since conten-

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Classification of MAC schemes.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

tion-free MAC schemes are more applicable to sta-tic networks and/or networks with centralized con-trol, we shall focus on contention-based MACschemes in this survey.

We can view this category as a collection of�random access� and �dynamic reservation/collisionresolution� protocols as shown in Fig. 2(a) [12]. In

random access based schemes, such as ALOHA, anode may access the channel as soon as it is ready.Naturally, more than one node may transmit atthe same time, causing collisions. ALOHA is moresuitable under low system loads with large numberof potential senders and it offers relatively lowthroughput. A variation of ALOHA, termed �Slot-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

ted ALOHA�, introduces synchronized transmis-sion time-slots similar to TDMA. In this case,nodes can transmit only at the beginning of atime-slot. The introduction of time slot doublesthe throughput as compared to the pure ALOHAscheme, with the cost of necessary time synchroni-zation. The CSMA-based schemes further reducethe possibility of packet collisions and improvethe throughput.

In order to solve the hidden and exposed termi-nal problems in CSMA, researchers have come upwith many protocols, which are contention basedbut involve some forms of dynamic reservation/col-lision resolution. Some schemes use the Request-To-Send/Clear-To-Send (RTS/CTS) control pack-ets to prevent collisions, e.g. Multiple Access Col-lision Avoidance (MACA) [13] and MACA forWireless LANs (MACAW) [14]. Yet others use acombination of carrier sensing and control packets[15,16,23], etc.

As shown in Fig. 2(b), the contention-basedMAC schemes can also be classified as sender-ini-tiated vs. receiver-initiated, single-channel vs. mul-tiple-channel, power-aware, directional antennabased, unidirectional link based and QoS awareschemes. We briefly discuss these categories inthe following.

One distinguishing factor for MAC protocols iswhether they rely on the sender initiating the datatransfer, or the receiver requesting the same [6]. Asmentioned above, the dynamic reservation ap-proach involves the setting up of some sort of areservation prior to data transmission. If a nodethat wants to send data takes the initiative of set-ting up this reservation, the protocol is consideredto be a sender-initiated protocol. Most schemes aresender-initiated. In a receiver-initiated protocol, thereceiving node polls a potential transmitting nodefor data. If the sending node indeed has some datafor the receiver, it is allowed to transmit afterbeing polled. The MACA—By Invitation(MACA-BI) [17] and Receiver Initiated Busy ToneMultiple Access (RI-BTMA) [18] are examples ofsuch schemes. As we shall see later, MACA-BI isslightly more efficient in terms of transmit and re-ceive turn around times compared to MACA.

Another classification is based on the number ofchannels used for data transmission. Single chan-

nel protocols set up reservations for transmissions,and subsequently transmit their data using thesame channel or frequency. Many MAC schemesuse a single channel [1,9,13–15, etc.]. Multiple

channel protocols use more than one channel in or-der to coordinate connection sessions among thetransmitter and receiver nodes. The FCC man-dates that all radios using the ISM band must em-ploy either DSSS or FHSS schemes. Several MACprotocols have been developed for using multiplechannels through frequency-hopping techniques,e.g., Hop-Reservation Multiple Access (HRMA)scheme [19]. Some others use a special control-sig-nal on a separate channel for protecting the actualdata that is transmitted on the data channel(s)[20,47–53].

As mentioned earlier, it becomes important inthe context of low power devices, to have energyefficient protocols at all layers of the network mod-el. Much work has already been done for studyingand developing appropriate MAC protocols thatare also power aware ([27–36], etc).

Yet another class of MAC protocols uses direc-tional antennas [56–64]. The advantage of thismethod is that the signals are transmitted only inone direction. The nodes in other directions aretherefore no longer prone to interference or colli-sion effects, and spatial reuse is facilitated.

Usually the links between nodes are bi-direc-tional, but there may be cases when differences intransmission power give rise to unidirectionallinks, which necessitate special treatment by theMAC protocols. Prakash [66] pointed out someof the issues to be taken care of in unidirectionallink networks. Several MAC schemes have beenproposed for unidirectional links [10,67–69].

With the growing popularity of ad hoc net-works, it is reasonable to expect that users will de-mand some level of QoS from it, such as end-to-end delay, available bandwidth, probability ofpacket loss, etc. However, the lack of centralizedcontrol, limited bandwidth channels, node mobil-ity, power or computational constraints and theerror-prone nature of the wireless medium makeit very difficult to provide effective QoS in ad hocnetworks [3,72–74]. Since the MAC layer has a di-rect bearing on how reliably and efficiently datacan be transmitted from one node to the next


ARTICLE IN PRESS

along the routing path in the network, it affects theQuality of Service (QoS) of the network. SeveralQoS-aware MAC schemes have been reported inthe literature [86–99].

Note that the above categories are not totallyindependent of each other. In fact, a given MACprotocol may belong to more than one category.For example, Power Aware Medium Access Con-trol with Signaling (PAMAS) [27] is a power-aware protocol that also uses two channels. Simi-larly; RI-BTMA is a receiver-initiated MACscheme that uses multiple channels.

Several representative MAC schemes for ad hocwireless networks are briefly discussed and sum-marized in the following two sections. For the sakeof convenience in discussion, we have broadly ar-ranged the schemes in �non-QoS� and �QoS-aware�classes. The non-QoS MAC schemes in Section 3have been further divided in the following catego-ries: general, power-aware, multiple channel,directional antenna-based, and unidirectionalMAC protocols. Similarly, QoS-aware schemes(in Section 4) have been arranged in a few catego-ries according to their properties. In the process ofchoosing these MAC schemes, we tended to selectthose that are more representative in theircategory.

3. Review of non-QoS MAC protocols

In particular, we shall discuss several importantcontention based MAC schemes in the single chan-nel, receiver initiated, power-aware, and multiplechannel categories. Due to space limitation, wewill only briefly discuss other categories. However,it should not mean that these other categories areless important.

3.1. General MAC protocols

We have mostly included the single channelprotocols in this sub-section. A receiver initiatedMACA-BI scheme is also discussed.

3.1.1. Multiple access collision avoidance (MACA)

The MACA protocol was proposed by Karn toovercome the hidden and exposed terminal prob-

lems in CSMA family of protocols [13]. MACAuses two short signaling packets, similar to theAppleTalk protocol [21]. In Fig. 1, if node A

wishes to transmit to node B, it first sends anRTS packet to B, indicating the length of the datatransmission that would later follow. If B receivesthis RTS packet, it returns a CTS packet to A thatalso contains the expected length of the data to betransmitted. When A receives the CTS, it immedi-ately commences transmission of the actual data toB. The key idea of the MACA scheme is that anyneighboring node that overhears an RTS packethas to defer its own transmissions until some timeafter the associated CTS packet would have fin-ished, and that any node overhearing a CTS pack-et would defer for the length of the expected datatransmission.

In a hidden terminal scenario (see Fig. 1) as ex-plained in Section 1, C will not hear the RTS sentby A, but it would hear the CTS sent by B.Accordingly, C will defer its transmission duringA �s data transmission. Similarly, in the exposedterminal situation, C would hear the RTS sentby B, but not the CTS sent by A. Therefore C willconsider itself free to transmit during B�s transmis-sion. It is apparent that this RTS–CTS exchangeenables nearby nodes to reduce the collisions atthe receiver, not the sender. Collisions can still oc-cur between different RTS packets, though. If twoRTS packets collide for any reason, each sendingnode waits for a randomly chosen interval beforetrying again. This process continues until one ofthe RTS transmissions elicits the desired CTS fromthe receiver.

MACA is effective because RTS and CTS pack-ets are significantly shorter than the actual datapackets, and therefore collisions among them areless expensive compared to collisions among thelonger data packets. However, the RTS–CTS ap-proach does not always solve the hidden terminal

problem completely, and collisions can occur whendifferent nodes send the RTS and the CTS packets.Let us consider an example with four nodes A, B,C and D in Fig. 3. Node A sends an RTS packet toB, and B sends a CTS packet back to A. At C,however, this CTS packet collides with an RTSpacket sent by D. Therefore C has no knowledgeof the subsequent data transmission from A to B.

Fig. 3. Illustration of failure of RTS–CTS mechanism insolving Hidden and Exposed terminal problems.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

While the data packet is being transmitted, D

sends out another RTS because it did not receivea CTS packet in its first attempt. This time, C re-plies to D with a CTS packet that collides withthe data packet at B. In fact, when hidden termi-nals are present and the network traffic is high,the performance of MACA degenerates to thatof ALOHA [20].

Another weakness of MACA is that it does notprovide any acknowledgment of data transmissionsat the data link layer. If a transmission fails forany reason, retransmission has to be initiated bythe transport layer. This can cause significant de-

lays in the transmission of data.In order to overcome some of the weaknesses of

MACA, Bharghavan et al. [14] proposed MACA

for Wireless (MACAW) scheme that uses a fivestep RTS–CTS–DS–DATA–ACK exchange. MA-CAW allows much faster error recovery at thedata link layer by using the acknowledgment pack-et (ACK) that is returned from the receiving nodeto the sending node as soon as data reception iscompleted. The backoff and fairness issues amongactive nodes were also investigated. MACAWachieves significantly higher throughput comparedto MACA. It however does not fully solve the hid-den and exposed terminal problems [15,20].

The Floor Acquisition Multiple Access (FAMA)is another MACA based scheme that requiresevery transmitting station to acquire control ofthe floor (i.e., the wireless channel) before it actu-ally sends any data packet [15]. Unlike MACA orMACAW, FAMA requires that collision avoid-ance should be performed both at the sender as

well as the receiver. In order to �acquire the floor�,the sending node sends out an RTS using eithernon-persistent packet sensing (NPS) or non-persis-tent carrier sensing (NCS). The receiver respondswith a CTS packet, which contains the addressof the sending node. Any station overhearing thisCTS packet knows about the station that has ac-quired the floor. The CTS packets are repeatedlong enough for the benefit of any hidden senderthat did not register another sending node�s RTS.The authors recommend the NCS variant for adhoc networks since it addresses the hidden termi-nal problem effectively.

3.1.2. IEEE 802.11 MAC scheme

The IEEE 802.11 specifies two modes of MACprotocol: distributed coordination function(DCF) mode (for ad hoc networks) and pointcoordination function (PCF) mode (for centrallycoordinated infrastructure-based networks) [22–25]. The DCF in IEEE 802.11 is based on CSMAwith Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA), which canbe seen as a combination of the CSMA andMACA schemes. The protocol uses the RTS–CTS–DATA–ACK sequence for data transmis-sion. Not only does the protocol use physical car-rier sensing, it also introduces the novel concept ofvirtual carrier sensing. This is implemented in theform of a Network Allocation Vector (NAV),which is maintained by every node. The NAV con-tains a time value that represents the duration upto which the wireless medium is expected to bebusy because of transmissions by other nodes.Since every packet contains the duration informa-tion for the remainder of the message, every nodeoverhearing a packet continuously updates its ownNAV.

Time slots are divided into multiple frames andthere are several types of inter frame spacing (IFS)slots. In increasing order of length, they are theShort IFS (SIFS), Point Coordination FunctionIFS (PIFS), DCF IFS (DIFS) and Extended IFS(EIFS). The node waits for the medium to be freefor a combination of these different times before itactually transmits. Different types of packets canrequire the medium to be free for a different num-ber or type of IFS. For instance, in ad hoc mode, if


ARTICLE IN PRESS

the medium is free after a node has waited forDIFS, it can transmit a queued packet. Otherwise,if the medium is still busy, a backoff timer is initi-ated. The initial backoff value of the timer is cho-sen randomly from between 0 and CW-1 whereCW is the width of the contention window, interms of time-slots. After an unsuccessful trans-mission attempt, another backoff is performedwith a doubled size of CW as decided by binaryexponential backoff (BEB) algorithm. Each timethe medium is idle after DIFS, the timer is decre-mented. When the timer expires, the packet istransmitted. After each successful transmission,another random backoff (known as post-backoff)is performed by the transmission-completing node.A control packet such as RTS, CTS or ACK istransmitted after the medium has been free forSIFS. Fig. 4 shows the channel access in IEEE802.11.

IEEE 802.11 DCF is a widely used protocol forwireless LANs. Many of the MAC schemes dis-cussed in this paper are based on it. Some otherfeatures of this protocol will be discussed alongwith such schemes.

3.1.3. Multiple access collision avoidance-by

invitation (MACA-BI)

In typical sender-initiated protocols, the send-ing node needs to switch to receive mode (to getCTS) immediately after transmitting the RTS.Each such exchange of control packets adds toturnaround time, reducing the overall throughput.MACA-BI [17] is a receiver-initiated protocol andit reduces the number of such control packet ex-

Immediate access when medium is idle >= DIFS

Busy Medium

SloDefer Access

Se

DIFS

DIFS

PIFS

SIFS

Fig. 4. IEEE 802.11 DC

changes. Instead of a sender waiting to gain accessto the channel, MACA-BI requires a receiver to re-quest the sender to send the data, by using a�Ready-To-Receive� (RTR) packet instead of theRTS and the CTS packets. Therefore, it is a two-way exchange (RTR–DATA) as against thethree-way exchange (RTS–CTS–DATA) ofMACA [13].

Since the transmitter cannot send any data be-fore being asked by the receiver, there has to bea traffic prediction algorithm built into the receiverso it can know when to request data from the sen-der. The efficiency of this algorithm determines thecommunication throughput of the system. Thealgorithm proposed by the authors piggybacksthe information regarding packet queue lengthand data arrival rate at the sender in the datapacket. When the receiver receives this data, it isable to predict the backlog in the transmitter andsend further RTR packets accordingly. There is aprovision for a transmitter to send an RTS packetif its input buffer overflows. In such a case, the sys-tem reverts to MACA.

The MACA-BI scheme works efficiently in net-works with predictable traffic pattern. However, ifthe traffic is bursty, the performance degrades tothat of MACA.

3.1.4. Group allocation multiple access with packetsensing (GAMA-PS)

GAMA-PS incorporates features of contentionbased as well as contention free methods [26]. It di-vides the wireless channel into a series of cycles.Every cycle is divided in two parts for contention

Contention Window

t Time

lect Slot and decrement backoff as long as medium stays idle

Backoff Window Next Frame

F channel access.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

and group transmission. Although the grouptransmission period is further divided into individ-ual transmission periods, GAMA-PS does not re-quire clock or time synchronization amongdifferent member nodes. Nodes wishing to makea reservation for access to the channel employthe RTS–CTS exchange. However, a node willbackoff only if it understands an entire packet.Carrier sensing alone is not sufficient reason forbacking off.

GAMA-PS organizes nodes into transmissiongroups, which consist of nodes that have beenallocated a transmission period. Every nodein the group is expected to listen in on thechannel. Therefore, there is no need of anycentralized control. Every node in the groupis aware of all the successful RTS–CTSexchanges and by extension, of any idletransmission periods.

Members of the transmission group take turnstransmitting data, and every node is expected tosend a Begin Transmission Period (BTP) packetbefore actual data. The BTP contains the stateof the transmission group, position of the nodewithin that group and the number of groupmembers. A member station can transmit up toa fixed length of data, thereby increasing effi-ciency. The last member of the transmissiongroup broadcasts a Transmit Request (TR) pack-et after it sends its data. Use of the TR shortensthe maximum length of the contention period byforcing any station that might contend for groupmembership to do so at the start of the conten-tion period.

GAMA-PS assumes that there are no hiddenterminals. As a result, this scheme may notwork well for mobile ad hoc networks. Whenthere is not enough traffic in the network,GAMA-PS behaves almost like CSMA. How-ever, as the load grows, it starts to mimicTDMA and allows every node to transmit oncein every cycle.

3.2. Power aware MAC protocols

Since mobile devices are battery powered, it iscrucial to conserve energy and utilize power as effi-ciently as possible. In fact, the issue of power con-

servation should be considered across all the layersof the protocol stack. The following principlesmay serve as general guidelines for power conser-vation in MAC protocols [27–30]. First, collisionsare a major cause of expensive retransmissionsand should be avoided as far as possible. Second,the transceivers should be kept in standby mode(or switched off) whenever possible as they con-sume the most energy in active mode. Third, in-stead of using the maximum power, thetransmitter should switch to a lower power modethat is sufficient for the destination node to receivethe transmission. Several researchers, includingGoldsmith and Wicker [31], have conducted stud-ies in this area.

As we mentioned in the context of classifyingMAC protocols, some approaches implementpower management by alternating sleep and wake

cycles [27,32–34]. Other approaches, classified aspower control, use a variation in the transmission

power [35,36]. We now present the details of someselected schemes in both categories.

3.2.1. Power aware medium access control with

signaling (PAMAS)

The basic idea of PAMAS developed by Ragha-vendra and Singh [27] is that all the RTS–CTS ex-changes are performed over the signaling channeland the data transmissions are kept separate overa data channel. While receiving a data packet,the destination node starts sending out a busy toneover the signaling channel. Nodes listen in on thesignaling channel to deduce when it is optimalfor them to power down their transceivers. Everynode makes its own decision whether to poweroff or not such that there is no drop in the through-put. A node powers itself off if it has nothing totransmit and it realizes that its neighbor is trans-mitting. A node also powers off if at least oneneighbor is transmitting and another is receivingat the same time. The authors have developed sev-eral rules to determine the length of a power-downstate.

The authors also mention briefly some strate-gies, to use this scheme with other protocols likeFAMA [15]. They have also noted that the useof ACK and transmission of multiple packetstogether will also enhance the performance of


ARTICLE IN PRESS

PAMAS. However, the radio transceiver turn-around time, which might not be negligible, wasnot considered in the PAMAS scheme.

3.2.2. Dynamic power saving mechanism (DPSM)Jung and Vaidya [32] proposed DPSM based on

the idea of using sleep and wake states for nodes inorder to conserve power. It is a variation of theIEEE 802.11 scheme, in that it uses dynamicallysized Ad-hoc Traffic Indication Message (ATIM)windows to achieve longer dozing times for nodes.

The IEEE 802.11 DCF mode has a power sav-ing mechanism, in which time is divided into bea-con intervals that are used to synchronize thenodes [23]. At the beginning of each beacon inter-val, every node must stay awake for a fixed timecalled ATIM window. This window is used to an-nounce the status of packets ready for transmis-sion to any receiver nodes. Such announcementsare made through ATIM frames, and they areacknowledged with ATIM-ACK packets duringthe same beacon interval. Fig. 5 illustrates themechanism. Earlier work [33] shows that if the sizeof the ATIM window is kept fixed, performancesuffers in terms of throughput and energyconsumption.

In DPSM, each node dynamically and indepen-dently chooses the length of the ATIM window.As a result, every node can potentially end up hav-ing a different sized window. It allows the senderand receiver nodes to go into sleep state immedi-ately after they have participated in the transmis-sion of packets announced in the prior ATIMframe. Unlike the DCF mechanism, they do not

A

B

C

ATIM DATA

A

AATIM-ACK ACK

ATIM windowDozing

A

Beacon interval

Fig. 5. Power saving mechanism for DCF: Node A announces a busending an ATIM-ACK, and both A and B stay awake during the entcompleted during the beacon interval. Since C does not have any pac

even have to stay awake for the entire beaconinterval. The length of the ATIM window is in-creased if some packets queued in the outgoingbuffer are still unsent after the current window ex-pires. Also, each data packet carries the currentlength of the ATIM window and any nodes thatoverhear such information may decide to modifytheir own window lengths based on the receivedinformation.

DPSM is found to be more effective than IEEE802.11 DCF in terms of power saving andthroughput. However, IEEE 802.11 and DPSMare not suitable for multi-hop ad hoc networksas they assume that the clocks of the nodes aresynchronized and the network is connected. Tsenget al. [34] have proposed three variations of DPSMfor multi-hop MANETs that use asynchronousclocks.

3.2.3. Power control medium access control (PCM)

Previous approaches of power control usedalternating sleep and wake states for nodes[27,32,34]. In PCM [35], the RTS and CTS packetsare sent using the maximum available power,whereas the data and ACK packets are sent withthe minimum power required to communicate be-tween the sender and receiver.

The method for determining these lower powerlevels, described below, has also been used by ear-lier researchers in [13,43]. An example scenario isdepicted in Fig. 6. Node D sends the RTS to nodeE at a transmit power level Pmax, and also includesthis value in the packet. E measures the actual sig-nal strength, say Pr, of the received RTS packet.

TIM window

TIM window

TIM windowNext beacon interval

ffered packet for B using an ATIM frame. Node B replies byire beacon interval. The actual data transmission from A to B isket to send or receive, it dozes after the ATIM window [32].

A D E H

Range of Data

Range of ACK

TR for CTSTR for RTS

CS Zone for RTS

CS Zone for CTS

G

Fig. 6. Illustration of power control scheme: (CS) carrier senseand (TR) transmission range [35].


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Based on Pmax, Pr and the noise level at its loca-tion, E then computes the minimum necessarypower level (say, Psuff) that would actually be suf-ficient for use by D. Now, when E responds withthe CTS packet using the maximum power it hasavailable, it includes the value of Psuff that D sub-sequently uses for data transmission. G is able tohear this CTS packet and defers its own transmis-sions. E also includes the power level that it usedfor the transmission in the CTS packet. D thenfollows a similar process and calculates the mini-mum required power level that would get a pack-et from E to itself. It includes this value in thedata packet so that E can use it for sending theACK.

PCM also stipulates that the source node peri-odically transmits the DATA packet at the maxi-mum power level, for just enough time so thatnodes in the carrier sensing range, such as A maysense it. PCM thus achieves energy savings with-out causing throughput degradation.

The operation of the PCM scheme requires arather accurate estimation of received packet sig-nal strength. Therefore, the dynamics of wirelesssignal propagation due to fading and shadowingeffect may degrade its performance. Anotherdrawback of this scheme is the difficulty in imple-menting frequent changes in the transmit powerlevels.

3.2.4. Power controlled multiple access (PCMA)

PCMA, proposed by Monks et al. [36], relies oncontrolling transmission power of the sender sothat the intended receiver is just able to decipherthe packet. This helps in avoiding interference withother neighboring nodes that are not involved inthe packet exchange. PCMA uses two channels,one for sending out busy tones and the other fordata and other control packets. Power controlmechanism in PCMA has been used for increasingchannel efficiency through spatial frequency reuserather than only increasing battery life. Therefore,an important issue is for the transmitter and recei-ver pair to determine the minimum power levelnecessary for the receiver to decode the packet,while distinguishing it from noise/interference.Also, the receiver has to advertise its noise toler-ances so that no other potential transmitter willdisrupt its ongoing reception.

In the conventional methods of collision avoid-ance, a node is either allowed to transmit or not,depending on the result of carrier sensing. InPCMA, this method is generalized to a boundedpower model. Before data transmission, the sendersends a Request Power To Send (RPTS) packet onthe data channel to the receiver. The receiver re-sponds with an Accept Power To Send (APTS)packet, also on the data channel. This RPTS-APTS exchange is used to determine the minimumtransmission power level that will cause a success-ful packet reception at the receiver. After this ex-change, the actual data is transmitted andacknowledged with an ACK packet.

In a separate channel, every receiver sets up aspecial busy tone as a periodic pulse. The signalstrength of this busy tone advertises to the othernodes the additional noise power the receiver nodecan tolerate. When a sender monitors the busytone channel, it is essentially doing something sim-ilar to carrier sensing, as in CSMA/CA model.When a receiver sends out a busy tone pulse, it isdoing something similar to sending out a CTSpacket. The RPTS-APTS exchange is analogousto the RTS–CTS exchange. The major differencehowever is that the RPTS-APTS exchange doesnot force other hidden transmitters to backoff.Collisions are resolved by the use of some appro-priate backoff strategy.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

The authors claim improvements in aggregatechannel utilization by more than a factor of 2 com-pared to IEEE 802.11 protocol. Since carrier sens-ing while simultaneously transmitting is acomplicated operation, there could be a problemof the ACK packet being subjected to collision.This is an issue because the noise level at thesource cannot be updated during data transmis-sion. This seems to be an open problem with allschemes that use such power control measures.

Woesner et al. [33] also presented the powersaving techniques for IEEE 802.11 and the HighPerformance LAN (HIPERLAN) [46] standards.Chen et al. [37] developed a distributed algorithmcalled Span, wherein every node takes into accountits own power reserve and the advantage to itsneighbors before deciding on staying awake (orgoing to sleep) and acting as a coordinator node.The nodes that are awake take care of routing du-ties. Sivalingam et al. [29] have identified some ofthe ideas that can be used to conserve power atthe MAC layer. They have also performed studieson some protocols in order to compare their per-formance vis-a-vis power efficiency. In fact, powercontrol has also been used for network topologycontrol in [38–40] and to generate energy efficientspanning trees for multicasting and broadcastingin [41,42].

3.3. Multiple channel protocols

A major problem of single shared channelschemes is that the probability of collision in-creases with the number of nodes. It is possibleto solve this problem with multi-channel ap-proaches. As seen in the classification, some mul-ti-channel schemes use a dedicated channel forcontrol packets (or signaling) and one separatechannel for data transmissions [9,18,20,27,47].They set up busy tones on the control channel, al-beit one with small bandwidth consumption, sothat nodes are aware of ongoing transmissions.

Another approach is to use multiple channelsfor data packet transmissions. This approach hasthe following advantages [52]. First, since the max-imum throughput of a single channel scheme islimited by the bandwidth of that channel, usingmore channels appropriately can potentially in-

crease the throughput. Second, data transmittedon different channels does not interfere with eachother, and multiple transmissions can take placein the same region simultaneously. This leads tosignificantly fewer collisions. Third, it is easier tosupport QoS by using multiple channels. Schemesproposed in [19,48–53] employ such an approach.In general, a multiple data-channel MAC protocolhas to assign different channels to different nodesin real time. The issue of medium access still needsto be resolved. This involves deciding, for instance,the time slots at which a node would get access to aparticular channel. In certain cases, it may be nec-essary for all the nodes to be synchronized witheach other, whereas in other instances, it may bepossible for the nodes to negotiate schedulesamong themselves.

We discuss below the details of some of themultiple channel MAC schemes.

3.3.1. Dual busy tone multiple access (DBTMA)In the schemes based on the exchange of RTS/

CTS dialogue, these control packets themselves areprone to collisions. Thus, in the presence of hiddenterminals, there remains a risk of subsequent datapackets being destroyed because of collisions. TheDBTMA scheme [20] uses out-of-band signaling toeffectively solve the hidden and the exposed termi-nal problems. Data transmission is however on thesingle shared wireless channel. It builds upon ear-lier work on the Busy Tone Multiple Access(BTMA) [9] and the Receiver Initiated-Busy ToneMultiple Access (RI-BTMA) [18] schemes.

DBTMA decentralizes the responsibility ofmanaging access to the common medium and doesnot require time synchronization among the nodes.As in several schemes discussed earlier, DBMTAsends RTS packets on data channel to set up trans-mission requests. Subsequently, two different busytones on a separate narrow channel are used toprotect the transfer of the RTS and data packets.The sender of the RTS sets up a transmit-busytone (BTt). Correspondingly, the receiver sets upa receive-busy tone (BTr) in order to acknowledgethe RTS, without using any CTS packet.

Any node that senses an existing BTr or BTt de-fers from sending its own RTS over the channel.Therefore, both of these busy tones together guar-

s. slot slot 1 slot 2 slot 3 slot 4

f0

SYN HR RTS CTS

f2f0

Fig. 7. Structure of HRMA slot and frame [19].


ARTICLE IN PRESS

antee protection from collision from other nodesin the vicinity. Through the use of the BTt andBTr in conjunction, exposed terminals are able toinitiate data packet transmissions. Also, hiddenterminals can reply to RTS requests as simulta-neous data transmission occurs between the recei-ver and sender. The authors claimed a significantimprovement of 140% over the MACA protocolunder certain scenarios. However, the DBTMAscheme does not use ACK to acknowledge the re-ceived data packets. It also requires additionalhardware complexity.

Yeh and Zhou [47] have recently proposed anRTS/OTS/CTS (ROC) scheme for efficiently sup-porting networks with devices having heteroge-neous power levels and transmission ranges. Thisscheme uses an additional Object To Send (OTS)control packet. By the use of a separate controlchannel and single data channel, the proposedschemes solved problems due to hidden, exposed,moving, temporarily deaf and heterogeneousnodes. However, the authors did not present thesimulation results to support their claim.

3.3.2. Multi channel CSMA MAC protocol

The multi-channel CSMA protocol proposedby Nasipuri et al. [48] divides the total availablebandwidth (W) into N distinct channels of W/Nbandwidth each. Here N may be lower than thenumber of nodes in the network. Also, the chan-nels may be divided based on either an FDMAor CDMA. A transmitter would use carrier sensingto see if the channel it last used is free or not. Ituses the last used channel if found free. Otherwise,another free channel is chosen at random. If nofree channel is found, the node should backoffand retry later. Even when traffic load is highand sufficient channels are not available, chancesof collisions are somewhat reduced since each nodetends to prefer its last used channel instead of sim-ply choosing a new channel at random.

This protocol has been shown to be more effi-cient than single channel CSMA schemes. Interest-ingly, the performance of this scheme is lower thanthat of the single channel CSMA scheme at lowertraffic load or when there are only a small numberof active nodes for a long period of time. This isdue to the waste of idling channels. In [50] the pro-

tocol is extended to select the best channel basedon the signal power observed at the sender side.

3.3.3. Hop-reservation multiple access (HRMA)

HRMA [19] is an efficient MAC protocol basedon FHSS radios in the ISM band. Earlier proto-cols such as [54,55] used frequency-hopping radiosto achieve effective CDMA by requiring the radioto hop frequencies in the middle of data packets.HRMA uses time-slotting properties of very-slowFHSS such that an entire packet is sent in the samehop. HRMA requires no carrier sensing, employsa common frequency hopping sequence, and al-lows a pair of nodes to reserve a frequency hop(through the use of an RTS–CTS exchange) forcommunication without interference from othernodes.

One of the N available frequencies in the net-work is reserved specifically for synchronization.The remaining N � 1 frequencies are divided intoM = floor ((N � 1)/2) pairs of frequencies. Foreach pair, the first frequency is used for Hop Res-ervation (HR), RTS, CTS and data packets, whilethe second frequency is used for ACK packets.HRMA can be treated as a TDMA scheme, whereeach time slot is assigned a specific frequency andsubdivided into four parts—synchronizing, HR,RTS and CTS periods. Fig. 7 shows an exampleof the HRMA frame. During the synchronizationperiod of every time slot, all idle nodes synchronizeto each other. On the other three periods, they hoptogether on the common frequency hops that havebeen assigned to the time slots.

A sender-node first sends an RTS packet to thereceiver in the RTS period of the time slot. The re-ceiver sends a CTS packet to the sender in the CTS


ARTICLE IN PRESS

period of that same time slot. Now, the sendersends the data on the same frequency (at this time,the other idle nodes are synchronizing), and thenhops to the acknowledgement frequency on whichthe receiver sends an ACK. If the data is large andrequires multiple time slots, the sender indicatesthis in the header of the data packet. The receiverthen sends an HR packet in the HR period of thenext time slot, to extend the reservation of the cur-rent frequency for the sender and receiver. Thistells the other nodes to skip this frequency in thehopping sequence.

The authors claim that HRMA achieves signif-icantly higher throughput than Slotted ALOHA inFHSS channels. It uses simple half-duplex slowfrequency hopping radios that are commerciallyavailable. It however requires synchronizationamong nodes, which is not suitable for multi-hopnetworks.

3.3.4. Multi-channel medium access control(MMAC)

So and Vaidya proposed MMAC [49], whichutilizes multiple channels by switching amongthem dynamically. Although the IEEE 802.11 pro-tocol has inherent support for multiple channels inDCF mode, it only utilizes one channel at present[23]. The primary reason is that hosts with a singlehalf duplex transceiver can only transmit or listento one channel at a time.

MMAC is an adaptation to the DCF in order touse multiple channels. Similar to the DPSMscheme [32], time is divided into multiple fixed-time beacon intervals. The beginning of everyinterval has a small ATIM window. During thiswindow ATIM packets are exchanged amongnodes so that they can coordinate the assignmentof appropriate channels for use in the subsequenttime slots of that interval. Unlike other multi-channel protocols (e.g., [51–53]), MMAC needsonly one transceiver. At the beginning of everybeacon interval, every node synchronizes itself toall other nodes by tuning in to a common synchro-nization channel on which ATIM packets are ex-changed. No data packet transmission is allowedduring this period of time. Further, every nodemaintains a preferred channel list (PCL) thatstores the usage of channels within its transmission

range, and also allows for marking priorities forthose channels.

If a node has a data packet to send, it sends outan ATIM packet to the recipient that includes sen-der�s PCL. The receiver in turn compares the sen-der�s PCL with that of its own and selects anappropriate channel for use. It then responds withan ATIM-ACK packet and includes the chosenchannel in it. If the chosen channel is acceptableto the sender, it responds with an ATIM-RES(Reservation) packet. Any node overhearing anATIM-ACK or ATIM-RES packet updates itsown PCL. Subsequently, the sender and receiverexchange RTS/CTS messages on the selected chan-nel prior to data exchange. Otherwise, if the cho-sen channel is not suitable for the sender, it hasto wait till the next beacon interval to try anotherchannel.

The authors have shown using simulations thatthe performance of MMAC is better than IEEE802.11 and DCA [51] in terms of throughput. Alsoit can be easily integrated with IEEE 802.11 PSMmode while using a simple hardware. However, ithas longer packet delay than DCA. Moreover, itis not suitable for multi-hop ad hoc networks asit assumes that the nodes are synchronized. Itshould be interesting to study its extension to mul-ti-hop networks by using the approach proposedby Tseng et al. [34].

3.3.5. Dynamic channel assignment with power

control (DCA-PC)

DCA-PC proposed by Tseng et al. [52] is anextension of their DCA protocol [51] that didnot consider the issue of power control. It com-bines concepts of power control and multiplechannel medium access in the context of MAN-ETs. The hosts are assigned channels dynamically,as and when they need them. Every node isequipped with two half-duplex transceivers andthe bandwidth is divided into a control channeland multiple data channels. One transceiver oper-ates on the control channel in order to exchangecontrol packets (using maximum power) forreserving the data channel, and the other switchesbetween the data channels for exchanging data andacknowledgments (with power control). When ahost needs a channel to talk to another, it engages


ARTICLE IN PRESS

in an RTS/CTS/RES exchange, where RES is aspecial reservation packet, indicating the appropri-ate data channel to be used.

Every node keeps a table of power levels to beused when communicating with any other node.These power levels are calculated based on theRTS/CTS exchanges on the control channel. Sinceevery node is always listening to the control chan-nel, it can even dynamically update the power val-ues based on the other control exchangeshappening around it. Every node maintains a listwith channel usage information. In essence this listtells the node which channel its neighbor is usingand the times of such usage.

DCA-PC has been shown to achieve higherthroughput than DCA. However, it is observedthat when the number of channels is increased be-yond a point, the effect of power control is less sig-nificant due to overloading of the control channel[52]. In summary, DCA-PC is a novel attempt atsolving dynamic channel assignment and powercontrol issues in an integrated fashion.

3.4. Protocols using directional antennas

MAC protocols for ad hoc networks typicallyassume the use of omni-directional antennas,which transmit radio signals to and receives themfrom all directions. These MAC protocols requireall other nodes in the vicinity to remain silent. Withdirectional antennas, it is possible to achieve highergain and restrict the transmission to a particulardirection. Similarly, packet reception at a nodewith directional antenna is not affected by interfer-ence from other directions. As a result, it is possiblethat two pairs of nodes located in each other�svicinity communicate simultaneously, dependingon the direction of transmission. This would leadto better spatial reuse in the other unaffected direc-tions [56]. Using these antennas, however, is not atrivial task as the correct direction should be pro-vided and turned to in real time. Besides, new pro-tocols would need to be designed for takingadvantage of the new features enabled by direc-tional antennas because the current protocols(e.g., IEEE 802.11) cannot benefit from these fea-tures. Currently, directional antenna hardware isconsiderably bulkier and more expensive than

omni-directional antennas of comparable capabili-ties. Applications involving large military vehiclesare however suitable candidates for wireless devicesusing such antenna systems. The use of higher fre-quency bands (e.g., ultra wide band transmission)will reduce the size of directional antennas.

Studies have been undertaken for adapting theslotted ALOHA scheme for use with packet radionetworks and directional antennas [57]. Similar re-search on packet radio networks involving multi-ple and directional antennas has also beenpresented in [58–60]. Recently, Ramanathan [61]has discussed channel-access models, link powercontrol and directional neighbor discovery, in thecontext of beam forming directional antennas. Ef-fects such as improved connectivity and reducedlatency are also discussed. Bandyopadhyay et al.[62] suggested a scheme in which every nodedynamically stores some information about itsneighbors and their transmission schedulesthrough the use of special control packets. This al-lows a node to steer its antenna appropriatelybased on the on-going transmissions in the neigh-borhood. A method for using the directionalantennas to implement a new form of link-statebased routing is also proposed.

Ko et al. [63] suggested two variations of theirDirectional MAC (D-MAC) scheme using direc-tional antennas. This scheme uses the familiarRTS/CTS/Data/ACK sequence where only theRTS packet is sent using a directional antenna.Every node is assumed to be equipped with severaldirectional antennas, but only one of them is al-lowed to transmit at any given time, depending onthe location of the intended receiver. In this scheme,every node is assumed to be aware of its own loca-tion as well as the locations of its immediate neigh-bors. This scheme gives better throughput thanIEEE 802.11 by allowing simultaneous transmis-sions that are not possible in currentMAC schemes.

Based on the IEEE 802.11 protocol, Nasipuriet al. [64] proposed a relatively simple scheme, inwhich every node has multiple antennas. Any nodethat has data to send first sends out an RTS in alldirections using every antenna. The intended recei-ver also sends out the CTS packet in all directionsusing all the antennas. The original sender is nowable to discern which antenna picked up the stron-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

gest CTS signal and can learn the relative directionof the receiver. The data packet is sent using thecorresponding directional antenna in the directionof the intended receiver. Thus, the participatingnodes need not know their location informationin advance. Please note that only one radio trans-ceiver in a node can transmit and receive at a time.Using simulation the authors have shown that thisscheme can achieve up to 2–3 times better averagethroughput than CSMA/CA with RTS/CTSscheme (using omni-directional antennas).

Choudhury et al. [56] presented a Multi-HopRTS MAC (M-MAC) scheme for transmissionon multi-hop paths. Since directional antennashave a higher gain and transmission range thanomni-directional antennas, it is possible for a nodeto communicate directly with another node that isfar away. M-MAC therefore uses multiple hops tosend RTS packets to establish links between dis-tant nodes, but the subsequent CTS, data andACK packets are sent in a single hop. Simulationresults indicate that this protocol can achieve bet-ter throughput and end-to-end delay than the basicIEEE 802.11 [23] and the D-MAC [63] schemespresented earlier. The authors however note thatthe performance also depends on the topologyconfiguration and flow patterns in the system.

The use of directional antennas can introducethree new problems: new kinds of hidden termi-nals, higher directional interference and deafness[56]. These problems depend on the topology andflow patterns. For example, the deafness is a prob-lem if routes of two flows share a common link.Similarly, nodes that are in a straight line witnesshigher directional interference. The performanceof these schemes will degrade with node mobility.Some of the current protocols (e.g., [63,64]) inac-curately assume that the gain of directional anten-na is the same as that of omni-directional antenna.Similarly, none of them considers the effect oftransmit power control, use of multiple channelsand support for real-time traffic.

3.5. Unidirectional MAC protocols

When low-power and battery-operated nodescoexist with more powerful nodes tethered topower sources in ad hoc networks, disparities in

the transmission powers and asymmetric links be-tween nodes are introduced. Such a network istherefore heterogeneous in terms of power levels.This gives rise to situations where a node A is ableto transmit to another node B, but B �s transmis-sion may not reach A. Recently, some schemeshave been proposed that control the transmissionrange of individual node(s) to maintain optimumnetwork topology [38,40,65]. As a result, theremight be unidirectional links in these networks.

Several studies have been presented on unidirec-tional MAC. Prakash [66] pointed out some of theissues to be taken care of in unidirectional link net-works. In a network of devices having heteroge-neous power levels, when a low power node triesto reserve the channel for data transmission, itmay not be heard due to higher power nodes thatare close enough to disrupt its data exchange. As aresult, a successful RTS–CTS exchange does notguarantee successful transmission of data. Fur-thermore, it is important to ensure that the MACprotocol does not favor certain higher powernodes. In order to overcome this problem, Poojaryet al. [10] proposed a scheme to extend the reach ofRTS/CTS exchange information in the IEEE802.11 protocol. This ensures that all hidden high-er power nodes that could otherwise interfere withthe subsequent DATA transmission are madeaware of the reservation of the channel. Bao etal. [67] proposed a set of collision-free channel ac-cess schemes, known as PANAMA, for ad hocnetworks with unidirectional links. In each conten-tion slot, one or multiple winners are elected deter-ministically to access the channel.

Agarwal et al. [68] summarized the problemscaused by unidirectional links in ad hoc wirelessnetworks and presented some modifications ofMAC and routing protocols. Ramasubramanian[69] presented a Sub Routing Layer (SRL) as abidirectional abstraction over unidirectional linksin lower layers. SRL uses different reverse linksas the abstract reverse link to routing layer.

4. QoS-aware MAC protocols

With the growing popularity of ad hoc net-works, it is reasonable to expect that users will de-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

mand some level of QoS from them. Some of theQoS related parameters that may be quantifiedare end-to-end delay, available bandwidth, proba-bility of packet loss, etc. However, the lack of cen-tralized control, limited bandwidth, error-pronewireless channels, node mobility, and power orcomputational constraints makes it very difficultto provide effective QoS in such networks [3,72–74].

When the nodes join or leave an ad hoc wirelessnetwork at random, periodic topology updates arerequired so that every node is aware of the currentnetwork configuration. In case the topology of thenetwork changes so rapidly that the routine up-dates are unable to cope up with the same, the net-work is not combinatorially stable and it may notbe possible to guarantee certain levels of QoS.However, if such guarantees are maintainedregardless of the changes in topology, the networkis said to be �QoS-robust�. Otherwise, if the guaran-tees are maintained between any two consecutiveupdates to the topology, the network is said tobe �QoS-preserving� [3]. The use of priority to real-ize QoS is known as �prioritized QoS�. PrioritizedQoS lets the applications specify a higher priorityfor accessing network resources than other appli-cations. A �parameterized QoS� involves reservingresources for the end-to-end path of the applica-tion data stream. A new stream is not admittedif enough bandwidth is not available to supportit. This ensures that the already admitted flows re-main unaffected. In certain situations, the conceptof soft or dynamic QoS may be rather useful. Insoft-QoS [75], after the initial connection is setup, there can be brief periods of time when thereis a disruption in providing the pre-decided QoSguarantees. In dynamic-QoS [76], a resource reser-vation request specifies a range of values (i.e., theminimum level of service that the applicationsare willing to accept and the maximum level of ser-vice they are able to utilize), and the networkmakes a commitment to provide service at a spec-ified point within this range. In such a case, alloca-tion of resources needs to be dynamically adjustedacross all layers of the network. Treating the reser-vations as ranges provides the flexibility needed foroperation in a dynamic ad hoc network environ-ment. Real-time consumer applications such as

streaming audio/video require a reserved share ofthe channel capacity over relatively long durationsso that QoS requirements are met. However, strin-gent delivery guarantees, particularly on shorttime scales, need not always be fulfilled for suchapplications. Therefore, these applications can besatisfied by soft or dynamic QoS. Other applica-tions such as inter-vehicle communication forsafety require guaranteed delivery of short burstsof data with a bounded delay. These applicationswill require parameterized QoS. In fact, maintain-ing QoS guarantees for delay sensitive traffic isquite difficult in MANETs because obtaining aconsistent network-wide distributed snapshot ofthe state of the queues and the channel at individ-ual nodes at any given instant is an intractableproblem.

The issues affecting support for QoS in ad hocnetworks are briefly discussed below, followed bybrief explanation of selected protocols.

4.1. Issues affecting QoS

Several issues, such as the service model, rout-ing strategies, admission control, resource reserva-tion, signaling techniques, and MAC protocolsneed to be considered in the context of providingQoS in ad hoc wireless networks. In fact, everylayer of the network has to be made QoS aware be-cause only when all the factors are considered to-gether in the overall scenario can effective QoSbe provided for the end-user application. Webriefly discuss below the important issues acrossdifferent layers.

A QoS service model specifies an overall archi-tectural framework, within which certain types ofservices can be provided in the network. Some ofthe prominent service models suggested for adhoc networks are: flexible quality of service modelfor MANETs (FQMM) [77], cross layer servicemodel [78], and stateless model for wireless adhoc networks (SWAN) [79].

Signaling is used in order to negotiate, reserve,maintain and free up resources, and is one of themost complicated aspects of the network. It shouldbe performed reliably (including topologychanges) with minimum overhead. Out-of-band

and in-band signaling are two commonly used ap-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

proaches. INSIGNIA [80] and Integrated MobileAd Hoc QoS (iMAQ) framework [81] are exam-ples of signaling schemes proposed in theliterature.

If the application needs to be guaranteed a cer-tain minimum bandwidth or end-to-end delay, therouting scheme should also be QoS aware. Notonly does the route have to be valid at the timethe data is to be transported, but also all the nodesalong that route need to have sufficient resourcesin order to support the QoS requirement of thedata flow and the application. For extensive surveyof routing techniques, the reader is referred to[3,5,72,82]. Once a potential route is established,it is necessary to reserve and allocate the requiredresources in all the nodes of that route so that thedemands of the application can be met. The admis-sion control becomes important in this context.

QoS supporting components at upper layers as-sume the existence of a QoS-aware MAC protocol,which takes care of medium contention, supportsreliable unicast communication, and provides re-source reservation for rt traffic in a distributedenvironment. The MAC protocols are thereforevery important for QoS support, since they havea direct bearing on how reliably and efficientlydata can be transmitted from one node to the nextalong any path in the network. The MAC protocolshould address issues caused by node mobility andunreliable time-varying channel.

4.2. Review of selected QoS-aware MAC protocols

In ad hoc networks, MAC protocols aim tosolve the problem of contention by addressingthe issues of hidden or exposed terminals. Forreal-time applications requiring certain level ofQoS, the MAC layer protocol should also supportresource reservation and real time (rt) traffic.MAC is a lower level function and needs to be clo-sely integrated with upper layers such as the net-work layer for routing. Since centralized controlis not available, it is difficult to maintain informa-tion about connections and reservations.

There are two ways to avoid the use of a central-ized coordinator node in QoS-aware MACschemes. The first approach involves synchronous

schemes like Cluster TDMA [83,84], Cluster Token

[85], and Soft Reservation Multiple Access withPriority Assignment (SRMA/PA) [86]. In Cluster

TDMA, the nodes are organized into clusters, andeach cluster has a cluster head that is responsiblefor coordinating the activities of the nodes underits purview. Each cluster uses a different DS-SpreadSpectrum code. A common, globally synchronousslotted TDM frame is defined among clusters. Slotscan be reserved by rt traffic and free slots are usedby non-real-time (nrt) data. The rt traffic handlingperformance of the scheme is very good. However,time synchronization is a resource intensive processand should ideally be avoided in ad hoc networks.Similarly, the implementation of multiple codesand associated power control is non-trivial. Themerits of such TDMA schemes have been discussedin [7]. In Cluster Token scheme, the TDM accessscheme is replaced by an implicit token schemewithin each cluster. Also, no synchronization is re-quired across different clusters.

The other option is to use asynchronous ap-proaches that do not require global time synchro-nization and therefore are more suitable for ad hocnetworks. IEEE 802.11 DCF is a widely used asyn-chronous protocol that uses a best effort deliverymodel [22–25]. It does not support rt traffic as itsrandom backoff mechanism cannot provide deter-ministic upper bounds on channel access delays. Anumber of QoS-aware MAC schemes have beenproposed in the past few years and most of themare more or less based on the IEEE 802.11 DCF.No formal classification exists in the literature togroup these schemes. We have attempted to clas-sify below these schemes according to their majorfeatures: i. some schemes, such as real-time MAC[87], DCF with priority classes [88] and enhancedDCF (EDCF) [89–91], use shorter inter-framespacing and backoff contention values to meetthe delay and bandwidth requirements of rt traffic.These schemes are relatively straightforwardextensions of IEEE 802.11 DCF and can be over-laid on this protocol. ii. The black burst (BB) con-tention [92,93], elimination by sieving (ES-DCF)and deadline bursting (DB-DCF) [94,95] schemesuse a shorter inter-frame spacing and a differentapproach than the backoff window for channelcontention to support bounded time delay of rt

traffic. iii. Instead of directly manipulating inter-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

frame spacing and contention window, anothergroup of schemes uses reserved time slots at nodesto provide bounded delay and required bandwidthfor the rt traffic. The nrt data traffic is treated ex-actly as in IEEE 802.11. Examples of this classof schemes are: MACA/PR [96], asynchronousQoS enabled multi-hop MAC [97] and dynamicbandwidth allocation/sharing/extension (DBASE)protocol [98]. iv. The above classes of schemesmay not guarantee a fair proportion of channelto different flows. Therefore, some researchershave proposed MAC schemes (e.g., distributed fairscheduling [99]) to provide a reasonably fair chan-nel allocation to different flows (often according totheir priority).

It should be pointed out that the schemes of dif-ferent classes often have some common features.We discuss below salient features of major schemesin each category.

4.2.1. Real-time MAC (RT-MAC)In IEEE 802.11 protocol, packets that have

missed their deadlines are still retransmitted, eventhough they are not useful any more. This causesbandwidth and resources to be wasted. Baldwinet al. [87] proposed a variation of the IEEE802.11 protocol called RT-MAC that supports rt

traffic by avoiding packet collisions and the trans-mission of already expired packets. To achieve this,RT-MAC scheme uses a packet transmission dead-line and an �enhanced collision avoidance� schemeto determine the transmission station�s next backoffvalue. When an rt packet is queued for transmis-sion, a timestamp is recorded locally in the nodeindicating the time by when the packet should betransmitted. The sending node checks whether apacket has expired at three points: before sendingthe packet, when its backoff timer expires and whena transmission goes unacknowledged. An expiredpacket is immediately dropped from the transmis-sion queue. When the packet is actually about tobe sent out, the sending node chooses the nextbackoff value and records it in the packet header.Any node that overhears this packet then ensuresthat it chooses a different backoff value. This elim-inates the possibility of collision. The range of val-ues (i.e., contention window, CW) from which thebackoff value is chosen, is made a function of the

number of nodes in the system. Therefore, thenumber of nodes should be known or at least esti-mated in this scheme.

RT-MAC scheme has been shown to achievedrastic reductions in mean packet delay, misseddeadlines, and packet collisions as compared toIEEE 802.11. However, the contention windowmay typically become quite large in a network withlarge number of nodes. This will result in wastedbandwidth when the network load is light.

4.2.2. DCF with priority classes

Deng et al. [88] proposed another variation ofthe IEEE 802.11 protocol (henceforth calledDCF-PC) that supports priority based access fordifferent classes of data. The basic idea is to usea combination of shorter IFS or waiting timesand shorter backoff time values (i.e., maximumallowable size of contention window) for higherpriority data (i.e., rt traffic). As already mentioned,some different IFS intervals specified in the IEEE802.11 protocol are SIFS, PIFS and DIFS [23–25]. While normal nodes wait for the channel to re-main idle after DIFS interval before they transmitdata, a higher priority node waits for only PIFS.However, if the chosen backoff value happens tobe longer, the higher priority node can still loseout to another node that has a larger IFS but ashorter random backoff value. In order to solvethis problem, the authors have proposed two dif-ferent formulae for generating the random backoffvalues so that the higher priority nodes are as-signed shorter backoff time.

Using simulations, the authors have demon-strated that this scheme has better performancethan 802.11 DCF, in terms of throughput, accessdelay and frame loss probability for higher priority(rt) traffic. It can support more than two traffic pri-orities. However, this scheme lacks the ability toprovide deterministic delay bounds for rt traffic.Moreover, normal data traffic suffers higher delaydue to a longer backoff time even when no higherpriority node is transmitting. Channel bandwidthis also wasted in such cases.

4.2.3. Enhanced DCF

IEEE 802.11 DCF is designed to provide achannel access with equal probabilities to all the


ARTICLE IN PRESS

contending nodes in a distributed manner. EDCFenhances the DCF protocol to provide differenti-ated channel access according to the framepriorities. It has been developed as a part of thehybrid coordination function (HCF) of IEEE802.11e [89–91]. We discuss below its workingprinciple, independent of the details of IEEE802.11e HCF.

Each data frame is assigned a traffic class (TC)in the MAC header, based on its priority asdetermined in the higher layers. During the con-tention process, EDCF uses AIFS[TC], CWmin

[TC] and CWmax [TC] instead of DIFS, CWmin

and CWmax of the DCF, respectively, for a framebelonging to a particular TC. Here AIFS (Arbi-tration Inter Frame Space) duration is at leastDIFS, and can be enlarged individually for eachTC. The CWmin of the backoff mechanism is setdifferently for different priority classes. EDCFthus combines two measures to provide servicedifferentiation. Fig. 8 illustrates the EDCF chan-nel access.

Based on the analysis of delay incurred by IEEE802.11 DCF, Veres et al. [75] proposed a fully dis-tributed Virtual MAC (VMAC) scheme that sup-ports service differentiation, radio monitoring,and admission control for delay-sensitive andbest-effort traffic. VMAC passively monitors theradio channel and estimates locally achievable ser-vice levels. It also estimates key MAC-level QoSstatistics, such as delay, delay variation, packetcollision, and packet loss.

Immediate access when medium is idle >= AIFS[TC] +

Slot Time

Busy Medium

SloDefer Access

Se

AIFS[TC] + Slot Time

DIFS

PIFS

SIFS

Fig. 8. The EDCF chan

4.2.4. Black burst (BB) contention

Sobrinho and Krishnakumar [92,93] introducedBB contention scheme in. This scheme is distrib-uted, can be overlaid on the IEEE 802.11 standardand relies on carrier sensing. The scheme operatesas follows: Normal data nodes use a longer inter-frame spacing than rt nodes. This automaticallybiases the system in favor of the rt nodes. Insteadof sending their packets when the channel becomesidle for a predetermined amount of time, rt nodesjam the channel with pulses of energy (which aretermed the black bursts) whose length is propor-tional to the contention delay experienced by thenode. This delay is measured from the instant anattempt is made to access the channel until theBB transmission is started.

To uniquely identify all the BB pulses sent bydifferent rt nodes, they all differ in length by atleast one black slot. Following each BB transmis-sion, a node senses the channel for an observationperiod to determine whether its own BB was thelongest or not. If so, the node goes ahead withits data transmission. Otherwise it has to wait forthe channel to be idle before it can send anotherBB. In essence, the scheme seems to achieve a dy-namic TDM transmission structure without expli-cit slot assignments or synchronization. Itguarantees that rt packets are transmitted withoutcollisions and with a higher priority over others. Ithas also been shown that BB contention enforces around robin discipline among rt nodes (if there ismore than one) and achieves bounded rt delays.

Contention Window from [1, CW[TC]+1]

t Time

lect Slot and decrement backoff as long as medium stays idle

Backoff Window Next Frame

nel access scheme.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

The BB contention scheme thus provides someQoS guarantees to rt multimedia traffic as com-pared to simple carrier sense networks. Applica-tions considered are those like voice and videothat require more or less periodic access to thechannel during long periods of time denominatedsessions. One of the main considerations in suchapplications is the end-to-end delay. This trans-lates to requiring a bounded packet delay at thedata link layer. However, this scheme does notconsider hidden terminal problem.

4.2.5. Elimination by sieving (ES-DCF) anddeadline bursting (DB-DCF)

Pal et al. [94,95] proposed two variants of theIEEE 802.11 DCF that offer guaranteed timebound delivery for rt traffic, by using deterministiccollision resolution algorithms. Interestingly, theyalso employ black burst features.

The ES-DCF has three phases of operation—elimination, channel acquisition and collision reso-lution. In elimination phase, every node is assigneda grade based on the deadlines and priority of itspackets as in [88]. A closer deadline results in alower numerical grade, which translates to lowerthan DIFS channel-free wait times. Therefore,the grade of the packet improves if it remains inthe queue for a longer time. In the channel acqui-sition phase, the node transmits RTS packet to ini-tiate the channel acquisition, when the channel hasbeen free for the requisite amount of time, asdecided by the grade of its data packet. If it re-ceives a CTS packet in return, the channel is con-sidered acquired successfully. Otherwise, the thirdphase of collision resolution is initiated by sendingout a BB (as in [92,93]). The length of the BB cor-responds to the node identification (Id) number.Higher Id numbers are given to the nodes that gen-erate a lot of rt data. The node that sends out thelongest burst accesses the channel at the subse-quent attempt.

In the DB-DCF, the first phase is for BB con-tention wherein the lengths of the BB packets areproportional to the urgency (i.e., relative dead-lines) of the rt packet. This is followed by phasesfor channel acquisition and collision resolution,which are similar to the corresponding phases inES-DCF.

Both schemes assign channel-free wait timelonger than DIFS for nrt nodes, such that thesenodes are allowed to transmit only when the otherrt nodes have no data waiting to be sent. However,the results of the simulations carried out by theauthors indicate that ES-DCF is more useful whenhard rt traffic is involved, and DB-DCF performsbetter in the case of nodes with soft rt packets. Dueto the use of BB and longer (than DIFS) channel-free wait time for nrt traffic, these schemes cannotbe directly overlaid on any existing IEEE 802.11DCF implementation.

4.2.6. Multiple access collision avoidance with

piggyback reservations (MACA/PR)

Lin and Gerla [96] proposed MACA/PR archi-tecture to provide efficient rt multimedia supportover ad hoc networks. MACA/PR is an extensionof IEEE 802.11 [23–25] and FAMA [15]. Thearchitecture includes a MAC protocol, a reserva-tion protocol for setting up rt connections and aQoS aware routing scheme. We will discuss onlythe MAC protocol here.

In MACA/PR, nodes maintain a special reser-vation table that tells them when a packet is dueto be transmitted. The first data packet in an rt

data stream sets up reservations along the entirepath by using the standard RTS–CTS approach.Both these control packets contain the expectedlength of the data packet. As soon as the firstpacket makes such a reservation on a link, a trans-mission slot is allocated at the sender and the nextreceiver node at appropriate time intervals (usuallyin the next time cycle) for the subsequent packet ofthat stream. The sender also piggybacks the reser-vation information for the subsequent data packetin the current data packet. The receiver notes thisreservation in its reservation table, and also con-firms this through the ACK packet. Neighboringnodes overhearing the data and ACK packets, be-come aware of the subsequent packet transmissionschedule, and back off accordingly. The ACK onlyserves to renew the reservation, as the data packetis not retransmitted even if the ACK is lost due tocollision. If the sender consecutively fails to receiveACK N times, it assumes that the link cannot sat-isfy the bandwidth requirement and notifies theupper layer (i.e., QoS routing protocol). Since


ARTICLE IN PRESS

there is no RTS–CTS exchange after the first datapacket, collision prevention of rt packets isthrough the use of the reservation tables. For nrt

data packet, MACA/PR uses IEEE 802.11 DCF.Using simulations, the authors have demon-

strated that this asynchronous scheme is able toachieve a lower end-to-end delay than otherschemes that require time synchronization suchas Cluster Token and Cluster TDMA. However,since the cluster based schemes use code separa-tion, they can achieve higher aggregate throughputefficiency. Another reason for lower throughputachieved by MACA/PR is that multiple reserva-tion tables need to be kept current at all times sothat the sending node can consult them beforetransmission. This introduces an overhead on thenetwork as the tables are exchanged frequentlyamong neighbors.

4.2.7. Asynchronous QoS enabled multi-hop MAC

Ying et al. [97] proposed an asynchronous pro-tocol based on the IEEE 802.11 DCF, that sup-ports constant bit-rate (CBR) and variable bitrate (VBR) rt traffic, and regular nrt datagramtraffic. In the case of an nrt data transmission,the regular RTS–CTS–DATA–ACK sequence isemployed between the sender and the receiver.The acknowledgments sent in response to nrt andrt packets are called D-ACK and R-ACK, respec-tively. Similarly, the nrt and rt data packets aretermed as D-PKT and R-PKT, respectively. Inthe case of rt traffic, though, there is no RTS–CTS exchange for the data packets sent after thefirst R-PKT (similar to the MACA/PR scheme[96]). In other words, the R-ACK packet reservesthe transmission slot for the next rt data packet.The scheme requires every node to maintain tworeservation tables, Rx RT and Tx RT. The former(latter) informs the node when neighbors expectincoming (to transmit) rt traffic. These estimatesare recorded in the corresponding tables basedon the overhearing of R-PKT and R-ACK pack-ets. In essence, before sending any RTS, nodeslook for a common free slot based on the entriesin the reservation tables so as not to interfere withrt transmissions already in the queue in the neigh-borhood. Similarly, if a node receives an RTS, itperforms the same checks before responding with

a CTS packet. After a successful RTS–CTS ex-change, data is sent out, and an ACK is expected.If an ACK is missed, the node starts to backoff(using BEB) and uses the IEEE 802.11 contentionwindows for the same.

This scheme allows for bounded delays in rt

traffic but depends on the overhearing of R-PKTand R-ACK packets within each node�s transmis-sion range to avoid hidden node problem. Boththe receiver and transmitter nodes check theirown tables, thereby eliminating the overhead ofexchanging table information. Using simulations,the authors have demonstrated that this schemeachieves lower delays for rt traffic than BB Con-tention, MACA/PR and DFS [99] schemes. Thepacket loss rates are also relatively small.

Sheu et al. [98] have proposed the Dynamic

Bandwidth Allocation/Sharing/Extension (DBASE)protocol that also uses a reservation table for sup-porting rt traffic. A unique feature of this scheme isthat bandwidth allocation can change dynamicallyover time, which allows efficient support of CBRas well as VBR traffic. The scheme achieves veryhigh throughput and low packet loss probabilityfor rt-packets even at heavy traffic load, and out-performs the IEEE 802.11 DCF [23–25] and DFS[99] schemes. DBASE, however, assumes that allthe nodes can hear one another and it may be dif-ficult to extend it to the (multi-hop) ad hoc net-works with hidden terminals. Overall, DBASE isa quite different scheme than the other two (previ-ously discussed) reservation based schemes.

4.2.8. Distributed fair scheduling (DFS)

Vaidya et al. [99] proposed the DFS scheme toensure that different flows sharing a common wire-less channel are assigned appropriate bandwidthcorresponding to their weights or priorities. DFSis derived from the IEEE 802.11 DCF and requiresno central coordinator to regulate access to themedium. The fundamental idea of DFS is thateach packet is associated with start and finish time-stamps. A higher priority packet is assigned asmaller �finish-tag� and shorter backoff periods.This approach ensures that any flow that has pack-ets of higher priority will consistently have shorterbackoff times, thereby achieving a higherthroughput.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

In DFS, the start and finish times for packetsare calculated on the basis of the Self-Clocked FairQueuing (SCFQ) algorithm proposed by Golestani[100]. Following the idea of SCFQ, every node alsomaintains a local virtual clock. DFS does not,however, REMOVE short-term unfairness in cer-tain cases. The authors observe that the use of col-lision resolution schemes such as those proposed in[101] can resolve this anomaly. In order to calcu-late backoff intervals, the authors have proposedtwo alternate approaches: linear mapping andexponential mapping. A disadvantage of the linearmapping scheme is that if many packet flows havelow priorities, all of them are assigned large back-off intervals. As a result, the system remains idlefor long periods of time. The exponential mappingapproach is proposed as one solution to thisproblem.

Using simulations, the authors have shown thatDFS obtains a higher throughput than IEEE802.11. Also, they have verified that use of expo-nential mapping technique for calculating backoffintervals leads to higher throughput than linearmapping. However, the DFS does not considerthe hidden terminal problem and delay bound ofrt packets [98]. Nandagopal et al. [102] have alsoproposed a general analytical framework for mod-eling the fairness.

5. Summary and future directions

Due to space constraints and the large numberof MAC schemes reviewed in this paper, it is diffi-cult to compare their quantitative performance.We briefly discuss below qualitative performanceof some of these schemes.

The CSMA based MAC schemes are not suit-able in ad hoc networks due to multi-hop trans-mission and hidden/exposed terminal problems.The MACA scheme [13] was proposed to solvethese problems with the help of two relativelyshort RTS/CTS control packets. The MACAWscheme [14] adds an ACK packet to the transmis-sion sequence, providing quicker response to datapacket loss at the MAC layer. The MACAWscheme also includes techniques to solve the con-gestion and unfairness problems at the MAC

layer. Although schemes like MACA and MA-CAW are based on the RTS–CTS dialog andabandon the carrier sensing mechanism in orderto reduce performance degradation caused by hid-den terminals, they are only partially successful,since the control packets are themselves subjectto collisions.

A combination of control packets (e.g., RTS/CTS/ACK) and carrier sensing (i.e., CSMA) hasbeen found to reduce the probability of collisionscaused by hidden terminals. Such a strategy hasbeen used by FAMA-NCS [15] with a mechanismto provide ‘‘CTS dominance’’. This solves the hid-den terminal problem since the data packets cannever collide with CTS packets. The exposed ter-minal problem is still unsolved, though. Similarto the FAMA scheme, the IEEE 802.11 DCF stan-dard combines the CSMA and the RTS/CTS mes-sage exchange. While IEEE 802.11 DCF workswell in wireless LAN environment, it is not partic-ularly suitable for multi-hop ad hoc networks withmobile nodes [71,104].

In spite of the use of RTS/CTS/ACK andNAV in IEEE 802.11, some packets are still vul-nerable to collisions as explained below. Thetransmission range of a node in which it can suc-cessfully decode the packet is determined by thereceived signal strength. Let RX_Th and CS_Thdenote the minimum received signal power forreceiving a valid packet and sensing a carrier,respectively. The received signal is discarded asnoise if its strength is lower than CS_Th. If the re-ceived signal strength is in between RX_Th andCS_Th, the node cannot decode the packet butcan sense the transmission. This is referred to asinterference range. A node that is out of interfer-ence range of receiver (sender) but is within theinterference range of sender (receiver) cannotsense ACK (data packet). As a result, the ACKand data packets are vulnerable to collisions fromthese nodes. Collisions in ACK packets are partic-ularly troublesome as their loss results in retrans-mission of long data packets. Extended IFS(EIFS) is used in IEEE 802.11 DCF to preventcollisions with ACK receptions at sender[35,104]. However, most of the other MACschemes consider that the transmission range isequal to the interference range.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Due to the use of BEB algorithm in IEEE802.11 DCF, the contention window size quicklyincreases for the nodes whose data suffers colli-sions. On the other hand, the contention windowis set to the minimum value CWmin for each newpacket even when the previous packet was notdelivered successfully and the network area iscongested. This contention and backoff strategyis unfair to the already existing nodes that arebacking off due to collisions, especially underthe heavy traffic conditions. Bhargavan et al.[14] attempted to improve the situation by usingthe multiplicative increase and linear decrease(MILD) algorithm in MACAW. This schemehowever reduces throughput in light traffic condi-tions. Weinmiller et al. [105] proposed to dividethe slots in a contention cycle in two parts suchthat the newly arriving traffic is assigned slotsafter the traffic that has suffered collisions. Caliet al. [106] proposed another scheme (to achievefair channel access and reduce the probability ofcollisions) in which the contention window for anode is dynamically set depending on the trafficin its vicinity.

Multiple simultaneous transmissions can takeplace amongst different nodes that are out oftransmission/interference range in a multi-hop net-work. Multi-hop networks experience more colli-sions compared to the one-hop case as the nodesare overlapped successively in space. As a result,congestion in one area may also affect the neigh-boring areas and can even propagate to otherareas. The end-to-end throughput of IEEE802.11 DCF decreases considerably in multi-hopnetworks due to collisions at intermediate for-warding nodes [71]. The throughput can be im-proved by resolving the exposed terminalproblem (as in DBTMA [20] and using power con-trol (as in PCMA [36]) and directional antenna[56–64] based schemes.

As devices shrink in size, their ability to carrylarger battery packs will diminish. The power-aware schemes across all layers of the networkcan maximize performance and battery life. Boththe power management (using sleep and wake cy-cles for various nodes) and power control (chang-ing power level in the nodes) approaches used inpower-aware MAC schemes have their advantages

and disadvantages in data communication, asbriefly discussed below.

Power management based MAC schemes suchas PAMAS [27] achieve significant power savingsby powering down nodes at the appropriate times.Interestingly, even though the nodes follow alter-nating sleep and wake cycles, throughput is not af-fected since a node sleeps only when it cannotactually transmit or receive. PAMAS howeverlacks provisioning of acknowledgment at theMAC layer. If an enhancement, such as the onein MACAW [14], is made at the link layer, energyefficiency can be improved as the higher layerretransmissions become unnecessary. Power man-agement yields significant savings but reduces thenetwork capacity when only a small number ofnodes are active. It may also introduce long routeestablishment delays, since sleeping nodes mightneed to be woken up for packet transmission.

Power control based MAC schemes improve thenetwork capacity through spatial reuse, but it alsoincreases the end-to-end delay for packet deliverydue to the need for large number of short hopsin a multi-hop path. The PCM [35] protocol usesthe concept of power control by regulating trans-mission power levels according to the factors suchas the distance between the nodes. This is a ratherpractical approach and it should be easy to mergethis technique with the power managementschemes (similar to PAMAS [27]). When nodeswake up from their sleep state, they can initiateRTS and CTS transmissions to deduce the re-quired power level for subsequent transmissions.We have seen that the IEEE 802.11 standard alsolends itself to some provisioning for power saving,but this needs to be explored further and im-proved. As explained in [10], there is a need to finda balance between power savings and control traf-fic overhead. This is important in the context ofscalability, which is an important issue in ad hocnetworks.

Ebert et al. [44] observed that using lowerpower levels to transmit data packets can resultin higher bit error rates and expensive retransmis-sions. Using power control with IEEE 802.11 pro-tocol, Feeney et al. [45] found that small packetsusually have disproportionately high energy-costsdue to the large overheads of channel acquisition.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

They also observed that the ad hoc mode ismore expensive than the centralized base stationmode.

An ad hoc network may comprise heteroge-neous devices with diverse power sources such aslow power transducers, PDAs, handheld computerand other devices that may be tethered to a powersupply. These devices will vary in their transmitpower capabilities. This gives rise to asymmetric

links between devices with widely different powersources. It is important to ensure that low powernode(s) in the neighborhood of more powerfulnodes are not denied channel access. Most of thepower aware schemes in the literature do not con-sider the heterogeneous nodes, fairness properties,node mobility and multi-hop networks [10].

The performance (e.g., throughput) of singlechannel MAC schemes degrades significantly dueto higher collisions when the number of mobilenodes increases. Use of power control schemesand directional antenna to increase channel reusecan improve the performance. Another option isto use multiple channels where a channel could bea code (in CDMA) or a frequency band (inFDMA). The advantages of multi-channelschemes were discussed in Section 3.3.3 Of coursesome multi-channel schemes such as DBTMA [20]use only single data channel. DBTMA addressesthe hidden and exposed terminal problems byusing separate channels to set up busy tones. How-ever, DBTMA requires relatively more complexhardware, i.e., two narrow-bandwidth transmittersfor setting up separate busy tones. Even so, the sig-nificant performance benefit obtained by thescheme over others like MACA and FAMA-NCS can justify the required extra hardware com-plexity for some applications. Some other MACschemes also solve the hidden-terminal and the ex-posed-terminal problems using different ap-proaches, e.g., HRMA [19] solves these problemswith multiple FHSS channels.

For using the multiple data channel, the mobilehosts can either have a single transceiver (capableof switching from one channel to another) or mul-tiple transceivers (capable of accessing multiplechannels simultaneously). Use of multiple trans-ceivers requires complex hardware and higher cost.Moreover, hardware with the ability to synchro-

nize transceivers for using different frequenciesmay not be feasible in miniature devices.

A multi-channel scheme typically needs to ad-dress the issues of channel assignment (for multipledata channels) and medium access. The number ofchannels chosen by a scheme should be indepen-dent of network degree [51]. Multi-channel CSMA[48] is a degree independent scheme. However, itrequires each node to listen to all the channelswhile there is only one transmitter hopping fromone channel to another. This will increase thehardware cost due to need for multiple transceiv-ers. Also it suffers from the hidden terminal prob-lem due to lack of RTS/CTS like reservationmechanism. HRMA scheme [19] is also a degreeindependent scheme using single transceiver, butit requires clock synchronization, which is difficultwhen the network is dispersed in a large area. Sim-ilarly, IEEE 802.11 based MMAC scheme requiressingle transceiver, but it needs node synchroniza-tion. DCA [51] scheme uses on-demand channelassignment (with single transceiver) and does notrequire clock synchronization. Jain et al. [53] haveproposed a scheme that is similar to DCA in hav-ing one control and N data channels. However, thebest channel is selected according to the channelcondition at the receiver side. While most of theschemes use either power saving or multiple chan-nels, the DCA-PC scheme addresses the channelassignment, medium access and power control is-sues in an integrated manner, in order to exploitthe advantages of power saving as well as multiplechannels.

We have already seen that almost all theschemes rely on some control packets and theamount of overhead caused by these packets willgrow as the number of nodes in the network in-creases. Transmission of each control packet re-quires resources to be used. As a result, there is aneed to investigate the relationship between thenumber of nodes and the control packet overhead.Instead of relying on flat networks, it may be use-ful to employ clustering schemes at higher layerslike routing, although a detailed survey of thosemethods is beyond the scope of this study.

In the previous section, we briefly discussed ma-jor QoS-aware MAC schemes and identified theirfeatures and weaknesses. In particular, we looked


ARTICLE IN PRESS

at issues of providing guaranteed bandwidth andbounded delays for rt traffic. Most of theseschemes are based on the widely used IEEE802.11 DCF protocol. As mentioned earlier, IEEE802.11 DCF protocol does not support QoS fea-tures such as bounded delay, guaranteed band-width, different user (or flow) priorities, and fairresource allocation.

The IEEE 802.11 DCF specifies different IFSslots, and because of the modular nature of theDCF, these slots can be easily exploited to provideservice differentiation. Higher priority (or rt) nodesin a number of MAC schemes wait for the wirelessmedium to be free for shorter IFS than other (nrt)nodes [87–89]. Similarly, the backoff contentionmechanism of IEEE 802.11 DCF has been widelyused for service differentiation in [87–89]. Theseschemes successfully provide a relatively shorteraverage delay for higher priority (i.e., rt) traffic.However, a larger fraction of the packets suffermuch longer delay at high loads. Aad and Castel-luccia [103] have observed that the flows in IEEE802.11 using the maximum frame size and framefragmentation get higher throughput in case of er-ror free channel. This is used for providing servicedifferentiation in combination with IFS and back-off schemes. However, longer packets are morelikely to get corrupted than the shorter frames inthe presence of noise. In fact, the service differenti-ation by using backoff and maximum frame lengthdoes not work well in noisy environment, while theperformance of shorter inter frame spacing re-mains unchanged. The most MAC schemes donot consider the effect of channel errors.

Another alternative approach to contentionwas used in BB-based scheme [92,93]. The primarystrength of this scheme is the use of black-burstsignals to disseminate degree-of-urgency informa-tion to other nodes in the network. It guaranteesbounded and typically very small rt delays. How-ever, it imposes extra requirements (such as con-stant access intervals) on high priority stations.A major limitation of this scheme is that it is opti-mized for the service needs of isochronous trafficsources and may not work well with VBR sources.Similarly, it is not well suited if a node has onlysingle or a few urgent packets to be delivered.Moreover the hidden terminals were not expressly

considered in this approach. It may be possible toimprove this by adding the carrier sensing andbusy tones.

The above mentioned schemes may not ensureend-to-end delay required for rt traffic (CBR aswell as VBR) over multi-hop ad hoc networks.For this, reservation based schemes (i.e., MACA-PR [96] and its variant in [97]; DBASE does notsuit multi-hop networks) have been proposed thatentail significant changes in IEEE 802.11 DCF.The end-to-end delay in these schemes is lower asa packet need not wait to access the channel atintermediate nodes. Rather it can immediately ac-cess the free available slot. However, neighboringnodes in MACA/PR are required to periodicallyexchange reservation tables (RT). The resultingoverhead increases with the frequency of RT ex-change. An infrequent exchange, on the otherhand, increases chances of collision. The variantof MACA/PR in [97] has better performance, asit does not require RT exchange. Both of theseschemes have been shown to achieve lower averageand maximum delays for rt traffic, and smallerpacket loss rates than BB Contention and DFS[99] schemes.

Most of the above-mentioned schemes (includ-ing service differentiation based schemes) maynot provide fair sharing between rt traffic and dat-agram. The lower priority traffic often suffers fromstarvation in the presence of heavy rt traffic. TheDFS scheme also uses the backoff mechanism ofIEEE 802.11. The service differentiation isachieved by choosing the backoff interval inverselyproportional to the priority of the node. On theother hand, fairness is achieved by making theinterval proportional to the packet size. It doesnot, however, provide bounded delay required byrt traffic. Moreover, the backoff intervals for lowerpriority flows can become quite large, which couldbe undesirable if the flow is already backlogged.

So far, we looked at some of the ideas proposedin the literature for incorporating explicit supportfor rt traffic into the MAC layer protocols. Theuse of asynchronous access, smaller channel-freewait times, need for determinism in collision reso-lution, dissemination of urgency information,dropping expired packets, fairness, etc. were someof the important aspects of the protocols.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

5.1. Future directions

The MAC schemes reported in the technical lit-erature have addressed, some successfully whileothers partially, a broad range of problems in adhoc networks, including the well-known hidden/exposed terminal problems and QoS provisioning.However, several important issues still need to beaddressed.

5.1.1. Hidden/exposed terminal problems

In fact, while it is well-known that the transmis-sion from a hidden terminal may destroy the pack-et reception at the receiver, the transmission fromexposed terminals should be allowed on the samechannel to maximize overall spatial reuse. Mostof the MAC schemes addressing the hidden termi-nal problem do not effectively treat the exposedterminal problem. In fact, introduction of ACKpacket on the MAC layer prohibits the exposedterminals from reusing the channel. Eliminatingthe ACK packets may solve the problem. How-ever, the sender then has no way to be sure of itsdata packet being received successfully. Someresearchers have attempted to use busy tones andmultiple channels to solve these problems (e.g.,DBTMA [20]). The balance and trade-off betweenthese two conflicting design issues need to bestudied.

As explained in the previous section, the ACKand data packets are vulnerable to collisions fromthe interfering nodes. Collisions in ACK packetsare particularly troublesome as their loss resultsin retransmission of long data packets. However,most of the other MAC schemes consider thatthe transmission range is equal to the interferencerange.

5.1.2. Interference-limited model

Most of the proposed MAC schemes, if not all,use an overly-simplified packet collision model,i.e., the circular step-function collision model.The transmission range of each node is usually as-sumed to be the same. The node will always over-hear all transmissions sent within this range. If twotransmissions in this range overlap over time,packet collisions occur. While this collision modelsimplifies protocol design and its theoretical anal-

ysis, it may provide vastly inaccurate informationon how certain operations may be performed.For example, there could be two senders, both ofwhich are outside of the transmission (reception)range of a common receiver. The concurrent trans-missions of these two nodes may affect any recep-tion at this node. Therefore, interference should beconsidered instead of the simple Cartesiandistance.

5.1.3. Energy conservation

Power conservation is another challenging as-pect in ad hoc networks with mobile and batteryoperated devices (i.e., nodes). Apart from techno-logical advances in developing miniature powersources, the research on developing energy efficientMAC protocols will be critical. As discussed ear-lier, both the power management and power sav-ing approaches have their drawbacks in terms ofthroughput, protocol overhead, asymmetric links,sensitivity to channel errors, etc.

5.1.4. Single channel vs. multiple channels

Many MAC schemes employ certain controlpackets (such as RTS/CTS in MACA, FAMA,IEEE 802.11) to negotiate the use of the channelbefore the data packet transmission starts. Sincethese control packets may collide with data pack-ets, some MAC schemes transmit control packetson a separate control channel. Data packets arethen transmitted on the data channel(s) after nego-tiations are performed successfully on the controlchannel.

The real issue with regard to such arrangementis whether it actually improves the efficiency ofchannel usage. Thorough studies are necessary tounderstand the relationship of different ratios ofcontrol/data channel data rates, as this affects therelative time to transmit control packets and hencethe overall throughput. The overall benefit ofusing multiple channels instead of a single channelis still unclear.

5.1.5. Multi-hop networks

Most of the MAC schemes for wireless ad hocnetworks do not result in optimum transmissionpattern, which should provide maximum networkutilization, when used in multi-hop networks. In


ARTICLE IN PRESS

order to provide an optimum transmission patternor structure, the schedule or queue of all activenodes in the entire network should be known. Gi-ven the dynamic and distributed nature of ad hocnetworks, the information of the entire network isusually unknown before decisions can be made tostart accessing the channel. However, the informa-tion in the local area may be available due to thelimited speed and quasi-static traffic pattern overa period of time. How to use this limited informa-tion and instruct the active nodes to access thechannel in an orderly and effective manner canbe an interesting area of study for MAC schemesin wireless ad hoc networks.

5.1.6. Fairness among competing nodes

Fair channel access to the competing activenodes is an important issue in a MAC scheme.An extreme example is to always allow one nodeto use the shared channel, while keeping all othernodes waiting. The throughput and delay perfor-mance of such an unfair scheme may be betterthan other MAC schemes. For example, schemessuch as DFS that provide fair access to competingnodes do not support time bounded delay for rt

traffic.

5.1.7. Directional antennas

In the future, applications are likely to requiremore and more bandwidth, and these ad hoc net-works may well be part of our daily lives. Smartantennas based on directional control may needto evolve and robust methods of effectively utiliz-ing them will be required. As of now, relatively lit-tle work has been done in this area, and furtherresearch will have to be conducted as the actualhardware development takes place.

5.1.8. QoS issues

With the widespread availability of portablecomputing devices, more and more applicationsare being designed for mobile use. Although atpresent, cellular connectivity is a popular choice,there is no doubt that ad hoc networks will becomeincreasingly popular. As multimedia applicationsare developed and deployed over such ad hoc net-works, QoS parameters and issues become evenmore important. The MAC layer plays an impor-

tant role in the performance of the overall system,affecting other layers (in particular the networklayer). Effective MAC protocols should find agood balance between the added complexity ofoffering service guarantees for multiple serviceclasses, efficient use of available resources, andthe ability to react promptly to failed transmis-sions. For this, close integration among resourcereservation schemes, MAC protocols, and routingapproaches needs to be achieved in order to satisfythe overall QoS requirements.

The main sources of dynamics in ad hoc net-works are: variable link characteristics and mobilenodes. Variable application demand can also beconsidered another source of dynamics. Mostschemes consider the wireless links between net-works nodes as having constant characteristics(e.g., bandwidth and error rate). However theselinks are subject to variations in their transmissionquality (i.e., bit error rate, BER) due to factorssuch as interferences and fading. If the link layerdoes not detect or respond to the changes inBER, an increase in BER will result in more pack-et losses at the network layer. It would be difficultfor the network layer to distinguish whether pack-et losses are due to congestion or link layer corrup-tion. As a result, network layer will not be able tocorrectly determine the current available band-width, which is a key parameter in any resourcereservation-based QoS mechanism. The automaticrepeat request (ARQ) is therefore used at the linklayer that increases the number of packet retrans-missions when transmission quality degrades. Asophisticated link layer could also use adaptive er-ror correction (e.g., forward error correction)mechanism or change the modulation. These mea-sures usually lead to decrease in effective through-put at the network layer, while packet loss due tocorruption remains low [76].

The projected deadlines of the contending pack-ets should be considered in the channel accessmechanism. This is particularly important whensome packets have experienced increased delay inthe network. Similarly, the degree of urgencyinformation (usually for the rt packets) should bebroadcasted by each contending node in the net-work, as in the BB scheme. On the other hand,dropping of expired packets at various points dur-


ARTICLE IN PRESS

ing the channel access (as in RT-MAC [87]) is alsoimportant for improving the network perfor-mance. In order to guarantee delay bounds for rttraffic, the collision resolution mechanism shouldterminate in a finite time. No new traffic shouldbe allowed to contend for the channel when colli-sion among two or more nodes is being resolved.Many of the current schemes do not consider thisfeature. The starvation of some flows (or completedenial of service to some nodes) should be avoidedby ensuring fair sharing of resources among nodes,within the bounds of deadline-based deliveryrequirements.

Widely varying QoS requirements will beneeded in future. Bandwidth allocation, admissioncontrol, and traffic policing all need to be consid-ered together to satisfy various QoS flows. Someform of admission control for the rt traffic maybe required to avoid the starvation of low prioritytraffic for schemes that provide absolute QoS for rttraffic.

Unfortunately, some issues that need to be re-solved appear to be contradictory to each otherin nature. For instance, in order to provide certainlevels of QoS, it is sometimes necessary to includeprovisions for acknowledging successful datapacket reception. This, however, requires heaviercontrol-packet overhead. On the other hand,acknowledgment of the rt packets may not beneeded, as newer rt packets are generated continu-ously. In fact, the emphasis should be on transmit-ting the newly arrived packets, instead of the un-acknowledged packet.

Most of the existing MAC schemes focus ononly a subset of QoS features with a simple net-work topology, while ignoring the issues of endto end packet delay in multi-hop networks, chan-nel errors, power control, heterogeneous nodes,node mobility, etc. Furthermore, they considerone flow per node where all the packets have samepriority. In multi-hop ad hoc network, a node maybe forwarding packets belonging to different flows,which may have very different bandwidth, delaybounds and priority. Similarly, different packetsof a flow can have different priorities due to delayvariation and packet importance (e.g., headerpackets). Simulation results usually consider sim-ple random errors; the effect of channel fading,

bursty and location-dependent noise models onthe performance is not considered. Similarly the ef-fects of broken or dynamically varying networktopologies are also not considered in most proto-cols. It should however be pointed out that IEEE802.11 DCF has some degree of built-in resilienceto fading and burst noise due to the use of BEBand packet fragmentation.

However, there is no single approach that canbe claimed as the most appropriate one for allapplications. Indeed, there is no silver bullet. Atbest, one can hope to make intelligent compro-mises depending on the identified priorities.

6. Conclusion

This study has presented a broad overview ofthe research work conducted in the field of adhoc wireless networks with respect to MAC proto-cols. We have discussed many schemes and identi-fied their salient features. In particular, we havelooked at issues of collision resolution, power con-servation, multiple channels, advantages of usingdirectional antennas and QoS.

We have discussed the characteristics and oper-ating principles of several MAC schemes. Whilesome of them are general-purpose protocols (suchas MACA [13], MACAW [14], etc.), others focuson specific features such as power control (PA-MAS [27], PCM [35], etc.) or the use of specializedtechnology like directional antennas (D-MAC [63],Multi-Hop RTS MAC [56], etc.). Most of theseschemes, however, are not designed specially fornetworks with mobile nodes. On the other hand,the transaction time at the MAC layer is relativelyshort. The effect of mobility will become less signif-icant as the available channel bandwidth continueto grow.

Several international standards exist for MAN-ETs, such as IEEE 802.11a, b, and g, HIPERNET,and Bluetooth. It is worth mentioning here thatseveral new standards are still being developed.In particular, the IEEE 802.15 Personal Area Net-work (PAN) [107] and the IEEE 802.16 Metropol-itan Area Network (MAN) [108] standards aretargeted towards small and large-scale wirelessnetworks, respectively. The PAN working group


ARTICLE IN PRESS

is working on standards to allow devices such asPDAs, cell phones, pagers, etc. to be linked to-gether. The MAN group, on the other hand, isdeveloping standards for the development anddeployment of fixed broadband wireless accesssystems.

References

[1] N. Abramson, The ALOHA system—another alternativefor computer communications, in: Proceedings of the FallJoint Computer Conference, NJ, vol. 37, 1970, pp. 281–285.

[2] IETF MANETWorking Group, Available from: <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html>.

[3] S. Chakrabarti, A. Mishra, QoS issues in ad hoc wirelessnetworks, IEEE Commun. Mag. 39 (2) (2001) 142–148,February.

[4] Z.J. Haas, S. Tabrizi, On some challenges and designchoices in ad hoc communications, in: Proceedings of theIEEE MILCOM98, vol. 1, 1998.

[5] E.M. Royer, C.K. Toh, A review of current routingprotocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks, IEEEPersonal Commun. 6 (2) (1999) 46–55, April.

[6] C.-K. Toh, Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocolsand Systems, Prentice-Hall PTR, NJ, 2002.

[7] I.F. Akyildiz, J. McNair, L.C. Martorell, R. Puigjaner,Y. Yesha, Medium access control protocols for multi-media traffic in wireless networks, IEEE Network 13(July/August) (1999) 39–47.

[8] Charles E. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, AddisonWesley,Reading, MA, 2001.

[9] L. Kleinrock, F.A. Tobagi, Packet switching in radiochannels: Part I—carrier sense multiple access modes andtheir throughput-delay characteristics, IEEE Trans. Com-mun. 23 (Dec) (1975) 1400–1416.

[10] N. Poojary, S.V. Krishnamurthy, S. Dao, Medium accesscontrol in a network of ad hoc mobile nodes withheterogeneous power capabilities, Proc. IEEE ICC 3(2001) 872–877.

[11] L. Kleinrock, F.A. Tobagi, Packet switching in radiochannels: Part II—the hidden terminal problem in carriersense multiple access and busy tone solution, IEEE Trans.Commun. 23 (December) (1975) 1417–1433.

[12] R.G. Gallager, A perspective on multi access channels,IEEE Trans. Inform. Th. 31 (2) (1985) 124–142.

[13] P. Karn, MACA—a new channel access method forpacket radio, in: Proceedings of the ARRL/CRRLAmateur Radio 9th Computer Networking ConferenceSeptember 22, 1990.

[14] V. Bhargavan, A. Demers, S. Shenker, L. Zhang,MACAW—A Media Access protocol for wireless Lans,in: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, 1994, pp. 212–225.

[15] C.L. Fullmer, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Floor Acquisi-tion Multiple Access (FAMA) for packet-radio networks,in: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Cambridge MA, August 28–September 1, 1995.

[16] W. Ye, J. Jeidemann, D. Estrin, An energy-efficient MACprotocol for wireless sensor networks, in: Proceedings ofthe IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.

[17] F. Talucci, M. Gerla, MACA-BI (MACA By Invitation),A wireless MAC protocol for high speed ad hocnetworking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE ICUPC, 1997.

[18] C. Wu, V.O.K. Li, Receiver-Initiated Busy-Tone MultipleAccess in packet radio networks, in: Proceedings of theACM SIGCOMM Conference, 1987, pp. 336–342.

[19] Z. Tang, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Hop-ReservationMultiple Access (HRMA) for ad hoc networks, in:Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 1999.

[20] Z.J. Haas, J. Deng, Dual Busy Tone Multiple Access(DBTMA)—a multiple access control scheme for ad hocnetworks, IEEE Trans. Commun. 50 (6) (2002) 975–984.

[21] G. Sidhu, R. Andrews, A. Oppenheimer, Inside Apple-Talk, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.

[22] K.C. Chen, Medium access protocols of wireless lans formobile computing, IEEE Network 8 (5) (1994) 50–63.

[23] IEEE 802.11 Working Group, Wireless LAN MediumAccess Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Spec-ification, 1997.

[24] B. O�Hara, A. Petrick, IEEE 802.11 Handbook: ADesigner�s Companion, IEEE Press, New York, 1999.

[25] B.P. Crow, I. Widjaja, J.G. Kim, P.T. Sakai, IEEE802.11, wireless local area networks, IEEE Commun.Mag. (1997).

[26] A. Muir, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, An efficient packetsensing MAC protocol for wireless networks, MobileNetworks Applic. 3 (3) (1998) 221–234.

[27] S. Singh, C.S. Raghavendra, PAMAS—Power AwareMulti-Access protocol with Signaling for ad hoc net-works, ACM Comput. Commun. Rev. 28 (3) (1998) 5–26.

[28] A. Chockalingam, M. Zorzi, Energy efficiency of mediaaccess protocols for mobile data networks, IEEE Trans.Commun. 46 (11) (1998) 1418–1421.

[29] K.M. Sivalingam, M.B. Srivastava, P. Agrawal, LowPower Link and Access protocols for wireless multimedianetworks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE VTC, May 1997.

[30] W.M. Smith, P.S. Ghang, A Low Power Medium AccessControl protocol for portable multi-media systems, in:Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop MobileMultimedia Communication September 25–27, 1996.

[31] A.J. Goldsmith, S.B. Wicker, Design challenges forenergy-constrained ad hoc wireless networks, IEEEWireless Commun. 9 (4) (2002) 8–27.

[32] E.-S. Jung, N.H. Vaidya, An energy efficient MACprotocol for wireless LANs, in: Proceedings of the IEEEINFOCOM, June 2002.

[33] H. Woesner, J.P. Ebert, M. Schlager, A. Wolisz, Powersaving mechanisms in emerging standards for wirelessLANs: the MAC level perspective, IEEE Person. Com-mun. 5 (3) (1998) 40–48.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html


ARTICLE IN PRESS

[34] Y.-C. Tseng, C.-S. Hsu, T.-Y. Hsieh, Power-savingprotocols for IEEE 802.11-based multi-hop ad hocnetworks, in: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.

[35] E.S. Jung, N.H. Vaidya, A Power Control MAC protocolfor ad hoc networks, in: ACM International ConferenceMobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM), Sep-tember 2002.

[36] J. Monks, V. Bharghavan, W. Hwu, A Power ControlledMultiple Access protocol for wireless packet networks, in:Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, April 2001.

[37] B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan, R. Morris, Span:an energy-efficient coordination algorithm for topologymaintenance in ad hoc wireless networks, in: Proceedingsof the ACM MOBICOM ,July 2001.

[38] R. Ramanathan, R.R. Hain, Topology Control of Mul-tihop Wireless Networks Using Transmit Power Adjust-ment, in: Procceedings og the IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2,March, 2000, pp. 404–413.

[39] V. Rodoplu, T.H. Meng, Minimum energy mobile wire-less networks, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 17 (8) (1999)1338–1344.

[40] R. Wattenhofer, L. Li, P. Bahl, Y.M. Wang,Distributed topology control for power efficient operationin multihop wireless ad hoc networks, in: Proceedings ofthe IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 3, April 2001, pp. 1388–1397.

[41] J.E. Wieselthier, G.D. Nguyen A. Ephremides, On theconstruction of energy-efficient broadcast and multicasttrees in wireless networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEEINFOCOM, March 2000, pp. 585–594.

[42] J.E. Wieselthier, G.D. Nguyen A. Ephremides, Resource-limited energy efficient wireless multicast of session traffic,in: Hawaii International Conference on Systmatic Sci-ence, January 2001.

[43] S. Agarwal, S. Krishnamurthy, R.H. Katz, S.K. Dao,Distributed power control in ad hoc wireless networks, in:Proceedings of the PIMRC01, 2001.

[44] J.P. Ebert, B. Stremmel, E. Wiederhold, A. Wolisz, Anenergy-efficient power control approach for WLANs, J.Commun. Networks (JCN) 2 (3) (2000) 197–206.

[45] L.M. Feeney, M. Nilsson, Investigating the energyconsumption of a wireless network interface in an adhoc networking environment, in: Proceedings of the IEEEINFOCOM, April 2001.

[46] ETSI, High performance radio local area network(HIPERLAN), Draft Standard ETS 300 652, March1996.

[47] C.-H. Yeh, H. Zhou, A new class of collision-free MACprotocols for ad hoc wireless networks, in: Proceedings ofthe Intertnational Conference on Advances in Infrastruc-ture for e-Business, e-Education, e-science, and e-Medi-cine on the Internet, January 2002.

[48] A. Nasipuri, J. Zhuang, S.R. Das, A multichannel CSMAMAC protocol for multihop wireless networks, in: IEEEWCNC, September, 1999.

[49] J. So, N.H. Vaidya, A multi-channel MAC protocol forad hoc wireless networks, Technical Report, CS Depart-

ment of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,January 2003.

[50] A. Nasipuri, S.R. Das, Multichannel CSMA with signal-ing power-based channel selection for multihop wirelessnetworks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE VTC, September2000.

[51] S.L. Wu, C.Y. Lin, Y.C. Tseng, J.P. Sheu, A new multi-channel MAC protocol with on-demand channel assign-ment for multi-hop mobile ad hoc networks, in: Proceed-ings of the IEEE WCNC, Chicago, IL, September 2000.

[52] S.L. Wu, Y.C. Tseng, C.Y. Lin, J.P. Sheu, A multi-channel MAC protocol with power control for multi-hopmobile ad hoc networks, Comput. J. (SCI) 45 (1) (2002)101–110.

[53] N. Jain, S.R. Das, A. Nasipuri, A multichannel CSMAMAC protocol with receiver-based channel selection formultihop wireless networks, in: Proceedings of the 9thInternational Confernece Computer Communicationsand Networks (IC3N), October 2001.

[54] A. Ephremides, J. Wieselthier, D. Baker, A designconcept for reliable mobile radio networks with frequencyhopping signaling, Proc. IEEE 75 (1) (1987) 56–73.

[55] M. Pursley, The role of spread spectrum in packet radionetworks, Proc. IEEE 75 (1) (1987) 116–134.

[56] R.R. Choudhury, X. Yang, R. Ramanathan, N.H.Vaidya, Using directional antennas for medium accesscontrol in ad hoc networks, in: Proceedings of the ACMMOBICOM, September 2002.

[57] J. Zander, Slotted ALOHA multihop packet radionetworks with directional antennas, Electron. Lett. 26(25) (1990) 2098–2099.

[58] N. Pronios, Performance considerations for slottedspread-spectrum random access networks with directionalantennas, in: Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOM,November 1989.

[59] C. Lau, C. Leung, A slotted ALOHA packet radionetwork with multiple antennas and receivers, IEEETrans. Veh. Technol. 39 (3) (1990) 218–226.

[60] T.S. Yum, K.W. Hung, Design algorithms for multihoppacket radio networks with multiple directional antennasstations, IEEE Trans. Commun. 40 (11) (1992) 1716–1724.

[61] R. Ramanathan, On the performance of ad hoc networkswith beamforming antennas, in: Proceedings of the ACMMOBIHOC, October 2001.

[62] S. Bandyopadhyay, K. Hausike, S. Horisawa, S. Tawara,An adaptive MAC and Directional Routing Protocol forad hoc wireless networks using ESPAR antenna, in:Proceedings of the ACM MOBIHOC, October 2001.

[63] Y.B. Ko, V. Shankarkumar, N.H. Vaidya, MediumAccess Protocols using directional antennas in ad hocnetworks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM,March 2000.

[64] A. Nasipuri, S. Ye, J. You, R. Hiromoto, A MACprotocol for mobile ad hoc networks using directionalantennas, in: Proceedings of the IEEE WCNC, Chicago,IL, September 2000.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

[65] P.C. Gurumohan, T.J. Taylor, V.R. Syrotiuk, Topologycontrol for MANETs, in: Proceedings of the WCNC�04.

[66] R. Prakash, Unidirectional links prove costly in wirelessad hoc networks, in: Proceedings of CM/IEEE DIAL-M,1999.

[67] L. Bao, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Channel access sched-uling in ad hoc networks with unidirectional links, in:Procedings of ACM/IEEE DIAL-M, July 21, 2001.

[68] S. Agarwal, Handling unidirectional links in ad hocwireless networks, Project-report, 2000.

[69] V. Ramasubramanian, R. Chandra, D. Mosse, Providinga bidirectional abstraction for unidirectional ad hocnetworks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.

[70] R. Ramanathan, J. Redi, A brief overview of ad hocnetworks: challenges and directions, IEEE Commun.Mag. (May) (2002) 20–22.

[71] S. Xu, T. Saadawi, Does the IEEE 802.11 MAC protocolwork well in multihop wireless ad hoc networks?, IEEECommun. Mag. 111 (2001) 130–137 (June).

[72] P. Mahapatra, J. Li, C. Gui, QoS in mobile ad hocnetworks, IEEE Wireless Commun. 10 (3) (2003) 44–52.

[73] D. Chalmers, M. Slomon, A survey of quality of servicein mobile computing environments, IEEE Commun.Surveys 2 (2) (1999).

[74] D.D. Perkins, H.D. Hughes, A survey on quality-of-service support for mobile ad hoc networks, Wirel.Commun. Mob. Comput. 2 (2002) 503–513.

[75] A. Veres, A.T. Campbell, M. Barry, L.H. Sun, Support-ing service differentiation in wireless packet networksusing distributed control, IEEE J. Sel. A. Commun. 19(10) (2001) 2081–2093.

[76] D. Thomson, N. Schult, M. Mirhakkak, Dynamic Qual-ity-of-service for mobile ad hoc networks, in: Proceedingsof the MobiHoc 2000, Boston, MA, USA.

[77] H. Xiao, W.K.G. Seah, A. Lo, K.C. Chua, A flexiblequality of service model for mobile ad hoc networks, in:Proceedings of the IEEE VTC–Spring, Japan/Tokyo,2000.

[78] N. Nikaein, C. Bonnet, A glance at quality of servicemodels for mobile ad hoc networks, in: 16eme CongresDNAC (De Nouvelles Architectures pour les Communi-cations), Paris, December 2–4, 2002.

[79] G.S. Ahn, A.T. Campbell, A. Veres, L.H. Sun, SWAN:service differentiation in stateless wireless ad hoc net-works, in: Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.

[80] S.B. Lee, A.T. Campbell, INSIGNIA: in-band signalingsupport for QoS in mobile ad hoc networks, in: Proceed-ings of the 5th International Workshop on MobileMultimedia Communication MoMuc, October 12–14,1998, Berlin, Germany.

[81] Multimedia Operating Systems and Networking(MONET) Group, iMAQ: an integrated mobile ad hocQoS framework. Available from: <http://cairo.cs.uiuc.edu/adhoc/>.

[82] C.R. Lin, J.S. Liu, QoS Routing in ad hoc wirelessnetworks, IEEE J. Sel. A. Commun. 17 (8) (1999) 21,August.

[83] M. Gerla, J. Tzu-Chieh Tsai, Multicluster, mobile,multimedia radio network, Wireless Networks 1 (1995).

[84] C.R. Lin, M. Gerla, Adaptive clustering for mobilewireless networks, IEEE J. Sel. A. Commun. 15 (7)(1997) 1265–1275.

[85] C.-H. Lin, A multihop adaptive mobile multimedianetwork: architecture and protocols, Ph.D. Disseration,CS Department, University of California, Los Angeles,1996.

[86] C.W. Ahn, C.G. Kang, Y.Z. Cho, Soft reservationmultiple access with priority assignment (SRMA/PA): anovel MAC protocol for QoS-guaranteed integratedservices in mobile ad hoc networks, in: Proceedings ofthe IEEE VTC, vol. 2, 2000, pp. 942–947.

[87] R.O. Baldwin, N.J. Davis IV, S.F. Midkiff, A real-timeMedium Access Control protocol for ad hoc wireless localarea networks, Mobile Comput. Commun. Rev. 3 (2)(1999) 20–27.

[88] D.J. Deng, R.S. Chang, A priority scheme for IEEE802.11 DCF access method, IEICE Trans. Commun.1E82-B (1) (1999) 96–102, Jan.

[89] M. Benveniste, G. Chesson, M. Hoeben, A. Singla, H.Teunissen, M. Wentink, EDCF Proposed Draft Text,IEEE Working Document 802.11-01/12 1r1, March2001.

[90] S. Choi, J. del Pedro, N.S. Shankar, S. Mangold, IEEE802.11e contention-based channel access (EDCF) perfor-mance evaluation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE ICC, May2003.

[91] S. Mangold, S. Choi, P. May, O. Klein, G. Hiertz, L.Stibor, IEEE 802.11e wireless LAN for quality of service,in: Proceedings of the European Wireless, Florence, Italy2002.

[92] J.L. Sobrinho, A.S. Krishnakumar, Real-time traffic overthe IEEE 802.11 medium access control layer, Bell LabsTechn. J. 1 (Autumn) (1996) 172–187.

[93] J.L. Sobrinho, A.S. Krishnakumar, Quality-of-service inad hoc carrier sense multiple access wireless networks,IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 17 (8) (1999) 1353–1368,Aug..

[94] A. Pal, A. Dogan, F. Ozguner, MAC layer protocols forreal-traffic in ad hoc networks, in: Proceedings of theIEEE International Conference on Parallel Processing,2002.

[95] A. Pal, Distributed MAC layer protocols for real-timecommunication in ad hoc wireless networks, M.S. Thesis,Ohio State University, 2001.

[96] C.R. Lin, M. Gerla, MACA/PR: An asynchronousmultimedia multihop wireless network, in: Proceedingsof the IEEE INFOCOM, March 1997.

[97] Z. Ying, A.L. Anand, L. Jacob, A QoS enabled MACprotocol for multi-hop adhoc wireless networks, in:Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Performance,Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC),Phoenix, AZ, April 2003, pp. 149–156.

[98] S.-T. Sheu, T.-F. Sheu, A bandwidth allocation/sharing/extension protocol for multimedia over IEEE 802.11

http://cairo.cs.uiuc.edu/adhoc/

http://cairo.cs.uiuc.edu/adhoc/


ARTICLE IN PRESS

ad hoc wireless LANs, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 19(10) (2001) 2065–2080, October.

[99] N.H. Vaidya, S. Bahl, S. Gupta, Distributed fair sched-uling in a wireless LAN, in: Proceedings of the 6th AnnualInternational Conference on Mobile Computing andNetworking, Boston, August 2000.

[100] S.J. Golestani, A Self-clocked fair queuing scheme forbroadband applications, in: Proceedings of the IEEEINFOCOM, 1994.

[101] R. Garces, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Near-OptimumChannel Access protocol based on incremental collisionresolution and distributed transmission queues, in: IEEEINFOCOM, March–April, 1998.

[102] T. Nandagopal, T.-E. Kim, X. Gao, V. Bharghavan,Achieving MAC layer fairness in wireless packet net-works, in: Proceedings of the MOBICOM, Boston, MA,August 2000.

[103] I. Aad, C. Castelluccia, Differentiation mechanisms forIEEE 802.11, IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, AK, April2001.

[104] C. Yu, B. Lee, S. Kalubandi, M. Kim, Medium accesscontrol mechanisms in mobile ad hoc networks, in: I.Mahgoub, M. Ilyas (Eds.), Mobile Computing Hand-book, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004.

[105] J. Weinmiller, H. Woesner, J.P. Ebert, A. Wolisz,Analyzing and tuning the distributed coordination func-tion in the IEEE 802.11 DFWMAC draft standard,MASCOT, 1996.

[106] F. Cali, M. Conti, E. Gregori, Dynamic tuning of theIEEE 802.11 protocol to achieve a theoretical throughputlimit, IEEE/ACM Trans. Network. 8 (6) (2000) 785–799.

[107] IEEE 802.15 Working Group for WPAN. Available from:<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15>.

[108] The IEEE 802.16 Working Group on BroadbandWirelessAccess Standards, Available from: <http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/>.

Dr. Sunil Kumar received B.E. (Elec-tronics Engineering) degree from S.V.National Institute of Technology,Surat (India), in 1988 and the M.E.(Electronics and Control Engineering)and Ph.D. (Electrical and ElectronicsEngineering) degrees from the BirlaInstitute of Technology and Science(BITS, Pilani, India) in 1993 and 1997,respectively. He also served as a Lec-turer in the Electrical and ElectronicsEngineering department at BITS fromJanuary 1993 to July 1997. From

August 1997 to August 2002, he was a postdoctoral researcher
and adjunct faculty in Signal and Image Processing Institute,
Integrated Media Systems Center and Electrical Engineeringdepartment at the University of Southern California, LosAngeles, USA. From July 2000 to July 2002, he was also anexpert consultant in industry on JPEG2000 and MPEG4-basedprojects and participated in JPEG2000 standardization activi-ties. Since July 2002, he is an assistant professor with theElectrical and Computer Engineering department at ClarksonUniversity, Potsdam, NY, USA.He is a Senior Member of IEEE. He has authored more than

60 technical publications in international conferences andjournals as well as a book on Radio Resource Management forMultimedia QoS Support in Wireless Networks (Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers, 2003). He is a Guest Editor of Special Issue ofJournal of Visual Communications and Image Representations on�Emerging H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard� to be publishedduring June–October 2005. His research interests include QoSsupport for multimedia traffic in wireless cellular, ad hoc andsensor networks, Error resilient multimedia compression tech-niques, MPEG-4, H.264/AVC and JPEG2000 image/videocompression standards.

Vineet S. Raghavan received hisBachelors degree in Architecture fromthe School of Planning and Architec-ture, New Delhi, India in 1999. Aftertwo years of working as an architectand self-taught software developer, heobtained his M.S. degree in ComputerScience from Clarkson University,Potsdam, NY in 2003. He is now withthe embedded software for digitaltelevisions group at ATI Research Inc.in Marlborough, MA, USA.

Dr. Jing Deng received the B.E. andM.E. degrees in Electronic Engineer-ing from Tsinghua University, Beijing,P. R. China, in 1994 and 1997,respectively, and the Ph.D. degreefrom Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,in 2002.He was a teaching assistant from

1998 to 1999 and a research assistantfrom 1999 to 2002 in the School ofElectrical and Computer Engineeringat Cornell University. From 2002 to2004, he was a research assistant pro-

fessor with the CASE center and the Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science at Syracuse University,Syracuse, NY, USA, supported by the Syracuse UniversityPrototypical Research in Information Assurance (SUPRIA)program. He is currently an assistant professor in the Depart-ment of Computer Science at the University of New Orleans,LA, USA. His research interests include mobile ad hoc net-works, wireless sensor networks, wireless network security,energy efficient wireless networks, and information assurance.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongkhue
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

Medium Access Control protocols for ad hoc wireless...

Documents