Lecture 4: Link Characteristics
Anish Arora
CIS788.11J
Introduction to Wireless Sensor Networks
Material uses slides from Alberto Cerpa, ZhaoGovindan, WooCuller, ZhangArora
2
References
• Temporal Properties of Low Power Wireless Links: Modeling and Implications on Multi-Hop Routing, Alberto Cerpa, Jennifer L. Wong, Miodrag Potkonjak and Deborah Estrin Mobihoc 2005
• Understanding Packet Delivery Performance In Dense Wireless Sensor Networks Jerry Zhao and Ramesh Govindan, Sensys03
• Taming the Underlying Challenges of Reliable Multihop Routing in Sensor Networks, Alec Woo, Terence Tong, and David Culler, SenSys 2003 Los Angeles, California
• Statistical Model of Lossy Links in Wireless Sensor Networks, Alberto Cerpa, Jennifer L. Wong, Louane Kuang, Miodrag Potkonjak and Deborah Estrin, IPSN'05
• Impact of Radio Irregularity on Wireless Sensor Networks Gang Zhou, Tian He, Sudha Krishnamurthy, and John A. Stankovic, ACM MOBISYS 2004
• LOF, Hongwei Zhang and Anish Arora
3
Outline
• Link Characterization
results
summary
• Why?
reality guides algorithm development & protocol parameter tuning
data for better propagation models used in simulations
6
Noise Variability Across Nodes
7
Radio Channel Features*
• Asymmetrical links: connectivity from node a to node b might differ significantly from b to a
• Non-isotropical connectivity: connectivity need not be same in all directions (at same distance from source)
• Non-monotonic distance decay: nodes geographically far away from source may get better connectivity than nodes that are geographically closer
*Ganesan et. al. 02; Woo et. al. 03; Zhao et. al. 03; Cerpa et. al. 03; Zhou et. al. 04
8
Parameters
• Transmission gain control: most WSN low power radios have
some form TX gain control
• Antenna height: relative distance of antenna wrt reference ground
• Radio frequency and modulation type
• Packet size: # bits per packet can affect likelihood of receiving the
packet with no errors
• Data rate: # packets transmitted per second
• Environment type: e.g., indoors or outdoors, with or w/o LOS,
different levels of physical interference (furniture, walls, trees, etc.),
and different materials (sand, grass, concrete, etc.)
9
Non-isotropic connectivity*
*Zhou et. al. 04
16
Explanation of Transitional Region
distance (m)
rece
ive
d p
ow
er
(dB
m)
Observations
• σ ↑ → TR ↑
• η ↑ → TR ↓
*Krishnamachari et. al.
17
Reception vs RSS
18
Links from A Given Source (1)
19
Links from A Given Source (2)
• Good link receives a packet from source (whp) all other links will as well
• Good link does not receive packet (whp) all other links will not as well
• Medium/bad links receive a packet from source (whp) good links will receive packet whp
• Medium/bad links do not receive a packet from source good links may still receive packet whp
little incentive to exploit multiple paths concurrently
* Cerpa et al Mobihoc05
20
Spatial Characteristics
• Great variability over distance (50 to 80% of radio range)
Reception rate not normally distributed around the mean and std.
dev.
Real communication channel not isotropic
• Low degree of correlation between distance and reception probability;
lack of monotonicity and isotropy
• Region of highly variable reception rates can be 50% or more of the
radio range, and not confined to limit of radio range
• From a given source, reception on good links is correlated to reception
on other links
24
Main cause of asymmetric links?
• When swapping asymmetric links node pairs, the asymmetric links are inverted (91.1% ± 8.32)
• Claim: Link asymmetries are primarily caused by differences in hardware calibration
25
Bidirectional Link Correlation
Conclusion: Send ack immediately after receiving When sending acks immediately, sum of link RNP in both directions is highly
correlated with actual link cost, i.e., almost always a good indicator of link quality* Cerpa et al Mobihoc05
Large Distance/RNP ratio
Time before sending ack after receiving a packet
26
Empirical study of link asymmetry
Many links are asymmetric Traditional techniques tend
to ignore asymmetric links
Lower transmission power --> more asymmetric links
symmetric asymmetric unidirectionalsymmetric asymmetric unidirectional
Symmetric links: short asymmetric links: long
Exploiting asymmetric links can lead to more efficient routing
27
Reliability of synchronous ACKs
Significant improvement of using sync ACK over async messages, especially in the presence of interference
Improvement occurs on both short and long links
=> Norm of estimating link quality in both directions via async beacons underestimates the link reliability of asymmetric links
28
Asymmetric Links
• Found 5 to 30% of asymmetric links
• Claim: No simple correlation between asymmetric
links and distance or TX output power
• They tend to appear at multiple distances from the
radio range, not at the limit
29*Cerpa et. al. 03
Temporal Variation
30
Temporal Consistency of Links
L1 norm indicates that good links and links with high distance/RNP ratio are temporally stable; so are bad links
* Cerpa et al Mobihoc05
34
Temporal Characteristics Summary
• Time variability is correlated with mean reception rate
• Time variability is not correlated with distance from the
transmitter (especially for “useful” links)
40
Summary
• Great variability over distance (50 to 80% of radio range)
Reception rate is not normally distributed around the mean
and std. dev.
Real communication channel is not isotropic
• Found 5 to 30% of asymmetric links
Not correlated with distance or transmission power
Primary cause: differences in hardware calibration (rx
sensitivity, energy levels)
• Time variability is correlated with mean reception rate and not
correlated with distance from the transmitter
• Possible to optimize performance by adjusting the coding
schemes and packet sizes to operating conditions
41
Link Quality Estimation
• Estimate rate of successful reception from neighboring nodes
RSSI may not work well
Neighbors exchange estimations to derive bi-directional link
quality
• 2 Techniques: Passive vs. Active
Key decision factor: broadcast medium
Passive: snoop on neighbor packets
Active: broadcast beacons
42
Passive Estimation
• Link sequence number snooping
Estimate inbound reception quality
• Key issue
Cannot infer losses until next packet reception
E.g. dead node or mobility
• Solution
With a minimum data rate, infer losses based on time
Likely to be true in periodic data collection
• Asymmetric links
Require outbound transmission quality estimation
Exchange reception quality over local broadcast
43
A Good Link Estimator
• Accurate• Agile yet stable
Agility and stability are at odds with each other
• Small memory footprint• Simple
* Woo et al
44
WMEWMA Estimator
• Compute an average success rate over time, T, and smoothen with an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA)
• Average calculation Packets Received over T divided by
Max of Number of packets expected over T
Number of packets sent over T suggested by sequence number
• Tuning parameters: T and history size of EWMA
• Performance Yields agile and stable estimations
Uses constant memory, and is simple
45
WMEWMA better than other Link Estimators
• Woo et al studied 7 estimators by tuning to yield the same error bound
• Results WMEWMA(T, ) Estimator
Stable, simple, constant memory footprinto Compute success rate over non-overlapping window (T)
o Average over an EWMA()
Key: 10% |error| requires at least 100 packets to settle
Limits rate of adaptation
46
Agility and Error Bound
• Simulation worst case: 10% error ~ 100 packet time
• Assuming IID Binomial model, by the central limit theorem
Worst case (p = 0.5) requires
10% error with 90% confidence requires ~100 packets to learn
For example: at 30sec/packet
50 minutes for 100 packets
forwarding traffic helps to reduce this time but potentially a long delay
• Major disadvantage
47
Link Estimation Metric - ETX
• ETX of a link: Predicted number of data transmissions required to send
a packet over a link, including retransmissions Calculated using forward and reverse delivery ratios of a
link How to measure: Broadcast probe packets and derive link
quality information from each direction
• ETX of a route: Sum of ETX for each link in the route
48
Link Estimation Metric - ETX
• Forward delivery ratio: df Probability that a data packet delivered at recipient
• Reverse delivery ratio: dr
Probability that ACK packet is delivered
• Expected probability that a transmission is delivered and acknowledged is df X dr
• ETX = 1 / (df X dr)
49
ETX Example
50
ETX Example
Each node’s ETX value is the sum of the link ETX value along the lowest-ETX path to the destination node E
51
Cross Layer Link Estimation
Better estimator with information from different layers?
• Physical Layer
• Packet decoding quality
• Link Layer
• Packet Acknowledgements
• Slow to adapt
• Network Layer
• Relative importance of links
• Keep useful links in table
52
Example: Physical Layer Information alone Insufficient
Unacked
PRR
LQI
53
Four Bit Interface
• Physical Layer Sets white bit to denote that each symbol in received
packet has a very low probability of decoding error
• Link Layer Sets ack bit on a transmit buffer when it receives a
layer 2 ack for that buffer
• Network Layer Sets pin bit on a link table entry so link estimator
cannot remove it from the table until the bit is cleared
Sets compare bit to indicate whether route provided by sender of packet is better than route provided by one or more of the entries in the link table
54
Four Bit Interface Details
WHITEPackets on this channel experience few errors
ACKA packet transmission on this link was acknowledged
PINKeep this link in the table
COMPAREIs this a useful link?
55
On the impact of link estimation via Broadcast versus Unicast messages
An 802.11b study
Zhang et al Infocom 06
56
Difference in Broadcast vs Unicast Reliabilty
Broadcast has longer comm range - lower transmission rate for broadcast- no RTS-CTS handshake for broadcast
Mean delivery rate of unicast is higher, variance is lower- retransmissions- RTS-CTS
57
Impact of Interference on Difference between Broadcast and Unicast
• Estimation in the presence of unicast data traffic is dependent on whether we use broadcast or unicast messages
58
• When calculating packet delivery rate, “granularity” matters
• Delivery rate cut-off threshold is high: different from shorter inter-node separation and more hops
59
interferer-free vs. with-interferers
• More variance “with-interferer”
• Delivery rate smaller “with-interferer”
60
• Mac-latency is larger “with-interefer”
61
• Almost isotropic, especially in inner-band• “granularity” of DR matters
62
- isotropyinterferer-free vs. with-interferers
63
• Isotropy pattern not changed significantly “with-interferer”
72
Cross-interference
73
Interference studies: Main findings
• Single Interferer effects Capture effect is significant SINR threshold varies due to hardware SINR threshold does not vary with location SINR threshold varies with measured RSS Groups of radios show ~6 dB gray region New SINR threshold (simulation) model
• Multiple interferer effects Measured interference is not additive Measured interference shows high variance SINR threshold increases with more interferers
74
Capture effect
Finding: Capture effect is significant & SINRθ is not constant• Concurrent packet transmission does not always means packet
collision (capture effect: recently studied by Whitehouse et al.)
• Systematically study capture effects and quantify the SINRθ value
White
White
Black
Gray
Gray