Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I. I NTRODUCTION
Fig. 1. Random packet forwarding in a wireless random network.
Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:53 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
110 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 14, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010
opportunity to forward packets when � is relatively high, but A. Mobile Cover Time in Homogeneous Networks
the latter does not have this problem. Let us define the mobile cover time as the cover time in
In [8], Gupta and√Kumar derived the so called critical a random network, where nodes are moving and forwarding
log �
transmission range �� for guaranteing asymptotic full packets opportunistically as described in Section II. Similarly,
connectivity, with the probability approaching one. As in [3], we define the mobile partial cover time as the duration until
[7], we adopt the same critical transmission range for each the predefined portion of moving nodes are covered. Then, we
node, in order to remove the effect of transmission range in have the following proposition for the homogeneous network:
our investigation on node mobility. We assume the protocol Proposition 1. The mobile cover time in the homogeneous
model [1] for concurrent transmissions. Therefore, multiple network is
packets are transmitted at a given instant. However, without
�ℎ (�) = Θ(� log �) (1)
loss of generality, we focus on the cover time of a single packet
to analyze the average delay performance. This approach was
also used in [3] for delay-throughput tradeoff analysis. Proof: We have:
Let us define that a node is covered by a packet from a
�ℎ (�) = � [�1 + �2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + �� ]
source if the node receives the packet. From the packet delay
= � [� [�1 + �2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + �� ∣�1 , �2 , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ , �� ]]
perspective, the cover time gives the worst case delay for a
packet at the given destination. In that sense, there is a close = � [� [�1 ∣�1 ]] + � [� [�2 ∣�2 ]] + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + � [� [�� ∣�� ]]
� [ ] ∑ � �
relationship between cover time and delay. ∑ 1 � ∑ 1
= � = =�
�� is the number of transmissions needed to cover the �-th �=1
� �
�=1
� − (� − 1) �=1
�
node, given that � − 1 nodes are so far covered by a packet. ≈ �(ln � + �) (2)
�� is the probability that the �-th node is covered by using
one transmission attempt from (� − 1)-th node, given that all where � ≈ 0.5772 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
� − 1 nodes are covered. Note that �� is a geometric random Let us consider the mobile partial cover time �ℎ (�, �),
variable if the success probability �� is a fixed value. The when the parameter � (0 < � < 1) defines the portion of
uncovered node ratio �� is a random variable due to random nodes to be covered:
node mobility. We assume that the mean of �� is a function of �ℎ (�, �) = �[�1 + �2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ��� ], (3)
�, �, and �. Using simulations with random way-point model
[5], we verify that the mean of �� , denoted by � (�, �, �), where �� is an integer.
increases and converges to a constant as speed � increases for Proposition 2. The mobile partial cover time in the homoge-
given � and �. Due to the space limitation, we do not include neous network is
the simulation results. Let us make the followings for further
�ℎ (�, �) = Θ(�) (4)
steps.
Assumption 1. The node mobility satisfies the condition
that there exists � such that lim � (�, �, �) = �−(�−1)� and Proof: Note that
[ ] �→� ��
lim � �� − �−(�−1)
[ ]
≥ � = 0, for any given �. 1
∑
�→� � �ℎ (�, �) = � [�1 + �2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ��� ] = �
�−(�−1) ��
Definition
[ 1. If ]� (�, �, �) = � and ⎛ ⎞ �=1
�−(�−1) � (1−�)�
� �� − ≥ � = 0, for any given �, then the
�
∑ 1 ∑ 1
network is said to be homogeneous. = �⎝ − ⎠
�=1
� �
�=1
Assumption 1 and Definition 1 are related to the Chebyshev
inequality. It is trivially true that the variance of �� decreases ≈ � [(ln � + �) − (ln((1 − �)�) + �)]
( )
to zero as � increases. Therefore, �� is considered to be a 1
= � ln (5)
constant in homogeneous networks. 1−�
Let us imagine covered nodes as molecules of a chemical
solute and the uncovered nodes as molecules of a solvent.
Then, the homogenous condition resembles a homogenous
solution, where the concentrations in any location are equal B. Mobile Cover Time in Non-homogeneous Networks
due to the high speed of molecular movement. A random network is non-homogeneous if it does not satisfy
the homogeneous condition. Then, we have:
Proposition 3. The mobile cover time in the non-homogeneous
III. C OVER T IME A NALYSIS
network is
As mentioned, the cover time defines the worst case delay.
��ℎ (�) = Θ(� log �) (6)
On the other hand, the partial cover time is closely coupled
with the mean delay of the random network. We start with
cover time analysis for the sufficient mobility network which Proof: We have
we defined as the homogeneous network. Then, we apply this � ] ∑[� [ ]
result to the more general mobility of the non-homogeneous
∑1 1
��ℎ (�) = lim � = lim � , (7)
network. �→��ℎ
�=1
�� �=1
�→� �ℎ ��
Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:53 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
YU and KIM: END-TO-END DELAY IN WIRELESS RANDOM NETWORKS 111
1200 1800
800
400 600
400
200
200
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of nodes Number of nodes
Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:53 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.