138 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,

Vol. 2, No. 6, June 2010

Design of Scheduling Algorithm for Ad hoc

Networks with Capability of Differential Service
Seyed Hossein Hosseini Nazhad Ghazani1, Jalil Jabari Lotf 2,Mahsa Khayyatzadeh3, R.M. Alguliev4
1
Institute of Information Technology of ANAS,
Azerbaijan Republic
S.HosseiniNejad@gmail.com
2
Institute of Information Technology of ANAS,
Azerbaijan Republic
Jalil.Jabari@gmail.com
3
Departmant of Electrical Engineering, Urmia University
Urmia, Iran
Mahsa_khayyatzadeh@yahoo.com

4
Institute of Information Technology of ANAS,
Azerbaijan Republic
secretary@iit.ab.az

maintains a self-organizing routing infrastructure, called the

Abstract: A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a collection of
mobile nodes that can communicate with each other without
using any fixed infrastructure. To support multimedia
applications such as video and voice MANETs require an
efficient routing protocol and quality of service (QoS)
mechanism. Again Ad-hoc network is mainly constrained by the
bandwidth. The proposed scheduling in this research adopting
the Contention Window size of flows and also services the flows
by select the fixed or minimally mobile nodes that provide
network backbone access. The novelty of this model is that it is
robust to mobility and variances in channel capacity and
imposes no control message overhead on the network, again in
calculate CW size, attention to collision rate and flow’s allocated
QoS.
Keywords: Ad Hoc, Scheduling, QoS, Routing.
1. Introduction
A MANET2 is essentially a special form of distributed
system with the features like no fixed topology, no fixed
connectivity, varying link capacity, without any central
control and is constrained by the lack of resources. Due to
the above items routing in such networks experiences link
failure more often. Hence, a routing protocol supports QoS
requires to consider the reasons of link failure to improve its
performance. Many routing schemes and frameworks have
been pro-posed to provide QoS support for ad hoc networks
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Among them, INSIGNIA [1] uses an in-band
signaling protocol for distribution of QoS information.
SWAN [2] improves INSIGNIA by introducing an
Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD)-based
rate control algorithm. Both [3] and [4] utilize a distance
vector protocol to collect end-to-end QoS information via
either flooding or hop-by-hop propagation. CEDAR [5]
proposes a core-extraction distributed routing algorithm that
“core”.
These approaches do not consider the contentious nature
of the MAC layer and the neighbor interference on multi-
hop paths. This leads to inaccurate path quality prediction
for real-time flows. Additionally, most of the work does not
consider the fact that a newly admitted flow may disrupt the
quality of service received by ongoing real-time traffic
flows. Recently, other work has proposed the performance
improvement of MAC protocols and the support of service
differentiation. Many of these approaches specifically target
IEEE 802.11 [6]. For example, studies in [1,6,12,16]
propose to tune the contention windows sizes or the inter-
frame spacing values to improve network throughput, while
studies in [1, 4, 14, 23, 31] propose priority-based
scheduling to provide service differentiation.
To support both types of applications in ad hoc networks,
effective QoS-aware protocols must be used to allocate
resources to flows and provide guarantees to real-time traffic
in the presence of best effort traffic [15]
2. QOS FRAMEWORK [16]
2.1 Targeted network modification
This framework targets the support of real-time traffic in
large-scale mobile networks. In these environments, fixed
wireless routers may be placed to serve as a network
backbone. The majority of proposed routing protocols place
no preference on the selection of paths with regard to node
mobility, i.e., highly mobile nodes have the same likelihood
of inclusion on a communication path as stationary nodes.
While best-effort traffic may be more tolerant to these
events, the quality of real-time traffic will be significantly
degraded and is likely to become unacceptable. The
utilization of fixed wireless routers in these networks will
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 139
greatly improve the quality of real-time traffic by the
elimination of intermediate link breaks. Figure 2 illustrates
an example network where real-time and best-effort traffic
utilize different routes [16].
Figure 1. Functionality of the framework at IP and MAC layers.
Figure 2. An example of the routes for different traffic.
2.2 Call setup for real-time traffic
When a real-time flow is requested, a call setup process is
needed to acquire a valid transmission path with satisfied
QoS requirement. Call setup also enables effective
admission control when the network utilization is saturated.
This requires accurate estimation of channel utilization and
prediction of flow quality, i.e., throughput or transmission
delay.
The proposed QoS approach is based on model-based
resource estimation mechanism, called MBRP [19]. By
modeling the node backoff behavior of the MAC protocol
and analyzing the channel utilization, MBRP provides both
per-flow and aggregated system wide throughput and
delay[16].
Call setup
Call setup process based on the modified AODV routing
protocol, which can be divided into a Request and a Reply
phase. In the request phase, the source node sends Route
Request messages (RREQ) for the new flow. The RREQ
packet reaches the destination if a path with the needed
quality exists. During the reply phase, the destination node
sends a Route Reply message (RREP) along the reverse path
to the source node [16].
2.3 Prioritized medium access
Communication in ad hoc networks occurs in a distributed
fashion. There is no centralized point that can provide
resource coordination for the network; every node is
responsible for its own traffic and is unaware of other traffic
[16].
In Ad hoc networks, priority scheduling algorithm is
based on IEEE 802.11[6].Currently, there are several
Vol. 2, No. 6, June 2010
approaches that propose to provide service differentiation
based on 802.11, by either assigning different minimum
contention window sizes ( CWmin ) , Arbitrary Inter Frame
Spacing (AIFS), or back-off ratios, to different types of
traffic. These approaches can all provide differentiation;
however, the parameters are typically statically assigned and
cannot adapt to the dynamic traffic environment. This
reduces the usage efficiency of the network [16].
We propose an adaptive scheme to address trade-off. The
basic idea is that, because the state of ad hoc networks can
vary greatly due to mobility and channel interference, it is
advantageous to adjust the back-off behavior according to
the current channel condition.
To achieve service differentiation, as well as to adapt to
the current network usage, we combine the collision rate
and current QoS of flow with the exponential back-off
mechanism in IEEE802.11. To do it, classifies flows into
three types: delay-sensitive flows, bandwidth sensitive flows
and best effort flows. The delay-sensitive flows, such as
conversational audio/video conferencing, require that
packets arrive at the destination within a certain delay
bound. The bandwidth-sensitive flows, such as on-demand
multimedia retrieval, require a certain throughput. The best
effort flows, such as file transfer, can adapt to changes in
bandwidth and delay. Due to the different requirements of
flows, each type of flows has its own contention window
adaptation rule [15].
1) Delay-Sensitive Flows: For a delay-sensitive flow, the
dominant QoS requirement is end-to-end packet delay. To
control delay, the end-to-end delay requirement d must be
broken down into per-hop delay requirements. Each hop
locally limits packet delay below its per-hop requirement to
maintain the aggregated end-to-end delay below d. For this
paper, each node is assigned with the same per-hop delay
requirement, d/ m, where m is the hop count of the flow.
d − D (n)
( n+1) ( n)
CW = CW * (1 + a m ) (1)
d
m
th
Where the superscript n represents the n update
iteration, D denotes the actual peak packet delay at the node
during a update period and α is a small positive constant
(α=0.1) [15].
2) Bandwidth-Sensitive Flows: For a bandwidth sensitive
flow, the dominant QoS requirement is throughput, which
requires that at each node along the flow’s route, the packet
arrival rate of the flow should match the packet departure
rate of the flow.
( n +1) ( n) ( n)
CW = CW + β (q − Q ) (2)
where q is a threshold value of the queue length that is
smaller than the maximum capacity of the queue, Q
represents the actual queue length and β is a positive
constant(β= 1). If Q is larger than q, the algorithm decreases
CW to increase the packet departure rate to decrease queue
length. If Q is smaller than q, the algorithm increases CW to
decrease the packet departure rate and free up resources for
other flows. As the queue size varies around the threshold
140
value q, the average throughput of the flow matches its
requirement [15].
3) Best Effort Flows: Best effort flows are tolerant to
changes in service levels and do not have any hard
requirements about bandwidth or packet delay. The purpose
of updating the contention window size of best effort flows
is to prevent best effort flows from congesting the network
and degrading the service level of real-time flows.
( n +1) ( n) ( n)
CW = CW × (1 + γ ( f − F )) (3)
Where f is a congestion threshold for idle channel time,
F is the actual idle channel time and γ is a positive constant
(γ= 0.1) [15]
When the average idle channel time F is smaller than the
threshold value f, the network is considered congested and
the contention window size of the best effort traffic is
increased to avoid decreasing the service level of real-time
traffic. On the other hand, if the network is lightly loaded so
that the idle channel time is larger than f, the contention
window size of best effort traffic is decreased so that the idle
bandwidth can be utilized [15].
Additional to combine the collision rate with the
exponential back-off mechanisms, we use the follow
algorithm [16]:
r dynamically adjust their contention parameters to meet their
Back−off =Rand [0,( 2 +Rcol * pri )*CWmin ]*Slot _Time (4)
where Rcol denotes the collision rate between a station’s
two successful frame transmissions, and pri is a variable
associated with the priority level of the traffic.
By applying Eq. (4), traffic with different priority levels will
have different back-off behavior when collisions occur. Also
traffic with same priority levels will have different back-off
behavior when collisions occur, with attention to flow
current status. Specifically, after a collision occurs, low
priority traffic will back-off for longer, and subsequently
high priority traffic will have a better chance of accessing
the channel.
3. MODEL VALIDATION
In this section, we study the behavior of a station with a
Markov model, and we obtain the stationary
probabilityτ that the station transmits a packet in a generic
(i.e., randomly chosen) slot time. This probability does not
depend on the access mechanism (i.e., Basic or RTS/ CTS)
employed. Consider a fixed number m of contending
stations. In saturation conditions, each station has
immediately a packet available for transmission. With
attention to Markov model (Figure 3), the probability τ is:
[18]
2
τ ( p) =
1 + W + pW ∑ m − 1( 2 p ) i
(5)
i=0
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 6, June 2010
Figure 3. Markov Chain model for the back-off window size.
In Eq.(5) W denotes the Contention Window size of flow.
With attention to Eq.(5), probability that the station with
low CW versus the station with big CW obtain the channel
and transmits a packet, is high. Using the above three
contention window adaptation algorithms and Eq.(4),
ensures that flows dynamically adjust their contention
parameters to meet their own QoS needs with attention to
collision rate.
4. CONCLUSION
Using the above three contention window adaptation
algorithms (1,2,3) and Eq.(4), ensures that real-time flows
own QoS needs with attention to collision rate. A real-time
flow that did not get its required QoS in the past due to
competition from other flows decreases its contention
window size so that statistically it will have a higher chance
to obtain the channel in the future (Eq.(5)). A best effort
flow, on the other hand, increases its contention window
size when the network is considered busy and hence releases
the channel to the real-time flows.
The novelty of this model is that it is robust to mobility
and variances in channel capacity and imposes no control
message overhead on the network and in calculates CW
size, attention to collision rate and flow’s current QoS.
References
[1] S. Lee, G.-S. Ahn, X. Zhang, and A. T. Campbell.
“INSIGNIA: An IP-Based Quality of Service
Framework for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”. Journal of
Parallel and Distributed Computing, Special issue on
Wireless and Mobile Computing and Communications,
60:374–406, 2000.
[2] G.-S. Ahn, A. Campbell, A. Veres, and L.-H. Sun.
“Supporting Service Differentiation for Real-Time and
Best-Effort Traffic in Stateless Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks (SWAN)”. IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, vol 1, pp.192–207, July- Septemeber 2002.
[3] S. Chen and K. Nahrstedt. “Distributed Quality-of-
Service Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks”. IEEE Journal of
Selected Areas in Communications, vol 17, pp 1454-
1465, August 1999.
[4] T. Chen, M. Gerla, and J. Tsai. “QoS Routing
Performance in a Multi-hop, Wireless Network”. In
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 141
Vol. 2, No. 6, June 2010

Proceedings of the IEEE ICUPC’97,vol 2, pp 557—61 , EEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol 1, pp:397–
San Diego, CA, October 1997. 413, 1993.
[5] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bharghavan. CEDAR: [18] G.Bianchi, "Performance Analysis of IEEE 802.11
“A Core-Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing Distributed Coordination Function", In IEEE Journal
Algorithm”. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on on Selected Areas in Communication, Vol 18, pp 535-
Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pages 202– 547, March 2000.
209, New York, NY, 1999. [19] Y. Sun, X. Gao, E. M. Belding-Royer, and J. Kempf.
[6] IEEE Computer Society.”IEEE Standard for Wireless Modelbased Resource Prediction for Multi-hop Wireless
LANMedium Access Control and Physical Layer Networks. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International
Specification”. Novermber 1999. Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems
[7] I. Ada and C. Castelluccia. “Differentiation Mechanisms (MASS), Ft. Lauderdale, FL, October 2004.
for IEEE 802.11”. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM), Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.
[8] F. Cal´i, M. Conti, and E. Gregori. “Tuning of the IEEE
802.11 Protocol to Achieve a Theoretical Throughput
Limit”. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol 8,
pp 785-799, December 2000.
[9] T. S. Ho and K. C. Chen. “Performance Evaluation and
Enhancement of CSMA/CA MAC Protocol for 802.11
Wireless LANs”. In Proceedings of the IEEE
PIMRC,vol 18, pp 535-547, Taipei, Taiwan, October
1996.
[10] H. Kim and J. C. Hou. “Improving Protocol Capacity
with Model-based Frame Scheduling in IEEE 802.11-
operated WLANs”. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (Mobi COM’03), pages 190–204, San
Diego, CA, September 2003.
[11] A. Banchs, X. Perez-Costa, and D. Qiao. “Providing
Throughput Guarantees in IEEE 802.11e Wireless
LANs”. In Proceedings of the 18 th International
Teletraffic Congress (ITC-18), Berlin, Germany,
September 2003.
[12] V. Kanodia, C. Li, A. Sabharwal, B. Sadeghi, and E.
Knightly. “Distributed Multi-Hop Scheduling and
Medium Access with Delay and Throughput
Constraints”. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MobiCOM’01), Rome, Italy, July 2001.
[13] R. Rozovsky and P. Kumar. ”SEEDEX: A MAC
Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks”. In Proceedings of the
2 nd __ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad
Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc’01), pp 67-
75, Long Beach, CA, October 2001.
[14] A. Veres, A. T. Campbell, M. Barry, and L.-H. Sun.
“Supporting Service Differentiation in Wireless Packet
Networks Using Distributed Control”. IEEE Journal of
Selected Areas in Communications, vol 19, pp 2081,
October 2001.
[15] Yaling Yang and Robin Kravets. "Distributed QoS
Guarantees for Realtime Traffic in Ad Hoc
Networks".Technical Report UIUCDCSR-2004-2446,
June 2004.
[16] Yuan Sun, Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer, Xia Gao and
James Kempf. "Real-time Traffic Support in Large-
Scale Mobile Ad hoc Networks" Proc. of BroadWIM
2004, San Jose, CA, October 2004.
[17] Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson. “Random early
detection gateways for congestion avoidance”.