FuzzyCCG: A Fuzzy Logic QoS Approach for Congestion
Control in Wireless Ad hoc Networks
Lyes Khoukhi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Université de Sherbrooke
J1K 2R1, QC, Canada
+1 819 821 8000, 1213
Lyes.Khoukhi@USherbrooke.ca
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the use of fuzzy logic for threshold buffers
management in wireless ad hoc networks. This exploration is
useful first, because of the dynamic nature of buffer occupancy
and congestion at a node; second, because of the uncertainty of
information in wireless ad hoc networks due to network mobility.
The notion of threshold is practical for discarding data packets
and adapting the traffic service depending on the occupancy of
buffers. The threshold function has a significant influence on the
performance of networks in terms of both packets average delay
and throughput. We propose a fuzzy logic approach for threshold
selection named (FuzzyCCG) in order to enhance the control of
congestion. FuzzyCCG was studied under different mobility,
channel, and traffic conditions. The results of simulations confirm
that the proposed model can achieve low and stable end-to-end
delay under different network scalability and mobility conditions.
FuzzyCCG promises to be an efficient tool for reducing the delay
of multimedia applications in wireless ad hoc networks.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
C.2.1 [Computer Communication Networks]: Network
Architecture and Design – wireless communication, network
communication.
General Terms
Algorithms, Management, Performance, Design.
Keywords
Fuzzy logic, QoS, wireless mobile ad hoc networks, congestion
control, threshold management.
1. INTRODUCTION
Ad hoc networks are a new paradigm in the evolution of wireless
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Q2SWinet’05, October 13, 2005, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Copyright 2005 ACM 1-59593-241-0/05/0010...$5.00.
105
Soumaya Cherkaoui
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Université de Sherbrooke
J1K 2R1, QC, Canada
+1 819 821 8000, 2109
Soumaya.Cherkaoui@ USherbrooke.ca
communications. In this kind of networks, wireless devices can
communicate with each other in the absence of a fixed
infrastructure. Furthermore, ad hoc networks usually consist of a
set of nodes that communicate over wireless links without the use
of a central control, which creates a high level of flexibility to
users.
However, ad hoc networks pose a great challenge to multimedia
applications networking. Not only ad hoc networks inherit the
classical problems of wireless and mobile communications such
as bandwidth optimization and power control issues; the multihop
nature of a hoc networks and the lack of a fixed infrastructure also
introduce new research problems such as insuring some Quality of
Service (QoS) transmission over highly dynamic topologies.
The notion QoS is of central of importance to support any
multimedia application. In ad hoc networks, this issue is
particularly challenging because there is no fixed infrastructure
and the topology is frequently changing due to node mobility.
Consequently, links are constantly established and broken. The
availability and quality of a link further fluctuates due to channel
fading and interference from other transmitting devices. Various
approaches and protocols have been proposed to address QoS ad
hoc networking problem. Multiple efforts are in fact under way
within academic and industrial research projects and the Internet
Engineering Task Force. In section II, we give a brief description
of the existing works.
In this paper, we explore a new QoS approach for wireless ad hoc
networks. The proposed approach named FuzzyCCG is a fuzzy
logic technique for improving the control of congestion.
FuzzyCCG performs buffer thresholds management in wireless ad
hoc networks. The notion of threshold is practical for discarding
some data packets and adapting the traffic service to the
occupancy of buffers. The threshold function has a significant
influence on the performance of a network in terms of both
packets average delay and throughput. Therefore, the selection of
a particular threshold may be decisive for an adequate congestion
control. FuzzyCCG exploration is useful first, because of the
dynamic nature of buffer occupancy and congestion at a node;
second, because of the uncertain nature of information in wireless
ad hoc networks due to network mobility. In order to deal with the
dynamic buffer occupancy and the uncertain and imprecise nature
of information about the network in ad hoc networks information,
we propose the use of a fuzzy logic approach, FuzzyCCG, for
threshold selection. We study FuzzyCCG performances under
different network conditions in terms of mobility and scalability.
The results of simulations shown in Section IV confirm that
FuzzyCCG promises to be an efficient tool for reducing the delay
of multimedia applications in wireless ad hoc networks.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section II, we discuss
related works. Section III describes FuzzyCCG fuzzy logic
approach for threshold management. Section IV shows the
simulation results of the FuzzyCCG approach under different
network conditions and traffic loads. Finally, Section V concludes
the paper.
2. RELATED WORKS
Research in the area of ad hoc networks is proceeding in both
academia and industry under military and commercial
sponsorship. Recently, there have been considerable efforts in the
area of supporting QoS in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).
The works that exist tend to be based on distributed scheduling
algorithms that address QoS routing issues, QoS-based medium
access controllers, rescheduling when the network topology
changes, and fairness issues. The works in [7]-[15] have studied
the QoS routing issue. In [7], we have proposed a flexible QoS
routing protocol (AQOPC) based on multi-service classes and
multi-path schemes. It provides information about the state of
bandwidth, end-to-end delay and hop count in the network.
AQOPC performs an accurate admission control and a good use
of network resources by calculating multiple paths and generating
the needed service classes to support different QoS user
requirements. In [13], a core-extraction distributed ad hoc routing
(CEDAR) algorithm is proposed that uses core extraction, link
state propagation, and route computation to support QOS in
wireless ad hoc networks. In [8], the authors have addressed the
problem of supporting real-time communications in a multihop
mobile network using QoS routing that permits bandwidth
calculation and slot reservation. This protocol can be applied to
two main scenarios: multimedia ad hoc wireless networks and
multihop extensions of wireless ATM networks. The ad hoc QoS
on-demand routing (AQOR) is discussed in [9], which integrates
signaling functions for resource reservation and QoS maintenance
at per-flow granularity. Some works such those described in [8]
and [13] have proposed table-driven routing approaches for QoS
support. However, their performances are low compared to
reactive approaches because of the problem of stale route
information [14]. A link-state QoS routing protocol for ad hoc
networks (QOLSR) was proposed in [10] with the aim of
implementing QoS functionality while dealing with limited
available resources in a dynamic environment. A ticket-based QoS
routing protocol was proposed in [11]. This protocol is based on a
model which assumes that the bandwidth of a link can be
determined independently of its neighboring links. Using the same
model, [12] proposes a QoS multi-path routing protocol based on
a ticket-distribution scheme to satisfy bandwidth constraints.
Unfortunately, these schemes do not consider radio interference
problems. The above-discussed QoS routing protocols can also be
classified into two schemes: source routing and distributed
routing. Most of the existing distributed algorithms (e.g., [15])
require the maintaining of a global network state at every node,
which may cause the scalability problem. On the other hand, the
source routing schemes such as [14] suffer from problems of
scalability and frequent updates of the state of the network.
106
It is important to note that the ability to provide QoS depends also
on how well the resources are managed at the MAC layer. Some
of the works cited above used generic QoS measures and are not
tuned to a particular MAC layer [2], [11]. Some others use
CDMA to eliminate the interference between different
transmissions [8], [16]. The authors in [17] have introduced an
on-demand, link-state, multi-path QoS routing protocol which
collects information of link bandwidth from source to destination
under the CDMA-over-TDMA channel model. Similarly, CDMA-
over-TDMA channel model has been adopted in [16] by using the
notion of a time slot on a link to calculate the end-to-end path
bandwidth. The same model has been used for calculating the
end-to-end path bandwidth to develop on-demand QoS routing
[8] and DSVD based QoS routing [16].
SWAN [1], FQMM [6], and INSINGIA [2] are the most
noteworthy QoS models attempting to establish comprehensive
QoS solutions for MANETs. SWAN proposes a service
differentiation in stateless wireless ad hoc networks by using
distributed control algorithms. It relies on feedback from the
MAC layer as a measure of congestion in the network by using a
mechanism of rate control and source-based admission control. It
promotes a rate control system that can be used at each node to
treat traffic either as real-time or best-effort traffic. However, one
of the drawbacks of SWAN is that it does not offer a feasible
mechanism for calculating the threshold rate to limit any
excessive delay that might be experienced [18]. SWAN also uses
merely two levels of services: real-time and best-effort traffic.
INSIGNIA, such as SWAN, is an intranet QoS model providing
services that have to be mapped to either per-flow or per-class
services for wireless ad hoc networks. The main goal of
INSIGNIA is to provide adaptive QoS guarantees for real-time
traffic. It employs an in-band signaling system that supports fast
reservation, restoration, and adaptation algorithms. Three levels of
services are implemented: best-effort, minimum, and maximum.
The bandwidth is however the only QoS parameter used in
INSIGNIA.
Another ad hoc QoS model, FQMM, is a hybrid approach
combining the advantages of per-class granularity of DiffServ
with the per-flow granularity of IntServ. It tries to preserve the
per-flow granularity for a small portion of traffic in MANETs,
given that a large amount of the traffic belongs to per aggregate of
flows, that is, per-class granularity. FQMM offers a good solution
for small- and medium-size ad hoc network, but it is not suitable
for large networks.
In [5], we have proposed an intelligent QoS model, named
GQOS, \with service differentiation based on neural networks in
mobile ad hoc networks. The main objective was to satisfy some
QoS requirements, especially the reduction of end-to-end delay, in
networks whose topologies change at low to medium rate. GQOS
is composed of a kernel plan which ensures basic functions of
routing and QoS support control, and an intelligent learning plan
which ensures the training of GQOS kernel operations by using a
multilayered feedforward neural network (MFNN). The advantage
of using a neural network algorithm is the learning of different
operations performed by the kernel and the subsequent reduction
of the processing time in the network. However, the learning
process is CPU consuming. In [4], we have explored the use of a
fuzzy logic semi-stateless QoS approach for service differentiation
in wireless ad hoc networks. The proposed model named
FuzzyMARS includes a set of mechanisms: admission control for
real-time traffic, a fuzzy logic system for best-effort traffic
regulation, and three schemes for real-time traffic regulation.
FuzzyMARS architecture support both real-time UDP traffic and
best-effort UDP and TCP traffic. The resulted simulations have
shown the benefits of using the proposed fuzzy logic semi-
stateless model. The average delay obtained is quite stable and
low under different channel conditions, traffic scalability, and
mobility scenarios. However, in FuzzyMARS some bandwidth
loss was experienced in overall network capacity. This may be
due to the fact that no specific buffer management was used in
FuzzyMARS. The model proposed here can be considered as an
augmented FuzzyMARS, where we use fuzzy logic for buffer
threshold management.
3. FUZZY LOGIC APPROACH FOR
THRESHOLD MANAGEMENT
Fuzzy logic theory [23]-[25] was first introduced as a tool for
modeling the uncertainly of natural language, and has been
commonly employed for supporting intelligent systems. This
technology has proven efficiency in various applications such as
decision support and intelligent control, especially where a system
is difficult to be characterized. A fuzzy logic system considers
basically three steps: fuzzification, rules evaluation, and
deffuzification. The first step is responsible for mapping discrete
(called also crisp) input data into proper values in the fuzzy logic
space. For that end, membership functions (fuzzy sets) are used to
provide smooth transitions from false to true (0 to 1). The second
step performs reasoning on the input data by following predefined
fuzzy rules. Once the input data are processed by fuzzy reasoning,
the deffuzification takes the task of converting back these input
data into crisp values.
Given the results found with FuzzyMARS, fuzzy logic promises
to also offer an efficient tool for buffer management by using
adequate thresholds that deal with wireless ad hoc network
dynamics. Also, fuzzy logic has been successfully applied to the
queue management in cell-switching networks [22]. Nevertheless,
to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that uses fuzzy
logic for buffer management in MANETs. We aim to apply a
fuzzy technique based on fuzzy sets theory. The later extends the
classical logic set {0, 1} to use linguistic variables (e.g. full
buffer, merely full buffer, empty buffer). Using fuzzy logic, we
investigate the fuzzy thresholds ability to adapt to the dynamic
conditions over the classical inflexible thresholds.
It is observed that the classical thresholds are excessively
restrictive, because the selection of threshold is based on a single
value. Thus, the utilization of a buffer may be either “poor” or
“surcharged”. When the selected value is small (e.g. 30% of
capacity), then the admission of new packets is possible only
when the buffer occupancy is low. This means a poor utilization
of the buffer; since most of incoming packets are rejected even if
the buffer is almost unfilled. On the other side, when the selected
value is big (e.g. 90% of capacity), problems may happen when
the bursty traffic is used. The transmission of packets generated
by a bursty traffic is very changing. It can vary from small to
“near-peak” rate in a short period of time.
107
On the other hand, most of events occurring in an ad hoc network
are dynamic and random; therefore manually predefining a value
for threshold is not suitable. In addition, it is important to note
that the rate of packets arriving on a particular node is not static.
The threshold value divides the buffer into an “admitted” part and
a “no-admitted” part. Let consider that the threshold of the buffer
shown in Figure 1 is equal to 60%. In this scheme, the occupancy
level may range from 0 to 60%. When the buffer occupancy is
superior to 60%, no incoming packets are accepted in the buffer.
Therefore, the change in decision making from “admit state” to
“no-admit state” is performed from 60-61%. This means that a
small variation in the buffer occupancy may influence the decision
making of incoming packets.
Full Empty
60%
Figure 1. Classical buffer scheme.
0.9
Admitted 0.7
packets Uadm
0.5
0.3
0.1
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2. Fuzzy Buffer occupancy scheme.
In FuzzyCCG, we attempt to extend the two-discrete states
“admit” and “no-admit” of the buffer occupancy by using fuzzy
logic. The aim of introducing fuzzy logic is to develop a more
realistic representation of buffer occupancy that helps to offer an
efficient decision making. Hence, the definition of “buffer
occupancy” will consider the two fuzzy cases of “getting full” and
“not getting full”, rather than “admit” and “no-admit” in the
existing approaches. This fuzzy representation replaces the two-
discrete sets by a continuous set membership, and performs small
gradual transitions between different states of buffer occupancy.
The fuzzy membership function aims to determine the fuzzy
threshold depending on the fullness of the buffer. Several
membership functions may be used for that purpose: “triangular”,
trapezoidal”, or “sigmoid” function. These functions can give a
representation about the buffer fullness level. In FuzzyCCG, we
used the sigmoid membership function. This choice is based on
the fact that this function would reflect well the dynamic
occupancy of the buffers that we want to model.
As shown in Figure 2, the admit membership function is inversely
proportional to the occupancy fullness level of buffer. Thus, when
the occupancy fullness is small, the value of the admit
membership function is big. At higher fullness occupancy levels,
the admit membership function value becomes small. When the
value of the “no-admit” membership function is getting big, then
only a small quantity of packets will be permitted to enter the
buffer. In Figure 2, the value of the membership function is

represented by the symbol. u adm The fuzzy rules associated are
as follows:
<< When the value of the admit membership function is big,
then increase the accepted incoming packets into buffer >>
<< When the value of the admit membership function is
small, then reduce the accepted incoming packets into buffer >>
The previous fuzzy rules are illustrated by Figure 2. The rejection
of packets is controlled based on the degree of fullness of the
buffer. For instance, when the buffer is occupied at 40%, this
means that the value of u adm is about 0.7 (i.e. the amount of
packets admitted is about 70%). Then, about “30%” of incoming
packets will be not admitted. Note that the fuzzy threshold
approach covers the continuous set of values representing possible
buffer occupancy (i.e. from 0 to u adm ). This is opposite to the
classical threshold approaches that hold only one predefined
single value. Therefore, fuzzy logic adds more flexibility to the
threshold selection.
4. PERFORMANCE EVAULATION
We integrated the fuzzy buffer threshold management with
FuzzyMARS. The aim is to evaluate whether the results will
outperform other existing models such as SWAN, and also asses if
the integrated buffer management adds more performances to
FuzzyMARS. The performance evaluation of the proposed QoS
model is studied with the scalable ns-2 simulator. Each mobile
host has a transmission range of 250 meters and shares an 11
Mbps radio channel with its neighboring nodes. We compare the
performance of FuzzyCCG with the ‘original model’,
FuzzyMARS as described in our previous work [4] and the
SWAN model described in [1]. We use the word ‘original model’
to refer to IEEE 802.11 wireless networks without FuzzyCCG
mechanisms.
In order to better understand the properties of the FuzzyCCG
regulation, the simulation considers multiple scenarios of real-
time and TCP best-effort traffic. The real-time traffic is modeled
as 4 voice and 4 video flows. The TCP traffic is modeled as a
mixture of FTP and Web traffic. Web traffic represents micro-
flows, whereas FTP traffic corresponds to macro-flows. The video
and voice flows representing real-time traffic are active and
monitored for the duration of 100 seconds. Video traffic is
modeled as 200 Kbps constant rate traffic with a packet size of
512 bytes. Voice traffic is modeled as 32 Kbps constant rate
traffic with a packet size of 80 bytes. The simulation considers a
multihop network of 50 mobile nodes. The network area has a
rectangular shape of 1500m x 300m that minimizes the effect of
network partitioning. The AODV protocol [19] is chosen as the
routing protocol.
Figures 3-8 present the scalability impact of the increasing
number of TCP flows on the average end-to-end delay and
throughput of traffic. Figure 3 illustrates a significant difference in
terms of the average delay between FuzzyCCG and the original
model. The average delay in FuzzyCCG grows slowly with the
increasing number of TCP flows, and it remains between 2 and 3
108
msec. In contrast, the average delay in the original model grows
from 7 to 31 msec as the number of TCP flows increases from 2 to
12 flows. Hence, the gain achieved by FuzzyCCG in terms of the
average end-to-end delay, is by about 74-92%. In Figure 5, we
observe that the average delay in FuzzyMARS grows slowly with
the increasing number of TCP flows, and it remains almost less
than 3 msec. We observe that the average delay of the TCP traffic
in FuzzyCCG is almost the same as in FuzzyMARS (FuzzyMARS
outperforms FuzzyCCG by about 3%). Figure 7 shows the
average end-to-end delay in both FuzzyCCG and SWAN models.
It is shown that the average delay is almost inferior to 3 msec in
the proposed model, whereas in SWAN model the average delay
is around 5 msec. This means that we can achieve a gain of about
49% in terms of average delay in FuzzyCCG.
We observe in Figure 4, 6 and 8 the impact of growing number of
TCP flows on the average throughput over the different models of
simulation. The average throughput of the TCP traffic in
FuzzyCCG is almost the same as in the original model, as shown
in Figure 4. At a lower number of TCP flows, the average
throughput in the original is superior to that in FuzzyCCG. A
similar result is observed in Figure 6 between FuzzyCCG and
SWAN. On the other hand, Figure 8 shows that the FuzzyCCG
outperforms FuzzyMARS in terms of average throughput of the
TCP traffic by about 21% at cost of 3% decrease in the average
delay.
0,03
FuzzyCCG
Or iginal
0,025
0,02
0,015
0,01
0,005
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
N u mb e r o f TC P f l ows
Figure 3. Average delay in the original and
FuzzyCCG models vs. number of TCP flows.
FuzzyCCG
1200
Or iginal
900
600
300
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Number of TCP f l ows
Figure 4. Average throughput in the original
and FuzzyCCG models vs. number of TCP flows.
 Therefore by adopting the FuzzyCCG mechanisms, we can
FuzzyCCG
achieve a reduction in the average end-to-end delay by about 74-
0,006 FuzzyMARS
92%, 49%, and 21% in comparison respectively to the original
model, SWAN, and FuzzyMARS, with almost the same average
0,004
throughput. This allows FuzzyCCG to support efficiently
multimedia applications.
0,002

The impact of mobility on the performances of FuzzyCCG is

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
investigated in Figures 9-14. The real-time traffic is modeled in
Number of TCP f lows the same manner as discussed previously. The best-effort TCP
flows consists of 5 web flows and 5 FTP flows. The random
Figure 5. Average delay in FuzzyCCG and FuzzyMARS waypoint mobility model [20] is implemented at each node in the
models vs. number of TCP flows. network. In the beginning, the nodes are randomly placed in the
area. Then, each mobile node selects a random destination and
moves with a random speed up to a maximum speed of 20m/s.
900
FuzzyCCG
800
FuzzyMARS
700
600
500
400
0,04 FuzzyCCG
300
Or iginal
200
0,032
100
0 0,024
2 4 6 8 10 12

N umbe r of T C P f l ows 0,016

0,008

Figure 6. Average throughput in FuzzyCCG and 0

FuzzyMARS models vs. number of TCP flows. 300 200 120 60 30
M obi l i t y ( P a use t i m e , se c )

Figure 9. Average delay in the original

0,02
FuzzyCCG and FuzzyCCG models vs. mobility.
SWAN
0,015

0,01 640
560

480
0,005
400

320
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 240

N um be r of TC P f l ows 160 FuzzyCCG

Or i gi nal
80
Figure 7. Average delay in FuzzyCCG and SWAN models vs. 0
number of TCP flows. 300 200 120 60 30

Mobilit y ( Pause t ime, sec)

Figure 10. Average throughput in the original

and FuzzyCCG models vs. mobility.
1200 FuzzyCCG

1000
SWAN

800

600

400

200

0
2 4 6 8 10 12

N umbe r of T C P f l ows

Figure 8. Average throughput in FuzzyCCG and

SWAN models vs. number of TCP flows.

109
 0,01
FuzzyCCG
640
FuzzyMARS
0,008 560
480
0,006
400

0,004 320

240
FuzzyCCG
0,002 160
SWAN
80
0
0
300 200 120 60 30
300 200 120 60 30
M obi l i t y ( pa us e t i me , s e c ) M obi l i t y ( P a us e t i me , s e c )

Figure 11 Average delay in FuzzyCCG and Figure 14. Average throughput in FuzzyCCG
SWAN models vs. mobility. and FuzzyMARS models vs. mobility.

After reaching the destination, the node will stay there for a given
“pause time” then starts to move towards another destination. This
process is repeated during for the duration of simulation.
Figure 9 shows that the average end-to-end delay in FuzzyCCG
increases slowly. The average delay in the proposed model
remains almost less than 5.4 msec, whereas the average delay in
the original model grows from 25 to 38 msec. This means that the
proposed FuzzyCCG achieves a reduction in terms of average
delay by about 79-87%. On the other hand, it is observed in the
Figure 10 that the throughput of TCP best-effort traffic decreases
slowly in the original model as the mobility increases. The
average throughput in FuzzyCCG is superior to that of the
original model by about 33% for different mobility scenarios.
700
600
500
Figure 11 illustrates that the average end-to-end delay in
FuzzyMARS increases slowly and it grows only for the highest
mobility scenarios. The average delay offered by FuzzyMARS is
about 2% better than that FuzzyCCG. However, it is shown in
Figure 12 that for different mobility scenarios, the throughput in
FuzzyCCG is better than in FuzzyMARS model. FuzzyCCG acts
better in terms of throughput by about 49% than the FuzzyMARS.
We observe in Figure 13, the average end-to-end delay with
different mobility scenarios in both FuzzyCCG and SWAN
models. It is observed that the average delay of traffic in
FuzzyCCG increases slowly as the mobility increases. For
different mobility scenarios, the average delay offered by
FuzzyCCG is about 10-36% better than that offered by SWAN. It
is shown in Figure 14 that for different mobility scenarios, the
throughput in FuzzyCCG is better than in SWAN model by about
43%. During the mobility of nodes, some flows are dropped in
FuzzyCCG both SWAN and FuzzyCCG models because of the difficulty in
SWAN
capturing the dynamics of the environment in the ad hoc network.

400
300

200

100
5. CONCLUSION
0
In this paper, we proposed the FuzzyCCG approach which is a
300 200 120 60 30 new QoS approach based on fuzzy logic for mobile ad hoc
Mobilit y (Pause t ime, sec) networks. FuzzyCCG explores how fuzzy logic can enhance the
buffer threshold management in wireless ad hoc networks.
FuzzyCCG exploration is useful because of the importance of the
Figure 12. Average throughput in FuzzyCCG
threshold notion for discarding of data packets when necessary
and SWAN models vs. mobility. and adapting the traffic service to the occupancy of buffers. In
addition, the threshold function has a significant influence on the
performance of the network in terms of both packets average
0,006 delay and throughput. Therefore, the selection of a particular
0,005
threshold may be decisive to QoS management. The implemented
technique proved to be efficient and scalable. The performances
0,004
evaluation of FuzzyCCG was studied using the ns-2 simulator,
0,003
under diverse mobility and traffic conditions. In terms of traffic
0,002
FuzzyCCG
FuzzyMARS
scalability, the simulation has shown that we can achieve a
0,001 reduction in terms of average end-to-end delay by about 74-92%
0
and 49% in comparison to respectively, the original (i.e. IEEE
300 200 120 60 30 802.11 wireless networks) and SWAN models, with almost the
M obi l i t y ( pa us e t i me , s e c ) same throughput. Furthermore, FuzzyCCG outperforms
FuzzyMARS in terms of average throughput by about 21% at a
Figure 13. Average delay in FuzzyCCG cost of 3% decrease in the average delay. On the other side, the
proposed model proves better performances over the original,
and FuzzyMARS models vs. mobility. FuzzyMARS, and SWAN models under various mobility

110
scenarios. The performance results of FuzzyCCG confirm that the
presented fuzzy logic approach promises to support efficiently the
multimedia applications in wireless ad hoc networks by reducing
the traffic delay while keeping a high throughput.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is supported financially by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI).
7. .REFERENCES
[1] G.H. Ahn, A. T. Campbell, A. Veres, and L. H. Sun,
“SWAN: Service Differentiation in Stateless Wireless Ad
Hoc Networks”, IEEE INFOCOM 2002.
[2] S.-B. 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 (Academic Press), special issue on
wireless and mobile computing and communications, vol. 60,
no. 4, pp. 374-406, Apr. 2000.
[3] J.L. Sobrinho and A.S. Krishnakumar, “Quality-of-Service in
Ad Hoc Carrier Sense Multiple Access Networks,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, vol. 17, no. 8,
pp. 1353-1368, Aug. 1999.
[4] L. Khoukhi, S. Cherkaoui, “FuzzyMARS: A Fuzzy Logic
Approach with Service Differentiation for Wireless Ad hoc
Networks”, IEEE International Conference on Wireless
Networks, Communications, and Mobile Computing
WirelessCom2005, June 13-16, 2005.
[5] L. Khoukhi, S. Cherkaoui, “A Quality of Service Approach
Based on Neural Networks for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,
IEEE-IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical
Communications Networks WOCN 2005, Dubai, UAE,
March 6 - 8, 2005.
[6] H. Xiao, W. K.G. Seah, A. Lo, and K. Chaing, “Flexible
QoS Model for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference, Vol. 1, pp 445-449, Tokyo, May
2000.
[7] L. Khoukhi, S. Cherkaoui, “Flexible QoS Routing Protocol
for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, In Proc. of the 11th IEEE
International Conference on Telecommunication (ICT2004),
Brazil, Aug. 2004.
[8] C. R. Lin and J.-S. Liu. “QoS Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless
Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communication, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1426–1438, 1999.
[9] Qi Xue and Aura Ganz. “Ad hoc QoS on-demand routing
(AQOR) in mobile ad hoc networks”, Journal of Parallel and
Distributed Computing, Elsevier Science, USA, 2003.
[10] A. Munaretto, H. Badis, K. Al Agha and G. Pujolle, “A
Link-state QoS Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks”, In
the proceedings of IEEE MWCN02, Stockholm, Sept.2002.
111
[11] S. Chen and K. Nahrstedt. “Distributed Quality-of-Service in
Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol.17, no. 8, Aug., 1999.
[12] W.-H. Liao, Y.-C. Tseng, J.-P. Sheu, and S.-L. Wang. “A
Multi-Path QoS Routing Protocol in a Wireless Mobile Ad
Hoc Network”, In the proceedings of IEEE ICN’01, Int.
Conference on Networking, Part II, pp. 158–167, July, 2001.
[13] R. Sivakumar, et al., “CEDAR: a core extraction distributed
ad hoc routing algorithm”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1454-1465, 1999.
[14] S. Chen and K. Nahrstedt, “On finding multi-constrained
paths”, IEEE Int. Conference on Communication, 874 -879
June 98.
[15] Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, “QoS routing for supporting
resource reservation”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 14, no. 7, 1996.
[16] C.-R. Lin. “On-Demand QoS Routing in Multihop Mobile
Networks”, In Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2001, pp. 1735–
1744, April 2001.
[17] Y. Chen, Y. Tseng, J. Sheu, and P. Kuo, “On-Demand, Link-
State, Multi-Path QoS Routing in a Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc
Network”, European wireless, Florence, Feb. 2002.
[18] Y. L. Morgan, T. Kunz, “PYLON: An architectural
framework for ad-hoc QoS interconnectivity with access
domains”, HICSS’03 pres, Hawaii, USA, Jan. 2003.
[19] C.E. Perkins, E.M. Royer, “Ad-hoc on-demand distance
vector routing”, In the Proc. of the Second IEEE Workshop
on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp.90 –
100. New Orleans, LA, Feb. 1999.
[20] J. Broch, D. Maltz, D. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva,
“A Performance Comparison of Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
Network Routing Protocols,” In the proceedings of
ACM/IEEE Int’l Conf. Mobile Computing and Networking
(MobiCom), Oct. 1998.
[21] F. Kevin, V. Kannan, “NS notes and documentation,” in The
VINT Project, UC Berkely, LBL, USC/ISI, and Xerox
PARC, 1997.
[22] A. R. Bonde and S. Ghosh, “A comparative study of fuzzy
versus Fixed thresholds for robust queue management in
cell-switching networks,” IEEE Trans. Networking, vol. 2,
pp. 337–344, Aug. 1994.
[23] X. Wang, “A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control”, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[24] C.C Lee, “Fuzzy logic in control systems: fuzzy logic
controller- part I and II,” IEEE transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, 1990.
[25] L. A. Zadeh, “fuzzy logic = computing with words”, IEEE
Transactions on fuzzy systems, vol. 4, no2, pp. 104-111,
1996.