Abstract
Nowadays, there are many different home networking solutions: wired, wireless, and the so called “no new wires”; all compete for their market share. The most widely used metric to compare these technologies is the physical rate. Nevertheless, this metric does not reflect the peculiarities of each MAC protocol, which limit the bandwidth actually available to users. In this article, we analyze different home networking technologies taking the main features of their MAC protocols into account. We have chosen the saturation throughput as the basic metric and have provided analytical results. Then, through simulations, we have varied the number of nodes in the network to verify how each protocol deals with contention and to analyze their efficiency. Results show that collision-avoidance protocols have lower efficiency than collision-detection protocols. Nevertheless, there may be exceptions. HomePNA 3.0 has a relatively low efficiency because it uses the same basic rate as HomePNA 2.0, to keep compatibility. The same happens within a protocol family; IEEE 802.11g at 54 Mbps is less efficient than IEEE 802.11b at 11 Mbps.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
