Abstract

Supporting delay-constrained traffic becomes more and more critical in multimedia communication systems, tactile Internet, networked control systems, and cyber-physical systems, etc. In delay-constrained traffic, each packet has a hard deadline. When it is not delivered before the hard deadline, it becomes useless and will be removed from the system. This feature is completely different from that of traditional delay-unconstrained traffic and brings new challenge to network protocol design. In this work, we study the widely-used (slotted) ALOHA and CSMA wireless access protocols but under the new delay-constrained setting. Our goal is to compare delay-constrained ALOHA and CSMA for different system settings and thus give network operators guidelines on protocol selection. We use two Markov chains to analyze delay-constrained ALOHA and CSMA, respectively. However, the number of states of Markov chains increases exponentially with respect to the number of users in the network. Therefore, we can only compare the exact performance of delay-constrained ALOHA and CSMA for small-scale networks. To address the curse of dimensionality, we design a single-user parameterized ALOHA (resp. CSMA) system, where the parameters are to be learned to approximate the original multi-user ALOHA (resp. CSMA) system. In addition, our low-complexity approach preserves the Markov-chain structure of the systems and thus enables us to compute some other interested performance metrics such as average delivery time. We use our low-complexity approach to reveal the conditions under which ALOHA (resp. CSMA) outperforms CSMA (resp. ALOHA) in the delay-constrained setting via extensive simulations.

Highlights

  • All source code and dataset are publicly available in https://github.com/yuyouzhi/compare.dc.aloha.and.csma

  • Since the number of states of Markov chains grows exponentially, the exact approach can only be applied for small-scale networks

  • We have exploited the structures of ALOHA and carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) protocols and proposed a learning-based low-complexity approximate approach

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Typical examples include multimedia communication systems such as realtime streaming and video conferencing [2], tactile Internet [3], [4], networked control systems (NCSs) such as remote control of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [5], [6], and cyber-physical systems (CPSs) such as medical tele-operations, X-by-wire vehicles/avionics, factory automation, and robotic collaboration [7]–[9]. In such applications, each packet has a hard deadline: if it is not delivered before the deadline, it becomes useless and will be removed from the system.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call