View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Networking Cognitive Radios
• Interaction Problem• Role of Policy• Techniques for
designing network• Commercial standards
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
2/67
The Interaction Problem
• Outside world is determined by the interaction of numerous cognitive radios
• Adaptations spawn adaptations
OutsideWorld
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
3/67
Dynamic Spectrum Access Pitfall• Suppose
– g31>g21; g12>g32 ;
g23>g13
• Without loss of generality– g31, g12, g23 = 1– g21, g32, g13 = 0.5
• Infinite Loop!– 4,5,1,3,2,6,4,…
Chan. (0,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,1) (1,0,0) (1,0,1) (1,1,0) (1,1,1)
Interf. (1.5,1.5,1.5) (0.5,1,0) (1,0,0.5) (0,0.5,1) (0,0.5,1) (1,0,0.5) (0.5,1,0) (1.5,1.5,1.5)
Interference Characterization
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
4/67
Implications• In one out every four deployments, the
example system will enter into an infinite loop• As network scales, probability of entering an
infinite loop goes to 1:– 2 channels– k channels
• Even for apparently simple algorithms, ensuring convergence and stability will be nontrivial
31 3/ 4 n Cp loop
111 1 2n kCkp loop
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
5/67
Locally optimal decisions that lead to globally undesirable networks
• Scenario: Distributed SINR maximizing power control in a single cluster
• For each link, it is desirable to increase transmit power in response to increased interference
• Steady state of network is all nodes transmitting at maximum power
Power
SINR
Insufficient to consider only a single link, must consider interaction
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
6/67
1. Steady state characterization
2. Steady state performance
3. Convergence4. Stability/Noise5. Scalability
a1
a2
NE1
NE2
NE3
a1
a2
NE1
NE2
NE3
a1
a2
NE1
NE2
NE3
a1
a2
NE1
NE2
NE3
a3
Steady State Characterization Is it possible to predict behavior in the system? How many different outcomes are possible?
Performance Are these outcomes desirable? Do these outcomes maximize the system target parameters?
Convergence How do initial conditions impact the system steady state? What processes will lead to steady state conditions? How long does it take to reach the steady state?
Stability/Noise How do system variations/noise impact the system? Do the steady states change with small variations/noise? Is convergence affected by system variations/noise?
Scalability As the number of devices increases, How is the system impacted? Do previously optimal steady states remain optimal?
Network Analysis Objectives
(Radio 1’s available actions)
(Rad
io 2
’s a
vaila
ble
actio
ns)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
7/67
Cognitive Radio Network Modeling Summary
• Radios• Actions for each radio• Observed Outcome
Space• Goals• Decision Rules• Timing
• i,j N, |N| = n
• A=A1A2An
• O
• uj:O (uj:A)
• dj:OAi (dj:A Ai)
• T=T1T2Tn
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
8/67
Comments on Timing• When decisions are
made also matters and different radios will likely make decisions at different time
• Tj – when radio j makes its adaptations– Generally assumed to be
an infinite set– Assumed to occur at
discrete time• Consistent with DSP
implementation
• T=T1T2Tn
• t T
Decision timing classes• Synchronous
– All at once
• Round-robin– One at a time in order– Used in a lot of analysis
• Random– One at a time in no order
• Asynchronous– Random subset at a time– Least overhead for a
network
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
9/67
Variety of game models• Normal Form Game <N,A,{ui}>
– Synchronous play– T is a singleton– Perfect knowledge of action space, other players’ goals (called
utility functions)• Repeated Game <N,A,{ui},{di}>
– Repeated synchronous play of a normal form game– T may be finite or infinite– Perfect knowledge of action space, other players’ goals (called
utility functions)– Players may consider actions in future stages and current stages
• Strategies (modified di)
• Asynchronous myopic repeated game <N,A,{ui},{di},T>– Repeated play of a normal form game under various timings– Radios react to most recent stage, decision rule is “intelligent”
• Many others in the literature and in the dissertation
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
10/67
NormalUrgent
Allocate ResourcesInitiate Processes
OrientInfer from Context
Establish Priority
PlanNormal
Negotiate
Immediate
LearnNewStates
Goal
Adapted From Mitola, “Cognitive Radio for Flexible Mobile Multimedia Communications ”, IEEE Mobile Multimedia Conference, 1999, pp 3-10.
Observe
OutsideWorld
Decide
Act
Autonomous
Infer from Radio Model
States
\
Utility functionArguments
Utility Function
Outcome Space
Action Sets
DecisionRules
Cognitive radios are naturally modeled as players in a game
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
11/67
Radio 2
Actions
Radio 1
ActionsAction Space
u2u1
Decision Rules
Decision Rules
Outcome Space
:f A OInformed by Communications Theory
1 2ˆ ˆ, 1 1̂u 2 2ˆu
Interaction is naturally modeled as a game
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
12/67
Some differences between game models and cognitive radio network model
Player Cognitive Radio
Knowledge Knows A Can learn O (may know or learn A)
f : A O
Invertible
Constant
Known
Not invertible (noise)
May change over time (though relatively fixed for short periods)
Has to learn
Preferences Ordinal Cardinal (goals)
• Assuming numerous iterations, normal form game only has a single stage.– Useful for compactly capturing modeling components at a single stage– Normal form game properties will be exploited in the analysis of other
games• Repeated games are explicitly used as the basis for cognitive radio
algorithm design (e.g., Srivastava, MacKenzie)– Not however, focus of work– Not the most commonly encountered implementation
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
13/67
Cognitive Radios’ Dilemma• Two radios have two
signals to choose between {n,w} and {N,W}
• n and N do not overlap
• Higher throughput from operating as a high power wideband signal when other is narrowband
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
14/67
Potential Problems with Networked Cognitive Radios
Distributed• Infinite recursions• Instability (chaos)• Vicious cycles• Adaptation collisions• Equitable distribution of
resources• Byzantine failure• Information distribution
Centralized• Signaling Overhead• Complexity• Responsiveness• Single point of failure
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
15/67
Price of Anarchy (Factor)
• Centralized solution always at least as good as distributed solution– Like ASIC is always at least as good as
DSP
• Ignores costs of implementing algorithms– Sometimes centralized is infeasible (e.g.,
routing the Internet)– Distributed can sometimes (but not
generally) be more costly than centralized
Performance of Centralized Algorithm Solution
Performance of Distributed Algorithm Solution
1
9.6
7
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
16/67
Implications• Best of All Possible Worlds
– Low complexity distributed algorithms with low anarchy factors• Reality implies mix of methods
– Hodgepodge of mixed solutions• Policy – bounds the price of anarchy• Utility adjustments – align distributed solution with centralized
solution• Market methods – sometimes distributed, sometimes centralized• Punishment – sometimes centralized, sometimes distributed,
sometimes both• Radio environment maps –”centralized” information for distributed
decision processes– Fully distributed
• Potential game design – really, the panglossian solution, but only applies to particular problems
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
18/67
Policy• Concept: Constrain the
available actions so the worst cases of distributed decision making can be avoided
• Not a new concept – – Policy has been used since
there’s been an FCC
• What’s new is assuming decision makers are the radios instead of the people controlling the radios
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
19/67
Policy applied to radios instead of humans
• Need a language to convey policy– Learn what it is– Expand upon policy later
• How do radios interpret policy– Policy engine?
• Need an enforcement mechanism– Might need to tie in to humans
• Need a source for policy– Who sets it?– Who resolves disputes?
• Logical extreme can be quite complex, but logical extreme may not be necessary.
Policiesfrequency
mask
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
20/67
Example Policies from WNAN• No harmful interference to non-WNaN systems
– Perhaps not practical (then again, only a “principle”)• Interference Limitation: Maintain ≤ 3dB of SNR
at a Protected Receiver.– More practical, though perhaps not measurable – Possible to estimate with built in environment
models• Abandon Time: Abandon a Frequency ≤ 500
ms– Easily measured– Depending on precise policy, easily implemented
too– Probably should be augmented with detection
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
21/67
• Detection– Digital TV: -116 dBm over a 6 MHz channel– Analog TV: -94 dBm at the peak of the NTSC
(National Television System Committee) picture carrier
– Wireless microphone: -107 dBm in a 200 kHz bandwidth.
• Transmitted Signal– 4 W Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP)– Specific spectral masks – Channel vacation times
C. Cordeiro, L. Challapali, D. Birru, S. Shankar, “IEEE 802.22: The First Worldwide Wireless Standard based on Cognitive Radios,” IEEE DySPAN2005, Nov 8-11, 2005 Baltimore, MD.
802.22 Example Policies
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
23/67
Repeated GamesStage 1
Stage 2
Stage k
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage k
• Same game is repeated– Indefinitely– Finitely
• Players consider discounted payoffs across multiple stages– Stage k
– Expected value over all future stages
k k ki iu a u a
0
k k ki i
k
u a u a
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
24/67
Impact of Strategies• Rather than merely reacting to the state of the network,
radios can choose their actions to influence the actions of other radios
• Threaten to act in a way that minimizes another radio’s performance unless it implements the desired actions
• Common strategies– Tit-for-tat– Grim trigger– Generous tit-for-tat
• Play can be forced to any “feasible” payoff vector with proper selection of punishment strategy.
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
25/67
Impact of Communication on Strategies
nada
c
Nada C
0,0 -5,5
-1,15,-5
N
-100,0
-100,-1
n -1,-1000,-100 -100,-100
• Players agree to play in a certain manner• Threats can force play to almost any state
– Breaks down for finite number of stages
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
26/67
Improvement from Punishment
A. MacKenzie and S. Wicker, “Game Theory in Communications: Motivation, Explanation, and Application to Power Control,” Globecom2001, pp. 821-825.
• Throughput/unit power gains be enforcing a common received power level at a base station
• Punishment by jamming
• Without benefit to deviating, players can operate at lower power level and achieve same throughput
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
27/67
Instability in Punishment• Issues arise when
radios aren’t directly observing actions and are punishing with their actions without announcing punishment
• Eventually, a deviation will be falsely detected, punished and without signaling, this leads to a cascade of problems
V. Srivastava, L. DaSilva, “Equilibria for Node Participation in Ad Hoc Networks – An Imperfect Monitoring Approach,” ICC 06, June 2006, vol 8, pp. 3850-3855
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
28/67
Comments on Punishment• Works best with a common controller to announce• Problems in fully distributed system
– Need to elect a controller– Otherwise competing punishments, without knowing other
players’ utilities can spiral out of control
• Problems when actions cannot be directly observed– Leads to Byzantine problem
• No single best strategy exists– Strategy flexibility is important – Significant problems with jammers (they nominally receive
higher utility when “punished”
• Generally better to implement centralized controller– Operating point has to be announced anyways
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
29/67
Cost Adjustments• Concept: Centralized unit dynamically adjusts
costs in radios’ objective functions to ensure radios operate on desired point
• Example: Add -12 to use of wideband waveform
i i iu a u a c a
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
30/67
Comments on Cost Adjustments• Permits more flexibility than policy
– If a radio really needs to deviate, then it can
• Easy to turn off and on as a policy tool– Example: protected user shows up in a
channel, cost to use that channel goes up– Example: prioritized user requests channel,
other users’ cost to use prioritized user’s channel goes up (down if when done)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
31/67
Global Altruism: distributed, but more costly• Concept: All radios distributed all relevant information
to all other radios and then each independently computes jointly optimal solution– Proposed for spreading code allocation in Popescu04, Sung03
• C = cost of computation• I = cost of information transfer from node to node• n = number of nodes• Distributed
– nC + n(n-1)I/2• Centralized (election)
– C + 2(n-1)I• Price of anarchy = 1• May differ if I is asymmetric
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
32/67
Improving Global Altruism• Global altruism is clearly inferior to a centralized solution
for a single problem. • However, suppose radios reported information to and
used information from a common database– n(n-1)I/2 => 2nI
• And suppose different radios are concerned with different problems with costs C1,…,Cn
• Centralized– Resources = 2(n-1)I + sum(C1,…,Cn)– Time = 2(n-1)I + sum(C1,…,Cn)
• Distributed– Resources = 2nI + sum(C1,…,Cn)– Time = 2I + max (C1,…,Cn)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
33/67
Example Application: • Overlay network of secondary
users (SU) free to adapt power, transmit time, and channel
• Without REM:– Decisions solely based on link
SINR• With REM
– Radios effectively know everythingUpshot: A little gain for the secondary users; big gain for primary users
From: Y. Zhao, J. Gaeddert, K. Bae, J. Reed, “Radio Environment Map Enabled Situation-Aware Cognitive Radio Learning Algorithms,” SDR Forum Technical Conference 2006.
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
34/67
Comments on Radio Environment Map
• Local altruism also possible– Less information transfer
• Like policy, effectively needs a common language
• Nominally could be centralized or distributed database
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
35/67
Potential Games• Existence of a function (called
the potential function, V), that reflects the change in utility seen by a unilaterally deviating player.
• Cognitive radio interpretation:– Every time a cognitive radio
unilaterally adapts in a way that furthers its own goal, some real-valued function increases.
time
(
)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
36/67
Exact Potential Game Forms• Many exact potential games can be recognized
by the form of the utility function
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
37/67
Implications of Monotonicity• Monotonicity implies
– Existence of steady-states (maximizers of V)– Convergence to maximizers of V for numerous combinations
of decision timings decision rules – all self-interested adaptations
• Does not mean that that we get good performance– Only if V is a function we want to maximize
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
38/67
Interference Reducing Networks
• Concept– Cognitive radio network is a potential game with a potential
function that is negation of observed network interference• Definition
– A network of cognitive radios where each adaptation decreases the sum of each radio’s observed interference is an IRN
• Implementation:– Design DFS algorithms such that network is a potential game
with -V
ii N
I
time
(
)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
39/67
Bilateral Symmetric Interference
• Two cognitive radios, j,kN, exhibit bilateral symmetric interference if
Source: http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/Graphics/geese2.jpg
What’s good for the goose, isgood for the gander…
, ,jk j j k kj k k jg p g p ,j j k k k – waveform of radio k• pk - the transmission power of
radio k’s waveform• gkj - link gain from the
transmission source of radio k’s signal to the point where radio j measures its interference,
• - the fraction of radio k’s signal that radio j cannot exclude via processing (perhaps via filtering, despreading, or MUD techniques).
,k j
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
40/67
Bilateral Symmetric Interference Implies an Interference Reducing Network
• Cognitive Radio Goal:• By bilateral symmetric interference
• Rewrite goal
• Therefore a BSI game (Si =0)
• Interference Function
• Therefore profitable unilateral deviations increase V and decrease () – an IRN
iNj
jijjiii pgIu\
,
\
,i ik i kk N i
u b
1
1
,i
ki k k ii N k
V g p
2V
kiikikkikiiikikkki bbpgpg ,,,,
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
41/67
An IRN 802.11 DFS Algorithm• Suppose each access node
measures the received signal power and frequency of the RTS/CTS (or BSSID) messages sent by observable access nodes in the network.
• Assumed out-of-channel interference is negligible and RTS/CTS transmitted at same power
jkkkjkjjjk ffpgffpg ,,
\
,i i ki k i kk N i
u f I f g p f f
1
,0
i ki k
i k
f ff f
f f
Listen onChannel LC
RTS/CTSenergy detected? Measure power
of access node in message, p
Note address of access node, a
Update interference
tableTime for decision?
Apply decision criteria for new
operating channel, OCUse 802.11h
to signal change in OC to clients
yn
Pick channel tolisten on, LC
y
n
Start
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
42/67
Statistics• 30 cognitive access nodes in European UNII
bands• Choose channel with lowest interference• Random timing• n=3• Random initial channels• Randomly distributed positions over 1 km2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of Access Nodes
Red
uctio
n in
Net
Int
erfe
renc
e (d
B)
Round-robin Asynchronous Legacy Devices
Reduction in Net Interference
Reduction in Net Interference
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
43/67
Ad-hoc Network
• Possible to adjust previous algorithm to not favor access nodes over clients
• Suitable for ad-hoc networks
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
44/67
Comments on Potential Games• All networks for which there is not a better response interaction loop
is a potential game• Before implementing fully distributed GA, SA, or most CBR decision
rules, important to show that goals and action satisfy potential game model
• Sum of exact potential games is itself an exact potential game– Permits (with a little work) scaling up of algorithms that adjust single
parameters to multiple parameters • Possible to combine with other techniques
– Policy restricts action space, but subset of action space remains a potential game (see J. Neel, J. Reed, “Performance of Distributed Dynamic Frequency Selection Schemes for Interference Reducing Networks,” Milcom 2006)
– As a self-interested additive cost function is also a potential game, easy to combine with additive cost approaches (see J. Neel, J. Reed, R. Gilles, “The Role of Game Theory in the Analysis of Software Radio Networks,” SDR Forum02)
• More on potential games:– Chapter 5 in Dissertation of J. Neel, Available at
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12082006-141855/
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
45/67
Token Economies• Pairs of cognitive radios exchange tokens for
services rendered or bandwidth rented• Example:
– Primary users leasing spectrum to secondary users • D. Grandblaise, K. Moessner, G. Vivier and R. Tafazolli,
“Credit Token based Rental Protocol for Dynamic Channel Allocation,” CrownCom06.
– Node participation in peer-to-peer networks• T. Moreton, “Trading in Trust, Tokens, and Stamps,”
Workshop on the Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems, Berkeley, CA June 2003.
• Why it works – it’s a potential game when there’s no externality to the trade
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
46/67
Comments on Network Options• Approaches can be combined
– Policy + potential– Punishment + cost adjustment– Cost adjustment + token economies
• Mix of centralized and distributed• Potential game approach has lowest complexity,
but cannot be extended to every problem• Token economies requires strong property rights
to ensure • Punishment can also be implemented at a choke
point in the network
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
48/67
• Explicitly opened up Japanese spectrum for 5 GHz operation
• Part of larger effort to force equipment to operate based on geographic region, i.e., the local policy
Lower Upper
U.S. 2.402 2.48Europe 2.402 2.48Japan 2.473 2.495Spain 2.447 2.473France 2.448 2.482
2.4 GHz
USUNII Low 5.15 – 5.25 (4) 50 mWUNII Middle 5.25 – 5.35 (4) 250 mWUNII Upper 5.725-5.825 (4) 1 W5.47 – 5.725 GHz released in Nov 2003
Europe5.15-5.35 200 mW5.47-5.725 1 W
Japan4.9-5.0915.15-5.25 (10 mW/MHz) unlicensed
5 GHz
802.11j – Policy Based Radio
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
49/67
• Enhances QoS for Voice over Wireless IP (aka Voice over WiFi ) and streaming multimedia
• Changes– Enhanced Distributed Coordination Function (EDCF)
• Shorter random backoffs for higher priority traffic
– Hybrid coordination function (orientation)• Defines traffic classes
• In contention free periods, access point controls medium access (observation)
• Stations report to access info on queue size. (Distributed sensing)
802.11e – Almost Cognitive
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
50/67
• Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS)– Avoid radars
• Listens and discontinues use of a channel if a radar is present
– Uniform channel utilization
• Transmit Power Control (TPC)– Interference reduction– Range control– Power consumption Savings– Bounded by local regulatory
conditions
802.11h – Unintentionally Cognitive
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
51/67
802.11h: A simple cognitive radio
Observe– Must estimate channel characteristics (TPC)– Must measure spectrum (DFS)
Orientationa) Radar present? b) In band with satellite??c) Bad channel?d) Other WLANs?
Decision – Change frequency– Change power– Nothing
Action Implement decision
Learn– Not in standard, but most implementations should learn the environment to
address intermittent signals
Outside World
Observe
OrientDecide
Act
Learn
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
52/67
• Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN)– Aimed at bringing broadband access in rural and
remote areas– Takes advantage of better propagation characteristics
at VHF and low-UHF– Takes advantage of unused TV channels that exist in
these sparsely populated areas
• 802.22 is to define:– Physical layer specifications– Policies and procedures for operation in the VHF/UHF
TV Bands between 54 MHz and 862 MHz– Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control
IEEE 802.22
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
53/67
802.22 Status and ObjectivesObjectives
• Specify PHY and MAC for fixed point-to-multipoint wireless regional area networks operating in the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands between 54 MHz and 862 MHz.
• Strict non-interference with incumbent licensed services.
• Aimed at bringing broadband access in rural and remote areas
Status• 10 proposals merged
into 1 draft proposal at March Plenary (March 5-10, Denver CO)
• Still working on bringing to ballot
PAR: http://www.ieee802.org/22/802-22_PAR.pdf
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
54/67
802.22 Deployment Scenario• Devices
– Base Station (BS)– Customer Premise Equipment
(CPE)• Master/Slave relation
– BS is master– CPE slave
• Max Transmit CPE 4W
Figure from: IEEE 802.22-06/0005r1
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
55/67
• Data Rates 5 Mbps – 70 Mbps• Point-to-multipoint TDD/FDD• DFS, TPC• Adaptive Modulation
– QPSK, 16, 64-QAM, Spread QPSK
• OFDMA on uplink and downlink• Use multiple contiguous TV channels when available• Fractional channels (adapting around microphones)• Space Time Block Codes• Beam Forming
– No feedback for TDD (assumes channel reciprocity)
• 802.16-like ranging
Proposed PHY Features of 802.22
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
56/67
Possible MAC Features of 802.22• 802.16 MAC plus the following
– Multiple channel support– Coexistence
• Incumbents• BS synchronization• Dynamic resource sharing
– Clustering support– Signal detection/classification routines
• Security based on 802.16e security
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
57/67
• Observation– Signal strength and feature detection– Aided by distributed sensing (CPEs return data to BS)– Digital TV: -116 dBm over a 6 MHz channel– Analog TV: -94 dBm at the peak of the NTSC (National Television
System Committee) picture carrier– Wireless microphone: -107 dBm in a 200 kHz bandwidth.– Possibly aided by spectrum usage tables
• Orientation– Infer type of signals that are present
• Decision– Frequencies, modulations, power levels, antenna choice (omni and
directional)• Policies
– 4 W Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP)– Spectral masks, channel vacation times
C. Cordeiro, L. Challapali, D. Birru, S. Shankar, “IEEE 802.22: The First Worldwide Wireless Standard based on Cognitive Radios,” IEEE DySPAN2005, Nov 8-11, 2005 Baltimore, MD.
Cognitive Aspects of 802.22
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
58/67
Sensing Aspects of 802.22• Region based sensing
– Remote aided sensing• Algorithm:
– Partition cell into disjoint regions
– For each region assign a remote (Customer Premise Equipment)
• Example considered squares with 500 m sides
– CPE feeds back what it finds
• Number of incumbents• Occupied bands
Source: IEEE 802.22-06/0048r0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grid Index X
Grid
Ind
ex Y
CPE Number = 400, IT Number = 4
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
59/67
802.16h• Draft to ballot Oct 06,
67% approve, resolving comments)
• Improved Coexistence Mechanisms for License-Exempt Operation
• Basically, a cognitive radio standard
• Incorporates many of the hot topics in cognitive radio
– Token based negotiation– Interference avoidance– Network collaboration– RRM databases
• Coexistence with non 802.16h systems
– Regular quiet times for other systems to transmit
From: M. Goldhamer, “Main concepts of IEEE P802.16h / D1,” Document Number: IEEE C802.16h-06/121r1, November 13-16, 2006.
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
60/67
General Cognitive Radio Policies in 802.16h• Must detect and avoid radar and other higher
priority systems• All BS synchronized to a GPS clock• All BS maintain a radio environment map (not
their name) • BS form an interference community to resolve
interference differences• All BS attempt to find unoccupied channels first
before negotiating for free spectrum– Separation in frequency, then separation in time
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
61/67
DFS in 802.16h• Adds a generic
algorithm for performing Dynamic Frequency Selection in license exempt bands
• Moves systems onto unoccupied channels based on observations
Generic DFS Operation Figure h1(fuzziness in original)
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
62/67
Adaptive Channel Selection• Used when BS turns on• First – attempt to find a
vacant channel– Passive scan– Candidate Channel
Determination– Messaging with Neighbors
• Second – attempt to coordinate for an exclusive channel
• If unable to find an empty channel, then BS attempts to join the interference community on the channel it detected the least interference
Figure h37: IEEE 802.16h-06/010 Draft IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems Amendment for Improved Coexistence Mechanisms for License-Exempt Operation, 2006-03-29
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
63/67
Collaboration• BS can request interfering
systems to back off transmit power
• Master BS can assign transmit timings– Intended to support up to 3
systems (Goldhammer)
• Slave BS in an interference community can “bid” for interference free times via tokens.
• Master BS can advertise spectrum for “rent” to other Master BS– Bid by tokens
• Collaboration supported via Base Station Identification Servers, messages, and RRM databases
• Interferer identification by finding power, angle of arrival, and spectral density of OFDM/OFDMA preambles
• Every BS maintains a database or RRM information which can be queried by other BS– This can also be hosted
remotely
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
64/67
802.16h• Improved Coexistence
Mechanisms for License-Exempt Operation
• Explicitly, a cognitive radio standard
• Incorporates many of the hot topics in cognitive radio
– Token based negotiation
– Interference avoidance
– Network collaboration– RRM databases
• Coexistence with non 802.16h systems
– Regular quiet times for other systems to transmit
From: M. Goldhamer, “Main concepts of IEEE P802.16h / D1,” Document Number: IEEE C802.16h-06/121r1, November 13-16, 2006.
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
65/67
• Ports 802.11a to 3.65 GHz – 3.7 GHz (US Only) – FCC opened up band in July 2005– Ready 2008
• Intended to provide rural broadband access• Incumbents
– Band previously reserved for fixed satellite service (FSS) and radar installations – including offshore
– Must protect 3650 MHz (radar)– Not permitted within 80km of inband government radar– Specialized requirements near Mexico/Canada and other incumbent users
• Leverages other amendments– Adds 5,10 MHz channelization
(802.11j)– DFS for signaling for radar
avoidance (802.11h)• Working to improve channel
announcement signaling • Database of existing devices
– Access nodes register at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls
– Must check for existing devices at same site
Source: IEEE 802.11-06/0YYYr0
802.11y
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
66/67
802.11s• Modify 802.11 MAC to create
dynamic self-configuring network of access points (AP) called and Extended Service Set (ESS) Mesh
• Status– Standard out in 2008– Numerous mesh products available
now– Involvement from Mitre, NRL
• Features– Automatic topology learning,
dynamic path selection– Single administrator for 802.11i
(authentication)– Support higher layer connections– Allow alternate path selection
metrics– Extend network merely by
introducing access point and configuring SSID
IP or Ethernet
Cognitive Radio Technologies, 2007
67/67
Networking Summary• Many different solutions
– Inferring context to select appropriate solution is important
• Centralized solutions always present the option of the optimal solution, but may not find the solution in a useful amount of time or may be overly complex
• Distributed solutions (generally) find solutions faster and with less complexity but may be suboptimal
• Techniques for designing cognitive networks rapidly migrating into commercial standards– REMs – 802.11y, 802.16h– Token economy – 802.22– Policy – 802.16h, 802.11, 802.22
Recommended