David Ripplinger, Aradhana Narula-Tam, Katherine Szeto AIAA InfoTech@Aerospace 2013 August 21, 2013 Scheduling vs Random Access in Frequency Hopped Airborne

David Ripplinger, Aradhana Narula-Tam, Katherine Szeto

AIAA InfoTech@Aerospace 2013

August 21, 2013

Scheduling vs Random Access in Frequency Hopped Airborne Networks

This work is sponsored by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD R&E) under Air Force Contract #FA8721-05-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government.

Scheduling vs Random Access - 2DCR 08/21/2013

Background Information

1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es

Frequency Hopping:

• Break up a packet into small pulses or hops

• Pseudo-randomly choose a new frequency for each hop

Frequency Hopping spreads the packet transmission over multiple frequencies


1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es

Frequency Hopping EnablesJam Resistance

If you stay on one frequency:

• A jammer can concentrate his energy on a single frequency

• An entire user’s packet can be lost


1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es

encode

Frequency Hopping EnablesJam Resistance

• With Frequency Hopping, a jammer targeting a single frequency only impacts part of a user’s packet

• With Forward Error Correction, the loss of some hops can be tolerated

10111001000011 001101110100001101100010100100 0 11011 100 01101 0101 01 0

10111001000011

10111001000011k info symbols

transmitdecode

w coded symbols(code rate = k/w)

i received symbols(doesn’t matter which ones)

i ≥ k, success

i < k, failure


1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es

Synchronous Frequency Hopping

• Each user transmits on a single frequency for each hop

• User hops are synchronous in time – Users move to a new frequency simultaneously

• User hopping patterns are orthogonal

• Requires user receptions to be synchronized at the hop level– Many relevant systems have hop durations in the microseconds

With synchronous hopping, there is no multi-user interference


1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es

Asynchronous Frequency Hopping

• Airborne networks can have up to 2-ms propagation delays– Hop receptions are no longer time aligned

– A hop is only a few microseconds, so 2-ms guard times are impractical

• Large numbers of users result in many hop collisions, even if transmitted patterns are orthogonal

We have asynchronous hopping, which has multi-user hop collisions


MAC Comparison Problem Formulation

This simple model is used to determine the throughput and delay ofrandom access and scheduled MACs

• All users within transmission range

• It takes one slot to transmit a user’s packet– Packet is transmitted over many hops– Each slot consists of many mini-slots or hops

•Multiple users transmit simultaneously

• Collisions due to asynchronous frequencyhopping are modeled using synchronousfrequency hopping with random transmission patterns

• Full erasure model: If two users hop to same frequency in the same mini-slot, those hopsare erased

• A node can send on one frequency andreceive on another at the same time

System Model


Scheduled System with FH(Illustrative Example)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time Slots

User 1: RED User 2: GREEN User 3: BLUE User 4: ORANGE

2 2 2 2 2 2 2# Contending users

8 6 6 6 4 4 8

Observations:

• Scheduling controls exactly how many users in a slot

• Requires coordination – increased complexity

Total Successful Hops: 42

# Successful hops

1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es


Random Access System with FH(Illustrative Example)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time Slots

User 1: RED User 2: GREEN User 3: BLUE User 4: ORANGE

3 2 2 1 2 2 2# Contending users

6 6 6 4 2 4 8

Observations:

• Random access controls the average number of users in a slot

• But sometimes too many or too few users contend

Total Successful Hops: 36

# Successful hops

p = 1/2p = probability of transmission 1

2

3

4

5

Freq

uenci

es


• System throughput is maximized by choosing optimal n, θ– n: optimal number of users transmitting in a slot, and– θ = k/w: forward error correction (FEC) code rate

• With scheduling, the number of users, n, can be controlled exactly

• With random access (RA), the transmission probability, p, in a slot determines average of n,

– However, n varies from slot to slot

– Inability to control n exactly, results in more collisions

• Hence, compared to scheduling, RA needs either smaller averagen or a smaller code rate θ to ensure packets can be decoded

– This implies lower throughput for Random Access Systems

General Observations

Conclusion: Random Access systems need to be more robust to collisions thereby resulting in lower throughput


1. Parameter optimization for scheduling– Determine n (# users) and θ (code rate) to maximize throughput

2. Parameter optimization for random access– Determine p (transmission probability) and θ (code rate)

to maximize throughput

3. Throughput comparison for scheduling vs random access

4. Delay comparison for scheduling vs random access

Analysis Objectives


• Hop success probability with n active users:

• Probability of i out of w hop successes:

• Probability packet is successfully decoded:

Throughput Analysis:Packet Success Probability

1)/11( ns qp

iws

is

w

ki

npnpi

wnP

))(1()()(

iws

is

k

i

npnpi

w

))(1()(1

0


• Normalized throughput for scheduling system:

• Under RA, n is a random variable

• With transmit probability p, RA normalized throughput:

Throughput Analysis

)()( nPq

n

w

knEsched

)()(ˆ

)(ˆ

ˆ

nEppn

NpE sched

nNnN

nrand

1

1


Parameter Sweep Results

Scheduling Random Access

• For scheduling, the optimal operating point in all cases was near n ≈ q and θ ≈ 1/e = 0.368

• For random access, optimal θ was slightly smaller and optimal p ensured average n ≈ q

• Note: Can get close to optimal throughput with n or θ “in the neighborhood” of the optimal solution

q = number of frequencies; here, q = 50

Th

rou

gh

pu

t

w = 4000.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

20 40 60 80 1000

nT

hro

ug

hp

ut

w = 4000.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

20 40 60 80 1000

n


• Assume code rate, θ = 0.368

• For each q, find optimal n

• Packet length w = 1000

• In most cases:– Scheduling: choose n = 0.9q

– RA: want n = 0.8q• N is number of backlogged users• Choose p = 0.8q/N

• Alternatively, could have fixed n and optimized θ

Optimizing n Given Fixed Code Rate

0

FrequenciesA

vera

ge

Nu

mb

er

of

Act

ive

Us

ers

10 20 30 40 500

10

20

30

40

50Scheduling

Random Access


Throughput Comparison for θ = 1/e

• RA: throughput increases with increasing q, getting closer to scheduling throughput– n has lower variance

•At q = 50, scheduling is 16% better in this example

N = 100, w = 1000, θ = 1/e

For large w, as the number of channels q becomes large,the throughput difference between RA and scheduling decreases

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

00 10 20 30 40 50

Scheduling

Random Access

Frequencies

Ag

g T

hro

ug

hp

ut

(pe

r fr

eq

ue

nc

y) 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Sc

he

du

lin

g T

hro

ug

hp

ut

Ga

in

0 10 20 30 40 50

Frequencies


• Each node has i.i.d. Poisson packet arrivals

• Deterministic departures – Assume all packets are received

• 500 users

• Static scheduling (TDMA)– Schedule n users in each time slot

• RA knows how many backlogged users each slot– Back-off strategy: p = q/N, where N = # of backlogged users

Delay Analysis and Simulation: Assumptions


Delay Performance: Analysis and Simulation with Poisson Arrivals

TDMA Simulation

Random Access Simulation

TDMA Analysis

Random Access Analysis

RandomAccess

Scheduling

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Arrival Rate (packets per slot per frequency)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Del

ay

(slo

ts)

Poisson Arrivals

)λ/E(

zT

*sched

TDMA

121

)λ/E(T

*rand

rand

12

11

• Static time slot allocationresults in unused time slots

• Result is extra delay

Scheduling

• Very low delay, even formoderate loads

• Slightly less maximum throughput

Random Access


Delay Performance: Simulation Results for Bursty Arrivals

Scheduling(Bursty Arrivals)

Random Access (Bursty Arrivals)

Delay Performance: Bursty vs Poisson Arrivals

Scheduling(Poisson Arrivals)

Random Access(Poisson Arrivals)

Bursty Arrival Model:

• Geometrically distributed bursts of average length 5

Static scheduling handles bursty traffic poorly, but RAmeasures the traffic and adapts

TDMA Bursty

Random Access Bursty

TDMA (Poisson Model)

Random Access (Poisson)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Arrival Rate (packets per slot per frequency)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Del

ay

(slo

ts)


• Optimal users in a slot is n ≈ q (num frequencies)

• The optimal code rate is θ ≈ 1/e = 0.368– Assumes no jamming or noise

• Random access can’t control n exactly, just average n– Needs to be more robust than scheduling to packet loss

• RA needs smaller n or θ

• Scheduling achieves higher throughput– RA throughput improves with more hopping frequencies q

– At q = 50, scheduling gets 10% to 20% more throughput, depending on codeword length w

– As the number of frequencies gets large, scheduling and random access achieve similar throughputs

• RA gets lower delay especially with bursty traffic

Conclusions


• Dynamic scheduling– Significant reduction in delay possible

– Delay may be comparable to RA for both Poisson and Bursty traffic

– Potentially higher throughput than RA• Requires significant overhead for

coordination thereby lowering effective throughput

• Incorporate transmit while receive constraints– Many systems do not enable receiving

while transmitting

– This will result in more collisions for random access• Possible solution is time hopping

– Scheduling can reduce transmit while receive issues

Future Model Improvements and Research

Time (and Frequency) Hopping

Documents

David Ripplinger, Aradhana Narula-Tam, Katherine Szeto AIAA InfoTech@Aerospace 2013 August 21, 2013 Scheduling vs Random Access in Frequency Hopped Airborne