An integrated 802.11a baseband and MAC processor

Thomson, John; Baas, Bevan M.; Cooper, Elizabeth; Gilbert, Judy B.; Hsieh, Guang Lin; Husted, P.; Lokanathan, A.; Kuskin, Jeffrey S.; McCracken, Daniel D.; McFarland, B.; Meng, Tao; Nakahira, D.; Ng, S.; Rattehalli, M.; Smith, Justin L.; Subramanian, Ramanathan; Than, L.; Wang, Yi-Hsiu; Yu, Rui; Zhang, Xiaoru

doi:10.1109/isscc.2002.992137

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to the general belief (e.g., [20]) and to the specification of the Wistron Neweb CM9 network adapter, the SINR required for 802.11g to achieve a packet error rate of 8% at 6Mbps is not merely a few dBs-but as large as 20dB 1 . This means that the interference distance can be as large as 10 times of carrier sensing range (k=12), assuming a free-space propagation model, or 3 times (k=5) assuming a lossy-terrain propagation model.…”

Section: Inherent System Performance Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Parallel Use of Multiple Channels in Multi-hop 802.11 Wireless Networks

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider parallel use of multiple channels in a multi-radio, multi-hop 802.11 wireless network, with the goal of maximizing the total multi-hop throughput. We first quantify several fundamental forms of radio interference that cause performance degradation when the number of hops increases and that prevent total throughput from scaling up with number of radio interfaces at each node. We then evaluate three different methods of parallel channel use: Ad-Hoc, FrequencyDivision Multiplexing (FDM), and Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM). We measure their performance on a linearly connected multi-hop network of dual-radio nodes. Although theoretically these three methods should have comparable performance, their actual measured performances are quite different. We find that TDM has the best performance, followed by Ad-Hoc and then FDM. The performance differences are due to these methods' capabilities of combating interference. We conclude that interference, especially adjacent channel interference, has significant effect on the achievable performance of a multi-radio, multi-hop network and hence should be carefully taken into account in the design and deployment of such a network.

show abstract

Section: Inherent System Performance Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Parallel Use of Multiple Channels in Multi-hop 802.11 Wireless Networks

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first five parameters are derived from the IEEE 802.11 specifications [15]. SIR min is set according to [28] for 10% Packet Error Rate (PER). γ is set to 2 for the free space line of sight case.…”

Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A unified interference/collision model for optimal MAC transmission power in ad hoc networks

Gobriel

Melhem

Mossé

2006

IJWMC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper we address the issue of controlling transmission power in power-aware adhoc networks. We argue that minimum transmission power is not always optimal. Previous work that minimizes the transmission power does not consider both the energy consumed in collision resolution and the energy disbursed to overcome the interference resulting from neighboring nodes. We investigate the basic transmission power control for the 802.11 MAC protocol, in which the control frames and the data frames can be transmitted at different power levels. A unified collision and interference model of a uniformly distributed network is constructed. Based on this model, the end-to-end network throughput and the total energy consumption of the network are examined for different network parameters. For a net-work with a given node density, our results show the optimal transmission power for control messages and for data messages that will yield maximum throughput and minimum energy consumption per message.

show abstract

“…We compare our architecture with three other architectures proposed earlier [18]- [20]. It is to be noted that because of the use of different technologies and implementation strategies adopted for the referenced designs it is extremely difficult to make a fair comparison with these designs.…”

Section: System Integration: Control Strategy and Power Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The architecture proposed in [18] uses 0.25-m 5-layer CMOS technology with 2.5 V core supply. The power consumptions of the core at 54 Mbps data rate are 219 mW and 203 mW for transmit and receive directions respectively, which are higher than the ones presented in this work.…”

Section: System Integration: Control Strategy and Power Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%