DSAP: a protocol for coordinated spectrum access

Brik, Vladimir; Rozner, Eric; Banerjee, Suman; Bahl, Paramvir

doi:10.1109/dyspan.2005.1542680

Cited by 202 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The regulation is similar; one entity is given a license to control a block of spectrum and the rights to grant temporary access for a fee through a secondary market. Again, access might be allowed for a short period, as in [35], or for a very long period. The difference in models is that unlike the cellular provider discussed above, the band manager has no need for spectrum other than to rent it out.…”

Section: B Sharing Between Primary and Secondarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

| Traditionally, interference protection is guaranteed through a policy of spectrum licensing, whereby wireless systems get exclusive access to spectrum. This is an effective way to prevent interference, but it leads to highly inefficient use of spectrum. Cognitive radio along with software radio, spectrum sensors, mesh networks, and other emerging technologies can facilitate new forms of spectrum sharing that greatly improve spectral efficiency and alleviate scarcity, if policies are in place that support these forms of sharing. On the other hand, new technology that is inconsistent with spectrum policy will have little impact. This paper discusses policies that can enable or facilitate use of many spectrum-sharing arrangements, where the arrangements are categorized as being based on coexistence or cooperation and as sharing among equals or primary-secondary sharing. A shared spectrum band may be managed directly by the regulator, or this responsibility may be delegated in large part to a license-holder. The type of sharing arrangement and the entity that manages it have a great impact on which technical approaches are viable and effective. The most efficient and cost-effective form of spectrum sharing will depend on the type of systems involved, where systems under current consideration are as diverse as television broadcasters, cellular carriers, public safety systems, point-to-point links, and personal and local-area networks. In addition, while cognitive radio offers policy-makers the opportunity to improve spectral efficiency, cognitive radio also provides new challenges for policy enforcement. A responsible regulator will not allow a device into the marketplace that might harm other systems. Thus, designers must seek innovative ways to assure regulators that new devices will comply with policy requirements and will not cause harmful interference.

show abstract

Section: B Sharing Between Primary and Secondarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that even though the information exchange is implemented in a designated coordination channel [13], a network node with a single antenna cannot transmit both the data and the control signals at the same time. This information exchange time overhead decreases the effective transmission rate at node n using the line e and frequency channel f :…”

Section: ( ) ( )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we assume that the required local information n L is exchanged using a designated coordination control channel similar to [13]. Such a coordination channel can be selected from the existing ISM bands, since there is no primary licensee in these bands to interfere with.…”

Section: A Considered Medium Access Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Resource Management in Multihop Cognitive Radio Networks for Delay-Sensitive Transmission

Shiang

Schaar

2009

IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate the problem of multi-user resource management in multi-hop cognitive radio networks for delay-sensitive applications. Since the tolerable delay does not allow propagating global information back and forth throughout the multi-hop network to a centralized decision maker, the source nodes and relays need to adapt their actions (transmission frequency channel and route selections) in a distributed manner, based on local network information. We propose a distributed resource management algorithm that allows network nodes to exchange information and that explicitly considers the delays and cost of exchanging the network information over the multi-hop cognitive radio networks. The term "cognitive" refers in our paper to both the capability of the network nodes to achieve large spectral efficiencies by dynamically exploiting available frequency channels as well as their ability to learn the "environment" (the actions of interfering nodes) based on the designed information exchange.Note that the node competition is due to the mutual interference of neighboring nodes using the same frequency channel. Based on this, we adopt a multi-agent learning approach, adaptive fictitious play, which uses the available interference information. We also discuss the tradeoff between the cost of the required information exchange and the learning efficiency. The results show that our distributed resource management approach improves the PSNR of multiple video streams by more than 3dB as opposed to the state-of-the-art dynamic frequency channel/route selection approaches without learning capability, when the network resources are limited.Index Terms: distributed resource management, cognitive radio networks, multi-hop wireless networks, multi-agent learning, delay sensitive applications.

show abstract

“…Compared to the other two models, many technical issues under this model are perhaps the closest to the conventional medium access control problems. In [8,9,29], centralized spectrum sharing protocols with a central coordinator (referred to as a spectrum server) are proposed. Distributed spectrum sharing and power control are studied in [10][11][12]30].…”

Section: Open Sharing Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%