IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, 2005 2005
DOI: 10.1109/wcnc.2005.1424754
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of packet size on loss rate and delay in wireless links

Abstract: Abstract-Transmitting large packets over wireless networks helps to reduce header overhead, but may have adverse effect on loss rate due to corruptions in a radio link. Packet loss in lower layers, however, is typically hidden from the upper protocol layers by link or MAC layer protocols. For this reason, errors in the physical layer are observed by the application as higher variance in end-to-end delay rather than increased packet loss rate. In this paper, we study the effect of packet size on loss rate and d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, the MAC Lite streams consume significantly smaller proportion of the bottleneck channel capacity than the conventional stream after the convergence phase, since they can avoid most of the MAC layer retransmissions. Readers interested in more detailed analysis of the relationship between checksum coverage and the amount of derived retransmission traffic may refer to studies about packet size optimization [32,33]. In Figure 7, the average goodput is shown in different cases, when n=5.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In fact, the MAC Lite streams consume significantly smaller proportion of the bottleneck channel capacity than the conventional stream after the convergence phase, since they can avoid most of the MAC layer retransmissions. Readers interested in more detailed analysis of the relationship between checksum coverage and the amount of derived retransmission traffic may refer to studies about packet size optimization [32,33]. In Figure 7, the average goodput is shown in different cases, when n=5.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, some level of FEC is employed to correct individual bit errors and short error bursts, whereas more extensive clusters of errors not correctable by FEC are recovered by retransmitting the damaged packets. Usually, retransmissions at the lower layers hide efficiently all the errors in the physical transmission channel from the upper layers, even without introducing very large observable retransmission delay [14]. This is one of the main reasons why UDP Lite has gained little popularity in practical systems [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, this model may be compatible only with networks with more disturbance according to extra delay affected, eventually, by space conditions and bit errors occurring in nodes (Amine et al, 2009;Korhonen & Wang, 2005). Simulations show that this approach, until it returns numerous paths according to different QoS preferences, gives effectively more choice to the user in the routing process.…”
Section: Symbol Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chan et al (2001) apply fuzzy set theory to employ decision criteria such as user preferences, link quality, cost, or quality of service (QoS) for handover decision scheme. Korhonen & Wang (2005) have studied the effect of packet size on loss rate and delay in IEEE 802.11 based WLAN. The analysis shows that there is a straightforward connection between bit error characteristics and observed delay characteristics.…”
Section: Qos In Wireless Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%