Admission control and routing in multi hop wireless networks

Proceedings of the WeA14.6
47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008

Admission Control and Routing in Multi-Hop Wireless Networks
Juan Jos´ Jaramillo and R. Srikant
e

Abstract— To enable services such as streaming multimedia The wireless channel is a shared resource, thus there
and voice in multi-hop wireless networks it is necessary to is resource contention among transmissions from different
develop algorithms that guarantee Quality of Service (QoS). nodes. As a result, even if a flow requests a pre-specified
In this paper, we consider the problem of optimal routing
and admission control for flows which require a pre-specified bandwidth from the network, the load imposed by a flow on
bandwidth from the network. We develop an admission control a node is a function of the topology of the network (for
and routing algorithm whose performance is close to that of example, the number of neighbors and hidden terminals)
an omniscient off-line algorithm that has complete a priori and the choice of the route itself. Hence, unlike a wireline
knowledge of the entire sequence (including the future) of flow network where the bandwidth consumed by a flow along a
arrivals and their bandwidth requests. Our algorithm makes
no statistical assumptions on the flow arrival pattern or other link is known at the arrival time of a flow, in a wireless
parameters of the arriving requests, and can be implemented network, the load imposed by a flow on a node can only
in a distributed manner. be determined during route discovery. Therefore, it is not
immediately obvious that the techniques for deriving optimal
I. I NTRODUCTION
QoS routing algorithms for wireline networks can be applied
Future multi-hop wireless networks will carry a host of to wireless networks.
multimedia services such as voice calls and video conferenc- In this paper, our contributions are as follows:
ing. A common feature of such services is that they require • We first develop a model for QoS routing in multi-
Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees; specifically we consider hop wireless networks which allows us to derive an
services that require a pre-specified bandwidth between the admission control and routing algorithm with provable
endpoints of the flow. To support such services, the network performance guarantees using competitive analysis and
must be equipped with a protocol to decide whether or the work developed for wireline networks in [4].
not to accept a new request, and to find a route with • We then show that no other algorithm performs better
sufficient bandwidth for an admitted flow. Optimal admission in an asymptotic sense to be described later. The proof
control and routing for pre-specified bandwidth flows has of this result is more involved and relies on the unique
been extensively studied for wireline networks. In the case characteristics of wireless networks, and uses the tech-
of wireless networks, a number of papers have highlighted niques developed in [4].
the difficulties in designing good QoS routing algorithms. • The optimal algorithm is not in a form that is amenable
In particular, the importance of taking contention count into to distributed implementation. Thus, an important con-
consideration for available bandwidth estimation has been tribution is to convert the algorithm into a form that
recognized in [1], [2] and the importance of load balancing to allows the use of standard shortest-path algorithms.
maximize the number of admitted flows has been highlighted
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
in [3]. However, no provably optimal algorithm has been
presents an overview of previous related work. Competitive
developed to the best of our knowledge.
analysis theory is presented in Section III. The network
The idea of achieving provably good performance with-
model and definitions are described in section IV, while in
out any modeling assumptions on the arrival requests was
section V we introduce our algorithm and use the competitive
proposed in [4]–[6], based on the concept of competitive
analysis theory to prove performance guarantees. Section VI
ratio [7]–[10]. Informally, competitive ratio measures the
proves that our algorithm is asymptotically optimal with
performance loss of a given algorithm caused by imperfect
respect to the competitive ratio. We show how the algorithm
decisions due to the fact that it is oblivious of the future when
can be implemented in a distributed fashion in section VII.
compared against an off-line algorithm that has complete a
Conclusions are presented in section VIII.
priori knowledge of the sequence of requests, including the
future, and can therefore make perfect decisions. For reasons II. R ELATED W ORK
that we will describe next, it is difficult to immediately adapt Finding algorithms to support quality of service in multi-
the competitive ratio-based routing algorithms to wireless hop networks has been an active topic of research in the
networks. last several years. Reference [2] studies the problem of
Research supported by Motorola through the Motorola Center for Com- bandwidth estimation at a node while [1], [11] study the
munication. problem of estimating the impact of contention in the avail-
J. J. Jaramillo and R. Srikant are with the Coordinated Science Lab- able bandwidth in a multi-hop path. In [12], [13] some
oratory, and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 USA (e-mail: jjjarami@illinois.edu; heuristics are presented to support QoS but the effect of
rsrikant@illinois.edu). contention in the admission process is ignored. The work

978-1-4244-3124-3/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE 2356

Authorized licensed use limited to: Annamalai University. Downloaded on July 28,2010 at 05:32:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 WeA14.6

in [14] takes into account contention under the implicit mance of the best possible off-line algorithm for any request
assumption that the interference range of a node is equal sequence, and for a given performance measure.
to its transmission range.
IV. N ETWORK M ODEL
In [15] the use of packet scheduling to guarantee QoS
in multi-hop networks is studied. Some proposals rely on a The network is composed of a set N of N nodes, where
central algorithm to do admission control [16], [17], while node n ∈ N has capacity u(n). Without loss of generality,
others have proposed strategies assuming a TDMA [18]– in the rest of the paper we will assume that
[20] or CDMA over TDMA [21], [22] layer. The work in u(n) = 1 f or all n ∈ N . (1)
[23] explores how to provide implicit synchronization in
CSMA/CA networks to achieve TDM-like performance. The input to the algorithm is a set of flow requests F =
A solution for multichannel multi-hop networks has been {f1 , f2 , . . . , fk }, where flow j is specified by
proposed in [3] under the assumption that requests can be fj = sj , dj , rj (t), tS , tF , ρj .
j j
split; if requests are non-splittable a heuristic is introduced
where requests are routed in the least-congested, minimum- Nodes sj and dj are the source and destination respec-
hop path. To the best of our knowledge, our algorithm is tively of an unidirectional flow.1 Flow j requests a bandwidth
the first provably optimal for general networks that allows a rj (t) at time t, where we define rj (t) = 0 for t ∈ [ tS , tF ).
/ j j
distributed implementation. Thus, tS and tF are the start and finish times of flow j.
j j
For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume
III. C OMPETITIVE A NALYSIS that these times are integers. A profit of ρj is accrued if
The concept of competitive ratio was first introduced by the flow is admitted into the network. Given fj ∈ F, our
[7] and further developed by [8]–[10]. Here we will present algorithm will output a path Pj assigned for the request,
a brief overview of this theory. with the understanding that Pj = ∅ if it is rejected.
In many situations we must develop efficient algorithms Let λn (t) be the relative load on node n at time t, which is
which have to deal with a sequence of tasks one at a time, a function of the flows currently admitted by our algorithm.
where the efficiency of current decisions is affected by future Flow j’s holding time is denoted by Tj = tF − tS , where
j j
tasks. One classical example is the well-known ski rental we define the maximum holding time
problem, where a ski enthusiast plans on skiing for several T = max {Tj } .
days while weather permits. Our ski fan is faced with two j
options every day, either rent skis for the day at a price of r As mentioned in Section I, the wireless channel is a shared
or buy them at cost b. If we knew that the total number of resource and contention among transmissions from different
days to ski is d, then the optimal decision algorithm would nodes implies that when admitting a flow we must take
be to buy skis if b < rd. Since we have no knowledge of into account the impact of a flow in the network. To better
the future, we have to develop an algorithm that has to make understand this, let us use the simple scenario of Fig. 1.
decisions on a day by day basis and still performs well. To Our linear network of 5 nodes is such that any node can
do that we introduce the concepts of on-line and off-line only communicate with its nearest neighbors, and where the
algorithm. interference range for each node is illustrated as a concentric
Definition 1: An on-line algorithm is an algorithm that circle around each node. There is a flow from node B to node
has to deal with a sequence of requests one at a time, without D that requires a rate of r. Due to the exposed terminal
having the entire sequence available from the beginning. problem, node A cannot transmit while B is transmitting, so
Definition 2: An off-line algorithm is an algorithm that node A’s available capacity is
has complete a priori knowledge of the entire request se- (1)
quence, including future requests, before it outputs its answer u(A) − r = 1 − r,
to solve the problem at hand. (1)
One way to measure the performance of an on-line algo- where = means that the equality follows from equation
rithm is by comparing it against the best possible off-line (1). We use this notation throughout the paper.
algorithm when both have to deal with the same set of re- Thus, when scheduling this flow, we must reserve a rate
quests. The competitive ratio then measures the performance of r in node A for it to remain idle. Similarly, node B must
loss of an on-line algorithm caused by imperfect decisions transmit at a rate r and must remain silent while C is relaying
when compared against an off-line algorithm that can make a packet for this flow, which implies a resource reservation of
perfect decisions since it has complete knowledge of the rate 2r at B. Because of the hidden terminal problem, node
request sequence. E must remain idle while D is receiving a packet, so we
Definition 3: The competitive ratio of an on-line algo- have to reserve a rate of r at this node. Following the lines
rithm is the supremum over all possible request sequences of this argument, it can be checked that we must reserve a
of the performance ratio between the best possible off-line rate of 2r at nodes C and D in order to be able to schedule
algorithm and the on-line algorithm. this flow. These values are shown above each node in Fig. 1.
This means that if an on-line algorithm has a competitive 1 For the case of bidirectional flows, we simply need to split the request
ratio of c then its performance is at least 1/c the perfor- in two unidirectional flows that need to be accepted/rejected simultaneously.

2357



Define QT (Pj ) to be the total impact of flow j (routed on
path Pj ) on the network. Thus,
r 2r 2r 2r r
A B
r
C
r
D E QT (Pj ) = Qn (Pj ). (3)
n∈N

Additionally, define QT and Q as follows:
QT = max {QT (Pj )}
j
Fig. 1. Example of resource contention among nodes.
Q = max {Qn (Pj )} . (4)
j,n

We normalize the cost such that for any flow fj ∈ F and
any time such that rj (t) > 0
3r
A
r
B
r
C
r
D
r
E
ρj
t0 t1 t2 t0 1≤ ≤F (5)
QT rj (t)Tj
for F large enough. For example, if we have that rj (t) = rj
for t ∈ [ tS , tF ) and the profit is defined to be proportional
j j
to the bandwidth-holding time product, i.e. throughput, then
Fig. 2. Example of resource contention among nodes under the assumption we can make ρj = QT rj Tj and let F = 1.
of perfect packet transmission scheduling.
Finally, we assume that rate requirements are small enough
compared to node capacity. Specifically,
This example gives the intuition for the following defini- min {u(n)} (1) 1
n
tion. Let Qn (Pj ) be the impact of flow j on node n if path rj (t) ≤ = (6)
Q log µ Q log µ
Pj is used. Formally,
where
Qn (Pj ) = I{n′ ∈Pj } I{n′ =dj } + I{n′ ∈HTn (Pj )} , µ = 2 (1 + QT T F ) , (7)
n′ ∈Nn
(2) and log means log2 .
where Nn is the set of nodes within interference range of Later we will prove in Section VI that (6) is a necessary
node n (including node n itself), HTn (Pj ) is the set of nodes condition for any algorithm to achieve logarithmic competi-
in Nn that need to receive a transmission for flow j that node tive ratio.
n cannot sense –that is, hidden terminal transmissions–, and
I{} is the indicator function defined as V. A LGORITHM
1 if statement = T RU E The main goal is to develop an admission control and
I{statement} = . routing algorithm that enforces capacity constraints, that is
0 if statement = F ALSE
As an example, in Fig. 1 we have that for path P = λn (t) ≤ 1 f or all t and n ∈ N . (8)
{B, C, D}, QA (P ) = 1, QC (P ) = 2, and QE (P ) = 1.
It must be noted that this definition is only an upper bound and maximizes profit:
on the actual impact of a flow in a given node, and can ρj .
only be improved by assuming a specific, possibly ideal, j:Pj =∅
transmission scheduling algorithm. To illustrate this, in Fig. 2
we assume that there is a flow from node A to E and that Furthermore, the algorithm cannot rely on knowledge
we schedule node transmissions such that nodes A and D about future flows to make admission decisions and once
simultaneously transmit at time t0 , node B transmits at t1 , a flow has been admitted no rerouting is allowed and no
and C is scheduled to transmit at time t2 . In this case, the flow is to be interrupted.
impact of the flow on node C is 3 instead of 4, as estimated To do that, it will sequentially analyze flows from F and
using Qn (Pj ). 2 decide whether to admit them or not.
Finding methods for estimating Qn (Pj ) has been an active
A. Definition
topic of research. For related work, the reader is referred to
[1], [11], [14]. The decision rule for admitting flow fj ∈ F and assigning
a path is:
2 It must be highlighted that for the ease of explanation we have assumed
that due to the exposed terminal problem a node cannot transmit while 1) For all t ∈ [ tS , tF ), n ∈ N let the cost of node n at
j j
another in its interference neighborhood is transmitting. If a certain physical time t be
layer technology does not preclude such transmissions, the definition of
(1)
Qn (Pj ) should be modified accordingly and the results in the rest of the cn (t) = u(n) µλn (t) − 1 = µλn (t) − 1. (9)
paper still apply with minor modifications.

2358



2) If there exists a path Pj from node sj to dj such that Lemma 3: Let AOA be the set of indices of accepted
rj (t) requests by the optimal off-line algorithm but rejected by
Qn (Pj ) cn (t) ≤ ρj (10) the ACR algorithm. Let m = max AOA . Then
u(n)
n∈N tS ≤t<tF
j j
ρj ≤ cn (t, m).
then route fj using Pj and set j∈AOA n t
rj (t) (Due to lack of space, the proofs of the Lemmas will be
λn (t) ← λn (t) + Qn (Pj ) (11) presented in a longer version of the paper.)
u(n)
Now, we are ready to prove the following:
for all n ∈ N , tS ≤ t < tF .
j j Theorem 1: The ACR algorithm enforces capacity con-
Note that straints and achieves a competitive ratio of O(log(QT T F )).
rj (t)
Qn (Pj ) (Due to lack of space, the proof of the Theorem will be
u(n) presented in a longer version of the paper.)
is the fraction of node n’s capacity that would be used by Remark: It is important to highlight that for the lemmas
flow j. Thus, the algorithm compares the link cost weighted and theorem of this section we only assume that Qn (Pj ) ≥ 1,
by this quantity to the profit and admits the call if the cost but the precise definition given in (2), which depends on the
is less than or equal to the profit. assumptions about the physical layer, is only used in the
following sections.
B. Performance Guarantees
Now that the wireless model and the algorithm are defined, VI. O PTIMALITY
we can use the techniques developed for wireline networks in
Now we will prove that no other algorithm can achieve
[4]. We will first proceed to prove that our algorithm enforces
a better competitive ratio than the ACR algorithm in an
capacity constraints, which from now on we will call the
asymptotic sense and that assumption (6) is a necessary
Admission Control and Routing (ACR) algorithm. In other
condition to achieve a good competitive ratio. To do that, we
words, if the ACR algorithm decides to admit a flow request,
will first show that even if flow rates are small enough, the
then there is sufficient available capacity.
profit of the optimal off-line algorithm will exceed the profit
Lemma 1: Capacity constraints are enforced by the ACR
of any on-line algorithm that is oblivious to the future by a
algorithm. That is,
factor of Ω(log(QT T F )). Finally, we will present stronger
λn (t) ≤ 1 f or all t and n ∈ N . bounds for the case when flow rates are allowed to be
(Due to lack of space, the proof of the Lemma will be relatively large, showing that the competitive ratio degrades
presented in a longer version of the paper.) when we allow large rates.
The proof of the competitiveness of the ACR algorithm The techniques used here are again similar to the ones
is done in two steps. In Lemma 2 we prove that the total developed for wireline networks in [4], but rely on the unique
network cost is at most within a factor of the accrued gain, characteristics of wireless networks, specially to find worst
and in Lemma 3 we prove that the profit due to requests case scenarios in Lemmas 4 and 7.
rejected by the ACR algorithm and accepted by the optimal Lemma 4: Any on-line algorithm has a competitive ratio
off-line algorithm is bounded by the total network cost. These of Ω(log QT ).
two results then imply that the profit of the ACR algorithm is Lemma 5: Any on-line algorithm has a competitive ratio
within a factor of the profit accrued by the off-line algorithm, of Ω(log T ).
and hence the competitive ratio is bounded. Lemma 6: Any on-line algorithm has a competitive ratio
For the following two lemmas, define λn (t, j) to be the of Ω(log F ).
relative load on node n at time t when only the first j − 1 (Due to lack of space, the proofs of the Lemmas will be
flow requests have been either admitted or rejected. That is, presented in a longer version of the paper.)
(11) ri (t) (1) Hence, we have just proved the following.
λn (t, j) = Qn (Pi ) = Qn (Pi )ri (t), (12) Theorem 2: Any on-line algorithm has a competitive ratio
i<j
u(n) i<j of Ω(log(QT T F )).
with the understanding that Pi = ∅ if fi ∈ {f1 , f2 , . . . , fj−1 } Proof: It is a direct consequence of Lemmas 4, 5 and
is rejected. 6.
Similarly, and from (9), let cn (t, j) be defined as For the proof of Theorem 2 we assume that (6) holds.
We will now proceed to prove that if this bound does
cn (t, j) = µλn (t,j) − 1. (13) not hold then no on-line algorithm can achieve logarithmic
Lemma 2: Let AACR be the set of indices of accepted competitive ratio.
1
flows by the ACR algorithm and k be the index of the last Lemma 7: If we allow requests of rate up to 4k then the
1
flow request in F. Then, competitive ratio is Ω(QT ) for any positive integer k.
4k

1
Lemma 8: If we allow requests of rate up to k then the
2 log µ ρj ≥ cn (t, k + 1). 1

j∈AACR t n
competitive ratio is Ω(T k ) for any positive integer k.

2359



1
Lemma 9: If we allow requests of rate up to k then the is the cost of using edge e for routing flow fj . It must be
1
competitive ratio is Ω(F k ) for any positive integer k. noted that (15) decouples the cost of an edge from the path
(Due to lack of space, the proofs of the Lemmas will be cost, allowing a distributed implementation of a shortest path
presented in a longer version of the paper.) algorithm to find the optimal route. Furthermore, for every
Therefore, we have the following theorem. edge e ∈ E we only need to gather information from the
1 local set Ns(e) Nd(e) to find Ce (j). It must be noted that
Theorem 3: If we allow requests of rate up to 4k then the
1 1
competitive ratio is Ω(QT + T 4k + F 4k ) for any positive
4k
1 for any admission algorithm this is the minimal information
integer k. that must be gathered and updated in order to check resource
Proof: This follows from Lemmas 7, 8 and 9. availability, since the transmission in this link will affect the
Thus, in order to achieve logarithmic competitive ratio we load of all nodes in the set Ns(e) Nd(e) .
need to let k be greater than
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS
log(QT T F )
.
4 log(log(QT T F )) We have developed a model for QoS routing in multi-hop
VII. D ISTRIBUTED I MPLEMENTATION wireless networks which allows us to derive an algorithm
with provable performance guarantees using competitive
In its present form, checking
analysis. We proved that our algorithm has a performance
rj (t) close to that of an omniscient off-line algorithm that has
Qn (Pj ) cn (t) ≤ ρj
u(n) complete a priori knowledge of the entire sequence of flow
n∈N tS ≤t<tF
j j
arrivals (including the future) and their bandwidth requests.
in the ACR algorithm requires first to specify a path Pj Our algorithm makes no statistical assumptions on the flow
from source to destination and then its associated cost can be arrival pattern or other parameters of the arriving requests.
calculated. Since we ideally would like to use the minimum We also proved that no other algorithm performs better
cost path, this means that it would be required to first identify in an asymptotic sense of the competitive ratio. Finally,
all possible paths and then find the cost for each one of them. we showed that our algorithm is amenable to a distributed
The contribution of this section is to show how this can implementation.
be implemented using a distributed algorithm that can find
the minimum cost path without the need to first identify all R EFERENCES
possible solutions, and where every node only needs to get
access to information from a local neighborhood. [1] K. Sanzgiri, I. D. Chakeres, and E. M. Belding-Royer, “Pre-reply
probe and route request tail: Approaches for calculation of intra-
Define the directed graph G = (N , E), where N is the flow contention in multihop wireless networks,” Mobile Networks and
set of nodes in the wireless network and E is the set of all Applications, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 21–35, Feb. 2006.
directed transmission edges. Formally, e ∈ E if and only if [2] I. D. Chakeres, E. M. Belding-Royer, and J. P. Macker, “Perceptive
admission control for wireless network quality of service,” Ad Hoc
e = (s(e), d(e)), where s(e), d(e) ∈ N , s(e) = d(e), and Networks, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1129–1148, Sep. 2007.
node s(e) can transmit to node d(e). [3] J. Tang, G. Xue, and W. Zhang, “Interference-aware topology control
Furthermore, define ca (j) to be the aggregate cost that
n and QoS routing in multi-channel wireless mesh networks,” in Proc.
node n ∈ N has during the holding time of flow request 6th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking
and Computing (MobiHoc), Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, May 25–
fj ∈ F. That is, 27, 2005, pp. 68–77.
[4] B. Awerbuch, Y. Azar, and S. Plotkin, “Throughput-competitive on-
rj (t)
ca (j) =
n cn (t). line routing,” in Proc. 34th Annual Symposium on Foundations of
u(n) Computer Science, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Nov. 3–5, 1993, pp. 32–40.
tS ≤t<tF
j j [5] B. Awerbuch, Y. Azar, S. Plotkin, and O. Waarts, “Competitive routing
of virtual circuits with unknown duration,” in Proc. 5h Annual ACM-
With these definitions we have the following: SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, Arlington, VA, USA, Jan.
23–25, 1994, pp. 321–327.
rj (t)
Qn (Pj ) cn (t) = Qn (Pj )ca (j)
n
[6] S. Plotkin, “Competitive routing of virtual circuits in ATM networks,”
u(n) IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1128 – 1136, Aug.
n∈N tS ≤t<tF n∈N
j j 1995.
(2) [7] D. D. Sleator and R. E. Tarjan, “Amortized efficiency of list update
= I{n′ ∈Pj } ca (j) I{n′ =dj } + I{n′ ∈HTn (Pj )}
n and paging rules,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
n∈N n′ ∈Nn 202–208, Feb. 1985.
[8] A. R. Karlin, M. S. Manasse, L. Rudolph, and D. D. Sleator,
= ca (j)
n (14) “Competitive snoopy caching,” Algorithmica, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 79–
e∈Pj n∈Ns(e) Nd(e) 119, Mar. 1988.
[9] M. Manasse, L. McGeoch, and D. Sleator, “Competitive algorithms for
= Ce (j), on-line problems,” in Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory
of Computing, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988, pp. 322–333.
e∈Pj
[10] A. Borodin, N. Linial, and M. E. Saks, “An optimal on-line algorithm
where (14) is simply summation reordering and for metrical task system,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 39, no. 4, pp.
745–763, Oct. 1992.
Ce (j) = ca (j) (15) [11] Y. Yang and R. Kravets, “Contention-aware admission control for ad
n hoc networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 363–
n∈Ns(e) Nd(e) 377, Apr./May 2005.

2360



[12] S.-B. Lee, G.-S. Ahn, X. Zhang, and A. T. Campbell, “INSIGNIA: An [18] W.-H. Liao, Y.-C. Tseng, and K.-P. Shih, “A TDMA-based bandwidth
IP-based quality of service framework for mobile ad hoc networks,” reservation protocol for QoS routing in a wireless mobile ad hoc
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. network,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications
374–406, Apr. 2000. (ICC), vol. 5, New York, NY, USA, Apr. 28/May 2, 2002, pp. 3186–
[13] G.-S. Ahn, A. T. Campbell, A. Veres, and L.-H. Sun, “SWAN: Service 3190.
differentiation in stateless wireless ad hoc networks,” in Proc. IEEE [19] C. Zhu and M. S. Corson, “QoS routing for mobile ad hoc networks,”
INFOCOM, vol. 2, New York, NY, USA, Jun. 23–27, 2002, pp. 457– in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, New York, NY, USA, Jun. 23–27,
466. 2002, pp. 958–967.
[14] Q. Xue and A. Ganz, “Ad hoc QoS on-demand routing (AQOR) [20] S. Guo and O. Yang, “QoS-aware minimum energy multicast tree
in mobile ad hoc networks,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed construction in wireless ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 2,
Computing, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 154–165, Feb. 2003. no. 3, pp. 217–229, Jul. 2004.
[15] H. Luo, S. Lu, V. Bharghavan, J. Cheng, and G. Zhong, “A packet [21] C. R. Lin and J.-S. Liu, “QoS routing in ad hoc wireless networks,”
scheduling approach to QoS support in multihop wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1426–1438, Aug.
Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 193– 1999.
206, Jun. 2004. [22] H. Liu, X. Jia, D. Li, and C. Lee, “Bandwidth guaranteed call
[16] R. Ramanathan and M. Steenstrup, “Hierarchically-organized, multi- admission in TDMA/CDMA ad hoc wireless networks,” Ad Hoc
hop mobile wireless networks for quality-of-service support,” Mobile Networks, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 689–701, Nov. 2005.
Networks and Applications (MONET), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 101–119, Jun. [23] S. Singh, P. A. K. Acharya, U. Madhow, and E. M. Belding-Royer,
1998. “Sticky CSMA/CA: Implicit synchronization and real-time QoS in
[17] S. H. Shah and K. Nahrstedt, “Guaranteeing throughput for real-time mesh networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 744–768, Aug.
trafﬁc in multi-hop IEEE 802.11 wireless networks,” in Proc. Military 2007.
Communication Conference (Milcom), Atlantic City, NJ, USA, Oct.
17–20, 2005.

2361


Admission control and routing in multi hop wireless networks

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Admission control and routing in multi hop wireless networks (20)

More from ambitlick (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Admission control and routing in multi hop wireless networks