Bluetooth is a major technology for short range wireless communication. Scatternets expand its use to larger networks. If communication patterns are known before
frequently communicating pairs could be connected with fewer hops to enhance performance. Communication patterns are obtainable by observing traffic, but it is ineffective in a pervasive computing environment where interactions are mostly spontaneous. We propose to use social group membership as an estimate of communication patterns. The proposed scatternet formation scheme forms a scatternet per a social group and then connects scatternets through tunnels. In order to ensure that each communication pair has a reasonable share of bandwidth, the proposed scheme considers the numbers and the positions of the tunnels. Simulation results show that the proposed scheme not only enhances the total throughput of scatternets but also shares network capacity more fairly among communication pairs.
Bluetooth  enables cell phones, PDAs, and notebooks to be connected without wire and is used to form a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN). The basic communication unit of Bluetooth is a piconet that consists of one master and up to 7 slaves. To connect more than 8 Bluetooth devices, multiple piconets are formed as a scatternet and several scatternet formation schemes have been proposed . One of the important goals in scatternet formation is to maximize the performance of a scatternet such as the capacity of a scatternet .
Most of scatternet formation schemes form a scatternet by connecting all devices within an area, which may cause frequently communicating pairs to have longer path lengths than optimal ones. If devices are clustered to form a collection of smaller sized scatternets or piconets, frequently communicating pairs will have shorter average paths so the
performance will be improved. Manish et al.  introduce a Communicating Group (CG), defined as a group of mobile devices with frequent data transfers amongst themselves. CGs are identified by observing traffic and finding frequently communicating peers. However, this scheme does not work well in a pervasive computing environment where CGs can emerge and disappear dynamically due to spontaneity of interactions because it is difficult to reliably estimate the communication patterns. In a pervasive computing environment, interactions between two
specific people may last for only a short time. interactions between people happen spontaneously, and may last for only a short amount of time especially between infrequently communicating peers. In this
case, identifying a CG for them may take similar to or longer than the length of their communication session and then the identified CG becomes useless..
In a real world, a person in general belongs to a social group and interacts with others who belong to the same social group more often than those who do not . In this paper, we propose an efficient scatternet formation scheme exploiting social group membership as an approximation of a CG.Eve n
though interactions between two specific people will not last for long time, communication with the same social group member may take place with higher possibility than that with other group members.We
assume that each person knows which social groups he or she belongs to. Devices belonging to the same social group form a piconet or a scatternet using the most well known scatternet formation scheme, TSF . When there is a need to interconnect a social group with other social groups which usually lasts for
the topology information of the constituent scatternets and interconnects them through the tunnels unlike the existing schemes in which the scatternets are merged into a single scatternet. When selecting tunnels, the proposed scheme takes into consideration the number of hops and branches and traffic distribution. Our scheme not only enhances the total throughput of scatternets but also shares network capacity more fairly among communication pairs. The simulation
results show that our scheme achieves higher average TCP throughput and shows a smaller variance than TSF.
The remaining sections are organized as follows. Section 2 briefly explains related work. Section 3 introduces a sample scenario and describes what we should consider when forming a social group aware and tunnel based scatternet. The proposed scheme is described in section 4, and we show the performance of our scheme\u2019s performance in section 5. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper.
A social group is \u201ca number of individuals, defined by formal or informal criteria of membership, who share a feeling of unity or are bound together in relatively stable patterns of interaction\u201d . A person can become a member of social group when there is consensus among group members.
The main concerns in  are the relation between a group member and his or her devices, the format of user group profile, and membership management. It does not consider how to efficiently facilitate communication among social groups, which is the main theme of our work.
The Bluetooth Specifications 1.2  defines the operation of Bluetooth and its protocol. Bluetooth differs from a contention\u2013based protocol such as IEEE 802.11, since Bluetooth devices form master-slave links and each slave adjusts its communication frequency hopping sequence to that of its master. Bluetooth
duplex communication scheme, where the master decides which slave communicates with itself in next time slot. A master has up to 7 slaves and they form a piconet. A scatternet is proposed to interconnect more than 8 devices, but it has not been standardized yet.
There have been several scatternet formation schemes such as Bluemesh, Bluenet, Shaper, and TSF. Scatternet formation schemes can be classified by the resulting topology (for example, tree or mesh), by the type of bridge node (for example, master-slave or slave-slave), and by whether all nodes are in transmission range or not. Most of the existing scatternet formation schemes focus on the formation of one scatternet without considering social relationships among devices (or their owners).
Manish et al.  proposes the use of a Communicating Group (CG), defined as a group of mobile devices with frequent data transfers amongst
simultaneous communication in different CGs and hence leads to higher throughput, lower delays and less packet drops. This scheme analyzes traffic flow patterns to identify CGs. It takes relatively long time compared to communication session in pervasive computing environment so identified CGs becomes obsolete quickly. Moreover, even though  suggests the use of CGs, it does not propose a concrete scheme for forming and adapting piconets to the current state of CGs.
Our scenario is extended from that of . Several students are taking a course and they are divided into three groups for a term project. Let\u2019s call them group A, B, and C. We assume that all students have Bluetooth enabled devices. During the class, the professor asks the students to discuss a subject related to the class with group members and to present the relation of their term project with this topic. Groups A, B, and C form individual networks and start discussion. While discussing, group members exchange related data and participate in a collaborative review process while preparing the presentation material. After discussion, the three groups need to be interconnected into a large network in order to enable students to exchange presentation materials or give comments in the middle of a presentation. In addition to the inter-group communication, there is also continuous intra-group communication for sharing thoughts with the others in the same group.
Manish et al.  propose to observe traffic among nodes in order to group a collection of nodes in a space into subgroups of frequently communicating nodes. However, interconnections between identified subgroups may last for only a short time due to spontaneity of interactions and CGs for them quickly become obsolete in a pervasive computing environment. We need an alternative way to find communication patterns that are stable over time.more
person usually belongs to a social group and communication mainly happens among social group members for a considerable amount of time for collaborative activity . Therefore, Instead instead of forming a single scatternet, it is more appropriate to form a separate scatternet for devices belonging to the
same social group and provide a way to connect corresponding scatternets when there is a need of interactions across social groups.
To support communication across social groups, their corresponding scatternets need to be interconnected. We call this interconnection as a tunnel. Communication pairs across social groups have longer paths than that of within groups, so they will show lower throughput. The path length of an inter group communication pair can be reduced by adding more tunnels. For example, if there are two
string( li n e a r?) topology whose numbers of nodes are 100 (too big!); two tunnels that composed of both 33rd nodes and both 66th nodes shorten average path lengths than one tunnel that consists of both 50th nodes. However, too many tunnels decrease the
capacity of the entire network because an additional tunnel increases the number of branches per node. So the number of tunnels should be such that the path lengths of inter-group communication pairs are short
\ub2cc\uac00? \uc989tunnel \uc774 \ub108\ubb34 \ub9ce\uc544\uc11cbandwidth \uac00 \uc904\uc5b4 \ub4e4\uc9c0 \uc54a\ub294 \ubc94\uc704 \uc548\uc5d0\uc11c \ucd5c\ub300\ud55c \ud328\uc2a4\ub97c \uc9e7\uac8c \ud558\ub294 \uac83\uc774\ub77c\uba74 \uadf8\ub7f0\uc810\uc5d0\uc11c\ub294optimal \ud55c \uac83\uc774\uc8e0. \uc6b0\ub9ac \uc2a4\ud0b4\uc774 \uadf8\ub7f0\uc9c0 \uc544\ub2cc\uc9c0\ub294 \ubaa8\ub974\uaca0\uace0
We must consider the position of each tunnel as well because it determines traffic distribution. Tunnels forward inter group traffic from one scatternet to another, so all inter-group traffic is concentrated in tunnel nodes and their neighbors. If they also forward a majority of intra group traffic, they may become a bottleneck. So the tunnel nodes should be selected from the nodes in which intra-gorup traffic is less concentrated.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of TCP throughput per communication pair in a typical scatternets of 20 nodes. TCP throughputs are sorted in a decreasing order. As you see, a few communication pairs use the majority of network capacity, while most pairs utilize very low bandwidth. Even though this problem is inevitable except for star topology, we need to alleviate this unfairness. When determining the number and the positions of the tunnel, we should consider fairness among intra-group traffic as well.
This section describes an overall structure of the proposed scheme and the metric that is helpful for choosing tunnel nodes. We will then explain the proposed scatternet formation scheme in detail.
We assume that each person knows which social groups he or she belongs to. Devices that belong to the same social group form a piconet or a scatternet using an existing scatternet formation scheme. Our current implementation uses TSF . As exemplified in the scenario given in Section 3.1, there is a need to interconnect a social group with other social groups. We also assume that this information of when and to which social group they should be connected is known to member nodes out of band. A Representative of
needed for forming tunnels. The election of a representative node may be different depending on a scatternet
easier implementation, we assume that representative nodes are predefined. This assumption is quite reasonable because a social group usually has a leader (for example, the term project leader in our scenario). After establishment of a link, we can select a set of tunnels based on the shared topology of the constituent scatternets. As described Section 3.2, we need to consider the number and the positions of the tunnels. For this purpose, we define a metric that estimates the
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?