Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming

with Heterogeneous Channel Access in Wi-Fi

Networks

Alexander Ivanov, Evgeny Khorov(B) , Andrey Lyakhov, and Ilya Solomatin

Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Moscow, Russia

{a.ivanov,khorov,lyakhov,solomatin}@iitp.ru

Abstract. In Wi-Fi networks, preliminary channel reservation protects

transmissions in reserved time intervals from collisions with neighboring
stations. However, making changes in established reservations takes long
time spent on negotiating changes with neighboring stations and dissem-
ination of information about these changes. This complicates serving of
Variable Bit Rate (VBR) flows which intensity varies with time, what
leaves no choice but to reserve some additional time for handling data
bursts and packet retransmissions (caused by random noise and inter-
ference from remote stations). In the paper, we consider a more flexible
approach when bursts and retransmissions are handled by some random
access method while a constant part of an input flow is served in prelim-
inarily reserved intervals. We build a mathematical model of a VBR flow
transmission process with this heterogeneous access method and use the
model to find transmission parameters which guarantee that Quality of
Service requirements of the flow are satisfied at the minimal amount of
used channel time.

Keywords: Wi-Fi · VBR · QoS · Heterogeneous method · Mathemat-

ical model

1 Introduction

The users’ desire for better Quality of Service (QoS) drives development of
new QoS-aware protocols. In wireless technologies, special attention is paid to
channel access mechanisms which to a considerable degree influence the abil-
ity to provide QoS. A very good example is the Wi-Fi technology where the
IEEE 802.11e amendment, which was the first one to introduce QoS support
into Wi-Fi, defined two QoS-aware channel access mechanisms: Enhanced Dis-
tributed Channel Access (EDCA) and Hybrid coordination function Controlled
Channel Access (HCCA). The former is a random (contention-based) channel

The research was done in IITP RAS and supported by the Russian Science Founda-
tion (agreement No 16-19-10687).

c Springer International Publishing AG 2016
O. Galinina et al. (Eds.): NEW2AN/ruSMART 2016, LNCS 9870, pp. 193–204, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-46301-8 16
194 A. Ivanov et al.

access mechanism providing prioritized QoS. The latter is a deterministic chan-

nel access mechanism providing parameterized QoS by means of contention-free
polling.
Both EDCA and HCCA were suitable for QoS provisioning at the moment
of their development. But constantly increasing density of Wi-Fi networks has
made these mechanisms barely applicable to QoS provisioning in modern scenar-
ios, where multiple Wi-Fi networks usually coexist in one area. Because of a low
number of available frequency channels, access points (APs) have to choose chan-
nels which are already occupied. It makes EDCA suffer from frequent collisions
and severe interference. Using HCCA, an AP can slightly relieve the situation
by protecting data transmissions from interference with its own stations (STAs),
but not from STAs of associated with other APs. Thus, both EDCA and HCCA
cannot be used to provide QoS in dense Wi-Fi networks.
Reliable data transmission in dense Wi-Fi networks requires some sort of
coordination between STAs in order to reduce interference. In recent Wi-Fi
amendments, such coordination has been provided by means of new determinis-
tic channel access mechanisms based on preliminarily channel time reservation.
For example, the IEEE 802.11aa amendment developed for robust audio and
video streaming has appended HCCA with the HCCA Negotiation mechanism,
which allows an AP to reserve time intervals during which this AP can serve
its STAs while the neighboring APs and their STAs do not transmit. This is
achieved through information dissemination about the reserved time intervals.
To reduce the overhead caused by such dissemination, time intervals are reserved
not individually but in sequences: an AP reserves a sequence of periodic time
intervals of equal duration. Next, we refer to such a sequence simply as a (peri-
odic) reservation. Thanks to the periodicity, a reservation can be described only
by three parameters: the period of the reserved time intervals, their duration
and the beginning of the first interval (see Fig. 1). The same approach is used
in the IEEE 802.11s amendment (Wi-Fi Mesh technology) where determinis-
tic Mesh coordination function Controlled Channel Access (MCCA) is defined.
Using MCCA, a STA can set up a periodic reservation in order to protect its
data transmissions from interference with neighboring STAs.

period period

time
duration duration duration

Fig. 1. Periodic reservation

Generally speaking, deterministic channel access mechanisms provide higher

reliability as compared with random access ones and, thus, seem to be more
desirable when serving data with strict QoS requirements. However, preliminar-
ily channel reservation requires some negotiation between neighboring STAs and
 Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming 195

dissemination of information about established reservations. On the one hand,

this ensures that reservations do not overlap, thus, increasing reliability. On the
other hand, the negotiation require both additional signaling and time to be per-
formed. As for the dissemination, it takes even longer time since it is performed
via special management frames — beacons — which are transmitted quite rarely.
Thus, quick changes in already established reservations are not possible. While
it is not a problem when serving Constant Bit Rate (CBR) flows [2–5], it comes
to the fore in case of Variable Bit Rate (VBR) flows, which intensity vary with
time. Along with packets retransmissions, caused by inevitable transmission fail-
ures, it turns the choice of appropriate reservation parameters into a non-trivial
problem, especially when a served VBR flow imposes strict QoS requirements.
One approach here consists in reserving a redundant amount of channel time,
accounting for the worst possible situation. In this case, the flow can be trans-
mitted with required QoS though at cost of overall network degradation since
too much time is reserved in anticipation of the flow bursts.
To improve the situation, a random access method (like EDCA) can be used
jointly with channel reservations. The idea is to handle flow bursts and retrans-
missions by means of the random access method while serving the constant
component of the flow intensity inside periodic intervals. Indeed, random access
mechanisms do not need to wait for the nearest reserved interval to transmit
data and can start to contend for the channel after it remains idle for a spec-
ified duration. Thus, though experiencing backoff-induced delays and frequent
collisions, such mechanisms are able to handle variations of a VBR flow intensity.
Standardization activity of Wi-Fi community has resulted in emergence of a
heterogeneous channel access method in Wi-Fi. This method based on EDCA and
HCCA is not described very well and only few studies [8–11] consider its usage
for QoS provisioning. In this paper, we propose how to use the heterogeneous
access method to transmit a VBR flow with QoS requirements and build a
mathematical model of this transmission process. The model can be used to find
such parameters of the method which guarantee QoS requirements satisfaction
at the minimal amount of used channel time. Moreover, we demonstrate gains
which the heterogeneous access method achieves over the deterministic one.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we briefly review the
existing studies on heterogeneous access methods. We formulate the problem of
the paper in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, we develop the mathematical model of the con-
sidered transmission process. In Sect. 5, we use the model to select appropriate
transmission parameters and demonstrate gains of the heterogeneous channel
access. Finally, Sect. 6 concludes the paper.

2 Related Papers

A number of papers study how to share resources between random and deter-
ministic access methods in Wi-Fi networks. For example, [12] investigates how to
share time between EDCA and HCCA to achieve the maximum overall through-
put. [7] considers coexistence of EDCA and MCCA in Wi-Fi Mesh networks
196 A. Ivanov et al.

and shows how EDCA throughput depends on the percentage of time reserved
by MCCA. As for the heterogeneous access, a few existing studies like [8] and
[10] mainly consider a heterogeneous access method defined in the Wi-Fi stan-
dard. In [8], the authors consider streaming of saturated data and show that
the more data is transmitted with HCCA, the higher is ratio of successful
transmissions. The authors of [10] propose to use a Markov decision process
to coordinate simultaneous usage of HCCA and EDCA to achieve maximum
channel utilization. However, none of the mentioned papers consider streaming
of data with QoS requirements other than throughput. The usage of heteroge-
neous access for transmitting data with QoS requirements is considered in [11]
where a good description/analysis of EDCA, HCCA as well as the heterogeneous
access method is presented. [11] proposes an enhanced admission control algo-
rithm which can be used to improve performance of almost any HCCA scheduler
as shown by simulation. However, so far no papers have studied how to transmit
unsaturated data with QoS requirements by means of a heterogeneous access
method, i.e., how to choose its transmission parameters to satisfy QoS. In this
paper, we fill this gap by developing a mathematical model of a VBR flow trans-
mission in the presence of noise with such an access method. We exploit the
mathematical approach from [6], which considers transmission of a VBR flow
with QoS requirements (delivery delay and packet loss ratio) inside periodic
time intervals.

3 Problem Statement

We consider transmission of a VBR flow between two stations. Packets of the

flow arrive strictly periodically (with period Tin ) in batches of random size (the
j , j ∈ {1, . . . , M}). Such structure of
batch size takes value j with probability pin
an input flow corresponds to transmission of a video flow with RTP [1]. The QoS
requirements are represented by a) the bound on packet delivery time DQoS and
b) the bound on packet loss ratio P LRQoS , so that the sender drops any flow
packet standing in the queue longer than DQoS .
To transmit the flow, the sender uses a heterogeneous access method. For
that, the sender and receiver set up a periodic reservation with period Tres
and duration Ddet of the reserved intervals which is enough only for a single
packet transmission attempt. The sender transmits packets in the reserved time
intervals as well as outside them. The sender always transmits the oldest packet
in the queue. This packet is transmitted until it is successfully delivered or its
lifetime exceeds DQoS . In the latter case, the packet is discarded and the sender
starts serving the next packet in the queue. Additionally, to control the number
of transmission attempts of a packet, the sender maintains a retry counter: each
packet can be transmitted no more than R times.
The probability of unsuccessful packet transmission equals qdet in reserved
time intervals and qran outside them. Since generally qran > qdet , the sender
uses the random access only for packets which will become outdated before the
next reserved time interval and, thus, will be dropped. We assume that the time
 Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming 197

An exponential
variable with
mean 1/λ

time
Ddet Dran Dran Dran Ddet
Tres

Fig. 2. Time parameters

needed to get an access to the channel between two consecutive reserved time
intervals, i.e. in a contention-based interval, is an exponential random variable
with mean 1/λ. The duration of the contention-based interval equals Tres −Ddet ,
while the time needed to transmit a packet with the random access equals Dran
(see Fig. 2).
In the described transmission process, we need to choose such Tres and R
that guarantee that the QoS requirements are satisfied while keeping the amount
of the used channel time as low as possible. To solve this problem, we develop
a mathematical model of the considered process which can be used to find PLR
as a function of Tres and R.

4 Mathematical Model

4.1 Markov Chain

Further we assume that Tres ≤ Tin ≤ DQoS . First, we split the time into slots
of duration τ = gcd(Tres , Tin ), so that the beginnings of the reserved intervals
coincide with the beginnings of some slots. We express all time values in slots
(Fig. 3):
Tres Tin
tres = , tin = , tres , tin ∈ N.
τ τ

VBR flow packets slots reserved intervals

tin · τ

ξ tres · τ τ
time
t t+1 t+2 t+3 t+4

Fig. 3. Packet arrivals and periodic reservation

198 A. Ivanov et al.

We model the transmission process as a discrete time Markov chain: we

observe the process at the beginnings of the reserved intervals and describe
the process state at some observation instant t with three integer values
(h(t), m(t), r(t)).
h(t) represents the time the oldest batch has spent in the queue. We denote
ξ as the duration of time interval between a batch arrival and the beginning of
the next slot (ξ is the same for all batches). Since nothing happens with batches
during time ξ after their arrivals, we virtually shift all batch arrivals up to the
beginnings of the next slots. To keep the process behavior unchanged, we decrease
the bound DQoS by ξ. We define the age of a batch as the difference between
the current time and the batch arrival time. This definition is valid even for a
batch which has not arrived yet, though in this case its age is negative. Next, we
define the Head of Line (HoL) batch as the batch with the highest age among
all batches which are currently in the queue and batches which have not arrived
yet. We refer to the first packet of the HoL batch as the HoL packet. Finally, h(t)
is the age of the HoL packet (batch) expressed in slots. Thanks to the time shift
we made above, the age of the HoL packet at any observation instant equals an
integer number of slots (h(t) ∈ Z). m(t) is the remaining number of packets in
the HoL batch and r(t) is the remaining number of transmission attempts of the
HoL packet.
Due to the definition of h(t), it is always higher than −tin since the next
batch arrives not later than (tin − 1) slots. Since the age of the HoL batch
D
cannot exceed DQoS , h ≤ d =  QoS τ .
Let the system be in state (h(t), m(t), r(t)) at instance t. Further we describe
all possible transitions from this state.
h(t) < 0. In this case, the queue is empty and the next batch of size m(t) arrives
only |h(t)| slots later. By the next reserved interval the age of this batch simply
increases by tres slots. Thus, the process transits to state (h(t)+tres , m(t), r(t) =
R) with probability 1.
0 ≤ h ≤ d−tres . In this case, the queue is not empty and the sender transmits
the HoL packet in the current reserved interval. If not transmitted successfully,
the HoL packet remains in the queue since it does not become outdated by the
next reserved interval. Possible transitions from state (h(t), m(t), r(t)) depend
on values of m(t) and r(t):

– m(t) = 1 and r(t) > 1. If the only packet of the HoL batch is transmitted
successfully (with probability 1 − qdet ), then the HoL batch leaves the queue.
The next batch, which size is j with probability pin j , is tin slots younger, what
makes the process eventually transit to state (h(t)−tin +tres , j, R) with proba-
bility (1−qdet )pin
j . Otherwise, if the HoL packet is not transmitted successfully
(with probability qdet ), the process transits to state (h(t)+tres , m(t), r(t)−1).
– m(t) = 1 and r(t) = 1. In this case, the only packet of the HoL batch
anyway leaves the queue because of the retry limit. So, the process transits
to state (h(t) − tin + tres , j, R) with probability pin
j .
 Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming 199

– m(t) > 1 and r(t) > 1. The process transits to state (h(t), m(t)−1, R) with
probability 1 − qdet and to state (h(t), m(t), r(t) − 1) with probability qdet .
– m(t) > 1 and r(t) = 1. Since the HoL packet anyway leaves the queue
because of the retry limit, the process transits to state (h(t)+tres , m(t)−1, R)
with probability 1.

d − tres < h ≤ d. In this case, the HoL batch becomes outdated by the next
reserved time interval and leaves the queue by the beginning of the next interval.
Thus, the process transits to state (h(t) − tin + tres , j, R) with probability pin
j .
Having described all possible transitions, we are able to build the transition
matrix and find the steady-state distribution π(h, m, r) of the process states.

4.2 PLR Calculation

Given the average number of packets Iin arriving into the queue during one tran-
sition and the average number of packets Idis discarded during one transition,
we can find PLR as follows:
Idis
P LR = . (1)
Iin
Iin can be easily found as 
Tres jpin
j
Iin = . (2)
Tin
The calculation of Idis is more complicated and presented below.
Packets can be discarded only during transitions from the following two types
of states: (a) states with r = 1 and 0 ≤ h ≤ d − tres and (b) states with
h > d−tres . Let Ndis (h, m, r) be the average number of packets discarded during
transition from state (h, m, r). If the state does not belong to the mentioned
types, then Ndis (h, m, r) = 0. If the state belongs to type (a), then only the HoL
packet can be discarded because of the retry limit if not transmitted successfully,
thus, Ndis (h, m, r) = qdet . In case (b), the entire HoL batch becomes outdated
before the next reserved interval. It occurs DQoS −h·τ s after the beginning of the
current one. Outdating packets are transmitted with the random access method
with all transmissions performed within DQoS − h · τ − Ddet + Dran s following
the end of the current interval (see Fig. 4). This time, which we denote as T (h),
cannot be higher than Tres − Ddet , thus, T (h) can be accurately calculated as
follows:
T (h) = min{DQoS − h · τ − Ddet + Dran , Tres − Ddet }. (3)
To find Ndis (h, m, r), we need to find the probability distribution of the
number of transmission attempts, which can be performed in an interval of
duration T (h). Let Λ(w; T ) be the probability of exactly w transmission attempts
being possible inside a contention-based interval of duration T . The number of
transmission in an interval of duration T cannot exceed W(T ) = T /Dran  + 1.
Thus, if w > W(T ), then Λ(w, T ) = 0. Otherwise, let twait i be the duration
of a time interval between the end of transmission i − 1 and the beginning of
200 A. Ivanov et al.

The last chance to

(h, m, r) DQoS − h · τ − Ddet start transmission

The last possi- time

Ddet Dran Ddet
ble transmission
Tres − Ddet

Fig. 4. Usage of random access

transmission i, 1 ≤ i ≤ W(T ). twait

i is an exponential random variable with
mean 1/λ. Thus, Λ(w; T ) can be calculated as follows:
w 
w+1
Λ(w; T ) = P( twait
i ≤ T − wDran , twait
i > T − (w + 1)Dran ) = (4)
i=1 i=1

w 
w+1
= P( twait
i ≤ T − wDran ) − P( twait
i ≤ T − (w + 1)Dran ),
i=1 i=1

where
 w 
+∞ i i
λX  λi X i
w−1
−λX −λX
P( twait
i ≤ X) = e = 1 − e .
i=1 i=w
i! i=0
i!
Now, we are able to calculate Ndis (h, m, r) for transition from state with h >
d − tres . With probability 1− qdet the HoL packet is successfully transmitted and
m − 1 remaining packets of the HoL batch are transmitted during the contention
interval. Since none of these packets has been transmitted before even once,
all of them have R transmission attempts. Otherwise, with probability qdet all
the m packets are transmitted with the random access where the remaining
number of transmission attempts of the first packet equals r − 1 ≥ 0, while other
packets have R transmission attempts. Let the maximum number of transmission
attempts in the contention interval be equal to w (with probability Λ(w; T (h))).
We consider transmission of n ≥ 0 packets in a transmission window of size 0 ≤
w ≤ W(T (h)). Let U (r, n, w) be the average number of packets not transmitted
successfully in this window, where r ≥ 0 is the remaining number of transmission
attempts of the first packet. If n = 0, then U (r, n, w) = 0. For n ≥ 1, the values
of U (r, n, w) can be found recurrently:


min{w,r}
U (r, n,w) = t−1
qran (1 − qran )U (R, n − 1, w − t)+
t=1
min{w,r}
qran (1 + U (R, n − 1, w − min{w, r})). (5)
Combining (3), (4) and (5) we can calculate Ndis (h, m, r) for h > d − tres :
W(T (h))

Ndis (h, m, r) = Λ(w; T (h)) (qdet U (r − 1, m, w) + (1 − qdet )U (R, m − 1, w)) .
w=0
 Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming 201

Finally, Idis can be calculated as follows:


Idis = π(h, m, r)Ndis (h, m, r). (6)
h,m,r

4.3 Channel Time Consumption

We define channel consumption C as the percentage of the channel time occu-
pied by a flow transmission with the heterogeneous channel access method. C is
composed of two components: C = Cdet + Cran . The former is the percentage of
the reserved channel time, and the latter is the percentage of the channel time
occupied by transmissions in contention-based intervals. Evidently,
Ddet
Cdet (Tres ) = . (7)
Tres
To find Cran , we denote Ntx (h, m, r) as the average number of transmis-
sion attempts performed with the random access during transition from state
(h, m, r). If h ≤ d − tres , then Ntx (h, m, r) = 0. For h > d − tres , values of
Ntx (h, m, r) can be calculated in a similar way as values of Ndis (h, m, r) are
calculated in Sect. 4.2. Let V (r, n, w) be the average number of transmission
attempts performed in a contention-based interval to transmit n ≥ 0 packets.
Here r ≥ 0 is the remaining number of transmission attempts of the first packet,
while other packets have R transmission attempts, and w ≥ 0 is the maxi-
mum possible number of transmission attempts in a contention-based interval.
If n = 0, then Ntx (r, n, w) = 0. For n ≥ 1, the following recurrent formula can
be used:


min{r,w}
V (r,n, w) = t−1
qran (1 − qran )(t + V (R, n − 1, w − t))+
t=1
min{r,w}
qran (min{r, w} + V (R, n − 1, w − min{r, w})).

Similar to (4.2), for Ntx (h, m, r) we obtain

W(T (h))

Ntx (h, m, r) = Λ(w; T (h))(qdet V (r − 1, m, w) + (1 − qdet )V (R, m − 1, w)).
w=0

Finally, Cran can be calculated as follows:

Dran 
Cran (Tres , R) = π(h, m, r)Ntx (h, m, r).
Tres
h,m,r

5 Numerical Results
Let us show how to use the model to find appropriate parameters in case of
a video flow transmission over a Wi-Fi network with IEEE 802.11a PHY. We
202 A. Ivanov et al.

Fig. 5. The batch size distribution of the VBR flow

consider a VBR flow which batches arrive each Tin = 40 ms and have the size
distribution shown in Fig. 5. The delay bound DQoS equals 150 ms. The sender
transmits data packets of size 1500 bytes at the rate of 54 Mbps and ACKs are
transmitted at the rate of 6 Mbps, so that Ddet = 312 μs and Dran = 346 μs.
The probabilities of unsuccessful transmissions are the following: qdet = 0.05
and qran = 0.2. The mean access time 1/λ equals 171 μs. This value is obtained
experimentally in a saturated Wi-Fi network with 10 stations all of which use
the EDCA random access mechanism and transmit best effort data at the rate
of 54 Mbps. Given all these parameters, we use the model to find PLR as a
function of R and Tres , which is shown in Fig. 6. The same function but obtained
by simulation negligibly differs from the analytical one, that is why it is not
explicitly shown in Fig. 6.

P LR(Tres, R)

10−1

10−2 R= 1
R= 2
R= 3
P LR

10−3 R= 4
R= 5
R= 6
10−4 R= 7

10−5

10−6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Tres, ms

Fig. 6. PLR as a function of Tres and R

 Mathematical Model of QoS-Aware Streaming 203

Function P LR(Tres , R) significantly drops at one points while raising at oth-

ers. To explain this, let us consider a reservation with period Tres = 20 ms. In
this case, packets can become outdated only in the middle between two con-
secutive reserved intervals, thus, having approximately Ddet mod Tres = 10 ms
to be transmitted with the random access method. Since 10 ms  1/λ, multi-
ple transmissions in a contention-based interval are possible. That is why, the
higher is value of R, the lower is the value of PLR. Another situation can be
observed if Tres = 30 ms. In this case, outdating packets are never transmitted
with the random access since DQoS mod Tres = 0 ms, what increases PLR values
in comparison with neighboring values of Tres .
It is worth to mention, that the developed model can be used to analyze
transmission with the deterministic access method: PLR can be found as for the
heterogeneous method simply by putting qran = 1, while channel consumption
is given by (7). We use this ability of the model to compare the heterogeneous
and deterministic access methods in terms of the minimal amount of the channel
time needed to satisfy the QoS requirements. Given a value of P LRQoS , we find
such parameters T̃res and R̃, which guarantee that the QoS requirements are
satisfied at the minimal value of channel consumption C. We denote this value
as C̃(P LRQoS ):

C̃(P LRQoS ) = min C(Tres , R) = C(T̃res , R̃)

Tres ,R :
P LR(Tres ,R)≤P LRQoS

Functions C̃(P LRQoS ) for the both considered methods are demonstrated in
Fig. 7. It shows that the heterogeneous access method outperforms the determin-
istic one for all relevant values of P LRQoS (10−5 . . . 10−2 ) by reducing channel
consumption by 25–35 %. Though achieving this gains requires adjustment of
the method parameters, this task can be successfully solved by means of the
developed mathematical model, what finally turns the proposed heterogeneous
method intro a more preferable choice for serving VBR flows.

0.070 Heterogeneous access

Deterministic access
0.065

0.060
C̃(P LRQoS )

0.055
1.3 times
0.050

0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030
10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1
P LRQoS

Fig. 7. C̃(P LRQoS ) for heterogeneous and deterministic access methods

204 A. Ivanov et al.

6 Conclusion
In the paper, we have considered transmission of a VBR flow with a hetero-
geneous channel access method being a combination of the random and deter-
ministic. With this method, packets of the flow are transmitted in preliminarily
reserved periodic time intervals as well as outside them, so that retransmissions
and data bursts can be handled by means of the random access, while a constant
component of the flow can be served in reserved interval. We have developed a
mathematical model of this transmission process which can be used to find such
parameters of the heterogeneous method, which guarantee that QoS require-
ments of the flow are satisfied at the minimal amount of the used channel time.
It is shown that the heterogeneous method generally occupies less channel time
to satisfy QoS requirements then the deterministic one. The future work includes
further improvement of the model to make it account for possibility of erroneous
estimation of the transmission failure probabilities.

References
1. RFC 3550. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3550.txt
2. Ansel, P., Ni, Q., Turletti, T.: FHCF: a fair scheduling scheme for 802.11e WLAN
(2003)
3. Cecchetti, G., Ruscelli, A.L.: Real-time support for HCCA function in IEEE
802.11e networks: a performance evaluation. Secur. Commun. Netw. 4(3), 299–
315 (2011)
4. Cowling, J., Selvakennedy, S.: A detailed investigation of the IEEE 802.11e HCF
reference scheduler for VBR traffic. In: 13th International Conference on Computer
Communications and Networks (ICCCN 2004). Citeseer (2004)
5. Grilo, A., Nunes, M.: Performance evaluation of IEEE 802.11e. In: The 13th IEEE
International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications
2002, vol. 1, pp. 511–517. IEEE (2002)
6. Ivanov, A., Khorov, E., Lyakhov, A.: QoS support for bursty traffic in noisy channel
via periodic reservations. In: Wireless Days (WD), 2014 IFIP, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)
7. Krasilov, A.N., Lyakhov, A.I., Moroz, Y.I.: Analytical model of interaction between
contention-based and deterministic channel access mechanisms in Wi-Fi Mesh net-
works. Autom. Remote Control 74(10), 1696–1709 (2013)
8. Kuan, C., Dimyati, K.: Utilization model for HCCA EDCA mixed mode in IEEE
802.11e. ETRI J. 29(6), 829–831 (2007)
9. Lai, W.K., Shien, C., Jiang, C.: Adaptation of HCCA/EDCA ratio in IEEE 802.11
for improved system performance. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Contr. 5(11), 4177–
4188 (2009)
10. Ng, B., Tan, Y.F., Roger, Y.: Improved utilization for joint HCCA-EDCA access
in IEEE 802.11e WLANs. Optim. Lett. 7(8), 1711–1724 (2012)
11. Ruscelli, A.L., Cecchetti, G., Alifano, A., Lipari, G.: Enhancement of QoS support
of HCCA schedulers using EDCA function in IEEE 802.11e networks. Ad Hoc
Netw. 10(2), 147–161 (2012)
12. Siris, V.A., Courcoubetis, C.: Resource control for the EDCA and HCCA mech-
anisms in IEEE 802.11e networks. In: 4th International Symposium on Modeling
and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks 2006, pp. 1–6. IEEE
(2006)