Interoperability Project for WLAN, HFC, ADSL and

PLC Technologies
Carlos Henrique R. de Oliveira, Carlos Roberto S. Fernandes, Cezar Augusto de Zorzetto Cludi,
Jose Guilherme Silva Gonçalves and Paulo Eduardo Sipoli Faria
Telecommunications Research and Development Center (CPqD)
Campinas-SP, Brazil
{carloshe, carlosf, cezar, josesg, pfaria}@cpqd.com.br

Abstract— Digital inclusion will make positive use of digital
technologies and the Web to improve quality of life and deliver
new opportunities for disadvantaged individuals and
communities. A mix of technologies seems a good option to make
feasible and less expensive the offering of digital inclusion. To the
mix of technologies succeed, it is necessary some tests of
interoperability. This paper proposes interoperability tests
between wireless and wireline access technologies.
Keywords-ADSL, HFC, PLC, WLAN, interoperability
I. INTRODUCTION
The digital inclusion will ensure more equal, effective and
beneficial access for all people in all over the world to the
digital technologies and Web facilities that benefit them in their
day-to-day lives.
To offer digital inclusion to disadvantaged individuals and
communities, a mix of technologies seems a good option to
make feasible and less expensive to provide this service, taking
advantage of existing structure to reduce the initial investment.
To make possible this mix of technologies, it becomes
necessary to make interoperability tests among technologies
and this paper proposes some tests to the following wireless
and wireline access technologies: WLAN (Wireless LAN) and
HFC (Hybrid Fiber-Coax), WLAN and PLC (Power Line
Communications) and WLAN and ADSL (Asymmetric Digital
Subscriber Line). These interoperability tests are part of a pilot
project to support the project of the Brazil's government, called
"Digital Inclusion and Universal Internet Access", an effort to
explore technologies that can help to bridge the "digital divide"
in the country.
II. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS
This item presents a brief description of the involved
technologies in the tests: WLAN, HFC, ADSL, PLClv (PLC in
low voltage AC power) and PLCmv (PLC in medium voltage
AC power).
A. HFC Technology
The Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) technology combines both
optical fiber and coaxial cable lines. Optical fiber runs from the
cable head end to neighborhoods of 500 to 2,000 homes
passed. Coaxial cable runs from the optical-fiber feeders to
each home passed. Hybrid networks provide many of fiber's
reliability and bandwidth benefits at a lower cost than a pure
fiber network [1].
B. ADSL Technology
The Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) is a
modem technology that converts existing twisted-pair
telephone line into access paths for high-speed
communications to provide Internet, multimedia and LAN
access [2].
C. PLC Technology
The Power Line Communications (PLC) technology allows
transmission of data over electric power line cables.
Power line communications uses a RF signal sent over medium
(11,700) and low (127) voltage AC power lines to allow end
users to connect to the Internet. The RF signal is modulated
with digital information that is converted by an interface in the
home or small business into Ethernet compatible data [3].
D. WLAN Technology
The WLAN technology allows users to access a data
network like the Internet at high speeds of up to 54 Megabits
per second (Mbps) as long as users are located within a relative
short range (typically 30-50 meters indoors and 100-500 meters
outdoors) of a WLAN Access Point. In short, WLAN is
effectively Ethernet without the wires. There are a number of
WLAN standards around the world.
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI) has a standardized WLAN called HiperLAN2. The
American community, through the Institute of Electrical &
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has created a standard called
802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g. In the market 802.11 is known
as Wi-Fi.
III. OBJECTIVE OF THE INTEROPERABILITY TESTS
Since the technologies involved in the tests have an
Ethernet port to communication, it was assumed that the
operation between peculiar technologies would be possible.
The tests were made inside laboratories to WLAN/HFC,
WLAN/PLC and WLAN/ADSL networks to verify the
behavior of these technologies working together. The WLAN
standards used were 802.11a [4] and 802.11b [5].

0-7803-8785-6/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE

 It was verified that the interoperability of WLAN with
HFC, WLAN with PLC and WLAN with ADSL have been
succeeded carrying out a download of a file located in a FTP
server and transmission tests using a tool called Iperf running
in the client and in the server. These operations will be
detailed as follows.
IV. RESULTS
A. WLAN/ADSL Interoperability Test Result
In the WLAN/ADSL interoperability was carried out a test
to check the downstream (server => client) transmission rate
using the Iperf tool installed in the client and in the server.
The length of ADSL cable used in this test was around
1,600 meters.
The application layer downstream rate was 5.33 Mbps.
There was no datagram loss. These results are shown in the
report as follows:
D:\Iperf>iperf -c 172.16.36.2 -i1 -t5 -b5.5M
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 172.16.36.2, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 3135 connected with 172.16.36.2 port 5001
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 672 KBytes 5.50 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 672 KBytes 5.50 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 672 KBytes 5.50 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 670 KBytes 5.49 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 672 KBytes 5.50 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 3.28 MBytes 5.49 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.2 sec 3.28 MBytes 5.33 Mbits/sec 3.244 ms 0/ 2340 (0%)
[876] Sent 2340 datagrams
It was carried out a download in the client of a 95.7 MB file
located in the FTP server. The transference was completed in
156 seconds. This means an application layer downstream rate
of [(95.7 x 8 Mbits)/156 s] 4.9 Mbps.
It is worth noting that the little difference between FTP and
Iperf downstream transmission rates in all results is because
FTP test was carried out using TCP protocol and Iperf test was
carried out using UDP protocol. Wireless communications are
characterized by losses due to transmission errors and handoffs.
TCP interprets these losses as congestion and invokes
congestion control mechanisms resulting in degradation of
performance [6].
B. WLAN/PLClv Interoperability Test Result
In the WLAN/PLClv interoperability test was carried out a
download in the client of a 95.7 MB file located in the FTP
server. The transference was completed in 124 seconds. This
means an application layer downstream rate of [(95.7 x 8
Mbits)/124 s] 6.17 Mbps. The length of PLClv cable used in
this test was around 150 meters from PLCmv.
Using the Iperf tool, the application layer downstream rate
without datagram loss was 7 Mbps as shown in the report as
follows:
0-7803-8785-6/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
D:\Iperf>iperf -c 10.0.3.92 -i1 -t5 -b7.1M
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.3.92, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 3130 connected with 10.0.3.92 port 5001
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 4.24 MBytes 7.08 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.1 sec 4.24 MBytes 7.00 Mbits/sec 3.756 ms 0/ 3021 (0%)
[876] Sent 3021 datagrams
C. WLAN/PLCmv Interoperability Test Result
In the WLAN/PLCmv interoperability test was carried out a
download in the client of a 95.7 MB file located in the FTP
server. The transference was completed in 118 seconds. This
means an application layer downstream rate of [(95.7 x 8
Mbits)/119 s] 6.43 Mbps. The length of PLCmv cable used in
this test was around 1,000 meters to simulate the losses of a
real-case scenario.
Using the Iperf tool, the application layer downstream rate
with 0.13% of datagram loss was 6.97 Mbps as shown in the
report as follows:
D:\Iperf>iperf -c 10.0.3.92 -i1 -t5 -b7M
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.3.92, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 4066 connected with 10.0.3.92 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 856 KBytes 7.01 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 854 KBytes 7.00 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 854 KBytes 7.00 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 854 KBytes 7.00 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 856 KBytes 7.01 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 4.17 MBytes 6.98 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 4.17 MBytes 6.97 Mbits/sec 3.358 ms 4/ 2978
(0.13%)
[876] Sent 2978 datagrams
D. WLAN/HFC Interoperability Test Result
In the WLAN/HFC interoperability test was carried out a
download in the client of a 95.7 MB file located in the FTP
server. The transference was completed in 114 seconds. This
means an application layer downstream rate of [(95.7 x 8
Mbits)/114 s] 6.71 Mbps. The length of HFC coaxial cable
used in this test was around 1,000 meters to simulate the losses
of a real-case scenario.
Using the Iperf tool, the application layer downstream rate
without datagram loss was 7.02 Mbps as shown in the report as
follows:
 D:\Iperf>iperf -c 192.168.10.3 -i1 -t5 -b7.1M
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.3, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 3125 connected with 192.168.10.3 port 5001
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 867 KBytes 7.10 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 4.24 MBytes 7.08 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.1 sec 4.24 MBytes 7.02 Mbits/sec 3.374 ms 0/ 3021 (0%)
[876] Sent 3021 datagrams
V. SYSTEM BOTTLENECK SHIFTING
WLAN/HFC and WLAN/PLCmv interoperability tests were
repeated using 802.11a WLAN standard that offers a physical
layer transference rate up to 54 Mbps and around 30 Mbps in
the application layer, according to the measurements carried
out inside the laboratory.
Using the Iperf tool to the new WLAN/HFC and
WLAN/PLCmv interoperability tests, the application layer
downstream rate without datagram loss was 24.9 Mbps and
20.8 Mbps respectively as shown in the reports as follows:
D:\Iperf>iperf -c 192.168.10.92 -i1 -t5 -b25M
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.92, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 4527 connected with 192.168.10.92 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 2.94 MBytes 24.6 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 2.98 MBytes 25.0 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 2.98 MBytes 25.0 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 2.98 MBytes 25.0 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 2.98 MBytes 25.0 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 14.9 MBytes 24.9 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 14.9 MBytes 24.9 Mbits/sec 1.471 ms 0/10608 (0%)
[876] Sent 10608 datagrams
D:\Iperf>iperf -c 10.0.3.92 -i1 -t5 -b21M
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.3.92, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[876] local 10.0.1.201 port 3846 connected with 10.0.3.92 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[876] 0.0- 1.0 sec 2.50 MBytes 21.0 Mbits/sec
[876] 1.0- 2.0 sec 2.48 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec
[876] 2.0- 3.0 sec 2.48 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec
[876] 3.0- 4.0 sec 2.48 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec
[876] 4.0- 5.0 sec 2.48 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 12.4 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec
[876] Server Report:
[876] 0.0- 5.0 sec 12.4 MBytes 20.8 Mbits/sec 1.565 ms 0/ 9104 (0%)
[876] Sent 9104 datagrams
0-7803-8785-6/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
VI. VOICE OVER IP (VOIP)
VoIP-call tests were carried out between two laboratories
of two buildings at CPqD and interconnected via optical fiber
to WLAN/PLClv interoperability. The VoIP-call quality was
tested using appropriated software to simulate four end-to-end
simultaneous calls between PLClv client inside the building 13
and WLAN client inside the building 7. Connection pair 1 to 4
has used a different codec, G.711a, G.711u, G.726 and G.729
respectively.
The estimated average Mean Opinion Score (MOS) of each
connection pair is shown in Table I. All connection pairs have
presented desirable voice quality.
TABLE I. ESTIMATED AVERAGE MEAN OPINION SCORE
Average MOS
Connection pair 1 4.37
Connection pair 2 4.37
Connection pair 3 4.18
Connection pair 4 4.02
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The HFC, PLCmv, PLClv, WLAN 802.11b and ADSL
technologies tested at CPqD’s laboratories, presented
application layer downstream rates of 25 Mbps, 21 Mbps, 7
Mbps, 7 Mbps and 5.33 Mbps respectively.
When WLAN is running 802.11b standard, the system
bottleneck is the ADSL technology because its application
layer downstream rate is the lowest of them but to HFC and
PLCmv technologies, the system bottleneck is the WLAN
technology because its application layer downstream rate is
the lowest of them and to PLClv technology, there is no system
bottleneck because the application layer downstream rate is
the same to both technologies.
When WLAN is running 802.11a standard, the other four
technologies were the system bottleneck in the interoperability
tests. Upstream interoperability tests have shown the same
previous conclusions.
The contribution of this work was to investigate and to
prove the feasibility of a mix of technologies that can be used
in several applications including one to make feasible, faster
and less expensive to provide digital inclusion.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Sriram, “Performance of ATM and variable length packet access in
broadband HFC and wireless networks,” Proc. of the IEEE ICUPC, Vol.
1, pp. 495-501, Florence, Italy, October 5-9, 1998.
[2] ADSL Forum Home Page - http://www.dslforum.org/
[3] Revised Report of the UTC Power Line Telecommunications Forum –
UTC – United Telecom Council - June 2001.
[4] J. Chen and J. Gilbert, “Measured performance of 5-GHz 802.11a
wireless LAN systems,” Atheros white paper, 2001.
[5] J. Yee and H. Pezeskhi-Esfahani, “Understanding wireless LAN
performance tradeoffs,” Communication Systems Design, November
2002.
[6] K. Ratnam and I. Matta, “WTCP: An efficient mechanism for improving
TCP performance over wireless links,” In Proc. Third IEEE Symposium
on Computer and Communications (ISCC '98), June 1998.