"Enhancing Communication Efficiency in Wireless LAN through Cooperative Packet
Transmission Scheduling for Multicast and Unicast Flows"
Abstract—Recently, wireless LAN has been diffused. Although
unicast transmission is mainly used currently, multicast
transmis- sion, such as distribution of multimedia information, is
expected to increase in near future. Thus, channel utilization of
wireless LAN needs to be improved in general environments
where multicast flows coexist with unicast. Although many
packet transmission methods that achieve high channel
utilization have been proposed, they focus on situations that only
either multicast or unicast transmission exists. In this paper,
focusing on general environments where multicast and unicast
flows are communi- cated in parallel, we propose new packet
transfer scheduling so that high network bandwidth and channel
utilization can be realized by transmitting packets at as high
rate as possible, by reducing packet loss, and by omitting the
overhead to communicate control frames. These improvements
are realized by effective cooperation between multicast and
unicast flows. Evaluation results demonstrate that network
throughputs of both unicast and multicast are increased while
decreasing packet transfer delay.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In recent years, data communication via wireless LANs has
been widely spread. In wireless LANs, multicast transmission,
such as distribution of multimedia information, is expected
to increase in addition to unicast transmission in near future.
Thus, channel utilization of wireless LAN needs to be im-
proved in general environments where multicast and unicast
flows are communicated in parallel.
One of the effective solutions for better channel utilization
is to decrease the frequency of packet loss and to transmit
packets at a higher rate. IEEE 802.11 Distributed
Coordination Function (DCF) [1][2] reduces the packet
loss caused by collision with the backoff algorithm, and
many existing works tackle the packet loss caused by channel
fading by means of transmission at a lower rate [3]-[13].
Another approach [14] avoids decreasing the transmission
rate with a transmission scheduling. These methods focus
only on unicast transmission. On the other hand, in
multicast, transmitting packets at a higher rate is much
more difficult than the case of unicast. Specifically, when
an access point (AP) transmits multicast packets to its
receiver wireless stations (STAs), it is neces- sary to use
the lowest available transmission rate among the receiver
STAs. Thus, some STAs receive multicast packets at
unnecessarily low rates, even if they can receive them at
higher
rates. However, existing works [15][16][17] to achieve
reliable multicast transmission do not consider this problem.
Directed multicast service (DMS) in IEEE 802.11aa and
reference [18] propose a method that multicast packets are
converted into unicast ones and individually transmitted to all
of the receiver STAs based on unicast. Although this approach
enables packet transmission at higher rates to some STAs,
network traffic increases drastically as the number of receiver
STAs increases.
In this paper, in environments where both multicast and
unicast flows are communicated in parallel, we achieve high
network bandwidth and channel utilization by transmitting
packets at as high rate as possible. By adaptive cooperation
between multicast and unicast, multicast packets are also
transmitted at higher rates without converting into unicast
packets. In addition, packet loss caused by sudden degradation
of channel condition and the overhead to communicate control
frames are also addressed by the cooperation.
II. RELATED WORK
A. Efficient channel utilization
For efficient channel utilization in wireless LAN, it is
important to reduce packet loss and to transmit packets at
as high rate as possible. IEEE 802.11 DCF avoids packet
loss caused by collision with the backoff algorithm. On the
other hand, many existing works prevent packet loss caused
by channel fading.
Collision-Aware Rate Adaptation (CARA) [3] and Loss
Differentiating-Auto Rate Fallback (LD-ARF) [4]
differentiate fading loss from collision loss, and when fading
loss occurs, the packet transmission rate is decreased based on
ARF [5] to reduce the failure of the following packet
transmission trials. In CARA, Request-to-Send/Clear-to-Send
(RTS/CTS) is used to differentiate the cause of packet loss.
RTS loss is determined to be caused by collision, because
RTS is difficult to be lost by channel fading due to transfer at
the base rate. On the other hand, a packet loss event after an
RTS/CTS handshake is decided to be caused by channel
fading, because the wireless channel has been reserved.
Another approach to prevent fading loss is to decrease
transmission rate to appropriate values based on measured
Received Signal Strength (RSS) [8]-[12]. In Receiver-Based
Auto Rate (RBAR) [9], an appropriate transmission rate is
decided at each receiver based on SNR of received RTS, and
the rate is notified to its sender by recording the value in the
corresponding CTS.
Opportunistic Auto Rate (OAR) [10] and Differential Rate
Adaptation (DRA) [11] extend RBAR by introducing trans-
mission opportunity (TXOP) in IEEE 802.11e [19]. Differ-
ential Rate Adaptation with NAK-Aided Loss Differentiation
(DRANLD) [12] applies the loss differentiation mechanism of
LD-ARF to DRA.
In reference [14], decreasing transmission rate is avoided
and packets are transmitted at as high rate as possible with
a transmission scheduling. Specifically, packet transmission to
receiver STAs under fading channel is interrupted until the
channel condition is improved, and other packets to other
STAs in good channel condition are transmitted at their
maximum available rates.
Although these previous methods improve channel utiliza-
tion by reducing fading packet loss and/or by transmitting
packets at as high rate as possible, these methods assume only
unicast transmission, and cannot be applied to coexistence of
multicast transmission.
B. Efficient and reliable multicast transmission
Reliable Multicast based on Busy Tone (RMBT) [15]
proposes a method combining FEC and ARQ as a method
for reliable multicast transmission in wireless LAN. The AP
transmits multicast packets with parity packets generated
based on the erasure code with a feedback request. Each
STA that received multicast packets decodes them and
requests additional packets by sending a busy tone after
receiving the feedback request from the AP if it cannot receive
the number of packets necessary for decoding. The length of
the busy tone is determined according to the number of
necessary packets, and the length becomes longer as the
number increases. The AP retransmits the number of packets
corresponding to the length of the detected busy tone with the
feedback request similarly before transmitting. This process is
repeated until all the receiver STAs successfully decode the
packets.
In multicast transmission, the receiver STA does not send
back ACK, but Leader Based Protocol (LBP) [16] proposes
the method where a STA receiving multicast packets transmits
ACK. LBP selects one receiver STA as the representative
STA of a multicast flow, and only the representative STA
sends back ACK at SIFS interval after receiving the packet
similarly in the case of unicast. However, there is a problem
that reception can be confirmed only for one receiver STA per
one multicast transmission, and the method of choosing the
representative is not decided.
IEEE 802.11aa is defined to realize reliable multicast trans-
mission. Reference [17] evaluates the four functions in IEEE
802.11aa: groupcast with retries (GCR), directed multicast
service (DMS), GCR Block ACK, and GCR Delayed Block
ACK. All of these methods improve the reliability of multicast
transmission, but their improvements are achieved only in a
specific environment or transmission situation. GCR transmits
a frame one or more times up to a certain retry limit. DMS
converts multicast to unicast. GCR Block ACK extends the
Block ACK mechanism to account for group addressed
frames. In GCR Delayed Block ACK, each receiver STA
sends back Block ACK after waiting for a backoff interval,
and ACK is sent not only for packet transmission but also for
the Block ACK.
However, these methods, except for DMS in 802.11aa, do
not consider transmission at higher rates, and coexistence with
unicast flows is not also assumed.
As for packet transmission rates in multicast transmission,
it is necessary to use the lowest available transmission rate
among the receiver STAs in a multicast reception group.
Thus, some STAs receive multicast packets at unnecessarily
low rates, even if they can receive them at higher rates. Hence,
in addition to DMS, reference [18] proposes a method that the
AP converts multicast packets to unicast ones, and
individually transmits them to all of the receiver STAs.
Although this approach can use higher transmission rates for
some STAs, network traffic increases drastically as the
number of receiver STAs increases.
On the other hand, in this paper, we assume realistic
environments where both multicast and unicast flows are com-
municated in parallel, and achieve high network bandwidth
and channel utilization by transmitting packets at as high rate
as possible. By adaptive cooperation between multicast and
unicast, multicast packets are also transmitted at higher rates
without converting into unicast packets. In addition, packet
loss caused by sudden degradation of channel condition and
the overhead to communicate control frames are also realized
by the cooperation.
III. PROPOSED M ETHOD
The proposed method focuses on downlink communication
from an access point (AP) to its wireless stations (STAs) in
wireless LANs. The proposed method is designed to effec-
tively utilize high packet transmission rates by the following
two ways.
One is to transmit unicast and multicast packets to STAs
and reception groups, respectively, to which the transmission
at the maximum available rates is possible due to good
channel condition. The other is to transmit multicast packets,
whose reception group is in good channel condition and the
maximum transmission rate is available, at the highest
priority. This is because, in multicast, such a situation occurs
less frequently and packet retransmission requires more
complex process. Hence, we want not to miss an opportunity
of transmitting multicast packets to STAs in good channel
condition. For the STAs to which packet transmission is
interrupted, packets are transmitted including the interrupted
ones after they can use their maximum available rates
because of the improvement of their channel conditions. To
realize the above scheduling, the proposed method has a
buffer composed of transmission queues and a control queue
(Sec. III-A). Other functions in- clude loss differentiation and
management of each STA’s chan- nel condition (Sec. III-B)
and those of each multicast reception
group’s condition (Sec. III-C), and scheduling algorithm itself
(Sec. III-D). For the scheduling, the characteristics of STAs
receiving both unicast and multicast are also considered.
A. Buffer structure
In the proposed method, the AP has a control queue that
manages the transmission order of packets and transmission
queues that are virtual chains for each receiver STA, in its
buffer. When a unicast packet arrives at the AP, a token with
the address of its receiver STA is added to the control queue,
and the packet is stored in the STA’s chain of the transmission
queue. Similarly, when a multicast packet arrives, a token
with its reception group is added to the control queue, and the
packet is stored in the reception group’s chain. In addition,
the AP manages the channel condition of each STA as either
good or bad, the current transmission rate, and the interrupted
transmission count for each STA or reception group. Figure 1
shows the structure of the control queue and the transmission
queues.
Fig. 1. Buffer structure with control and transmission queues.
B. Channel condition management of each receiver STA
In the proposed method, the cause of packet loss is differ-
entiated based on the scheme of CARA. Specifically, losses
of RTS and data packet are regarded as the ones caused by
collision and channel fading, respectively.
the channel condition at each STA is managed as either
good or bad as described in Sec, III-A. When a unicast
packet to a STA is lost by fading, its channel condition is
managed as bad and the transmission rate is decreased to the
next rate unless the rate becomes smaller than the lowest
available rate. On the other hand, when the AP transmits a
unicast packet successfully to the STA, the transmission rate
is increased to the next higher rate within the maximum
available rate. Here, if the updated rate becomes equal to the
maximum available rate, the channel condition is managed as
good.
C. Channel condition management of each multicast
reception group
For multicast packets, the channel condition of each recep-
tion group is managed as follows. Here, in the multicast trans-
mission specified by IEEE 802.11 standard, because control
frames such as RTS/CTS and ACK are not transferred, it is
not possible to identify the cause of packet loss using
RTS/CTS and to manage the channel condition. Hence, one
STA whose channel condition is constantly worst among the
STAs in a multicast group is selected as a leader STA based
on measured RSSI information for each multicast packet
transmission, and when the leader STA receives the multicast
packet, it sends ACK back to the AP after SIFS interval. Thus,
the channel condition and the transmission rate of each leader
STA are managed with the same way as unicast, and the
channel condition of each leader STA is regarded as the
condition of the corresponding multicast group, as illustrated
in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Channel condition management of multicast reception
group.
Note that the channel condition of a receiver STA in a mul-
ticast reception group is also managed if unicast packets are
transmitted to the STA. At each leader STA that receives both
unicast and multicast flows, its channel condition is updated
by the success and failure of both unicast and multicast
packets. With this management based on both unicast and
multicast flows, it is possible to manage latest channel
condition more precisely, and if the latest condition is
improved to good, the AP can transmit multicast packets at
the maximum rate in the proposed continuous transmission in
Sec. III-D.
D. Proposed transmission scheduling
1) Prior multicast transmission: When the AP obtains its
transmission opportunity, it checks whether multicast packets
that can be transmitted at the maximum rates exist in its trans-
mission queues. Specifically, the AP checks channel
conditions of all the receiver STAs of multicast packets
corresponding to the tokens in the range 𝑁𝑀𝐶 from the head
of the control queue. Then, if multicast packets that all the
receiver STAs are in good channel condition are found, the
multicast packet with the largest number of receiver STAs is
transmitted at the lowest rate among the maximum rates of the
receiver STAs, because of high reliability of successful
transmission at the highest rate.
On the other hand, if such multicast packets are not found,
AP checks the channel condition of each multicast reception
group in the decreasing order of the receiver STAs. Then,
if there exists a multicast packet whose reception group is
in good condition, AP transmits the multicast packet at the
maximum rate of its leader STA.
 In these two prior multicast transmission rules, if the trans-
mission of the packet corresponding to the token at the head
of the control queue is interrupted, the interrupted
transmission count of the STA or reception group of the head
token is incremented by one. In the example of Fig. 3,
multicast packet “M:4” is transmitted because we assume that
its reception group is in good channel condition and it has
larger number of receiver STAs than multicast packet “M:5”.
Fig. 3. An example of prior multicast transmission.
In the other cases that no multicast reception groups are
in good channel condition in the range 𝑁𝑀𝐶 from the head
of the control queue, the AP checks the channel condition
of the STA corresponding to the head token of the control
queue. If the STA is in good condition, the packet at the head
of the STA’s virtual chain is transmitted to the STA. Then,
if the interrupted transmission count N of the STA is larger
than 0, the subsequent N packets in the STA’s virtual chain
are also transmitted continuously with burst transmission
based on TXOP in IEEE 802.11e.
On the other hand, if the condition of the STA or the
reception group corresponding to the head token is not good,
the following tokens in the control queue are checked in
order from the head. If another token whose receiver STA
or reception group is in good condition is found, the AP
interrupts the transmission to the STA or the reception group
in bad condition corresponding to the head token, and
transmits other packets to the STA or the reception group in
good condition. Here, the number of interrupted transmissions
N for the interrupted STA is incremented by one, and the
head token is moved to the tail of the control queue.
Here, to allocate transmission opportunity periodically to a
STA or reception group in bad condition and check whether
the condition is improved, the AP transmits packets to the
STA or reception group in bad condition corresponding to the
head token in the case that the number of interrupted
transmissions becomes the predefined count 𝐶𝑇𝑋𝑏𝑎𝑑.
Only if the conditions of all STAs and reception groups are
bad, the packet to the STA or reception group corresponding
to the head token is transmitted at the decreased rate.
2) Advanced unicast and continuous multicast transmis-
sion: When a multicast packet is transmitted to STAs all of
which are in good condition or to reception group in good
condition based on the first and the second paragraphs in
Sec. III-D1, if a unicast packet addressed to a good condition
STA in the multicast group exists, the unicast packet is
transmitted in advance of the multicast packet. After that,
the AP continuously transmits the multicast packet. If there
exist multiple unicast packets that satisfy this condition, the
packet corresponding to the token nearest to the head of the
control queue is transmitted. When the multicast packet is
continuously transmitted after the unicast packet, the
RTS/CTS handshake before the multicast packet is
omitted. Here, if the transmission of the unicast packet is
failed, the following multicast transmission is canceled.
With this transmission, it is possible to transmit multi-
cast packets while reducing the overhead of control frames.
Moreover, the loss of the multicast packet caused by sudden
channel fading is also avoided because such fading is detected
by the loss of the advanced unicast packet. Figure 4 shows
the process of this advanced unicast and continuous multicast
transmission.
Fig. 4. Continuous unicast and multicast transmission.
IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
We evaluate the performance of the proposed method by
computer simulation using QualNet 5.2 [20].
Several STAs are placed around an AP and the distances
from the AP to the STAs are set randomly between 1 and 38
m. Unicast packet size and transmission interval are 1024 byte
and 10 ms, respectively. Multicast packet size and transmis-
sion interval are 1024 bytes and 1.67 ms, respectively. One
multicast flow is transmitted to 10 STAs and all of them
receive one unicast flow in parallel. Rayleigh fading where
maximum moving speed is assumed to be 2 m/s is generated.
The range 𝑁𝑀𝐶 to prioritize multicast transmission is set
as entire of the control queue. Simulation time is set to 30
seconds and all the results are average values of 20 times.
We evaluate the proposed method by changing the number of
the STAs receiving only unicast packets. For the AP and the
STAs, the maximum available rate is set to 54 Mbps. Because
there are no related works that schedule both multicast and
unicast packets, the proposed method that includes all the
schemes in Sec. III, specified as “Proposed method” in Figs.
5-10, is compared with the other methods; the partial proposed
method that does not include only the scheduling in Sec.
III-D2, specified as “Partial proposed method” in Figs. 5-10;
the minimum proposed method that includes only the methods
 in Sec. III-A-III-C specified as “Minimum proposed method”;
and IEEE 802.11 DCF.
120
Figures 5 and 6 show the average throughput per STA of
Proposed method
unicast and multicast, and Figs. 7 and 8 show the average 100 Partial proposed method
packet transfer delay per STA of unicast and multicast, re- Minimum proposed method

Unicast Delay (ms)

spectively. In addition, Figs. 9 and 10 show the number of 80 DCF
successful transmission trials at the maximum rate of unicast
and multicast packets, respectively. 60

1.2 40
Proposed method
Partial proposed method 20
1 Minimum proposed method
Unicast Throughput (Mbit/s)

DCF
0
0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast
0.6

0.4
Fig. 7. Unicast packet transfer delay.

0.2
120
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 100 Proposed method
Partial proposed method
Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast
80 Minimum proposed method
Multicast Delay (ms)

DCF

Fig. 5. Unicast throughput. 60

40
5
20

4
Multicast Throughput (Mbit/s)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

3 Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast

2 Fig. 8. Multicast packet transfer delay.

Proposed method
Partial proposed method
1 Minimum proposed method
DCF
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast
Fig. 6. Multicast throughput.
From Figs 5-8, the proposed method achieves largest
throughput and smallest packet transfer delay compared with
the other methods. One of the reasons is that the transmission
frequency at higher rate is increased as shown in Figs. 9 and
10. The advanced unicast and continuous multicast transmis-
sion in Sec. III-D2 also contributes to this, by reducing the
overhead to transfer control frames and by preventing the
loss of multicast packets caused by sudden change of channel
condition. The partial proposed method reduces unicast and
multicast packet transfer delay, though the throughput perfor-
mance is almost the same as the minimum proposed method.
This is because of the prior multicast transmission, and this
also contributes the delay of unicast flows.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, in environments where both multicast and
unicast flows are communicated in parallel, we proposed a
new packet transmission scheduling method which enhances
channel utilization by effectively utilizing higher transmission
rates and by catching the period when all the multicast
receiver STAs can use the maximum transmission rate by
effectively exploiting STAs receiving both unicast and
multicast flows in wireless LAN. Based on prior transmission
multicast, the multicast packets are transmitted at higher
rates so as not to cause fixed bit rate problem. Through
the evaluation, it is demonstrated that the proposed method
achieves larger throughput and smaller packet transfer delay.
In future work, we will consider more intelligent scheduling
against changes of multicast receiver STAs.
 50000
[9] G. Holland, N. Vaidya, and P. Bahl, “A rate-adaptive MAC protocol for
multi-hop wireless networks,” in Proc. ACM SIGMOBILE 2001, July
2001.
40000
[10] B. Sadeghi, V. Kanodia, A. Sabharwal, and E. Knightly, “Opportunistic
Number of Unicasts at Highest Rate

media access for multirate ad hoc networks,” in Proc. ACM MobiCom

2002, Sep. 2002.
30000 [11] Y. P. Chen, Z. Zhang, and A. N. Ngugi, “An efficient rate-adaptive
MAC for IEEE 802.11,” in Proc. MSN 2007, 2007.
[12] A. N. Nguigi, Y. P. Chenet, and Qing Li, “Rate Adaptation with NAK-
20000 Aided Loss Differentiation in 802.11 Wireless Networks,” in Proc.
IEEE GLOBECOM 2009, Dec. 2009.
Proposed method [13] Q. Xia and M. Hamdi, “Smart sender: a practical rate adaptation
10000 Partial proposed method algorithm for multirate IEEE 802.11WLANs,” IEEE Transactions on
Minimum proposed method Wireless Communications, pp. 1764 - 1775, May 2008.
[14] S. Yoshioka, Y. Tanigawa, and H. Tode, “Smart Packet Transmis-
0 sion Scheduling Combined with Rate Adaptation for Enhancing Total
0 2 4 6 8 10 Throughput against Channel Fading in Wireless LAN,” IEICE Trans.
Commun., vol. E98-B, no. 12, pp. 2496 - 2507, Dec. 2015.
Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast [15] S. Kim and Y.-J. Cho, “Efficient Multicast Scheme based on Hybrid
ARQ and Busy Tone for Multimedia Traffic in Wireless LANs,”
Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 171 -
Fig. 9. Successful unicast transmission trials at the maximum 180, Jan.
rate. 2014.
[16] N. Choi, Y. Seok, T. Kwon, and Y. Choi, “Multicasting multimedia
streams in IEEE 802.11 networks: a focus on reliability and rate
20000 adaptation,” Journal of Wireless Networks, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 119 -
131, Jan. 2011.
[17] A. Banchs, A. d. l. Oliva, L. Eznarriaga, D. R. Kowalski, and P.
Number of Multicasts at Highest Rate

Serrano, “Performance Analysis and Algorithm Selection for Reliable

15000 Multicast in IEEE 802.11aa Wireless LAN,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 3875 - 3891, Oct. 2014.
[18] A. Mehdizadeh, F. Hashim, R. S. A. R. Abdullah, B. M. Ali, M.
Othman, and S. Khatun, “Multicast-Unicast Data Delivery Method in
10000 Wireless IPv6 Networks,” Journal of Network and Systems
Proposed method Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 583 - 608, Feb. 2013.
Partial proposed method [19] IEEE Std 802.11e-2005, Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC)
Minimum proposed method and Physical layer (PHY) specifications: Amendment8: Medium Access
5000 Control (MAC) Quality of Service Enhancements, 2005.
[20] QualNet Simulator Version 5.2, Scalable Network Technologies,
“http://www.scalablenetworks.com/”.

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of STAs Receiving Only Unicast

Fig. 10. Successful multicast transmission trials at the maximum

rate.

R EFERENCES
[1] IEEE Std 802.11-1999 (Reaff 2003), Wireless LAN Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical layer (PHY) specifications, 2003.
[2] B. P. Crow, I. Widjaja, J. G. Kim, and P. T. Sakai, “IEEE 802.11
Wireless Local Area Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, pp.
116 - 126, Sep. 1997.
[3] J. Kim, S. Kim, S. Choi, and D. Qiao, “CARA: Collision-Aware Rate
Adaptation for IEEE 802.11 WLANs,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2006,
pp. 146 - 157, Apr. 2006.
[4] Q. Pang, V. Leung, and S. C. Liew, “A rate adaptation algorithm for
IEEE 802.11 WLANs based on MAC-layer loss differentiation,” in
Proc. IEEE BROADNETS 2005, pp. 659 - 667, Oct. 2005.
[5] A. Kamerman and L. Monteban, “WaveLAN-II: A High-performance
wireless LAN for the unlicensed band,” Bell Lab Technical Journal, pp.
113 - 133, Summer 1997.
[6] S. H. Y. Wong, H. Yang, S. Lu, and V. Bharghavan, “Robust rate
adaptation for 802.11 wireless networks,” in Proc. ACM MobiCom
2006,
pp. 146 - 157, Sep. 2006.
[7] S. Biaz and S. Wu, “OTLR: Opportunistic transmission with loss
recovery for WLANs,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC 2008, Mar./Apr. 2008.
[8] S. Biaz and S. Wu, “Loss differentiated rate adaptation in wireless
networks,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC 2008, Mar./Apr. 2008.