doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2006.10.013 
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
The impact of master–slave bridge access mode on the performance of multi-cluster 802.15.4 network
aDepartment of Computer Science, 545 Machray Hall, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Received 10 May 2006;
revised 23 August 2006;
accepted 13 October 2006.
Responsible Editor: E. Ekici.
Available online 28 November 2006.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
Individual IEEE 802.15.4 clusters with separate coordinators can be interconnected to form larger networks. In this paper, we investigate the performance of 802.15.4 beacon enabled network which consists of κ source clusters interconnected to a sink cluster in a master–slave manner. The bridging function is performed by the coordinator of the source cluster, which periodically visits the sink cluster as an ordinary node. The bridge can deliver its data to the sink coordinator either by competing with other nodes in the sink cluster using the CSMA-CA access mechanism, or by using the dedicated GTS slots allocated by the sink coordinator. We compare the performance of these approaches under varying cluster size and packet arrival rate, and also consider both acknowledged and non-acknowledged transmission in the CSMA part of the superframe. We have presented numerical and simulation results for κ = 1 and κ = 2 and discussed the performance trend when κ further increases. The results for single source cluster show that under variable and low to moderate network loads, the CSMA approach is more adaptable to traffic conditions than GTS; under moderate to high loads, the use of acknowledged traffic leads to drastic performance deterioration of the CSMA bridge, whereas the GTS bridge is still able to provide reasonable performance. When number of source clusters increases, acknowledged CSMA-CA bridge mode shows larger performance deterioration in the inter-cluster traffic than in the local sink traffic. GTS interconnection in the presence of multiple source clusters, preserves the intensity of inter-cluster interconnections but it sacrifices the performance of the local sink traffic. In non-acknowledged mode with multiple source clusters, CSMA-CA interconnection performed in a more balanced way than GTS one, by deteriorating inter-cluster traffic and local traffic almost equally. The use of non-acknowledged transfer is preferred in all cases where the requirements of the sensing application allow it.
Keywords: Personal area networks; Bridges; Sensor networks; IEEE Std 802.15.4; CSMA-CA
Fig. 1. Network topology consisting of κ source clusters and a sink cluster.
Fig. 2. The composition of the superframe (adapted from [1]).
Fig. 3. Bridge switching in CSMA-CA mode.
Fig. 4. Bridge switching in GTS mode.
Fig. 5. Queueing model of the bridging process between source and sink cluster. (a) Non-acknowledged transfer and (b) acknowledged transfer.
Fig. 6. Timings and activities of nodes in the source cluster and the bridge.
Fig. 7. General Markov chain model of the slotted CSMA-CA algorithm in the presence of inactive periods within the superframe.
Fig. 8. Delay lines for Fig. 7.
Fig. 9. Maximum achievable packet rates under the CSMA-CA access mode with acknowledged transfer, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 10. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability under the CSMA-CA access mode with acknowledged transfer. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) blocking probability at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) blocking probability at the bridge (S).
Fig. 11. Maximum achievable packet rates under the GTS access mode and acknowledged transfer, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 12. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability under the GTS access mode and acknowledged transfer. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) blocking probability at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) Blocking probability at the bridge (S).
Fig. 13. Maximum achievable packet rates under the non-acknowledged transfer and CSMA-CA bridge access mode, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 14. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability under the non-acknowledged transfer and CSMA-CA bridge access mode. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) at the bridge (A), (d) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) at the bridge (S).
Fig. 15. Maximum achievable packet rates under the three-lane GTS bridge and non-acknowledged access mode, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 16. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability under the three-lane GTS bridge and non-acknowledged access mode. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) at the bridge (S).
Fig. 17. Maximum achievable packet rates for two source bridges under the CSMA-CA access mode with acknowledged transfer, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 18. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability for two source bridges under the CSMA-CA access mode with acknowledged transfer. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) blocking probability at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) blocking probability at the bridge (S).
Fig. 19. Maximum achievable packet rates for two single-lane GTS source bridges with acknowledged transfer, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 20. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability for two single-lane GTS source bridges with acknowledged transfer. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) at the bridge (S).
Fig. 21. Maximum achievable packet rates for two source bridges under the non-acknowledged transfer and CSMA-CA bridge access mode, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 22. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability for two source bridges under the non-acknowledged transfer and CSMA-CA bridge access mode. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) blocking probability at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) blocking probability at the bridge (S).
Fig. 23. Maximum achievable packet rates for two single-lane GTS bridges with non-acknowledged access mode, in packets per second. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) Traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (A), (b) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (c) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (A), (d) traffic from the source cluster to the bridge (S), (e) traffic from the sink cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S) and (f) traffic from the source cluster reaching the sink coordinator (S).
Fig. 24. End-to-end packet losses and bridge blocking probability for two single-lane GTS bridges with non-acknowledged transfer. Top row shows analytical results (A), bottom row shows simulation results (S). (a) At an ordinary node in the source cluster (A), (b) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (A), (c) blocking probability at the bridge (A), (d) at an ordinary node in the source cluster (S), (e) at an ordinary node in the sink cluster (S) and (f) blocking probability at the bridge (S).
Table 1.
Parameters used in the analytical and simulation modeling
Abstract
Purchase PDF (1116 K)
E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links
Cited By in Scopus (0)
Purchase PDF (267 K)
