Fig. 1. Effects of the anomaly in the case of IEEE 802.11b.

Fig. 2. Proportion of medium occupancy time for two stations.

Fig. 3. PAS vs. IEEE 802.11 in a two stations scenario.

Fig. 4. PAS vs. IEEE 802.11 in a four stations scenario.

Fig. 5. PAS vs. IEEE 802.11 with different cell densities.

Fig. 6. PAS vs. IEEE 802.11 in presence of the ARF mechanism.

Fig. 7. Cumulative inter-burt time distribution for the fast and slow stations.

Fig. 8. The influence of α on performance in a two stations scenario.

Fig. 9. The influence of α on performance in a four stations scenario.

Fig. 10. The influence of t_rate on performances in a two stations scenario.

Fig. 11. Aggregated throughput depending on the packet size.

Fig. 12. Fairness index depending on the packet size.

Fig. 13. Performance of the backoff-based approach.

Fig. 14. Performance of the packet division approach.

Fig. 15. Fixed aggregation time.

Fig. 16. PAS with RTS/CTS mechanism.

Fig. 17. The RTS/CTS mechanism with 1 and 11 Mbps nodes and dynamic packets’ size.

Fig. 18. Scenario used for TCP flow simulation.

Fig. 19. Results on TCP flows.

Fig. 20. TCP contention windows for the fast stations.

Fig. 21. TCP contention windows for the slow stations.

Fig. 22. The three pairs scenario.

Fig. 23. The medium occupancy perceived by the central pair.

PAS: analytical results

Model validation

PAS: burstiness

PAS vs. fixed aggregation burstiness

Performance of PAS and IEEE 802.11 in heterogeneous context

Results of the three pairs scenario

Performance of PAS and IEEE 802.11 in multihop TCP context

Performance of PAS and IEEE 802.11 in multihop UDP context