june 21, 2007 [email protected] minimum interference channel assignment in multi-radio wireless...

June 21, 2007 [email protected]

Minimum Interference Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks

Anand Prabhu Subramanian, Himanshu Gupta and Samir Das

Stony Brook University, NY, USA


Wireless Mesh Network

Internet

Capacity problem due to

Wireless Interference

Objective: Reduce Interference


Using different forms of diversities Improve spatial reuse

Use Transmit Power Control Use directional communication

Use multiple channels Single Radio Approach Multi-Radio Approach

How to reduce Interference?

Our Approach


Single Radio Approach

1 2

64 5

3

Challenges:

1) Channel switching latency (in order of milliseconds)2) Coordination between sender and receiver


Multi-Radio Approach

1 2

64 5

3

Advantage:

1) No need to switch channels in “packet time scale.”2) No need for synchronization between communicating nodes3) Can work with commodity 802.11 Hardware

Challenge:

Efficient channel assignment to links such that interference is minimized as much as possible


Modeling Interference

1 2

64 5

3

Network Graph:

1 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

Conflict Graph:

Models Interference between a pair of links

Two-hop interference model

Weighted Graph to model variabletraffic and fractional interference


Channel Assignment Problem

Network Graph:

1 2

64 5

3

K (=3) different channels

1 2

64 5

31 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

Conflict Graph:


1 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

Max-K-Cut Problem

Maximize edges between nodes with different color

1 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

Minimize edges between nodes with same color


5 64

1 2 3

Interface Constraint

1 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

Channel Assignment Problem

Max-K-Cut problem with Interface Constraint


Our Contribution

Design efficient heuristic algorithms (Upper bound on interference) Tabu search based centralized algorithm Distributed greedy algorithm

Establish lower bound on interference using Semi-definite Programming (SDP)

Show the bounds are close by simulation


Tabu Search Based Centralized Algorithm – Phase I

1 - 4

1 - 2

2 - 3

4 - 5

2 - 5

3 - 6

5 - 6

1 - 2

2 - 3

3 - 6

5 - 62 - 5

4 - 5

1 - 4

Start from the random solutionIn each iteration, generate certain number of neighboring solutionsPick the solution with least interferenceRepeat until no improvement for certain number of iterations


First phase could result in interface constraint violation in some nodes

Tabu Search Based Centralized Algorithm – Phase II

A

B

C

D

4 channels and 2 Interfaces Violation at node D


Merge 2 colors into 1 at node D


A

B

C

D

4 channels and 2 Interfaces


Propagate color change to entire connected component


A

B

C

D

4 channels and 2 Interfaces


Greedy Heuristic Takes the interface constraint right from the start

Initially, color all the nodes in the conflict graph with same color

In each iteration choose the node-color pair that minimizes interference (not violating the interface constraint) the most and change the color

Repeat untill interference decrease monotonically

Can be distributed/localized as interference is local


Lower Bound using SDPTechnique to optimize a linear function of a

symmetric positive semi-definite matrix subject to linear constraints

Max-K-cut has a good approximate solution using SDP

Add interface constraint to get a lower bound for the channel assignment problem

Can be solved in polynomial time (theoretically)Public domain solvers to solve SDP (DSDP 5.0)


Performance with Random Graph

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of radio interfaces per node

Fra

cti

on

al N

etw

ork

In

terf

ere

nc

e

Random CLICA-SCE Dist. Greedy Tabu Based SDP

Fractional no. of monochromatic edges in conflict graph (edges outside the cut)

Random disk graphs. Dense - average node degree 10. Interference range = 2 x Transmission range 802.11 interference model (with RTS/CTS) 12 channels.


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Fra

cti

on

al N

etw

ork

In

terf

ere

nce




Random disk graphs. Sparse – barely connected Interference range = 2 x Transmission range 802.11 interference model (with RTS/CTS) 12 channels.


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Fra

cti

on

al N

etw

ork

In

terf

ere

nce




Little improvement beyond a certain no. of interfaces. Saturation reached with smaller no. of interfaces for sparser networks Tabu is generally better than greedy except with for small no. of interfaces (the merging technique is inefficient).


Non-Orthogonal Channels

Channel Overlap Factor:

0.2714

2

00.00540.03750.72721Overlap

54310Distance

2402 2407 2412 2417 2422 2427 2432 2437 2442 2447 2452 2457 2462 2467 2472 MHz

1 6 11

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

802.11b2.4GHz


Performance using Overlapping channels

0123456789

10

1 2 3


Sa

tura

tio

n T

hro

ug

htp

ut

Tabu-11 Channels Dist. Greedy-11 Channels

Tabu-3 Channels Dist. Greedy-3 Channels

Single Channel

Use of overlapped channels advantageous

Both Tabu and Greedy perform well with 11 channels compared to 3 channels


Practicalities

Can implement algorithms centrally. Not a problem for managed networks. Collect average load information periodically

from links.

Conflict graph is an input to the problem. How to determine?

Use Standard models (Protocol, Physical…) Based on measurements


Summary

Formulated the channel assignment problem to minimize interference

Two efficient algorithms for channel assignment in multi-radio mesh networks

Lower bounding techniques using SDP

Future work: Approximation algorithms, Joint routing

june 21, 2007 [email protected] minimum interference channel assignment in multi-radio wireless...

Documents

centralized algorithm

conflict graph

interferencetabu search

nodestabu search

radio approach126453challenges

radio approach126453advantage

models interference

different color