International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science (IJETTCS)

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com Volume 1, Issue 2, July August 2012 ISSN 2278-6856

Accounting for Uplink Traffic in the Design of Schedulers for Multiple Traffic Classes in OFDMA Networks
A Kazmierczak
Computer Information Systems Northwest Arkansas Community College One College Dr Bentonville, AR 72712

Abstract: The research literature in wireless networks

contains many examples of proposed MAC protocols. Every such proposed protocol thoroughly addresses downlink traffic from the Base Station (BS) to the Mobile Station (MS). Few, if any, do more than mention uplink traffic. In this paper, we look at two MAC protocols, Multiclass MLWDF and Joint Scheduler, from the perspective of uplink traffic in addition to downlink traffic.

Keywords: MAC protocol, downlink traffic, traffic scheduler

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years that has been a great deal of activity in the area of research and standardization of mobile wireless networks. Some examples include the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSPA) [2] and systems based on IEEE 802.16 [3], such as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) [4] and Wireless Broadband (WiBro) [5]. Fourth generation wireless devices are being introduced into the market even now. Downloading multimedia files such as music and video or browsing the Internet through a mobile device is no longer a rare occasion. In fact, it is becoming commonplace. With 4th generation wireless systems being deployed, there will be a growing number of applications will be far more diverse and the demand on data rates will skyrocket. Current mobile phones support only one application at a time. However, with the latest generation, multitasking will become more popular. Thus, mobile devices will need to support multiple connections with multiple traffic classes for each user. As part of supporting Quality of Service (QoS), scheduling is a fundamental function. In designing QoS schedulers, various QoS parameters for multiple traffic classes need to be considered. In [6], Urgency and Efficiency based Packet Scheduling (UEPS) was proposed to support both non real time (NRT) traffic and real time (RT) traffic. UEPS served NRT packets until RT packets approached their deadline when RT packets were scheduled with higher priority. It is not always effective to give NRT packets priority RT packets One of the promising technologies for next generation wireless systems is the wideband multicarrier frame Volume 1, Issue 2 July-August 2012

structure using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA). In this structure, multiple communication channels exist. As a way to efficiently and reliably use these channels, the IEEE 802.16 standard includes the band Adaptive Modulation and Coding (ACM) scheme. The possibility of assigning multiple frequency channels gives a scheduler the opportunity to exploit frequency diversity as well as multiuser diversity to maximize system performance. UEPS was proposed for OFDMA systems, but works well in a single channel environment. There are two examples of single channel schedulers that can exploit channel variations and support multiple transmission rates; i) maximum channel to interference ratio (max C/I) scheduler [7], and ii) proportional fair (PF) scheduler [8]. The max C/I scheduler always chooses the user whose channel rate is largest. Though it achieves maximum system throughput, many users whose channel state is not good may face starvation. The PF scheduler uses the ratio of current channel rate to average allocated rate for each user. It does provide proportional fairness among users. As good as these schedulers are, they do not support specific QoS parameters like minimum allowable delay and maximum throughput. There have been schedulers proposed that do support specific QoS parameters. The MLWDF scheduler [9] and exponential rule scheduler [10] consider maximum allowable delay and instantaneous channel rate, respectively. Both schedulers are throughput optimal and keep queues stable. MLWDF uses the head of line packets waiting time or the total queue length as scheduling metrics. In [1], the authors extend the MLWDF scheduler to multiple channels and multiple classes of traffic. Most schedulers that have been proposed in the literature have limited themselves with handling downlink packet flow. Uplink packet flow is either passed over all together or is given only cursory mention. If users are going to continue to flock to the wireless environment, they are going to expect two way communications. In this paper, we take the work in [1] on the MLWDF scheduler and their proposed Joint Scheduler and expand both schedulers to enable uplink communication. This paper is organized as follows. The proposed schedulers are resented in section II. The system model is Page 238

International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science (IJETTCS)

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com Volume 1, Issue 2, July August 2012 ISSN 2278-6856
described briefly in section III. Section 4 should contain simulation results, while section IV concludes the paper. Originally MLWDF is a single channel scheduler that satisfies stability and throughput optimality [8] and is well known for satisfying the delay requirements of QoS users. Multiclass MLWDF works fine for downlink traffic. Since MLWDF was originally a single channel scheduler, we propose to use the original MLWDF algorithm for scheduling uplink traffic. Since the multiclass MLWDF is used strictly for downlink traffic, it needs to be slightly modified to account for uplink traffic also. Figure 1 shows the multiclass MLWDF algorithm modified to account for multiple classes of traffic from the MS to the BS. At each scheduling instance
{ For j = 1 to N { update CR(j), QLB(j) and WT(j) AR(j) = w * AR(j) + (1-w) * SR(j) } QoS_schedule = 0 For j = 1 to N { if (QLQ(j) > 0 QoS_schedule = 1} If ( QoS_schedule> 0 ) { SM = argmaxj (CR(j)/AR(j)) * (WT(j)/MD(j)) } Else { SM = argmaxj (CR(j)/AR(j)) * QLB(j) } For j = 1 to N { if( SM = j) { DAAR(j) = WD * DAAR(j) + (1-WD) * CR(j) UAAR(j) WU * UAAR(j) } } Else { DAAR(j) = WD * DAAR(j) UAAR(j) = WU * UAAR(j) } }

2. PROPOSED SCHEDULERS
Two schedulers are considered: i) one for multiple traffic classes, and II) one for multiple frequency channels. 2.1 Scheduler Structures In our architecture, the Base Station (BS)contains the status information of all queues and performs the actual scheduling. Each Mobile Station (MS) sends the BS its channel quality information through the feedback channel. Since this paper addresses uplink communication, we propose that the MS also use the feedback channel to send additional information to include: i) MS identification, ii) queue information of BE traffic, and iii) bandwidth request allocation for specific QoS class. Let M be the overall number of traffic classes supported by the system. Let N be the number of traffic classes that can be generated by the mobile devices. We assume that N < M. For downlink communication, the BS has a separate queue for each of the traffic classes and each user. For uplink communication, the BS has a separate queue for each traffic class and each user. For downlink, traffic classes are prioritized so that class I has a higher priority than class j ( 1<= I <= j <= M ). QoS parameters are defined for each traffic class that has its own scheduler. In addition, each class has an indicator to represent the urgency of a packet. At each scheduling instance, the scheduler checks the class priority and the urgency of each packet. Within a class, an urgent packet will be transmitted first. The lowest priority is Best Effort (BE) traffic. Barring higher priority traffic, BE traffic is scheduled by default. For uplink traffic, the same operation applies as for downlink. In a system with multiple frequency channels available for downlink transmission, each channel can be considered separately and run a single channel scheduler. Since the BS has channel state information, there is the possibility of using multiple frequency channels, frequency diversity, to achieve performance gains. In a multiple frequency channel environment, each MS claims a channel whose channel rate for the MS is highest. The BS selects a user and channel which the user claims according to the single channel scheduler. For the uplink transmission, there are no multiple frequencies. Uplink from a BS usually is to a wired network with a channel rate much higher than the wireless channel rate. The BS will checkthe class priority and urgency of a packet. In the same class, urgent packets are transmitted first. Barring higher priority traffic, BE traffic is selected by default. 2.2 MLWDF In [1], the authors propose to extend MLWDF for multiple traffic classes and name it multiclass MLWDF. Volume 1, Issue 2 July-August 2012

Variables DAAR(j): moving average of MS js allocated downlink channel rate (bits) UAAR(j): moving average of MS js allocated uplink channel rate (bits) DAAR(j) = KD * AAR(j): allocated rate downlink UAAR(j) = KU * AAR(j): allocated rate uplink AR(j): moving average of MS js CR(j) (bits) CR(j): MS js current channel rate (bits) MD(j): Max allowed delay of MS js QoS class connection N: number of MSs having QoS class connection QLB(j): MS js BE class queue length (bits) SM: index of the selected MS WT(j): waiting time of head of line packet in MS js class queue (ms) WD: weighting factor for downlink WU: weighting factor for uplink Figure 1 Algorithm for Multiclass MLWDF for downlink and uplink traffic The QoS scheduler uses the head of line packets waiting time as a scheduling metric whereas BE traffic scheduler uses the queue length information for each user. As long as a QoS class packet exists, the QoS traffic, there is a low possibility of exploiting multiuser diversity which Page 239

International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science (IJETTCS)

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com Volume 1, Issue 2, July August 2012 ISSN 2278-6856
leads to lower system throughput. Thus, we should reconsider relaxing thus rule and use a Joint Scheduler (JS). 2.3 Joint Scheduler Service providers typically operate a wireless network with a load that is much lower than the maximum capacity. The QoS scheduler rule may be too strict when the system load is low. A proposed JS algorithm modified to account for both uplink and downlink traffic is shown in Figure 2. The JS scheduler treats QoS and BE traffic together in the event that the QoS load is low. Only if a QoS packet experiences delay longer than some x% of maximum allowable delay does it call specifically for the QoS scheduler. By relaxing the QoS rule, the scheduler becomes more flexible in choosing a user in such a way to take advantage of multiuser diversity. The BE scheduler counts the scheduling metric of the queue lengths of QoS traffic as well as BE traffic. At each scheduling instance
{ For j = 1 to N { update CR(j), QLB(j), QLQ(j), WT(j) AR(j) = W * AR(j) + (1-W) * CR(j) } QoS_schedule = 0 For j = 1 to N { if ( WT(j) > x * MD(j) ) (QoS_scheduler = 1 } If(QoS_schedule> 0 ) { SM(j) = argmaxj(CR(j)/AR(j) ) * (Wt(j)/MD(j) )} Else {SM = argmaxj(CR(j)/AR(j)) * (QLQ(j)+QLB(j) ) } For j = 1 to N { if (SM = j) {DAAR(j) = WD * DAAR(j) + (1-W) * CR(j) UAAR(j) = WU * UAAR(j) + (1-WU) * CR(j) } Else {DAAR(j) = WD * DAAR(j) UAAR(j) = WU * UAAR(j) }

traffic, there simulations deal only with downlink traffic. Our simulation results should present some interesting results.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Most MAC protocols for wireless networks that appear in the research literature treat mainly the scheduling of downlink traffic from the BS to the MS. The possibility of uplink traffic is glossed over or not mentioned at all. In this paper we modified several proposed wireless MAC protocols and adjusted the MAC protocol to account for uplink traffic as well as downlink traffic.

REFERENCE
[1] W-H. Park, S. Cho, S. Bahk, Scheduler Design for Multiple Traffic Classes in OFDMA Networks, Proc IEEE, 2006. [2] 3GPP TR 25.308 v5>7.0, High Speed Downlink Packet Access: Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 5) Dec 2004 [3] IEEEStd 802.16-2004, Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems, Oct 2004. [4] Ghosh, D. R. Wolter, J. G. Andrews, R. Chen, Broadband Wireless Access with WiMAX/802.16: Current Performance Benchmarks and Future Potential, IEEE Communication Magazine, vol 43, no 2, pp 129136, Feb 2005 [5] Telecommunications Technology Association 2.3 GHz Portable Internet Project Group (PG 302), 2.3 GHz Portable Internet (WiBro) Overview Aug 2004, Available http://www.tta.or.kr/English/new/main/index.html [6] S. Ryu, B. Ryu, H. Seo, M. Shin, Urgency and Efficiency Based Packet Scheduling Algorithms for OFDMA Wireless Systems, Proc IEEE ICC, 2005 [7] Knopp, P. A. Humblet, Information Capacity and Power Control in Single Cell Multiuser Communications Proc IEEE ICC, 1995 [8] A. Julali, R. Padorani, R. Pankaj, Data Throughput of CDMA=HDR a High Efficiency High Data Rate Personal Communication Wireless System, Proc IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2000 [9] M. Andrews, et al, Providing Quality of Service Over a Shared Wireless Link, IEEE Communication Magazine, pp 150-154, Feb 2001 [10] S. Shakkottai, A. Stolyer, Scheduling Algorithms for a Mixture of Real Time and Non Real Time Data in HDR, Proc ITC, pp 793-804, Sep 2001 [11]The Network Simulator ns-2 (ns-2 1b&a) video traffic generator based on TES (Transform Expand Sample) Model of MPEG 4 trace files, Available http://www.isu.edu/nsnam/ns/ns-contributed.html [12]Internet2 Netflow Weekly usage reports for the Abilene network. Available http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly Page 240

Additional Variables QLQ(j): MS js QoS class queue length (bits) X: threshold parameter Figure 2: Algorithm for Joint Scheduler with uplink and downlink traffic The BE scheduler uses the average allocated rate AAR(j) of MS j as a metric instead of the average channel rate. Using this metric avoids the situation where a user with a bad channel or low traffic rate arrival rates could be starved

3. SIMULATION RESULTS
Simulation of the proposed schedulers is an area of ongoing research. Since no other algorithms treat uplink Volume 1, Issue 2 July-August 2012