(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 147
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
Probability of Inquiry Interference in Bluetooth
Discovery: Mathematical Analysis and Modeling
Khaled Morsi 1, Gao Qiang 2 and Xiong Huagang 3
1,2,3
Department of Electronic and Information Engineering
Beihang University (BUAA), Beijing, 100191, China
1
kh_morsi_1974@yahoo.com, 2 gaoqiang@buaa.edu.cn and 3 hgxiong@buaa.edu.cn
Abstract: Bluetooth device discovery process involves nodes
seeking to join neighboring piconets to enter inquiry substate.
Nodes in a scatternet as well enter inquiry substate to discover
other nodes within range. Inquiring nodes periodically send
inquiry packets on a predetermined frequency partition of hop
frequencies used by piconets. Intuitively, potential collisions will
occur between inquiry packets and packets exchanged between
piconet nodes during connection state, which lead to degraded
network performance and longer discovery process. In this
paper, we develop a mathematical model for interference caused
by a single inquiring node, and extend the model to predict the
severe interference levels due to multiple inquirers. We further
validate our mathematical model through a simulation scenario.
Analytical and simulation results proved that the probability of
packets interfered and disrupted during inquiry procedure is
periodic repeating every 3.16 sec and interference caused by a
single inquiring node is about 1.25%. Results also revealed that
five inquirers can disrupt 5.9% of network packets, and with
increased number of inquiring nodes, the interference levels
become more crucial approaching 35.3%.
Keywords: Bluetooth, Inquiry, Device Discovery, Interference
1. Introduction
Device discovery is an essential process to establish and
maintain successful Bluetooth scatternets. This process is
based on completing two phases; inquiry and paging. The
inquiry phase is used to search and locate other Bluetooth
devices within range. Nodes in a scatternet enter inquiry
substate to discover other neighboring nodes. Nodes arriving
in the vicinity as well enter inquiry substate seeking to join a
pico- or scatternet. The inquiry procedure involves sending
periodically inquiry packets on a predefined 32-frequency
subset of 79 hop frequencies used by scatternet packets in
normal connection state. Thus, interference is likely to occur
between inquiry packets and connection state packets if they
share the same frequency. Such interference will degrade
network throughput, preclude device discovery process, and
may result in undiscovered devices even within radio range.
The discovery process was discussed in previous studies.
The authors in [1] developed an analytical model for time
required by a master to discover one slave and proved that
discovery time is affected by presence of multiple potential
slaves. The work in [2] investigated optimization parameters
needed to improve the performance of Bluetooth connection
time. The authors in [5] analyzed the delay in discovery
process for different situations and proposed means to
decrease it. The proposed protocol in [6] does not separate
inquiry and page phases to decrease interference, provide
faster links, and consume less power. In [7], the authors
evaluated the factors affecting discovery time for multiple
neighboring devices and introduced a modified inquiry
scheme to accelerate discovery process. Through analysis
and simulation, the authors in [8] proposed two ways to
reduce delay in discovery process. The work in [9] analyzed
the frequency-matching delay and proposed three schemes
to speed up discovery procedure in Bluetooth.
The previous studies provided different mechanisms and
new protocols to accelerate discovery process. However, the
role of inquiry packets interference during discovery process
was under estimated in most previous researches. We
believe that reducing delay in discovery process, especially
for multiple inquirers, depends mainly on avoiding such
interference. This interference is not only generated when
inquiry packets share same frequency with connection state
packets. Both packets can also be indirectly disrupted if the
header of the preceding packet is directly disrupted, even if
they do not share the same frequency with inquiry packets.
Thus, direct and indirect disruption will aggravate the
inquiry interference problem.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In section
2, the Bluetooth inquiry substate is summarized. The
Bluetooth connection state is illustrated in section 3. In
section 4, the developed mathematical model for single
inquiring node interference is presented. The extended
model of multiple inquiring node interference is deduced in
section 5. Final conclusions are given in section 6.
2. The Bluetooth Inquiry Substate
A node enters the inquiry substate and acts as a master to
discover other potential slave nodes to form a piconet. In
contrast, a node in the inquiry scan substate acts as a slave
to be discovered by potential masters in the inquiry substate.
Inquiring nodes use their resident CLK and General Inquiry
Access Code (GIAC) address, (9E8B33)16, to generate a
frequency hopping sequence among a predetermined 32-
frequency subset of 79 Bluetooth frequencies [3]. The set of
32 inquiry frequencies is further segmented during inquiry
into two 16-frequency trains, A and B.
An inquirer chooses A or B train for initial transmission
and repeats this train for 256 times (256 x 625 usec x 16 =
2.56 sec), before switching to the other train [3]. The A-
train or B-train is chosen when the parameter KOFFSET is set
up to 24 or 8, respectively. The change of train is made by
adding 16 to the current value of KOFFSET modulo 32. Three
148
changes have to be done within inquiry procedure length,
which corresponds to 10.24 sec each 60 sec, as specified in
[3]. As shown in Fig.1, the frequencies in these trains
change over time such that each train always has 8
frequencies in the 54-69 index range (Lower Range) and 8
frequencies in the 70-79 and 1-6 index range (Upper
Range).
Figure 1. Shifting and Selection of Inquiry Frequencies
An inquiring device transmits a 68-bit inquiry packet
during an even time slot, when its two least significant clock
bits are zero (CLK1,0=002). The frequency used is pseudo-
randomly selected from lower range frequencies (FL) of the
current train, A or B. Another upper range frequency (FU)
is selected from the same train and used to transmit the
second inquiry packet 312.5 usec later when (CLK1,0=012)
as shown in Fig.2. During odd time slots, the inquirer
listens for responses from neighboring devices in inquiry
scan substate. Responses are transmitted 625 usec after an
inquiry packet is received and transmitted on same
frequencies, FL and FU [3]. The inquirer then selects new
frequencies, FL and FU, and repeats the process, collecting
data from as many neigh-boring nodes as possible during
inquiry substate duration.
Figure 2. Bluetooth Inquiry, DH1, DH3, and DH5 Packets
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
3. The Bluetooth Connection State
All members of a Bluetooth piconet hop together among
79 frequencies with a sequence that is a function of master's
28 bit free-running clock and first 28 bits of the master's 48
bit address [4]. The hop sequence cycle covers about 23.3
hours, spanning about 64 MHz of spectrum, spreading
transmissions over 80% of the available 79 MHz band, and
visiting all frequencies with equal probability [4]. The FH
channel is based on Time Division Duplexing (TDD) using
625 usec time slots. Master packets are transmitted on even
time slots and slaves respond on odd slots. Each time slot
uses different hop frequency with hopping rate 1600 hops/s.
To increase data rate, and intuitively reduce hopping rate,
multi-slot packets are defined to cover 1, 3, or 5 time slots,
named DH1, DH3, or DH5, respectively. As shown in Fig.2,
all packets contain a 72-bit Access Code to identify piconet
and 54-bit Packet header containing the 3-bit slave address.
Multi-slot packets will continue using same hop channel as
being decided by first time slot, then, the system tunes back
to the carrier frequency sequence as if only a single slot
packet had been transmitted. Using this way, the hop
frequency selection is not affected by packet lengths and all
nodes can still hop synchronously.
During connection state, the instantaneous probability of
a frequency being selected is based on 32-frequency
partitions of the Bluetooth frequency band. The hop
generator begins with a group of 32 frequencies that we call
Master Frequencies Cycle (MFC) determined by master of
piconet. The probability that a MFC is the same 32-
frequency subset as that used by the inquiry substate is 1/79.
The master transmits on a pseudo-randomly chosen
frequency from MFC. The slave subsequently transmits on a
frequency selected from a 32-frequency partition
immediately right to the MFC which we term Slave
Frequencies Cycle (SFC). Once each of the 32-frequencies
in the MFC and SFC have been used exactly once (taking 64
time slots), both intervals shift right by 16 frequencies
modulo 79 and frequency selection begins again as shown in
Fig.3. The MFC/SFC shifts such that it uses all 79
MFC/SFC combinations before repeating a MFC/SFC such
that the frequency selection is uniform across 79
frequencies. Within each MFC/SFC, the hopping sequence
is pseudo-random, based on the master’s CLK and address
[4].
Figure 3. MFC and SFC in Connection State
4. Single Inquiry Node Interference
The time delay (DL) between inquiry packets and
piconets master and slave packets is significant, since it
illustrates, not only difference between direct and indirect
interference, but also it determines which packet (master,
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 149
slave, or both) is subjected to disruption. As shown
previously in Fig.2, both piconet master and inquiring node
have coincided even time slots, thus, lower inquiry packet
FL is a potential direct interferer for master packet if both
share same frequency.
During odd time slots, slave packets are transmitted while
the inquiring node is in the inquiry scan substate receiving
responses from other nodes, then, slave packets can never be
directly disrupted. However, a slave packet can be indirectly
interfered if its preceding master packet’s Access Code (AC)
or Packet Header (PH) is directly disrupted because a slave
node can not determine whether it was addressed or not and
thus will not respond to the master. Similarly, if piconet’s
even slots coincided with inquiring node odd slots, slave /
master packets are susceptible to direct / indirect
interference, respectively.
Table 1: Effect of Inquiry Delay on Packet Disruption
The value of DL is uniformly distributed between 0 and
1250 usec, and can be divided into nine intervals (T1 to T9)
as depicted in Table 1, in which MIL / MIU denotes whether
a master packet is directly interfered by lower / upper range
frequency, and SIL / SIU denotes whether a slave packet is
directly interfered by lower / upper range frequency,
respectively. Since master / slave packet indirect
interference depends on preceding slave / master packet’s
AC or PH direct disruption, it is also important to divide the
value of DL into five intervals (T1 to T5) as shown in Table
2, in which MHIL / MHIU represents whether a master
header is directly interfered by lower / upper range
frequency, and SHIL / SHIU represents whether a slave
header is directly interfered by lower / upper range
frequency, respectively.
Table 2: Effect of Inquiry Delay on Header Disruption
Considering Fig.4 as an example, when DL1 = 250 usec,
which belongs to intervals T3 in Table 1 and T2 in Table 2,
it is clear that the master packet f(k), is subjected to direct
interference if it shares same frequency with FL (MIL=1),
while (MIU=0) since the master packet is not subjected to
direct interference even if it shares same frequency with FU.
Conversely, for a slave packet f(k+ 1), (SIL=0) since it is not
subjected to direct interference even if it shares same
frequency with FL and (SIU=1) since it is subjected to direct
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
interference if it shares same frequency with FU. It is also
important to note that, while (SHIL=0) since slave header is
not subjected to FL, the slave packet is not only threatened
by FU (SIU=1) but also it is subjected to slave header direct
interference if it shares same frequency with FU (SHIU=1),
which will lead to indirect interference for the next master
packet f(k+ 2). Since the master header f(k) is not subjected
to direct interference from either FL or FU, hence,
(MHIL=MHIU=0).
Another example in Fig.4, when DL2 = 765 usec, which
belongs to interval T6 in Table 1, the master packet f(k) does
not suffer from FL or FU, thus, (MIL=MIU=0). The slave
packet is only threatened by direct interference from FL
(SIL=1) but not suffering from FU (SIU=0) even if it shares
same frequency with FU due to 259 usec guard time. It is
obvious that this delay value, DL2 = 765 usec, does not
belong to any of five intervals in Table 2, but belongs to the
range of DL values that will cause no interference with
either MH or SH, hence, they are not even mentioned in
Table 2.
Figure 4. Offset Between Inquiry and Master/Slave Packets
Finally, from Fig.4, when DL3 = 1220 usec, which
belongs to intervals T9 in Table 1 and T5 in Table 2, both
the slave packet f(k+ 1) and slave header are not subjected,
therefore, (SIL=SIU=SHIL=SHIU=0). The master packet
f(k+ 2) is threatened by both FL and FU (MIL=MIU=1)
while MH is only subjected to FL (MHIL=1, MHIU=0).
If DL is unknown, the expected value E [MIL, MIU, SIL,
SIU] can be used instead, which is calculated by averaging
and dividing the range of values of DL which cause MIL,
MIU, SIL, and SIU to equal 1 by the total range of DL, thus:
190 + 119 + 120
E [MIL, MIU , SIL, SIU ] = = 0.344 (1)
1250
Similarly, the expected value E [MHIL, MHIU, SHIL,
SHIU] can be calculated by averaging and dividing the
range of values of DL which cause MHIL, MHIU, SHIL,
and SHIU to equal 1 by the total range of DL, hence:
E [MHIL, MHIU , SHIL, SHIU ] =
192 (2)
= 0.154
1250
The first frequency in each MFC/SFC determines how
many frequencies are shared between a MFC/SFC and both
upper and lower range frequencies. Since the starting
position of MFC/SFC is periodic repeating every 3.16 sec
(64 time slots x 625 usec x 79), hence the number of
overlapped frequencies is periodic, which means that the
probability of intersection (interference) between MFC/SFC
150 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

and both upper and lower range is also periodic and changes inquirer is 1/2 since only 8 of 16 Upper Range frequencies
according to shift in MFC/SFC, thus: are in each train. Finally, if the selected frequency is in the
used train, there is only a 1/8 chance of interference since
f (m) = mod(16m,79) + 1 0 ≤ m ≤ 79 (3) any of the 8 frequencies in the used train in the Upper
Range can be selected. A similar analysis applies to the
Where f(m) marks index of the first frequency in each
Lower Range as well. With DL unknown but uniformly
MFC and m denotes all possible shifts to start a new MFC.
distributed, E [MIL, MIU, SIL, SIU] can be used which was
Similarly, f(s) marks index of the first frequency in each
determined earlier to be 0.344. Thus, the number of
SFC and s denotes all possible shifts to start a new SFC,
frequencies shared between a MFC and all inquiry
hence:
frequencies is:
f ( s ) = mod((16s + 32),79) + 1 0 ≤ s ≤ 79 (4)
M f ( m) = M f ( m), L + M f ( m),U (9)
Thus, the number of shared frequencies between a MFC
or a SFC and lower / upper ranges of inquiry frequencies is: The probability of Direct interference between a master
packet and an inquiry packet in a MFC starting at frequency
0 .5 × (2414 − freq ( f ( m)) ) 2402 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2412 of index f(m) is:
 
 0 2414 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2476
0 .5 × ( freq ( f ( m)) − 2476 ) 2478 ≤ freq( f ( m)) ≤ 2480 (5) 0.344 (10)
M =  P ( D M , I ( f ( m))) = M f ( m)
0 .5 × ( freq ( f ( m )) − 2397 ) 2403 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2427
f ( m ),U
512
 16 2429 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2461
  Similarly, for slave packets with unknown uniformly
 0 .5 × (2493 − freq ( f ( m)) ) 2463 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2479
distributed DL, the number of frequencies shared between a
Where Mf(m),U is the number of frequencies shared SFC and all inquiry frequencies is:
between a MFC and upper range of inquiry frequencies.
S f ( s ) = S f ( s ), L + S f ( s ),U (11)
 0 2402 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2444
 
 0 . 5 × ( freq ( f ( m)) − 2444 ) 2446 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2474 The probability of Direct interference between a slave
 16 2476 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2480 (6) packet and an inquiry packet in a SFC starting at a
M f ( m ), L = 
 16 2403 ≤ freq ( f ( m)) ≤ 2429  frequency of index f(s) is:
 0.5 × (2461 − freq ( f ( m)) ) 2431 ≤ freq( f ( m)) ≤ 2459 
 
 0 2461 ≤ freq( f ( m)) ≤ 2479  P ( D S , I ( f ( s ))) =
0.344
S f ( s) (12)
512
Where Mf(m),L is the number of frequencies shared
between a MFC and lower range of inquiry frequencies. One MFC/SFC is used each 40 msec (625 usec x 64 time
slots = 40 msec), half of the packets are Master packets and
0 .5 × (2414 − freq ( f ( s )) ) 2402 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2412 the other half are Slave ones. Thus, the total probability of
  Direct interference between a master/slave packet and an
 0 2414 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2476
0 .5 × ( freq ( f ( s )) − 2476 ) 2478 ≤ freq( f ( s )) ≤ 2480 (7) inquiry packet in a MFC/SFC starting at index f(m)/f(s) is:
S f ( s ),U = 
0 .5 × ( freq ( f ( s )) − 2397 ) 2403 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2427 
 2429 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2461
P ( DM , I ( f (m))) + P ( DS , I ( f ( s )))

16
 P ( DI ( f (m), f ( s ))) = (13)
 0 .5 × (2493 − freq ( f ( s )) ) 2463 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2479  2

Where Sf(s),U is the number of frequencies shared between The Direct interference probability is periodic, repeating
a SFC and upper range of inquiry frequencies. every (3.16 sec). One complete period of P(DM,I(f(m))),
P(DS,I(f(s))), and P(DI(f(m),f(s))) is shown in Fig.5. Note that
 0 2402 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2444 the direct interference probability of a Master or Slave
 
 0 . 5 × ( freq ( f ( s )) − 2444 ) 2446 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2474 packet P(DI(f(m),f(s))) is more than 1% for about 49.37% of
 16 2476 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2480 (8) the time (1.56 sec) even though its mean value is 0.0086.
S f ( s ), L = 
 16 2403 ≤ freq ( f ( s )) ≤ 2429  Master Packet

 0.5 × (2461 − freq ( f ( s )) ) 2431 ≤ freq( f ( s )) ≤ 2459  0.02

 
 0 2461 ≤ freq( f ( s )) ≤ 2479 
0.01
Direct Interference Probability

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Where Sf(s),L is the number of frequencies shared between Slave Packet

a SFC and lower range of inquiry frequencies. 0.02

0.01

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Direct Interference Probability Master or Slave Packet

0.01
Generally, any frequency from 32 frequencies in a MFC
0.005
has a 1/32 chance of being selected. If a MFC overlaps the
0
Upper Range by Mf(m),U frequencies, hence, probability of a 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time ( sec )
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2

Master frequency being selected from Upper Range is

Mf(m),U/32. If a Master frequency is chosen from Upper Figure 5. Direct Interference Probability versus Time
Range, probability that it is in train (A or B) being used by
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 151
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

Master Packet
Indirect Interference Probability
0.02

Direct / Indirect Interference Probability

The Indirect interference probability expression can be 0.01

derived similarly regarding that a packet indirect disruption 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
is caused by the opposite type packet direct disruption. If a Slave Packet

Master/Slave packet is not disrupted, the next Slave/Master 0.02

packets can not be indirectly disrupted. Thus, probability of 0.01

0
Indirect interference between a master packet and an inquiry 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Master or Slave Packet
packet due to frequency collision in a SFC starting at a 0.02

frequency of index f(s) is: 0.01

0
0.154 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
P ( DM , I ( f ( s ))) = S f (s) (14) Time ( sec )

512
Figure 6. Direct/Indirect Interference Probability vs. Time
The probability of Indirect interference between a slave
packet and an inquiry packet due to frequency collision in a
MFC starting at a frequency of index f(m) is: 5. Multiple Inquiry Nodes Interference
Bluetooth scatternets will encounter more than one
0.154
P ( DS , I ( f (m))) = M f ( m) (15) inquiring node simultaneously. Thus, all Direct and Indirect
512 interference probabilities will be as shown below.
Note that E [MHIL,MHIU,SHIL,SHIU] is used, which
was determined earlier to be 0.154. Direct Interference Probability with n Inquirers
The probability of Direct interference between a master
Total Interference Probability packet and n inquiry packets in a MFC starting at a
frequency of index f(m) is:
The total probability of a packet being disrupted is the
sum of both its probability of direct and indirect  M f ( m), L n
n
n
 n  
∑  x (0.344) ∑  n − x(0.344) 
M f ( m),U
, I ( f ( m))) =  +
n n n
P ( DM
interference, taking into account that if the packet is  32 x=1
32 x=1 
interfered indirectly, it cannot be directly disrupted. Hence,   x 
( )
x
the total probability of Direct/Indirect interference between ∑
×   (0.5)x 1 − (7 8)y
 y= 0  y 


(19)
a master packet and an inquiry packet in a MFC/SFC  
starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), respectively, is:
The probability of Direct interference between a slave
P ( M D , D , I ( f ( m), f ( s ))) = P ( D M , I ( f ( m))) + P ( D M , I ( f ( s ))) packet and n inquiry packets in a SFC starting at a
(16) frequency of index f(s) is:
− P ( D M , I ( f ( m))) × P ( D M , I ( f ( s )))

 S f ( s ), L n
 n n
 n  
∑  x(0.344) ∑  n − x(0.344) 
The total probability of Direct/Indirect interference S f ( s ),U
P ( D Sn, I ( f ( s ))) =  n
+ n

between a slave packet and an inquiry packet in a MFC/SFC  32 x=1

32 x=1 
starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), respectively, is:  x  x 
∑
×   (0.5)x 1 − (7 8)y
 y= 0  y 
( ) 

(20)
P ( S D , D , I ( f ( m), f ( s ))) = P ( D S , I ( f ( s ))) + P ( D S , I ( f ( m)))  
(17)
− P ( D S , I ( f ( s ))) × P ( D S , I ( f ( m))) Where Mf(m),L/32 and Sf(s),L/32 are the probabilities that
Master/Slave packet is using one of the lower range inquiry
Since there are equal chances for a packet to be Master or
frequencies in a MFC/SFC starting at frequencies of index
Slave, the total probability of Direct/Indirect interference
f(m)/f(s), respectively. Similarly, Mf(m),U/32 and Sf(s),U/32 are
between a master/slave packet and an inquiry packet in a
the probabilities that Master/Slave packet is using one of the
MFC/SFC starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), is:
upper range inquiry frequencies in a MFC/SFC starting at
P ( MD, D, I ( f (m), f ( s))) + P ( SD, D,I ( f (m), f ( s))) frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), respectively.
P ( I D, D ( f (m), f ( s))) = (18)
2
For n inquiry nodes, the probabilities of a master/slave
One complete period (3.16 sec) of the direct/indirect packet being subjected to Direct interference in the
interference probabilities for a Master packet, a Slave lower/upper range by x/n-x out of n inquiry packets with
packet, and Master or Slave packet, is shown in Fig.6. Note
are   (0 .344 )n and  n 
n
that the direct/indirect interference probability of a Master
unknown delays  n − x  (0 . 344 )n
 x  
or Slave packet approaches 1.5% approximately 46.84% of respectively.
the time (1.48 sec) even though its mean value is 0.0125.
 x
  (0 . 5 )x is the probability that y of x inquiry nodes are
 y
using the train which contains the same master/slave
frequency.
152 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

Finally, the probability that at least one inquiry node is The direct and direct/indirect interference probabilities
using the same master/slave frequency, assuming that for n= 5 of a Master/Slave packet, are shown in Fig.7,
piconet packet is subjected and in the same train and range respectively. Note that the direct interference probability of
is (1 − (7 8 )y ). a Master or Slave packet approaches 5% approximately
44.3% of the time (1.4 sec) even though its mean value is
The total probability of Direct interference between 0.0411. Whereas the direct/indirect interference probability
master/slave packet and n inquiry packets in a MFC/SFC of a Master or Slave packet is above 7% approximately
starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), respectively, is: 46.84% of the time (1.48 sec) even though its mean value is
0.0594.
P ( DMn , I ( f ( m))) + P ( DSn, I ( f ( s )))
P ( DIn ( f ( m), f ( s ))) = (21)
0.06
Master or Slave Packet
2

In terfe re nc e P ro b a b ility
0.04

Dire c t
Indirect Interference Probability with n Inquirers 0.02

The probability of Indirect interference between a master 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
packet and n inquiry packets due to frequency collision in a Master or Slave Packet
SFC starting at a frequency of index f(s) is: 0.08

Inte rfe re n c e Pro b a bility

D ire c t/Ind ire c t
0.06

 S f ( s ), L n
 n  n
n 
∑ ∑
S f ( s ),U
 n − x  (0.154 ) + 32  x (0 .154 ) 
0.04
P ( D Mn , I ( f ( s ))) =  n n

 32 x=1   x=1    0.02

 x  x 
( )
0

∑
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
×   (0.5)x 1 − (7 8)y (22) Time ( sec )
 y= 0  y 
 
Figure 7. Interference Probabilities of 5 Inquirers vs. Time
The probability of Indirect interference between a slave
packet and n inquiry packets due to frequency collision in a A MATLAB simulation was conducted to verify our
MFC starting at a frequency of index f(m) is: mathematical models. The scenario involved multiple
piconets, with random clock and address values, generating
 M f ( m), L n
 n  n
 n 
∑  n − x(0.154) ∑  x(0.154) 
M f ( m),U both master and slave packets as MFC/SFC achieves all 79
P ( D Sn, I ( f ( m))) =  n
+ n

 32 x=1
32 x=1  possible shifts. Up to 60 Inquiring nodes arrive to piconets
  x  neighborhood with random DL between 0 and 1250 usec.
( )
x

∑
×   (0.5)x 1 − (7 8)y
 y= 0  y 


(23)
The mean Direct/Indirect collisions between piconets
  packets and inquiry packets were recorded every 3.16 sec.
Analytical and simulation results are shown in Fig.8, from
Where the probabilities of a master/slave packet being
which it is clear that as number of inquiring nodes
subjected to Indirect interference in the lower/upper range
increases, interference levels become more crucial.
by n-x/x out of n inquiry packets with unknown delays are
Considering only direct interference, probability approaches
 n  n
  (0 . 154 )n and   (0 .154 )n respectively. 30.7%. Including direct and indirect interference, it
 n − x  x
approaches 35.3% since Master/Slave packets transmitted in
Upper or Lower Range are disrupted and indirectly cause
Total Interference Probability with n Inquiry Nodes next Slave/Master packets to be interfered even if the next
The total probability of Direct/Indirect interference Slave/Master frequencies do not overlap the Upper/Lower
between a master packet and n inquiry packets in a frequency Ranges.
MFC/SFC starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), is: 0.4

0.35
P ( M Dn , D , I ( f ( m), f ( s ))) = P ( D M
n
, I ( f ( m))) + P ( D M , I ( f ( s )))
n
(24)
To tal Interfere nc e P ro bab ility

0.3
− P (D M
n
, I ( f ( m))) × P ( D M , I ( f ( s )))
n

0.25

The total probability of Direct/Indirect interference 0.2

between a slave packet and n inquiry packets in a MFC/SFC
0.15
starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), respectively, is:
0.1
Direct Interference Probability (Derived)
P ( S Dn , D , I ( f ( m), f ( s ))) = P ( D Sn, I ( f ( s ))) + P ( D Sn, I ( f ( m)))
(25) 0.05
Direct Interference Probability (Simulated)
Direct/Indirect Interference Probability (Derived)
− P ( D Sn, I ( f ( s ))) × P ( D Sn, I ( f ( m))) Direct/Indirect Interference Probability (Simulated)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Number of Inquiring Nodes
Finally, total probability of Direct/Indirect interference
between a master/slave packet and n inquiry packets in a Figure 8. Interference Probabilities for Multiple Inquirers
MFC/SFC starting at frequencies of index f(m)/f(s), is:

P ( M Dn , D , I ( f (m), f ( s ))) + P ( SDn , D , I ( f ( m), f ( s ))) (26)

P ( I Dn , D ( f ( m), f ( s ))) =
2
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 153
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

6. Conclusions
In this paper, we showed that during discovery process,
the potential collisions between both inquiry and scatternet
packets in connection state are significant. Scatternet nodes
and inquiring nodes will be affected by such interference
that degrades network throughput and elongate discovery
time. We further developed a mathematical model for
interference probability caused by a single inquirer, and
extended the model to predict the severe interference levels
due to multiple inquiring nodes. Results revealed that
interference probability is periodic, repeating every 3.16 sec
over all possible MFC/SFC. The interference caused by a
single inquirer is 1.25%. Five inquiring nodes result in
interference probability of more than 7% for approximately
1.48 sec even though the mean probability of interference is
only 0.059. However, as number of inquirers increase, the
interference levels become more crucial. Considering only
direct interference, results proved that probability reaches
30.7%. Including both direct and indirect interference, it
approaches 35.3% since Master/Slave packets transmitted in
Upper or Lower Range are always disrupted and indirectly
cause the next Slave/Master packets to be interfered.

References
[1] D. Chakraborty, G. Chakraborty, K. Naik, N. Shiratori,
“Analysis of the Bluetooth device discovery protocol”,
Springer Wireless Networks Journal, February 2010,
Vol. 16, pp.421-436.
[2] T. Thamrin, S. Sahib, “The Inquiry and Page
Procedure in Bluetooth Connection,” IEEE Inter.
Conf. SOCPAR09, Dec.2009, pp.218-222.
[3] www.bluetooth.com, “Bluetooth Specification
v4.0”,Dec.17,2009
[4] M. Khaled, H. Xiong, Q. Gao, “Performance
Estimation and Evaluation of Bluetooth Frequency
Hopping Selection Kernel,” IEEE International
Conference ICPCA09, Dec.2009, pp.461-466.
[5] D. Chakraborty, G. Chakraborty, S. Naik, N. Shiratori,
“Discovery and Delay Analysis of Bluetooth Devices”,
IEEE International Conference MDM06, May 2006,
pp.113-117.
[6] S. Z. Kardos, A. Vidacs, “Performance of a new device
discovery and link establishment protocol for
Bluetooth”, IEEE International Conference
GLOBECOM05, January 2006, Vol.6, pp.3522-3527.
[7] X. Zhang, G.F. Riley, “Evaluation and accelerating
Bluetooth device discovery,” Radio and Wireless
Symposium, Jan. 2006, pp.467-470.
[8] G. Chakraborty, K. Naik, D. Chakraborty, N. Shiratori,
& D. Wei, , “Delay analysis and improvement of the
device discovery protocol in Bluetooth”, IEEE
Vehicular Tech. Conf., 2004, Los Angeles, USA.
[9] J. Jiang, B. Lin, & Y. Tseng, “Analysis of Bluetooth
device discovery and some speedup mechanisms”,
Journal of Institute of Electrical Engineering, 2004,
11(4), 301–310.