Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
Engineering ProceedingsEngineering Proceedings
  • Proceeding Paper
  • Open Access

26 April 2023

Analysis of AgRED Performance in LR-WPAN Dense Ad-Hoc Networks †

,
,
and
1
Department of Electronic Engineering, NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
2
Department of Physics, NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
3
Department of Telecommunication Engineering, NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
4
Centre for Cyber Security, Faculty of Information Science and Technology (FTSM), University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi 43600, Malaysia
This article belongs to the Proceedings The 2nd International Conference on Emerging Trends in Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering

Abstract

IEEE defines the standard 802.15.4 for Low Data Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPAN) to be used with Internet of Things (IoT) sensor devices. IoT devices utilizing this standard suffer from traffic congestion on a node level in dense network scenarios in real time applications. Active queue management (AQM) schemes can optimize the queues of the nodes in order to relive nodes from congestion and improve performance. This paper investigates the impact of Aggressive Random Early Detection (AgRED) AQM in dense network configuration with larger payload and higher service rate for LR-WPAN. The findings indicate better delay, throughput and packet delivery ratio when using AgRED as compared to RED.

1. Introduction

Monitoring and controlling several aspects of large networks has seen a breakthrough with the arrival of IoT and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) [1]. Sensor devices that used to utilize IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) in the unlicensed spectrum suffer from congestion due to high density and larger bandwidth as specified by the standard [2]. The information that needs to be communicated commonly consist of small data that do not require high bandwidth but connectivity to the gateway and co-existence of a large number of devices that IEEE 802.11 cannot provide [3]. Therefore, IEEE defines a new standard 802.15.4 [4] to support small sensor devices that use low communication range, smaller bandwidth and low energy, but with the ability to crease much denser networks in a smaller area. 802.15.4 is the base for several other LR-WPAN [5] technologies that build on it including Zigbee, Bluetooth low energy, DASH7, ISA100.11a, 6LoPAN, and WirelessHart.
Although the problem of co-existence and appropriate bandwidth are addressed in the standard, devices used under the IEEE 802.15.4 standard are small and have limited resources, and therefore suffer from packet drops due to queue overflows. AQM techniques can be used to optimize queues of small sensors as AQM techniques are very simple to implement and do not require much in the way of computational resources. AgRED [6], based on Random Early Detection (RED) [7], provides performance improvements in severely congested networks.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents some of the work in the literature focusing on small sensor deployment. Section 3 presents the ways in which AgRED addresses the congestion in small nodes to optimize queue overflows. The results after intensive simulation and analysis are presented in Section 4, while Section 5 presents conclusions and future work.

3. Methodology

RED optimizes queue by maintaining an average queue length aql at all times bounded by two threshold levels minth and maxth as shown in Figure 1. Both threshold levels are configurable parameters with maxth being close to the maximum queue length of the node.
Figure 1. RED queue parameters.
RED works by randomly dropping or marking the arriving packets with a probability if the aql is between two threshold levels, while no packet dropping or marking takes place if aql is below minth. Similarly, if maxth is defined as less than the maximum queue capacity and aql is greater than maxth, then all the arriving packets are dropped by the queue. Dropping enough packets will ensure that aql will stay between the two threshold levels. Parameter aql is determined by the equation below:
a q l = q a v g m i n t h m a x t h m i n t h
While the dropping probability is determined by the equation below:
P d = P m a x × a q l
where, Pmax is also a configurable parameter with default value of 0.1, which means that each arriving packet, when aql is between minth and maxth, will have a dropping probability of 10% of aql. RED was made to work with TCP connections so that dropped packets are retransmitted with no loss of information but it also causes the TCP sending window to shrink. Although these issues were later addressed by the research community, RED also suffers from performance drops as RED behavior still allows queue overflows [13].
AgRED modifies the linear behavior of RED such that dropping probability allows packet dropping aggressively when the aql is near minth. Dropping probability of AgRED PAgRED uses a sigmoid function that is most commonly used in deep learning and defined below:
P A g R E D = 1 1 + P d
where Pd from Equation (2) is modified to
P d = e M A X ( P A g R E D ) × e q a v g e m i n t h e m a x t h e m i n t h

4. Simulation Parameters

For the purpose of evaluation of AgRED performance in comparison with RED, a scenario of 500 m2 is chosen with a dense arrangement of nodes that support IEEE 802.15.4 LR-WPAN. Simulation is run on OMNET++ simulation software with INET framework, where modifications have been carried out in RED filter module. Every simulation is repeated five times with constant seeds for random numbers generation. The routing protocol used to communicate is AODV [1], while any other routing protocol can be chosen, such as OLSR or BATMAN [14]. The nodes are following random motion using Gauss Markov mobility model from INET. The parameters that are analyzed are payload variations and send interval delay. The payload supported by IEEE 802.15.4 is 127 bytes but supports fragmentation; therefore, larger payloads can also be tested. More detailed simulation parameters are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Simulation parameters.

5. Results

AgRED is put against the base RED protocol for AQM for LR-WPAN in the tests. Figure 2 shows that packet delay from source to destination for AgRED is at least five times less as compared to RED regardless of the payload or packet interval. It is clear from the results that increase in payload also increases the delivery times. This is due to higher number fragmentation of packets which also increases that chance more packets are dropped randomly by the algorithm, while packet send interval relives the queue with a lesser number of packets, thereby decreasing the packet delivery times. Average queue length analysis is necessary in finding out the performance of the queue management scheme. Figure 3 shows that AgRED queue length is kept minimal, therefore allowing majority of arriving packets a place in the queue regardless of variations in both variables. With the ability to allow more packets into the queue, AgRED’s ability to deliver more packets as compared to RED is shown in Figure 4. Here, the overall packet delivery reduces with increasing payload due to fragmentation; however, at the payload of 1000 bytes, the difference between AgRED and RED closes. Increase in send interval overall deliver more packets as the queue relives more often as compared to the higher frequency of packet arrival in queues. Throughput follows an inverse trend of delay as shown in Figure 5. Throughput of AgRED is twice as high as that of RED. A payload of 1000 bytes offers the lowest throughput for both RED and AgRED but still remains twice as high as RED. Packet send interval also impacts the throughput, where the lowest throughput achieved was on a 10 ms packet delay which is suspicious and further study needs to be carried out.
Figure 2. Average delay of AgRED and RED with (a) payload and (b) packet send interval.
Figure 3. Average queue length of AgRED and RED with (a) payload and (b) packet send interval.
Figure 4. Packets received of AgRED and RED with (a) payload and (b) packet send interval.
Figure 5. Throughput of AgRED and RED with (a) payload and (b) packet send interval.

6. Conclusions

Wireless sensor nodes supporting LR-WPAN standard provide better co-existence and appropriate bandwidth for communication but suffer from queue overflows in dense networks due to small queues and limited resources. AQM techniques can provide alternate dropping mechanism for fair delivery of packets. Tests were conducted on the basis of varying payload and send intervals of packets with AgRED and RED AQM techniques. AgRED in our tests performs better as compared to original RED in terms of packet delivery, throughput, delay and less queue utilization. Further improvements can be achieved by using fair queue scheduling combined with AgRED to filter larger flows in order to increase throughput and reduce resource utilization.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbas, T.; Qamar, F.; Hindia, M.N.; Hassan, R.; Ahmed, I.; Aslam, M.I. Performance analysis of ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing protocol for MANET. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD), Batu Pahat, Malaysia, 27–29 September 2020; pp. 194–199. [Google Scholar]
  2. Danbatta, S.J.; Varol, A. Comparison of Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, and bluetooth wireless technologies used in home automation. In Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), Barcelos, Portugal, 10–12 June 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hindia, M.N.; Qamar, F.; Abbas, T.; Dimyati, K.; Abu Talip, M.S.; Amiri, I.S. Interference cancelation for high-density fifth-generation relaying network using stochastic geometrical approach. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2019, 15, 1550147719855879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Molisch, A.F.; Balakrishnan, K.; Chong, C.-C.; Emami, S.; Fort, A.; Karedal, J.; Kunisch, J.; Schantz, H.; Schuster, U.; Siwiak, K. IEEE 802.15. 4a channel model-final report. IEEE P802 2004, 15, 0662. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ramonet, A.G.; Noguchi, T. IEEE 802.15. 4 now and then: Evolution of the LR-WPAN standard. In Proceedings of the 2020 22nd International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), PyeongChang, Republic of Korea, 16–19 February 2020; pp. 1198–1210. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jafri, S.T.A.; Ahmed, I.; Ali, S. Queue-Buffer Optimization Based on Aggressive Random Early Detection in Massive NB-IoT MANET for 5G Applications. Electronics 2022, 11, 2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Floyd, S.; Jacobson, V. Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1993, 1, 397–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pan, R.; Natarajan, P.; Baker, F.; White, G. Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem; IETF: Fremont, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nichols, K.; Jacobson, V.; McGregor, A.; Iyengar, J. Controlled Delay Active Queue Management; IETF: Fremont, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoeiland-Joergensen, T.; McKenney, P.; Taht, D.; Gettys, J.; Dumazet, E. The Flow Queue Codel Packet Scheduler and Active Queue Management Algorithm; IETF: Fremont, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kua, J.; Nguyen, S.H.; Armitage, G.; Branch, P. Using active queue management to assist IoT application flows in home broadband networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 1399–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, M.; Jaseemuddin, M.; Anpalagan, A. Deep reinforcement learning based active queue management for iot networks. J. Netw. Syst. Manag. 2021, 29, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Koo, J.; Song, B.; Chung, K.; Lee, H.; Kahng, H. MRED: A new approach to random early detection. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information Networking, Beppu City, Japan, 31 January–2 February 2001; pp. 347–352. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jafri, S.T.A.; Ahmed, I.; Ali, S.; Yahaya, J.; Qamar, F.; Abdullah, Z.H. Split Hop Penalty for Transmission Quality Metrics in a Better Approach to Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (BATMAN) for IoT-Based MANET. Symmetry 2023, 15, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.