Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Network

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 2, Issue 07, 2014 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 633
Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for
Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Networks
Preeti1
Pardeep Kumar2
Shanu Malhotra3
1,2
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering 3
Department of Computer Science &
Engineering
1,2
SSGI, Yamuna Nagar, India 3
ISTK, Yamuna Nagar, India
Abstract— By virtue of their robustness, cost-effectiveness,
self-organizing and self-configuring nature, WMNs have
emerged as a new network paradigm for a wide range of
applications, such as public safety and emergency response
communications, intelligent transportation systems, and
community networks. It is anticipated that WMNs will not
only resolve the limitations of wireless ad hoc networks,
local area networks (WLANs), personal area networks
(WPANs), and metropolitan area networks (WMANs) but
also significantly improve such networks’ performance. One
fundamental problem of WMNs with a limited number of
radio interfaces and orthogonal channels is that the
performance degrades significantly as the network size
grows. This results from increased interference between
nodes and diminished spatial reuse over the network. In this
paper, it is proposed to evaluate the performance of two
different channel assignment schemes namely common
channel assignment (CCA) and centralized tabu-based
search algorithm under WCETT routing protocols for
varying traffic load in terms of packet delivery ratio,
throughput, average end to end delay and routing overhead
using NS2 network simulator. WCETT protocol uses the
weighted sum of the cumulative expected transmission time
and the maximal value of efficient channels among all
channels.
Key words: WMN, CCA, WCETT, NS2
I. WIRELESS NETWORKS
Wireless Communication is an application of science and
technology that has come to be vital for modern existence.
Wireless networking is an emerging technology that allows
users to access information and services electronically,
regardless of their geographic position. From the early radio
and telephone to current devices such as mobile phones and
laptops, accessing the global network has become the most
essential and indispensable part of our lifestyle. Wireless
communication is an ever-developing field, and the future
holds many possibilities in this area. Now users are able to
move freely and still have seamless, reliable and high-speed
network connectivity. Portable computers and hand-held
devices will do for data communication what cellular
phones are now doing for voice communication. Traditional
network mobility focused on roaming, which is
characterized by hosts connecting to the fixed infrastructure
internet at locations other than their well known home
network address. Hosts can connect directly to the fixed
infrastructure on a visited subnet through a wireless link or a
dial-up line, these so called traditional (or fixed-
infrastructure mobile) networks raise issues such as address
management, but do not require significant, changes to core
network functions such as routing.
A. Differences between Ad Hoc Wireless Networks and
Wireless Mesh Networks
 If we consider mobility, many ad hoc wireless
networks are high mobile networks and their
network topologies change dynamically. On the
other hand, WMNs have relatively static mobility
where relay nodes are mostly fixed, so its network
mobility is low compared to ad-hoc wireless
networks.
 One bigger constraint in ad-hoc wireless network is
energy because nodes in these networks may not
have a constant power source, while WMNs nodes
have better energy storage and power source due to
the static topology, formed by fixed relay nodes.
 Deployment may be easy in ad-hoc networks,
while in WMNs we may require planning.
 For the application scenario, most ad-hoc wireless
networks are temporary, and WMNs are mostly
semi-permanent or permanent. In addition, WMNs
can be used for both military and civilian
applications; an example is the provision of low
cost Internet services in public places.
B. Wireless Mesh Networks
Wireless Mesh Network (WMN) [1] is a highly promising
technology and it plays an important role in the next
generation wireless mobile network. WMNs have emerged
as important architectures for the future wireless
communications. A wireless mesh network (WMN) is
a communications network made up of radio nodes
organized in a mesh topology. Wireless mesh networks
often consist of mesh clients, mesh routers and gateways. A
mesh network is reliable and offers redundancy. When
one node can no longer operate, the rest of the nodes can
still communicate with each other, directly or through one or
more intermediate nodes. The animation below illustrates
how wireless mesh networks can self-form and self-heal.
Wireless mesh networks can be implemented with various
wireless technology including 802.11, 802.15, 802.16,
cellular technologies or combinations of more than one type.
Wireless mesh architecture is a first step towards providing
cost effective and dynamic high-bandwidth networks over a
specific coverage area. Wireless mesh architectures
infrastructure is, in effect, a router network minus the
cabling between nodes. It's built of peer radio devices that
don't have to be cabled to a wired port like traditional
WLAN access points (AP) do. Mesh architecture sustains
signal strength by breaking long distances into a series of
shorter hops. Intermediate nodes not only boost the signal,
but cooperatively make forwarding decisions based on their
knowledge of the network, i.e. perform routing. This type of
infrastructure can be decentralized (with no central server)
or centrally managed (with a central server), both are

Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Networks
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/144)
relatively inexpensive, and very reliable and resilient, as
each node needs only transmit as far as the next node. Nodes
act as routers to transmit data from nearby nodes
to peers that are too far away to reach in a single hop,
resulting in a network that can span larger distances.
Fig. 1: Wireless Mesh Network
The topology of a mesh network is also reliable, as
each node is connected to several other nodes. If one node
drops out of the network, due to hardware failure or any
other reason, its neighbors can quickly find another route
using a routing protocol.
C. Wireless Mesh Network Architecture
WMNs consist of two types of nodes: Mesh Routers and
Mesh Clients.
 Wireless mesh router [1] contains additional
routing functions to support mesh networking. To
further improve the flexibility of mesh networking,
a mesh router is usually equipped with multiple
wireless interfaces built on either the same or
different wireless access technologies .Compared
with a conventional wireless router, a wireless
mesh router can achieve the same coverage with
much lower transmission power through multi-hop
communications.In spite of all these differences,
Moreover, the gateway/bridge functionalities in
mesh routers enable the integration of WMNs with
various existing wireless networks such as cellular,
wireless sensor, wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi)
worldwide inter-operability for microwave access
(WiMAX)[5] .
 Mesh Clients are the Conventional nodes (e.g.,
desktops, laptops, PDAs, Pocket PCs, phones,
etc.) equipped with wireless network interface
cards (NICs), and can connect directly to wireless
mesh routers .
The architecture of WMNs can be classified into three
main groups based on the functionality of the nodes:
D. Infrastructure/Backbone Wireless Mesh Networks
This type of WMNs includes mesh routers forming an
infrastructure for clients that connect to them. The WMN
infrastructure backbone can be built using various types of
radio technologies, in addition to the mostly used IEEE
801.11 technologies. The mesh routers form a mesh of self-
configuring, self-healing links among themselves. With
gateway functionality, mesh routers can be connected to the
Internet. This approach, also referred to as infrastructure
meshing, provides backbone for conventional clients and
enables integration of WMNs with existing wireless
networks, through gateway/bridge functionalities in mesh
routers. Conventional clients with Ethernet interface can be
connected to mesh routers via Ethernet links. The
architecture is shown in Fig 1 [1], where dash and solid lines
indicate wireless and wired links, respectively.
Fig. 1: Infrastructure/backbone WMN
E. Client Wireless Mesh Networks
In this type of Client WMN, nodes constitute peer-to-peer
network, and perform routing and configuration
functionalities as well as provide end-user applications to
customers, mesh routers are not required. They support
Multi-hop routing. Client nodes have to perform additional
functions such as routing and self-configuration. The basic
architecture is shown in Fig 2 [1].
Fig. 2: Client WMNs
F. Hybrid Wireless Mesh Networks
This architecture shown in Fig. 3 [1] is the combination of
infrastructure and client meshing. Mesh clients can access
the network through mesh routers as well as directly
meshing with other mesh clients. While the infrastructure
provides connectivity to other networks such as the Internet,
Wi-Fi, WiMAX, cellular, and sensor networks and the
routing capabilities of clients provide improved connectivity
and coverage inside the WMN.

Fig. 3: Hybrid WMNs
G. Routing and Channel Assignment protocols
Unlike ad hoc wireless networks, most of the nodes in
WMNs are stationary and thus dynamic topology changes
are less of a concern. Also, wireless nodes in WMNs are
mostly access points and Internet gateways and thus are not
subject to energy constraints. As a result, the focus is shifted
from maintaining network connectivity in an energy
efficient manner to finding high-throughput routes between
nodes, so as to provide users with the maximal end-to-end
throughput. In particular, because multiple flows initiated by
multiple nodes may engage in transmission at the same time,
how to locate routes that give the minimal possible
interference is a major issue. The issue of locating
interference free routes can roughly divided into two
complimentary approaches.
Fig. 4: A taxonomy of routing and channel assignment protocols for WMNs
H. Expected Transmission Count (ETX)
This metric calculates the expected number of transmissions
(including retransmissions) needed to send a frame over a
link, by measuring the forward and reverse delivery ratios
between a pair of neighboring nodes [9]. To measure the
delivery ratios, each node periodically broadcasts a
dedicated link probe packet of a fixed size. The probe packet
contains the number of probes received from each
neighboring node during the last period. Based on these
probes, a node can calculate the delivery ratio of probes on
the link to and from each of its neighbours. The expected
number of transmissions is then calculated as
ETX = 1/df × dr
where df and dr are the forward and reverse
delivery ratio, respectively. With ETX as the route metric,
the routing protocol can locate routes with the least expected
number of transmissions. Note that the effects of link loss
ratios and their asymmetry in the two directions of each link
on a path are explicitly considered in the EXT measure.
Measurements on wireless testbeds [9,10] show that, for the
source-destination pairs that are with two or more hops, use
of ETX as the route metric renders routes with throughput
significantly higher than use of the minimum hop count.
I. Expected Transmission Time (ETT)
One major drawback of ETX is that it may not be able to
identify high-throughput routes, in the case of multi-radio,

multi-rate wireless networks. This is because ETX only
considers the packet loss rate on a link but not its
bandwidth. ETT has thus been proposed to improve the
performance of ETX in multi-radio wireless networks that
support different data rates. Specifically, ETT includes the
bandwidth of a link in its computation [9],
ETT = ETX × S/B
where S and B denote the size of the packet and the
bandwidth of the link, respectively. ETT considers the
actual time incurred in using the channel. In order to
measure the bandwidth B of each link, a node sends two
probe packets of different sizes to each of its neighbours
every minute. The receiver node measures the difference
between the instants of receiving the packets, and forwards
the information to the sender. The bandwidth is then
estimated by the sender node by dividing the larger packet
size by the minimum of 10 consecutive measurements.
1) Weighted Cumulative ETT (WCETT)
What ETX and ETT have not explicitly considered is the
intra-flow interference. WCETT was proposed [9] to reduce
the number of nodes on the path of a flow that transmit on
the same channel. Specifically, let Xc be defined as the
number of times channel c is used along a path. Then
WCETT for a path is defined as the weighted sum of the
cumulative expected transmission time and the maximal
value of among all channels, i.e.,
WCETT= ∑ ∑
where β (0 <β<1) is a tunable parameter. Moreover,
the two terms also represent a trade-off between achieving
low delay and high throughput. Reducing the first term
reduces the delay, while reducing the second term increases
the achievable link throughput. The tunable parameter β is
used to adjust the relative importance of the two objectives.
Modified Expected Number of Transmissions (mETX) and
Effective Number of Transmissions (ENT) Another issue
which ETX does not consider is the effect of short-term
channel variation, i.e., ETX takes only the average channel
behavior into account for the route decision. In order to
capture the time-varying property of a wireless channel, the
metrics mETX and ENT were proposed in [11] which took
into account both the average and the standard deviation of
the observed channel loss rates. Specifically, mETX is
expressed as
mETX =exp (µ∑ +1/2 ∑)
where µ∑ and ∑are the average and variability of
the channel bit error probability. In some sense, mETX
incorporates the impact of physical layer variability in the
design of routing metrics. On the other hand, when the
problem of maximizing aggregate throughput with the
packet loss rate constraint is considered, mETX may not be
sufficient since the links which mETX selects may achieve
the maximum link-layer throughput but incur high loss rates
at the same time. The ENT metric is devised to meet both
objectives.
II. RELATED WORK
According to [1], In MAC layer, depending on which
network node take responsibility of the coordination of
medium access, MAC can be categorized into two major
types: centralized MAC and distributed MAC. In WMNs,
due to its distributed nature, distributed MAC is preferred.
The MAC protocols for WMNs can be classified into two
types: single-channel and multi-channel MAC protocols .
According to [2], To select a routing path in
WMNs, the routing algorithm requires to consider network
topology, and the routing path selection is to twist with
resource allocation, interference reduction and rate
adaptation in multiple hops. An MR-MC routing protocol
not only require to select a path between different nodes ,
but it also require to select the most effective channel or
radio node on the path.
According to [3], TC is considered as an additional
protocol layer between the routing and MAC layer in the
protocol stack . The routing layer is required for finding and
maintaining the paths between source/destination pairs in
the network, and for routing packets toward the destination
at the intermediate nodes on the route. Two-way interactions
may occur between the routing protocol and TC protocol.
The TC protocol, which create and maintains the list of the
all immediate neighboring nodes, can send a route update in
case it detects that the neigh borers list is considerably
changed, and hence leading to a faster response time to
topology changes and to decrease packet-lost rate.
According to [4], the authors work on TC in
WMNs generally can be categorized to centralized and
distributed approaches. The centralized TC approach have a
central server that is responsible for periodically information
collection and adaptation. However, the scalability of such
kind of approach may be an issue to be addressed. Due to
Given large number of nodes (e.g., hundreds of nodes), in
conjunction with only a reasonable set of interfaces per
node and limited number of channels available in the
network, the information of the whole network to be
transferred is astronomical. On the other hand, distributed
TC algorithms have not based on central server, in which
every node controls the topology by using its local
information.
According to [5], the authors identifies the problem
of TC has been studied deeply for wireless ad hoc
networks and power control is the main issue to construct
interference optimal topologies through careful tuning of the
node transmitting power.
According to [6], In MR-MC WMN, along with
power control (PC), TC is linked with channel assignment
(CA) in many ways. In handling the connectivity issue in
MR-MC WMNs, the CA decision can actually modifies the
network topology, which is a main difference between the
SR-MC networks. The problem of TC in MR-MC WMNs
has automatically been handled in conjunction with CA .
According to [7], some collective TC and routing
protocols have been proposed recently . The result of them
show that the collective optimization measures increases the
performance of the whole network significantly. So, how to
jointly optimize TC, CA, and routing is also a main task that
must be deal with.
According to [8], Directional antennas is another
main technology proposed as one of the viable means to
increase the performance of WMNs including enhance
capacity, and range of communications, reduce the
interference, conserve the energy and resolving collisions .
According to [9], the difference between Topology
Control(TC) and Power Control (PC) is defined: TC may

affect layers upper than PC, by choosing not to make some
node adjacencies visible to the network layer (e.g., by
filtering at the MAC layer). On the other hand, PC almost in
every results has some effect on the topology. Moreover, the
goal of PC may not be same as TC but for power
conservation etc.
According to [10], There are two centralized
optimal procedures for creating connected and bi-connected
static networks with aiming of minimizing the maximum
transmitting power level for every node.
According to [11], There are two main methods to
measure interference. The first is based on topology
characteristics, for example by counting number of
neighboring nodes using the same channel The second is
based on measuring traffic load carried in neighborhood
rather than only the number of neighboring nodes using the
same channel .
According to [12], the authors proposed a joint
topology control and routing (JTCR) protocol for MR-MC
networks to make use of both channel diversity and spatial
reusability, which addressed collective topology control and
routing problem in an IEEE 802.11-based MR-MC wireless
mesh networks. An Equivalent Channel Air Time Metric
(ECA TM) was developed to quantify the difference of
various adjustment candidates.
According to [13], thw authors examined
interference-aware TC and QoS routing in multi-channel
wireless mesh networks based on IEEE 802.11 with
dynamic traffic. They described a original definition of co-
channel interference to accurately capture the influence of
the interference.
According to [14], the authors developed three-step
solution starts by constructing a set of routing trees and seek
to balance the traffic among tree links. In the second step, it
performs interface allocation for each node in the tree with
the objective of balancing traffic load among the links
served by every node. Finally, it performs channel allocation
and antenna orientation to minimal interference while
covering all the intended neighbors of the node.
III. PROPOSED METHODOLGY
Multiradio Multichannel Wireless Mesh Network uses
multiple network interfaces per node allows simultaneous
transmission and reception on different interfaces tuned to
different channels, which can substantially improve
multihop throughput. A key issue to be addressed in a multi-
radio mesh network architecture is the Channel assignment
problem that involves assigning (mapping) channels to radio
interfaces to achieve efficient utilization of available
channels. A simple approach to address this issue is
common channel assignment (CCA) assumed in , where
radio interfaces at each node are assigned to the same set of
channels. Clearly, CCA leads to inefficient channel
utilization in the typical case where number of interfaces per
node is fewer relative to the number of channels. Generally,
the “goodness” of a channel assignment rests on two factors:
connectivity and interference (dependent on load). With
multiple radio interfaces operating on different channels,
two nodes can communicate only if each of them has an
interface assigned to a common channel. Assigning many
interfaces to a few channels can provide richer connectivity,
but has the undesirable effect of increasing interference
among transmissions on those channels. Thus, the channel
assignment has to balance between minimizing interference
(on any given channel) and maintaining sufficient
connectivity. In this sense, the channel assignment in a
multihop wireless network can be viewed as a Topology
control problem.
A. Simulation Methodoly
In this paper, we experimentally analyze the impact of
Common Channel Assignment (CCA) and centralized tabu
search algorithm against WCETT routing protocol over
varying offered load scenarios over multiradio multichannel
wireless mesh networks using network simulator such as
ns2. A detail simulation model based on NS-2 has been used
in the evaluation, and in order to perfectly evaluate the
effect of channel assignment schemes while WCETT
routing protocol is used under different traffic offered load
scenarios over MRMC WMN. For traffic source and
application, File Transport Protocol (FTP) is used above the
agent TCP. The channel assignment strategies that have
been used throughout the simulations were CCA and
Centralized tabu search algorithm respectively. The data
generator is FTP. 1040 byte data packets are used from
sender to receiver and 40 byte acknowledgments are used
from receiver to sender. Mobility models were created for
the simulations using 30 nodes, and this model was set in
such a way that first all the 30 nodes were provided with
initial location in the given rectangular topography field.
The field configuration used is: 1500 m x 1500 m field.
Different traffic offered load scenarios are used across the
CCA and Centralized Tabu search algorithm under WCETT
protocol to collect fair results. Table 1 shows the important
simulation parameters used in the simulation process
Parameter Value
Simulation area 1500m x 1500m
No. of nodes 30
No. of interfaces/ node 2
No. of channels/ node 5
Traffic FTP
Routing protocol WCETT
Transport Layer TCP
Channel Assignment
Strategies
CCA, Centralized Tabu search
algorithm.
Table 5.1: Important Simulation Parameters
B. Effect of CCA and Centralized Tabu search algorithm
on Throughput
Figure 5 shows the impact of constant and variable channel
assignment schemes on the throughput when the offered
load is varied over MRMC MWN. Simulation results shows
WCETT routing protocol that is specifically designed for
WMN, gives better performance for centralized tabu based
search algorithm (MICA). Simulation graph shows that as
traffic load increase the performance metric throughput
increases but variable channel assignment strategy (
centralized tabu based search scheme) better performs than
commonly used constant channel assignment scheme (
CCA) under WCETT routing protocol that increases the
achievable link throughput over MRMC WMN.

Fig. 5: Throughput vs. offered load
C. Effect of CCA and Centralized Tabu search algorithm
on PDR
Figure 6 shows the packet delivery ratio for two different
channel assignment strategies uner WCETT routing protocol
when the taffic load is varied. Simulation results shows that
for higer traffic load, WCETT routing protocol gives better
performace for centralized tabu based channel assignment
strategy.
Fig. 6: PDF vs. offered load
D. Effect of CCA and Centralized Tabu search algorithm
on Average End to End Delay
Average End to End delay is the average time taken by a
data packet to reach from source node to destination node. It
is ratio of total delay to the number of packets received.
Figure 7 shows the Average delay for two different channel
assignment strategies uner WCETT routing protocol when
the taffic load is varied. Simulation results shows that
centralized tabu-based serach scheme takes longer time than
common channel assignment scheme for MRMC wireless
mesh network.
Fig. 7: Average delay vs. offered load.
E. Effect of CCA and Centralized Tabu search algorithm
on Routing Overhead
Figure 8 shows the routing overhead for two different
channel assignment strategies uner WCETT routing protocol
when the taffic load is varied. Simulation results shows that
for higer traffic load, WCETT routing protocol gives better
performace for centralized tabu based channel assignment
strategy. Simulation results shows that centralized tabu-
based serach scheme has higher routing overhead time than
common channel assignment scheme for MRMC wireless
mesh network.
Fig. 8: Routing overhead vs. offered load
IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the effect of offered load is examined on to
evaluate the performance Weighted Cumulative ETT
(WCETT) routing protocol under common channel
assignment (CCA) and centralized tabu-based channel
assignment over multiradio multichannel wireless mesh
network. we have identified the key challenges associated
with assigning channels to radio interfaces in a multi-radio
wireless mesh network. In a realistic WMN. The working of
centralized tabu-based algorithm is divided into two phases.
In the first phase, each node sends packets with the preferred
strategy reception channel. If channel is available, then
selected as the preferred channel reception. If there is no
available channel, channel actions are performed with the
node that is further away from it. In the second phase, the
node uses the channel selected in the first phase to send and
receive data. The channel selection algorithms that are used
are built on simple rules that avoid the collision. From the
simulations results, it is observed that as the traffic load
increases, the throughput in the case of centralized tabu-
based algorithm decreases. The packet delivery ratio of
centralized tabu-based search is almost similar to common
channel assignment. The average end-to-end delay of
centralized tabu-based search protocol is less as compared to
CCA algorithm for higher traffic load. Thus, we can
conclude that assumed variable channel assignment scheme
is better than common channel assignment scheme over
MRMC WMN.
REFERENCES
[1] F Theoleyre, B Darties, A Duda (2009) “Assignment
of roles and channels for a multichannel mac in
wireless mesh networks” 18th International
Conference on Computer Communications and
Networks, pp. pp. 1–6.
[2] S Khan, KK Loo, ZU Din (2009) “Cross layer design
for routing and security in multi-hop wireless
networks” J. Inf. Assu. Secur 4, 170–173.
[3] P Santi (2005) “Topology Control in Wireless Ad
Hoc and Sensor Networks” John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
New York.
0
500
1000
5 10 15 20 25
Throughput(Kbps)
offered load
WCETT
Centralized
Tabu-based
CCA
73.00%
74.00%
75.00%
76.00%
5 10 15 20 25
PDF(%)
offered load
WCETT
Centralized
Tabu-based
Common
Channel
0
0.01
0.02
5 10 15 20 25
AverageDelay(sec)
offered load
WCETT
Centralized
Tabu-based
CCA
0
5
10
5 10 15 20 25
RoutingOverhead
offered load
WCETT
Centralized
Tabu-based
CCA

[4] M Labrador, P Wightman (2009) “Topology Control
in Wireless Sensor Networks: with a companion
simulation tool for teaching and research” Springer,
Berlin.
[5] T Johansson, L Carr-Motyckova (2005) “Reducing
interference in ad hoc networks through topology
control” DIALM-POMC’05 , pp. 17–23.
[6] KN Ramachandran, EM Belding, KC Almeroth, MM
Buddhikot (2006) “Interference aware channel
assignment in multi-radio wireless mesh networks”
in Proc, ed. by . of INFOCOM’06 (Barcelona, Spain),
pp. 1–12.
[7] L Li, C Zhang, “Joint channel width adaptation,
topology control, and routing for multi-radio multi-
channel wireless mesh networks” IEEE, CCNC.
[8] JA Stine (2006) “Exploiting smart antennas in
wireless mesh networks using contention access”
IEEE J. Wirel. Commun 13(2), pp. 38–49.
[9] PH Pathak, R Dutta (2011) “A survey of network
design problems and joint design approaches in
wireless mesh networks” IEEE Commun. Surv.
Tutor 13(3), pp. 396–428.
[10]R Ramanathan, R Rosales-Hain (2000) “Topology
control of multihop wireless networks using transmit
power” in Proc, ed. by . of INFOCOM’00, vol. 2, pp.
pp. 404–413.
[11]H Skalli, S Ghosh, SK Das, L Lenzini, M Conti
(2007) “Channel assignment strategies for multiradio
wireless mesh networks: issues and solutions” IEEE
Commun. Mag 45(11),pp. 86–93.
[12]L Chen, Q Zhang, M Li, W Jia (2007) “Joint
topology control and routing in IEEE 802.11 based
multiradio multichannel mesh networks” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol 56, pp. 3123–3136.
[13]J Tang, G Xue, C Chandler, W Zhang (2006) “Link
scheduling with power control for throughput
enhancement in multihop wireless networks” IEEE
Trans. Veh.Technol 55(3), pp. 733–742.
[14]Q Liu, X Jia, Y Zhou (2011) “Topology control for
multi-radio multi-channel wireless mesh networks
using directional antennas” Springer J. Wirel.
Netws 17(1), pp. 41–51.

Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Network

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Network (20)

More from ijsrd.com (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Quantative Analysis and Evaluation of Topology Control Schemes for Utilizing Multiradio Multichannel in Wireless Mesh Network