Admission control in Bluetooth piconets

We analyze the performance of E-limited scheduling in Bluetooth piconets under bursty traffic for infinite and finite buffer cases. We show that E-limited service outperforms exhaustive service in terms of end-to-end delay and that the delays may be minimized through the proper choice of a single variable parameter: the number of packets to be exchanged during a single visit to a slave. Using analytical results for access delay and end-to-end delay, as well as suitable approximations thereof, we propose three novel admission algorithms. The simplest algorithm is based on queue stability, which makes it suitable for battery power-limited masters. The second algorithm estimates the access delay of the slave upon admission using the estimated first and second moments of the vacation times and makes the admission decision on the basis of predefined access delay bounds. The third algorithm is based on the predefined cycle time bounds, which makes it suitable for applications that generate constant-bit-rate data flows. We also present results for the performance of TCP traffic under E-limited scheduling.

[1]  Abhishek Das,et al.  Enhancing performance of asynchronous data traffic over the Bluetooth wireless ad-hoc network , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

[2]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  On optimal polling policies , 1992, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[3]  Deepak Bansal,et al.  Data scheduling and SAR for Bluetooth MAC , 2000, VTC2000-Spring. 2000 IEEE 51st Vehicular Technology Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37026).

[4]  Jelena V. Misic,et al.  Modeling Bluetooth piconet performance , 2003, IEEE Communications Letters.

[5]  Thierry Turletti,et al.  FPQ: a fair and efficient polling algorithm with QoS support for Bluetooth Piconet , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[6]  Mario Gerla,et al.  Efficient polling schemes for Bluetooth picocells , 2001, ICC 2001. IEEE International Conference on Communications. Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37240).

[7]  Jelena Mi Bridges of Bluetooth County: Topologies, Scheduling, and Performance , 2003 .

[8]  Hideaki Takagi,et al.  Queuing analysis of polling models , 1988, CSUR.

[9]  Sally Floyd,et al.  Wide area traffic: the failure of Poisson modeling , 1995, TNET.

[10]  Chatschik Bisdikian,et al.  Bluetooth Revealed: The Insider's Guide to an Open Specification for Global Wireless Communications , 2001 .

[11]  G. F. Newell,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Queues. , 1963 .

[12]  D. R. Manfield Analysis of a Priority Polling System for Two-Way Traffic , 1985, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[13]  Jelena V. Misic,et al.  Bridges of Bluetooth county: topologies, scheduling, and performance , 2003, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[14]  Moshe Sidi,et al.  Dominance relations in polling systems , 1990, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[15]  Edmund Taylor Whittaker,et al.  A Course of Modern Analysis , 2021 .

[16]  Geert J. Heijenk,et al.  Polling Best Effort Traffic in Bluetooth , 2002, Wirel. Pers. Commun..