Performance comparison of IEEE 802.11, and ETSI HIPERLAN type 1 under influence of burst noise channel

We have compared different performance measures of the two standardized WLANs, IEEE 802.11 and ETSI HIPERLAN type 1. Two essential performance-limitation factors have been considered: the BER of the fading air medium and the number of stations in the ad-hoc network. Regarding the HIPERLAN 1, most of the performance measures are insensitive to the number of stations due to the more sophisticated but complex EY-NPMA MAC protocol. However, its high overhead redundancy causes great throughput degradation as the BER is increased. The relatively simple and low overhead CSMA/CD protocol in the IEEE 802.11 suffers from many collisions at higher loads, producing high sensitiveness to the number of stations.

[1]  E. Gilbert.  Capacity of a burst-noise channel , 1960 .

[2]  Nj Piscataway,et al.  Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications , 1996 .

[3]  Giuseppe Anastasi,et al.  Stability and performance analysis of HIPERLAN , 1998, Proceedings. IEEE INFOCOM '98, the Conference on Computer Communications. Seventeenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Gateway to the 21st Century (Cat. No.98.

[4]  Jae-Hyun Kim,et al.  Throughput and Packet Delay Analysis of IEEE 802.11 MAC Protocol for Wireless LANs , 1996 .

[5]  Kaveh Pahlavan,et al.  Wideband local access: wireless LAN and wireless ATM , 1997 .

[6]  Indra Widjaja,et al.  IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks , 1997, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[7]  Z. Hadzi-Velkov,et al.  Influence of burst noise channel and hidden terminals over the IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs , 1999, Gateway to 21st Century Communications Village. VTC 1999-Fall. IEEE VTS 50th Vehicular Technology Conference (Cat. No.99CH36324).

[8]  Luciano Lenzini,et al.  MAC protocols for wideband wireless local access: evolution toward wireless ATM , 1998, IEEE Wirel. Commun..