TOURNAMENT ARENA SIMULATION FOR A WIRELESS ‘ECOSYSTEM’ IN UNLICENSED BANDS BY KINJAL DESAI A thesis submitted to the Graduate School—New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Program in Electrical and Computer Engineering Written under the direction of Professor Roy D. Yates and approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey January, 2005 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Tournament Arena Simulation for a Wireless ‘Ecosystem’ in Unlicensed Bands by Kinjal Desai Thesis Director: Professor Roy D. Yates TheFCChasbeenallocatingsectionsoftheradiospectrumasunlicensedbandsoverthe period of last decade with the motivation of promoting diversity and novelty of wireless systems, services and technologies. The most recent in this series is the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII), a 300 MHz of radio spectrum at 5 GHz, providing promising avenues for modern multimedia applications in 3G systems and beyond. No license is required to operate in the unlicensed band, though there could be some minimal rules that the systems need to conform to. Due to the significant cost in- volved in bandwidth acquisition through licensing, the unlicensed bands provide an attractive alternative to service providers in terms of time and cost of development and deployment. This latitude, however comes at the price of enhanced mutual interference ii because now there are multiple wireless systems, autonomous and non-cooperating, competing for common media resources. WINLAB proposes the novel concept of sim- ulating ‘tournaments’ between these competing systems as a way of looking at this problem from the simulation and modeling angle. This thesis describes the Tournament Arena Simulator (TAS), a simulation envi- ronment, developed for staging these tournaments between different autonomous wire- less systems. The TAS involves modules for radiochannel, mobility, geography andthe mobile station transceiver to accurately portray all aspects of the real unlicensed band scenario. The transceiver module has the added capability of reconfigurability and dy- namic class loading. This endows the TAS with the facility to dynamically reconfigure or rewrite the transceiver module in order to implement different autonomous systems andthenmake them competewith each other simultaneously. Thefundamentalsystem levelassumptionisthattheenvironmentsupportsonlysynchronousDS-CDMAsystems in a mobile ad-hoc network scenario with point-to-point connections. The implemen- tation is done in the Java binding of the Scalable Simulation Framework (SSF), a new publicdomaindiscreteeventsimulator. Thethesis alsogoesontodemonstratetheutil- ity and the operability of the TAS through performance evaluation of several standard systems and staging of sample tournaments between specific systems of interest. iii Acknowledgements I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Professor Roy D. Yates for his consistent guidance, patience, and enthusiasm over last 5 years. Though the work was spread over an extended period of time, with substantial periods of inactivity at times, his advice was always insightful, and precise, and came with the right amount of encouragement and urgency. I was always enthused to do my very best, and am thankful to him for that. IwouldalsoliketothankDr. ChristopherRoseforprovidingtimely guidancewhenever sought, and Dr. Narayan Mandayam, for, among other things, teaching some of the best communications engineering courses that I ever took, which contributed greatly towardsthethesis. Iamalsothankfultothemforagreeingtoserveonmythesisdefense committee. I am grateful to WINLAB and all the wonderful people that I was fortunate to work with, for making this such a worthwhile experience. Special thanks to Ivan Seskar and histeamfortimeandagainprovidingcrucialtechnicalsupportduringthetimeIworked remotely on this, and to Melissa Gelfman for similar supporton the administrative side of things. I will be ever indebted to my fellow students and researchers at WINLAB for their contribution to the thesis as well as my entire WINLAB experience. I would like to make special mention of Vikram Kaul and Ivana Maric for being ever-reliable iv friends and excellent guides on this journey. The passionate group meetings, seminars and thesis defenses, the stimulating discussions in the wee hours of the morning, the interesting logistics of figuringoutone’smailandkitchen clean-up turns,theChristmas parties - these will remain as some of my most cherished memories and I am thankful to all the people who made these possible. Finally, I wish to thank my parents, Pratibha and Janak Desai, my sister Mrunmayi Desai, and my faithful group of friends in New Jersey, as well as in San Diego, for their unflinching love and support, for making sure I go the entire distance in this endeavor. v Dedication To my mother, and my father. vi Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Unlicensed bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Examples of unlicensed bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1. ISM band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2. U-PCS band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 vii 2.2.3. U-NII band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2. Radio propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3. Geography and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4. Transceiver mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. SSF Domain Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.1. Separation of modeling and simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.2. Object-oriented design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.3. Event-driven executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.4. Parallelization Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2.5. Dynamic Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3. SSF Model Abstractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3.1. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3.2. process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 viii 4.3.3. Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.4. inChannel and outChannel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5. Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.2. Simulation Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.3. MobileTerminal Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.4. RadioChannel Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.5. Mobility Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. Transceiver Reconfigurability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.1. Transceiver module requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.2. Transceiver module implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.3. Transceiver Feedback Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6.4. Environment Reconfigurability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6.5. Reconfiguration parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 7. Sample Transceivers and Tournaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 7.1. Transceivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 7.1.1. Transceiver Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 7.2. Tournaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 ix 7.2.1. Tournament 1: Single Transceiver System in the Arena . . . . . 69 7.2.2. Tournament 2: Two Equal-sized Transceiver Systems in the Arena 74 7.2.3. Tournament 3: Two Unequal-sized Transceiver Systems in the Arena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 8. Conclusion and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix A. Java-SSF Example Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Appendix B. Transceiver Reconfiguration Primer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 x