Skip to main content

Fair Channel Sharing by Wi-Fi and LTE-U Networks with Equal Priority

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks (CrownCom 2016)

Abstract

The paper is concerned with the problem Wi-Fi and LTE-U networks sharing access to a band of communication channels, while also considering the issue of fairness in how the channel is being shared. As a criteria of fairness for such joint access, \(\alpha \)-fairness and maxmin fairness with regards to expected throughput are explored as fairness metrics. Optimal solutions are found in closed form, and it is shown that these solutions can be either: (a) a channel on/off strategy in which access to the channels is performed sequentially, or (b) a channel sharing strategy, i.e., where simultaneous joint access to the channels is applied. A criteria for switching between these two type of optimal strategies is found, and its robustness on the fairness coefficient is established, as well as the effectiveness of the fairness coefficient to control the underlying protocol of the joint access to the shared resource is managed. Finally, we note that the approach that is explored is general, and it might be adapted to different problems for accessing a sharing resource, like joint sharing of voice and data traffic by cellular carriers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barbagallo, P., McElgunn, T.: 3Gpp Set to Study LTE over Unlicensed Technology, Sowing New Spectrum Battles. Bloomberg BNA, 10, September 2014. http://www.bna.com/3gpp-set-study-n17179894699/

  2. Cavalcante, A.M., et al.: Performance evaluation of LTE and Wi-Fi coexistence in unlicensed bands. In: IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), pp. 1–6 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Abinader, F.M., et al.: Enabling the coexistence of LTE and Wi-Fi in unlicensed bands. IEEE Comm. Mag. 52, 54–61 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu, F., Bala, E., Erkip, E., Yang, R.: A framework for femtocells to access both licensed and unlicensed bands. In: International Symposium Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks (WiOpt), pp. 407–411 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hajmohammad, S., Elbiaze, H., Ajib, W.: Fine-tuning the femtocell performance in unlicensed bands: case of WiFi Vo-existence. In: International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 250–255 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hajmohammad, S., Elbiaze, H.: Unlicensed spectrum splitting between femtocell and WiFi. In: IEEE International Conference Communication (ICC), pp. 1883–1888 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jian, Y., Shih, C.-F., Krishnaswamy, B., Sivakumar, R.: Coexistence of Wi-Fi and LAA-LTE: experimental evaluation, analysis and insights. In: IEEE International Conference Communication (ICC), pp. 10387–10393 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cano, C., Leith, D.: Coexistence of WiFi and LTE in unlicensed bands: a proportional fair allocation scheme. In: IEEE International Conference Communication (ICC), pp. 10350–10355. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sagari, S., Seskar, I., Raychaudhuri, D.: Modeling the coexistence of LTE and WiFi heterogeneous networks in dense deployment scenarios. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference Communication (ICC), pp. 10363–10368 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Raychaudhuri, D., Baid, A.: NASCOR: network assisted spectrum coordination service for coexistence between heterogeneous radio systems. IEICE Trans. Comm. E97–B, 251–260 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sagari, S., Baysting, S., Sahay, D., Seskar, I., Trappe, W., Raychaudhuri, D.: Coordinated dynamic spectrum management of LTE-U and Wi-Fi networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Dynamic Spectrum Access Network (DySPAN), pp. 209–220 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Huaizhou, S., Prasad, R.V., Onur, E., Niemegeers, I.: Fairness in wireless networks: issues, measures and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 16, 5–24 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mo, J., Walrand, J.: Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 8, 556–567 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim, S.: Multi-objective power control algorithm for femtocell networks. Wireless Pers. Commun. 75, 2281–2288 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Altman, E., Avrachenkov, K., Garnaev, A.: Generalized \(\alpha \)-fair resource allocation in wireless networks. In: 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2414–2419 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Altman, E., Avrachenkov, K., Garnaev, A.: Fair resource allocation in wireless networks in the presence of a jammer. Perform. Eval. 67, 338–349 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garnaev, A., Sagari, S., Trappe, W.: Fair allocation of throughput under harsh operational conditions. In: Jonsson, M., Vinel, A., Bellalta, B., Tirkkonen, O. (eds.) MACOM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9305, pp. 108–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Yerramalli, S., Jain, R., Mitra, U.: Coalitional games for transmitter cooperation in MIMO multiple access channels. IEEE Trans. Sign. Proc. 62, 757–771 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Altman, E., Avrachenkov, K., Garnaev, A.: Jamming in wireless networks: the case of several jammers. In: International Conference on Game Theory for Networks (GameNets 2009), pp. 585–592 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garnaev, A., Hayel, Y., Altman, E.: A Bayesian jamming game in an OFDM wireless network. In: 10th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks (WIOPT), pp. 41–48 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Altman, E., Avrachenkov, K., Garnaev, A.: Transmission power control game with SINR as objective function. In: Altman, E., Chaintreau, A. (eds.) NET-COOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5425, pp. 112–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Garnaev, A., Trappe, W., Kung, C.-T.: Dependence of optimal monitoring strategy on the application to be protected. In: IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), pp. 1054–1059 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Garnaev, A., Trappe, W.: One-time spectrum coexistence in dynamic spectrum access when the secondary user may be malicious. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10, 1064–1075 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Garnaev, A., Trappe, W.: A bandwidth monitoring strategy under uncertainty of the adversary’s activity. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 11, 837–849 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marina, N., Arslan, G., Kavcic, A.: A power allocation game in a four node relaynetwork: an upper bound on the worst-case equilibrium efficiency. In: Conference onTelecommunications (ICT), pp. 1–6 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Garnaev, A., Baykal-Gursoy, M., Poor, H.V.: Incorporating attack-type uncertainty into network protection. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 9, 1278–1287 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrey Garnaev .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

A Appendix I: Proof of Theorem 1

To find the optimal \({{\varvec{q}}}=bq_\alpha \) define the Lagrangian \(L_\omega ({{\varvec{q}}})=v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}})+\omega (1-q^W-q-q^L).\) Thus, \({{\varvec{q}}}\) is the optimal probability vector then the following conditions has to hold:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{P^W}{(q^WP^W+qP^W_L)^\alpha } {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} =\omega ,&{}q^W>0,\\ \le \omega ,&{}q^W=0, \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(11)
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{P^L}{(q^LP^L+qP^L_W)^\alpha } {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} =\omega ,&{}q^L>0,\\ \le \omega ,&{}q^L=0, \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(12)

and

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{P^W_L}{(q^WP^W+qP^W_L)^\alpha }+\frac{P^L_W}{(q^LP^L+qP^L_W)^\alpha } {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} =\omega ,&{}q>0,\\ \le \omega ,&{}q=0. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(13)

Thus, the boundary strategies \({{\varvec{q}}}=(1,0,0)\) and \({{\varvec{q}}}=(0,0,1)\) cannot be optimal.

First we find the condition when the rest boundary strategy \({{\varvec{q}}}=(0,1,0)\) can be optimal. Substituting it into (11)–(13) implies that the following condition has to hold: \(\omega =(P^W_L)^{1-\alpha }+(P^L_W)^{1-\alpha }\ge \max \{P^L/(P^L_W)^\alpha ,P^W/(P^W_L)^\alpha \}.\) This condition is equivalent to (8), and (d) follows.

Let us pass to finding channel sharing optimal strategy, i.e., with \(q>0\). Then, either \(q^W=0\) or \(q^L=0\).

Let \(q^L=0\). Then, (11)–(13) turn into the following conditions

$$\begin{aligned} P^W/(q^WP^W+qP^W_L)^\alpha =\omega , \end{aligned}$$
(14)
$$\begin{aligned} P^L/(qP^L_W)^\alpha \le \omega \end{aligned}$$
(15)

and

$$\begin{aligned} P^W_L/(q^WP^W+qP^W_L)^\alpha +P^L_W/(qP^L_W)^\alpha =\omega . \end{aligned}$$
(16)

By (14),

$$\begin{aligned} q^WP^W+qP^W_L= \left( P^W/\omega \right) ^{1/\alpha }. \end{aligned}$$
(17)

Since \(q^W+q=1\) then \((1-q)P^W+qP^W_L= \left( P^W/\omega \right) ^{1/\alpha }.\) So,

$$\begin{aligned} q=\left( 1 - (P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }/\omega ^{1/\alpha }\right) /\left( 1-P^W_L/P^W\right) . \end{aligned}$$
(18)

By (14) and (16),

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{P^W_L}{P^W}\omega +\frac{P^L_W}{(qP^L_W)^\alpha }=\omega . \end{aligned}$$
(19)

Thus,

$$\begin{aligned} q=\frac{(P^L_W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }}{(1-P^W_L/P^W)^{1/\alpha }\omega ^{1/\alpha }}. \end{aligned}$$
(20)

By (18) and (20),

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1 - (P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }/\omega ^{1/\alpha } }{1-P^W_L/P^W}=\frac{(P^L_W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }}{(1-P^W_L/P^W)^{1/\alpha }\omega ^{1/\alpha }}. \end{aligned}$$
(21)

Thus,

$$\begin{aligned} \omega ^{1/\alpha }=(P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }+\left( \frac{P^L_W}{1-P^W_L/P^W}\right) ^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }. \end{aligned}$$
(22)

Thus,

$$\begin{aligned} q=\frac{\displaystyle \frac{(P^L_W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }}{(1-P^W_L/P^W)^{1/\alpha }}}{\displaystyle (P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }+\left( \frac{P^L_W}{1-P^W_L/P^W}\right) ^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }}. \end{aligned}$$
(23)

It is clear that \(q>0\). Since, \({{\varvec{q}}}\) is the probability vector we have to find only the condition for q being less or equal to 1. By (23), it is equivalent to

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{(P^L_W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }}{\left( 1- P^W_L/ P^W\right) ^{1/\alpha }} \le (P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }+\left( \frac{P^L_W}{1- P^W_L/P^W}\right) ^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }. \end{aligned}$$
(24)

The last inequality is equivalent to

$$\begin{aligned} (P^L_W)^{1-\alpha }(P^W_L)^{\alpha }\le P^W-P^W_L. \end{aligned}$$
(25)

Finally we have to find the condition that (15) holds. Substituting q from (20) into (15) implies (b).

The case \(q^W=0\) as well as the case \(q=0\), \(q^W>0\) and \(q^L>0\) can be considered similarly, and (a) and (c) follow. To deal with (e) denote by \({{\varvec{q}}}_b\) and \({{\varvec{q}}}_c\) the optimal strategies given by (b) and (b). The previous analyze yields that in (d) the optimal strategy is \({{\varvec{q}}}_b\) if \(v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_b)>v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_c)\), and it is \({{\varvec{q}}}_c\) if \(v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_b)<v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_c)\).

Note that, by (17) and (19),

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_b)=\frac{1}{1-\alpha }\left( \frac{P^W}{\omega }\right) ^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }+\frac{1}{1-\alpha }\left( \frac{P^L_W}{\left( 1- P^W_L/P^W\right) \omega }\right) ^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }. \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(26)

Substituting (22) into (26) yields

$$ (1-\alpha )v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_b)=((P^W)^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha }+(P^L_W/(1- P^W_L/P^W))^{(1-\alpha )/\alpha })^\alpha .$$

By symmetry, \(v_\alpha ({{\varvec{q}}}_c)\) can be found, and the result follows.    \(\blacksquare \)

B Appendix II: Proof of Theorem 2

The maxmin problem is equivalent to the following LP problem

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\text{ maximize } \, \nu ,\\&q^W P^W+q P^W_L\ge \nu , q P^L_W+q^L P^L\ge \nu ,\ q^W+q+q^L=1, q^W, q, q^L \ge 0. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(27)

Let for while the component q of the strategy \({{\varvec{q}}}\) be fixed and optimal, while Then, component \(q^W\) and \(q^L\) might vary. Since \(q^W+q^L=1-q\) the optimal \(q^W\) can be found as a solution of the following problem:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\text{ maximize } \,\nu ,\\&q^W P^W+q P^W_L\ge \nu ,q P^L_W+(1-q)P^L-q^WP^L \ge \nu , q^W\in [0,1-q]. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(28)

First we look for the optimal channel sharing strategy, i.e., when \(q>0\). Figure 5 illustrates that the solution of LP problem (28) can be found as an intersection of the corresponding lines.

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Solution of the LP problem

Thus, the channel sharing solution holds if and only if \((1-q)P^L+q P^L_W>qP^W_L\) and \((1-q)P^W+q P^W_L>qP^L_W.\) These inequalities are equivalent to

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} (1-q)P^L>q(P^W_L-P^L_W) \text{ and } (1-q)P^W>q(P^L_W-P^W_L). \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(29)

Since either \(P^W_L\ge P^L_W\) or \(P^L_W>P^W_L\), then one of the conditions (29) always hold. Without loss of generality we assume that

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} P^W_L\ge P^L_W. \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(30)

Then, conditions (29) are equivalent to

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} q\le 1/(1+(P^W_L-P^L_W)/P^L). \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(31)

Let us switch on to finding the optimal \(\nu \) and \(q^W\). By Fig. 5 and (28),

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} q^W P^W+q P^W_L=q P^L_W+(1-q)P^L-q^WP^L =\nu . \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(32)

Thus,

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} q^W=(P^L-(P^L+P^W_L-P^L_W)q)/(P^L+P^W). \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(33)

Thus, by (30), \(q^W\) is decreasing in q, and

$$\begin{aligned} {\begin{matrix} \nu =(P^WP^L+(P^LP^W_L+P^WP^L_W-P^LP^W)q)/(P^W+P^L). \end{matrix}} \end{aligned}$$
(34)

So, (33) and (34) give channel sharing solution of (27) for a fixed q, and (31) is the condition such solution holds. Note that, by (34), \(\nu \) is increasing in q if \(P^LP^W_L+P^WP^L_W>P^LP^W\), and \(\nu \) is decreasing in q otherwise. Thus, if (30) holds, then the channel sharing solution exists (\(q>0\)) if and only if \(P^LP^W_L+P^WP^L_W>P^LP^W,\) and then \(q=1/(1+(P^W_L-P^L_W)/P^L).\) Substituting this q into (33) implies \(q^W=0\). Thus, \(q^L=1-q\). The case of the channel on/off optimal strategy can be considered similarly, and the result follows.    \(\blacksquare \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

About this paper

Cite this paper

Garnaev, A., Sagari, S., Trappe, W. (2016). Fair Channel Sharing by Wi-Fi and LTE-U Networks with Equal Priority. In: Noguet, D., Moessner, K., Palicot, J. (eds) Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks. CrownCom 2016. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 172. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40352-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40352-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40351-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40352-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics