1: %%% For submission to Trans. on Information Theory
2: \documentclass[11pt,journal,onecolumn]{IEEEtran}
3: %\usepackage{subfigure}
4: \usepackage{epsfig,graphicx,psfrag}
5: %\usepackage{amsfonts,amsthm,amssymb,amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amsfonts,amssymb,amsmath}
7:
8: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
10: %\theoremstyle{definition}
11: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
12: \newtheorem{condition}{Condition}
13: \newtheorem{example}{Example}
14: \newcommand{\ints}{{\mathbb N}}
15: \newcommand{\mc}{{\mathcal MC}}
16: \newcommand{\hp}{{\hat{P}}}
17: \newcommand{\hq}{{\hat{Q}}}
18: \newcommand{\ha}{{\hat{A}}}
19: \newcommand{\hb}{{\hat{B}}}
20: \newcommand{\vV}{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{V}\hspace{-.05in}}
21: \newcommand{\vv}{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{v}\hspace{-.05in}}
22: \newcommand{\vu}{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{u}\hspace{-.05in}}
23: \newcommand{\marginnote}[1]{\marginpar{\small #1}}
24: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\tends}{{\to}}
27: \newcommand{\cq}{{\cal{Q}}}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30: \title{Throughput and Delay in Random Wireless Networks with Restricted
31: Mobility}
32: \author{James Mammen and Devavrat Shah
33: \thanks{J. Mammen is with the department of Electrical Engg. at Stanford
34: University. D. Shah is with the departments of EECS and ESD at
35: MIT. Emails: jmammen@stanford.edu; devavrat@mit.edu.}}
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: Grossglauser and Tse (2001) introduced a mobile random network model
40: where each node moves independently on a unit disk according to a
41: stationary uniform distribution and showed that a throughput of
42: $\Theta(1)$ is achievable. El Gamal, Mammen, Prabhakar and Shah
43: (2004) showed that the delay associated with this throughput scales as
44: $\Theta\left(n\log n\right)$, when each node moves according to an
45: independent random walk. In a later work, Diggavi, Grossglauser and
46: Tse (2002) considered a random network on a sphere with a restricted
47: mobility model, where each node moves along a randomly chosen great
48: circle on the unit sphere. They showed that even with this
49: one-dimensional restriction on mobility, constant throughput scaling
50: is achievable. Thus, this particular mobility restriction does not
51: affect the throughput scaling. This raises the question whether this
52: mobility restriction affects the delay scaling.
53:
54: This paper studies the delay scaling at $\Theta(1)$ throughput for a
55: random network with restricted mobility. First, a variant of the
56: scheme presented by Diggavi, Grossglauser and Tse (2002) is presented
57: and it is shown to achieve $\Theta(1)$ throughput using different (and
58: perhaps simpler) techniques. The exact order of delay scaling for this
59: scheme is determined, somewhat surprisingly, to be of $\Theta(n\log
60: n)$, which is the same as that without the mobility restriction. Thus,
61: this particular mobility restriction \emph{does not} affect either the
62: maximal throughput scaling or the corresponding delay scaling of the
63: network. This happens because under this 1-D restriction, each node is
64: in the proximity of every other node in essentially the same manner as
65: without this restriction.
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \begin{keywords}Random wireless networks, scaling laws, constant
69: throughput scaling, delay, 1-D mobility.
70: \end{keywords}
71:
72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
73: \section{Introduction}
74: \label{s:intro}
75: Gupta and Kumar \cite{GK} introduced a random network model for
76: studying throughput scaling in a fixed wireless network (that is, when
77: the nodes do not move). They defined a random network to consist of
78: $n$ nodes where each node is distributed uniformly and independently
79: on the unit sphere in ${\mathbb R}^3$. The network has $n/2$ distinct
80: source-destination pairs formed at random. Each node can transmit at
81: $W$ bits-per-second provided that the interference is sufficiently
82: small. They showed that in such a random network the throughput scales
83: as $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n\log n})$ per source-destination (S-D) pair.
84:
85: Grossglauser and Tse \cite{GT} showed that by allowing the nodes to
86: move, the throughput scaling changes dramatically. Indeed, if node
87: motion is independent across nodes and has a uniform stationary
88: distribution, a constant throughput scaling ($\Theta(1)$) per S-D pair
89: is feasible. This raised the question: what kind of mobility is
90: necessary for achieving constant throughput scaling? Diggavi,
91: Grossglauser and Tse \cite{DGT} considered a restricted mobility model
92: where each node is allowed to move along a randomly chosen great
93: circle on the unit sphere with a uniform stationary distribution along
94: the great circle. They showed that a constant throughput per S-D pair
95: is feasible even with this restricted mobility model. Thus they
96: established that node motion with a stationary distribution on the
97: entire network area is not necessary for achieving constant throughput
98: scaling.
99:
100: El Gamal, Mammen, Prabhakar and Shah \cite{EMPS} (see
101: \cite{EMPS_TDto_fluid} for complete details) determined the
102: throughput-delay trade-off for both fixed and mobile wireless
103: networks. In particular, it was shown that for mobile networks at
104: throughput of $\Theta(1)$, the delay is $\Theta(n\log n)$. For mobile
105: networks, the mobility model consisted of each node moving
106: independently according to a symmetric random walk on a
107: $\sqrt{n}\times \sqrt{n}$ grid on the unit torus.
108: %>>> \footnote{The same delay scaling holds when the random network is
109: %formed on a sphere, as in this paper.}.
110:
111: The constant throughput scaling result of \cite{DGT} for a network
112: with restricted mobility raises the question whether the high
113: throughput in spite of restricted mobility is at the expense of
114: increased delay. Motivated by this question, we study the delay
115: scaling for constant throughput scaling in a network with restricted
116: mobility. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that delay scaling is not
117: affected by this mobility restriction either. That is, delay scales as
118: $\Theta(n\log n)$, which is the same as the delay scaling when
119: mobility is not restricted. This paper is a consolidation of the
120: preliminary work presented in \cite{MS04}.
121:
122: This seemingly surprising result can be explained as follows. Since
123: there are $n$ nodes in a network of constant area, the neighborhood of
124: each node is $\Theta(1/n)$. Based on this, let us say that two nodes
125: {\em meet} or are {\em neighbors} when they are within a distance of
126: $\Theta\left(1/\sqrt{n}\right)$. The following condition ensures
127: constant throughput scaling in the mobile network models presented in
128: \cite{GT}, \cite{DGT} and this paper: {\em for $\Theta(1/n)$ fraction of the
129: time, each node is a neighbor of every other node with only
130: $\Theta(1)$ other nodes in its neighborhood}. This ensures that the total network
131: throughput is $\Theta(n)$ and that it is distributed evenly among the
132: $n/2$ S-D pairs, so that the throughput is $\Theta(1)$. Delay is
133: determined by the first and second moments of the inter-meeting time
134: of the nodes. In the case of unrestricted mobility, the inter-meeting
135: time of any two nodes is equivalent to the inter-visit time to state
136: $(0,0)$ for a 2-D random walk on a $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ grid. In
137: the restricted mobility case also the inter-meeting time turns out to
138: be equivalent to the inter-visit time to state $(0,0)$ for a slightly
139: different random walk. However the first two moments are still of the
140: same order and hence the queueing delay is the same, leading to the
141: same delay scaling. As a result, even with this particular mobility
142: restriction, the maximal throughput scaling and the corresponding
143: delay scaling remain unchanged.
144:
145: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
146: Section~\ref{s:model_defs}, we introduce the random mobile network
147: model, some definitions and notation. In
148: Section~\ref{s:scheme_Tput}, we present a scheme using random relaying
149: and show that it achieves constant throughput scaling. In
150: Section~\ref{s:delay}, we show that the delay for this scheme is
151: $\Theta(n\log n)$ using results which are proved in
152: Section~\ref{s:rem_proofs}. The proof of delay of $\Theta(n\log n)$
153: consists of analyzing a queue at a relay node in two parts. The first
154: part presented in Section~\ref{s:delay} identifies an i.i.d. component
155: that is embedded in the arrival and service processes of the
156: queue. The second part breaks the dependence between the arrival and
157: departure processes by introducing a virtual Bernoulli server. The
158: queueing analysis that follows is carried out in
159: Section~\ref{s:rem_proofs}.
160:
161:
162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
163: \section{Models and Definitions}
164: \label{s:model_defs}
165: In this section, we present the network model, and the definitions of
166: the performance metrics -- throughput and delay. We begin by reminding
167: the reader of the order notation: (i) $f(n)=O(g(n))$ means that there
168: exists a constant $c$ and integer $N$ such that $f(n)
169: \leq cg(n)$ for $n > N$. (ii) $f(n)=o(g(n))$ means that $\lim_{n\to
170: \infty} f(n)/g(n) = 0$. (iii) $f(n)=\Omega(g(n))$ means that
171: $g(n)=O(f(n))$, (iv) $f(n)=\omega(g(n))$ means that
172: $g(n)=o(f(n))$. (v) $f(n)=\Theta(f(n))$ means that
173: $f(n)=O(g(n));~g(n)=O(f(n))$.
174:
175: Now let us recall what is meant by the uniform distribution of great
176: circles on a sphere. Let $S^2$ denote the surface of a sphere in
177: ${\mathbb R}^3$ with unit area. For $x\in S^2$, let $x'
178: \in S^2$ be the diametrically opposite point of $x$. Let $G(x)$ denote
179: the great circle obtained by the intersection of $S^2$ with the plane
180: passing through the center of $S^2$ and perpendicular to the line
181: $xx'$. Let $x$ be called the pole of $G(x)$. If the pole of a great
182: circle is chosen according to a uniform distribution on $S^2$ then the
183: great circle is said to have a uniform distribution.
184:
185: \begin{definition}[Natural random walk] A natural random walk on a
186: discrete torus of size $m$ is the process $S(t)\in\{0,\ldots,m-1\},
187: \:t=0,1,\ldots$, such that $S(0)$ is uniformly distributed over
188: $\{0,\ldots,m-1\}$ and $S(t+1)$ is equally likely to be any element of
189: $\{S(t), S(t) - 1 \mod m, S(t)+1 \mod m\}$.
190: \end{definition}
191:
192: This differs from a simple random walk, where $S(t+1)$ is equally
193: likely to be any element of $\{S(t)-1\mod m, S(t)+1\mod m\}$. Since we
194: are interested only in scaling results, we use the terms (simple)
195: random walk and natural random walk interchangeably.
196:
197: \begin{definition}[Random network]
198: The random network consists of $n$ nodes that are split into $n/2$
199: distinct source-destination (S-D) pairs at random. Time is slotted for
200: transmission. Associated with each node is a great circle of $S^2$
201: chosen independently according to a uniform distribution.
202:
203: The great circle of each node has $\sqrt{n}$ equidistant lattice
204: points numbered from $0$ to $\sqrt{n}-1$ placed on it arbitrarily
205: resulting in a one-dimensional discrete torus of size $\sqrt{n}$.
206: Each node moves according to a natural random walk on these lattice
207: points on its great circle.
208: %\end{definition}
209: Figure~\ref{f:1dmodel} shows a realization of the random network
210: model. Note that since the sphere has unit area, its radius is
211: $1/2\sqrt{\pi}$. Hence each great circle has perimeter $\sqrt{\pi}$
212: because of which the distance between two adjacent lattice points is
213: $\sqrt{\pi/n}$.
214: \end{definition}
215:
216: \begin{figure}[htpb]
217: \begin{center}
218: \begin{psfrags}
219: \psfrag{1}[l]{$i$}
220: \psfrag{2}[l]{$j$}
221: \psfrag{z12}[r]{$z_{ij}$}
222: \psfrag{C12}[r]{${\cal C}_{ij}$}
223: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=0]{1dmodel.eps}
224: \end{psfrags}
225: \caption{A realization of the random network model. Only the
226: lattice points on the great circles of nodes $i$ and $i$ are
227: shown. The intersection of their great circles is $z_{ij}$. The shaded
228: circle is ${\cal C}_{ij}$ and $i$ and $j$ become neighbors when they
229: are at the two dark lattice points.}
230: \label{f:1dmodel}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{figure}
233:
234: Let the distance on the sphere between nodes $i$ and $j$ be denoted by
235: $d(i,j)$. We assume the Relaxed Protocol model \cite{EMPS} similar to
236: the Protocol model in \cite{GK} for successful transmission.
237: \begin{definition}[Relaxed Protocol Model]
238: A transmission from node $i$ to node $j$ is successful if for any
239: other simultaneously transmitting node $k$,
240: \[d(k,j) \ge (1+\Delta)d(i,j)\]
241: for some $\Delta>0$. If a transmission is successful then
242: communication occurs at a constant rate of $W$ bits-per-second.
243: %\end{definition}
244: For simplicity, we assume that time-slots are of unit length so that
245: when a successful transmission occurs a packet of size $W$ is
246: communicated.
247: \end{definition}
248:
249: In the other commonly used model (e.g., \cite{GT}, \cite{GK},
250: \cite{DGT}), known as the {\em Physical} model, a transmission is
251: successful if the Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) is
252: greater than some constant. It is well known \cite{GK} that the {\em
253: Protocol} model is equivalent to the {\em Physical} model when each
254: transmitter uses the same power.
255:
256: The differences between this model and the model in \cite{DGT} are:
257: (i) the Relaxed Protocol model is used instead of the Physical model,
258: and (ii) each node is assumed to move according to a natural random
259: walk instead of just a stationary, ergodic motion with uniform
260: stationary distribution on the great circle. However, this model has
261: the same 1-D mobility restriction. Further, the proofs clearly show
262: that the assumption of mobility according to a natural random walk is
263: not necessary for achieving constant throughput scaling and is used
264: only for computing delay.
265:
266: \begin{definition}[Scheme]
267: A scheme $\Pi$ for a random network is a sequence of communication
268: policies, $\left(\Pi_n\right)$, where policy $\Pi_n$ determines how
269: communication occurs in a network of $n$ nodes.
270: \end{definition}
271:
272: \begin{definition}[Throughput of a scheme]
273: Let $B_{\Pi_n}(i,t)$ be the number of bits of S-D pair $i, 1\leq i\leq
274: n/2$, transferred in $t$ time-slots under policy $\Pi_n$. Note that
275: this could be a random quantity for a given realization of the
276: network. Scheme $\Pi$ is said to have throughput $T_\Pi(n)$ if
277: $\exists$ a sequence of sets $A_\Pi(n)$ such that
278: \[ A_\Pi(n)=\left\{\omega: \min_{1\le i\le n/2} \lim\inf_{t\to\infty}
279: \frac{1}{t}B_{\Pi_n}(i,t) \ge T_\Pi(n)\right\} \]
280: and $P\left(A_\Pi(n)\right) \tends 1$ as $n \tends \infty$.
281: \end{definition}
282: We allow randomness in policies. Hence, $P\left(A_\Pi(n)\right)$
283: denotes the probability of $A_\Pi(n)$ over the joint probability space
284: that captures randomness in the policy as well as the random network
285: instance. We say that event $A$ occurs with high probability ({\em
286: whp}) if $P(A)\tends 1$ as $n\tends \infty$.
287:
288: \begin{definition}[Delay of a scheme]
289: The delay of a packet is the time it takes for the packet to reach its
290: destination after it leaves the source. Let $D_{\Pi_n}^i(j)$ denote
291: the delay of packet $j$ of S-D pair $i$ under policy $\Pi_n$, then the
292: sample mean of delay for S-D pair $i$ under $\Pi_n$ is
293: \[ \bar{D}_{\Pi_n}^i = \limsup_{k\tends \infty}
294: \frac{1}{k} \sum_{j=1}^{k} D_{\Pi_n}^i(j).\]
295: The average delay over all S-D pairs for a particular realization of
296: the random network is then
297: \[\bar{D}_{\Pi_n} = \frac{2}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n/2} \bar{D}_{\Pi_n}^i.\]
298: The delay for a scheme $\Pi$ is the expectation of the average delay
299: over all S-D pairs, i.e.,
300: \[ D_{\Pi}(n) = E[\bar{D}_{\Pi_n}]
301: = \frac{2}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n/2} E[\bar{D}_{\Pi_n}^i].\]
302: \end{definition}
303:
304: Now observe that some realizations of the random network may result in
305: the configuration of nodes being such that it is not possible to
306: achieve constant throughput scaling. Hence we first define a typical
307: configuration which captures the fact that the distribution of great
308: circles is sufficiently uniform everywhere on the sphere. We need some
309: notation to introduce this definition.
310:
311: Let $G_i$ denote the great circle of node $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$. For
312: any two nodes $i \neq j$, $G_i$ and $G_j$ are not identical with
313: probability $1$ under the random network model. Two distinct great
314: circles must intersect in exactly two points. For each pair $i\neq j$,
315: select one of the two distinct intersection points of $G_i$ and $G_j$
316: uniformly at random and call it $z_{ij}$. Let ${\mathcal C}_{ij}$
317: denote the disk on the sphere centered at $z_{ij}$ with radius
318: $(2+\Delta)\sqrt{\pi/n}$. See Figure~\ref{f:1dmodel} for an
319: illustration.
320:
321: \begin{definition}[Typical configuration]
322: A configuration (i.e., realization of the random network) is said to
323: be {\em typical} if the number of great circles passing through each
324: ${\cal C}_{ij}$ is $\Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$.
325: \end{definition}
326:
327: \begin{definition}[Neighbor]
328: We say that nodes $i$ and $j$ are {\em neighbors} at time $t$ if both
329: nodes $i$ and $j$ are at the lattice points of their respective great
330: circles that are closest to $z_{ij}$.
331: \end{definition}
332: In Figure~\ref{f:1dmodel}, the lattice points for nodes $i$ and $j$
333: that are closest to $z_{ij}$ have been darkened. Under the random walk
334: model, it is possible that in some time-slot, a node may not have any
335: neighbors.
336:
337:
338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
339: \section{Scheme with Constant Throughput Scaling}
340: \label{s:scheme_Tput}
341:
342: In this section we present Scheme $\Pi$ and show that it achieves
343: constant throughput scaling. In the next section its delay scaling
344: will be analyzed. Before presenting the scheme, we prove a property of
345: the random network model which makes the scheme feasible.
346:
347: \begin{lemma}
348: Configurations are typical {\em whp}.
349: \label{l:typical_whp}
350: \end{lemma}
351: \begin{proof}
352: Consider any two nodes $i$ and $j$. First note that the probability
353: that $G_i$ and $G_j$ coincide is zero. Also any two distinct great
354: circles necessarily intersect at exactly two points. By definition,
355: ${\mathcal C}_{ij}$ has area $c_1/n$ since it has radius
356: $(2+\Delta)\sqrt{\pi/n}$.
357:
358: Let $I_k, ~k=1,\ldots,n, ~k \neq i,j,$ be an indicator random variable
359: for the event that the great circle of node $k$, $G_k$, passes through
360: ${\cal C}_{ij}$. By definition, $I_k$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli random
361: variables with parameter $p$, where $p = c_2/\sqrt{n}$ where $c_2$ is
362: a positive constant. This is because a great circle passes through a
363: disk of radius $R$ if and only if its pole lies in an equatorial band
364: of width $2R$. The probability of this event is $\Theta(R)$ as the
365: position of pole is uniformly distributed over the sphere.
366:
367: Thus, the total number of great circles passing through ${\cal
368: C}_{ij}$ is given by a random variable $X = \sum_{k} I_k$ with $E[X]
369: \approx 0.5c_1\sqrt{n}=\Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$. An application of
370: the well-known Chernoff bound for the sum of i.i.d. Bernoulli random
371: variable (e.g., see \cite{MR95}), yields
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: P\{| X - E[X] | \geq \delta E[X]\}
374: & \leq &2\exp\left(-\delta^2E[X]/2\right) \nonumber \\
375: & = & \frac{1}{n^3},~~~
376: \mbox{for $\delta = \sqrt{\frac{2(\log 2+3\log n)}{E[X]}}$}.
377: \label{e:may1}
378: \end{eqnarray}
379:
380: The choice of $\delta$ in (\ref{e:may1}) shows that $X \leq c_1 \sqrt{n}$
381: or $X = \Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$ with probability at least
382: $1-1/n^3$. Hence by the union bound over all $n(n-1)/2$ possible
383: ${\cal C}_{ij}$ for $i,j=1,\ldots,n$, we obtain that with probability
384: at least $1-1/n$, the number of great circles passing through each
385: ${\cal C}_{ij}$ is $\Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$.
386: \end{proof}
387:
388: \subsection{The Scheme}
389:
390: The operation of Scheme $\Pi$ depends on whether the configuration is
391: typical or not. If the configuration is not typical, direct
392: transmission is used between the S-D pairs along with time-division
393: multiplexing. That is, the sources transmit to their destinations once
394: in $2/n$ time-slots in a round-robin fashion. If the configuration is
395: typical then Policy $\Sigma_n$ as described below is used. Policy
396: $\Sigma_n$ is a variant of the policies presented in \cite{GT},
397: \cite{DGT}.
398:
399: \medskip \hrule \medskip
400: \noindent{\bf Policy $\Sigma_n $:}
401: \medskip \hrule \medskip
402: \begin{enumerate}
403: \item Each time-slot is divided into two sub-slots -- A and B.
404:
405: \item Sub-slot A
406: \begin{enumerate}
407: \item[(a)] Each source node independently becomes {\em active} with probability
408: $p_{\Delta}>0$.
409:
410: \item[(b)] If an active node has one or more neighbors then with probability
411: $0<\alpha<1$, it chooses one at random and a packet intended for its
412: destination is transmitted to this randomly chosen neighbor, which
413: acts as a relay node.
414: \end{enumerate}
415:
416: \item Sub-slot B
417: \begin{enumerate}
418: \item Each node independently becomes {\em active} with probability
419: $p_{\Delta}>0$.
420:
421: \item If an active node has one or more neighbors that are destination nodes,
422: it chooses one at random. The active node, which acts as a relay,
423: transmits a packet intended for this destination node, if it has any,
424: in FIFO order.
425: \end{enumerate}
426:
427: \end{enumerate}
428: \medskip \hrule \medskip
429: In policy $\Sigma_n$, each node acts as a relay for all the other $n/2-1$
430: S-D pairs. A packet reaches from its source to its destination as
431: shown in Figure~\ref{f:srdGreatCircles}. A source node, S, transmits
432: its packet to a random relay node, R, which may also happen to be the
433: destination itself. The random relay node then moves around carrying
434: the packet. Finally, when it becomes a neighbor of the destination, D,
435: the packet is transmitted to D. A relay node may receive several
436: packets from a source before it gets a chance to transmit to the
437: destination. To handle this, each relay node maintains a separate
438: queue for each of the other $n/2 -1$ S-D pairs.
439:
440: \begin{figure}[htpb]
441: \begin{center}
442: \begin{psfrags}
443: \psfrag{S}[l]{\rm S}
444: \psfrag{R}[b]{\rm R}
445: \psfrag{D}[r]{\rm D}
446: \psfrag{Csr}[r]{${\cal C}_{SR}$}
447: \psfrag{Crd}[l]{${\cal C}_{RD}$}
448: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=0]{srdGreatCircles.eps}
449: \end{psfrags}
450: \caption{Source node, S, transmits its packet to a random relay node, R.
451: The packet is carried by R, until its transmission to the destination
452: node, D, when R and D become neighbors. The dotted great circles
453: correspond to other nodes which can act as relays.}
454: \label{f:srdGreatCircles}
455: \end{center}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: The actual mechanism is slightly more complicated. Since each node
459: decides to transmit at random, it is possible that two nearby nodes
460: transmit simultaneously so that transmission is not successful under
461: the Protocol model. In order to analyze the throughput of Scheme
462: $\Pi$, we first state a result about the probability of successful
463: transmission between two nodes when they are neighbors under policy
464: $\Sigma_n$.
465:
466: \begin{lemma}
467: \label{l:tput1} Under policy $\Sigma_n$, the following hold in a typical
468: configuration.
469: \begin{enumerate}
470: \item[(a)] In sub-slot A, if nodes S and R are neighbors of each other, S
471: transmits a packet to R successfully with a strictly positive
472: probability, independent of $n$.
473: \item[(b)] In sub-slot B, if nodes R and D are neighbors of each other, R
474: transmits a packet to D successfully with a strictly positive
475: probability, independent of $n$.
476: \end{enumerate}
477: \end{lemma}
478: \begin{proof}
479: We shall only prove for the case of sub-slot A since the proof for the
480: other part is similar. Consider a sub-slot A in which S and R are
481: neighbors. Let $E_1$ be the event that S becomes active and $E_2$ be
482: the event that S chooses R as a random relay and no other source node
483: in ${\cal C}_{SR}$ becomes active. If both events $E_1$ and
484: $E_2$ occur, S transmits to R and the transmission is successful under
485: the Relaxed Protocol model. Thus,
486: \begin{eqnarray}
487: P( \mbox{ S transmits to R successfully}) & = & P(E_1 \cap E_2)
488: \nonumber \\ & = & P(E_1) P(E_2|E_1).\label{e:SRsuccess_prob}
489: \end{eqnarray}
490:
491: From the description of Policy $\Sigma_n$ it is clear that
492: $P(E_1)=\alpha p_\Delta$, which is a strictly positive constant. Next we
493: compute $P(E_2|E_1)$ and show that it is lower bounded by a strictly
494: positive constant, independent of $n$, which will imply the statement
495: of the lemma.
496:
497: Given that S is active, the probability of successful transmission to
498: R depends on how many other nodes are present in ${\cal C}_{SR}$ since
499: these nodes could interfere, i.e., transmit simultaneously so that the
500: transmission from S to R is not successful under the Relaxed Protocol
501: model.
502:
503: Since we have a typical configuration, $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ distinct
504: great circles or source nodes intersect ${\cal C}_{SR}$. Moreover each
505: great circle has $\Theta(1)$ lattice points that are in ${\cal
506: C}_{SR}$. For a natural random walk on a discrete torus of size
507: $\sqrt{n}$, the probability of being at any particular position is
508: $1/\sqrt{n}$. Hence the probability that any of the
509: $\Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$ source nodes whose great circles
510: intersect ${\mathcal C}_{SR}$ is present in ${\cal
511: C}_{SR}$ with probability $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n})$. Due to the independent
512: movement of all nodes, we obtain that for a typical configuration, the
513: probability of $k$ nodes being present in the ${\cal C}_{SR}$ is
514: \[q(k) = {c_1\sqrt{n} \choose k} \left(\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^k
515: \left(1-\frac{c_4}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^{c_2\sqrt{n}-k} \approx
516: \frac{\left(c_1c_3\right)^k \exp(-c_2c_4)}{k!},\]
517: for large enough $n$. If ${\cal C}_{SR}$ has $k$ nodes not including S
518: and R then S certainly has no more than $k+1$ neighbors. In this
519: situation, R is chosen by S with probability at least
520: $1/(k+1)$. Further there are at most $k$ other source nodes and the
521: probability that no other node in ${\cal C}_{SR}$ becomes active is at
522: least $(1-p_{\Delta})^k$. Thus,
523: \begin{eqnarray*}
524: P(E_2|E_1) & \geq & \sum_{k = 0}^{n-2} \frac{\left(c_1c_3\right)^k
525: \exp(-c_2c_4)}{k!} \frac{1}{k+1} (1-p_\Delta)^k\nonumber\\
526: &\geq& \exp(-c_2c_4)\sum_{k = 0}^{n-2} \frac{\left(c_1c_3(1-p_\Delta)
527: \right)^k}{(k+1)!}.
528: \end{eqnarray*}
529: It is easy to see that for $0 < p_{\Delta} < 1$, the term on the right
530: hand side is a lower bounded by a strictly positive constant. Hence,
531: $P(E_2|E_1)$ is strictly positive. This completes the proof of the
532: lemma.
533: \end{proof}
534:
535: \begin{theorem}
536: Scheme $\Pi$ achieves $T(n)=\Theta(1)$.
537: \label{t:schemepi_Tput}
538: \end{theorem}
539: \begin{proof}
540: Consider a typical configuration so that policy $\Sigma_n$ is
541: used. Fix a source node S and a relay node R. Let $A(t)$ be the number
542: of bits transmitted from S to R in sub-slot A of time-slot $t$. If S
543: transmits to R successfully in sub-slot A of time-slot $t$, $A(t)=W/2$
544: otherwise $A(t)=0$.
545:
546: First we determine $E[A(t)]$. Let $F_1$ be the event that S and R are
547: neighbors and $F_2$ be the event that S transmits to R
548: successfully. Then
549: \begin{equation}
550: E[A(t)] = \frac{W}{2}P\{F_1\cap F_2\} = \frac{W}{2}P\{F_1\}P\{F_2|F_1\}.
551: \label{e:SRtput}
552: \end{equation}
553: From Lemma~\ref{l:tput1}(a), $P\{F_2|F_1\} \geq c_5 > 0$. Due to the
554: independent motion of nodes S and R according to natural random walks,
555: the joint description of their positions is a two-dimensional random
556: walk on a discrete torus of size $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$. It is easy
557: to see that the stationary distribution for this process is the
558: uniform distribution on $n$ joint positions. Since S and R become
559: neighbors when they are in one particular joint position out of these
560: $n$ joint positions, it follows that the probability of S and R being
561: neighbors is $1/n$, i.e., $P(F_1)=1/n$. Hence from (\ref{e:SRtput}) it
562: follows that $E[A(t)]=\Theta(1/n)$.
563:
564: Now the positions of nodes S and R form an irreducible, finite state
565: Markov chain and $A(t)$ is a bounded, non-negative function of the
566: state of this Markov chain at time $t$. Therefore by the ergodicity of
567: such a Markov chain, the long-term throughput between S and R is
568: \[\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T A(t) = E[A(t)] =\Theta(1/n).\]
569: Thus the throughput between a source node S and any other node in
570: sub-slot A is $\Theta(1/n)$. Similarly, it can be shown that the
571: throughput between any node and a destination node D in sub-slot B is
572: also $\Theta(1/n)$. The value of $0<\alpha<1$ guarantees that the
573: arrival rate of packets belonging to every S-D pair at any relay node
574: is strictly less than the service rate. This ensures the stability of
575: the queues formed at the relay nodes, which in turn implies that the
576: throughput between each S-D pair is simply the sum of the throughputs
577: between S and the other $n-1$ nodes in sub-slot A. Hence the
578: throughput of each S-D pair is $\Theta(1)$.
579:
580: We have shown that in a typical configuration, Scheme $\Pi$ provides
581: $\Theta(1)$ throughput between all S-D pairs. From
582: Lemma~\ref{l:typical_whp}, configurations are typical {\em whp}. Hence
583: it follows that Scheme $\Pi$ has throughput $T(n)=\Theta(1)$.
584: \end{proof}
585:
586: Note that for the unrestricted mobility models in \cite{GT} and
587: \cite{EMPS_TDto_fluid}, it is possible to prove a stronger result that each
588: S-D pair has $\Theta(1)$ throuhgput for any $n$ with probability $1$
589: instead of probability approaching $1$ as $n$ tends to infinity, as in
590: the present case.
591:
592:
593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
594: \section{Delay of Scheme $\Pi$}
595: \label{s:delay}
596: % Sufficient to restrict attention to typical configs
597: Under Scheme $\Pi$, if the configuration is not typical, direct
598: transmission is used, in which case the delay for each packet is
599: $1$. Since the delay of a scheme is defined to be the expectation over
600: all configurations of the average delay, the delay for Scheme $\Pi$ is
601: determined by the expected delay over typical configurations. So we
602: shall assume that the configuration is typical.
603:
604: % Fix SRD study arrival/departure process
605: Consider a particular S-D pair. Packets from S reach D either directly
606: by a single hop in sub-slot A or through any of the other $n-2$ nodes,
607: which act as relays. Since the nodes perform independent random walks,
608: only $\Theta(1/n)$ of the packets belonging to any S-D pair reach
609: their destination in a single hop. Thus, most of the packets reach
610: their destination via a relay node, in which case the delay is two
611: time-slots for two hops plus the mobile-delay, which is the time spent
612: by the packet at the relay node.
613:
614: Each relay node maintains a separate queue for each of the S-D
615: pairs. Fix a relay node, R, and consider the queue for the S-D pair
616: under consideration. The mobile-delay mentioned above is the delay at
617: this relay-queue.To compute the average delay for this relay-queue, we
618: need to study the characteristics of its arrival and potential
619: departure processes.
620:
621: %%% Lower bound
622: First we obtain a lower bound on the delay at the relay-queue. Each
623: node performs a random walk on a 1-D torus of size $\sqrt{n}$ on its
624: great circle. We say that an S-D pair intersects node R's great circle
625: $k$ vertices apart if the lattice points where R can become neighbors
626: of S and D are $k$ lattice points (vertices) apart on the 1-D discrete
627: torus of R.
628:
629: Fix an S-D pair and consider a particular relay node R. When a packet
630: is transmitted successfully from S to R, D is equally likely to be in
631: any of its $\sqrt{n}$ lattice points since it performs an independent
632: random walk. Let $T_{ij}$ be the random time it takes for a random
633: walk on a $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ torus to hit $(0,0)$ starting from
634: $(i,j)$. If the S-D pair intersects the great circle of R $i$ vertices
635: apart then the expected delay for packets of this S-D pair relayed
636: through R is lower bounded by $\sum_{j=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1} T_{ij}$.
637:
638: Using the Chernoff bound for the sum of i.i.d. Bernoulli random
639: variable (e.g., see \cite{MR95}), it can be shown that
640: $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ S-D pairs intersect the great circle of each node
641: $i$ points apart for $0\leq i \leq \sqrt{n}-1$ {\em whp}. Hence the
642: delay of Scheme $\Pi$, which is the expected delay over all packets is
643: \[D(n) = \Omega\left(E\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i,j=1}^{\sqrt{n}-1} T_{ij} \right]\right).\]
644: As shown in \cite{AF94}, $E\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i,j=1}^{\sqrt{n}-1}
645: T_{ij} \right] = \Theta(n\log n)$. Therefore,
646: \begin{equation}
647: D(n)=\Omega(n\log n).
648: \label{e:LB_delay}
649: \end{equation}
650:
651: %%% Upper bound
652: The rest of this section derives an upper bound which is of the same
653: order as the lower bound. It is hard to obtain an upper bound on the
654: delay in the relay-queue since the arrival and service processes are
655: complicated and dependent. We progressively obtain queues that are
656: simpler to analyze and upper bound the delay of the previous queue as
657: follows. We first upper bound the delay in the relay-queue by that in
658: another queue, ${\cal Q}_1$, in which the arrival process is
659: simpler. The delay of ${\cal Q}_1$ is upper bounded by that in ${\cal
660: Q}_2$, which has a relatively simpler service process. However, the
661: arrival and service process are not independent. The final part
662: consists of introducing a virtual server with i.i.d. Geometric service
663: times to break this dependence. With this overview, we proceed to the
664: details.
665:
666: Recall that a packet arrives at the relay-queue when (i) S and R are
667: neighbors, (ii) S becomes active (which happens with probability
668: $\alpha p_\Delta$), (iii) S chooses R as a random relay, and (iv) the
669: transmission from S to R is successful. Similarly, a packet can depart
670: from the queue when (i') R and D are neighbors, (ii') R becomes active
671: (which happens with probability $p_\Delta$), (iii') R chooses D as the
672: destination node, and (iv') the transmission is successful. We call
673: such a time-slot a potential departure instant and the sequence of
674: inter-potential-departure times is called the potential-departure
675: process. Let the potential-departure process of the relay-queue be
676: called $\{S_i\}$. The qualifier potential is used since a departure
677: can occur only if R has a packet for D.
678:
679: % Q_1
680: Consider a queue ${\cal Q}_1$ in which arrivals happen whenever (i),
681: (ii) and (iii) above are satisfied, irrespective of whether (iv) is
682: satisfied or not. The potential departure process for ${\cal Q}_1$ is
683: the same as that for the relay-queue. Then it is clear that the
684: expected delay in ${\cal Q}_1$ provides an upper bound on that in the
685: relay-queue.
686:
687: % Why inter potential-departure times are not iid
688: Recall that the motion of each node is an independent 1-D random walk
689: on a discrete torus of size $\sqrt{n}$. We will say that two nodes
690: {\em meet} when they become neighbors. Since nodes move independently
691: the joint position of nodes R and D is a random walk on a
692: $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ discrete torus and R and D become neighbors
693: when the 2-D random walk is in state $(0,0)$, without loss of
694: generality. Therefore, the inter-meeting time of R and D is
695: distributed like the inter-visit time of state $(0,0)$ of a 2-D random
696: walk. Since this is a Markov chain with $n$ states having a uniform
697: stationary distribution, we know that the sequence of inter-meeting
698: times of nodes R and D, denoted by $\{\tau_i, i\geq 0\}$, is an
699: i.i.d. process. Further, if $\tau$ is a random variable with the
700: common distribution then
701: \begin{equation}
702: E[\tau] = n.
703: \label{e:Etau}
704: \end{equation}
705:
706: However a potential departure instant does not occur each time R and D
707: meet. A potential departure instant occurs only if R also becomes
708: active, chooses D as the random destination and the transmission is
709: successful. If R and D are not chosen in spite of being in the same
710: cell, it increases the likelihood of there being many more nodes in
711: the same cell. Due to the random walk model of the node mobility, if
712: there is a crowding of nodes in some part of the network then it
713: remains crowded for some time in the future. Hence due to the
714: Markovian nature of node mobility, the inter-potential-departure times
715: are not independent.
716:
717: % UB on Q1 with services {S_i} using Q2 with services {\tilde{S}_i}
718: We want to obtain an upper bound on the delay of ${\cal Q}_1$ which
719: has potential-departure process $\{S_i\}$. To do this we will consider
720: a queue, ${\cal Q}_2$, which has the same arrival process as ${\cal
721: Q}_1$ but a different departure process $\{\tilde{S}_i\}$ such that
722: $S_i \leq \tilde{S}_i$. Then the expected delay in ${\cal Q}_2$ would
723: provide an upper bound on the the expected delay in the relay-queue.
724:
725: %% Actual inter-potential-departure process generation
726: % Motion on sphere and great circle corresponds to RW
727: Nodes R and D perform independent random walks on 1-D tori of size
728: $\sqrt{n}$ on their great circles as shown in
729: Figure~\ref{f:srdGreatCircles} and R and D meet when both are at a
730: particular pair of lattice points. This is represented schematically
731: in Figure~\ref{f:RDrw}, where R performs a vertical 1-D random walk
732: and D performs a horizontal 1-D random walk. The joint motion of nodes
733: R and D is equivalent to a random walk on a 2-D torus of size
734: $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ and R and D meet when this 2-D random walk is
735: in state $(0,0)$. The inter-meeting times of nodes R and D correspond
736: to the i.i.d. process $\{ \tau_i \}$. Further, let $\alpha_i = \tau_1
737: + \ldots + \tau_i$ for $i\geq 1$, i.e., $\alpha_i$ is the time-slot in
738: which R and D meet for the $i$th time. In a typical configuration, we
739: know that the number of other great circles that pass through ${\cal
740: C}_{RD}$ is $\Theta\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$. Allowing for the worst
741: case, based on Lemma \ref{l:typical_whp}, let there be
742: $c_1\sqrt{n}=m-2$ other great circles that pass through ${\cal
743: C}_{RD}$. These can also be thought of as performing independent
744: random walks on the horizontal 1-D torus. Let nodes R and D be
745: numbered $1$ and $2$ and the other $c_1\sqrt{n}$ nodes be numbered
746: from $3$ to $m$ and let $X(t) = (X_1(t),\dots,X_m(t))$ denote the
747: position of these $m$ nodes on the $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ discrete
748: torus at time $t$.
749:
750: \begin{figure}[htpb]
751: \begin{center}
752: \begin{psfrags}
753: \psfrag{R}[l]{\rm R}
754: \psfrag{D}[b]{\rm D}
755: \psfrag{A}[b]{$A$}
756: \psfrag{0}[tr]{$0$}
757: \psfrag{fn}[r]{$m$}
758: \psfrag{fn1}[t]{$\frac{\zeta}{2}$}
759: \psfrag{fn2}[t]{$\frac{\zeta}{2}+1$}
760: \psfrag{fn3}[t]{$m$}
761: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=0]{RDrw.eps}
762: \end{psfrags}
763: \caption{Schematic representation of the motion of nodes R and D on their
764: respective great circles with $\zeta=\sqrt{n}-1$.}
765: \label{f:RDrw}
766: \end{center}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: A constant number of lattice points of the 1-D torus correspond to
770: ${\cal C}_{RD}$ and these are shown by the shaded region in
771: Figure~\ref{f:RDrw} and is referred to as set $A$. Let $E_i$ be the
772: indicator for the event that R chooses D and the transmission is
773: successful in time-slot $\alpha_i$. That is, $E_i$ is the indicator
774: for the event that $\alpha_i$ is a potential departure instant. Let
775: $N_i$ be the number of other destination nodes in $A$ in time-slot
776: $\alpha_i$. Then $P\{E_i=1\}$ depends on $N_i$ only. Now, $N_i$
777: depends on $X(\alpha_i)$ which depends
778: on the past given by $E^{i-1} = \{E_0,\ldots,E_{i-1} \}$ and $\tau^i =
779: \{\tau_0, \ldots, \tau_i \}$. Thus the potential-departure process is
780: generated by choosing some of the meeting instants of R and D
781: according to a probability modulated by $N_i$, which is another
782: independent process as shown in Figure~\ref{f:generateSi}.
783:
784: \begin{figure}[htpb]
785: \begin{center}
786: \begin{psfrags}
787: \psfrag{t1}[b]{$\tau_1$}
788: \psfrag{t2}[b]{$\tau_2$}
789: \psfrag{t3}[b]{$\tau_3$}
790: \psfrag{t4}[b]{$\tau_4$}
791: \psfrag{t5}[b]{$\tau_5$}
792: \psfrag{s1}[t]{$S_1$}
793: \psfrag{s2}[t]{$S_2$}
794: \psfrag{s3}[t]{$S_3$}
795: \psfrag{e10}[c]{$E_1=0$}
796: \psfrag{e21}[c]{$E_2=1$}
797: \psfrag{e31}[c]{$E_3=1$}
798: \psfrag{e40}[c]{$E_4=0$}
799: \psfrag{e51}[c]{$E_5=1$}
800: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{generateSi.eps}
801: \end{psfrags}
802: \caption{ The `x' marks correspond to the times when R and D meet
803: each other. At some of these meeting instants the R-D transmission can
804: be successful. Such points have been circled and correspond to
805: $E_i=1$. The inter-potential-service times are thus the sum of a few
806: of the inter-meeting times of R and D.}
807: \label{f:generateSi}
808: \end{center}
809: \end{figure}
810:
811: % Equivalent generation of {S_i} after adding randomness
812: Above we described how the process $\{S_i\}$ can be generated using
813: the processes $\{N_i\}$ and $\{\tau_i\}$, which in turn were obtained
814: from $\{X(t)\}$, which corresponds to the independent random walks of
815: all $m$ nodes. Next we shall perturb the process $\{X(t)\}$ to obtain
816: $\{\tilde{X}(t)\}$ and the corresponding $\{\tilde{\tau}_i\}$ and
817: $\{\tilde{N}_i\}$. Let $Z(t)$ be a 1-D horizontal random walk on a
818: torus of size $\sqrt{n}$. Let $\tilde{X}_i(t) = X_i(t) + Z(t)$ be the
819: position of node $i, 1\leq i\leq m$, where the addition is modulo
820: $\sqrt{n}$. Then the inter-meeting times of any two nodes are the same
821: as before since the position of each node is shifted horizontally by
822: the same amount due to $Z(t)$. As a result the processes $\tau_i$ and
823: $\tilde{\tau}_i$ are identical. Under the modified setup, the lattice
824: point at which R and D meet can be any element of the set
825: $B=\{(i,0):0\leq i\leq \sqrt{n}-1\}$ instead of always being $(0,0)$.
826: Similarly, let $\tilde{N}_i$ be the number of other destination nodes
827: in the set $A+Z(t)$. Then, $\{\tilde{N}_i\}$ is identical to
828: $\{N_i\}$. Thus the process $\{S_i\}$ can also be generated (through
829: $\{E_i\}$) using $\{\tilde{N}_i\}$ and $\{\tilde{\tau}_i\}$ instead of
830: $\{N_i\}$ and $\{\tau_i\}$. Therefore we shall use $\tilde{X}_i(t)$
831: as the position of node $i$ at time $t$ instead of $X_i(t)$. Under
832: this perturbed motion, R can be seen as if it performs a 2-D random
833: walk on the $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ torus while D and the other $m-2$
834: nodes perform a 1-D random walk on a 1-D torus of size $\sqrt{n}$
835: which is subset $B$ of the 2-D torus. Moreover, given
836: $\tilde{X}_3^m(\alpha_i) =
837: (\tilde{X}_3(\alpha_i),\ldots,\tilde{X}_m(\alpha_i))$, $P\{E_i=1\}$ is
838: independent of everything else.
839:
840:
841: % Lower bound on P{E_i=1} -- similar to unrestricted mobility
842: \begin{lemma}
843: There exists a constant (independent of $n$) $c_6 > 0$ such that
844: \[P\left(E_i=1|\tau^i, E^{i-1}\right) \geq c_6 > 0.\]
845: \label{l:LB_Pmark}
846: \end{lemma}
847: \begin{proof}
848: The initial position of R, $X_1(0)$ has a uniform distribution of the
849: $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ torus. The initial positions of D and nodes
850: $3$ to $m$ have independent uniform distributions on subset $B =
851: \{(i,0):0\leq i\leq \sqrt{n}-1 \}$ of the $\sqrt{n} \times \sqrt{n}$
852: torus. As a result $X_1(\alpha_1) = X_2(\alpha_1) = I$ where $I$ is a
853: random variable with a uniform distribution over $B$.
854:
855: Let $V=(\tilde{X}_3(\alpha_i), \ldots, \tilde{X}_m(\alpha_i))$ be the
856: configuration of the $m-2$ nodes other than R and D. Then the
857: conditional probability of a potential departure given the past can be
858: written as
859: \begin{eqnarray}
860: P\left(E_i=1|\tau^i,E^{i-1}\right)
861: &=&\sum_V \frac{P\left(E_i=1|V,\tau^i,E^{i-1}\right)P\left(V, \tau^i, E^{i-1}\right)}
862: {P(\tau^i,E^{i-1})}\nonumber\\
863: & \geq & \min_{V} P(E_i=1|V,\tau^i,E^{i-1}) \left[ \sum_{V}
864: \frac{P(V,\tau^i,E^{i-1})}{P(\tau^i,E^{i-1})} \right] \nonumber\\
865: &= & \min_{V} P(E_i=1|V,\tau^i,E^{i-1}) \nonumber \\ & = & \min_{V} P\left( E_i=1 | V \right),
866: \label{e:LB_condPE1}
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: where the last equality holds because $E_i$ is independent of
869: everything else given $V$.
870:
871: Given a congfiguration $V$, the number of nodes in $A+(i-1,0)$ for
872: $i=1,\ldots,\sqrt{n}$ torus can be found and this in turn determines
873: the $P\left(E_i=1|V\right)$. Hence, if $V_i$ denotes the number of
874: nodes other than R and D in the set $A+(i-1,0)$ for
875: $i=1,\ldots,\sqrt{n}$ then we can equivalently let the configuration
876: be $V=(V_1,\dots,V_{\sqrt{n}})$.
877:
878: Now consider a fixed configuration, $V=v=(v_1,\ldots,v_{\sqrt{n}})$,
879: and let $Z$ be a random variable which takes value $v_i, 1\leq i\leq
880: \sqrt{n}$ with probability $1/\sqrt{n}$. Let $A$ consists of $c_2$
881: (some constant) elements. Then
882: \begin{equation}
883: E[Z] = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{k=1}^{\sqrt{n}} v_k = \frac{c_2(m-2)}{\sqrt{n}} = \Theta(1).
884: \label{e:EZ}
885: \end{equation}
886:
887: Recall that $X_1(\alpha_i)=I$, where $I$ is a random variable with
888: uniform distribution on $B$. Further, from the description of Scheme
889: $\Pi$, if there are $v_k$ destination nodes other than D in ${\cal
890: C}_{RD}$ then $E_i=1$ if R chooses D out of all destination nodes that
891: are its neighbors and the other $v_k$ nodes do not transmit. Since
892: ${\cal C}_{RD}$ contains all neighbors and more, the number of
893: neighbors can be no more than $X_i$ and hence for $k=1, \ldots,
894: \sqrt{n}$, we obtain
895: \begin{equation}
896: P(E_i=1 | V=v, X_1(\alpha_i)=(k-1,0)) \geq \frac{p_\Delta (1-p_\Delta)^{v_k + 1}}{v_k + 1}.
897: \label{e:PE1cond_occupancy}
898: \end{equation}
899:
900: Define a real valued function $f: {\mathbb R} \to {\mathbb R}$ where
901: $f(x) = \frac{p_{\Delta}(1-p_{\Delta})^{x+1}}{x+1}$. It is easy to
902: check that $f(\cdot)$ is a convex function. Hence, by Jensen's
903: inequality,
904: \begin{eqnarray}
905: E[f(Z)] & \geq & f(E[Z]).
906: \label{e:fjensen}
907: \end{eqnarray}
908: Using (\ref{e:EZ}), (\ref{e:PE1cond_occupancy}) and (\ref{e:fjensen}),
909: for any configuration $V$ with corresponding $v$, we obtain
910: \begin{eqnarray}
911: P(E_i=1|V=v) &=& \sum_{k=1}^{\sqrt{n}} P( E_i=1|V=v,X_1(\alpha_i)=(k-1,0)) P(X_1(\alpha_i)=(k-1,0)|V=v) \nonumber\\
912: &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{k=1}^{\sqrt{n}} P (E_i=1|V=v,X_1(\alpha_i)=(k-1,0)) \nonumber \\
913: &\geq& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{k=1}^{\sqrt{n}} \frac{p_\Delta (1-p_\Delta)^{v_k + 1}}{v_k + 1} \nonumber \\
914: &=& E[f(Z)] ~ \geq ~ f(E[Z]) \nonumber \\
915: &=& f\left(\frac{c_2(m-2)}{\sqrt{n}}\right) \stackrel{\triangle}{=}
916: c_6>0. \label{e:f}
917: \end{eqnarray}
918: Combining (\ref{e:LB_condPE1}) and (\ref{e:f}) completes the proof of
919: the lemma.
920: \end{proof}
921:
922: Recall that the process $\{S_i\}$ is generated from $\{\tau_i\}$ and
923: $\{E_i\}$. Consider an i.i.d. Bernoulli process $\{\tilde{E}_i\}$ with
924: $P\{\tilde{E}_1=1\}=c_6$. Now we can construct a process
925: $\{\tilde{S}_i, i\geq 1\}$ similar to the process $\{S_i\}$ using
926: $\{\tau_i\}$ and $\{\tilde{E}_i\}$ instead of $\{E_i\}$.
927: Lemma~\ref{l:LB_Pmark} shows that the processes $\{S_i\}$ and
928: $\{\tilde{S}_i\}$ are coupled such that $\tilde{S}_i \geq S_i$ (the
929: inequality corresponds to standard stochastic dominance). Now
930: consider queue, ${\cal Q}_2$, with the same arrival process as ${\cal
931: Q}_1$ but with potential-departure process
932: $\{\tilde{S}_i\}$. Depending on the value of $c_6$, the value of
933: $\alpha$ can be chosen so that the arrival rate is strictly smaller
934: than the potential departure rate in ${\cal Q}_2$ so as to ensure
935: stability. The distribution of $\tilde{S}_1$ is the same as $\tau_1 +
936: \ldots + \tau_G$, where $G$ is an independent Geometric random
937: variable with parameter $c_6$. As a result, for any $r \in {\mathbb
938: N}$,
939: \begin{equation}
940: E[\tilde{S}^r_1]=\Theta(E[\tau^r_1]).
941: \label{e:EStilde2}
942: \end{equation}
943: In light of (\ref{e:EStilde2}), it is easy to see that the delay
944: scaling of queue $\cq_2$ is the same as the delay scaling of a queue
945: in which an arrival happens each time S and R meet with probability
946: $0.5$ and a potential departure occurs each time R and D meet. Since
947: we are interested only in the delay scaling, henceforth we assume that
948: in $\cq_2$, an arrival happens when S and R meet with probability
949: $0.5$ and a potential departure occurs whenever R and D meet.
950:
951: At this stage we have upper bounded the delay in the relay-queue by
952: the delay in ${\cal Q}_2$. The inter-arrival times and the
953: inter-potential departure times in ${\cal Q}_2$ are i.i.d. processes.
954: However these two processes are not independent for the following
955: simple reason:~if the S-D pair intersects the great circle of R, $k >
956: 0$ vertices apart then R has to travel at least distance $k$ on the
957: discrete torus after an arrival for a potential departure to occur.
958:
959: Next, we will bound the delay in $\cq_2$ by the sum of the delays
960: through two {\em virtual} queues, $\cq_3$ and $\cq_4$, in tandem. Both
961: $\cq_3$ and $\cq_4$ will be shown to have delay of $O(n \log n)$. This
962: will imply that the delay of $\cq_2$ is $O(n\log n)$. Queues $\cq_3$
963: and $\cq_4$ are constructed as follows. The arrival process of $\cq_3$
964: is the same as that of $\cq_2$. The potential-departure process of
965: $\cq_3$ is an i.i.d. Bernoulli process with parameter $2/3n$ (or
966: potential departure rate $\frac{2}{3n}$). An arrival occurs at $\cq_4$
967: whenever there is a potential-departure at $\cq_3$. If $\cq_3$ is
968: non-empty, then the arrival to $\cq_4$ is the head-of-line packet
969: transferred from $\cq_3$ to $\cq_4$ or else a {\em dummy} packet is
970: fed to $\cq_4$. Thus the arrival process at $\cq_4$ is the same as the
971: potential-service process at $\cq_3$. By construction, the delay of a
972: packet through this tandem of queues, $\cq_3$ and $\cq_4$, upper
973: bounds the delay experienced by a packet through $\cq_2$. Now, from
974: Lemmas~\ref{lx1} and \ref{lx2} stated in the next section, the
975: expected delay through $\cq_3$ and $\cq_4$ is $O(n\log n)$. Thus the
976: expected delay of the packets of each S-D pair relayed through each
977: relay R in a typical configuration is $O(n\log n)$. The delay of
978: scheme is the expectation of the packet delay averaged over all S-D
979: pairs and all relay nodes. Hence it follows that the delay of the
980: scheme is $O(n\log n)$. Combining this with (\ref{e:LB_delay}), we have
981: proved the following.
982:
983: \begin{theorem}
984: The delay of Scheme $\Pi$ is $\Theta(n\log n)$.
985: \label{t:schemepi_delay}
986: \end{theorem}
987:
988:
989:
990: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
991: \section{Remaining Proofs}
992: \label{s:rem_proofs}
993: In this section, we prove Lemmas \ref{lx1} and \ref{lx2}, which were
994: used to prove that Scheme $\Pi$ has delay of $O(n\log n)$. Before
995: proving these, we present Lemma \ref{lem:var} which will be useful for
996: both these proofs.
997:
998: Recall that each node performs an independent random walk on a 1-D
999: discrete torus of size $\sqrt{n}$ on its great circle. Let $Z$ be a
1000: random variable which is distributed as the inter-meeting time of two
1001: distinct nodes. The following lemma provides the first two moments of
1002: $Z$.
1003: \begin{lemma}
1004: \label{lem:var}
1005: \[ E[Z] = n, ~~~E[Z^2] = \Theta(n^2 \log n).\]
1006: \end{lemma}
1007: \begin{proof}
1008: As nodes perform independent random walks, the joint position of two
1009: nodes is a 2-D random walk on the $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ discrete
1010: torus. Thus the inter-meeting time of any two nodes is equivalent to
1011: the first return time to state $(0,0)$ for this random walk on a
1012: $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ torus. Since we are interested only in
1013: determining the exact order of the moments, we will consider a simple
1014: random walk.
1015:
1016: Let $X(t) = (X_1(t),X_2(t)) \in \{0,\dots,\sqrt{n}-1\}^2$ be a simple
1017: random walk on the $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ torus. Then the first
1018: return time to state $(0,0)$ is
1019: \[ T=\inf\{ t \geq 1:X(t) = (0,0),\; X(0)=(0,0)\}. \]
1020: Note that $X(t)$ is a finite-state Markov chain with a uniform
1021: equilibrium on the $n$ states. For any finite-state Markov chain, the
1022: expectation of the first return time to any state is the reciprocal of
1023: the equilibrium probability of the Markov chain being in that
1024: state. Hence, $E[T] = n$.
1025:
1026: Define, $T_0 = \inf\{ t \geq 1: X(t) = (0,0)\}$. Observe that $T_0$
1027: differs from $T$ in that $T$ is conditioned on starting at
1028: $X(0)=(0,0)$. Let $E_{(i,j)}T_{(k,l)}$ denote the expected time to
1029: hit state $(k,l)$ for the first time starting from state $(i,j)$. Let
1030: $E_\pi[T_0]$ denote the expectation of $T_0$ given that $X(0)$ is
1031: distributed according to the uniform stationary probability
1032: distribution $\pi$. Then,
1033: \begin{eqnarray}
1034: E_\pi[T_0]&=&\sum_{i,j=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\pi(i,j)E_{(i,j)}T_{(0,0)}
1035: ~=~ \sum_{i,j=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\pi(i,j)E_{(i,j)}T_{(k,l)}
1036: \label{e:t0_1}\\
1037: &=& \sum_{i,j=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\sum_{k,l=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\frac{1}{n}\pi(i,j)E_{(i,j)}T_{(k,l)}~=~\sum_{i,j=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\sum_{k,l=0}^{\sqrt{n}-1}\pi(i,j)\pi(k,l)E_{(i,j)}T_{(k,l)}\nonumber\\
1038: &=&n\log n,
1039: \label{e:t0_2}
1040: \end{eqnarray}
1041: where (\ref{e:t0_1}) holds because $\sum_{ij} E_{(i,j)}T_{(0,0)} =
1042: \sum_{ij} E_{(i,j)}T_{(k,l)}$ for any $0\leq k,l\leq \sqrt{n}-1$ due to symmetry
1043: of states corresponding to cells on the torus. For the validity of
1044: (\ref{e:t0_2}), see page 11 of Chapter 5 in \cite{AF94}.
1045:
1046: Using Kac's formula (see Corollary 24 in Chapter 2 of \cite{AF94}) and
1047: (\ref{e:t0_2}), we obtain
1048: \begin{eqnarray}
1049: E[T^2] &=& \frac{2E_\pi[T_0] + 1}{\pi(0,0)}~=~ 2n^2\log n + n.\nonumber\\
1050: \end{eqnarray}
1051: Therefore, we obtain $E[Z] = n$ and $E[Z^2] = \Theta(n^2 \log n)$.
1052: \end{proof}
1053:
1054: \begin{lemma}\label{lx1}
1055: Let $D_3$ denote the delay of a packet through queue, $\cq_3$, as
1056: defined above. Then, \[ E[D_3] = O(n \log n).\]
1057: \end{lemma}
1058: \begin{proof}
1059: An arrival occurs to $\cq_3$ when S and R meet with probability $0.5$.
1060: Let $\{X_i\}$ be the sequence of inter-arrival times to this
1061: queue. Then, $X_i$ are i.i.d. with $E[X_1] = 2 E[Z] = 2n$ and
1062: $E[X_1^2] = \Theta(E[Z^2]) = \Theta(n^2\log n)$ from Lemma
1063: \ref{lem:var}. The potential-departure process is an i.i.d. Bernoulli
1064: process with parameter $1/1.5n$. Let $\{Y_i\}$ be the sequence of
1065: service times then $Y_i$ is a Geometric random variable with mean
1066: $1.5n$. Hence $E[Y_1] = 1.5n$ and $E[Y_1^2] = \Theta(n^2)$. By
1067: construction, the service process is independent of the arrival
1068: process and hence $\cq_3$ is a GI/GI/1 FCFS queue. Then, by Kingman's
1069: upper bound \cite{Wolff} on the expected delay for a GI/GI/1 -- FCFS
1070: queue, the expected delay of $\cq_3$ is upper bounded as
1071: \begin{eqnarray}
1072: E[D_3] & = & O\left(\frac{E[X_1^2] + E[Y_1^2]}{E[X_1]}\right)~ = ~
1073: O\left(\frac{n^2 \log n + n^2 }{n}\right) ~ = ~ O\left(n \log
1074: n\right). \label{fe2}
1075: \end{eqnarray}
1076: \end{proof}
1077:
1078: %\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lx2}}
1079: \begin{lemma}\label{lx2}
1080: Let $D_4$ denote the delay of a packet through queue, $\cq_4$, as
1081: defined above. Then, \[ E[D_4] = O(n \log n).\]
1082: \end{lemma}
1083: \begin{proof}
1084: Consider the service process of $\cq_4$, which is $1$ at a potential
1085: departure instant and $0$ otherwise. This is a stationary, ergodic
1086: process since the inter-potential-departure times are i.i.d. with mean
1087: $n$. The Bernoulli arrival process to $\cq_4$ is independent of the
1088: service process with mean inter-arrival time $1.5n$. Since the arrival
1089: and service processes form a jointly stationary and ergodic process
1090: with mean service time strictly less than mean inter-arrival time, the
1091: queue has a stationary, ergodic distribution with finite expectation
1092: as shown by \cite{loynes}. Thus $\cq_4$ is stable.
1093:
1094: Let $\tilde{Q}_t$ be the number of packets in the queue in time-slot
1095: $t$ and let $Q_i$ be the number of packets in the queue at potential
1096: departure instant $i$. Thus the process $\{Q_i\}$ is obtained by
1097: sampling $\{\tilde{Q}_t\}$ at potential departure instants. Let
1098: $A_{i+1}$ be the number of arrivals between potential departure
1099: instants $i$ and $i+1$. Then the evolution of $Q_i$ is given by
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: Q_{i+1} = Q_i - {\mathbf 1}_{\{Q_i > 0\}} + A_{i+1}.
1102: \label{e:Qevolution}
1103: \end{equation}
1104: Comparing the evolution of the process $\{Q_i\}$ with that of
1105: $\{\tilde{Q}_t\}$ shows that $\{Q_i\}$ also has a stationary, ergodic
1106: distribution. Let $Z$ be the inter-meeting time of any two nodes as
1107: defined in the beginning of this section. Then since the arrival
1108: process is Bernoulli and the inter-potential departure times are
1109: i.i.d. with common distribution that of $Z$, it is clear the $\{A_i\}$
1110: is a stationary process. Let $\tilde{Q}$, $Q$ and $A$ be random
1111: variables with the common stationary marginals of $\{\tilde{Q}_t\}$,
1112: $\{Q_i\}$ and $\{A_i\}$ respectively. Then taking expection in
1113: (\ref{e:Qevolution}) under the stationary distribution, we obtain
1114: \begin{equation}
1115: P(Q>0) = E[A].
1116: \label{e:PQnot0}
1117: \end{equation}
1118: The arrival proces is i.i.d. Bernoulli and hence conditioned on $Z$,
1119: the distribution of $A$ is Binomial$\,(Z,2/3n)$. Since $E[Z]=n$ from
1120: Lemma~\ref{lem:var}, we obtain
1121: \begin{eqnarray}
1122: E[A] &=& E[E[A|Z]] ~ = ~ E\left[ \frac{Z}{1.5n} \right] ~ = ~ 2/3.\label{e:Earrivals}
1123: \end{eqnarray}
1124: Squaring (\ref{e:Qevolution}), taking expecation, using the independence
1125: of $Q_i$ and $A_{i+1}$ and then rearranging terms, we obtain
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: 2(1-E[A])E[Q] = P(Q>0) + E[A^2] - 2E[A]P(Q>0).
1128: \label{e:EQstep1}
1129: \end{equation}
1130: Using (\ref{e:PQnot0}) and (\ref{e:Earrivals}) in the above, we obtain
1131: \begin{eqnarray}
1132: E[Q] &=& \frac{E[A] + E[A^2] -2E[A]^2}{1(1-E[A])} ~=~ \frac{3}{2}\left(E[A^2] - \frac{2}{9}\right).
1133: \label{e:EQ_EA2}
1134: \end{eqnarray}
1135: Recall that conditioned on $Z$ the distribution of $A$ is Binomial$\,(Z,2/3n)$ and hence
1136: \begin{eqnarray}
1137: E[A^2] &=& E[E[A^2]Z]] ~=~ \frac{2E[Z]}{3n} + \frac{4}{9n^2}\left(E[Z^2] -E[Z] \right)\nonumber\\
1138: &=& \left(\frac{2}{3} - \frac{4}{9n} \right) + \frac{4}{9n^2}\Theta(n^2\log n) ~=~ \Theta(\log n), \label{e:EAsquared}
1139: \end{eqnarray}
1140: where we used Lemma~\ref{lem:var}. As a result it follows from
1141: (\ref{e:EQ_EA2}) that
1142: \begin{equation}
1143: E[Q] = \Theta(\log n).
1144: \label{e:EQoflogn}
1145: \end{equation}
1146:
1147: Next, we will bound $E[\tilde{Q}]$ using $E[Q]$. To this end,
1148: consider a time-slot $t$ and let the number of potential departures
1149: before time-slot $t$ be $I(t)$. Thus time-slot $t$ is flanked by
1150: potential departures $I(t)$ and $I(t)+1$. Then $\tilde{Q}_t
1151: \leq Q_{I(t)} + A_{I(t)+1}$. Also using the fact that
1152: $\{\tilde{Q}_t\}$ is ergodic, with probability $1$, we have
1153: \begin{eqnarray}
1154: E[\tilde{Q}] &=& \lim_{T\tends\infty} \frac{1}{T} \sum_{k=1}^{T} \tilde{Q}_k \nonumber\\
1155: &\leq& \lim_{T\tends\infty} \frac{1}{T} \sum_{j=1}^{I(T)+1} \left(
1156: Q_j Z_{j+1} + A_{j+1}Z_{j+1}\right)\nonumber \\
1157: &=& \lim_{T\tends\infty} \frac{I(T)+1}{T} \frac{1}{I(T)+1} \sum_{j=1}^{I(T)+1}
1158: \left( Q_j Z_{j+1} + A_{j+1}Z_{j+1} \right) \nonumber \\
1159: &=& \frac{1}{E[Z]} \left( E[Q_1 Z_2] + E[A_1 Z_1]\right)\label{e:IbyT_renewal}\\
1160: &=& \frac{1}{n} \left( E[Q]E[Z] + \frac{2}{3n}E[Z^2]\right) \label{e:QindZ}\\
1161: &=& O(\log n).
1162: \end{eqnarray}
1163: We used the fact that $I(T)/T \tends 1/E[Z]$ by the elementary renewal
1164: theorem \cite{Wolff} in (\ref{e:IbyT_renewal}) and the independence of
1165: $Q_j$ and $Z_{j+1}$ in (\ref{e:QindZ}). Now using Little's formula,
1166: since the arrival rate is $2/3n$, we conclude that
1167: \[ E[D_4] = E[A]E[\tilde{Q}] = \frac{3n}{2}O(\log n) = O(n\log n).\]
1168:
1169: \end{proof}
1170:
1171:
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173: \section{Conclusion}
1174: \label{sec:disc}
1175:
1176: In this paper, we studied the maximal throughput scaling and the
1177: corresponding delay scaling in a random mobile network with restricted
1178: node mobility. In \cite{DGT}, it was shown that a particular mobility
1179: restriction does not affect the throughput scaling. In this paper, we
1180: showed that it does not affect delay scaling either. In particular, we
1181: show that delay scales as $D(n) = \Theta(n\log n)$ for a network of
1182: $n$ nodes, which is the same as the delay scaling without any mobility
1183: restriction. This was understood to be a consequence of the fact that
1184: in spite of an apparent restriction, essentially the node mobility
1185: remaining unchanged in the sense that (i) each node meets every other
1186: node for $\Theta(1/n)$ fraction of the time with only $\Theta(1)$
1187: other neighboring nodes, and (ii) the inter-meeting time of nodes
1188: has mean of $\Theta(n)$ and variance of $O(n^2 \log n)$.
1189:
1190: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
1191:
1192: \bibitem{AF94} D. Aldous and J. Fill, ``Reversible Markov Chains and Random
1193: Walks on Graph,'' Available at
1194: http://128.32.135.2/users/aldous/RWG/book.html .
1195:
1196: \bibitem{DPRZ} A. Dembo, Y. Peres, J. Rosen and O. Zeitouni, ``Cover Times
1197: for Brownian Motion and Random Walks in Two Dimensions'',{\em Annals
1198: of Mathematics}, 160(2), p. 433-464, 2004.
1199: %Also available at {\tt http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~amir/preprints/cover.ps}
1200:
1201: \bibitem{DGT} S. N. Diggavi, M. Grossglauser and D. Tse, ``Even
1202: One-Dimensional Mobility Increases Ad Hoc Wireless Capacity'', {\em In
1203: Proceedings of ISIT 2002}, Laussane, Switzerland, July 2002.
1204:
1205: \bibitem{durrett1} R. Durrett, ``Probability: Theory and Examples'',
1206: Second Edition, Duxbury Press, 1995.
1207:
1208: \bibitem{EMPS} A. El Gamal, J. Mammen, B. Prabhakar and D. Shah,
1209: ``Throughput-Delay Trade-off in Wireless Networks'', {\em In Proceedings of
1210: IEEE INFOCOM}, Hong Kong, 2004.
1211:
1212: \bibitem{EMPS_TDto_fluid} A. El Gamal, J. Mammen, B. Prabhakar and D. Shah,
1213: ``Optimal Throughput-Delay Trade-off in Wireless Networks -- Part I:
1214: The Fluid Model '', unpublished, 2005, available at
1215: www.stanford.edu/\~{}jmammen/papers/it-TDfluid.ps.
1216:
1217: \bibitem{GK} P. Gupta and P. R. Kumar, ``The Capacity of Wireless Networks'',
1218: {\em IEEE Trans. on Information Theory}, 46(2), March 2000.
1219:
1220: \bibitem{GT} M. Grossglauser and D. Tse, ``Mobility Increases the Capacity
1221: of Ad-hoc Wireless Networks'', {\em In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM},
1222: Anchorage, Alaska, 2001.
1223:
1224: \bibitem{loynes} R. Loynes, ``Stability of Queue with non-independent arrival and service times'',
1225: {\em In Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.}, 58:497-520, 1962.
1226:
1227: \bibitem{MS04} J. Mammen and D. Shah, ``Throughput and Delay in Random
1228: Wireless Networks: 1-D Mobility is Just As Good As 2-D'', {\em In
1229: Proceedings of IEEE ISIT}, Chicago, 2004.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{MR95} R. Motwani and P. Raghavan, ``Randomized algorithms'',
1232: {\em Cambridge Univ. Press}, 1995.
1233:
1234: \bibitem{Wolff} R. W. Wolff, ``Stochastic Modeling and the Theory of Queues'',
1235: {\em Prentice-Hall}, 1989.
1236:
1237: \end{thebibliography}
1238:
1239: \end{document}
1240: % LocalWords: ij FCFS Kingman's IID Lyapunov Lindley's Markov's Mammen Engg
1241: % LocalWords: Devavrat EECS ESD Grossglauser Tse Gamal Prabhakar Diggavi SINR
1242: % LocalWords: whp Chernoff vertices Kac's memorylessness ISIT Laussane INFOCOM
1243: % LocalWords: Durrett Duxbury Loynes Dembo Zeitouni queueing
1244: