US20150256354A1 - Efficient Transmission Of Information To Multiple Nodes Using Cooperative Feedback Requests - Google Patents
Efficient Transmission Of Information To Multiple Nodes Using Cooperative Feedback Requests Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20150256354A1 US20150256354A1 US14/678,359 US201514678359A US2015256354A1 US 20150256354 A1 US20150256354 A1 US 20150256354A1 US 201514678359 A US201514678359 A US 201514678359A US 2015256354 A1 US2015256354 A1 US 2015256354A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- nodes
- node
- coded packets
- network
- destination
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L12/00—Data switching networks
- H04L12/02—Details
- H04L12/16—Arrangements for providing special services to substations
- H04L12/18—Arrangements for providing special services to substations for broadcast or conference, e.g. multicast
- H04L12/1863—Arrangements for providing special services to substations for broadcast or conference, e.g. multicast comprising mechanisms for improved reliability, e.g. status reports
- H04L12/1868—Measures taken after transmission, e.g. acknowledgments
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L1/00—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received
- H04L1/004—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received by using forward error control
- H04L1/0076—Distributed coding, e.g. network coding, involving channel coding
- H04L1/0077—Cooperative coding
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L1/00—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received
- H04L1/12—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received by using return channel
- H04L1/16—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received by using return channel in which the return channel carries supervisory signals, e.g. repetition request signals
- H04L1/18—Automatic repetition systems, e.g. Van Duuren systems
- H04L1/1829—Arrangements specially adapted for the receiver end
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L12/00—Data switching networks
- H04L12/02—Details
- H04L12/16—Arrangements for providing special services to substations
- H04L12/18—Arrangements for providing special services to substations for broadcast or conference, e.g. multicast
- H04L12/1886—Arrangements for providing special services to substations for broadcast or conference, e.g. multicast with traffic restrictions for efficiency improvement, e.g. involving subnets or subdomains
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L45/00—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04W—WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
- H04W4/00—Services specially adapted for wireless communication networks; Facilities therefor
- H04W4/06—Selective distribution of broadcast services, e.g. multimedia broadcast multicast service [MBMS]; Services to user groups; One-way selective calling services
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L1/00—Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received
- H04L2001/0092—Error control systems characterised by the topology of the transmission link
- H04L2001/0093—Point-to-multipoint
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04W—WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
- H04W84/00—Network topologies
- H04W84/18—Self-organising networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks or sensor networks
Definitions
- This application generally relates to transmitting information and more particularly to efficient and reliable distribution of content (including, but not limited to video, images, or documents) among users.
- acknowledgments are either performed on an end-to-end basis, such as with TCP, or else on a hop-by-hop basis, as is accomplished with link layer acknowledgements.
- Such acknowledgements conventionally are in the form of feedback about specific packets or groups of specific packets.
- Network coding enables feedback to consist only of the number of packets received or missing, as the identity of specific individual packets is no longer needed with coding.
- the problem of reliable multicast can be difficult, particularly in a mobile ad hoc network (MANET). If each node must acknowledge every packet it receives, and the number of nodes in a network is large, or the number of simultaneous multicast messages transmitted is sizable, a so-called “acknowledgment explosion” (or “ACK explosion”) can result.
- the systems and techniques described herein relate to the concept of efficiently transmitting data in a network.
- the systems and techniques described herein may specifically be used to reduce the amount of traffic in a network while still enabling timely feedback and message delivery in the network.
- the systems and techniques described herein find application in a number of different types of multicast systems.
- the nodes may have a priori knowledge of the probability that a packet transmitted from a specified node can be correctly received by any other specified nodes.
- a priori knowledge can come from location information that the nodes receive about each other, as well as from a channel model.
- ACK acknowledgement
- NAK negative acknowledgement
- a system and method for using location information in nodes coupled to a network to determine if the nodes have sufficient knowledge to perform cooperative feedback within the network is described.
- cell phone GPS systems are used to provide location information of a network node and the location in formation is used to determine whether a node can send a cooperative feedback request.
- the concepts, systems and techniques described herein provide a number of advantages including, but not limited to: (1) more efficient use of network bandwidth; (2) more efficient use of time; and (3) more efficient use of power at network nodes (e.g., longer battery life in nodes which operate on batteries such as mobile phones, tablets, or other devices).
- network nodes e.g., longer battery life in nodes which operate on batteries such as mobile phones, tablets, or other devices.
- the concepts, systems and techniques described herein result in a generally more efficient use of multiple resources (including, but not limited to resources such as bandwidth, time, power) during transmission of information from a source node or source nodes to one or more other nodes.
- a wireless network in which there will be packet losses is considered.
- Nodes in the network can “overhear” and store information that they receive with a sufficiently high signal to noise plus interference ratio.
- intermediate relay nodes When intermediate “relay nodes” are used between a source and a destination, it is assumed that random linear network coding is used by such intermediate relay nodes to combine packets they receive from other nodes, before repromulgating the received information.
- random linear network coding is used by such a random linear combination is transmitted, all nodes within reception range of the relay node can thereby receive an implicit acknowledgment as to how many degrees of freedom that relay node has already received.
- the number of degrees of freedom received by other nodes, or from blocks from other flows of which the relay node has knowledge, can also potentially be piggybacked on to the new random linear combination.
- new traffic originating at any node can potentially piggyback information pertaining to the degrees of freedom received from other blocks from other flows.
- a node's view of the state of the system could in many cases be piggybacked on to periodic messages (e.g. periodic control messages), without significant additional bandwidth cost.
- periodic messages e.g. periodic control messages
- the state of the system is defined as the number of degrees of freedom each node has received from each block of original information packets from each flow.
- Part of a node's view of the state of the system in some cases could be given probabilistically, based upon a channel model, locations of other nodes, the transmissions heard by the node, and knowledge of the packets transmitted by the node.
- a non-source node When a non-source node's knowledge indicates that all destination nodes have, with high probability, received all the degrees of freedom from a block, then that node can send out a cooperative feedback request (also sometimes referred to herein as a “auction message”) in order to confirm that transmissions of additional coded packets derived from that block can cease. That is, the non-source node can send an ACK or other nodes.
- a cooperative feedback request also sometimes referred to herein as a “auction message”
- the non-source node can send an ACK or other nodes.
- Such an auction message could, for example, be appended to some other message (e.g. a periodic control message) the node would be sending anyway.
- a node's knowledge indicates, with high probability, that some nodes have not received all coded packets from a source, then that node can send out a cooperative feedback request corresponding to a negative acknowledgement or NAK.
- another node responds to the auction message with a NAK only if at least one of two criteria holds: first, the node's view of the state of the system differs from that in the auction message, which claims a block is completely received by all destinations; or second, if the node has knowledge, (i.e.
- the node has information stored therein or has access to information or can compute information) that a distant node may have been unable to hear the auction message and that the distant node may not have all the degrees of freedom of the block which the auction message advertises as being completely received.
- the NAK can potentially serve to inform the distant node of the auction message, which can then respond to this NAK.
- the node's knowledge may, for example, be based at least in part upon one or more of node location information, a probabilistic channel model and/or piggy backed information overheard.
- Non-source nodes that receive a NAK can respond by transmitting random linear combinations from the needed block of packets.
- a node that responds to a NAK by transmitting more such coded packets is not necessarily the node that sent the auction message, but rather can be selected based upon criteria including its proximity to nodes missing degrees of freedom. Accordingly, the node that transmits the auction message does not necessarily even have to receive the NAK, as long as another suitably positioned node does. Thus, not all NAKs need to be successfully received by all nodes, including the source node.
- the number of random linear combinations that should be transmitted by a node can be determined by the probabilistic channel model, the node locations, and the number of degrees of freedom still missing at destination nodes.
- the amount of traffic dedicated to feedback can be reduced through several mechanisms.
- a relay node that transmits coded combinations of packets can also thereby inform other nodes of the degrees of freedom it has already received.
- acknowledgements for numbers degrees of freedom, rather than for individual packets can be piggybacked onto several types of messages, with little, if any, overhead in many cases; these message types include periodic control messages, new blocks of information originating from a node, and coded repromulgated information being “relayed” from a node.
- NAKs Only if other nodes disagree with the premise, do they send NAKs. Since a cooperative feedback request is issued only after a node has knowledge that indicates all other nodes have all degrees of freedom for a block with high probability, statistically there will be few NAKs transmitted in response to such auction messages. Furthermore, a NAK need not be sent all the way back to the node that originated transmissions of the block; it only needs to reach another node that has all of the degrees of freedom from that block.
- a system and method to reduce the number of data transmissions between nodes in a network comprises a plurality of nodes, each for the nodes capable of sending an ACK or a NAK for at least one other node in the network.
- a system and method for reducing the amount of ACK and NAK traffic in a network comprises a plurality of nodes, each for the nodes capable of sending an ACK or a NAK for at least one other node in the network and wherein each of the nodes broadcasts its ACK or NAK.
- each of the mobile devices conserves battery power as a result of: (a) transmitting fewer ACK and/or NAK messages; (b) sending additional coded packets over paths that require less power (such as shorter distances); (c) sending fewer total coded packets.
- a system and method for using location information in nodes to determine with high probability if nodes have sufficient numbers of coded packets is used to determine when to generate cooperative feedback requests, as well as when/whether to generate cooperative ACKs or NAKs.
- at least one node in the network corresponds to a mobile phone containing a GPS system which is used to provide the location information.
- a system and method utilizing probabilistic knowledge on the state of the system as a means to decrease the amount of feedback needed in a system comprises a network having a plurality of nodes wherein each of the nodes in the network knows the location of at least one other node and each node may have a statistical model for channel losses to other nodes and wherein each of the nodes also knows what it transmitted and what it received.
- the location of other nodes, the statistical model for channel losses to all other nodes, the node transmission and reception information are used to reduce the number of messages which are transmitted in the network, including but not limited to ACK messages and NAK messages.
- network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models is used to reduce the number of repetitive transmissions to different nodes, the number of re-transmitted messages and the number of feedback messages.
- FIGS. 1-3 are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which utilizes one or more cooperative feedback requests to reduce the amount of traffic in a network;
- FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for reducing the amount of traffic in a network utilizing cooperative feedback requests
- FIG. 5 is a block diagrams illustrating a prior art network experiencing an ACK explosion
- FIGS. 6 and 6A are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which avoids an ACK explosion by using cooperative feedback requests
- FIG. 7 is a plot of message loss vs. distance from the transmitting node for a total offered information traffic of 0.3;
- FIG. 8 is a plot of percent of message loss vs. distance from transmitter at total offered information traffic of 0.3;
- FIG. 9 is a plot of feedback to the transmitter at 0 for a twenty one (21) node network.
- FIG. 10 is a plot of feedback to the transmitter in the middle for a twenty one (21) node network.
- a network 10 includes a plurality of stations or nodes 12 a - 12 e generally denoted 12 .
- Nodes 12 can be coupled as shown through channels or links 13 a - 13 h generally denoted 13 . All or portions of network 10 may comprise WiFi, cellular, satellite technology.
- source node 12 a transmits information to one or more other nodes 12 b - 12 i in network 10 , wherein the information is in the form of a plurality of coded packets. If each of the nodes is a destination node (i.e. a node to which the source node intended to send the information), then transmission of coded packets continues until each destination node receives a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message.
- a destination node i.e. a node to which the source node intended to send the information
- Network 10 utilizes network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models to determine when to cease transmitting coded packets, when to request feedback, when to send feedback messages, and when to send additional coded packets in response to feedback.
- network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models, the system is able to reduce the number of data transmissions and feedback requests to different nodes, as well as the number of feedback messages. These reductions result in a decrease in the amount of traffic in the network, and consequently results in an increase it the amount of throughput and a decrease in delivery time in the network.
- Each of the nodes 12 in network 10 “knows” (i.e. has information stored therein or has access to information or can compute information) the location of some or all other nodes and each node includes a statistical model for channel losses to all other nodes (any of the well-known models or even models yet to be developed may be used). Each of the nodes 12 also knows what it transmitted and what it received. Utilizing some or all of the aforementioned information, the number of messages which are transmitted in the network 10 , including but not limited to acknowledgement messages (ACK) messages or more simple ACKs and negative acknowledgement messages (NAK) messages or more simply NAKs may be reduced compared with the number of messages sent in a conventional network.
- ACK acknowledgement messages
- NAK negative acknowledgement messages
- nodes transmit coded packets. Then as in FIG. 2 , a cooperative feedback request (or an “auction message”) is sent out by a node (in this example node 12 e ) that has determined that with high probability all nodes have received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the source node's (in this example node 12 a ) message.
- a cooperative feedback request (or an “auction message”) is sent out by a node (in this example node 12 e ) that has determined that with high probability all nodes have received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the source node's (in this example node 12 a ) message.
- Node 12 a acts as a source node and transmits a coded packet 14 , or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′, to each of the nodes in the network (i.e. nodes 12 a - 12 i in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 1 ).
- node 12 d When nodes 12 d receives coded packet 14 , or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′, node 12 d utilizes a channel model contained therein to predict the probability that nodes 12 e - 12 i receive coded packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′. If node 12 d determines, based upon the channel model, that coded packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′; was also received at nodes 12 e - 12 i, then node 12 d sends an ACK message for itself as well as for nodes 12 e - 12 i. Thus, nodes 12 e - 12 i do not send separate ACK messages. This approach reduces the number of ACK messages being transmitted in the network and thus the amount of network traffic is reduced.
- node 12 d (or any other node) determines, based upon the channel model, that coded packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′ was not received at one or all of nodes 12 e - 12 i, then node 12 d may send a NAK message for nodes 12 e - 12 i. Thus, nodes 12 e - 12 i do not send separate NAK messages. This approach reduces the number of NAK messages being transmitted in the network and thus the amount of network traffic is reduced. It should be appreciated that node 12 d may or may not have successfully received packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′.
- node 12 d even if node 12 d successfully receives packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′, it may be possible that node 12 d received packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decode message 14 ′ in such conditions that based upon channel models or other information either stored in the node or which the node can access, node 12 d is able to conclude that nodes 12 e - 12 i could not have or did not likely have successfully received the message 14 ′. In this case node 12 d would send an ACK for itself and would send a NAK for nodes 12 d - 12 i. In many cases, only the NAK for nodes 12 d - 12 i would be of use to other nodes; in these situations node 12 d may not need to send an ACK for itself.
- nodes learn how many coded packets other nodes are missing For example, re-encoded packets transmitted from a relay node implicitly can inform what that node needs. Also, ACK or NAKmessages can be piggybacked onto periodic location updates or other control messages. Also, ACK or NAK messages can be piggybacked onto new (or re-encoded “relayed”) traffic transmitted from a node. Also, some or all nodes may have a probabilistic channel model for how many coded packets other nodes have received, for each message transmitted by any node. The inputs to this model are updated with reception of each message including, but not limited to each of the above-noted message types.
- a particular node which is not the source node e.g. node 12 e
- the information indicates with a desired level of probability that all other nodes (e.g. nodes 12 a - 12 d and nodes 12 f - 12 i ) with a need to decode a message have sufficient information to decode the message
- that particular node can send a cooperative feedback request (also sometimes referred to herein as an “auction message”).
- a cooperative feedback request also sometimes referred to herein as an “auction message”.
- node 12 e broadcasts the cooperative feedback request 18 (shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2 as an auction message 18 ) to the network.
- cooperative feedback request 18 shows that the information it has stored therein (or which is computed therein or which is otherwise available to the node 12 e ) indicates that node 12 e believes with a desired degree of probability that all other nodes have received enough coded packets from source 12 a and other relay nodes in 12 to decode the message from source 12 a.
- node 12 e sends the cooperative feedback request to nodes 12 b - 12 d as well as to nodes 12 f - 12 i (i.e. node 12 e broadcasts auction message 18 to network 10 ).
- node 12 e is the node which transmits the cooperative feedback request 18
- any node in the network with sufficient knowledge may transmit the cooperative feedback request to the other nodes including any and all destination nodes.
- This approach relieves from the source node (illustrated as node 12 a in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2 ) of the burden of providing all feedback and all feedback requests.
- the node which provides the cooperative feedback request can be any node in the network with sufficient knowledge that all other nodes at which the message should be decoded have enough information to decode the message (e.g. that each destination node has enough information to decode the message) with high probability.
- a node 12 other than source node 12 a can make the determination as to whether it is necessary to transit or re-transmit any additional packets in the network.
- each of nodes 12 b - 12 i corresponds to a destination node for that message.
- the node or nodes which transmit the cooperative feedback requests can be any node in the network with sufficient knowledge that all other nodes with high probability have sufficient information to decode the message (i.e. that each destination node has enough information to decode the message).
- node 12 g may send a NAK message for nodes 12 h and/or 12 i.
- source node 12 a sends a packet (not shown in FIG. 3 ).
- the packet is successfully received at nodes 12 b - 12 g.
- Node 12 h in network 10 sends (e.g. broadcasts) a NAK message 20 for itself and another node (i.e. node 12 i ).
- Node 12 g receives the NAK from node 12 h. Since node 12 g knows that it successfully received packet, in response to receiving NAK message 22 , node 12 g performs a cooperative re-transmit operation in which node 12 g transmits new re-encoded packets 22 . In the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 3 , node 12 g broadcasts the re-encoded packets 22 .
- Nodes 12 h , 12 i use re-encoded packets 22 to decode a message.
- source node 12 a would re-send the packet(s) not received by nodes 12 h, 12 i.
- a node would send a NAK for another node either if that node itself did not receive enough coded packets or if the information stored or computed or otherwise existing in the node (or the node's knowledge) indicates that another, perhaps more disadvantaged (e.g. a node more distant from a source), node did not successfully receive enough coded packets.
- a node 12 sends a NAK if the node itself did not receive enough coded packets or if the node has knowledge with a desired degree of probability that another node did not receive enough coded packets.
- a method of transmitting information from a source node to one or more destination nodes comprises transmitting a random linear combination of coded packets. All nodes within reception range of relay nodes may receive implicit acknowledgments as to how many degrees of freedom the relay nodes have already received. Based upon the degrees of freedom, the transmission of new linear combinations of coded packets may continue, wherein the number of degrees of freedom received by other nodes, or from blocks from other flows of which the relay node has knowledge are piggybacked on the new random linear combinations.
- new traffic originating at any node piggybacks information pertaining to the degrees of freedom received from other blocks from other flows.
- the nodes in the network have a priori knowledge of the probability that a packet transmitted from a specified node can be correctly received by another specified node. Such a priori knowledge can come from location information that the nodes receive about each other, as well as from a channel model.
- FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing the processing performed by or on behalf of a network node which may, for example, be provided as part of a network such as one of the networks shown in FIGS. 1-3 , 6 and 6 A.
- the flow diagram illustrates a method of transmitting information from a source node to one or more other nodes in a network.
- the network is comprised of a plurality of nodes and the information being transmitted is in the form of a plurality of coded packets.
- processing blocks represent steps or instructions or groups of instructions. Some of the processing blocks can represent an empirical procedure or a database while others can represent computer software instructions or groups of instructions. Some of the steps described in the flow diagram may be implemented via computer software while others may be implemented in a different manner.
- processing blocks can represent steps performed by functionally equivalent circuits such as a digital signal processor circuit or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC).
- ASIC application specific integrated circuit
- the flow diagram does not depict the syntax of any particular programming language. Rather, the flow diagram illustrates the functional information one of ordinary skill in the art requires to perform the steps or to fabricate circuits or to generate computer software to perform the processing required of the particular apparatus. It should be noted that where computer software can be used, many routine program elements, such as initialization of loops and variables and the use of temporary variables are not shown. It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that unless otherwise indicated herein, the particular sequence of steps described is illustrative only and can be varied without departing from the spirit of the concepts, systems and techniques described herein.
- processing begins in processing block 30 in which a source node transmits a message in the form of coded packets to one or more other nodes in a network as is generally known.
- One or more of the other nodes correspond to a destination node (i.e. a node which the source node intends to receive the message).
- a destination node i.e. a node which the source node intends to receive the message.
- all other nodes in the network correspond to destination nodes.
- Processing then proceeds to processing block 32 in which the one or more other nodes receive a number of coded packets. It should be appreciated that the destination node(s) should receive a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message.
- Processing proceeds to block 34 , whereby nodes transmit explict and implicit acknowledgements.
- Processing then proceeds to processing block 36 in which a node determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request (a/k/a an auction message) for at least one other node in the network.
- a node determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request.
- the manner in which the node determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request includes the node processing or otherwise using a plurality of different types of information which the node has stored therein or to which the node otherwise has access.
- To determine whether a node can send a cooperative feedback request it is necessary for the node to determine whether another node has or has not received the coded packets transmitted by the source node.
- the node can accomplish this, for example, by using: (a) information which has been overheard or directly transmitted from other nodes; (b) node location information; (c) probabilistic channel model knowledge; (d) a combination of any (including all) of the above types of information (e.g. a combination of information overheard from other nodes and/or node location information and/or information from a probability model for a channel).
- a node determines that it can send a cooperative feedback request (i.e. once a node determines that it can send an auction message for one or more other nodes), then it does so.
- the node sends the cooperative feedback request to each other node in the network (i.e. the node broadcasts the cooperative feedback request).
- Node processing to determine whether to send a cooperative feedback request then ends.
- nodes receiving the cooperative feedback request may then perform additional processing (e.g. transmission of new coded packets or re-transmission of coded packets).
- Each node that receives the cooperative feedback request will determine through the explicit and implicit knowledge it is accumulated about itself and its neighbors, in block 38 , if it should respond to that feedback request. As shown in block 40 , each such responding node transmits a NAK.
- an ACK or a NAK is only sent when one or more nodes have sufficient knowledge to determine if other nodes have received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the message
- the node in response to a non-source node receiving a NAK, transmits coded packets, as in block 42 to other nodes (in accordance with the concepts, systems and techniques described herein, the retransmitting node need not be the source node nor the last hop node that originally transmitted coded packets to the nodes in need of more.
- the non-source node in response to a non-source node receiving a NAK, transmits newly coded packets to other nodes.
- a decision is made as to which node should transmit newly coded packets. In one embodiment, this decision is made using node locations to determine which node should transmit newly coded packets.
- a prior art system includes a source node SN which broadcasts a message BM to a plurality of destination nodes (DN).
- the nodes shown in FIG. 5 may, for example, correspond to people with smart phones.
- Each destination node sends an acknowledgement packet (ACK) to source SN which results in source node SN experiencing an ACK explosion.
- ACK acknowledgement packet
- FIGS. 6 and 6A are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which avoids an ACK explosion by using cooperative feedback requests.
- source node SN again broadcasts a message BM to a plurality of destination nodes (DN).
- DN destination nodes
- a method for transmitting and acknowledging a broadcast message includes for M information packets, generating linear coded packets and transmitting from the source node, the linear coded packets to the destination nodes. Upon reception of the N M linear coded packets at one or more of the destination nodes, determining whether one of the destination nodes can send one of an ACK or a NAK for at least one other destination node.
- Determining whether one of the destination nodes can send one of an ACK or a NAK for at least one other destination node can be accomplished as discussed above (e.g. using information which has been overheard from other nodes; implicitly transmitted by other nodes, piggybacked by other nodes, using node location information; and using probabilistic channel model knowledge in each of the nodes including using a probability channel model; and/or a combination of the above and other techniques).
- Pt coded packet transmission probability
- FIG. 8 shows the probability of losing a message that is sent from the central transmitter.
- FIG. 8 shows the expected mirrored loss as the distance from the transmitting node is increased in either direction.
- the following feedback protocol is implemented when coding and random spreading of coded packets in time is used: when the receiver at the designated plateau point for each transmitter receives the message (that is any k coded packets), it sends an acknowledgement to the transmitting node; the plateau point identifies the closest receiving node that will be impacted by every other potential interfering node; when this node has received the message, it can be assumed that every other node has as well.
- N is the number of nodes in the system and P is the plateau point index.
- P is the plateau point index. Note: when the middle node is the transmitter there are two pivots, defined by each of the equations above, that both must acknowledge message receipt for feedback to be successful.
- the upper curve represents no feedback when all n packets are transmitted, whereas the lower curve shows the performance with the feedback protocol.
- the difference between the two curves shows the significant reduction in loss provided by the feedback protocol.
- the savings from the feedback is greatest where the loss is greatest, which is beyond the plateau point.
- the message loss is reduced by more than a factor of 2.
- the message loss is reduced by a factor greater than 2.
- the absolute value of the decrease in probability of message loss is only a few percent here, whereas it was 15% when the edge node transmitted, because the absolute value of the original message loss probability is smaller when the middle node transmits.
- the absolute value of the probability of message loss decreases a few percent when the feedback protocol is used. The savings from using the feedback protocol are greatest for the receiving nodes most distant from the transmitting node.
- FIG. 10 shows the impact of feedback on message loss across the linear network for messages transmitted from the center node, when the same system parameters are used. Feedback is again seen to significantly decrease message loss by a factor greater than 2 relative to loss without feedback, particularly for the half the nodes in the network that are most distant from the center node. We note that similar results for both the edge and center nodes transmitting are obtained for a 200 node linear network.
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Networks & Wireless Communication (AREA)
- Signal Processing (AREA)
- Multimedia (AREA)
- Mobile Radio Communication Systems (AREA)
Abstract
A system and method to reduce the number of data transmissions between nodes in a network is described. In one embodiment, a system and method for reducing the amount of ACK and NAK traffic in a network is described.
Description
- This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 13/668,758 filed Nov. 5, 2012 which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/556,204 filed Nov. 5, 2011 both of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
- This work was supported by the United States Department of the Air Force under Contract No. FA8721-05-C-0002. The Government has certain rights in this invention.
- This application generally relates to transmitting information and more particularly to efficient and reliable distribution of content (including, but not limited to video, images, or documents) among users.
- In conventional communications systems acknowledgments are either performed on an end-to-end basis, such as with TCP, or else on a hop-by-hop basis, as is accomplished with link layer acknowledgements. Such acknowledgements conventionally are in the form of feedback about specific packets or groups of specific packets.
- Network coding enables feedback to consist only of the number of packets received or missing, as the identity of specific individual packets is no longer needed with coding.
- The problem of reliable multicast can be difficult, particularly in a mobile ad hoc network (MANET). If each node must acknowledge every packet it receives, and the number of nodes in a network is large, or the number of simultaneous multicast messages transmitted is sizable, a so-called “acknowledgment explosion” (or “ACK explosion”) can result.
- It would be desirable to provide a system and technique for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes in a network. In particular, it would also be desirable to provide a system and technique for efficient and reliable distribution of video or other content to users.
- The systems and techniques described herein relate to the concept of efficiently transmitting data in a network. The systems and techniques described herein may specifically be used to reduce the amount of traffic in a network while still enabling timely feedback and message delivery in the network. The systems and techniques described herein find application in a number of different types of multicast systems.
- In accordance with one aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method to reduce the number of data transmissions between nodes in a network, while still ensuring message delivery, is described. As described herein, the nodes may have a priori knowledge of the probability that a packet transmitted from a specified node can be correctly received by any other specified nodes. Such a priori knowledge can come from location information that the nodes receive about each other, as well as from a channel model.
- In accordance with a further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for reducing the amount of acknowledgement (ACK) and negative acknowledgement (NAK) traffic in a network is described.
- In accordance with a further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for conserving power in mobile and other devices connectable to a network is described.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for using location information in nodes coupled to a network to determine if the nodes have sufficient knowledge to perform cooperative feedback within the network is described. In one embodiment, cell phone GPS systems are used to provide location information of a network node and the location in formation is used to determine whether a node can send a cooperative feedback request.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for forming and delivering new types of messages for transmitting feedback efficiently is described.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for utilizing probabilistic knowledge on the state of a system as a means to decrease the amount of feedback needed in the system is described.
- It should be appreciated that the concepts, systems and techniques described herein apply equally well to single hop and multi-hop systems.
- The concepts, systems and techniques described herein provide a number of advantages including, but not limited to: (1) more efficient use of network bandwidth; (2) more efficient use of time; and (3) more efficient use of power at network nodes (e.g., longer battery life in nodes which operate on batteries such as mobile phones, tablets, or other devices). Thus, the concepts, systems and techniques described herein result in a generally more efficient use of multiple resources (including, but not limited to resources such as bandwidth, time, power) during transmission of information from a source node or source nodes to one or more other nodes.
- In accordance with the concepts, systems and techniques described herein, a system and method which greatly reduces the amount of traffic used for ACKSs and NAKs, while still enabling timely feedback is described.
- In some embodiments described herein, a wireless network, in which there will be packet losses is considered. Nodes in the network can “overhear” and store information that they receive with a sufficiently high signal to noise plus interference ratio. When intermediate “relay nodes” are used between a source and a destination, it is assumed that random linear network coding is used by such intermediate relay nodes to combine packets they receive from other nodes, before repromulgating the received information. When such a random linear combination is transmitted, all nodes within reception range of the relay node can thereby receive an implicit acknowledgment as to how many degrees of freedom that relay node has already received. In addition, the number of degrees of freedom received by other nodes, or from blocks from other flows of which the relay node has knowledge, can also potentially be piggybacked on to the new random linear combination. Similarly, new traffic originating at any node can potentially piggyback information pertaining to the degrees of freedom received from other blocks from other flows.
- Thus, a node's view of the state of the system could in many cases be piggybacked on to periodic messages (e.g. periodic control messages), without significant additional bandwidth cost. Such periodic messages could be used by the nodes that hear them to update their own views of the state of the system. The state of the system is defined as the number of degrees of freedom each node has received from each block of original information packets from each flow. Part of a node's view of the state of the system in some cases could be given probabilistically, based upon a channel model, locations of other nodes, the transmissions heard by the node, and knowledge of the packets transmitted by the node.
- When a non-source node's knowledge indicates that all destination nodes have, with high probability, received all the degrees of freedom from a block, then that node can send out a cooperative feedback request (also sometimes referred to herein as a “auction message”) in order to confirm that transmissions of additional coded packets derived from that block can cease. That is, the non-source node can send an ACK or other nodes. Such an auction message could, for example, be appended to some other message (e.g. a periodic control message) the node would be sending anyway.
- When a node's knowledge indicates, with high probability, that some nodes have not received all coded packets from a source, then that node can send out a cooperative feedback request corresponding to a negative acknowledgement or NAK. In one embodiment, another node responds to the auction message with a NAK only if at least one of two criteria holds: first, the node's view of the state of the system differs from that in the auction message, which claims a block is completely received by all destinations; or second, if the node has knowledge, (i.e. the node has information stored therein or has access to information or can compute information) that a distant node may have been unable to hear the auction message and that the distant node may not have all the degrees of freedom of the block which the auction message advertises as being completely received. In this latter case, the NAK can potentially serve to inform the distant node of the auction message, which can then respond to this NAK. The node's knowledge may, for example, be based at least in part upon one or more of node location information, a probabilistic channel model and/or piggy backed information overheard.
- Non-source nodes that receive a NAK can respond by transmitting random linear combinations from the needed block of packets. A node that responds to a NAK by transmitting more such coded packets is not necessarily the node that sent the auction message, but rather can be selected based upon criteria including its proximity to nodes missing degrees of freedom. Accordingly, the node that transmits the auction message does not necessarily even have to receive the NAK, as long as another suitably positioned node does. Thus, not all NAKs need to be successfully received by all nodes, including the source node.
- For example, on a collision channel with capture, survival through a collision of only one NAK will suffice to enable a receiving node to know that more degrees of freedom are required before transmission of the block can cease. The number of random linear combinations that should be transmitted by a node can be determined by the probabilistic channel model, the node locations, and the number of degrees of freedom still missing at destination nodes.
- In summary, the amount of traffic dedicated to feedback can be reduced through several mechanisms. First, a relay node that transmits coded combinations of packets can also thereby inform other nodes of the degrees of freedom it has already received. Secondly, acknowledgements for numbers degrees of freedom, rather than for individual packets, can be piggybacked onto several types of messages, with little, if any, overhead in many cases; these message types include periodic control messages, new blocks of information originating from a node, and coded repromulgated information being “relayed” from a node. Finally, when any node's knowledge accumulated from these various message types, as well as from the channel model and knowledge of the locations of other nodes, indicates that all destination nodes have with high probability received all degrees of freedom for a block of packets, that node can send one or more cooperative feedback request messages stating this premise.
- Only if other nodes disagree with the premise, do they send NAKs. Since a cooperative feedback request is issued only after a node has knowledge that indicates all other nodes have all degrees of freedom for a block with high probability, statistically there will be few NAKs transmitted in response to such auction messages. Furthermore, a NAK need not be sent all the way back to the node that originated transmissions of the block; it only needs to reach another node that has all of the degrees of freedom from that block.
- In addition to the new types of messages for transmitting feedback efficiently, also described is the use of probabilistic knowledge on the state of the system as a means to decrease the amount of feedback needed within a network.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, in systems in which nodes have knowledge of each others' locations (e.g. such as in applications utilized by smart phones), this type of knowledge is leveraged in an efficient feedback protocol as described herein.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein a system and method to reduce the number of data transmissions between nodes in a network comprises a plurality of nodes, each for the nodes capable of sending an ACK or a NAK for at least one other node in the network.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein a system and method for reducing the amount of ACK and NAK traffic in a network comprises a plurality of nodes, each for the nodes capable of sending an ACK or a NAK for at least one other node in the network and wherein each of the nodes broadcasts its ACK or NAK.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein is a system and method for conserving power in mobile and other devices connectable to a network wherein each of the mobile devices conserves battery power as a result of: (a) transmitting fewer ACK and/or NAK messages; (b) sending additional coded packets over paths that require less power (such as shorter distances); (c) sending fewer total coded packets.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method for using location information in nodes to determine with high probability if nodes have sufficient numbers of coded packets. This information is used to determine when to generate cooperative feedback requests, as well as when/whether to generate cooperative ACKs or NAKs. In one application at least one node in the network corresponds to a mobile phone containing a GPS system which is used to provide the location information.
- In accordance with a still further aspect of the concepts described herein, a system and method utilizing probabilistic knowledge on the state of the system as a means to decrease the amount of feedback needed in a system comprises a network having a plurality of nodes wherein each of the nodes in the network knows the location of at least one other node and each node may have a statistical model for channel losses to other nodes and wherein each of the nodes also knows what it transmitted and what it received. In one embodiment, the location of other nodes, the statistical model for channel losses to all other nodes, the node transmission and reception information are used to reduce the number of messages which are transmitted in the network, including but not limited to ACK messages and NAK messages. In one embodiment, network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models is used to reduce the number of repetitive transmissions to different nodes, the number of re-transmitted messages and the number of feedback messages.
- The foregoing features of this invention, as well as the invention itself, may be more fully understood from the following description of the drawings in which:
-
FIGS. 1-3 are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which utilizes one or more cooperative feedback requests to reduce the amount of traffic in a network; -
FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for reducing the amount of traffic in a network utilizing cooperative feedback requests; -
FIG. 5 is a block diagrams illustrating a prior art network experiencing an ACK explosion; -
FIGS. 6 and 6A are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which avoids an ACK explosion by using cooperative feedback requests; -
FIG. 7 is a plot of message loss vs. distance from the transmitting node for a total offered information traffic of 0.3; -
FIG. 8 is a plot of percent of message loss vs. distance from transmitter at total offered information traffic of 0.3; -
FIG. 9 is a plot of feedback to the transmitter at 0 for a twenty one (21) node network; and -
FIG. 10 is a plot of feedback to the transmitter in the middle for a twenty one (21) node network. - It should be understood that the concepts, systems and techniques described herein are useful in any type of network and may be particularly useful in any network in which efficiency is important (efficiency being important, for example, in networks having limited bandwidth). Also, it should be appreciated that the concepts, systems and techniques described herein apply equally well to single hop and multi-hop systems.
- Referring now to
FIGS. 1-3 , anetwork 10 includes a plurality of stations ornodes 12 a-12 e generally denoted 12.Nodes 12 can be coupled as shown through channels or links 13 a-13 h generally denoted 13. All or portions ofnetwork 10 may comprise WiFi, cellular, satellite technology. - In operation,
source node 12 a transmits information to one or moreother nodes 12 b-12 i innetwork 10, wherein the information is in the form of a plurality of coded packets. If each of the nodes is a destination node (i.e. a node to which the source node intended to send the information), then transmission of coded packets continues until each destination node receives a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message. - In some cases the information transmitted by the
source node 12 a may be intended only for a single node and in such a case, it is not necessary that allnodes 12 receive a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message. Rather it is only necessary that the single destination node receive a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message from thesource node 12 a.Network 10 utilizes network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models to determine when to cease transmitting coded packets, when to request feedback, when to send feedback messages, and when to send additional coded packets in response to feedback. By utilizing network coding in conjunction with probabilistic reception models, the system is able to reduce the number of data transmissions and feedback requests to different nodes, as well as the number of feedback messages. These reductions result in a decrease in the amount of traffic in the network, and consequently results in an increase it the amount of throughput and a decrease in delivery time in the network. - Each of the
nodes 12 innetwork 10 “knows” (i.e. has information stored therein or has access to information or can compute information) the location of some or all other nodes and each node includes a statistical model for channel losses to all other nodes (any of the well-known models or even models yet to be developed may be used). Each of thenodes 12 also knows what it transmitted and what it received. Utilizing some or all of the aforementioned information, the number of messages which are transmitted in thenetwork 10, including but not limited to acknowledgement messages (ACK) messages or more simple ACKs and negative acknowledgement messages (NAK) messages or more simply NAKs may be reduced compared with the number of messages sent in a conventional network. - First, nodes transmit coded packets. Then as in
FIG. 2 , a cooperative feedback request (or an “auction message”) is sent out by a node (in this example node 12 e) that has determined that with high probability all nodes have received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the source node's (in thisexample node 12 a) message. - One example mode of operation is shown in
FIG. 1 . (We note that other modes of operation could use NAKs instead of ACKs.)Node 12 a acts as a source node and transmits acoded packet 14, or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′, to each of the nodes in the network (i.e.nodes 12 a-12 i in the exemplary embodiment ofFIG. 1 ). Whennodes 12 d receives codedpacket 14, or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′,node 12 d utilizes a channel model contained therein to predict the probability thatnodes 12 e-12 i receivecoded packet 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′. Ifnode 12 d determines, based upon the channel model, that codedpacket 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′; was also received atnodes 12 e-12 i, thennode 12 d sends an ACK message for itself as well as fornodes 12 e-12 i. Thus,nodes 12 e-12 i do not send separate ACK messages. This approach reduces the number of ACK messages being transmitted in the network and thus the amount of network traffic is reduced. - Similarly, if
node 12 d (or any other node) determines, based upon the channel model, that codedpacket 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′ was not received at one or all ofnodes 12 e-12 i, thennode 12 d may send a NAK message fornodes 12 e-12 i. Thus,nodes 12 e-12 i do not send separate NAK messages. This approach reduces the number of NAK messages being transmitted in the network and thus the amount of network traffic is reduced. It should be appreciated thatnode 12 d may or may not have successfully receivedpacket 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′. That is, even ifnode 12 d successfully receivespacket 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′, it may be possible thatnode 12 d receivedpacket 14 or a sufficient number of coded packets to decodemessage 14′ in such conditions that based upon channel models or other information either stored in the node or which the node can access,node 12 d is able to conclude thatnodes 12 e-12 i could not have or did not likely have successfully received themessage 14′. In thiscase node 12 d would send an ACK for itself and would send a NAK fornodes 12 d-12 i. In many cases, only the NAK fornodes 12 d-12 i would be of use to other nodes; in thesesituations node 12 d may not need to send an ACK for itself. - It should be understood that there may be a number of means by which nodes learn how many coded packets other nodes are missing. For example, re-encoded packets transmitted from a relay node implicitly can inform what that node needs. Also, ACK or NAKmessages can be piggybacked onto periodic location updates or other control messages. Also, ACK or NAK messages can be piggybacked onto new (or re-encoded “relayed”) traffic transmitted from a node. Also, some or all nodes may have a probabilistic channel model for how many coded packets other nodes have received, for each message transmitted by any node. The inputs to this model are updated with reception of each message including, but not limited to each of the above-noted message types.
- As illustrated in
FIG. 2 , when a particular node which is not the source node (e.g. node 12 e) has enough information (or knowledge) stored therein and the information indicates with a desired level of probability that all other nodes (e.g. nodes 12 a-12 d and nodes 12 f-12 i) with a need to decode a message have sufficient information to decode the message, then that particular node can send a cooperative feedback request (also sometimes referred to herein as an “auction message”). Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand the factors to consider in determining a desired level of probability for any particular application. Such a determination may include both analytically determined factors as well as empirically determined factors. In general, a trade-off must be made between a degree of probability and a number of transmissions. - As shown in
FIG. 2 , node 12 e broadcasts the cooperative feedback request 18 (shown in the exemplary embodiment ofFIG. 2 as an auction message 18) to the network. By sendingcooperative feedback request 18, node 12 e indicates that the information it has stored therein (or which is computed therein or which is otherwise available to the node 12 e) indicates that node 12 e believes with a desired degree of probability that all other nodes have received enough coded packets fromsource 12 a and other relay nodes in 12 to decode the message fromsource 12 a. - It should be appreciated that in the exemplary embodiment of
FIG. 2 , node 12 e sends the cooperative feedback request tonodes 12 b-12 d as well as to nodes 12 f-12 i (i.e. node 12 ebroadcasts auction message 18 to network 10). In other embodiments, it may be desirable for node 12 e to send thecooperative feedback 18 request to less than all of the nodes in the network. - Although in the exemplary embodiment of
FIG. 2 , node 12 e is the node which transmits thecooperative feedback request 18, it should be appreciated that any node in the network with sufficient knowledge may transmit the cooperative feedback request to the other nodes including any and all destination nodes. This approach relieves from the source node (illustrated asnode 12 a in the exemplary embodiment ofFIG. 2 ) of the burden of providing all feedback and all feedback requests. Thus, the node which provides the cooperative feedback request can be any node in the network with sufficient knowledge that all other nodes at which the message should be decoded have enough information to decode the message (e.g. that each destination node has enough information to decode the message) with high probability. - Thus, in
network 10, anode 12 other thansource node 12 a can make the determination as to whether it is necessary to transit or re-transmit any additional packets in the network. - It should also be appreciated that in the case where
source node 12 a broadcasts a message to thenetwork 10, each ofnodes 12 b-12 i corresponds to a destination node for that message. Thus, in this case the node or nodes which transmit the cooperative feedback requests can be any node in the network with sufficient knowledge that all other nodes with high probability have sufficient information to decode the message (i.e. that each destination node has enough information to decode the message). - It should also be appreciated that even if node 12 e sends
cooperative feedback request 18, ifnode 12 g receivespacket 14 and concludes that based upon channel models or other information, either or both ofnodes 12 h, 12 i could not have successfully received the packet, thennode 12 g may send a NAK message fornodes 12 h and/or 12 i. - Referring now to
FIG. 3 ,source node 12 a sends a packet (not shown inFIG. 3 ). The packet is successfully received atnodes 12 b-12 g.Node 12 h innetwork 10 sends (e.g. broadcasts) aNAK message 20 for itself and another node (i.e. node 12 i).Node 12 g receives the NAK fromnode 12 h. Sincenode 12 g knows that it successfully received packet, in response to receivingNAK message 22,node 12 g performs a cooperative re-transmit operation in whichnode 12 g transmits newre-encoded packets 22. In the exemplary embodiment ofFIG. 3 ,node 12 g broadcasts there-encoded packets 22.Nodes 12 h , 12 i usere-encoded packets 22 to decode a message. - It should be appreciated that in conventional systems, if the acknowledgements were end-to-end, as in TCP,
source node 12 a would re-send the packet(s) not received bynodes 12 h, 12 i. - It should also be appreciated that a node would send a NAK for another node either if that node itself did not receive enough coded packets or if the information stored or computed or otherwise existing in the node (or the node's knowledge) indicates that another, perhaps more disadvantaged (e.g. a node more distant from a source), node did not successfully receive enough coded packets. Thus, stated more simply, a
node 12 sends a NAK if the node itself did not receive enough coded packets or if the node has knowledge with a desired degree of probability that another node did not receive enough coded packets. - It should be appreciated that the exemplary embodiments described above in conjunction with
FIGS. 1-3 may represent a wireless network having packet losses and in which nodes in the network can overhear and store information that they receive and wherein random linear network coding is used by intermediate relay nodes to combine packets they receive from other nodes, before repromulgating the received information. In such a system, a method of transmitting information from a source node to one or more destination nodes comprises transmitting a random linear combination of coded packets. All nodes within reception range of relay nodes may receive implicit acknowledgments as to how many degrees of freedom the relay nodes have already received. Based upon the degrees of freedom, the transmission of new linear combinations of coded packets may continue, wherein the number of degrees of freedom received by other nodes, or from blocks from other flows of which the relay node has knowledge are piggybacked on the new random linear combinations. - In one embodiment, new traffic originating at any node piggybacks information pertaining to the degrees of freedom received from other blocks from other flows. It should be appreciated that the nodes in the network have a priori knowledge of the probability that a packet transmitted from a specified node can be correctly received by another specified node. Such a priori knowledge can come from location information that the nodes receive about each other, as well as from a channel model.
-
FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing the processing performed by or on behalf of a network node which may, for example, be provided as part of a network such as one of the networks shown inFIGS. 1-3 , 6 and 6A. In particular, the flow diagram illustrates a method of transmitting information from a source node to one or more other nodes in a network. The network is comprised of a plurality of nodes and the information being transmitted is in the form of a plurality of coded packets. - The rectangular elements (
e.g. block 30 inFIG. 4 ) in the flow diagram are herein denoted “processing blocks” and represent steps or instructions or groups of instructions. Some of the processing blocks can represent an empirical procedure or a database while others can represent computer software instructions or groups of instructions. Some of the steps described in the flow diagram may be implemented via computer software while others may be implemented in a different manner. - Alternatively, some of the processing blocks can represent steps performed by functionally equivalent circuits such as a digital signal processor circuit or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The flow diagram does not depict the syntax of any particular programming language. Rather, the flow diagram illustrates the functional information one of ordinary skill in the art requires to perform the steps or to fabricate circuits or to generate computer software to perform the processing required of the particular apparatus. It should be noted that where computer software can be used, many routine program elements, such as initialization of loops and variables and the use of temporary variables are not shown. It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that unless otherwise indicated herein, the particular sequence of steps described is illustrative only and can be varied without departing from the spirit of the concepts, systems and techniques described herein.
- Turning now to Fig, 4, processing begins in
processing block 30 in which a source node transmits a message in the form of coded packets to one or more other nodes in a network as is generally known. One or more of the other nodes correspond to a destination node (i.e. a node which the source node intends to receive the message). Thus, in the case of a broadcast message all other nodes in the network correspond to destination nodes. - Processing then proceeds to processing
block 32 in which the one or more other nodes receive a number of coded packets. It should be appreciated that the destination node(s) should receive a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the message. - Processing proceeds to block 34, whereby nodes transmit explict and implicit acknowledgements.
- Processing then proceeds to processing
block 36 in which a node determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request (a/k/a an auction message) for at least one other node in the network. In preferred embodiments, each node in the network determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request. - As shown in
processing block 36, the manner in which the node determines whether it can send a cooperative feedback request includes the node processing or otherwise using a plurality of different types of information which the node has stored therein or to which the node otherwise has access. To determine whether a node can send a cooperative feedback request, it is necessary for the node to determine whether another node has or has not received the coded packets transmitted by the source node. The node can accomplish this, for example, by using: (a) information which has been overheard or directly transmitted from other nodes; (b) node location information; (c) probabilistic channel model knowledge; (d) a combination of any (including all) of the above types of information (e.g. a combination of information overheard from other nodes and/or node location information and/or information from a probability model for a channel). - As shown in
processing block 37, once a node determines that it can send a cooperative feedback request (i.e. once a node determines that it can send an auction message for one or more other nodes), then it does so. In a preferred embodiment, the node sends the cooperative feedback request to each other node in the network (i.e. the node broadcasts the cooperative feedback request). Node processing to determine whether to send a cooperative feedback request then ends. As discussed above in conjunction withFIGS. 1-3 , once a cooperative feedback request is sent, nodes receiving the cooperative feedback request may then perform additional processing (e.g. transmission of new coded packets or re-transmission of coded packets). - Each node that receives the cooperative feedback request will determine through the explicit and implicit knowledge it is accumulated about itself and its neighbors, in
block 38, if it should respond to that feedback request. As shown inblock 40, each such responding node transmits a NAK. - It should be appreciated that an ACK or a NAK is only sent when one or more nodes have sufficient knowledge to determine if other nodes have received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the message In one exemplary embodiment, in response to a non-source node receiving a NAK, the node transmits coded packets, as in block 42 to other nodes (in accordance with the concepts, systems and techniques described herein, the retransmitting node need not be the source node nor the last hop node that originally transmitted coded packets to the nodes in need of more. In one exemplary embodiment, in response to a non-source node receiving a NAK, the non-source node transmits newly coded packets to other nodes.
- In one embodiment, in a network comprising a plurality of nodes, a decision is made as to which node should transmit newly coded packets. In one embodiment, this decision is made using node locations to determine which node should transmit newly coded packets.
- Referring now to
FIG. 5 a prior art system includes a source node SN which broadcasts a message BM to a plurality of destination nodes (DN). The nodes shown inFIG. 5 may, for example, correspond to people with smart phones. Each destination node sends an acknowledgement packet (ACK) to source SN which results in source node SN experiencing an ACK explosion. -
FIGS. 6 and 6A are a series of block diagrams illustrating a network which avoids an ACK explosion by using cooperative feedback requests. As shown inFIG. 6 , source node SN again broadcasts a message BM to a plurality of destination nodes (DN). - As shown in
FIG. 6A , however, using the techniques described herein, some nodes ACK (or NAK) for other nodes. Thus, not every node needs to send an appropriate one of an ACK or NAK. Consequently, the number of ACK/NAK packets transmitted to source node SN is greatly reduced compared with the system ofFIG. 5 . - In a network having a source node and a plurality of destination nodes (such as the exemplary network such in
FIGS. 6 and 6A ), a method for transmitting and acknowledging a broadcast message includes for M information packets, generating linear coded packets and transmitting from the source node, the linear coded packets to the destination nodes. Upon reception of the NM linear coded packets at one or more of the destination nodes, determining whether one of the destination nodes can send one of an ACK or a NAK for at least one other destination node. - Determining whether one of the destination nodes can send one of an ACK or a NAK for at least one other destination node can be accomplished as discussed above (e.g. using information which has been overheard from other nodes; implicitly transmitted by other nodes, piggybacked by other nodes, using node location information; and using probabilistic channel model knowledge in each of the nodes including using a probability channel model; and/or a combination of the above and other techniques).
- Next explored is the spatial dependence of the probability of message loss. The capture effect makes it more likely that nodes close to a transmitter will receive a message than nodes farther away. In order to illustrate this spatial dependence, a 200 node linear network is considered.
-
FIG. 7 shows the probability that a message transmitted by the left most node will be lost by each of the receiving nodes for several values of total offered information traffic, when successive coded packet transmission probability Pt=0.07. As shown inFIG. 12 , there is a saturation point atnode 100 beyond which all future nodes are impacted by the same amount of interference. Loss of coded packets occurs when another node closer to the receiver transmits in the same time slot as another node sending a message, so receivers farther away from the transmitter will be subject to more interference, and therefore will experience a higher likelihood of message loss. The saturation occurs due to edge effects, because the nodes in the saturated region are subject to potential interference from every other node in the network. - The spatial dependence of probability of message loss is seen to result from the combination of capture and edge effects. A similar profile is seen if mean delay is plotted as a function of distance from the transmitting node. More traffic leads to a higher mean delay, as expected. Mean delay increases rapidly with distance from the transmitting node until the plateau point is reached at which point the mean delay stays constant at longer distances due to edge effects.
- Next considered in conjunction with
FIG. 8 are packet receptions from transmissions made by the middle node. -
FIG. 8 shows the probability of losing a message that is sent from the central transmitter.FIG. 8 shows the expected mirrored loss as the distance from the transmitting node is increased in either direction. - Next considered is the concept of utilizing the spatial dependence of packet loss that is induced by the combination of the capture effect and edge effects. Since in the model used here, with capture and collisions being the only source of packet loss, it is seen from
FIG. 12 that if any of the nodes betweennodes node 100 for example when the transmitting node is the left most node, deterministically implies that the nodes on the other side of the plateau point have received the packet with certainty. Therefore, the following feedback protocol is implemented when coding and random spreading of coded packets in time is used: when the receiver at the designated plateau point for each transmitter receives the message (that is any k coded packets), it sends an acknowledgement to the transmitting node; the plateau point identifies the closest receiving node that will be impacted by every other potential interfering node; when this node has received the message, it can be assumed that every other node has as well. By enabling this feedback, one is able to reduce the overall traffic in the system and therefore reduce collisions and loss, as well as delay, of future messages. - Next described is a technique to determine the plateau point node for a transmitting node. For example, if a transmitting node located at t<N/2 nodes from the left most node, where N is the total number of nodes in a linear network, the two potential plateau points would be located at transmitters P1 and P2:
-
P1=(N−t)/2)+t Equation (4) -
P2=t/2 Equation (5) - In this case N is the number of nodes in the system and P is the plateau point index. Note: when the middle node is the transmitter there are two pivots, defined by each of the equations above, that both must acknowledge message receipt for feedback to be successful.
-
FIG. 9 shows the resulting decrease in message loss from this protocol for N=21; k=3=number of original source packets in a message; n=6=maximum number of coded packets that will be transmitted for a single message, and Pt=0.07, for an offered traffic of 0.3. The upper curve represents no feedback when all n packets are transmitted, whereas the lower curve shows the performance with the feedback protocol. - The difference between the two curves shows the significant reduction in loss provided by the feedback protocol. The savings from the feedback is greatest where the loss is greatest, which is beyond the plateau point. Here, the message loss is reduced by more than a factor of 2.
- Again, for the half of the nodes beyond the plateau point, the message loss is reduced by a factor greater than 2. The absolute value of the decrease in probability of message loss is only a few percent here, whereas it was 15% when the edge node transmitted, because the absolute value of the original message loss probability is smaller when the middle node transmits. Hence, when averaging over all transmitting and receiving nodes, the absolute value of the probability of message loss decreases a few percent when the feedback protocol is used. The savings from using the feedback protocol are greatest for the receiving nodes most distant from the transmitting node.
-
FIG. 10 shows the impact of feedback on message loss across the linear network for messages transmitted from the center node, when the same system parameters are used. Feedback is again seen to significantly decrease message loss by a factor greater than 2 relative to loss without feedback, particularly for the half the nodes in the network that are most distant from the center node. We note that similar results for both the edge and center nodes transmitting are obtained for a 200 node linear network. - It should be noted that while some communication systems, such as
Link 16, exhibit nearly perfect capture, others may have an imperfect capture. More generally, if there is partial capture, then the plateau points move in towards the transmitter, while the probability of message loss increases at these plateau points. In the limit of no capture, the probability of message loss is greatest, and the nodes adjacent to the transmitter experience the same loss as all the other nodes in the network, and feedback from them would indicate the reception status of all nodes in a pure collision channel. - Having described preferred embodiments which serve to illustrate various concepts, structures and techniques which are the subject of this patent, it will now become apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that other embodiments incorporating these concepts, structures and techniques may be used. Accordingly, it is submitted that that scope of the patent should not be limited to the described embodiments but rather should be limited only by the spirit and scope of the following claims.
Claims (16)
1. In a network comprising a plurality of nodes, a method of transmitting information from a source node to one or more other nodes in the network, the one or more other nodes comprising at least one destination node, wherein the information is in the form of a plurality of coded packets, the method comprising:
transmitting coded packets from the source node to the one or more other nodes in the network;
receiving a number of coded packets sufficient to decode the information at one or more of the other nodes;
at a first one of the other nodes, determining with a desired degree of probability if each of the destination nodes has received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the information based upon one or more of a probabilistic channel model, locations of the destination nodes, transmissions heard by the first one of the other nodes or knowledge of coded packets transmitted by the first one of the other nodes to nodes other than the first one of the other nodes; and
sending a cooperative feedback request from the first one of the other nodes to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes based upon the determining at the first one of other nodes.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes receiving the cooperative feedback request from the first one of the other nodes and determining with the desired degree of probability that itself and/or some other node did not receive a sufficient number of coded packets, sending, from a second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, a negative acknowledgement (NAK) on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have not received a sufficient number of coded packets.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the determining with the desired degree of probability that itself and/or some other node did not receive a sufficient number of coded packets is based upon explicit and implicit knowledge within the node sending the NAK.
4. The method of claim 2 further comprising: in response to one or more of the other nodes receiving the NAK, retransmitting the coded packets from a first one of the one or more other nodes receiving the NAK to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes;
or transmitting newly coded packets from the first one of the one or more other nodes receiving the NAK to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the first one of the one or more other nodes receiving the NAK is not the source node and is not a last hop node that transmitted the coded packets to the node or nodes believed to have not received a sufficient number of coded packets.
6. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes receiving the cooperative feedback request from the first one of the other nodes and determining with the desired degree of probability that itself and/or some other node has received a sufficient number of coded packets, sending, from a second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, an acknowledgement message (ACK) on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have received the sufficient number of coded packets, wherein sending, from the second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, an acknowledgement message (ACK) on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have received the sufficient number of coded packets, comprises:
determining, in the second one of the other nodes, whether to send the ACK based upon at least location of the other nodes; and
sending, from the second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, the ACK on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have not received a sufficient number of coded packets based upon the determining in the second one of the other nodes.
7. The method of claim 2 wherein sending, from the second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, a negative acknowledgement (NAK) on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have not received a sufficient number of coded packets, comprises:
determining, in the second one of the other nodes, whether to send the NAK based upon at least location of the other nodes; and
sending, from the second one of the other nodes to one or more of the other nodes in the network, the NAK on behalf of the node or nodes believed to have not received a sufficient number of coded packets based upon the determining in the second one of the other nodes.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein determining, in the second one of the other nodes, whether to send the NAK based upon at least location of nodes, further comprises:
determining which node of the other nodes should transmit newly coded packets or re-transmit coded packets.
9. The method of claim 8 wherein determining which node of the other nodes should transmit newly coded packets comprises using node locations to determine which node of the other nodes should transmit the newly coded packets.
10. A method of determining when to send a cooperative feedback request in a network comprising a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes including a source node and one or more other nodes, the one or more other nodes including at least one destination node, the source node transmitting a message in a form of a plurality of coded packets to the one or more other nodes in the network, the method comprising:
at a first one of the other nodes, determining with a desired degree of probability if each of the destination nodes has received a sufficient number of coded packets to decode the message using information which has been overheard from other nodes;
using information which has been overheard from other nodes in combination with node location information; and using probabilistic channel knowledge including using a probability channel model; and
determining when to send a cooperative feedback request from the first one of the other nodes to one or more of the nodes other than the first one of the other nodes based upon the determining at the first one of the other nodes.
11. The method of claim 10 further comprising using piggybacked ACKs or NAKs.
12. In a network having a source node and one or more other nodes, the one or more other nodes including a plurality of destination nodes, a method for acknowledging a broadcast message, the method comprising:
for a broadcast message including M information packets, generating a corresponding number of linear coded packets;
transmitting from the source node, the linear coded packets ; and
upon reception of the linear coded packets at one or more of the destination nodes, determining with a desired degree of probability if one of the destination nodes should send one of an ACK or a NAK for at least one other destination node based upon one or more of information which has been overheard from other nodes, information which has been overheard from other nodes in combination with node location information, and probabilistic channel knowledge in each of the nodes.
13. The method of claim 12 further comprising, determining in a first one of the destination nodes how many degrees of freedom are needed to decode the broadcast message.
14. The method of claim 13 further comprising:
transmitting an acknowledgment packet from the first one of the destination nodes to one or more other nodes in the network to convey remaining number of degrees of freedom required at the first one of the destination nodes or at one or more destination nodes other than the first one of the destination nodes to decode all M information packets.
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising determining a number of linear coded packets needed at the first one of the destination nodes or at one or more destination nodes other than the first one of the destinations nodes based upon one or more channel characteristics and information in the acknowledgement packet.
16. The method of claim 13 further comprising:
transmitting a NAK packet from the first one of the destination nodes to other nodes in the network to indicate that at least one destination node other than the first one of the destination nodes did not receive a sufficient number of linear coded packets to decode the broadcast message.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US14/678,359 US20150256354A1 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2015-04-03 | Efficient Transmission Of Information To Multiple Nodes Using Cooperative Feedback Requests |
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US201161556204P | 2011-11-05 | 2011-11-05 | |
US13/668,758 US9025607B2 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2012-11-05 | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
US14/678,359 US20150256354A1 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2015-04-03 | Efficient Transmission Of Information To Multiple Nodes Using Cooperative Feedback Requests |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US13/668,758 Continuation US9025607B2 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2012-11-05 | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20150256354A1 true US20150256354A1 (en) | 2015-09-10 |
Family
ID=47351937
Family Applications (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US13/668,758 Active 2033-03-03 US9025607B2 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2012-11-05 | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
US14/678,359 Abandoned US20150256354A1 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2015-04-03 | Efficient Transmission Of Information To Multiple Nodes Using Cooperative Feedback Requests |
Family Applications Before (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US13/668,758 Active 2033-03-03 US9025607B2 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2012-11-05 | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US9025607B2 (en) |
EP (1) | EP2774304B1 (en) |
ES (1) | ES2884092T3 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2013067488A1 (en) |
Cited By (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US10009259B2 (en) | 2012-01-31 | 2018-06-26 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Multi-path data transfer using network coding |
WO2020205975A1 (en) * | 2019-04-01 | 2020-10-08 | Qualcomm Incorporated | Improved feedback for multicast peer-to-peer communications |
US11297688B2 (en) | 2018-03-22 | 2022-04-05 | goTenna Inc. | Mesh network deployment kit |
US11418449B2 (en) | 2018-05-16 | 2022-08-16 | Code On Network Coding, Llc | Multipath coding apparatus and related techniques |
US11424861B2 (en) | 2017-03-29 | 2022-08-23 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | System and technique for sliding window network coding-based packet generation |
Families Citing this family (22)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
ES2742286T3 (en) | 2010-03-25 | 2020-02-13 | Massachusetts Inst Technology | Secure network coding for streaming video streaming, multi-resolution wireless |
US10530574B2 (en) | 2010-03-25 | 2020-01-07 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Secure network coding for multi-description wireless transmission |
US9294113B2 (en) | 2011-07-05 | 2016-03-22 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Energy-efficient time-stampless adaptive nonuniform sampling |
US9544126B2 (en) | 2011-10-31 | 2017-01-10 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Joint use of multi-packet reception and network coding for performance improvement |
EP2774304B1 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2021-06-16 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
US8780693B2 (en) | 2011-11-08 | 2014-07-15 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Coding approach for a robust and flexible communication protocol |
US9160687B2 (en) | 2012-02-15 | 2015-10-13 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for performing finite memory network coding in an arbitrary network |
US9369255B2 (en) | 2012-10-18 | 2016-06-14 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for reducing feedback and enhancing message dissemination efficiency in a multicast network |
US9369541B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2016-06-14 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for implementing distributed content caching in a content delivery network |
US9607003B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2017-03-28 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Network coded storage with multi-resolution codes |
EP2974096A4 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2016-11-09 | Massachusetts Inst Technology | Method and apparatus for secure communication |
US9019643B2 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2015-04-28 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus to reduce access time in a data storage device using coded seeking |
US9185529B2 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2015-11-10 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Wireless reliability architecture and methods using network coding |
GR1008847B (en) * | 2015-04-08 | 2016-09-09 | Dqvery Α.Ε. | Algorithm of non-parametric statistical approach based on the kruskal-wallis method |
US9743370B2 (en) * | 2015-04-28 | 2017-08-22 | The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. | Wireless network for sensor array |
US10650621B1 (en) | 2016-09-13 | 2020-05-12 | Iocurrents, Inc. | Interfacing with a vehicular controller area network |
US10517092B1 (en) | 2018-06-04 | 2019-12-24 | SparkMeter, Inc. | Wireless mesh data network with increased transmission capacity |
US11563644B2 (en) | 2019-01-04 | 2023-01-24 | GoTenna, Inc. | Method and apparatus for modeling mobility and dynamic connectivity on a stationary wireless testbed |
US10985951B2 (en) | 2019-03-15 | 2021-04-20 | The Research Foundation for the State University | Integrating Volterra series model and deep neural networks to equalize nonlinear power amplifiers |
CN110035467B (en) * | 2019-04-19 | 2022-04-19 | 重庆邮电大学 | Auction-based relay selection strategy and power distribution method in selection cooperation |
CN110191427A (en) * | 2019-05-24 | 2019-08-30 | 中国联合网络通信集团有限公司 | Method for message transmission and device |
WO2020243125A1 (en) * | 2019-05-27 | 2020-12-03 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Adaptive causal network coding with feedback |
Citations (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20100054164A1 (en) * | 2008-08-28 | 2010-03-04 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Random Linear Network Coding for Time Division Duplexing |
US20110173517A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2011-07-14 | Kim Yong-Ho | Symbol-level random network coded cooperation with hierarchical modulation in relay communication |
Family Cites Families (71)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5577056A (en) | 1995-02-24 | 1996-11-19 | Hughes Aircraft Co. | Method and apparatus for adjusting the postamble false detection probability threshold for a burst transmission |
US6359923B1 (en) | 1997-12-18 | 2002-03-19 | At&T Wireless Services, Inc. | Highly bandwidth efficient communications |
US6128773A (en) | 1997-10-01 | 2000-10-03 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Automatically measuring software complexity |
US8949456B2 (en) | 1998-05-29 | 2015-02-03 | Blackberry Limited | System and method for redirecting data to a wireless device over a plurality of communication paths |
EP1249078A1 (en) | 2000-01-17 | 2002-10-16 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Apparatus and method for allocating channel using ovsf code for uplink synchronous transmission scheme in a w-cdma communication system |
US7432935B2 (en) | 2002-11-19 | 2008-10-07 | Mental Images Gmbh | Image synthesis methods and systems for generating sample points in a graphics scene |
US20110238855A1 (en) | 2000-09-25 | 2011-09-29 | Yevgeny Korsunsky | Processing data flows with a data flow processor |
GB2367459A (en) | 2000-09-28 | 2002-04-03 | Roke Manor Research | Method of compressing data packets |
AU2001270575A1 (en) | 2000-09-28 | 2002-04-08 | Roke Manor Research Limited. | Improved huffman data compression method |
WO2002057946A1 (en) | 2001-01-18 | 2002-07-25 | The Board Of Trustees Of The University Of Illinois | Method for optimizing a solution set |
US7095343B2 (en) | 2001-10-09 | 2006-08-22 | Trustees Of Princeton University | code compression algorithms and architectures for embedded systems |
US7502317B2 (en) | 2002-05-17 | 2009-03-10 | Alcatel-Lucent Usa Inc. | Method for differentiating services and users in communication networks |
US7164691B2 (en) | 2002-06-26 | 2007-01-16 | Standard Microsystems Corporation | Communication system and method for sending isochronous streaming data across a synchronous network within a frame segment using a coding violation to signify invalid or empty bytes within the frame segment |
US7283564B2 (en) | 2002-06-26 | 2007-10-16 | Standard Microsystems Corp. | Communication system and method for sending asynchronous data and/or isochronous streaming data across a synchronous network within a frame segment using a coding violation to signify at least the beginning of a data transfer |
US20040203752A1 (en) | 2002-11-18 | 2004-10-14 | Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. | Mobility communications system |
US7574518B2 (en) | 2003-06-23 | 2009-08-11 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for computing low complexity algebraic network codes for a multicast network |
US7773506B2 (en) | 2003-10-14 | 2010-08-10 | Qualcomm Incorporated | Method and apparatus for data communications over multiple channels |
US7349440B1 (en) | 2003-10-15 | 2008-03-25 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for broadcasting information over a network |
US7408938B1 (en) | 2003-10-15 | 2008-08-05 | Microsoft Coporation | System and method for efficient broadcast of information over a network |
US7706365B2 (en) | 2003-11-25 | 2010-04-27 | California Institute Of Technology | Randomized distributed network coding |
US7225382B2 (en) * | 2004-05-04 | 2007-05-29 | Telefonakiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) | Incremental redundancy operation in a wireless communication network |
US7756051B2 (en) | 2004-07-02 | 2010-07-13 | Microsoft Corporation | Content distribution using network coding |
EP1638239A1 (en) | 2004-09-20 | 2006-03-22 | Alcatel | Extended repeat request scheme for mobile communication networks |
US8102837B2 (en) | 2004-12-30 | 2012-01-24 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Network coding approach to rapid information dissemination |
US7414978B2 (en) | 2004-12-30 | 2008-08-19 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Minimum-cost routing with network coding |
US20060224760A1 (en) | 2005-03-15 | 2006-10-05 | 1000 Oaks Hu Lian Technology Development (Beijing) Co., Ltd. | Method and system for providing streaming content in a peer-to-peer network with network coding |
US7529198B2 (en) | 2005-04-07 | 2009-05-05 | Microsoft Corporation | Scalable overlay network |
EP1780924A1 (en) | 2005-10-31 | 2007-05-02 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | Method to determine the number of data streams to be used in a MIMO system |
FR2893798B1 (en) | 2005-11-21 | 2008-01-04 | Alcatel Sa | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GENERATING PRIORITY-PRESERVED CONSISTENT BURSTS FOR EQUIPMENT IN A GUSTED SWITCHING COMMUNICATION NETWORK |
ATE470993T1 (en) | 2005-12-22 | 2010-06-15 | Microsoft Corp | OPTIMIZATIONS FOR NETWORK CODING AND NETWORK DECODING |
US7664198B2 (en) | 2006-03-21 | 2010-02-16 | Kyocera Corporation | System and method for broadcasting data over a wireless network using rateless codes |
US8040836B2 (en) | 2006-05-26 | 2011-10-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Local network coding for wireless networks |
US8233558B2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2012-07-31 | Cornell University | Methods and systems for space-time coding for distributed cooperative communicaton |
JP2009544183A (en) | 2006-07-13 | 2009-12-10 | ドルビー・ラボラトリーズ・ライセンシング・コーポレーション | Encryption of material expressing stimuli for human perception independent of codec |
US7821980B2 (en) | 2006-08-03 | 2010-10-26 | Nokia Corporation | Variable rate soft information forwarding |
US7843831B2 (en) | 2006-08-22 | 2010-11-30 | Embarq Holdings Company Llc | System and method for routing data on a packet network |
US8027284B2 (en) * | 2006-11-27 | 2011-09-27 | Ntt Docomo, Inc. | Method and apparatus for reliable multicasting in wireless relay networks |
PT2098005E (en) | 2006-11-29 | 2013-09-02 | Ericsson Telefon Ab L M | Reliable multicast with linearly independent data packet coding |
US7876677B2 (en) | 2007-05-22 | 2011-01-25 | Apple Inc. | Transmission control protocol queue sorting |
US7945842B2 (en) | 2007-06-19 | 2011-05-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for rateless source coding with/without decoder side information |
US7912003B2 (en) | 2007-06-27 | 2011-03-22 | Microsoft Corporation | Multipath forwarding algorithms using network coding |
US8705345B2 (en) | 2007-11-26 | 2014-04-22 | Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. | Network protection using network coding |
US8260952B2 (en) | 2008-01-31 | 2012-09-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Multi-rate peer-assisted data streaming |
US7916665B2 (en) | 2008-03-18 | 2011-03-29 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | Method and device for building of a network coding scheme for data transmission, corresponding computer program product and storage means |
US20080259796A1 (en) | 2008-04-17 | 2008-10-23 | Glen Patrick Abousleman | Method and apparatus for network-adaptive video coding |
EP2277330A4 (en) | 2008-05-15 | 2013-10-09 | Harris Stratex Networks Operat | Systems and methods for distributed data routing in a wireless network |
US8204086B2 (en) | 2008-05-19 | 2012-06-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Natural network coding for multi-hop wireless network |
US8068426B2 (en) | 2008-05-29 | 2011-11-29 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Feedback-based online network coding |
US8509288B2 (en) | 2008-06-04 | 2013-08-13 | Polytechnic Institute Of New York University | Spatial multiplexing gain for a distributed cooperative communications system using randomized coding |
US8130228B2 (en) | 2008-06-13 | 2012-03-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for processing low density parity check codes using a deterministic caching apparatus |
US8527848B2 (en) | 2008-06-16 | 2013-09-03 | Lg Electronics Inc. | Cooperative symbol level network coding in multi-channel wireless networks |
US8504504B2 (en) | 2008-09-26 | 2013-08-06 | Oracle America, Inc. | System and method for distributed denial of service identification and prevention |
KR100970388B1 (en) | 2008-10-31 | 2010-07-15 | 한국전자통신연구원 | Network flow based scalable video coding adaptation device and method thereof |
US8130776B1 (en) | 2009-08-28 | 2012-03-06 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus providing network coding based flow control |
WO2011043754A1 (en) * | 2009-10-06 | 2011-04-14 | Thomson Licensing | A method and apparatus for hop-by-hop reliable multicast in wireless networks |
JP5519798B2 (en) | 2009-10-22 | 2014-06-11 | インターデイジタル パテント ホールディングス インコーポレイテッド | Method and apparatus for bidirectional relay scheme using physical layer network coding |
ES2742286T3 (en) | 2010-03-25 | 2020-02-13 | Massachusetts Inst Technology | Secure network coding for streaming video streaming, multi-resolution wireless |
KR101335203B1 (en) | 2010-03-26 | 2013-11-29 | 숙명여자대학교산학협력단 | Peptides for Promotion of Angiogenesis and the use thereof |
US8599934B2 (en) | 2010-09-08 | 2013-12-03 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for skip coding during video conferencing in a network environment |
US8482441B2 (en) | 2011-06-03 | 2013-07-09 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus to perform functional compression |
US9294113B2 (en) | 2011-07-05 | 2016-03-22 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Energy-efficient time-stampless adaptive nonuniform sampling |
US9544126B2 (en) | 2011-10-31 | 2017-01-10 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Joint use of multi-packet reception and network coding for performance improvement |
EP2774304B1 (en) | 2011-11-05 | 2021-06-16 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes |
US8780693B2 (en) | 2011-11-08 | 2014-07-15 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Coding approach for a robust and flexible communication protocol |
US9537759B2 (en) | 2012-01-31 | 2017-01-03 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Multi-path data transfer using network coding |
US9160687B2 (en) | 2012-02-15 | 2015-10-13 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for performing finite memory network coding in an arbitrary network |
US9369541B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2016-06-14 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for implementing distributed content caching in a content delivery network |
US9607003B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2017-03-28 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Network coded storage with multi-resolution codes |
EP2974096A4 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2016-11-09 | Massachusetts Inst Technology | Method and apparatus for secure communication |
US9019643B2 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2015-04-28 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus to reduce access time in a data storage device using coded seeking |
US9185529B2 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2015-11-10 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Wireless reliability architecture and methods using network coding |
-
2012
- 2012-11-05 EP EP12799366.5A patent/EP2774304B1/en active Active
- 2012-11-05 WO PCT/US2012/063537 patent/WO2013067488A1/en active Application Filing
- 2012-11-05 ES ES12799366T patent/ES2884092T3/en active Active
- 2012-11-05 US US13/668,758 patent/US9025607B2/en active Active
-
2015
- 2015-04-03 US US14/678,359 patent/US20150256354A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20100054164A1 (en) * | 2008-08-28 | 2010-03-04 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Random Linear Network Coding for Time Division Duplexing |
US20110173517A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2011-07-14 | Kim Yong-Ho | Symbol-level random network coded cooperation with hierarchical modulation in relay communication |
Cited By (6)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US10009259B2 (en) | 2012-01-31 | 2018-06-26 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Multi-path data transfer using network coding |
US11424861B2 (en) | 2017-03-29 | 2022-08-23 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | System and technique for sliding window network coding-based packet generation |
US11297688B2 (en) | 2018-03-22 | 2022-04-05 | goTenna Inc. | Mesh network deployment kit |
US11418449B2 (en) | 2018-05-16 | 2022-08-16 | Code On Network Coding, Llc | Multipath coding apparatus and related techniques |
WO2020205975A1 (en) * | 2019-04-01 | 2020-10-08 | Qualcomm Incorporated | Improved feedback for multicast peer-to-peer communications |
US11330565B2 (en) * | 2019-04-01 | 2022-05-10 | Qualcomm Incorporated | Feedback for multicast peer-to-peer communications |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
ES2884092T3 (en) | 2021-12-10 |
WO2013067488A1 (en) | 2013-05-10 |
US9025607B2 (en) | 2015-05-05 |
EP2774304A1 (en) | 2014-09-10 |
US20130114611A1 (en) | 2013-05-09 |
EP2774304B1 (en) | 2021-06-16 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US9025607B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for efficient transmission of information to multiple nodes | |
KR101365477B1 (en) | Method and apparatus for hybrid automatic repeat request | |
CN111492604B (en) | System for non-terrestrial communication | |
US7912003B2 (en) | Multipath forwarding algorithms using network coding | |
Biswas et al. | Opportunistic routing in multi-hop wireless networks | |
US9083420B2 (en) | Queued cooperative wireless networks configuration using rateless codes | |
US8081641B2 (en) | Methods and apparatus for network coding | |
US8493902B2 (en) | Opportunistic listening system and method | |
JP3853326B2 (en) | System and method for reliably broadcasting in ad hoc network environment | |
US20030227934A1 (en) | System and method for multicast media access using broadcast transmissions with multiple acknowledgements in an Ad-Hoc communications network | |
US20080031250A1 (en) | Energy accumulation in destination nodes of wireless relay networks | |
US9136934B2 (en) | Base station, relay, system and method for packet re-transmission in a multi-hop network | |
CN101931517B (en) | Hybrid automatic repeat request-based self-adapting relay and velocity selection method | |
US8423857B2 (en) | Method for end-to-end hybrid automatic repeat request and system thereof | |
Maia et al. | Traffic aware video dissemination over vehicular ad hoc networks | |
Yousefi et al. | Comfort applications in vehicular ad hoc networks based on fountain coding | |
Yan et al. | Opportunistic network coding based cooperative retransmissions in D2D communications | |
Munari et al. | Phoenix: Making cooperation more efficient through network coding in wireless networks | |
KR101008978B1 (en) | Confidence broadcasting system to ad-hoc network environment and method thereof | |
Kafaie et al. | FlexONC: Joint cooperative forwarding and network coding with precise encoding conditions | |
Zhang et al. | TCP adaptation with network coding and opportunistic data forwarding in multi-hop wireless networks | |
Kumar et al. | Hybrid loss recovery technique for multipath load balancing in MANETs | |
Santos et al. | A performance study for the multicast collision prevention mechanism for IEEE 802.11 | |
Cerutti et al. | Cooperative ARQ protocols in slotted radio networks | |
Laya et al. | Reliable machine-to-machine multicast services with multi-radio cooperative retransmissions |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MASSACHUSET Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ZEGER, LINDA M.;MEDARD, MURIEL;PETERS, AMANDA;SIGNING DATES FROM 20120330 TO 20120405;REEL/FRAME:035379/0077 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |