A spectrum etiquette protocol for efficient coordination of radio devices in unlicensed bands

Raychaudhuri, Dipankar; Jing, Xiangpeng

doi:10.1109/pimrc.2003.1264255

Cited by 107 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where devices can exchange information that would otherwise be unavailable, we would expect these devices to make more efficient use of spectrum while better avoiding mutual interference [10]. However, cooperation has its drawbacks.…”

Section: Defining Features Of Spectrum-sharing Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

| Traditionally, interference protection is guaranteed through a policy of spectrum licensing, whereby wireless systems get exclusive access to spectrum. This is an effective way to prevent interference, but it leads to highly inefficient use of spectrum. Cognitive radio along with software radio, spectrum sensors, mesh networks, and other emerging technologies can facilitate new forms of spectrum sharing that greatly improve spectral efficiency and alleviate scarcity, if policies are in place that support these forms of sharing. On the other hand, new technology that is inconsistent with spectrum policy will have little impact. This paper discusses policies that can enable or facilitate use of many spectrum-sharing arrangements, where the arrangements are categorized as being based on coexistence or cooperation and as sharing among equals or primary-secondary sharing. A shared spectrum band may be managed directly by the regulator, or this responsibility may be delegated in large part to a license-holder. The type of sharing arrangement and the entity that manages it have a great impact on which technical approaches are viable and effective. The most efficient and cost-effective form of spectrum sharing will depend on the type of systems involved, where systems under current consideration are as diverse as television broadcasters, cellular carriers, public safety systems, point-to-point links, and personal and local-area networks. In addition, while cognitive radio offers policy-makers the opportunity to improve spectral efficiency, cognitive radio also provides new challenges for policy enforcement. A responsible regulator will not allow a device into the marketplace that might harm other systems. Thus, designers must seek innovative ways to assure regulators that new devices will comply with policy requirements and will not cause harmful interference.

show abstract

Section: Defining Features Of Spectrum-sharing Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The outage probability (of node v) is defined by (10) Hence, (11) Assuming the EPM-73 propagation path loss model, from (4), (7), and (8), we can write (12) Therefore, (13) Closely related to the outage probability is the coverage distance, d cov , defined as the maximum distance between the primary transmitter and the victim node such that the outage probability does not exceed a value e out : (14) From (13) and (12), we can write…”

Section: Outage Probability and Coverage Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling and analysis of interference in Listen‐Before‐Talk spectrum access schemes

Leu¹,

McHenry²,

Mark³

2006

Int J Network Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSpectrum measurement studies have shown that substantial portions of the allocated wireless spectrum are highly underutilized. Frequency-agile radios (FARs) have the potential to make opportunistic use of such spectrum holes without causing harmful interference to users of the allocated spectrum. Toward this goal, we develop a framework for modeling the interference caused by FARs employing spectrum access mechanisms based on the simple ListenBefore-Talk (LBT) scheme. Two variations of LBT are considered: individual LBT, whereby the FARs act independently of each other; and collaborative LBT, whereby the FARs communicate with each other in order to more accurately identify the spectrum holes. Our analysis of the LBT scheme reveals the fundamental interdependencies among key system design metrics and provides a basis for analyzing more complex spectrum access methods. In particular, the analysis of LBT provides a lower bound on the capacity gain achievable by FARs employing spectrum-sharing schemes. Our numerical results show that the individual LBT scheme can provide substantial capacity gains, while even more gain can be achieved using the collaborative LBT schemes. Our analysis suggests that much greater gains should be achievable via spectrum access schemes that incorporate location information and/or more sophisticated group behaviors.

show abstract

“…However, it mainly focuses on the one-hop case and it is not easy to apply it directly to the multi-hop case. Lastly, the common spectrum coordination channel (CSCC) protocol presented in Raychaudhuri (2003) is an extension of the DCA protocol, which enables different types of wireless devices to share the radio spectrum via negotiation through the CSCC.…”

Section: Classification Based On Single Radio and Multiple Radiomentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey on MAC protocols for complex self-organizing cognitive radio networks

Shah

Zhang

Kamran

et al. 2016

Complex Adapt Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex self-organizing cognitive radio (CR) networks serve as a framework for accessing the spectrum allocation dynamically where the vacant channels can be used by CR nodes opportunistically. CR devices must be capable of exploiting spectrum opportunities and exchanging control information over a control channel. Moreover, CR nodes should intelligently coordinate their access between different cognitive radios to avoid collisions on the available spectrum channels and to vacate the channel for the licensed user in timely manner. Since inception of CR technology, several MAC protocols have been designed and developed. This paper surveys the state of the art on tools, technologies and taxonomy of complex self-organizing CR networks. A detailed analysis on CR MAC protocols form part of this paper. We group existing approaches for development of CR MAC protocols and classify them into different categories and provide performance analysis and comparison of different protocols. With our categorization, an easy and concise view of underlying models for development of a CR MAC protocol is provided.

show abstract

A spectrum etiquette protocol for efficient coordination of radio devices in unlicensed bands

Cited by 107 publications

References 5 publications

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

Modeling and analysis of interference in Listen‐Before‐Talk spectrum access schemes

A survey on MAC protocols for complex self-organizing cognitive radio networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About