Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

Congestion Control in ATM Networks and the Internet 1332018TQTCPPower161412102040 60Queue size:(packets)80 100FIGURE 3.28System power with queue size for multiple traffic sources.Figure 3.25 shows the PLR with time when TQ and New-Reno TCP-basedcongestion control schemes were deployed. It can be observed that the PLRfor both schemes increases as the service capacity is decreased, reaches amaximum value when the service capacity is a small value during the timeinterval of 6≤ t < 24sec.The PLR again decreases as the service capacity isincreased. From Figure 3.26, the PLR obtained using TQ congestion controlscheme is much better than the New-Reno TCP congestion control scheme.The complete analysis results are shown in Table 3.5.Figure 3.26 through Figure 3.28 display transmission delay (TD), PLR,and system power (SP), with different queue size for TQ and New-RenoTCP. The packet losses decrease with an increase in queue size for bothschemes. From the three figures, we can see that the TD, PLR, and SPobtained using TQ congestion control scheme is much better than theNew-Reno TCP congestion control scheme.TABLE 3.5TQ vs. New-Reno TCP ComparisonCase II TQ New-Reno TCPPacket loss ratio 0.087% 0.443%Transmission delay 0.2783 0.4110System power 16.5701 11.2162