Güncel hibrit ağlarda mevcut bant genişliği tahmin araçlarının yeniden incelenmesi: 802.11n Wi-Fi son atlamalı Gigabit Ethernet altyapısı

Öz

Yüksek hızlı ve kablosuz ağ ortamları, özellikle yüksek kapasiteli kablolu çekirdek ağların değişken kablosuz uçlarla bütünleştirildiği hibrit erişim ağlarında, kullanılabilir bant genişliğinin (available bandwidth, avail-bw) doğru ve güvenilir tahminini zorlaştırmaktadır. Yaygın bir uygulama, Gigabit Ethernet (GigE) omurgasının IEEE 802.11n Wi-Fi son erişim bağlantısıyla birleştirilmesidir. Bu yapı, yüksek nominal kapasite sunarken kanal rekabeti, stokastik kanal davranışı ve durağan olmayan trafik dinamikleri nedeniyle önemli zamansal değişkenlik göstermektedir. Daha yeni kablosuz standartlara rağmen IEEE 802.11n, son kullanıcı cihazlarında ve son erişim bağlantılarında yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu karma kablolu–kablosuz ortam, klasik kullanılabilir bant genişliği tahmin araçlarının değerlendirilmesi için gerçekçi bir ortam sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada DietTOPP, PTR ve Pathwave, GigE omurgası ile son erişimde 802.11n Wi-Fi bağlantısını bütünleştiren gerçek bir test yatağında deneysel olarak değerlendirilmiştir. D-ITG çapraz trafik üreticisi kullanılarak çeşitli trafik örüntüleri ile kontrollü çapraz ve rekabet eden trafik senaryoları oluşturulmuştur. Sonuçlar, durağan olmayan ve eşzamanlı yükler altında tahmin doğruluğunda önemli düşüşler olduğunu ve mevcut araçların sınırlılıklarını göstermektedir. Bulgular, modern hibrit ağlar için kablosuz farkındalığına sahip ve farklı trafik koşullarına göre uyum sağlayabilen kullanılabilir bant genişliği tahmin tekniklerine ihtiyaç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kullanılabilir bant genişliği
• 802.11n
• Gigabit Ethernet
• ölçüm
• hizmet kalitesi

Revisiting available bandwidth estimation tools in contemporary hybrid networks: Gigabit ethernet with last-hop 802.11n Wi-Fi

Öz

High-speed and wireless network environments pose substantial challenges to the accuracy and reliability of available-bandwidth (avail-bw) estimation, particularly in hybrid access networks integrating high-capacity wired cores with variable wireless edges. A common deployment combines a Gigabit Ethernet (GigE) backbone with a last-hop IEEE 802.11n Wi-Fi link, providing high nominal capacity while exhibiting significant temporal variability caused by contention, stochastic channel behavior, and non-stationary traffic dynamics. This configuration reflects real-world networks where stable wired infrastructure coexists with wireless technologies subject to variable channel conditions and competing traffic. Despite newer wireless standards, IEEE 802.11n remains widely deployed in end-user devices and continues to support last-hop connectivity. This mixed wired–wireless environment provides a realistic setting for evaluating classical avail-bw estimation tools. Accordingly, this study experimentally evaluates established end-to-end avail-bw estimation tools under realistic mixed-technology conditions. DietTOPP, PTR, and Pathwave are assessed on a real-world testbed integrating GigE with a last-hop 802.11n Wi-Fi link. Using the D-ITG cross-traffic generator, diverse traffic patterns and controlled crossing and contending traffic scenarios are emulated. Results reveal significant accuracy degradation under non-stationary and concurrent loads, highlighting the limitations of existing tools and the need for wireless-aware, traffic-adaptive avail-bw estimation techniques for modern hybrid networks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Available bandwidth
• 802.11n
• gigabit ethernet
• measurement
• quality of service

Kaynakça

1. W. Diao, J. An, T. Li, Y. Zhang, and Z. Liu, “Lossless and high-throughput congestion control in satellite-based cloud platforms,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 6, Art. no. 1206, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/electronics14061206.
2. D. W. Ngwenya, M. C. Hlophe, and B. T. Maharaj, “TCP congestion control algorithm using queueing theory-based optimality equation,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 2, Art. no. 263, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/electronics14020263.
3. K. Satoda, E. Takahashi, T. Onishi, T. Suzuki, D. Ohta, K. Kobayashi, and T. Murase, “Passive method for estimating available throughput for autonomous off-peak data transfer,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2020, Art. no. 3502394, pp. 1–12, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/3502394.
4. S. S. Chaudhari and R. C. Biradar, “Survey of bandwidth estimation techniques in communication networks,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 1425–1476, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11277-015-2459-2.
5. D. Salcedo, C. D. Guerrero, and R. B. Martínez Aguilar, “Available bandwidth estimation tools: Metrics, approach and performance,” International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 580–587, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.17762/ijcnis.v10i3.3516.
6. F. Abut, “Through the diversity of bandwidth-related metrics, estimation techniques and tools: An overview,” International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1–16, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.5815/ijcnis.2018.08.01.
7. S. K. Khangura and S. Akın, “Measurement-based online available bandwidth estimation employing reinforcement learning,” in Proc. 31st International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 31), Budapest, Hungary, 2019, pp. 95–103, doi: 10.1109/ITC31.2019.00022.
8. E. Mozaffariahrar, F. Theoleyre, and M. Menth, “A survey of Wi-Fi 6: Technologies, advances, and challenges,” Future Internet, vol. 14, no. 10, Art. no. 293, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/fi14100293.

9. M. Natkaniec and N. Bieryt, “An analysis of the mixed IEEE 802.11ax wireless networks in the 5 GHz band,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 10, Art. no. 4964, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23104964.
10. C. Liu, J. Tourrilhes, C.-N. Chuah, and P. Sharma, “Voyager: Revisiting available bandwidth estimation with a new class of methods—decreasing-chirp-train methods,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1717–1732, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNET.2022.3152175.
11. J. Huang, N. Ito, T. Oshiba, K. Satoda, and T. Murase, “PathKatana: Accurate available bandwidth estimation for high-speed networks using packet train consisting only of large-sized packets,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 6, pp. 1838–1846, 2025, doi: 10.1109/OJCOMS.2025.3529211.
12. S. K. Khangura and S. Akın, “Online available bandwidth estimation using multiclass supervised learning techniques,” Computer Communications, vol. 170, pp. 177–189, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2021.02.009.
13. F. Abut and M. Leischner, “An experimental evaluation of tools for estimating bandwidth-related metrics,” International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–11, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.5815/ijcnis.2018.07.01.
14. Memoona and S. W. Kim, “Performance and simulation analysis of 802.11ax OFDMA in contention-driven scenarios,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 11, Art. no. e2687, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2687.
15. S. Xue, S. Gong, and X. Li, “A comparative study of IEEE 802.11bd and IEEE 802.11p on the data dissemination properties in dynamic traffic scenarios,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 5, Art. no. 2099, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14052099.
16. X. Huang, “Hardware nanosecond-precision timestamping for line-rate packet capture,” IET Networks, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 249–261, 2024, doi: 10.1049/ntw2.12114.
17. Z. Frias, W. Lehr, and V. Stocker, “Building an ecosystem for mobile broadband measurement: Methods and policy challenges,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 49, no. 5, Art. no. 102905, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102905.
18. M. Li, M. Claypool, and R. Kinicki, “WBest: A bandwidth estimation tool for IEEE 802.11 wireless networks,” in Proc. 33rd IEEE Conf. Local Computer Networks (LCN), Montreal, QC, Canada, Oct. 2008, pp. 374–381, doi: 10.1109/LCN.2008.4664193.
19. A. Johnsson, B. Melander, and M. Björkman, “DietTopp: A first implementation and evaluation of a simplified bandwidth measurement method,” arXiv:2301.06405, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06405.
20. N. Hu and P. Steenkiste, “Evaluation and characterization of available bandwidth probing techniques,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 879–894, Aug. 2003, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2003.814505.
21. L. Cong, G. Lu, Y. Chen, B. Deng, and X. Li, “PathWave: Combined estimation of network link capacity and available bandwidth using statistical signal processing,” in Proc. 16th IEEE Int. Conf. Networks (ICON), New Delhi, India, Dec. 2008, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ICON.2008.4772573.