e., it does not use the
Cross-layer Optimized Video Streaming over Wireless Multi-hop Mesh Networks 122
constraints set in (15), (16), but rather restricts the MSDU delay deadline based on link loss
ratios and the available throughput [8]. It was termed ???ETX optimized??? in our results.
Secondly, the case of selecting the link with the highest effective bandwidth was realized
for the routing of each MSDU, since it corresponds to the popular solution for optimized
routing [26] (termed as the ???Highest Bandwidth??? solution). Notice that, in both cases, the
best modulation was established as in the ???end-to-end??? case, and each link??™s status
information was also used for these cases, as conveyed by the overlay network
infrastructure. As a result, the differences in performance stem purely from the different
performance utilities that were chosen during the MSDU routing and path selection.
Effectively, this separates the fully network-aware methods (proposed ???End-to-End???,
???Highest Bandwidth??? [26], and ???ETX optimized??? [8]) from the partial network-aware
approaches (proposed ???Localized??? and ???Estimation based???). In addition, within the fully
network-aware methods, the difference in the performance utilities means that only the
???End-to-End??? approach fully utilizes application-layer, MAC, and PHY parameters via the
optimization framework of (12)-(16).
Pages:
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341