IEEE 802.

11s Wireless Mesh Networks

Anastasios Daniilidis, Khalil Khalil

Dept. of Communication Systems,
Lund University,
Box 118 SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden
{d04ad, e02kk}@student.lth.se

Abstract
Nowdays, WLAN technology covers a wide variety of
devices and applications used by many users around the
globe. The most common standard in WLANs is the well
known IEEE 802.11 which comprises a family of standards
that each offer different kinds of characteristics. Neither the
infrastructure nor the ad hoc mode made it possible to cov-
er the demands of usage of WLANs. Demands, like mobility,
pushed the standards over the edge and the term mesh net-
working was born. Devices no longer have to be in the same
area where an access point is. They can gain access to ser-
vices by other nearby access points that denote the same
network. Key features like QoS, power management, securi-
ty and routing implement existing, new or hybrid techniques
to deploy an integrated mesh network. This article makes a
presentation of the mesh concept and introduces the new
member of the 802.11 family, i.e. 802.11s, and especially
the concept of Mesh Deterministic Access (MDA).
802.11s where the TGs define an extended service set (ESS)
of a number of devices (nodes) interconnected to each oth-
er, enabling automatic topology learning and dynamic path
configuration. Mesh connectivity is established by apply-
ing multihop mesh techniques to specify a wireless dis-
tribution system (WDS) building a wireless infrastructure
among nodes. Each node that supports mesh functionality is
called a mesh point(MP) and it supports functionalities like
neighbor discovery, channel selection and association form-
ing with its neighboring MPs. The implementation is based
on top of the current PHY layer of IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n and
operates at the 2.4 - 5.0 GHz frequency bands. However,
the current routing and MAC techniques limit the WMN
and its capabilities. Thus, enchancements or new deployed
techniques have to be implemented by a WMN perspective.
Such a MAC enchancement is the Mesh Determistic Ac-
cess that is an access method which allows MPs to access
the channel at specific times (called MDAOPs) with lower
contention that would otherwise be possible[4].

2. Wireless Mesh Networks

1. Introduction
Wireless LANs is the key technology to most services,
in combination with propriate devices offered by network
providers and manufacturers respectively. However prob-
lems like coverage area still remain and mesh networking is
here to solve this problem among others. WMNs are com-
prised by mesh routers and mesh clients called the nodes[2].
Each node has the ability to operate both as a host and as a
router that can provide packet forwarding in behalf of an-
other node that is out of range of transmision with its desti-
nation. The scale of the network determines its type which
can be a WLAN, a WMAN or even a WPAN.
The IEEE 802.11 working group, WG, works on wire-
less mesh networks in the task group, TGs, that produce
the standards for mesh networks. Hence, the wireless mesh
standard 802.16a is developed for WMAN, the 802.11s for
WLAN and the 802.15.5 for WPAN[3]. The focus is on
As mentioned earlier, WMNs consist of two types of
nodes: mesh routers and mesh clients. The difference be-
tween a conventional router and a mesh router, apart from
the mesh functionality, is that the latter can achieve the same
coverage with lower transmission power through multi-hop
communications. As regards to mesh clients, they also have
neccesary mesh functions and can thus behave as a router.
On the other hand, gateway or bridge functions do not ex-
ist in these nodes. Additionally, mesh clients have only one
wireless interface.
2.1. WMNs Architecture
Three different categories distinguish in the WMNs ar-
chitecture, based on the functionality of the nodes.
• Infrastructure/backbone WMNs
 Figur 1. Infrastructure/backbone WMNs.
The figure 1 above shows an infrastructure/backbone
WMN. The dashed and solid lines denote wireless and
wired connections respectively. As it can be seen in the
figure, different kinds of clients connect to the mesh
routers that form the infrastructure. The radio technol-
ogy used by the mesh routers varies significantly. Fur-
thermore, routers apply self-configuring, self-healing
links among themselves to form the backbone net-
work. They can also connect to the internet by gate-
way functions. Conventional clients can connect to the
mesh routers either by using the Ethernet interface or
by using the same radio technology as the routers.
• Client WMNs
Figur 2. Client WMNs.
In this type of architecture, no mesh router exists. In-
stead, conventional devices establish peer-to-peer net-
works among them to constitute the actuall network
performing routing and configuration functions as well
as providing end-user applications to customers. There
exists one single radio interface among the devices and
a packet is forwarded to its destination by hopping
through devices.
• Hybrid WMNs
Figur 3. Hybrid WMNs.
As the name of the architecture denotes, this is the case
where the network comprises by both infrastructure
and client mesh networks. The clients can access the
network by other clients or by routers providing im-
proved connectivity and coverage within the WMN.
2.2. Characteristics of WMNs
This section describes the characteristics of mesh net-
works as the following:
• Multi-hop WMN: To provide greater coverage and
non-line-of-sight (NLOS) among nodes, the multi-hop
function becomes indispensable[5].
• Support for ad hoc networking, and capability of self-
forming, self-healing, and self-organization: These
properties result in enchanced network performance
and gradual growth.
• Mobility dependence on type of mesh nodes: Minimal
mobility of mesh routers but mesh clients can be sta-
tionary or mobile nodes.
• Multiple types of network access: WMNs can sup-
port backhaul access to the Internet and peer-to-peer
communications[6].
• Dependence of power-consumption constraints on the
type of mesh nodes: Mesh clients require power effi-
cient protocols in contrast to mesh routers.
• Compatibility and interoperability with existing wire-
less networks: WMNs built based on IEEE 802.11
technologies have to be compatible with the IEEE
802.11 standards. Additionaly, such networks must be
inter-operable with other types of wireless networks,
e.g. WiMAX, ZigBee[7] and cellular networks.
2.3. Key Functionality
The section below describes the main functions of
WMNs[1].
2.3.1. Mesh Topology Creation
On activation, an MP searches for potential mesh net-
works present within its coverage area. When such a net-
work is found, the MP associates with the network. If no
network is found, the MP must be able to create a new one.
There are two types of network discovery: the active and the
passive approach. After network discovery, basic connectiv-
ity of the nodes is maintained within the network. Further-
more, beacon messages are send for topology maintenance.
2.3.2. Routing
Routing is a very important feature of WMNs since it
allows communication between MPs. The IETF MANET
WG is concetrated on standarizing IP (layer 3) routing pro-
tocol functionality for wireless ad hoc networks. In con-
sideration are taken two types of protocols. These are the
proactive and the reactive routing protocols. The former
type of protocols is useful in small networks and the lat-
ter is preferred when the network size is large. Since the
size of a mesh network can not be determined, neither type
of protocol can be used. A solution to this problem is to
use a hybrid protocol. Mesh networks can alternatively use
adaptive routing protocols.
2.3.3. Security
As in other wireless networks, security is also a great
issue in mesh mode. To guarantee a safe communication
channel, security measures must be taken. These measures
control
• Confidentiality and integrity: Data sent by the air in-
terface have to be protected against eavesdroping and
modifications.
• Unauthorized access: MPs have to authenticate them-
selves first to successfully join a network.
• Denial of service (DoS) attacks: Caused when an MP
misbehaves in routing packets, e.g. as in the case of a
black hole[8].
2.3.4. Quality of Service
Applications set bounds in parameters like packet loss,
throughput, delay, and jitter in order to work properly. Thus,
QoS mechanisms have to be employed to meet those de-
mands.
In WMNs, it is distinguished two kinds of QoS issues.
Firstly, QoS has to be present both in case of access net-
work traffic and backbone traffic. This means that call ad-
mission control (CAC) has to be present for the first case
and a mechanism to differentiating the two types of traffic.
Secondly, a mechanism is required obove L2 to guarantee
QoS over multi-hops. The MAC layer can only guarantee a
minimum service level for inter-MP traffic.
End-to-end Qos is supported by flow control which is
tightly linked with CAC where the former uses flow identi-
fiers and the latter checks for service-level requirements in
packet headers.
2.3.5. Power Efficiency
Many devices are battery-driven and that has an effect
on the up-time of a device. In turn, up-time depends on bat-
tery capacity and device power consumption. Power-saving
mechanisms aim to extend the up-time as much as possible.
Since a device can do many different things, there should
also be propriate solutions for each case. Inactive devices
could enter a sleep mode, traffic-forwarding devices could
have scheduled wake-up mechanisms and so on. Another
way of dealing with this issue is to adapt transmission pow-
er depending on tranmission range.
Nevertheless, there is a more efficient way used in mesh
networks called power-aware routing, where network rout-
ing paths are oprtimized for power consumption[9].
3. IEEE 802.11s
Figur 4. IEEE 802.11s network architecture
The proposed network architecture is depicted in fig. 4.
The 802.11 TGs defines an extended service set (ESS), usu-
ally refered to as a mesh network. Every IEEE 802.11-based
entity (AP or STA) that fully or partially supports mesh
functionality is refered to as a mesh point (MP). Minimal
MP operations include neighbor discovery, channel selec-
tion, and forming associations with neighbors. A WDS is
formed by MPs and mesh links that connect the MPs. This
way, the ESS is distinguished from the BSS, defined in the
legacy IEEE 802.11[10]. MAPs are specific MPs but can
act as APs as well. MPPs is another type of MPs that has
the ability of interconnecting other WMS with the network
it belongs to. Furthermore, it can act as a bridge/gateway
of the mesh network and other networks in the DS. Such a
WMN is uniquely identified by a mesh ID assigned to every
MP to represent an ESS.
3.1. Medium Access Coordination Function
Figur 5. 802.11s MCF sublayer
The Medium Coordination Function (MCF) components
are shown in fig. 5. The sublayer is built on top of the PHY
layer where no modifications have been made. The 802.11s
MAC sublayer is an amendment to IEEE 802.11 to create
a WDS. This section will cover the most important parts of
MFC.
3.1.1. Mesh Topology Learning, Routing and
Forwarding
Focused on peer-to-peer discovery of MPs, this service
set (SS) enables automatic topology learning, establishes
links and forms a dynamic data delivery path across MPs.
• Topology discovery and formation: A new candidate
node initially gathers information from neighboring
nodes either by active scaning (i.e. sending probe mes-
sages) or by passive listening (i.e. by receiving period-
ic beacons). Finally, two peers form a partial or a full
mesh topology by associating with each other.
• Path selection protocol: Formally, a L2 path selec-
tion protocol is used to handle unicast and broad-
cast/multicast data delivery. On the other hand, MPs
might be mobile or nonmobile and thus a hybrid rout-
ing protocol supporting both proactive and on-demand
schemes is more suitable for such a network[11]. Thus,
the hybrid scheme uses the ad hoc on-demand vector
(AODV) and the optimized link state routing (OLSR)
to reach the goal. To make the routing prototcols more
robust against link failures, radio aware metrics are
proposed.
• Forwarding scheme: The traffic in a WMN consists
of 4-address data frames. When a MP receives such
frames, it checks for the frame authenticity and the
destination MAC address before forwarding. In the
MAP arrive the 3-address frame which is converted
to a 4-address format and then it is forwarded to its
destination. The support of forwarding multicast and
broadcast traffic is also supported.
3.1.2. Medium Access Coordination
The proposal is to use the enchanced distributed channel
access (EDCA) mechanism as medium access coordination
which is the re-use of previous MAC encahncements, i.e.
802.11e. The MAC mechanisms support congestion con-
trol, power saving, synchronization and beacon collision
avoidance. The proposed mechanisms shall make it possi-
ble to enable multiple channel operations in multiradio or
single radio as well as mixed environments. Furthermore,
there must be compatibility with legacy devices.
Optional MAC enchancements include Mesh Determin-
istic Access (MDA) that is a reservation-based determinis-
tic mechanism, Common Channel Framework (CCF) that is
a multi-channel operation mechanism, Intra-mesh Conges-
tion Control and power management.
3.1.3. Mesh Configuration and Management
Since the deployment of self-configuring paths and links
can be unmanaged, it is required the use of autonomic man-
agement modules.
The purpose of management is to ensure a free of prob-
lems network operation. A mesh point that may fail does
not effect the overall network performance but it has to be
managed anyway.
3.2. Use Cases
3.2.1. Residential Case
In this model, the primary purposes for the mesh network
are to create low-cost, easily deployable, high performance
wireless coverage throughout the digital home. The mesh
network is intended to eliminate RF dead-spots and areas
of low-quality coverage. High bandwidth applications tend
to be used but also simple ones, e.g. video streaming and
wireless printers.

3.2.2. Office Case

The objective in the office case is to create low-cost, eas-

ily deployable wireless networks that provide reliable cov-
erage and performance. A wireless mesh LAN becomes
useful in areas where Ethernet cabling does not exist or
is cost prohibitive. Companies reduce their costs in asso-
ciation with cable and time of installation. Furthermore,
they can benefit also from increase in employee productivi-
ty through expanded connectivity to key network resources.
3.2.3. Campus / Comamunity / Public Access
Case
Mesh networks can in this case provide connectivity over
large geographic areas in low cost, higher bandwidth inter-
net access in contrast to the traditional methods and location
based services for information and safety purposes.
Figur 6. Priority mapping.
interval of time when a particular QSTA has the right to ini-
tiate transmission. Eack AC behaves like a virtual station: it
contends for medium access starting its backoff timer after
sensing the medium idle after AIFS, (AIFS being the cor-
responding DIFS in DCF). The rule that applies is that the
AC with the lowest AIFS has the higher priority. The differ-
ent parameters are used to give a low-priority class a longer
waiting time[12]. An illustration of the queues is shown in
figure 7 and the timing relationship in figure 8.

3.2.4. Public Safety Case

Access to emergency and municipal safety personnel

such as fire, police, and hospital is important if a corre-
sponding incident occurs. The network can be used for
video surveillance, tracking emergency workers with bio-
sensors, voice and data communication between emergecy
personnel and so on.

3.3. Fundamentals of MAC

Figur 7. Implementation model.
EDCA is a mandatory mechanism in 802.11e that is
reused in 802.11s to provide prioritized QoS services. On
the other hand, MDA is an optional mechanism that can be
used in 802.11s. Both are described in the following two
sections below.

3.3.1. EDCA

Enhanced Distributed Channel Access is an extension

of Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). Thus, DCF is
the basis for EDCA. QoS stations (QSTAs) access the medi-
um using 8 different user priorities (UPs). This means that
packets sent by the QSTAs are assigned a priority value, be- Figur 8. The timing relationship for EDCA.
fore entering the MAC. These packets are then mapped to
the four first-in first-out (FIFO) queues,called access cate-
gories (ACs) implemented in EDCA, according to figure 6. 3.3.2. MDA
For each AC, an enhanced variant of the DCF, namel-
ly the enhanced distributed channel access function (ED- In Mesh Deterministic Access (MDA) scheme, involving
CAF), contends for TXOPs using a set of EDCA param- MPs have to support sychronization. MDA sets up time pe-
eters. Transmission opportunity (TXOP) is defined as the riods, called MDAOPs, to prevent MPs of initiating trans-
mission sequences in case they interfere with each oth- Upon MDAOP setup[13] the following packet formats
ers transmissions or receptions. MPs that set up MDAOPs are used.
access the medium by using the MDA access parameters
CWMin, CWMax, and AIFSN within these periods.
A Mesh DTIM interval comprises of MDAOPs, see fig-
ure 9. Such an interval is set up between the MDAOP owner
and the addressing MP. After the MDAOP is set up:
• The MDAOP owner uses CSMA/CA and backoff to
obtain a TXOP using the MDACWmin, MDACWmax,
and MDAIFSN parameters. The ranges of values of the
parameters are identical to those used in EDCA.
• Both the MDAOP owner and the addressed MP adver-
tise the MDAOP. Except the MDAOP owner, all other
MPs should not initiate transmissions during the TX-
OP initiated in the MDAOP. Figur 10. Request/Reply setup frame formats.

At this point it can be stated that every new entity has

a view over the entire mesh network. However, an MDA
Manager exists to allow end-to-end flows using MDA fea-
tures and is responsible for

• Path computation.
• Invoking MDAOP Setup Procedure on node along the
Figur 9. MDAOPs during DTIM. path.

A sender MP has the ability to establish a set of
MDAOPs each identified by a unique ID called the MDAOP
Set ID. Such a set id has to be unique for the sending MP,
so that the MDAOP set ID and the senders MAC address
uniquely identify an MDAOP set in the mesh. A MDAOP
Set ID can also handle set up and teardown of the the entire
set of MDAOPs in an MDAOP set.
TXOPs also exist in MDA but since it is obtained by a
MP in a MDAOP, it is called MDA TXOP. Such an TX-
OP is required to end within the MDAOP it origianlly was
obtained.
Neighborhood MDAOP times for a MP are those TX-
RX times that are advertised by neighboring MPs, forming
a set of MDAOPs currently used in the neighborhood. Thus,
a sender cannot set up new MDAOPs within these times.
Neighbor MDAOP interfering times for a MP in relation
to another MP are the times when the former cannot set up
MDAOPs with the latter. Thus, creating MDAOPs within
these times can and will result in interference.
The MDA access fraction, at a MP, is defined as the ratio
of the total duration of its Neighborhood MDAOP Times"in
a Mesh DTIM interval to the duration of the Mesh DTIM
interval. It exists to make sure that a new MDAOP set does
not cause the MAF of another MP to exceed a MAF lim-
it. If the limit is exceeded, the MDAOP request should be
refused.
The MDA Manager can make path computation in the
following two different ways:
• Using Dijkstra algorithm.
• Using Ford algorithm.
In conclusion, the MDA does not perform well for the
following reasons.
1. Partial overlapping of MDAOPs.
2. Interference with other MDAOPs which are not con-
sidered in Neighborhood Times
3. DTIM fragmentation.
Thus, Dynamic Relocation is en enchancement to MDA
confronting the first two problems mentioned above.
4. Summary
The article presented the concept of Wireless Mesh Net-
works and referred to the different implementations of each
type. The new amandement of 802.11, i.e. 802.11s, looks
promising in bringing a new wave in wireless LANs. The
area of implementations is wide and usages in the future
can be meet almost everywhere. We have seen that the basis
for 802.11s in the MAC layer, EDCA, comes from its ances-
tor, i.e. 802.11e, and that the PHY layer remains untouched.
The optional mechanism MDA showed some weaknesses
but the Dynamic Relocation was developed to cover some
of them.
Referenser
[1] Stefano M. Faccin, Carl Wijting, Jarkko Kneckt, Ame-
ja Damle: Mesh WLAN Networks: Concept and Sys-
tem Design, IEEE Wireless Communications, Apr.
2006
[2] Ian F. Akyildiz, Xudong Wang, Weilin Wang: Wire-
less mesh networks: a survey, Computer Networks 47
(2005), http://www.sciencedirect.com
Comm. Corp. IEEE 802 Plenary, DallasIEEE 802.11s
Tutorial, Overview of the Amendment for Wireless
Local Area Mesh Networking W. Steven Conner, Intel
Corp. Monday, Nov 13, 2006.
[12] Saurabh Sehrawat, Revoti Prasad Bora, Dheeraj Har-
ihar, Performance Analysis of QoS supported by En-
hanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mecha-
nism in IEEE 802.11e, IAENG International Journal
of Computer Science, IJCS-33-1-6
[13] Soleri Michele, IEEE 802.11s Mesh Deterministic Ac-
cess: Design and analysis, LAUREA MAGISTRALE
IN INGEGNERIA INFORMATICA ANNO ACCA-
DEMICO 2006-2007

[3] Myung J. Lee, Jianliang Zheng, Young-Bae Ko,

Deepesh Man Shrestha: Emerging Standards for Wire-
less Mesh Technology, IEEE Wireless Communica-
tions, Apr. 2006

[4] 802.11 Working Group of the LAN/MAN Commit-

tee, Draft Amendment to Standard for Information
Technology - Telecommunications and Information
Exchange Between Systems - LAN/MAN Specific
Requirements - Part 11: Wireless Medium Access
Control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifi-
cations: Amendment: ESS Mesh Networking, IEEE
P802.11s/D0.03, August 2006

[5] L. Krishnamurthy, S. Conner, M. Yarvis, J. Chhabra,

C. Ellison, C. Brabenac, E. Tsui, Meeting the demands
of the digital home with high-speed multi-hop wire-
less networks, Intel Technology Journal 6 (4) (2002).

[6] J. Jun, M.L. Sichitiu, The nominal capacity of wire-

less mesh networks, IEEE Wireless Communications
10 (5) (2003).

[7] The ZigBee Alliance. Available from:

<http://www.zigbee. org/>.

[8] H. Deng, W. Li, and D. Agrawal, Routing Security in

Wireless Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Commun. Mag.,
Oct. 2002.

[9] Y.-C. Tseng, C.-S. Hsu, and T.-Y. Hsieh, Power-

Saving Protocols for IEEE 802.11-Based Multihop Ad
Hoc Networks", IEEE INFOCOM, June 2002, vol.1.

[10] IEEE Std 802.11, "IEEE Standard for Local and

Metropolitan Area Networks", 1999.

[11] Jan Kruys, Cisco Systems Kyeongsoo (Joseph) Kim,

STMicroelectronics Juan Carlos Zuniga, InterDigital