Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T04:42:09.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Three tabu search methods for the MI-FAP applied to 802.11 networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2009

Sacha Varone
Affiliation:
Haute École de Gestion (HEG), Bâtiment F, Route de Drize 7, 1227 Carouge, Switzerland; sacha.varone@hesge.ch
Nicolas Zufferey
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Département Opérations et Systèmes de Décisions, Faculté des Sciences de l'Administration, Québec (QC), G1K 7P4, Canada; nicolas.zufferey@fsa.ulaval.ca
Get access

Abstract

Wireless LAN using IEEE 802.11 networks are now widely deployed athome by residential users or in hot spots by telecommunicationoperators. A hot spot is a place where a set of access points (APs)are located nearby each other and can serve many users. Sinceperturbations can degrade the quality of the signal, a carefulchannel assignment to each AP has to be done. Channel assignment ofAPs at hot spots, and more generally setup configuration andmanagement, is still often done manually. In this paper, we considera modeling that enables optimization of channel assignment withrespect to the dynamic behavior of end-users. We prove our problem'sformulation to correspond to the Minimum Interference FrequencyAssignment Problem, and hence the problem to be NP-hard. We proposeand compare three different tabu search methods to solve theproblem of channel assignment in 802.11 WLAN networks. The firstone, called TabuObj, tackles the problem using directly theobjective function associated with the model. The second one, calledTabuApproxObj, uses a simplified and approximate objectivefunction in order to visit more solutions during the same amount oftime, i.e. to be quicker than TabuObj. The third one, calledTabuLevel, is even more quicker and is based on the followingphilosophy: under time constraints, it could be judicious to explorevery quickly lots of solutions, rather than spending muchcomputation time for the evaluation of each solution, and hence onlyconsidering a few solutions. Those three methods are then comparedbased on time constraints and on the quality of their solutions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, ROADEF, SMAI, 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable