Capacity of Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Impact of Number ...
Capacity of Multi-Channel Wireless Networks:
Impact of Number of Channels and Interfaces∗
March 2, 2005
Pradeep Kyasanur Nitin H. Vaidya
Dept. of Computer Science, and Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and
Coordinated Science Laboratory, Coordinated Science Laboratory,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com
Abstract— This paper studies how the capacity of a Past research on wireless network capacity has typically
static multi-channel network scales as the number of considered wireless networks with a single channel,
nodes, n, increases. Gupta and Kumar have determined although the results are applicable to a wireless network
the capacity of single-channel networks, and those bounds with multiple channels as well, provided that at each
are applicable to multi-channel networks as well, provided
node there is a dedicated interface per channel. With a
each node in the network has a dedicated interface per
dedicated interface per channel, a node can use all the
In this work, we establish the capacity of general multi- available channels simultaneously. However, the number
channel networks wherein the number of interfaces, m, of available channels in a wireless network can be fairly
may be smaller than the number of channels, c. We large (e.g., IEEE 802.11a  has provisioned for up to
show that the capacity of multi-channel networks exhibits 12 non-overlapping channels), and it may not be feasible
different bounds that are dependent on the ratio between c to have a dedicated interface per channel at each node.
and m. When the number of interfaces per node is smaller When nodes are not equipped with a dedicated inter-
than the number of channels, there is a degradation in face per channel, then capacity degradation may occur,
the network capacity in many scenarios. However, one
compared to using a dedicated interface per channel.
important exception is a random network with up to
O (log n) channels, wherein the network capacity remains In this paper, we characterize the impact of number of
at the Gupta and Kumar bound of Θ W log n bits/sec,
channels and interfaces per node on the network capacity,
and show that in certain scenarios, even with a single
independent of the number of interfaces available at each
node. Since in many practical networks, number of chan- interface per node, there is no capacity degradation. This
nels available is small (e.g., IEEE 802.11 networks), this implies that it may be possible to build capacity-optimal
bound is of practical interest. This implies that it may be multi-channel networks with as few as one interface per
possible to build capacity-optimal multi-channel networks node.
with as few as one interface per node. We also extend our When a dedicated interface per channel is not avail-
model to consider the impact of interface switching delay, able, the available interfaces can potentially be switched
and show that capacity losses due to switching delay can among different channels to use any of the available
be avoided by using multiple interfaces. channels. Such an interface switching technique is often
I. I NTRODUCTION used to improve channel utilization –. However,
interface switching incurs a delay, which may reduce
Previous research (e.g., , ) has characterized the
the achievable network capacity. In this paper, we also
capacity of wireless networks. One approach for enhanc-
characterize the impact of interface switching delay on
ing the network capacity is to use multiple channels.
network capacity. We show that interface switching delay
This research was supported in part by NSF grant ANI-0125859 has no impact on network capacity, even when there
and a Vodafone Graduate Fellowship. are end-to-end delay constraints, provided that a few
additional interfaces are provisioned for at each node. Kumar ). The network is said to transport one “bit-
meter/sec” when one bit has been transported across a
A. Modeling multi-channel multi-interface networks distance of one meter in one second.
We consider a static wireless network containing n Random Networks: In the random network setting,
nodes. We use the term “channel” to refer to a part of node locations are randomly chosen, and each node
the frequency spectrum with some speciﬁed bandwidth. sets up one ﬂow to a randomly chosen destination.
There are c channels, and we assume that every node is The network capacity is deﬁned to be the aggregate
equipped with m interfaces, 1 ≤ m ≤ c. We assume that throughput over all the ﬂows in the network, and is
an interface is capable of transmitting or receiving data measured in terms of bits/sec.
on any one channel at a given time. We use the notation We use the following notation to represent bounds:
(m, c)-network to refer to a network with m interfaces 1) f (n) = O(g(n)) implies there exists some con-
per node, and c channels. stant d and integer N such that f (n) ≤ dg(n) for
We deﬁne two channel models to represent the data n > N.
rate supported by each channel: 2) f (n) = o(g(n)) implies that limn→∞ f (n) = 0.
Channel Model 1: In model 1, we assume that the 3) f (n) = Ω(g(n)) implies g(n) = O(f (n)).
total data rate possible by using all channels is W . The 4) f (n) = ω(g(n)) implies g(n) = o(f (n)).
total data rate is divided equally among the channels, 5) f (n) = Θ(g(n)) implies f (n) = O(g(n)) and
and therefore the data rate supported by any one of the g(n) = O(f (n)).
c channels is W/c. This was the channel model used 6) MINO (f (n), g(n)) is equal to f (n), if f (n) =
by Gupta and Kumar , and we primarily use this O(g(n)), else, is equal to g(n).
model in our analysis. In this model, as the number of The bounds for random networks hold with high
channels increases, each channel supports a smaller data probability (whp). In this paper, whp implies with “prob-
rate. This model is applicable to the scenario where the ability 1 when n → ∞.”
total available bandwidth is ﬁxed, and new channels are
created by partitioning existing channels.
C. Main Results
Channel Model 2: In model 2, we assume that each
channel can support a ﬁxed data rate of W , independent Gupta and Kumar  have shown that in an arbitrary
of the number of channels. Therefore, the aggregate data network, the network capacity scales as Θ (W n) bit-
rate possible by using all c channels is W c. This model meters/sec, and in a random network, the network capac-
is applicable to the scenario where new channels are n
ity scales as Θ W log n bits/sec. Under the channel
created by utilizing additional frequency spectrum. model 1, which was the model used by Gupta and Kumar
The results presented in this paper are derived assum- , the capacity of a network with a single channel
ing channel model 1. However, all the derivations are and one interface per node (that is, a (1, 1)-network
applicable for channel model 2 as well, and the results in our notation) is equal to the capacity of a network
for model 2 can be obtained by replacing W in the results with c channels and m = c interfaces per node (that
of model 1 by W c. is, a (c, c)-network). Furthermore, under both channel
models, the capacity of a (c, c)-network is at least as
B. Deﬁnitions large as the capacity of a (m, c)-network, when m ≤ c
We study the capacity of static multi-channel wireless (this is trivially true, by not using c − m interfaces in
networks under the two settings introduced by Gupta and the (c, c)-network). In the results presented in this paper,
Kumar . we capture the impact of using fewer than c interfaces
Arbitrary Networks: In the arbitrary network set- per node by establishing the loss in capacity, if any, of
ting, the location of nodes, and trafﬁc patterns can be a (m, c)-network in comparison to a (c, c)-network.
controlled. Since any suitable trafﬁc pattern and node The goal of this work is to study the impact
placement can be used, the bounds for this scenario are of the number of channels c, and the number of
applicable to any network. The arbitrary network bounds interfaces per node m, on the capacity of arbitrary and
may be viewed as the best case bounds on network random networks. Our results show that the capacity is
capacity. The network capacity is measured in terms dependent on the ratio m , and not on the exact values
of “bit-meters/sec” (originally introduced by Gupta and of either c or m (as shown in Lemma 2). We now state
Capacity when c = m Capacity when c = m
W n W n D E
W n Capacity loss F
B log n
W log log n Capacity loss
C W log log n G
n n log n
log log n
1 log n n log n n2
1 log n n n2
Ratio of channels to interfaces m Ratio of channels to interfaces m
Fig. 1. Impact of number of channels on capacity scaling in arbitrary Fig. 2. Impact of number of channels on capacity scaling in random
networks (ﬁgure is not to scale) networks (ﬁgure is not to scale)
our main results under channel model 1. F in Figure 2 overlaps part of segment A-B in
Figure 1), implying “randomness” does not incur
1. Results for arbitrary network: The network capacity a capacity penalty.
of a (m, c)-network has two regions (see Figure 1) as c log log n 2
3) When m is Ω n log n , the network
follows (from Theorem 1 and Theorem 2): log log
c capacity is Θ W nmlog n n bits/sec (line F-G in
1) When m is O(n), the network capacity is
Figure 2). In this case, there is a larger capacity
Θ W nm bit-meters/sec (segment A-B in Fig-
c degradation than case 2. Furthermore, in this
ure 1). Compared to a (c, c)-network, there is a region, the capacity of a (m, c)-random network
capacity loss by a factor of 1 − m . c is smaller than that of a (m, c)-arbitrary network,
2) When m is Ω(n), the network capacity is in contrast to case 2.
Θ W nm bit-meters/sec (line B-C in Figure 1).
In this case, there is a larger capacity degradation 3. Other results: The results presented above are
than case 1, as nm ≤ nm when m ≥ n.
derived under the assumption that there is no delay
Therefore, there is always a capacity loss in arbitrary in switching an interface from one channel to another.
networks whenever the number of interfaces per node However, we show that even if interface switching delay
is fewer than the number of channels. is considered, the network capacity is not reduced,
provided a few additional interfaces are provisioned for
2. Results for random network: The network capacity at each node. This implies that it is possible to hide
of a (m, c)-network has three regions (see Figure 2) as the interface switching delay by using extra interfaces in
follows (from Theorem 3 and Theorem 4): conjunction with carefully designed routing and trans-
1) When m is O(log n), the network capacity is mission scheduling protocols.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We
Θ W log n bits/sec (segment D-E in Figure 2). present related work in Section II. In Section III, we
In this case, there is no loss compared to a (c, c)- establish the capacity of multi-channel networks under
network. Hence, in many practical scenarios where arbitrary network setting. Section IV establishes the ca-
c may be constant or small, a single interface per pacity of multi-channel networks under random network
node sufﬁces. setting. Section V characterizes the impact of interface
c log log n 2 switching delay. We conclude in Section VI.
2) When m is Ω(log n) and also O n log n ,
the network capacity is Θ W nm bits/sec (seg- II. R ELATED W ORK
ment E-F in Figure 2). In this case, there is In their seminal work, Gupta and Kumar  derived
some capacity loss. Furthermore, in this region, the the capacity of ad hoc wireless networks. The results
capacity of a (m, c)-random network is the same are applicable to single channel wireless networks, or
as that of a (m, c)-arbitrary network (segment E- multi-channel wireless networks where every node has a
dedicated interface per channel. We extend the results Signal-to-Interference-Noise Ratio (SINR) (when path
of Gupta and Kumar to those multi-channel wireless loss exponent is greater than 2). Therefore, the results
networks where nodes may not have a dedicated interface in this paper are applicable under the physical model as
per channel, and also consider the impact of interface well. We do not consider other physical layer character-
switching delay on network capacity. istics such as channel fading in our analysis.
Grossglauser and Tse  showed that mobility can We derive the capacity results for arbitrary and random
improve network capacity, though at the cost of increased networks under the assumption that there is no switching
end-to-end delay. Subsequently, other research ,  delay. We extend our model to consider the impact of
has analyzed the trade-off between delay and capacity switching delay in Section V.
in mobile networks. Gamal et al.  characterize the In an arbitrary network, the location of nodes, and
optimal throughput-delay trade-off for both static and trafﬁc patterns can be controlled. Recall that the network
mobile networks. In this paper, we adapt some of the is said to transport one “bit-meter/sec” when one bit has
proof techniques presented by Gamal et al.  to the been transported across a distance of one meter in a
multi-channel capacity problem. second. The network capacity of an arbitrary network is
Recent results have shown that the capacity of wireless measured in terms of bit-meters per second, instead of
networks can be enhanced by introducing infrastructure bits per second. The bit-meters/sec metric is a measure
support –. Other approaches for improving net- of the “work” that is done by the network in transporting
work capacity include the use of directional antennas bits. In the case of random networks, the average distance
, and the use of unlimited bandwidth resources traveled by any bit is Θ(1), and therefore the “bit-
(UWB) albeit with power constraints , . meters/sec” and “bits/sec” capacity is of the same order.
Li et al.  have used simulations to evaluate the ca- We assume that n nodes can be located anywhere
pacity of multi-channel networks based on IEEE 802.11. on the surface of a torus of unit area, as in . The
Other research on capacity is based on considerations of assumption of a torus enables us to avoid technicalities
alternate communication models –. arising out of edge effects, but the results are applicable
Several researchers have proposed wireless protocols for nodes located on a unit square as well. We ﬁrst
for multi-channel networks (cf. –, –). Some establish an upper bound on the network capacity of
solutions are based on using a single interface at each arbitrary networks, and then construct a network to prove
node , , , , while other solutions require the that bound is tight.
a dedicated interface for each channel , . More
A. Upper bound on capacity
recently, solutions have been proposed that require mul-
tiple interfaces, but fewer interfaces than the number The capacity of multi-channel arbitrary networks
of channels , , . Although, there are several is limited by two constraints (described below), and
proposals for multi-channel networks, it is not clear each of them is used to obtain a bound on the network
how many interfaces are actually required to maximally capacity. The minimum of the two bounds (the bounds
utilize the available channels. depend on ratio between the number of channels c and
the number of interfaces m) is an upper bound on the
III. C APACITY RESULTS FOR ARBITRARY NETWORKS network capacity. We derive the bounds under channel
We model the impact of interference by using the model 1, and state the results under channel model 2 as
protocol model proposed by Gupta and Kumar . The well1 .
transmission from a node i to a node j on some channel
x is successful, if for every other node k simultaneously Constraint 1 – Interference constraint: The capacity
transmitting on channel x, the following condition holds of arbitrary networks is constrained by interference.
Using the proof techniques presented in  with
d(k, j) ≥ (1 + ∆)d(i, j), ∆ > 0 some modiﬁcations to account for multiple interfaces
where d(i, j) is the distance between nodes i and j , and and channels, a bound on the network capacity is
∆ is a “guard” parameter that ensures that concurrently O W nm bit-meters/sec. The detailed proof is in
transmitting nodes are sufﬁciently farther away from the Appendix I.
receiver to prevent excessive interference.
It is shown in  that the protocol model is equivalent 1
Recall that the results under channel model 2 can be obtained by
to an alternate physical model that is based on received replacing W with W c in the results derived under channel model 1.
Constraint 2 – Interface constraint: The capacity of Group 1
arbitrary networks is also constrained by the maximum
number of bits that can be transmitted simultaneously
(˜ − 1)m + 1
over all interfaces in the network. Since each node has Group c
c = cm
m interfaces, there are a total of mn interfaces in the
(m, c)-network. Each interface can transmit at a rate Individual Channels Channel groups
of W bits/sec. Also, the maximum distance a bit can
Fig. 3. Lemma 1 construction: Forming c channel groups, with m
travel in the network is O(1) meters. Hence, the total channels per group, in a (m, c)-network
network capacity is at most O W nm bit-meters/sec.
This bound is tight when m is Ω(n).
channel group i, 1 ≤ i ≤ c, contains all channels j
Combining the two constraints, the network capacity such that (i − 1)m + 1 ≤ j ≤ im. Assume that time on
is O MINO W nm , W nmc c bit-meters/sec, under the channels is divided into slots of duration τ . Consider
channel model 1. Therefore, we have the following any slot s. Suppose a node X in the (1, c)-network has
theorem on the network capacity of arbitrary networks its interface on some channel i, 1 ≤ i ≤ c, in slot
(Figure 1 has a pictorial representation). s. We simulate this behavior in the (m, c)-network by
assigning the m interfaces of X in the slot s to the
Theorem 1: The upper bound on the capacity of a m channels in the channel group i. In this fashion, in
(m, c)-arbitrary network is as follows: any slot, the m interfaces of any node in the (m, c)-
1) When m is O(n), network capacity is network are mapped to a channel group. The aggregate
O W nm bit-meters/sec under channel data rate of each channel group is W m/c = W/˜ (since
model 1 and O (W nmc) bit-meters/sec under c = m˜). Therefore, a channel group in the (m, c)-
channel model 2. network can support the same data rate as a channel
2) When m is Ω(n), network capacity is O W nm
c in the (1, c)-network. This mapping allows the (m, c)-
bit-meters/sec under channel model 1 and network to mimic the behavior of (1, c)-network; the
O (W nm) bit-meters/sec under channel model 2. W τ /˜ bits sent on some channel in any time slot s in
the (1, c)-network can be simulated by sending W τ /c
√ bits (in the same slot s) on each of the m channels in
The network capacity of a (c, c)-network is O (W n)
bit-meters/sec under channel model 1, which was the the corresponding channel group of the (m, c)-network.
result obtained by Gupta and Kumar . When fewer Hence, a (m, c)-network can support the capacity of a
interfaces are available, there is a capacity degradation (1, c) network, when c = m˜.
by at least a factor of 1 − m . Intuitively, the capacity
degradation arises because the total bits that can be Lemma 2: Suppose m and c are positive integers.
simultaneously transmitted decreases. Then, a (m, c)-network can support at least 2 the ca-
pacity supported by a 1, m -network.
B. Constructive lower bound Proof: Suppose m = m . Then the result directly
follows from the previous lemma. Otherwise, m < c,
In this section, we construct a network to establish a c
and we use c = m m of the channels in the (m, c)-
lower bound on the network capacity. The lower bound
network, and ignore the rest of the channels. This can
matches the upper bound, implying that the bounds
be viewed as a (m, c )-network, with a total data rate of
are tight. We ﬁrst establish two results that we use in
W = W m m (as each channel supports W bits/sec).
the rest of the paper. The results are proved under the
Using Lemma 1, a (m, c )-network with total data rate
channel model 1, but hold for channel model 2 as well. c
of W can support at least the capacity of a 1, m -
network with total data rate of W . However, when
Lemma 1: Suppose m, c, c are positive integers and
c W < W , the (m, c )-network with total data rate W can
c = m . Then, a (m, c)-network can support at least the
achieve only a fraction W of the capacity of a 1, m -
capacity supported by a (1, c)-network.
network with total data rate W (instead of W ). Now,
Proof: Consider a (m, c)-network. We group the c
channels into c groups (numbered from 1 to c), with m
˜ ˜ W m c
channels per group as shown in Figure 3. Speciﬁcally, =
W c m
c l = 2(1 + 2∆)r
m c c R4
≥ c , since ≤ +1
m +1 m m
1 c S4
≥ , since ≥1
2 m R1 S1 S2 R2
Hence, a (m, c)-network can support at least 2 the r∆ r r∆ r(1 + ∆)
capacity supported by a 1, m network. This implies S3
that asymptotically, a (m, c)-network has the same order
of capacity as a 1, m -network. R3
We now provide the following construction to
establish that a capacity of Ω MINO W nm , W nm
Fig. 4. The placement of nodes within a cell
bit-meters/sec is achievable in a (1, c)-network under
the channel model 1. The result is then extended to a
(m, c)-network by using Lemma 2. senders are at least r(1 + ∆) distance from the cell
boundary. Therefore, senders in adjacent cells of B are
Step 1: We consider a torus of unit area. Let at least a distance of r(1 + ∆) away from B as well.
k = min c, n . This implies that k ≤ c. Partition
8 Hence, under the protocol model of interference, the
the square area into 8k equal-sized square cells, and transmission between A and B is not interfered with by
place 8k nodes in each cell. Since the total area is 1, any other transmission in the network, and this property
each cell has an area of 8k , and sides of length l = 8k .
holds for all communicating pairs.
Step 2: The 8k nodes within each cell are distributed From the above construction, there are n pairs of
by placing k nodes at each of the eight positions shown nodes in the (1, c)-network, each transmitting at a rate
in Figure 4. Nodes placed at locations S1, S2, S3, S4 act of W over a distance r = (1+2∆) 2k . Hence, the total
as senders, and nodes placed at remaining locations act capacity of the network (summing over all n nodes) is
as receivers. The sender locations S1 through S4 are at nW W 1 nk
2 c r = c (1+2∆) 2 bit-meters/sec. Recall that k =
a distance of r∆ from the center of the cell (recall that n
min c, 8 . Substituting for k , we obtain the capacity
∆ is the “guard” parameter from the protocol model of
of a (1, c)-network to be Ω MINO W n , W n c c bit-
interference), where r = 2(1+2∆) = (1+2∆) 2k . The
n meters/sec under channel model 1, since ∆ is a constant.
receiver locations R1 through R4 are at a distance of Using Lemma 2, the capacity of a (m, c)-network un-
r(1 + ∆) from the center of the cell. Therefore, the n n
distance between S1-R1, S2-R2, S3-R3, and S4-R4 is der channel model 1 is Ω MINO W c ,W c
equal to r . Each receiver location is at a distance of r∆ 1 1
bit-meters/sec. Since c ≥ c , we have the capacity to
from nearest edge of the cell, and each sender location is
be Ω MINO W mn , W mnc c bit-meters/sec, which
at a distance of r(1+∆) from the nearest edge of the cell.
leads to the following theorem:
Step 3: Label the k nodes in any location (S1 through
Theorem 2: The achievable network capacity of a
S4, R1 through R4) as 1 through k . The j th node
(m, c)-arbitrary network is as follows:
in each sender location, 1 ≤ j ≤ k , communicates c
with the j th node in the nearest receiver location (at 1) When m is O(n), network capacity is
a distance of r ) on channel j . Consider any pair of Ω W nm c bit-meters/sec under channel
communicating nodes A and B that are located at, model 1 and Ω (W nmc) bit-meters/sec under
say, S1 and R1 respectively. Then, the nearest senders channel model 2.
within the cell, other than A (located at S1), which are 2) When m is Ω(n), network capacity is Ω W nm
sending on the same channel as A are located at one bit-meters/sec under channel model 1 and
of S2, S3, S4, and are at least a distance of r(1 + ∆) Ω (W nm) bit-meters/sec under channel model 2.
away from B (located at R1). Similarly, in every cell,
The upper bound (Theorem 1) and lower bound (The- Note that each node picks a destination node
orem 2) on the order of the capacity of arbitrary networks randomly, and so a node may be the destination of
match, indicating the bounds are tight. multiple ﬂows. Let D(n) be the maximum number of
ﬂows for which a node in the network is a destination.
We use the following result to bound D(n).
A common scenario of operation is when the number
of channels is not too large ( m = O(n)). Under this Lemma 3: The maximum number of ﬂows for which
scenario, the capacity of a (m, c)-network in the arbitrary a node in the network is a destination, D(n), is
setting scales as Θ W nm under channel model 1.
Θ log log n , with high probability.
Similarly, under channel model 2, the capacity of the Proof: The process of nodes selecting a random
network scales as Θ (W nmc). Under either model, destination may be mapped to the well-known “Balls into
the capacity of a (m, c)-network goes down by a factor Bins” problem . Each source node may be viewed
of 1 − m , when compared with a (c, c)-network.
c as a “ball”, and each destination node may be viewed as
Therefore, doubling the number of interfaces at each a “bin”. The process of selecting a destination node may
node (as long as number of interfaces is smaller than be viewed as randomly dropping a “ball” into a “bin”.
the number of channels) increases the channel capacity
√ Based on this mapping, the proof of the lemma follows
by a factor of only 2. Further, the ratio between m and from well-known results (cf. , Section 4).
c decides the capacity, rather than the individual values
of m and c. Increasing the number of interfaces may A. Upper bound
result in a linear increase in the cost but only a sub-linear The capacity of multi-channel random networks
(proportional to square-root of number of interfaces) is limited by three constraints, and each of them is
increase in the capacity. Therefore, the optimal number used to obtain a bound on the network capacity. The
of interfaces to use may be smaller than the number of minimum of the three bounds (the bounds depend on
channels depending on the relationship between cost of ratio between the number of channels c and the number
interfaces and utility obtained by higher capacity. of interfaces m) is an upper bound on the network
Different network architectures have been proposed capacity. We derive the bounds under channel model 1,
for utilizing multiple channels when the number of avail- and state the results under channel model 2.
able interfaces is smaller than the number of available
channels , , . The construction used in proving Constraint 1 – Connectivity constraint: The capacity
lower bound implies that maximal capacity is achieved of random networks is constrained by the need to
when all channels are utilized. One architecture used in ensure the network is connected, so that every source-
the past  is to use only m channels when m interfaces destination pair can successfully communicate. Gupta
are available, leading to wastage of the remaining c − m and Kumar  have presented a bound on the network
channels. That architecture results in a factor of 1 − m c capacity of O W n
bits/sec based on this
loss in capacity which can be signiﬁcantly higher than
requirement. This bound is applicable to multi-channel
the optimal 1 − m loss (when m = O(n)). Hence,
networks as well.
in general, higher capacity may be achievable by archi-
tectures that use all channels, possibly by dynamically
Constraint 2 – Interference constraint: The capacity
of multi-channel random networks is also constrained
IV. C APACITY RESULTS FOR RANDOM NETWORKS by interference (this is same as constraint 1 listed for
We assume that n nodes are randomly located on arbitrary networks in Section III-A). This constraint
the surface of a torus of unit area. Each node selects was already captured in the upper bound for arbitrary
a destination randomly to which it sends λ(n) bits/sec. networks, and we had obtained a bound of O W nm c
The highest value of λ(n) which can be supported by bit-meters/sec. In a random network, each of the n
every source-destination pair with high probability is source-destination pairs are separated by an average
deﬁned as the per-node throughput of the network. The distance of Θ(1) meter. Consequently, the network
trafﬁc between a source-destination pair is referred to as capacity of random networks is at most O W nm c
a “ﬂow”. Since there are a total of n ﬂows, the network bits/sec.
capacity is deﬁned to be nλ(n).
Constraint 3 – Destination bottleneck constraint: The network capacity is O W nm bits/sec under
capacity of a multi-channel network is constrained by the channel model 1 and O (W nmc) bits/sec under
data that can be received by a destination node. Consider channel model 2.
a node X which is the destination of the maximum 3) When m is Ω n log log n
, network capacity
number (that is, D(n)) of ﬂows. Recall that in a (m, c)-
W mn log log n
network, each channel supports a data rate of W bits/sec. is O c log n bits/sec under channel model
Therefore, the total data rate at which X can receive data W mn log log n
1 and O log n bits/sec under channel
over m interfaces is Wcm bits/sec. Since X has D(n) model 2.
incoming ﬂows, the data rate of the minimum rate ﬂow is
at most cD(n) bits/sec. Therefore, by deﬁnition of λ(n), The interesting observation from this theorem is that
λ(n) ≤ cD(n) , implying that network capacity (which as long as m is O(log n), the number of interfaces has no
by deﬁnition is nλ(n)) is at most O cD(n) bits/sec. impact on channel capacity. This implies that when the
Substituting for D(n) from Lemma 3, the network number of channels is O(log n) (which is the common
log log case today), there is no loss in network capacity even if
capacity is at most O W mnlog n n bits/sec.
c each node has a single interface.
The bound obtained from constraint 3 is applicable
to any network, including mobile networks, as long B. Lower bound
as the destination of every ﬂow is randomly chosen The lower bound is established by constructing a
among the nodes in the network. Even when m = c, routing scheme and a transmission schedule for any
this bound implies that the per-ﬂow throughput, λ(n), random network. The lower bound matches the upper
is at most O W log log n bits/sec. Previous results on
log n bound implying that the bounds are tight. We will
capacity of mobile networks , ,  have stated provide a construction for a (1, c)-network (a network
a per-ﬂow throughput of O(W ) bits/sec is possible. In wherein each node has a single interface) under channel
our work, we choose the destination of a ﬂow randomly model 1, and then invoke Lemma 2 to extend the
from among n − 1 possible destinations, similar to result to a (m, c)-network. The steps involved in the
Gupta and Kumar . Considering our discussion construction are described next.
above, the O(W ) bits/sec bound with mobility cannot
apply when destination nodes are randomly chosen. The Cell construction
previous results for mobile networks may hold under The surface of the unit torus is divided using a square
other models of selecting destination nodes, wherein grid into square cells (see Figure 5), each of area a(n),
each node is the destination of at most O(1) ﬂows (for similar to the approach used in . The size of the cell,
example, such a constraint is satisﬁed when permutation a(n), has to be carefully chosen to meet multiple con-
routing is used). straints (which are described later in the text). In particu-
100 log n c 2
lar, we set a(n) = min max n ,n , D(n) ,
Combining the three bounds, the network capacity is
at most O MINO W n nm W mn log log n where D(n) = Θ log log n as described before. Intu-
log n , W c , c log n
bits/sec under channel model 1. From this, we itively, the three values that inﬂuence a(n) are based
have the following theorem on the upper bound on on the three constraints that were described in the upper
capacity of random networks (Figure 2 has a pictorial bound proof: cell size needed to ensure connectivity, cell
representation). size needed when capacity is constrained by interference,
and cell size needed when capacity is constrained by
the maximum number of ﬂows to any destination node,
Theorem 3: The upper bound on the capacity of a
(m, c)-random network is as follows:
We need to bound the number of nodes that are
1) When m is O(log n), network capacity is present in each cell. We state the bound here, and
O W log n bits/sec under channel model 1 and present a proof of the bound in Appendix II.
O Wc log n bits/sec under channel model 2. Lemma 4: If a(n) > 50 log n , then each cell has
c log log n 2 Θ (na(n)) nodes per cell, with high probability.
2) When m is Ω(log n) and also O n log n ,
1/a(n) cells each of area a(n)
A node in each cell through which the line passes is
S used to relay trafﬁc along that ﬂow (we will describe the
choice of the node later). Figure 5 shows an example of
the cells used to route data for a ﬂow between source S
and destination D .
In previously proposed constructions for proving
lower bound on capacity , , it was immaterial
which node in a chosen cell forwarded packets for some
ﬂow. However, such an approach may “overload” certain
Fig. 5. Routing through cells: Packets are routed through the cells nodes, leading to capacity degradation, when the number
intersected by the line joining the source and the destination of interfaces per node is smaller than the number of
channels. Consequently, it is important to ensure that
the routing load is distributed among the nodes in a cell.
This is a key extension to the routing procedure used in
By construction, we ensure that a(n) ≥ 100 n n for
earlier capacity results .
large n (as max 100 n n , n is at least 100 n n , and
log c log
For each ﬂow passing through a cell, one node in the
D(n) is asymptotically larger than 100 n n ). Thus,
log cell is “assigned” to the ﬂow. The assigned node of a
with our choice of a(n), Lemma 4 holds for suitably ﬂow in a cell is the only node in that cell which may
large n, and each cell has Θ (na(n)) nodes per cell, whp. receive/transmit data along that ﬂow. The assignment is
The transmission range2 of each node, r(n), is set done using a ﬂow distribution procedure as below:
to be 8a(n). With this transmission range, a node in Step 1 – Assign source and destination nodes: For
one cell can communicate with any node in its eight any ﬂow that originates in a cell, the source node S is
neighboring cells. Note that when the cell size a(n) assigned to the ﬂow (S is necessarily in the originating
increases, larger transmission range is required, as r(n) cell). Similarly, for any ﬂow that terminates in a cell, the
is dependent on a(n). destination node D is assigned to the ﬂow. Since a single
A transmission originating from a node S interferes node in each cell is allowed to receive or transmit data
with another transmission from A to B, only if S is for a ﬂow, it is required that the source and destination
within a distance of (1 + ∆)r(n) of receiver B (using nodes be assigned to ﬂows originating or terminating
the interference deﬁnition of protocol model). Since the from them.
distance between A to B is at most r(n), the distance Step 2 – Balance distribution of remaining ﬂows: After
between the two transmitters, S and A, must be less step 1 is complete, we are left with only those ﬂows that
than (2 + ∆)r(n) if the transmissions were to interfere. pass through a cell. Each such remaining ﬂow passing
Thus, any transmission can possibly interfere with through a cell is assigned to the node in the cell that
only those transmissions from transmitters within a has the least number of ﬂows assigned to it so far. This
distance of (2 + ∆)r(n). Therefore, nodes in a cell step balances the assignment of ﬂows to ensure that all
can be interfered with by only nodes in cells within nodes are assigned (nearly) the same number of ﬂows.
a distance of (2 + ∆)r(n), and this interfering area The node assigned to a ﬂow will receive packets from
can be completely enclosed in a larger square of side some node in the previous cell and send the packet to a
3(2 + ∆)r(n) (this is a loose bound). Consequently, node in the next cell.
there are at most (3(2+∆)r(n)) = 72(2 + ∆)2 interfering Each node is the originator of one ﬂow. Each node
is the destination of at most D(n) ﬂows, which by
cells (recall r(n) = 8a(n)). Hence, the number of log n
Lemma 3 is Θ log log n . Therefore, step 1 of the ﬂow
interfering cells, kinter ≤ 72(2 + ∆)2 , is a constant that
only depends on ∆ (and is independent of a(n) and n). distribution procedure assigns to each node at most
1 + D(n) ﬂows.
We use the following result to bound the number of
source-destination lines that pass through any cell; we
Packets are routed through the cells that lie along the
omit the proof as it has already been presented earlier
straight line joining the source and the destination node.
Transmission range is deﬁned to be the maximum distance over
which any node can communicate. Lemma 5: The maximum number of source-
destination lines that intersect any cell (including lines such that any scheduled transmission is interference-
originating and terminating in the cell) is O n a(n) , free. By using the two-step process, each transmission
with high probability. in a mini-slot satisﬁes both constraint 1 and constraint 2.
Step 2 of the ﬂow distribution procedure carefully Step 1 – Build a routing graph: We build a graph,
assigns the remaining ﬂows among the nodes in the called the “routing graph”, whose vertices are the nodes
cell to ensure all nodes end up with nearly same in the network. One edge is inserted between all node
number of ﬂows. By Lemma 4, each cell has Θ (na(n)) pairs, say A and B , for every ﬂow on which A and B
nodes, and by Lemma 5 at most O n a(n) ﬂows are consecutive nodes (the routing scheme for selecting
pass through a cell. Therefore, step 2 will assign to nodes along a ﬂow was described earlier). Therefore, by
this construction, every hop3 in the network along any
any node in the network at most O √ 1 ﬂows.
a(n) ﬂow is associated with one edge in the routing graph.
Therefore the total ﬂows assigned to any node is at The resulting routing graph is a multi-graph4 in which
most O 1 + D(n) + √ 1 . When choosing the size each node has at most O √ 1 edges, since each
of a(n) earlier, the maximum value of a(n) was at ﬂow through a node can result in at most two edges,
most D(n) , which implies √ 1
is at least D(n). one incoming and one outgoing, and we have already
Hence, the total ﬂows assigned to any node is always shown that each node is assigned to at most O √ 1
asymptotically dominated by √ 1 , and is therefore ﬂows. It is a well-known result  that a multi-graph
with at most e edges per vertex can be edge-colored 5
equal to O √1 ﬂows.
a(n) with at most 3e colors. Therefore, the routing graph can
Scheduling transmissions be edge colored with at most O √ 1 colors.
The transmission scheduling scheme is responsible for We use edge coloring to ensure that when a
generating a transmission schedule for each node in the transmission is scheduled along a edge, the interfaces
(1, c)-network that satisﬁes the following constraints: on the nodes at either end of the edge are free, thereby
Constraint 1: When a node X transmits a packet to satisfying constraint 1. We divide every 1 second period
a node Y over a channel j for some ﬂow, X and Y into O √ 1 “edge-color” slots each of length
should not be scheduled to transmit/receive at the same
time for any other ﬂow (since each node is assumed to Ω a(n) seconds, and each of these edge-color slots
have a single interface). is associated with an unique edge color. An edge is
Constraint 2: Any two simultaneous transmissions on scheduled for transmission in the slot associated with its
any channel should not interfere. edge color. Since edge coloring ensures that at a vertex,
The multi-channel construction differs from the mech- all edges connected to the vertex use different colors,
anisms used in earlier constructions ,  in two ways. each node will have at most one transmission/reception
First, the scheduling is on a per-node basis since ﬂows scheduled in any edge-color slot. By construction, each
are distributed among nodes, whereas in the past work it edge corresponds to a hop in the network. Therefore
was sufﬁcient to schedule on a per-cell basis. Second, this scheme ensures that during every 1 second interval,
since there is a single interface, but c channels are along any ﬂow in the network, one transmission is
available (recall that we are assuming a (1, c)-network scheduled on each hop of a ﬂow.
for now), the schedule has to additionally ensure that a
single transmission/reception is scheduled for a node at Step 2 – Build an interference graph: In step 2, each
any time (constraint 1 above). edge-color slot is further sub-divided into “mini-slots”
We build a suitable schedule using a two-step process. as explained below, and every node has an opportunity
In the ﬁrst step, we satisfy constraint 1 by scheduling to transmit in some mini-slot. We develop a schedule
transmissions in “edge-color” slots so that at every node for using mini-slots, which satisﬁes constraint 2. The
during any edge-color slot, at most one transmission 3
A hop is a pair of consecutive nodes on a ﬂow.
or reception is scheduled. In the second step, we 4
A graph with possibly multiple edges between a pair of nodes.
satisfy constraint 2 by dividing each edge-color slot 5
Edge-coloring requires any two edges incident on a common
into “mini-slots”, and assigning mini-slots to channels vertex to use different colors.
schedule decides on which mini-slot within an edge-
color slot and on what channel a node may transmit,
and the same schedule is used in every edge-color slot. 1
We build another graph, called the “interference 2
graph”, wherein, vertices are nodes in the network, and
there is an edge between two nodes if they may interfere
with each other. Since every cell has at most some c
constant kinter number of cells that may interfere with
each other, and each cell has Θ (na(n)) nodes, each Mini−slot
node has at most O (na(n)) edges in the interference
graph. It is well-known that a graph with maximum Fig. 6. Transmission schedule
degree e can be vertex-colored6 with at most e + 1
colors . Therefore, the graph can be vertex-colored
with O (na(n)) colors, i.e., at most k1 na(n) colors for can be transported. Since k1 na(n)
≤ k1 na(n)
√ c c
some constant k1 . Transmissions of two nodes assigned W a(n)
the same vertex-color do not interfere with each other. we have, λ(n) = Ω k1 na(n)+c bits/sec. Depend-
Hence, they can be scheduled to transmit on the same ing on the asymptotic order of c, either na(n) or
channel at the same time. On the other hand, nodes c will dominate the denominator of λ(n). Hence,
colored with different colors may interfere with each √W W a(n)
λ(n) = Ω MINO , c bits/sec. Since
other, and need to be scheduled either on different n a(n)
channels, or at different time slots on the same channel. each ﬂow is scheduled to receive one mini-slot on
We divide each edge-color slot into k1 na(n) each hop during every 1 second interval, every source-
destination ﬂow can support a per-node throughput of
mini-slots on every channel, and number the slots on
λ(n) bits/sec, and therefore, the network capacity is
each channel from 1 to k1 na(n) . There is a total of
c W n a(n)
nλ(n) = Ω MINO √W , bits/sec.
c k1 na(n) mini-slots across the c channels. Channels
are numbered from 1 to c. A node which is allocated Recall that we choose a(n) to be
100 log n c 2
a color p, 1 ≤ p ≤ k1 na(n) is allowed to transmit in 1
min max n ,n , D(n) , where
mini-slot p on channel (p mod c) + 1. The node
c log n
may actually transmit if the edge-coloring has allocated D(n) = Θ log log n . Substituting for the three
an outgoing edge from the node to the corresponding values, and then applying Lemma 2 to extend the results
edge-color slot. to an (m, c)-network, we have the following theorem.
Figure 6 depicts a schedule of transmissions on the Theorem 4: The achievable capacity of a (m, c)-
network developed after the two-step scheduling process. random network is as follows:
The ﬁrst step allocates one edge-color slot for each c log n
1) When m is O(log n), a(n) = Θ n , and the
hop of every ﬂow. The second step decides within each n
edge-color slot when the transmitter node on a hop may network capacity is Ω W log n bits/sec under
actually transmit a packet. n
channel model 1 and Ω W c log n bits/sec un-
As seen in step 1, each edge-color slot is of length
der channel model 2.
Ω a(n) seconds. As seen in step 2, each edge-color c log log n 2
k1 na(n) 2) When m is Ω(log n) and also O n log n ,
slot is sub-divided into c mini-slots. Therefore,
√ a(n) = Θ c
, and the network capacity is
each mini-slot is of length Ω k1 na(n) seconds. Each Ω W nm
bits/sec under channel model 1 and
W √ c
channel can transmit at the rate of c √bits/second. Ω (W nmc) bits/sec under channel model 2.
W a(n) c log log n 2
Hence, in each mini-slot, λ(n) = Ω k1 na(n) bits 3) When m is Ω n log n , a(n) =
log log n 2
Θ log n , and the network capacity
Vertex-coloring requires any two vertices sharing a common edge W mn log log n
to use different colors. is Ω c log n bits/sec under channel model
W mn log log n
1 and Ω log n bits/sec under channel number of nodes in the neighborhood7 of a node.
model 2. When the number of channels is large (speciﬁcally,
ω(log n)) and each node has a single interface, there
The lower bound matches the upper bound (Theorem is a capacity loss when compared to a single channel
3) implying that the bounds are tight. Recall that the network. This capacity loss arises because the number
transmission range r(n) has been set to 8a(n). Hence, of channels is more than the number of interfaces in a
the transmission range increases in case 2 and case “neighborhood”. The lower bound construction suggests
3 of Theorem 4 as compared to case 1 (since a(n) that the cell size should be chosen such that the number
increases). This implies that in multi-channel networks of nodes in each neighborhood is equal to the number
with large number of channels, higher transmission of channels. Thus, an optimal strategy for maximiz-
power is necessary for meeting capacity bounds. ing capacity when number of channels is large is to
sufﬁciently increase the cell size a(n), which implies
a larger transmission range r(n) is needed to allow
communication with neighboring cells. However, there
C. Implications is still some capacity loss because larger transmission
range (than that is needed for connectivity alone) lowers
The above result implies that the capacity of multi- capacity by “consuming” more area.
channel random networks with total channel data rate of
W is the same as that of a single channel network with D. Optimal routing and transmission scheduling ap-
data rate W as long as the ratio m is O(log n). When proaches
the number of nodes n in the network increases, we can
The construction used in demonstrating that the lower
also scale the number of channels (for example, by using
bound is achievable can be used to develop optimal rout-
additional bandwidth, or by dividing available bandwidth
ing and transmission scheduling approaches. The lower
into multiple sub-channels). Even then, as long as the
bound construction suggests that load balancing (i.e.,
channels are scaled at a rate not more than log n, there is
distributing ﬂows) among nodes in a given neighborhood
no loss in capacity even if a single interface is available
is essential for full utilization of multiple channels. In
at each node. In particular, if the number of channels
a single channel network, load balancing is sometimes
c is a ﬁxed constant, independent of the node density,
used to balance energy consumption across nodes, or to
then as the node density increases beyond some threshold
improve resilience of the network. However, load bal-
density (at which point c ≤ log n), there is no loss in
ancing in the same neighborhood is not always required
capacity even if just a single interface is available per
in single channel networks for maximizing capacity.
node. Thus, this result may be used to roughly estimate
For example, consider a simple scenario with two
the number of interfaces each node has to be equipped
ﬂows from A to B and C to D as shown in Figure 7.
with for a given node density and a given number of
The ﬂows pass through a cell with two nodes E and F.
Assume that node E is being used to forward data for
In a single channel random network, i.e., a (1, 1)- ﬂow A-B. In a single channel network with channel rate
network, the capacity bottleneck arises out of the channel W , the per-ﬂow throughput is the same whether node E
becoming fully utilized, and not because interface at any or node F is chosen to forward data along ﬂow C-D. In
node is fully utilized. On an average, the interface of a particular, the per-ﬂow throughput is W as the channel
node in a single channel network is busy only for X rate is split between receiving and sending data at the in-
fraction of the time, where X is the average number termediate nodes. This is because E and F interfere with
of nodes that interfere with a given node. In a (1, 1)- each other, and therefore cannot simultaneously transmit.
random network with n nodes, each node on an average Now, consider the scenario wherein two channels of data
has Θ(log n) neighbors to maintain connectivity . This rate W are available, but each node has a single interface.
implies that in a single channel network, each interface is In this scenario, if node E is chosen to forward data along
busy for only Θ log n time. Intuitively, our construction both ﬂows A-B and C-D, the interface on node E can
above utilizes this slack time of interfaces to support up transmit/receive at most W bits/sec, leading to a lower
to O(log n) channels without loss in capacity. In general,
there is no loss in capacity in a random network as long 7
The neighborhood of a node consists of all other nodes that may
as the number of channels is smaller than the average interfere with it.
C V. I MPACT OF SWITCHING DELAY
The previous discussion on multi-channel capacity has
E not considered the impact of interface switching delay.
When the number of interfaces at each node is smaller
A F B
than the number of channels, interfaces may have to
be switched between channels. Switching an interface
D from one channel to another may incur a switching
delay, say S , as the interface hardware has to change
Fig. 7. Need for balancing load among nodes in a neighborhood the frequency of operation. For example, existing IEEE
802.11-based wireless interfaces require  between
few tens to hundreds of microseconds to switch from
one channel to another. Switching delay is, however,
per-ﬂow throughput of W . Instead, if node F is chosen
8 independent of the number of nodes in the network.
to forward data along C-D, and links A-E and E-B use
In the case of arbitrary networks, capacity bounds
one channel, while C-F and F-D use the other channel,
are met without requiring interface switching at all (as
a higher per-ﬂow throughput of W can be achieved.
4 was shown in the construction used for lower bound).
This example highlights the need for distributing ﬂows
Hence, switching delay will not impact the capacity of
(“load”). The routing protocol should therefore explicitly
arbitrary networks. Even in the case of random networks,
try to balance load among nodes in every neighborhood,
the upper bound proofs do not mandate interfaces to be
and select routes with lower load.
switched, and the bounds may be tight with switching
In the transmission scheduling scheme used for lower
delay as well8 . Hence, it appears that the tight capacity
bound construction, it sufﬁces for a node to always
upper bound in random networks is independent of the
transmit on a speciﬁc channel without requiring to switch
interface switching delay.
channels for different packets (recall that the same mini-
In the construction used to prove lower bound in
slot on a speciﬁc channel is used by a node in all
random networks, interfaces may have to be switched
“edge-color” slots). However, a node may have to switch
between channels (when receiving data). In the worst
channels for receiving data. An alternate construction
case, an interface may have to be switched between
is to use a scheduling scheme which ensures that a
channels for every packet transmission. Each packet of
node receives all data on a speciﬁc channel, but may
size L bits requires a transmission time of T = Lc W
have to switch channels when sending data. It can be
seconds (since channel data rate is W bits/sec). One way
shown that the alternate construction is equivalent to
of hiding the interface switching delay S is to insert a
the lower bound construction by modifying the mini-slot
“guard” slot of duration S between two “edge-color”
assignment to be done on a per-receiver basis instead of
slots (we call this the “guard slot” approach) to ensure
a per-sender basis. This intuition can be used to develop
there is sufﬁcient time for interface switching. However,
a practical scheme that uses two interfaces per node.
this approach degrades the network capacity by a factor
One interface can be used for receiving data and is S
of T +S . The capacity reduction can be minimized by
always ﬁxed to a single channel. The second interface
sending extremely large packets (L λ) resulting in
can be used for sending data and is switched between
T S . However, this signiﬁcantly increases end-to-end
channels, as necessary. Existing multi-channel protocols
latency. Hence, although switching delay will not in the
have often required tight synchronization among nodes.
asymptotic sense affect the scaling properties of network
The use of two interfaces, with a dedicated interface on
capacity, if there is an end-to-end delay constraint, then
a ﬁxed channel obviates the need for tight synchroniza-
switching delay may reduce the achievable network
tion as a node receives data on a well-known channel.
capacity by a factor proportional to the magnitude of the
Furthermore, using a ﬁxed channel for reception does
switching delay. We will next deﬁne the end-to-end delay
not degrade capacity since it is based on the (optimal)
constraint, and describe an alternate approach that does
not lose capacity while meeting the end-to-end delay
We have already used some of the insights gained from
this work to develop routing and channel assignment 8
This is a conjecture that we have not yet proved. However, there
protocols ,  that are well-suited for multi-channel is no change in the lower bound with extra interfaces, and therefore,
networks. we speculate that the conjecture may be true.
We use the end-to-end delay deﬁnition from . Each 1 T S T
packet is assumed to have a size L, and L is scaled with 2
respect to the throughput obtained for each end-to-end (v−1) slots
ﬂow. If each ﬂow can transport λ bits/sec, then each
ﬂow is assumed to send packets of size L = λ. By the v−1
lower bound construction provided before, if packet sizes
are set to λ bits, each packet traverses one hop in one v slots
second. Therefore, the end-to-end delay of a ﬂow will
be equal to the number of hops on the ﬂow, when there Fig. 8. Constructing a virtual interface with zero switching delay
is no interface switching latency. Let us assume that the
minimum end-to-end delay in the absence of interface
switching latency is Dopt . A reasonable delay constraint
switching delay is provisioned for. By this construction,
in the presence of switching latency is to require that the
the simulated virtual interface can continuously trans-
end-to-end delay is at most a small constant multiple of
mit/receive, with 0 switching delay. Therefore, a network
Dopt ; otherwise applications may see a large increase in
the end-to-end delay. using v interfaces having switching delay S , can mimic
We now describe an alternate approach that can the behavior of a (1, c)-network built with interfaces
completely hide the impact of switching delay by having switching delay 0.
deploying multiple interfaces. This approach assumes
that each of the given interfaces has a switching delay From the previous lemma, by increasing the number
S , and uses the interfaces to simulate a virtual interface of interfaces at each node by a factor of v , switching
having 0 switching delay. By this construction, the use delay is completely hidden. Suppose, each node cannot
of additional interfaces per node can hide the switching be provisioned with v = T +1 interfaces. Then, if each
delay, leading to the same capacity and end-to-end node has at least 2 interfaces, by using larger packets,
delay bounds derived earlier assuming no interface we can still achieve the same capacity as a network
switching delay. built with interfaces having no switching delay. Suppose,
p interfaces are actually available, with 2 ≤ p < v .
Lemma 6: Suppose that the time required for packet Then we increase the packet size by a factor of v p
transmission in a (1, c)-network is T = Lc . Then to increase packet transmission time T . This hides the
+ 1, c -network built with interfaces having interface switching delay, and results in no capacity loss.
switching delay S , can achieve the same capacity and However, larger packet size increases end-to-end delay
end-to-end delay as a (1, c)-network built with interfaces by a constant factor of v . Note that the previously
having 0 switching delay. discussed “guard slot” approach may increase the end-to-
Proof: Let us assume that each node has v = T + S end delay by an arbitrarily large factor, or lose capacity
1 interfaces, each having a switching delay S . We build when at most a constant increase in the end-to-end delay
a virtual interface with zero switching delay by using the can be tolerated. Therefore, by our construction, as long
v physical interfaces, as shown in Figure 8. We consider as each node has at least two interfaces, there is no loss
any time interval of length vT . We divide this time into in network capacity, although there may be a increase in
v slots of length T , and only allow the ith interface, the end-to-end latency by a constant factor independent
1 ≤ i ≤ v , to transmit/receive in slot i. Thus, each of n. It is an open question if switching delay can be
physical interface is used for transmission/reception in successfully hidden with only one interface per node.
one slot, and is idle for the next (v − 1) slots of total
S VI. C ONCLUSIONS
duration (v − 1)T seconds. Since v = T + 1, we have:
In this paper, we have derived the lower and upper
S bounds on the capacity of static multi-channel wireless
(v − 1)T = T
T networks. We have shown that in an arbitrary network,
≥ S there is a loss in network capacity when the number
Hence, between two successive operations of a physical of interfaces per node is smaller than the number of
interface there is at least a gap of S , which ensures that channels. However, we have shown that surprisingly, in a