Comparison Between the IEEE 802.

11x Standards of
VoIP Using the CBR and VBR Voice Schemes
M. Irfan Anis, M. Zamin Khan, Jahanzeb Inam, Rana Azmatullah
Department of Electronics Engg., Sir Syed University of Engg. & Tech., Karachi, Sindh Pakistan
Abstract - Voice over internet protocol (VoIP) is one of the
fastest growing internet application. This paper focuses on the
support of VoIP over 802.11x WLAN. A multiplexing scheme for
VoIP is provided which exploits multicasting over WLAN for the
downlink VoIP traffic. The 802.11x WLAN can support more
than 500 VoIP sessions, but due do the inclusion of large number
of over headers this ratio comes to only few VoIP sessions by
using GSM 6.10 codec standard. This paper shows the VoIP
standard 802.11g is the best by comparing the three standards
802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g as well for both CBR and VBR
voice sources. This has been discussed by using the features of
multicast mode of WLAN by which the large overhead effects of
VoIP can be reduced. This paper shows this Simulation and
calculations, based on Multiplex-Multicast Scheme through
which the number of VoIP sessions can be increased and
determine the best VoIP standard for CBR and VBR Sources.

and Point Coordination Function (PCF). PCF is a centralized

mechanism, where one central coordinator polls other stations
and allows them contention free access to the channel. DCF is
based on the Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision
Avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol. Previous work on VoIP
over WLAN can be classified according to which access
mechanism, DCF or PCF is used as mentioned above. PCF is
not supported in most 802.11products, and its popularity pales
in comparison to DCF. A reason could be that the market does
not see a compelling need for PCF. In addition, DCF is a
technology that has been well tested and proven to be robust in
the field. [4]

Index Terms Capacity, constant bit rate, variable bit rate,

multiplex multicast scheme, ordinary scheme

In Multiplex-Multicast VoIP (M-M) Scheme, the data from

several downlink streams is combined into a single packet for
multicast over the WLAN to their destinations. In this way,
the overheads of multiple VoIP packets can be reduced to the
overhead of one multicast packet. Here the MUX and
DEMUX procedures are used. The downlink VoIP traffic first
goes through a multiplexer (MUX) in the voice gateway. The
MUX replaces the RTP, UDP and IP header of each voice
packet with a compressed mini-header, combines multiple
packets into a single multiplexed packet, then multicasts the
multiplexed packet to the WLAN through the AP using a
multicast IP address. All VoIP stations are set to be able to
receive the packets on this multicast channel. [4]

C. Packet Multiplexing and Multicasting

I. INTRODUCTION
Voice - over IP (VoIP) is an important application now a
days. It has two fundamental benefits compared with voice
over traditional telephone networks. First, by exploiting
advanced voice compression techniques and bandwidth
sharing in packet-switched networks, VoIP can dramatically
improve bandwidth efficiency. Second, it facilitates the
creation of new services that combine voice communication
with other media and data applications like video, white
boarding and file sharing. At the same time, driven by huge
demands for portable access, the wireless LAN (WLAN)
market is taking off quickly.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Capacity Analysis

II. PERFOMANCE ANALYSIS

This paper compares the three standards of IEEE: 802.11a,

802.11b and 802.11g. All of them have similar calculations,
this paper showing the calculations only for 802.11b by using
both the Ordinary VoIP Scheme and the VoIP MultiplexMulticast Scheme for the CBR and VBR voice sources. Now,
calculating the capacity analysis for the CBR scheme first. [3]

A. VoIP Attributes
For VoIP, the analog or PCM voice signals are encoded and
compressed into a low-rate packet stream by codecs.
Generally, the codecs generate constant bit-rate audio frames
consisting of 40-byte IP/UDP/RTP headers followed by a
relatively small payload. This paper focuses on the GSM 6.10
codec, although this general principle is applicable to other
codecs as well. For GSM 6.10, payload is 33 bytes; the time
between two adjacent frames is 20ms, corresponding to a rate
of 50 packets per second per VoIP stream.

B.

Let n be the maximum number of sessions that can be

supported, T down: Downlink transmission line, T up : Uplink
transmission line, Tavg: Average time between the
transmissions of two consecutive packets in a WLAN.In t = 1
second, there are 1 / T avg packets transmitted by AP. So,
1 / T avg = no. of streams * no. of packets sent by one stream
in one second.
(1)

B. IEEE 802.11 WLAN Schemes

There are two access mechanisms specified in the IEEE
802.11 standards: Distributed Coordination Function (DCF)

1-4244-1463-6/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

VoIP Capacity Analysis for 802.11b with CBR Scheme

207

RWS 2008

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Downloaded on March 23,2010 at 11:07:50 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

C. Capacity of Ordinary CBR VoIP over WLAN

streams. For Bradys VBR model, we assume that the mean

ON time is 1 second and the mean OFF time is 1.35 second.
For average transmission, the traffic load of VBR is:
ON / (ON + OFF) = 1 / (1+1.35)
ON / (ON + OFF) = 42.5 % of the traffic of CBR.
The VBR VoIP capacity is simply
(11)
C VBR = C CBR /
where C CBR is the capacity for CBR source, and
= ON / (ON + OFF)
(12)

The parameter values of 802.11b are given in the Table 4.1

Assuming GSM 6.10 codec is used, Payload = 33 bytes, Np =
50 and Data rate = 11 Mbps. The solution is as under: For the
VoIP packet, the header and OH hdr consists of Real Time
Protocol RTP, UDP, IP and 802.11 MAC layers [1].
OH hdr = H RTP + H UDP + H IP + H MAC
(2)
OH hdr = 74 bytes
Besides, at the MAC layer, the overhead incurred at the
sender is:
(3)
OH sender = DIFS + average CW + PHY
If it is in the unicast packet, the overhead incurred at the
receiver is:
OH receiver = SIFS + ACK
(4)
OH receiver = 258 sec
However, contention overhead is negligible as compared with
other overheads. Now, initially
T down = T up = (Payload + OH hdr)*8 / data rate+ OH sender +
(5)
OH receiver
T down = T up = 887.818 sec
In ordinary VoIP case, we have n downlink and n uplink
unicast streams. For average transmission line:
T avg = (T down + T up) / 2
(6)
so,
T avg = 887.818 sec
now from (1), we have
(7)
1 / T avg = 2 n * N p
where N p is the numbers of packets sent by one stream per
second. Putting values,
n = 11.2635

F. Capacity of Ordinary VBR VoIP over WLAN

The ordinary CBR VoIP capacity, CCBR = 11.2, so the
ordinary VBR VoIP capacity, CVBR is:
n = 11.2 / 42.5 % = 26.3
G. Capacity of VBR Multiplex-Multicast VoIP Scheme over
WLAN
In this case, C CBR = 21.5, so the Multiplex-Multicast VBR
VoIP capacity, CVBR is:
= 21.2 / 42.5 % = 49.8
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
The simulations are based on the comparison of three
standards of IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g for both the
CBR and VBR voice sources in Ordinary VoIP Scheme as
well as VoIP Multiplex-Multicast (M-M) Scheme and shows
their combine effects and comparisons. These graphs are
plotted between the number of sessions (n) and data rate.
Table 1 shows the system parameter values for the three IEEE
standards. Considering the data rate of 11Mbps.

D. Capacity of CBR Multiplex-Multicast VoIP Scheme over

WLAN

A. Simulations for the CBR Scheme

In this case, the RTP, UDP and IP header of each

unmultiplexed packet is compressed to 2 bytes [2], so
H UDP + H IP + H MAC = 2 bytes
N packets are aggregated into one packet and they share the
same header overhead, this includes UDP, IP and MAC
headers of the multiplexed packet. There is no RTP header in
the multiplex packet. Also, as the multiplexed packet is sent
using multicast, it does not have OH receiver. So,

The calculations on the VoIP capacities of all the three

standards by using both the Ordinary VoIP Scheme and the
VoIP Multiplex-Multicast Scheme for the CBR voice sources
resulted in the number of sessions which are listed in the
Table 1.
Table I
VoIP CAPACITIES FOR CBR SCHEME
MultiplexMAC
Ordinary
Multicast
802.11b
11.2
21.2
802.11a
56.4
108.8
802.11g
60.5
116.5

T down = [(Payload + 2) * n + H UDP + H IP + H MAC]* 8 / Data

rate + OH sender
(8)
T down = 838.545 sec
In Multiplex-Multicast VoIP case, there are n uplink packets
for one downlink packets. For average transmission line:
T avg = ( T down + n * T up ) / ( n + 1 )
(9)
T avg = 883.779 sec
(10)
In this case,
1 / T avg = (n + 1) * N p

B. Simulations for the Comparison of the Three CBR

Ordinary Sessions

n = 21.2

First we consider the comparison of the Ordinary sessions

of the three IEEE standards in the CBR scheme. Below is the
comparison of the three IEEE standards for the CBR voice
sources in the Ordinary Scheme. The graph is plotted between
the number of sessions and data rate. The result shows that the

E. VoIP Capacity Analysis for 802.11b with VBR Scheme

The capacity for VBR VoIP will be larger than we
calculated in CBR VoIP because VBR reduces the VoIP

208
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Downloaded on March 23,2010 at 11:07:50 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

802.11g CBR has the greater number of sessions as compared

to the other two standards.

Fig. 3 Best of Ordinary and M-M Scheme using CBR

CBR in the Multiplex-Multicast VoIP scheme has the greater
number of sessions i.e. 116.5 because in the M-M scheme, the
overheads of multiple VoIP packets are reduced to the
overhead of one multicast packet.

Fig. 1 Combined Effect of Ordinary VoIP using CBR

C.

Simulations for the Comparison of the Three CBR

Multiplex-Multicast Sessions

E. VBR Scheme
The calculations on the VoIP capacities of all the three
standards by using both the Ordinary VoIP Scheme and the
VoIP Multiplex-Multicast Scheme for the VBR voice sources
resulted in the number of sessions which are listed in the Table
2 [2].
Table II
VoIP CAPACITIES FOR VBR SCHEME
MultiplexMAC
Ordinary
Multicast
802.11b
26.3
49.8
802.11a
132.7
256
802.11g
142.3
274.1

Now we consider the comparison of the Multiplex-Multicast

sessions of the three IEEE standards in the CBR scheme.

F. Comparison of the Three VBR Ordinary Sessions

Fig. 2 Combined Effect of VoIP using CBR

The above is the comparison of the three IEEE standards for
the CBR voice sources in the M-M Scheme. The graph is
plotted between the number of sessions and data rate. The
result shows that the 802.11g CBR has the greater number of
sessions as compared to the other two standards.
D. Simulations for Best of Ordinary vs. Best of MultiplexMulticast in CBR Scheme
Fig. 4 Combined Effect of Ordinary VoIP using VBR.

Figure 3 shows the comparison between the best standard in

three Ordinary sessions and the best standard in the three
Multiplex-Multicast sessions. The result shows that 802.11g

Above is the graph plotted between the number of sessions

and data rate. The result shows that the 802.11g VBR has the

209
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Downloaded on March 23,2010 at 11:07:50 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

sessions i.e. 274.1 because in the M-M scheme, the overheads

of multiple VoIP packets are reduced to the overhead of one
multicast packet.

greater number of sessions as compared to the other two

standards.
G. Simulations for the Comparison of the Three VBR
Multiplex-Multicast Sessions

I. Simulations for Best of CBR vs. Best of VBR

Now we consider the comparison of the Multiplex-Multicast

sessions of the three IEEE standards in the VBR scheme.

Fig. 7 Best of Ordinary & M-M Scheme of VoIP in WLAN

The graph is plotted between number of sessions and the
data rate. The result shows that the 802.11g VBR in the
Multiplex-Multicast VoIP scheme has the greater number of
sessions i.e. 271.4.

Fig. 5 Combined Effect of M-M Scheme of VoIP using VBR.

Above is the comparison of the three IEEE standards for the
VBR voice sources in the M-M Scheme. The graph is plotted
between the number of sessions and data rate. The result
shows that the 802.11g VBR has the greater number of
sessions as compared to the other two standards.

V.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper focuses on the support of Ordinary & MultiplexMulticast scheme for VoIP over 802.11x WLAN. It compares the
three standards 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g for both CBR and
VBR voice sources. Using the features of multicast mode simulation
and calculations, is concluded that VBR sources is the best for VoIP
standards.

H. Simulations for Best of Ordinary vs. Best of Multiplex

Multicast in VBR Scheme

REFERENCES

[1] R. Beuran,Y.Shinoda, S. Nakagawa, J. Nakata, T.

Miyachi, K. Chinen, Y. Tan, "Performance Analysis of
VoIP over WLAN", DICOMO 2006, Kagaawa, Japan,
July 5-7, 2006, pp. 849-852.
[2] S. Garg and M. Kappes, .An Experimental Study of
Throughput for UDP and VoIP Traffic in IEEE
802.11bNetworks, IEEE WCNC 2003, Vol. 3, March
2003, pp.1748-1753
[3] S.Garg and M. Kappes, An Experimental Performance
Analysis of MAC Multicast in 802.11b Networks for
Voip Traffic SPECTS 04 Vol. 3, March 2004, pp.217224.
[4] W. Wang, S. C. Liew, Q. Pang, V. O. K. Li A MultiplexMulticastScheme that Improves System Capacity of
Voice-over-IP on Wireless LAN by 100%, IEEE
ISCC04, Alexandria, Egypt, Jun. 2004.Pp,01-11.

Fig. 6 Best of Ordinary M-M Scheme of VoIP usin VBR

The above graph is plotted between number of sessions and
the data rate. The result shows that 802.11g VBR in the
Multiplex-Multicast VoIP scheme has the greater number of

210
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Downloaded on March 23,2010 at 11:07:50 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.