Performance Analysis of Integrated
Sub-6 GHz-Millimeter Wave Wireless Local Area Networks
Omid Semiari1 , Walid Saad2, Mehdi Bennis3 , and Merouane Debbah4

arXiv:1709.00988v1 [] 4 Sep 2017

2

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA, Email: osemiari@georgiasouthern.edu
Wireless@VT, Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, Email: walids@vt.edu
3
Centre for Wireless Communications, University of Oulu, Finland, Email: bennis@ee.oulu.fi
4
Mathematical and Algorithmic Sciences Lab, Huawei France R&D, Paris, France, Email: merouane.debbah@huawei.com

Abstract—Millimeter wave (mmW) communications at the 60
GHz unlicensed band is seen as a promising approach for
boosting the capacity of wireless local area networks (WLANs).
If properly integrated into legacy IEEE 802.11 standards, mmW
communications can offer substantial gains by offloading traffic
from congested sub-6 GHz unlicensed bands to the 60 GHz
mmW frequency band. In this paper, a novel medium access
control (MAC) is proposed to dynamically manage the WLAN
traffic over the unlicensed mmW and sub-6 GHz bands. The
proposed protocol leverages the capability of advanced multiband wireless stations (STAs) to perform fast session transfers
(FST) to the mmW band, while considering the intermittent
channel at the 60 GHz band and the level of congestion observed
over the sub-6 GHz bands. The performance of the proposed
scheme is analytically studied via a new Markov chain model
and the probability of transmissions over the mmW and sub-6
GHz bands, as well as the aggregated saturation throughput are
derived. In addition, analytical results are validated by simulation
results. Simulation results show that the proposed integrated
mmW-sub 6 GHz MAC protocol yields significant performance
gains, in terms of maximizing the saturation throughput and
minimizing the delay experienced by the STAs. The results also
shed light on the tradeoffs between the achievable gains and the
overhead introduced by the FST procedure.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Advanced wireless stations (STAs) are capable of supporting multiple wireless local area network (WLAN) standards,
including legacy IEEE 802.11 over the sub-6 GHz (microwave)
unlicensed bands, as well as IEEE 802.11ad over the 60
GHz millimeter wave (mmW) band [1]. These modern STAs,
also known as tri-band WiGig devices, can potentially benefit
from high capacity mmW communications along with flexible,
simple, and more reliable networking at the sub-6 GHz bands.
Reaping the benefits of such a multi-band WLAN capability is
contingent upon adopting new medium access control (MAC)
protocols that can support flexible and dynamic traffic scheduling over the aggregated mmW–microwave (µW) unlicensed
frequency bands 1 . Such promising integrated mmW-µW protocols also provide substantial motivation to revisit the existing
MAC solutions for traditional, yet important challenges of
WLANs. One such problem is the excessive delay at the
contention-based medium access of the IEEE 802.11 standards
that prevents WLANs to meet the stringent quality-of-service
This research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under
Grants CNS-1460316 and CNS-1526844, and by the ERC Starting Grant
305123 MORE.
1 Hereinafter, µW unlicensed band refers to either 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, or both.

(QoS) requirements of emerging technologies, such as smart
home applications [2], [3].
The performance of IEEE 802.11 MAC protocols has been
thoroughly studied in the literature [4]–[8]. The seminal work
of Bianchi in [4] presents a comprehensive analysis for the
performance of the distributed coordination function (DCF)
of the IEEE 802.11. The authors in [5] study the modeling
and performance analysis of IEEE 802.11 DCF in unsaturated
scenarios with heterogeneous traffic arrival rates for STAs.
In [6], the authors propose a cooperative MAC protocol
that leverages spatial diversity across the network to increase
system throughput. The authors in [7] study the performance
of enhanced-DCF (EDCF) for IEEE 802.11e standard. Moreover, the work in [8] and references therein propose different
MAC protocols to improve QoS in IEEE 802.11. Although
interesting, the body of work in [4]–[8] solely focuses on the
WLAN standards at the µW unlicensed bands.
However, mmW communications over the 60 GHz unlicensed band is one of the key enablers to support emerging
bandwidth-intensive technologies, such as virtual reality, in
WLANs [9]–[12]. In fact, the large available bandwidth at 60
GHz mmW band allows STAs to potentially achieve higher
data rates, compared with the data rates at the sub-6 GHz
unlicensed µW bands. However, mmW links are inherently
intermittent, due to extreme susceptibility of mmW signals
to blockage [13]. In addition, the challenges of bidirectional
transmissions at the 60 GHz band, such as deafness, increase
the complexity of MAC protocols.
In 2012, the IEEE 802.11ad standard [9] was introduced
as an amendment to IEEE 802.11 that enables bidirectional
transmissions over the unlicensed 60 GHz mmW frequency
band and support a variety of services with different QoS
requirements. In addition, this standard supports fast session
transfer (FST) that enables STAs to dynamically migrate from
one frequency band to another. This capability will enable
advanced multi-band STAs to jointly manage their traffic over
either 2.4, 5, or 60 GHz unlicensed frequency bands. The
performance of IEEE 802.11ad is studied in [10]–[12]. The
authors in [10] analyze the performance of IEEE 802.11ad
MAC protocol using a three-dimensional Markov chain model.
In [11], a directional cooperative scheme is proposed for
60 GHz mmW communications which is shown to improve
the system performance, compared with the standard IEEE
802.11ad. In [12], a throughput analysis of IEEE 802.11ad

Fig. 1: Beacon Interval structure [9].
under different modulation schemes is presented. The works
in [10]–[12] focus solely on performance analysis of the IEEE
802.11ad as a stand-alone system, although this standard has
been designed to coexist with legacy IEEE 802.11.
The main contribution of this paper is an integrated mmWµW MAC protocol that enables STAs to dynamically leverage the bandwidth available at the 60 GHz mmW band
and alleviate the excessive delay caused by the contentionbased medium access over the µW frequencies. In addition,
we present a comprehensive performance analysis for the
proposed protocol by adopting a Markov chain model for
backoff time that accommodates FST between mmW and µW
frequency bands. Furthermore, simulation results are provided
and shown to perfectly corroborate the derived analytical
results. Both analytical and simulation results show that the
proposed MAC protocol significantly increases the saturation
throughput and reduces the delay, compared with the legacy
IEEE 802.11 DCF. Moreover, the impact of different network
parameters, such as mmW link state, initial backoff window
size, and maximum backoff stage on the performance are
studied.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the proposed MAC protocol. Section III presents the
analytical results. Simulation results are provided in Section
IV. Section V concludes the paper.
II. MAC P ROTOCOL I NTEGRATION FOR M ULTI -BAND
S UB -6 GH Z AND MMW WLAN S
The contention-based medium access in the IEEE 802.11
DCF suffers from increased backoff time and excessive delays
in congested scenarios [2], [3]. To alleviate this problem,
our goal is to leverage the multi-band operability of modern
STAs to avoid excessive backoff times for collided frames and
thus, decrease the associated contention delay for services in
WLANs. Prior to presenting the proposed scheme, we briefly
overview some of the key definitions in the IEEE 802.11ad
MAC protocol and 802.11 DCF that will be used in our
analysis within the subsequent sections.
A. IEEE 802.11AD MAC Protocol Overview
IEEE 802.11 standards, including IEEE 802.11ad, organize
the medium access using periodic recurring beacon intervals
(BIs). To accommodate bidirectional transmissions over the
60 GHz mmW band, some adjustments are introduced in
the IEEE 802.11ad BI structure, as shown in Fig. 1. These
modifications include: 1) sending directional beacon frames
via an antenna sweeping mechanism, implemented within the
beacon time interval (BTI). This sweeping process allows
to extend the communication range and resolve the issue
of STA discovery with unknown directions, 2) association
beamforming training (A-BFT) used by stations to train their

antenna sector for communication with the personal basic
service set (PBSS) control point (PCP)/access point (AP), and
3) the PCP/AP exchanges management information, including
scheduling, with beam-trained STAs prior to the data transmission interval (DTI).
During DTI, three different medium access schemes are
supported, namely, 1) contention-based access, 2) scheduled
channel time allocation, and 3) dynamic channel time allocation. The first scheme which is conventional in IEEE 802.11
protocols allows STAs to access channel during contentionbased access periods (CBAPs). Two latter approaches are
based on time devision multiple access (TDMA) that dedicate
a service period (SP) to each pair of scheduled STAs. The
dynamic channel time allocation method includes a polling
phase (PP) that enables STAs to request a channel time from
the PCP/AP. The PCP/AP allocates the available channel time
according to these requests. This polling-based scheduling
mechanism is implemented within the beacon header interval
(BHI).
B. IEEE 802.11 DCF Overview
In this widely adopted protocol, STAs follow the contentionbased carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance
(CSMA/CA) scheme to reduce collisions [14]. That is, an
STA senses the channel prior to sending its packet. If channel
is sensed busy, the STA defers the transmission until the
channel is sensed idle for a DCF Interframe Space (DIFS)
time. Afterwards, the STA chooses a random backoff counter
(BC). Then, time is divided into slots and the BC will be
decremented after each idle slot time. Moreover, the BC
countdown is stopped, whenever the channel is sensed busy
during a slot time. The BC count down is reactivated once the
channel is sensed idle again for a DIFS. The STA sends its
packet immediately after BC reaches zero.
The BC is randomly selected from integers within an interval [0, CW-1], where CW is called contention window. CW
depends on the number of transmissions failed for the packet.
Initially, CW is set equal to a value W , called minimum
contention window. After each unsuccessful transmission, W
is doubled, up to a maximum value of 2m W . At this point, if
transmission fails again, the packet is either dropped or a new
BC is chosen randomly from [0, 2m W − 1].
C. Proposed Integrated MmW-Microwave MAC Protocol
In this work, we focus on the IEEE 802.11 DCF and IEEE
802.11ad dynamic channel time allocation, respectively, at
the µW and mmW unlicensed bands. In order to reduce the
excessive delay caused by the collisions at the IEEE 802.11
DCF, in this section, we propose a novel protocol that enables
STAs with multi-band capability to transfer their traffic to the
contention-free 60 GHz mmW band, whenever available, and
avoid intolerable large backoff times. The proposed protocol
is shown in Fig. 2. In this example scenario, STAs 1 and 2
are, respectively, the transmitting and receiving stations. The
communications between STAs 1 and 2 can be explained in
three following phases:

Phase 3: This phase starts with the next BI of the IEEE
802.11ad, in which STA 1 participates in the polling within PP
of BI and requests a contention-free time for communication
with STA 2, as elaborated in Sec. II-A. Next, STA 1 will
transmit its packet to STA 2 during the allocated SP in DTI.
Afterwards, STA 1 will reset its CW to the minimum value
W and it will initiate Phase 1.
The proposed multi-band MAC benefits from the flexible
and simple CSMA/CA protocol at the µW unlicensed bands,
while preventing excessive delays caused by the contentionbased medium access. Next, we present analytical results to
evaluate the performance of the proposed MAC protocol.

Fig. 2: Proposed Multi-Band MAC Protocol.
Phase 1: STA 1 aims to transmit its packet to STA 2, over
the µW band using a CSMA/CA scheme, as explained in Sec.
II-B. Due to its omnidirectional MAC protocol, the DCF of
IEEE 802.11 requires minimum coordination among STAs,
which provides a fast and flexible medium access. However,
as the number of STAs increases, larger backoff times are
required, resulting in more delay for packet transmissions. According to this protocol, STA 1 increases its backoff stage after
each unsuccessful transmission. After reaching the maximum
backoff stage m, STA 1 initiates Phase 2 with probability β
and remains in Phase 1 with probability 1 − β. The merit
of using this control parameter will be elaborated in the next
section.
Phase 2: In this phase, STA 1 initiates an FST with STA 2.
FST capability is introduced in the IEEE 802.11ad Extended
version [9] that enables STAs to swiftly move their traffic from
one transmission band/channel to another. Since the FST is
managed at a separate control channel, it will not be prone to
collisions at the data channel. As shown in Fig. 2, to invoke
FST, the station management entity (SME) unit in STA 1 sends
an FST Setup Request to the µW MAC layer management
entity (MLME), followed by informing the STA 1’s MAC
to forward the FST Setup Request frame to STA 2. Then, a
handshaking procedure is done between STAs 1 and 2 in which
STA 2 confirms that it is ready to move the communication
to the 60 GHz band. Up to this stage, the control messages
between STAs 1 and 2 are exchanged at the µW band. Next,
an FST ACK Request is initiated by the STA 1’s mmW MLME
to request an FST ACK frame from STA 2. This message is
transferred over the 60 GHz band and FST is done once STA
1 receives the FST ACK Response frame from STA 2.
Here, we note that the FST procedure is revoked if STA 1
does not receive ACK frames in any stage during Phase 2. This
can happen if the link between STAs 1 and 2 is blocked by
an obstacle, or A-BFT is failed. In that case, STA 1 continues
following the CSMA/CA in Phase 1.

III. M ODELING AND A NALYSIS OF THE P ROPOSED
M ULTI -BAND MAC P ROTOCOL
In this section, we present analytical results to evaluate
the performance of the proposed multi-band MAC protocol.
First, we study the operation of an arbitrary STA that follows
the proposed MAC protocol. In particular, we determine the
probability of packet transmissions over either mmW or µW
frequencies at a randomly chosen time slot. Then, we use these
transmission probabilities to find a suitable expression for the
saturation throughput.
A. Probability of Packet Transmission over mmW and µW
Frequencies
In our analysis, we assume non-empty queues for all STAs,
i.e., the network operates at a saturation condition. As such, a
new packet will be ready for transmission immediately after
each successful transmission. These consecutive transmissions
will require each STA transmitting over the µW frequency
band to wait for a random backoff time prior to sending the
next packet. In this regard, let b(t) be the stochastic process
for the BC of an arbitrary STA. A discrete and integer time
scale is adopted in which t and t + 1 present the beginning
of two consecutive slot times, and the BC of each STA is
decremented at the beginning of each slot time. According
to the works in [4] and [5], the DCF of IEEE 802.11 can
be modeled as a two-dimensional discrete-time Markov chain
(s(t), b(t)), where s(t) ∈ {0, 1, · · · m} represents the backoff
stage of an STA at time t, with m being the maximum backoff
stage. For an arbitrary backoff stage s(t) = i, the CW will be
Wi = 2i W . In such Markov chain models, it is collectively
assumed that, regardless of state, a collision occurs with a
constant and independent probability p as concretely discussed
in [4] and [5].
To study the performance of the proposed protocol, we
adopt a Markov chain model, as shown in Fig. 3, where each
state (i, k) indicates that s(t) = i and b(t) = k, i.e., the BC of
an STA is at the k-th step of stage i. In addition, by introducing
a new state m̂, this model captures the capability of multi-band
STAs to operate at the mmW frequency band. In fact, while
being at state (m, 0), the STA can choose to either stay at the
µW band and follow the DCF protocol or perform an FST to
transmit over the mmW band. We note that performing FST
by an arbitrary STA j does not alter the collision probability
p for other packets, since the next backlogged packet of STA

a collision, or will perform an FST with probability β.
For this Markov chain model, we next determine the stationary probability for each state (i, k). Let hi,k = lim P{s(t) =
t→∞
i, b(t) = k}, i ∈ [0, m] ∪ {m̂}, k ∈ [0, Wi − 1]. From the
Markov chain model in Fig. 3, it is easy to see that
hi,0 = phi−1,0 = pi h0,0 ,
i ∈ (0, m).
Furthermore, for i = m and m̂, we note that
phm−1,0 + p(1 − β)hm,0 + (1 − α)hm̂ = hm,0 ,
pβhm,0 = hm̂ .

Fig. 3: Markov Chain model for the backoff window size
j will be ready to be sent over the µW frequency band. In this
model, β ∈ [0, 1] is a control parameter that allows an STA
to manage unnecessary FSTs to reduce signaling overhead or
avoid the mmW frequency band whenever the transmission of
a number of previous packets has failed, due to unsuccessful
A-BFTs. Moreover, β provides backward compatibility for
legacy STAs with no mmW communications capability2 . The
state of each mmW link is determined by a Bernoulli random
variable η with success probability α. That is, with probability
αj , a transmitting STA j and its desired receiving STA can
successfully perform the A-BFT and execute the transmission.
Here, the single-step nonzero transition probabilities are

P {i, k|i, k + 1} = 1,
i ∈ [0, m], k ∈ [0, Wi −2],(1a)
P {0, k|i, 0} = p′/W0 , i ∈ [0, m] ∪ {m̂} , k ∈ [0, W0 −1],(1b)
P {m, k|m̂} = (1 − α)/Wm ,
k ∈ [0, Wm −1],(1c)
P {i, k|i − 1, 0} = p/Wi, i ∈ [1, m], k ∈ [0, Wi −1],(1d)
P {m, k|m, 0} = p(1 − β)/Wm ,
k ∈ [0, Wm −1],(1e)
P {m̂|m, 0} = βp,
(1f)

where (1a) shows the backoff time count down at each time
slot. Moreover, (1b) indicates that, after a successful packet
transmission, an STA will randomly choose a BC from stage
0, i.e., k is uniformly chosen from [0, W − 1]. In (1b), p′ is
equal to 1 − p and α, respectively, if i ∈ [0, m] and i = m̂.
In addition, (1c) captures an unsuccessful mmW transmission,
after which the STA will remain at the µW frequency band
and will choose a random backoff time at stage m. (1d) shows
that backoff stage will incremented after an unsuccessful µW
transmission. Furthermore, (1e) and (1f) indicate, respectively,
that an STA will remain at stage m with probability 1−β after
2 By choosing β = 0, the proposed model will converge to the corresponding Markov chain for the conventional DCF in IEEE 802.11 standards.

(2)
(3a)
(3b)

Using (2), we solve (3a) and (3b) with respect to hm,0 and
hm̂ , which yields
pm
βpm+1
hm,0 =
h0,0 , hm̂ =
h0,0 . (4)
1 − p + αβp
1 − p + αβp
Next, by following the chain regularities, we can represent the
remaining stationary state probabilities as:
 1−p Pm
α

i = 0,
 W0
j=0 hj,0 + W0 hm̂ ,
p(1−β)
p
′
1−α
hi,k = Wi Wm hm−1,0 + Wm hm,0 + Wm hm̂ , i = m,

 p
i ∈ (0, m),
Wi hi−1,0 ,
(5)
where Wi′ = Wi − k, and k ∈ (0, Wi − 1]. In addition, we
note that
m
X
hj,0 + αhm̂ .
(6)
h0,0 = (1 − p)
j=0

Thus, by using (2), (3a), and (6), hi,k in (5) simplifies to:
Wi − k
hi,0 ,
i ∈ [0, m], k ∈ (0, Wi − 1]. (7)
hi,k =
Wi
Finally, we find h0,0 by noting that the sum of all state
probabilities is 1. That is,
m W
i −1
X
X
hi,k + hm̂
(8)
1=
(a)

=
(b)

=

i=0 k=0
W
m
i −1
X
X

hi,0

i=0
m−1
X

k=0

hi,0

Wi − k
+ hm̂ ,
Wi

Wi + 1 Wm + 1
+
bm,0 + hm̂ ,
2
2

"i=0
#
m−1
(Wm + 1)pm
h0,0
2βpm+1
(c) X
i
(Wi + 1)p +
=
+
.
1 − p + αβp 1 − p + αβp
2
i=0
P i −1
In (8), (a) and (b) result from (7) and noting that W
k=0 (Wi −
k)/Wi = (Wi +1)/2, respectively. In addition, (c) results from
(2) and (4). From (8), we can find h0,0 as follows:
 

1 − (2p)m
h0,0 = 2 W
1 − 2p
−1
m
1−p
(2m W + 1 + 2βp)pm
+
.
(9)
+
1−p
1 − p + αβp
Next, we can compute the transmission probability over the
µW band, ΘµW , for an STA in a random time slot. To this
end, we note that µW transmission occurs only if the backoff
time countdown for an STA reaches zero. That is, an STA

transmits a packet if it is at any states (i, 0), i ∈ [0, m]. Thus,


m
X
1
αβpm+1
hi,0 =
1−
h0,0 . (10)
ΘµW =
1−p
1 − p + αβp
i=0

Remark 1. Without mmW communications (β = 0), we can
easily verify that ΘµW in (10) simplifies to
2(1 − 2p)
ΘµW =
,
(11)
(1 − 2p)(W + 1) + pW (1 − (2p)m )
which is shown to be the transmission probability in DCF
protocol of the IEEE 802.11 [4].

Over the mmW frequency band, STAs that are in state
m̂ will be scheduled to transmit within the next available
DTI. Given that the mmW transmissions follow a TDMA
scheme during each SP, as proposed in IEEE 802.11ad, no
collision will happen. However, as mentioned in section II-A,
a mmW transmission is contingent upon a successful A-BFT
phase. Hence, the probability of transmission over the mmW
frequency band is
αβpm+1
h0,0 .
(12)
ΘmmW = P{η = 1}hm̂ =
1 − p + αβp
After deriving the transmission probability at both mmW and
µW frequencies for an arbitrary STA, our next step is to compute the saturation throughput as a key performance metric.
B. Throughput Analysis of the Proposed Multi-band mmW-µW
MAC Protocol
Next, we analyze the system throughput R at the saturation
conditions. This throughput is defined as the average payload
that is successfully transmitted across the network during a
randomly chosen time slot, divided by the average time slot
duration E[T ]. In multi-band WLANs, parallel streams of data
can be sent simultaneously over different frequency bands.
Thus, our analysis will focus on finding the throughput across
the aggregated mmW-µW frequencies.
Consider a WLAN, composed of J STAs within a set J .
Over the µW frequency band, the protocol follows the standard
CSMA/CA. In other words, only one STA can successfully
transmit at a given time, otherwise, collision happens. In this
regard, PtµW is defined as the probability that at least one STA
is transmitting over the µW frequency band. Since each STA
µW
j ∈ J transmits with probability ΘµW
is given by:
j , Pt
Y
µW
µW
Pt = 1 −
(1 − Θj ).
(13)
j∈J

In addition, transmission of an arbitrary STA j is successful,
if no other STA transmits at the same time. Hence, the
probability of successful transmission can be written as:
P
µW
µW Q
j ′ ∈J \j (1 − Θj ′ )
j∈J Θj
µW
Ps =
.
(14)
PtµW
To compute E[T ], we note that there are three possible cases
for the transmission scenarios over the µW band: 1) having
an empty slot which occurs with probability 1 − PtµW , since
no STA is transmitting. 2) Successful transmission of a packet
during a time slot which happens with probability PtµW PsµW ,
and 3) collision scenario that occurs with probability PtµW (1−

TABLE I: Simulation parameters
Notation
HMAC
HPHY
B µW
B mmW
ACK
δ
σ
SIFS
DIFS
r µW
r mmW
SETUP REQ
SETUP RES

Parameter
MAC header
PHY header
µW packet payload
mmW packet payload
ACK
Propagation delay
Slot time
Short interframe space
Distributed interframe space
µW channel bit rate
mmW channel bit rate
FST setup request
FST setup response

Value
272 bits
128 bits
8184 bits
81840 bits
112 bits + PHY header
1 µs
50 µs
28 µs
128 µs
1 Mbps
1 Gbps
240 bits
240 bits

PsµW ). Hence, the average slot time is
E[T ] = (1−PtµW)σ+PtµW PsµW Ts +PtµW (1 − PsµW )Tc , (15)
where Ts , Tc , and σ denote the slot time duration, respectively,
in successful, collision, and no transmission scenarios.
For mmW transmissions, we must note that only FST is
performed over the µW band, while other phases during
BHI as well as payload transmissions in DTI will be done
simultaneously with the µW band transmissions. To properly
capture the mmW band contribution in the system throughput,
we consider the time overhead associated with performing FST
and we find the average number of STAs that can be scheduled
at the mmW frequency band within a coarse of E[T ] time.
In this regard, let Jˆ ≤ J be the maximum number of STAs
that can be scheduled over the mmW band during E[T ], each
transmitting a payload of size B mmW bits. Considering rmmW
as the mmW channel bit rate, Jˆ = ⌊E[T ]rmmW /B mmW ⌋, where
⌊.⌋ is the floor operand. Consequently, the average number of
STAs transmitting at the mmW frequency band, E[J mmW ], is
′
(Ju) |JY
|=u
Jˆ X
X
mmW
ΘmmW
,
(16)
E[J ] =
j
u=1 s=1

j=1

where the inner sum is done over all possible subsetsJ ′ ⊆ J
with |J ′ | = u number of STAs. Clearly, there are Ju distinct
subsets with size u. Moreover, the product is for all STAs in
the chosen subset J ′ . In addition, since the protocol employs
TDMA scheme for mmW communications, no collision will
occur between multiple mmW transmissions during a DTI and
the probability of successful transmission is PsmmW = 1.
Therefore, the system throughput R is calculated by finding
the aggregated transmitted payload over both µW and mmW
frequency bands, divided by the average time slot duration
E[T ] plus the time overhead associated with FST process:
Ps Pt B µW + E[J mmW ]B mmW
R=
(17)
E[T ] + E[J mmW ]TFST ,
where B µW is the payload size over the µW frequency band.
Given the high available bandwidth at the mmW band, B mmW
is considered larger than B µW . Moreover, TFST is the required
time for performing an FST.
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
We validate our analytical results by simulating the proposed protocol in a multi-band WLAN. The number of STAs
varies from J = 5 to 50. The considered network is simulated
in MATLAB and the total simulation time extends to 500 sec-

20

Simulation, β = 0
Analysis, β = 0
Simulation, β = 0.3
Analysis, β = 0.3
Simulation, β = 0.7
Analysis, β = 0.7
Simulation, β = 0.9
Analysis, β = 0.9

0.95
0.9
0.85

Number of time slots used for FST

Saturation throughput (Mbits/s)

1

0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65

5

10

15

20

25

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

30

J = 20
J = 30
J = 50

18

0

0.2

Number of STAs

onds. We consider αj = α, j ∈ J to simplify the performance
analysis. In this case, (13)-(16) can be written as:
PtµW = 1 − (1 − ΘµW )J ,
(18a)
PsµW = JΘµW (1 − ΘµW )J−1 /PtµW ,
Jˆ  
X
u
J
mmW
ΘmmW .
E[J ] =
u
u=1

0.6

0.8

1

Fig. 5: Number of time slots used in FST procedure vs the control

(18b)
(18c)

The effect of α and β on the network performance will be evaluated subsequently. For µW communications, we consider the
basic access scheme3 in which the receiving STA will send an
acknowledgment (ACK) signal after successfully decoding the
sent packet. Hence, Ts , Tc and TFST are calculated as follows:
Ts = Γ + SIFS + ACK + DIFS + 2δ,

parameter β, for different network size J.
Number of time slots wasted in collisions

Fig. 4: Saturation throughput vs the number of STAs.

0.4

Control parameter β

450

W
W
W
W
W
W

400
350

= 8, β = 1
= 16, β = 1
= 32, β = 1
= 8, β = 0
= 16, β = 0
= 32, β = 0

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of STAs

Tc = Γ + DIFS + δ,
TFST = SETUP REQ + SETUP RES + 2ACK + 4δ, (19)

Fig. 6: Number of time slots wasted in collisions vs the number of

where Γ is the required time for transmitting PHY header
HPHY , MAC header HMAC , and payload B µW of a µW
packet. Moreover, δ models the propagation delay. TFST is
calculated based on the FST procedure, as shown in Fig. 2,
composed of sending FST Setup Request/Response frames,
each followed by an ACK signal. Here, we note that FST ACK
Request/Response frames are sent over the mmW frequency
band, thus, they are not included in the time overhead. All
network parameters are summarized in Table I.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of the control parameter β on the
performance, for different number of STAs, with m = 3,
W = 32, and α = 0.6. From Fig. 4, we can see that the
throughput increases as β becomes large. Interestingly, this
performance gain is more evident for large network sizes, since
the collision probability is higher and, thus, the proposed protocol sends more packets over the mmW band. In addition, for
any fixed non-zero β, we observe that the throughput initially
decreases and then increases, as the number of STAs grows.
That is because, for a larger network size J, collisions initially
increase which results in a lower throughput. However, for
larger network sizes, more STAs reach the maximum backoff

stage m and initiate FST to the mmW band.
In Fig. 5, the overhead of the proposed protocol is evaluated
in terms of the number of time slots used in the FST procedure.
From Figs. 4 and 5, we observe an interesting tradeoff between
the saturation throughput and the overhead of switching between mmW and µW frequency bands. For example, from
Fig. 4, we can see that the throughput is improved by 28%
for J = 30, when β is increased from β = 0.3 to β = 0.9.
Moreover, Fig. 5 shows that the overhead increases from 3
slots to 9 slots in order to achieve this performance gain.
Fig. 6 shows another key merit of mmW-µW MAC layer
integration which is reducing the packet transmissions delay
caused by the collisions. This figure compares the number
of time slots that are wasted in collisions by the proposed
protocol (β = 1) and legacy IEEE 802.11 (β = 0), for different
initial contention window and network sizes. From Fig. 6, it
is clear that the proposed scheme significantly reduces the
delay, e.g., up to three times for J = 50 STAs and W = 8.
Moreover, we observe that the performance gap between the
two schemes is larger for smaller W values. That is because
more collisions occur when initial backoff window size is
small, which increases the probability for STAs to transmit
their packets over the mmW frequency band.
Fig. 7 shows the saturation throughput as a function of α

3 Other access schemes such as request-to-send/clear-to-send (RTS/CTS)
mechanisms can be applied similarly.

STAs, for different W and β values.

2

10

Analysis , α = 0
Simulation, α = 0
Analysis, α = 0.3
Simulation, α = 0.3
Analysis, α = 0.7
Simulation, α = 0.7
Analysis, α = 0.9
Simulation, α = 0.9

1.2

1.1

1

Saturation throughput (Mbits/s)

Saturation throughput (Mbits/s)

1.3

0.9

0.8

0.7

α=0
α = 0.2
α = 0.6
α=1
1

10

0

10

−1

10

−2

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 7: Saturation throughput vs the number of STAs.

Saturation throughput (Mbits/s)

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.6

0.55
32

Analysis , J = 5
Simulation, J = 5
Analysis, J = 10
Simulation, J = 10
Analysis, J = 20
Simulation, J = 20
64

128

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 9: Saturation throughput vs m for different α values.
in WLANs. In fact, the proposed protocol allows stations
to perform fast session transfer to the 60 GHz mmW band,
and avoid excessive delay caused by collisions at the µW
unlicensed bands. To analyze the performance of the proposed
scheme, we have adopted a Markov chain model that captures
the fast session transfer across mmW-µW bands. We have
shown the accuracy of the model by providing comprehensive
simulation results. Both simulations and analytical results have
shown that the proposed protocol yields significant gains in
terms of maximizing the saturation throughput and minimizing
the delay caused by collisions.
R EFERENCES

0.9

0.65

0

Maximum backoff stage (m)

Number of STAs

256

512

1024

Initial size of the backoff window (W)

Fig. 8: Saturation throughput vs W for different network size J.
for different number of STAs, with m = 3, W = 32, and
β = 1. We can observe that, as mmW communication is more
feasible, the throughput will increase with all network sizes.
For example, the throughput increase by 37% for J = 20 and
α = 0.9, compared with the stand-alone IEEE 802.11 system
(α = 0). Similar to Fig. 4, the throughput varies as a convex
function with respect to the number of STAs.
In Fig. 8, the impact of initial backoff window size, W , on
the throughput is studied for m = 3, α = β = 0.5, and three
network sizes J = 5, 10, 20. Fig. 8 also shows the optimal
W for maximizing the throughput. We can observe that the
optimal W grows as the number of STAs J increases.
Furthermore, the effect of maximum backoff stage, m, on
throughput is shown in Fig. 9 with β = 0.5, W = 16, and
J = 50. It is interesting to note that for α = 0, i.e., with
no mmW communications, throughput increases as m grows.
That is because less collisions happen with larger maximum
backoff. However, this trend is opposite for nonzero α values.
In fact, even for α = 0.2 and small m, we observe a significant
performance gain which results from STAs’ frequent switching
to the mmW frequency band, due to the high collision at the
µW frequency band.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed a novel MAC protocol
that leverages the capability of advanced wireless stations to
decrease the contention-based delay and increase throughput

[1] D. Wang and C. H. Chan, “Multiband antenna for WiFi and WiGig
communications,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters,
vol. 15, pp. 309–312, 2016.
[2] S. Choi, J. d. Prado, S. Shankar N, and S. Mangold, “IEEE 802.11e
contention-based channel access (EDCF) performance evaluation,” Proc.
of IEEE International Conference on Communications,, vol. 2, pp. 1151–
1156, May 2003.
[3] O. Tickoo and B. Sikdar, “Queueing analysis and delay mitigation in
IEEE 802.11 random access MAC based wireless networks,” Proc. of
IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, pp. 1404–1413, March 2004.
[4] G. Bianchi, “Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535–547, March 2000.
[5] D. Malone, K. Duffy, and D. Leith, “Modeling the 802.11 distributed coordination function in nonsaturated heterogeneous conditions,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
159–172, February 2007.
[6] P. Liu, Z. Tao, S. Narayanan, T. Korakis, and S. S. Panwar, “CoopMAC:
A cooperative MAC for wireless LANs,” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 340–354, February 2007.
[7] I. Inan, F. Keceli, and E. Ayanoglu, “Saturation throughput analysis of
the 802.11e enhanced distributed channel access function,” Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Communications, pp. 409–414, June 2007.
[8] Hua Zhu, Ming Li, I. Chlamtac, and B. Prabhakaran, “A survey of
quality of service in IEEE 802.11 networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 6–14, August 2004.
[9] IEEE 802.11 WG, “IEEE 802.11ad, Amendment 3: Enhancements for
very high throughput in the 60 GHz band,” December 2012.
[10] K. Chandra, V. Prasad, and I. Niemegeers, “Performance analysis of
IEEE 802.11ad MAC protocol,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2017.
[11] Q. Chen, J. Tang, D. T. C. Wong, X. Peng, and Y. Zhang, “Directional
cooperative MAC protocol design and performance analysis for IEEE
802.11ad WLANs,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.
62, no. 6, pp. 2667–2677, July 2013.
[12] X. Zhu, A. Doufexi, and T. Kocak, “Throughput and coverage performance for IEEE 802.11ad millimeter-wave WPANs,” Proc. of IEEE 73rd
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), pp. 1–5, May 2011.
[13] O. Semiari, W. Saad, and M. Bennis, “Joint millimeter wave and
microwave resources allocation in cellular networks with dual-mode base
stations,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no.
7, pp. 4802–4816, July 2017.
[14] IEEE 802.11 WG, “Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control
(MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,” March 2012.

