{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02274975272007913, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009891196834817012, 'mean_word_length': 5.246913580246914, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Apples and oranges: comparing schedule- and contention-based medium access control

Comparison of schedule and contention based MAC protocols is made difficult by their fundamental differences in approach to medium access control. This paper provides a way in which to analyze and compare MAC protocols regardless of their underlying allocation strategy. To that end a framework is developed in which the persistence of any protocol, contention- or schedule-based, can be measured. The framework is used to measure and compare the persistence levels of two prototypical contention- and schedule-based MACs, IEEE 802.11 and Scheduled p-Persistence. An ideal persistence that provides lexicographically max-min fair access to the channel is characterized, and used as a bandwidth allocation scheme. In addition to reducing the unfairness, simulations employing the ideal persistence values show increased throughput and decreased delay and drop rate when compared to either Scheduled p-Persistence or IEEE 802.11.