JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2010, ISSN 2151-9617

65

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HIDDEN NODE

PROBLEM AND SOLUTION USING DIFFERENT
TECHNIQUES AND PROTOCOLS
Viral V. Kapadia, Sudarshan N. Patel and Rutvij H. Jhaveri
Abstract Hidden nodes in a wireless network refer to nodes that are out of range of other nodes or a collection of nodes. We will
discuss a few problems introduced by the RTS/CTS mechanism of collision avoidance and focus on the virtual jamming problem, which
allows a malicious node to effectively jam a large fragment of a wireless network at minimum expense of power. We have also
discussed WiCCP (Wireless Central Coordinated Protocol) which is a protocol booster that also provides good solution to hidden nodes.

Index Terms Hidden Terminal Problem, CSMA, Hidden Terminal, Exposed Terminal, MACA

1 HIDDEN TERMINAL PROBLEM

IDDEN nodes are the nodes that are not in the range
of other nodes or a group of nodes. Take a physical star
topology with an access point with many nodes
surrounding it in a circular fashion: Each node is within
communication range of the access point, but the nodes
cannot communicate with each other as they do not have
physical connection to each other. In a wireless network, it is
possible that the node at the far edge of the access point's
range, known as r, can see the access point, but it is unlikely
that the same node can see a node on the opposite end of the
access point's range, r2. These nodes are known as hidden.
The problem is when nodes r and r2 start to send packets
simultaneously to the access point. Since node r and r2
cannot sense the carrier, Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) does not work. To
overcome this problem, handshaking is implemented in
conjunction with the CSMA/CA scheme. The same problem
exists in a MANET [2].
The hidden node problem can be observed easily in
widespread (>50m radius) WLAN setups with many nodes
that use directional antennas and have high upload. This is
why IEEE 802.11 is suited for bridging the last mile, for
broadband access, only to a very limited extent. Newer
standards such as Wi-MAX assign time slots to individual
stations, thus preventing multiple nodes from sending
simultaneously and ensuring fairness, even in oversubscription scenarios [2].
IEEE 802.11 uses 802.11 RTS/CTS acknowledgment and
handshake packets to partly overcome the hidden node
problem. RTS/CTS is not a complete solution and may
decrease throughput even further, but adaptive
acknowledgments from the base station can help too.

Figure. 1 Hidden Node [3]

2 CARRIER SENSE MULTIPLE ACCESS

(CSMA)
In Carrier Sense Multiple Access:
1. If the channel is idle then transmit.
2. If the channel for communication is free then it is
going to transmit without any precaution that there
might be collision.
3. If the channel is busy, wait for a random time.
4. Waiting time is calculated using Truncated Binary
Exponential Backoff (BEB) algorithm.

Viral V. Kapadia1 is with the Department of Computer Engineering, Birla

Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya, Vallabh Vidyanagar,, Gujarat, India.
Sudarshan N. Patel2 is with the Department of Computer Engineering, A.D.
Patel Institute of Technology, New Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India.
Rutvij H. Jhaveri3 is with the Department of Computer Engineering and
Information Technology, Shri Sad Vidya Mandal Institute of Technology,
Bharuch, Gujarat, India.

Fig. 2 Exposed Nodes [3]

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2010, ISSN 2151-9617

66

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/

3 HIDDEN TERMINALS
The notorious hidden node problem deals with a
configuration of three nodes, like A, B, and C in Figure 1,
whereby B is within the transmission range of A and C, while
C is outside the range of A. In a situation like this, C will not
be able to detect the ongoing transmission of A to B by carrier
sensing and, consequently, it can inadvertently interfere with
Bs reception of As packet [1].
The transmission range of a node A is defined as the area
inside which other nodes are able to correctly receive As
packets. On the other hand, the carrier sense range of A is the
area encompassing those nodes whose transmission A can
perceive (carrier sense) while not necessarily being able to
receive the transmitted packets [1].
Generally, it is unreasonable to assume that the two areas
are always the same, e.g., the carrier sense range can be twice
the transmission range [7].
Suppose that every node in Figure 1 has the same
transmission range (represented by a solid circle). Node C is
out of the transmission range of node A and thus would
appear as a hidden node to A. However, if the carrier sense
range of C is larger than the transmission range of A (see the
dashed circle), C is no more hidden because it can sense the
transmission of A and thus avoid interfering with it. This
mechanism for eliminating the hidden node problem has
been described in [7].

4 EXPOSED TERMINALS
In wireless networks, the Exposed Node Problem occurs
when a node is prevented from sending packets to other
nodes due to a neighboring transmitter. Consider an example
of 4 nodes labeled R1, S1, S2, and R2, where the two receivers
are out of range of each other, yet the two transmitters in the
middle are in range of each other as shown in Figure 3. Here,
if a transmission between node S1 and node R1 is taking
place, node S2 is prevented from transmitting to node R2 as
it concludes after carrier sense that it will interfere with the
transmission by its neighbor node S1. However note that
node R2 could still receive the transmission from node S2
without interference because it is out of range from node S1
[1].
IEEE 802.11 RTS/CTS mechanism helps to solve this
problem only if the nodes are synchronized. When a node
hears an RTS from a neighboring node, but not the
corresponding CTS, that node can deduce that it is an
exposed node and is permitted to transmit to other
neighboring nodes [1]. If the nodes are not synchronized, the
problem may occur that the sender will not hear the CTS or
the ACK during the transmission of data of the second
sender Figure 4.

Fig. 4 RTS/CTS HANDSHAKE with ACK [6] [7]

5 RTS-CTS HANDSHAKE IN ACTION

A is the source which is in the range of B, D and C.

B is the destination which is in the range of A, D and
E.
A is the source which is in the range of B, D and C.
B is the destination which is in the range of A, D and
E.
B sends ACK after receiving one data packet.
Improves link reliability using ACK Figure 4.

6 MULTIPLE ACCESS COLLISION

AVOIDANCE (MACA)

Uses Request-To-Send (RTS) and Clear To-Send

(CTS) handshake to reduce the effects of hidden
terminals.
Data transfer duration is included in RTS and CTS,
which helps other nodes to be silent for this
duration.
If a RTS/CTS packet collides, nodes wait for a
random time which is calculated using BEB
algorithm.
Drawback:
Cannot avoid RTS/CTS control packet collisions.

7 SOLUTIONS
The other methods that can be employed to solve hidden
node problem are:
Increase transmitting power from the nodes.
Use Omni-directional antennas.
Remove obstacles.
Move the node.
Use protocol enhancement software.
Use antenna diversity.
Wireless Central Coordinated Protocol.

7.1 Increase Transmitting Power from the Nodes

Increasing the power (measured in mWatts) of the nodes can
solve the hidden node problem by allowing the cell around
each node to increase in size, encompassing all of the other
nodes. This configuration enables the non-hidden nodes to
detect, or hear, the hidden node. If the non-hidden nodes can
hear the hidden node, the hidden node is no longer hidden.
Because wireless LANs use the CSMA/CA protocol, nodes
will wait for their turn before communicating with the access
point.

7.2 Use Omni-directional Antennas

Fig. 3 Exposed Terminal Problem [3]

Since nodes using directional antennas are nearly invisible to

nodes that are not positioned in the direction the antenna is

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2010, ISSN 2151-9617

67

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/

aimed at, directional antennas should be used only for

problem is the overhead of polling.

As the number of users increases, WiCCP will tend to
have issues with assigning timeslots to each, ensuring
latency. Standard 802.11b will have a definite advantage
when there are a lot of stations, and very few want to
transmit most of the time - Such as 50 laptops who only
check their mail once every 15 minutes (without reading), as
opposed to 50 users attempting to surf the web.

8. CONCLUSION

Fig. 5 RTS/CTS HANDSHAKE without ACK [6] [7]

very small networks (e.g., dedicated point-to-point

connections). Use Omni-directional antennas for widespread
networks consisting of more than two nodes [2].

Hidden node problem can be solved by many means but

each solution is for particular scenario. Using different
techniques like Increase Transmitting Power From the
Nodes, Use Omni-directional antennas, Remove obstacles,
Move the nodes, Use protocol enhancement software, Use
antenna diversity, Wireless Central Coordinated Protocol
etcetera would increase the performance of ad-hoc networks
a lot.

7.3 Remove Obstacles

Increasing the power on mobile nodes may not work, if for
example, the node that is hidden is that hiding behind a
cement or steel wall preventing communication with other
nodes. It is doubtful that one would be able to remove such
an obstacle, but removal of the obstacle is another method of
remedy for the hidden node problem. Keep these types of
obstacles in mind when performing a site survey [2].

9. REFERENCES

7.4 Move the Node

[3]
[4]

Another method of solving the hidden node problem is

moving the nodes so that they can all hear each other. If it is
found that the hidden node problem is the result of a user
moving his computer to an area that is hidden from the other
wireless nodes, it may be necessary to have that user move
again. The alternative to forcing users to move is extending
the wireless LAN to add proper coverage to the hidden area,
perhaps using additional access points.

7.5 WiCCP (Wireless Central Coordinated Protocol)

WiCCP is a protocol booster for 802.11b DCF based wireless
networks that provides cyclic token-passing medium access,
and scheduled allocation of the available network resources,
eliminating the "Hidden Node" problem. It is a pure kernel
implementation resulting in high efficiency traffic control. Its
not required extra configuration e.g. static ARP tables or
dedicated routing contexts. WiCCP can be used in fixed
wireless network deployments [9].
It is interesting to note under what conditions WiCCP will
work, and when it will not work - at least optimally. WiCCP
will outperform systems that do not run it when the
utilization of the bandwidth increases above some high
percentage. If we are running standard Ethernet utilization
would be about 80%. Above this percentage of utilization,
whatever that is, the channel assignment ability of WiCCP
will allow the utilization to increase almost to 100% or at
least as close as is humanly possible [9].
Looking on the other end of the scale, standard 802.11b
will work best when the utilization is low, and the levels are
set correctly so that at the access point all power level are the
same. Under low utilization it is likely that the power levels
do not affect things too much.
The main question is regarding heavy traffic. WiCCP
allows a guarantee of bandwidth for a particular user and
this solution appears to be the correct solution for this case to
solve this problem. The ability to offer a guarantee and then
offer more on top of that where available is worthwhile. The

[1]

[2]

[5]

[6]
[7]

[8]

[9]

Ashikur Rahman, Pawel Gburzynski, Hidden Problems with the

Hidden Node Problem, 23rd Biennial Symposium on
Communications
Pommer, Hermann,Roaming zwischen Wireless Local Area
Networks, VDM Verlag, Saarbrcken 2008, ISBN 978-3-8364-87085
C. Rama Krishna, STTP on Wireless Communication , 2009.
D. Chen, J. Deng, P. K. Varshney, Protecting wireless networks
against a denial of service attack based on virtual jamming, 9th
ACM Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MobiCom) Poster, 2003.
P. Karn, MACAa new channel access method for packet radio,
9th Computer Networking Conference on ARRL/CRRL Amateur
Radio, pp. 134140, 1990.
S. Ray, J. B. Carruthers, and D. Starobinski, RTS/CTS-induced
congestion in ad hoc wireless LANs, WCNC, 2003.
K. Xu, M. Gerla, S. Bae, How effective is the IEEE 802.11 RTS/CTS
handshake in ad hoc networks?, IEEE GlOBECOM, volume 1, pp.
1721, 2002.
J. Bellardo, S. Savage,802.11 denial of service attacks: Real
vulnerabilities and practical solutions, Proc-Security Symposium,
2003.
Patras wireless Software solutions, available at http://
patraswireless.net/software.html"

Viral V. Kapadia Ph.D. candidate, Lecturer, Department of Computer

Engineering, Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya, Vallabh Vidyanagar. He
is author of 6 papers, with 3 papers in international conferences and 3 in
national conferences.
Sudarshan N. Patel Ph.D. candidate, Lecturer, Department of
Computer Engineering, A.D. Patel Institute of Technology, New Vallabh
Vidyanagar. The research area of interest are Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
and Distributed Operating System.
Rutvij H. Jhaveri Member of ISTE, Sr. Lecturer, Department of
Computer Engineering, Shri Sad Vidya Mandal Institute of Technology,
He is author of 5 papers, with 1 paper in international conference and 4
in national conferences. The research area of interest is: Mobile Ad-hoc
Networks.