Table 2: Features of the dynamic adaptation schemes.

IEEE 802.11 compatibility Additional traffic Efficiency Prioritization QoS performance with DCF and EDCA stations Designed for saturated traffic Main issues

Our proposal Yes No Efficient AIFSN + CW Higher than EDCA No
i-EDCA [7] Yes No Efficient CW Lower than EDCA NoBad result in the presence of DCF stations. Only uses CW
DACKS [8] Yes No Very inefficient CW Higher than EDCA NoVery inefficient. Retransmits correct packets
AEDCA [9] Yes No Efficient CW Lower than EDCA NoBad results in the presence of DCF stations. Only uses CW
MMDP-FMAC [10] Yes No Efficient Fair allocation Lower than EDCA NoBad results in the presence of DCF stations. Problems with the deadline of the real-time applications
Hamidian and Körner [11] Yes No Efficient TXOP Similar to EDCA NoProblems with the deadline of the real-time applications
QHDCF [12] No Yes Efficient Centralized priority Higher than EDCA NoIncompatible with the standard. Uses modified packets
iPAS [14] No Yes Inefficient Centralized priority Lower than EDCA NoIncompatible with the standard. Requires stations changes. Introduces additional control traffic
Banchs and Vollero [17] Yes No Efficient CW Lower than EDCA YesBad results in the presence of DCF stations. Only uses CW.