Upload
drusilla-miller
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Link Layer Scheme for Reliable Multicast in Wireless Networks
Thesis defense of:
Aarthi NatarajanAdvising Committee:
Dr. Sandeep GuptaDr. Partha Dasgupta Dr. Andrea Richa
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Outline Motivation Challenges Related Work: IEEE 802.11 Multicast, LBP, DBTMA System Model Protocols: RDNP and M-RDNP Simulation Environment Performance Results: Wireless LANs, Ad hoc networks Conclusions and Future Work
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
ChatApplication
Search and RescueOperation
Group Applications
More Applications … •Military Operations•Emergency operations•Whiteboard Applications
NEED “NEED “RELIABLERELIABLE” COMMUNICATION” COMMUNICATION
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Why Wireless ?Wireless Network : devices with wireless adapters communicating with
each other using EM waves Ease and Speed of deployment. Wired network may not be possible.
Wireless Network Architectures
Motivation
Wired network
Wired network
Centralized or LAN
Base Station
Distributed or Ad hoc
1. All devices connect to base station2. Infrastructure based3. End hop wireless
1.Collection of autonomous hosts2. No Infrastructure3. All hop wireless
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Problem Statement To build a reliable link-layer protocol for multicast
in single channel multi-access wireless networks Reliability can be achieved at
End-to-end: across several hop. Link level: across a single hop.
Why reliable multicast at the link layer[IG00]? Allows local error recovery. Improves throughput. Conserves energy. Reduces end-to-end delay.
Motivation
End to end reliability
Source Destination
link levelreliability
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Link Level Multicasting Repeated unicast transmissions
Redundant data, Wastes energy, Increases delay, Reduces throughput Reliable Broadcast at the multicast address and filter at the receivers
Design Issues: Medium Access:
Wired Networks use CSMA/CD Wireless Networks signal strength fades with distance
self interference, hidden terminals exposed terminals, capture effect
Error Recovery Controlling the flow of feedback information
5 transmissions
Sender
1 transmissions
Sender
4
22
d
hhGGPP rt
rttr
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Medium Access Issues Hidden Terminals
Nodes not within the senders range but within the receiver range
Causes collisions at the receivers Collision detection cannot be used
Location dependant carrier sensing: Even if the receiver may experience collisions, the sender may not.
Self Interference: transmit signal flows into receive path
Capture Effect Picks up stronger signal as long as
the ratio of the stronger to weaker signal exceeds the capture threshold.
Node B Node O Node G
Challenges
HIDDEN TERMINAL
Node B Node G
Can still pick up packet from Node B
Node O
Signal from Node B
Signal from Node G> Capture
Threshold (SNRT)
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Error Recovery and Feedback Control Local Error Recovery
High channel BER Channel bit error rate can be as high as 1 in 104 or higher. Almost 40% or more of the packets are in error when payload is 512b.
Retransmission based [TKP97] ACK based : absence of ACK NACK based : presence of NACK Explicit retransmission requests : reception of retransmit request packet
FEC based
Controlling the flow of feedback from multiple receivers
Battery Anemic Size and weight limitation restrict the lifetime of the device battery. Energy conservation techniques
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
System Model and Assumptions Single channel multi-access networks Single transceiver Infrastructure-based as well as ad hoc Packet loss : Bit errors and Collisions Group membership maintained by the higher layer
protocols Two Ray Ground Propagation Model
Signal has to greater than the reception threshold to receive the packet correctly
The medium is perceived as busy as long as the signal is greater than the noise threshold.
4
22
d
hhGGPP rt
rttr
Preliminaries
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Some Related Work… Solutions to Hidden Terminals
RTS-CTS based : Single Channel Unicast: IEEE 802.11Unicast Multicast: LBP, PBP, DBP
Busy Tone based : Two channels Unicast: DBTMA [DJ98] Multicast: IEEE 802.11MX [Sha02]
IEEE 802.11 Multicast
Related Work
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
ACKDATA CTS
RTS
IEEE 802.11 Unicast [Com99]
RTS-CTS ACK based error recovery Physical + virtual carrier sensing DIFS, SIFS inter-frame space for
prioritization of DATA
Sender Hidden Terminal Receiver
RTS
CTS
DATA
ACK
DIFS
SIFS
SIFS
SIFS Sender
Receiver
Update NAV from RTSUpdate NAV from CTS
Related Work
Others
H
H
H
H
X
XXXX
XX
RTS Request to send
CTS Clear to send
ACK Acknowledgement
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
RTS-CTS for Multicast Several receivers : feedback collision Try to eliminate the collision of feedback LBP[KK01] – leader node sends the
feedback information DBP[KK01] – all nodes send out feedback
after a certain random delay. PBP[KK01] – every node sends out
feedback with certain probability “p”. BSMA[TG00b], BMW[TG00a], BMMM,
LAMM [Shal02] RTS-CTS does not solve all hidden terminal
problems[XGB02]
Related Work
RTS
HCTS Collision
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
IEEE 802.11 Multicast [Com99]
Not Reliable Hidden terminal problems No local error recovery
DATA
DIFS
Sender
Others
Ignore data
Consume dataGroupNeighbors
Related Work
IEEE 802.11
DCF PCF
CSMA(Unreliable)
CSMA+CA(Reliable)
Polling
Multicast
Broadcast
Unicast
Unicast
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Our Protocol Salient Features
Protocol RDNP Deals only with local error recovery No CTS packet. Uses a NACK or collision of NACKs to prompt retransmissions. NACKs do not contain any relevant information. Does not suppress hidden terminals
Protocol M-RDNP Mitigate the effect of hidden terminals Reliable neighbors do not suffer from hidden terminals as long
as sender is transmitting Forces routing layer to build routes only using reliable neighbors
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Protocol RDNP
RTS DATA
NACK
DIFS SIFS
SIFS Sender
GroupNeighborsWithout packet
Update NAV from RTS
Others&Group NeighborsWith packet
Good for wireless LANs when there are no hidden terminals base station is the only node that can transmit multicast data.
Not so good for ad hoc networks because of hidden terminals.
Protocol
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Reliable and Interference RegionProtocol
RX
CS
Node A Node B1 Node B2 Node C1 Node C2
Yippee! I still receive A’s signalThanks to capture effect.
Booo Hooo! I experience collisions
Hey! I can transmit.I am not within A’s noise range
RL
CSI
RX Reception range
CS Noise Range
RL Reliable Range
CSI Interference Range
Reception range: Radius within which the signal is greater than the reception thresholdNoise Range: Radius within which the signal is greater than the noise threshold
Hey! I cannot transmit.I am within A’s noise range
Reliable Neighbors: All neighbors within the collision free zone.
Unreliable Neighbors: All neighbors not in the reliable range
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Minimum Reliable Radius
Assumption: No two nodes “start” transmitting simultaneously.
Two simultaneous transmissions must be separated from each other by a distance of CS
Around a sender the maximum number of nodes which can be transmitting simultaneously is 6
Protocol
Node S
RL
Node A
Node B
Node F
Node C
Node D
Node E
CS
Node R
Minimum RL ≈ 170m when CS = 550m
CS
CS
d Φ
dER dFR
dAR
dBRdCR
dDR
T
FBEBDBCBBRAR
SR
TFEDCBA
S
SNR
dddddd
d
SNRPPPPPP
P
444444
4
111111
1
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Protocol M-RDNP Force all routes to be formed using only reliable neighbors. Thus transmissions use only reliable hops in which there are
no hidden terminal problems. Might use more number of hops to transmit to the same node
On Data On RTS
If (routing packet && !reliable()) then drop packetelse send to higher layer
If (reliable()) then prepare to send NACKelse do not prepare to send NACK
Protocol
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
An example RL ≈ 170m
Number of hops = 4 Number of hops = 6
Routes using IEEE 802.11 and RDNP at the MAC layer
Routes using M-RDNP at the MAC layer
Protocol
1
2
3
1
2
3
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Simulation Environment Network Simulator [Net02] Performance Metrics
Average Packet Drop Ratio per Node = Average Energy Consumed per Node per packet =
Wireless LANs: IEEE 802.11, LBP, DBP, PBP, RDNP
Ad hoc networks Routing Layer: SPST [GBS00], SPST [Sri03] better than M-AODV,
ODMRP, MST IEEE 802.11, RDNP, M-RDNP
All simulation points averaged over 45 runs Accuracy 5% confidence interval 99% [Jai91]
Number of packets dropped per nodeNumber of packets sent
Results
Energy consumed per nodeNumber of packets recv
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Simulation Results – Wireless LANsStationary nodes
BER (X 10e5)
Mobile nodes
BER (X 10e5)
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
1 5 10 50 100
IEEE 802.11
DBP
PBP
LBP
RDNP
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1 5 10 50 100
IEEE 802.11
DBP
PBP
LBP
RDNP
0
0.010.02
0.030.04
0.050.06
0.070.08
0.09
1 5 10 50 100
IEEE 802.11
DBP
PBP
LBP
RDNP
Results
1
1
2 2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
5 10 20 30 40
IEEE 802.11
DBP
PBP
LBP
RDNP
With Unicast traffic
NUMBER OF NODES
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
1
2
BER (X 10e5)
Stationary nodes with explicit retransmission requests
EN
D-T
O-E
ND
DELA
Y
4
4
3
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Simulation - Stationary Ad Hoc networks
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
BER (X 10e5) BER (X 10e5)
BER (X 10e5) BER (X 10e5)
Nodes = 10, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 4,3 Nodes = 20, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 6,4
Nodes = 30, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 8,5 Nodes = 40, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 10,6
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
Results
11
11
2 2
2 2
33
33
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Simulation – MANETs
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.350.4
0.45
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.350.4
0.45
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.350.4
0.45
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Nodes = 10, Low BER Nodes = 30, Low BER
Nodes = 10, High BER Nodes = 30, High BER
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
Results
11
22
3
3
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Simulation – MANETS (Very High Speed ≈ 100miles/hr)
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0 10
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0 10
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0 10
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
Nodes = 10, Speed = 80 miles/hr Nodes = 30, Speed = 80 miles/hr
BER BER
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
Results
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
133 133
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
BER BER
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
Nodes = 10, Speed = 150 miles/hr Nodes = 30, Speed = 150 miles/hr
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Summarizing Reliability Stationary Ad hoc networks
M-RDNP - “Good” for low neighbor density. M-RDNP and RDNP – Statistically indifferent for high
neighbor density, “better” than IEEE 802.11. Mobile Ad hoc Networks Low/Moderate Speeds
M-RDNP – “Good” for low neighbor density. IEEE 802.11 - “Good” for low BER and high neighbor
density. RDNP – “Good” for high BER and high neighbor density.
Mobile Ad hoc Networks Very High Speeds All three statistically indifferent.
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Energy Results The energy consumed for a retransmission is much higher than the energy
consumed for a transmission. For stationary ad hoc networks,
As the BER increases the energy consumed per packet is much higher for RDNP and M-RDNP owing to the increase in the number of retransmissions.
RDNP consumes more energy than M-RDNP because of high drop ratio hidden terminals.
For mobile ad hoc networks As the mobility increases, the energy consumed also increases. For low BER the energy consumed by RDNP and IEEE 802.11 is almost the
same, because no energy is lost in retransmissions. M-RDNP consumes the least energy for low BER because is does not lose
packets due to hidden terminals. For higher BER RDNP and M-RDNP consumes more energy because of
retransmissions
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Conclusions RDNP and M-RDNP was proposed as a NACK based reliable
multicast extension to IEEE 802.11 Reliable multicast is extremely desirable when channel BER
is high. Frequent changes in route caused by SPST, “not good” for
the MAC layer. Energy cost associated with retransmission very high. For very high speed networks MAC layer is insignificant.
Future Work Addition of energy saving strategies Adapt the MAC layer based on the network characteristics Estimate the link metric for SPST based on the conclusions
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Thank You!
Questions ?
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
References[Com 99] ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.11 Wireless LAN medium control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications, In 1999
Edition.[DJ98] J. Deng, Z. J. Haas, “Dual Busy Tone Multiple Access (DBTMA): A New Medium Access Control for Packet Radio
Networks”, In IEEE ICUPC’98, Italy, 1998.[KK01] J. Kuri, S. Kasera, “Reliable Multicast in Multi-access Wireless LANs”, Wireless Networks, 7(4):359-369, July 2001.[Net02] Network Simulator – ns-2, Available via http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/, [Accessed on Aug 02][Sha02] Vikram Shankar, “A Medium Access Control Protocol with reliable multicast support for wireless networks”, Master’s
Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, December 2002[SG03] Ganesh Sridharan and Sandeep K.S.Gupta, “Performance comparison study of self stabilizing routing protocols for mobile
ad hoc networks”, In preparation[GBS00] Sandeep K.S. Gupta, A. Bouadallah and P.K. Srimani, “Self Stabilizing Protocols for Shortest Path Tree for multi-cast
routing in mobile networks”, In proceedings of LCNS:1900, Euro-Par’00 Parallel Proceedings, pages 600-604, 2000.[TKP97] Fouad A. Tobagi and Leonard Kleinrock, “Comparison of Sender-Initiated and Receiver-Initiated Multicast Protocols”, In
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, April 1997.[SHAL02] Min-Te Sun, Lifei Huang, Anish Arora and Ten-Hwang Lai, “Reliable MAC Layer Multicast in IEEE 802.11 wireless
networks”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel Processing, ICPP ’02, pages 527-536, August 2002.[XGB02] K.Xu, M.Gerla and S.Bae, “How effective is the IEEE 802.11 RTS/CTS handshake in ad hoc networks”, In Proceedings
of IEEE Globecom 2002.[TG00a] Kent Tang and Mario Gerla. “MAC Layer Broadcast Support in 802.11 Wireless Networks”, In Proceedings of 21st
Century Military Communication Conference, MILCOM’00, pages 544-548, 2000[TG00b] Kent Tang and Mario Gerla. “Random Access MAC for Efficient Broadcast Support in Ad Hoc Networks”, In IEEE
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC 2000, pages 454-459, 2000[TG01] Kent Tang and Mario Gerla. “MAC Reliable Broadcast Ad hoc Networks”, In Communications for Network Centric
Operations: Creating the Information force. IEEE Military Communication Conference, MILCOM’01, pages 1008-1013, 2001
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Medium Access Issues Capture Effect
Picks up stronger signal as long as the ratio of the stronger to weaker signal exceeds the capture threshold.
Node B
Node P
Node G
Node O
Oops! I would like to transmit but cannot !!!
EXPOSED TERMINAL
Exposed Terminals Nodes within the senders range
but not within the receivers range Reduces throughput
Node B Node G
Can still pick up packet from Node B
Node O
Signal from Node B
Signal from Node G> Capture
Threshold
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Why RTS-CTS does not work ???
Node A Node B
RX
Node C1
ABd78.1
dAB
Node C2
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
DATA
CTS
RTS
Leader Based ProtocolSender
Non groupneighbor
Groupneighbor
GroupLeader
RTS
CTS
DATA
ACK
NCTS NACK
DIFS
SIFS
SIFS
SIFS Sender
Leader
Groupneighbors
Update NAV from RTSUpdate NAV from CTS
ACK
Problems: Leader Mobility reduces throughput “Capture Effect” may hide NCTS and NAK from distant nodes Incoming nodes may not have heard RTS/CTS exchange and may cause collision Sender has to know the multicast group members a priori
Related Work
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Busy Tone Solution to Hidden Terminals
RTS
Node B Node O Node G Node P
tone Cannot transmit because I sense a receiver busy tone
Problems:Extra hardware, more energy
Related Work
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Area around a Transmitter
Node A
RX
CSI
RL
CS
Reliable Neighbors: All neighbors within the collision free zone.
Unreliable Neighbors: All neighbors not in the reliable range
Protocol
Collision Free Zone: The area around a transmitter in which receiver do not suffer from hidden terminals when the transmitter is transmitting data.
Collision Zone: The area around the transmitter within which receivers are within the range of the sender but might suffer from hidden terminals.
Interference Free Zone: The area around a transmitter within which no node transmits because of physical carrier sensing.
Interference Zone: The area around a transmitter within which nodes can cause hidden terminal problems for receivers in the collision zone.
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Calculate RL and CSI
RX1.78CSI
RX1.78d
RXd10.0SNR
BC
ABT
and
78.2
1
and
CSRL
SNR
CSd
dCSd10.0SNR
4T
AB
ABBCT
For CSI -
For RL -
Node A Node B Node C
dAB dBC
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
An example RL ≈ 170m
Number of hops = 4 Number of hops = 6
Routes using IEEE 802.11 and RDNP at the MAC layer
Routes using M-RDNP at the MAC layer
Protocol
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
SPST Self Stabilizing Routing Protocol Every node periodically sends out beacon messages Using values in the beacon messages SPST builds routes to
the root of the multicast group.
Algorithm SPST
If received beacon from node j thenupdate neighbor list with Node jif Node j is the root then
distir = 0
Parenti = null
elsedistir = minimum(distir, weightij + distjr)
Parenti = j
endifendif
Related Work
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Confidence Interval
Each sample mean is an estimate of the population mean With k samples we have k estimates Problem: get one from k. Best is get probabilistic bounds Two bounds c1 and c2 such that there is a high probability, 1-α, that the population
means is in interval (c1,c2)Probability(c1≤μ≤c2) = 1-α(c1,c2) confidence interval α significance level(≈0)100(1- α) confidence level (≈100)1- α confidence coefficient(≈1)
n
szx
n
szx 2121
,
Population = {…,xi,…} Sample = {x1, x2 , x3 … xn}
Population Mean μ
Population Standard deviation σ
Sample mean xmean
Sample standard deviation s or standard error
Parameters (population) fixed Statistics (sample) random variable
Confidence Level
Z(1-α/2)
90 1.645
95 1.960
99 2.576
mean x
accuracy r
deviation standard s
desired interval confidence z
runs ofnumber
1002
n
xr
zsn
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Energy - Stationary Ad Hoc networks
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.0020.004
0.0060.008
0.010.012
0.0140.016
0.018
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0 5 10 30 50 70 100
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
BER (X 10e5) BER (X 10e5)
BER (X 10e5) BER (X 10e5)
Nodes = 10, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 4,3 Nodes = 20, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 6,4
Nodes = 30, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 8,5 Nodes = 40, Avg. neighbor density ≈ 10,6
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
Results
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Energy – MANETs (Walking Speeds)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.00050.001
0.00150.002
0.00250.003
0.00350.004
0.0045
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.0020.004
0.0060.008
0.010.012
0.0140.016
0.018
4 8 12 16 20
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
Nodes = 10, Low BER Nodes = 30, Low BER
Nodes = 10, High BER Nodes = 30, High BER
Results
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Energy – MANETS (Vehicular Speeds)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
Nodes = 10, Low BER Nodes = 30, Low BER
Nodes = 10, High BER Nodes = 30, High BER
Speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)
Results
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
AV
G E
nerg
y
con
su
med
per
packet
April 2003 Mobile Computing and Networking GroupArizona State University
Reliability – MANETS (Very High Speed ≈ 100miles/hr)
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0.3
0.350.4
0.450.5
0.550.6
0.650.7
0.75
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
0.3
0.350.4
0.450.5
0.550.6
0.650.7
0.75
44 133 222 300
IEEE 802.11
RDNP
M-RDNP
Nodes = 10, Low BER Nodes = 30, Low BER
Nodes = 10, High BER Nodes = 30, High BER
Speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
AV
G D
RO
P R
ATIO
Results