Architecture & Protocols for Supporting Routing & QoS in MANET

  • View
    25

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Architecture & Protocols for Supporting Routing & QoS in MANET. Navid NIKAEIN. http://www.eurecom.fr/~nikaeinn. Outline. Introduction Motivation Topology Management Route Determination Quality of Service Support Architecture Conclusion and Open Issues. Issues in MANET. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript

  • *Architecture & Protocols for Supporting Routing & QoS in MANETNavid NIKAEIN http://www.eurecom.fr/~nikaeinn

  • *OutlineIntroductionMotivationTopology Management Route Determination Quality of Service SupportArchitectureConclusion and Open Issues

  • *Issues in MANET

    Mobile ad hoc networks: Wireless broadcasting collision Mobility time-varying resources link FailureLack of infrastructure fully-distributed ComplexSmall devices limited resources multihop routing

    Topology Management, Routing, and QoS

  • *Topology of MANETBASEFHJDCGIKZYRepresents a node that has received packet P

    Represents that connected nodes are within each others transmission rangeMNL

  • *MotivationBASEFHJDCGIKRepresents a node that receives packet P forthe first time

    Represents transmission of packet PZYBroadcast transmissionMNL

  • *MotivationBASEFHJDCGIKZYMNL

  • *MotivationBASEFHJDCGIKGenerate redundant and unnecessary informationZYMNL

  • *MotivationBASEFHJDCGIKZYMTransmissions may collide Packet P may not be delivered to node D at all, despite the use of floodingNL

  • *MotivationBASEFHJDCGIKZYMNLFlooding generates: Redundant and unnecessary information Collision

  • *Related Work-Topology ManagementTopology ManagementPower ControlClustering

    Non-deterministic

    Deterministic Pb. Minimum dominating setNP-hard Core-extraction & Spanning-tree algorithms DDR TEMPOe.g. Lowest ID, Max Degree

  • *Topology ManagementDDR- Distributed Dynamic Routing Algorithm [2,3]IntuitionPreferred neighbor electionForest Construction Zone PartitioningSimulation ModelPerformance Results Summary

  • *IntuitionNetwork TopologyForest TREE TREE . TREE ZONE ZONE . ZONETimeBEACONBEACONCriteria

  • *Preferred Neighbor Election

    Each node selects a neighbor, called preferred neighbor, that has the maximum degree of connectivityIf identical degrees, select the one with the higher ID

    abefcdgh24243531PNx={y | yNx label(y) = Max(deg(Nx) | NID) }abefcdgh4243531

  • *Forest Construction

    Theorem: Connecting each node to its preferred neighbor yields to a forest [2]

    Mechanism: Beaconing

    abefcdgh Forest limits the number of forwarding nodes, which reduces the redundant and unnecessary information as well as the probability of collisionabefcdgh

  • *Zone PartitioningZone TreeMaintained Proactively abfcsykdtxgvwzhueinabfcsykdtxgvwzhueinDDRz1z2z3 Zones : Improves delay performance Contributes in protocol scalabilityConnected Dominating Set

  • *Criteria for FC [4]:Quality of Connectivity (QoC) Buffer level b unallocated bufferStability level s

    QoC = b + s PNx={y | yNx label(y) = Max(QoC(Nx) | NID) }The PNs belong to the set of high quality nodes

  • *Protocol ModelTo study the effect of the proposed topology management on routing performance ?

    Hybrid Ad Hoc Routing Protocol (HARP) [5]Discover the shortest pathEstablish forward and reverse path

  • *Simulation Model [Johansson, Perkins, Broach]Traffic model:CBR512 byte/packet4 packets/secondSource 10, 20, 30Performance Metrics:Packet delivery fractionAvg. E2E delayRouting overhead

    Movement model:Random way point [Yoon]50 nodes1500mx300m0-20 m/s (or 1-20m/s)900 simulated secondsPause time=0, 30, 60, 150, 300, 600, 90010 scenarios for each pause timeBeaconing: 10 sQoC = 2 s + b

  • *Packet Delivery Fraction10 sources20 sources30 sources Simple routing has a slightly better PDF in low traffic load Routing+TM outperforms simple routing up to 20% as the traffic load increases

  • *Avg. E2E Delay Routing +TM significantly improves the delay performance up to 200ms as the network conditions become stressful Shortest path is not enough10 sources20 sources30 sources

  • *Routing Overhead (pkt) Simple Routing outperforms Routing+TM in low/medium traffic load Most of the packets produced by Routing+TM are the beacons10 sources20 sources30 sources

  • *Routing Overhead (bytes)10 sources20 sources30 sources Simple Routing outperforms Routing+TM in low/medium traffic load

  • *Summary

    Overall PerformanceLow traffic loadMedium traffic loadHigh traffic load Low MobilityFlat RoutingSimilarRouting +TMMedium MobilityFlat RoutingRouting +TMRouting +TMHigh Mobility Similar Routing +TMRouting +TM

  • *Motivation for Route Selection The effect of mobility rate and traffic load on DELAY Issue: load balancing Adjusting the weight of QoC solves the problem of load balancing within a zone10 sources20 sources30 sourcesLoad Balancing

  • *Routing IssuesDilemma at a node:Do I keep track of routes to all destinations, or instead keep track of only those that are of immediate interest?Three strategies:Proactive: keep track of all routes.Reactive: only those routes of immediate interest.Hybrid: partial proactive / partial reactive.

  • *Related Work-RoutingAd Hoc RoutingTopology-basedPosition-basedProactiveReactiveHybridOLSRTBRPFDSDVWRPCGSRFSH-HSRLANMARProactiveReactiveHybridDSRAODVRDMARABRSSRTORAZHLSZRPCBRPHARP

    DREAM LAR TerminodesGLSALM

  • *Route Determination [5,6]HARP- Hybrid Ad Hoc Routing Protocol [5,6] Intra-zone and Inter-zone routingRelative distance estimation [Aggelou, Tafazolli] Quality of service support Performance Results [Osafune]Summary

  • *HARP: Hybrid Routingabfcsykdtxgvwzhueinz1z2z3Zone abstractionZ1Z3Z2Intra-zone RoutingInter-zone Routingmrz4Z4src zonedst zoneShortcut intra-zone routing- Zone level routing

  • *Mechanisms to Achieve Load BalancingInter-zone routing: route selection is done at the destination Load balancing requires:A set of route candidatesA set of route metricsIssues:CongestionSingle route metricProposed mechanisms :Relative distance estimationQuality of service metrics

  • *Relative Distance EstimationSRCDSTSrcOffsetDstOffsetRD_Offsetd x R Offset= mobility x elapsed time

  • *Relative Distance EstimationSRCDSTSrcOffsetPath_offsetRD_Offsetd x R Offset= mobility x elapsed time

  • *Query Localization Technique dstd=1d=2d=3d=ksrcxx if (rd(x,dst)>rd(src,d))Drop PREQ;

    else if (rd(x,dst)

  • *Quality of Service Support [7] 2nd Class3rd ClassDelayThroughputQoSServiceBest-Effort1st Classh.(r-b)/cQoCc/(2h.(r-b))1/sLegend h : hop countr : buffer sizeb : buffer occupancyc : nodes throughputs : stability

    Application QoS Network QoC

  • *Simulation Model [Johansson, Perkins, Broach]Traffic model:CBR512 byte/packet4 packets/secondSource 10, 20, 30Performance Metrics:Packet delivery fractionAvg. E2E delayRouting overhead

    Movement model:Random way point [Yoon]50 nodes1500mx300m0-20 m/s (or 1-20m/s)900 simulated secondsPause time=0, 30, 60, 150, 300, 600, 90010 scenarios for each pause time

  • *Packet Delivery Fraction10 sources20 sources30 sources The effect of mobility and traffic load is not uniform Congestion stems from the lack of load balancing in the protocols

  • *Avg. E2E Delay10 sources20 sources30 sources The effect of traffic load and mobility on the delay performance is non-uniform Load balancing :weight of QoCRelative distance estimation

  • *Avg. E2E Delay10 sources20 sources30 sources Delay performance has significant improved QoS metrics is the key factor for load balancing effect

  • *Packet Delivery Fraction10 sources20 sources30 sources QoS metrics has no significant effect on PDF Route discovery and route maintenance are the key factors for improving PDF Deal with Traffic load/pattern and mobility model/rate

  • *Summary

    Overall PerformanceLow traffic loadMedium traffic loadHigh traffic load Low MobilityHARP +TMHARP +TMHARP +TMMedium MobilityHARP +TMSimilarHARP +TMHigh Mobility HARP +TMSimilarHARP +TM

  • *

    Architecture ApplicationHARPDDRNetwork Topology Management With respect to Quality of Network Route DeterminationWith respect to Application requirements AN ARCHITECTURE THAT SEPARATES [1]: QoS Classes

    QoS:Delay TPut BENetwork QualityQoC:Power, bufferStability

  • *ConclusionTopology management improves routingLoad balancing HARP QoS metrics and RDEDDR QoC metricsControl flooding overheadForest redundancy & collisionRelative distance estimation scopeScalability and delay performance zone abstraction

  • *ConclusionRouting requires:Adaptive topology managementLoad balancingCongestion avoidance mechanisms Neighboring information Factors affecting routing performanceNetwork size, mobility rate and model, traffic load and pattern, network densityTraffic locality vs. network size

  • *Future Work Optimal criteria of forest ConstructionIntroduce an adaptive routing mechanisms Effect of the factors affecting routing performance

  • *Publications[1] N. Nikaein and C. Bonnet, An Architecture for Improving Routing and Network Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Network, Kluwer/ACM MONET, 2003.[2] N. Nikaein, H. Labiod, and C. Bonnet, DDR-- Distributed Dunamic Routing Algorithm for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, MobiHoc, 2000.[3] N. Nikaein, S. Wu, C. Bonnet and H. Labiod, Designing Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, DNAC, 2000. [4] N. Nikaein and C. Bonnet, Improving Routing and Network Performance in MANET using Quality of Nodes, WiOpt, 2003

  • *Publications[5] Navid Nikaein, C. Bonnet and Neda Nikaein, HARP- Hybrid Ad Hoc Routing Protocol , IST, 2001.[6] Navid Nikaein, C. Bonnet, N. Akhtar and R. Tafazolli, HARP-v2 Hybrid Ad Hoc Routing Protocol , To be submitted, 2003.[7] N. Nikaein and C. Bonnet, A Glance at Quality of Service models in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,