MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri {ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu} Berkeley Web Over Wireless Group wow.eecs.berkeley.edu

MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen

MEWLANA-Mobile IP Enriched Wireless Local Area Network Architecture

byMustafa Ergen

Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj PuriAuthors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri{ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu}{ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu}

Berkeley Web Over Wireless GroupBerkeley Web Over Wireless Groupwow.eecs.berkeley.eduwow.eecs.berkeley.edu

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of California BerkeleyUniversity of California Berkeley


Introduction

Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc Networks Overview Motivation Network Architecture Protocol Previous Work -MIPMANET -on demand routing MEWLANA-TD - table driven routing MEWLANA-RD –root driven routing (mesh networks) Performance Analysis Conclusion


Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc NetworksMobile IP Retain a fixed IP identity while moving.

Mobile Node (MN) Home Agent (HA) Foreign Agent (FA) Correspondent Host (CH)

Agent Advertisement Registration Tunneling

Ad-Hoc Network

No network infrastructure. Special routing protocol

Internet

Internet

HA

FA

MN

CH

FA

AB


Motivation

Mobile IP in Ad hoc Networkх High cost for building a large number of basesх Total throughput limited by the number of cells in the area.х High power consumption of mobile stations having the same

transmission range as bases. х Ad hoc networks are limited to be small scale. The number of bases or the transmission ranges of both mobile

stations can be reduced. Connections are still allowed without base stations Multiple packets can be simultaneously transmitted within a

cell Paths are less vulnerable than the ones in ad hoc networks

because the bases can help reduce the wireless hop count.


Motivation

Does this new architecture impose new traffic characteristic? Inside traffic, Outside Traffic

Can we classify the environments based on the traffic characteristics?

Small or large size ad hoc network Intensity of inside and outside traffic

Does using one kind of ad hoc routing give optimum result in all environments?


Motivation

Example; Intensity of outside traffic = constant

A conference

Big Size NetworkHigh Inside Traffic

A subway

Big Size NetworkNegligible Inside Traffic

A rescue mission

Small Size NetworkHigh Inside Traffic


Network Architecture

FAMIP

MN1Adhoc/MIP

MN4Adhoc/MIP

MN3Adhoc/MIP

MN2Adhoc/MIP

CHHAMIP

none

Internet/MIP

FA Domain

Ad Hoc Domain

Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

Table Driven Routing :DSDV, …

On Demand RoutingAODV, DSR, …

Route Driven Routing TBBR (Tree Based Bidirectional Routing)


Tree Based Bidirectional Routing

Mesh Network:Routes from Foreign Agent to Mobiles

Routes from Mobiles to Foreign Agent


Protocol-Main Components

Discovering Base StationUnicast or Broadcast

Registration MechanismInform the HA of the current location of the mobile

Tunneling Mechanism from HA to FA

Delivery from FA to mobile FA keeps a table of MAC address and IP address pair

FA Domain

FA MN2

MN1

Ad hoc Domain

Ad hoc Domain

Gateway Mobile


Beacon: Agent Advertisement Message (modified ICMP)

Domain specific info: DNS, CoA, hop count, source address.

FA and MN duplicates the beacon : hop count ++

Hop count is to limit the serviced nodes and a decision mechanism

MN`s new access point = CoA

Mobile establish the route to the FA

Protocol-Agent Discovery


Protocol-Registration

Normal Mobile IP Registration

Registration Request: MN4->MN3->MN2->MN1->FA->HA Registration Reply: HA->FA->MN1->MN2->MN3->MN4

Registration Request can get lost: MN & HA not registered.

Registration Reply can get lost: MN not registered but HA.

Periodic registration update.


Protocol-Tunneling

•Tunneling from HA to FA.

Ethernet Header FA addr. HA addr. MN addr. CH addr. Packet

MN addr. CH addr. Packet

• Decapsulating in FA.

Ethernet Header MN addr. CH addr. Packet

• Sending from FA to MN.

Gateway Mobile Node MAC Address


Protocol-Hop Count

• Lifetime of agent advertisement = X hop count• Change access point by considering hop count.

FA1 FA2

A

B

C

D

E

F

FA FA2

MN1 MN2

Ad hoc Domain


Protocol-OVERHEAD

MIPO: Mobile IP OverheadBeacon Flooding

AHRO: Ad Hoc Routing Overhead Routing Table Formation

NHIT: Number of Hops for Inside Traffic Source and Destination is in the same ad hoc domain

NHOT: Number of Hops for Outside Traffic Load = constantSource and Destination is in different domains


Previous Work-MIPMANET

Designed with on demand routing

Agent Advertisement Beacon Flooding

Ad Hoc RoutingAODVCreate route before send

High MIPOAHRO reducedNHIT depends on size


MEWLANA-TD

Designed with table driven routing

Agent Advertisement :Dynamic BeaconingInitiate advertisement when the routing table changes

Ad Hoc RoutingDSDV- route table exchange

Low MIPOHigh AHRONHIT depends on size


MEWLANA-TDDestination Next Hop

MN1 MN2 MN2MN3 MN2MN4 MN2FA FA* FA

MN2 MN1 MN1MN3 MN3MN4 MN3FA MN1* MN1



CH

MN4

HA

Ad hoc Domain

Internet

MN2

MN1

FA

MN3

RegistrationData Packets via HARoute Optimization

FA Domain

Dynamic Beaconing There exists a route for each

node

Low MIPO High AHRO NHIT depends on size


MEWLANA-RD

.

FA

MN1

MN3

MN6

MN2

MN5

MN4

MN2 dst nexth.(1) * MN1(2) MN1 MN1(2) MN4 MN4(2) MN5 MN5

MN4 dst nexth.(1) * MN2(1) MN2 MN2

Internet

MN1 dst nexth.(1) * FA(1) FA FA(2) MN2 MN2(2) MN4 MN2(2) MN5 MN2(2) MN3 MN3(2) MN6 MN3



MN3 dst nexth.(1) * MN1(1) MN1 MN1(2) MN6 MN6

(1) Beacon(2) Reg. Request

DLN=1

DLN=2

DLN=2

DLN=3

DLN=3

DLN=3

Depth Level Number (DLN): Hop Count: eliminate loopRoutes (1) From mobile to FA : Beacon Routes (2) From FA to mobiles: Multi Hop Registration Request


MEWLANA-RD

Multi Hop Registration Request

-

Destination IP Address

UDP Header

Type| Service Bits| Life Time

Home Address

Home Agent

Care of Address

Identification

Extensions

Source IP Address

Ethernet Header

Reg

istr

atio

n R

eque

st F

ield

s

-

MN2

UDP Header


MN4

HA

FA

Identification

Extensions

MN4

Ethernet Header

Reg

istr

atio

n R

eque

st F

ield

s

-

MN1

UDP Header


MN4

HA

FA

Identification

Extensions

MN2

Ethernet Header

Reg

istr

atio

n R

eque

st F

ield

s

-

FA

UDP Header


MN4

HA

FA

Identification

Extensions

MN1

Ethernet Header

Reg

istr

atio

n R

eque

st F

ield

s

MN4 MN2 MN1 FA


MEWLANA-RD

-

Beacon floodingCreate treePerformance degradation in inside trafficIf in different tree, connect with Mobile IP

High MIPONo AHROHigher NHIT compared to others


Empirical Classification

Low High

Small

Large

Intensity level of Inside traffic

Ad Hoc network size

MIPMANET

MEWLANA-RD

MEWLANA-T

D

III

III

IV


Simulation Parameters

NS-2

CBR Source : 1-1010 packets per second512bytesBeacon Period: 1 sec.Nodes:{4,8,32,64,128}PF Performance FactorB=C=D=1A is scaling factorPF: Performance Factor

NHITD

AHROC

MIPOB

APF

1111


Simulation

Performance Factor


Conclusion

Classification of the environmentSize and traffic intensity

MEWLANA-TD : Small size and High inside trafficDynamic Beaconing

MEWLANA-RD: Large size and Low inside trafficEliminate Ad hoc Routing Protocol Overhead

MIPMANET : Large size and High inside trafficDemand routing protocol when there is need.


Reference

• Royer, C. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks” IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 6, No.2, pp.46-55, April 1999.

• Broch J., Maltx D. ,Johnson D.,Hu Y.,Jetcheva J., “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”, The fourth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking, October 25-30, 1998, Dallas, TX USA

• Ulf Jonsson, Fredrik Alriksson, Tony Larsson, Per Johansson, Gerald Q. Maquire Jr. MIPMANET-Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, MOBIHOC 2000.

• Hui Lei and Charles E. Perkins, “Ad hoc networking with Mobile IP” in Proceedings of 2nd European Personal Mobile Communication Conference, Sept. 1997.

Documents

MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri {ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu} Berkeley Web Over Wireless Group wow.eecs.berkeley.edu