1 / 28

Wireless Ad hoc networks Routing

Wireless Ad hoc networks Routing. Proposed ad hoc Routing Approaches. Conventional wired-type schemes (global routing, proactive ): Distance Vector; Link State Proactive ad hoc routing: OLSR , TBRPF On- Demand, reactive routing: DSR (Source routing), MSR, BSR AODV (Backward learning).

gene
Download Presentation

Wireless Ad hoc networks Routing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Wireless Ad hoc networks Routing

  2. Proposed ad hoc Routing Approaches • Conventional wired-type schemes (global routing, proactive): • Distance Vector; Link State • Proactivead hoc routing: • OLSR, TBRPF • On- Demand, reactive routing: • DSR (Source routing), MSR, BSR • AODV (Backward learning)

  3. Wireless multihop routing challenges • mobility • need to scale to large numbers (100’s to 1000's) • need to support multimedia applications (QoS) • unreliable radio channel (fading, external interference, mobility, etc) • limited bandwidth • limited power

  4. Conventional wired routing limitations • Distance Vector (eg, Bellman-Ford, BGP): • Tables grow linearly with # nodes • routing control O/H linearly increasing with network size • convergence problems (count to infinity); potential loops (mobility?) • Link State (eg, OSPF): • link update flooding O/H caused by network size and frequent topology changes CONVENTIONAL ROUTING DOES NOT SCALE TO SIZE AND MOBILITY DV LS Intra-AS RIP OSPF Inter-AS BGP

  5. Proactive ad hoc schemes– OLSR and TBRPF • Link State explodes because of Link State update overhead • Question: how can we reduce the O/H? • Answer: Link State with “Topology reduction” • (1) if the network is “dense”, use fewer forwarding nodes • (2) if the network is dense, advertise only a subset of the links • Two leading IETF Link State schemes enhance scalability in large scale networks: • OLSR : Optimal Link State Routing • TBRPF: Topology Broadcast Reverse Path Routing

  6. 24 retransmissions to diffuse a message up to 3 hops Retransmission node LSR (Link State Routing) • In LSR protocol a lot of control msg unnecessary duplicated

  7. 11 retransmission to diffuse a message up to 3 hops Retransmission node OLSR (Optimal Link State Routing) • In OLSR only a subset of neighbors (MPR-Multipoint Relay Selectors) retransmit control messages: • Reduce size of control message; • Minimize flooding

  8. OLSR Overview • RFC 3626, October 2003 • In LSR protocol a lot of control messages unnecessarily duplicated • In OLSR only a subset of neighbors (MPR-Multipoint Relay Selectors) retransmit control messages • Reduce flooding overhead • Adapted for dense network • OLSR retains all the advantages of LSR: • stable; • Does not depend upon any central entity; • Tolerates loss of control messages; • Supports nodes mobility

  9. On-Demand Routing Protocols • Routes are established “on demand” as requested by the source • Only the active routes are maintained by each node • Channel/Memory overhead is minimized • Two leading methods for route discovery: source routing and backward learning (similar to LAN interconnection routing)

  10. Existing On-Demand Protocols • Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) -- CMU • Multipath Source Routing (MSR) – TJU • Backup Source Routing (BSR) – UofO+TJU • Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) • Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) • Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) • Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) • Location assisted routing (LAR, DREAM) • Signal Stability Based Adaptive Routing (SSA) • On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) – UCLA

  11. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) • RFC 4728 – February 2007 • Forwarding: source route driven instead of hop-by-hop route table driven • Mobility ? • No periodic routing update message is sent • The first path discovered is selected as the route • Two main phases • Route Discovery • Route Maintenance

  12. DSR - Route Discovery • To establish a route, the source floods a Route Request message with a unique request ID • The Route Request packet “picks up” the node ID numbers • Route Reply message containing path information is sent back to the source either by • the destination, or • intermediate nodes that have a route to the destination • Each node maintains a Route Cache which records routes it has learned and overheard over time

  13. DSR - Route Maintenance • Route maintenance performed only while route is in use • Monitors the validity of existing routes by passively listening to acknowledgments of data packets transmitted to neighboring nodes • When problem detected, send Route Error packet to original sender to perform new route discovery

  14. MSR - Multipath Source Routing • Direct Descendant of DSR • On-demand + Source Routing + Multipath • Probing-based adaptive load balancing among multiple paths • Motivation of MSR • Efficiently using the network resource • Alleviate the oscillation in adaptive single path routing • Fast re-routing • Reducing computing & storage requirement • Exploiting computing power of host instead of link capacity

  15. Distributing Traffic among Multiple Paths • Quantities: A heuristic equation • Probing-based adaptive control • Decoupling between transport layer and network layer: SRPing • Cost effective • Scheduling: Packet Weighted Round Robin • TCP out-of-order (re-sequencing) problem

  16. Distributing Traffic among Multiple Paths • Heuristic equation • Rationale: Autonomous system, homogeneous assumption, bandwidth-delay product constant where , is the delay of route with index i, is the maximum delay of all the routes to the same destination, R is a factor to control the switching frequency between routes. U is a bound value to insure that should not to be too large.

  17. MSR Summary • Reduce network congestion • Improve throughput, delay, mobility, fault tolerance (CBR & FTP) • Acceptable routing overhead? • Little more than that of DSR • Route discovery • Route maintenance • Probing (unicast) add little O/H • Good candidate for QoS support • QoS-MSR, reliable-MSR • Acceptable packet out-of-order level ?

  18. Backup Source Routing (BSR) • Establish and maintain backup routes that can be utilized after the primary path breaks • Define a new routing metric - route reliability, and use it to provide the basis for the backup path selection • Reduce the frequency of route discovery flooding, which is a major overhead in on-demand protocols • Can improve the performance significantly in more challenging situations of high mobility

  19. Simulation Methodology • ns – Wireless extensions by CMU • Adopt methods used in [Broch98, Johnson99] • Two major files: • Movement pattern file • Communication pattern file • 50 mobile hosts placed randomly within a 1500m×300m area • 20 connections • Different traffic types: CBR & FTP • Two set of simulations: Max speed 20m/s & 1m/s

  20. Performance Evaluation • MSR vs. DSR vs. BSR • Performance Metrics • Packet delivery ratio • Data throughput • End-to-end delay • Packet drop probability • Queue size

  21. Simulation Results with UDP Traffic -- Packet delivery ratio for 20 sources 8

  22. Simulation Results – CBR • End-to-end throughput

  23. Simulation Results with UDP Traffic -- Average end-to-end delay for 20 sources 11

  24. Simulation Results - CBR • Packets dropped at each node

  25. Previous Work on Using Multiple Paths • Alternate use (primary and backup) • It works OK for CBR traffic (BSR, Bypass - DSR, Node Disjoint M-path AODV, etc) • TCP does not get much benefit. Backup path is used only after timeout; not efficient in mobility/errors.? • Concurrent use (ie, packet scattering) • MSR • TCP does well in a static, error free net with long paths (up to 50% improvement) • With mobility & errors, TCP suffers out-of-order problems because of RTT difference on the two paths

  26. “TCP Performance on multiple paths in ad hoc nets..” Liaw et al ICC 2004 Static net, no errors, opt W: max improvement 50%; typical improvement between 8% and 18%

  27. Multiple Path TCP with Packet Replicas • TCP data packet duplication on multiple paths • May introduce less O/H than repeated end to end retransmissions • Improve end-to-end route robustness when single route is not stable: • Replicate packet on multiple paths • Combat random, non correlated link losses • Combat path breakage

  28. Variable Loss Rate[ 0.05;0.1;0.15;0.2] Total Throughput(bits/s) Mobility(m/s) Original TCP Multipath TCP

More Related