1. THE IMPACT OF OSPF ROUTING ON MILITARY MANETS BY ROCCO LUPOI UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF DR. GRANT WIGLEY THESIS - BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (HONOURS) - LHIS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA THE DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION

2. OUTLINE  Overview Hypothesis. Overview of Military Structure. What is a MANET? What is a routing protocol? Motivations Methodology Theoretical component: Designing network architectures and topology's that best represent the configuration used in military MANETs. Experimental component: Implement and demonstrate designed network architectures for OSPF in a network simulation tool, and analyse the impact of OSPF on the network. Conclusions & Future Work

3. HYPOTHESIS An ‘off the shelf’ routing algorithm such as OSPF [Open Shortest Path First] can be used to efficiently support a military MANET even under limited conditions such as low bandwidth, high drop outs, and unit mobility.

4. OVERVIEW OF MILITARY STRUCTURE Structured. Areas of battle do not have any infrastructure. Unknown terrain and environmental variables. Use of satellites costly in set up times and monetary value. Hence the use of MANETs.

5. WHAT IS A MANET? A MANET is known as a Mobile Ad Hoc NETwork. Rapidly deployable, self configuring. It is a continuously self-changing, infrastructure-less network of mobile devices usually connected without wires. Each device on a MANET is free to move independently in any direction and will automatically change its links to other devices frequently. Ideal for military ‘on-the-fly’ network setup on a battlefield.

6. MANET CHALLENGES Limited Bandwidth Dynamic Topology Routing Overhead Hidden Terminal Problem Packet losses Mobility-induced route changes. Battery/Device constraints. Security threats. What about routing?

7. WHAT IS A ROUTING PROTOCOL? Specifies how routers communicate with each other. A formula, protocol or algorithm that is used by a router to determine the appropriate path over which data is transmitted. Lots of factors come into account when the router is making this decision. OSPF is a dynamic routing algorithm that detects changes in the network topology such as link failures, and converges on a new loop-free structure within seconds. There are many routing protocols already designed for use in MANETs. OSPF has been requested by the DSTO for this analysis.

8. MOTIVATION Why OSPF on a military MANET? Routing protocols are an inherently expensive business. Saving the development of a custom routing protocol saves both time and money when the net result (connectivity and QoS) may be similar/better by using an existing technology. Pros: Cheaper. Technology already developed. Tried and tested algorithms. Cons: As the technology was not developed with the purpose/intention of it’s use in MANETs: May not support low bandwidth model very well. May not support mobility model very well.

9. OUTLINE Overview Hypothesis. Overview of Military Structure. What is a MANET? What is a routing protocol? Motivations  Methodology Theoretical component: Designing network architectures and topology's that best represent the configuration used in military MANETs. Experimental component: Implement and demonstrate designed network architectures for OSPF in a network simulation tool, and analyse the impact of OSPF on the network. Conclusions & Future Work

10. METHODOLOGY There are a two main methods we can use in undertaking this kind of analysis. Full Scale Implementation Time Consuming. Costly. Gives very accurate results. Network Simulation Tool Much Cheaper. Still gives accurate results. Saves time setting up physical hardware and links. Simulating the network on a trusted and professional network simulation tool is key to accurate and reliable results. NS2/3 [Network Simulator 2 / 3] – Open Source, good community support, not the best support for routing algorithms requested. OPNET Simulator [Optimized Network Engineering Tools] – Closed Source, plenty of publications, very well known in the industry, full support for all routing algorithms requested.

11. PHASE 2 THEORY – CASE 1A TOPOLOGY

12. CASE 1A – NO SUMMARY ROUTE, NO ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC SENT (BITS/SEC)

13. CASE 1A – NO SUMMARY ROUTE, NO ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC RECEIVED (BITS/SEC)

14. PHASE 2 THEORY – CASE 1B

15. CASE 1B – ADDRESS SUMMARIZATION, NO ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC SENT (BITS/SEC)

16. CASE 1B – ADDRESS SUMMARIZATION, NO ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC RECEIVED (BITS/SEC)

17. PHASE 2 THEORY – CASE 2

18. CASE 2 – NO SUMMARY ROUTE, ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC SENT (BITS/SEC)

19. CASE 2 – NO SUMMARY ROUTE, ROUTING EXPOSURE OSPF TRAFFIC RECEIVED (BITS/SEC)

20. PHASE 3 THEORY - FULL SCALE SIMULATION

21. FULL SCALE OSPF TRAFFIC SENT (BITS/SEC) FOR CO1, CO2, CO3 HUBS

22. FULL SCALE OSPF TRAFFIC RECEIVED (BITS/SEC) FOR CO1, CO2, CO3 HUBS

23. FULL SCALE OSPF TRAFFIC SENT (BITS/SEC) FOR BN_HUB

24. FULL SCALE OSPF TRAFFIC RECEIVED (BITS/SEC) FOR BN_HUB

25. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS As shown, it can be concluded that the overhead of OSPF is too great. If summarization is performed full IP connectivity is plausible. Problem lies in the loss of mobility model – essential to the MANETs. Off the shelf OSPF is not a viable routing protocol for use in MANETs. Future works include: Continue research into other off the shelf routing algorithms. Work with communication and radio manufacturers to tune the simulation models closer to real world implementation. Working with the manufacturers to help determine what a routing algorithm that best suits the technology would need to adhere to. Focus more on MANET developed routing algorithms that are based on off the shelf routing algorithms (i.e. OSPF-MDR; the MANET extension of OSPF)

26. THANKYOU Dr. Grant Wigley Tom Schar Peter Boyd