1 Using Directionality in Mobile Routing Bow-Nan Cheng (MIT LL) Murat Yuksel (Univ Nevada - Reno) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (IBM IRL) (Work done at Rensselaer.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
June 27, 2007 FIND Meeting, From Packet-Switching to Contract- Switching Aparna Gupta Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy,
Advertisements

A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar
Weak State Routing for Large Scale Dynamic Networks Utku Günay Acer, Shivkumar Kalyanaraman, Alhussein A. Abouzeid Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Department.
802.11a/b/g Networks Herbert Rubens Some slides taken from UIUC Wireless Networking Group.
Network Layer Routing Issues (I). Infrastructure vs. multi-hop Infrastructure networks: Infrastructure networks: ◦ One or several Access-Points (AP) connected.
VDR: Proactive element Conclusions VDR reaches 3.5% more nodes than VDR-R and 9% more nodes than our modified random walk routing strategy (RWR) VDR shows.
Rendezvous-Based Directional Routing: A Performance Analysis Bow-Nan Cheng (RPI) Murat Yuksel (UNR) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (RPI)
Fault Tolerant Routing in Tri-Sector Wireless Cellular Mesh Networks Yasir Drabu and Hassan Peyravi Kent State University Kent, OH
Self-Organizing Hierarchical Routing for Scalable Ad Hoc Networking David B. Johnson Department of Computer Science Rice University Monarch.
Directional Routing for Wireless Mesh Networks: A Performance Evaluation Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
MANETs Routing Dr. Raad S. Al-Qassas Department of Computer Science PSUT
Multicasting in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANET)
Wireless Capacity. A lot of hype Self-organizing sensor networks reporting on everything everywhere Bluetooth personal networks connecting devices City.
An Analysis of the Optimum Node Density for Ad hoc Mobile Networks Elizabeth M. Royer, P. Michael Melliar-Smith and Louise E. Moser Presented by Aki Happonen.
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #4 Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks AODV Routing.
Ad-Hoc Networking Course Instructor: Carlos Pomalaza-Ráez D. D. Perkins, H. D. Hughes, and C. B. Owen: ”Factors Affecting the Performance of Ad Hoc Networks”,
Effects of Applying Mobility Localization on Source Routing Algorithms for Mobile Ad Hoc Network Hridesh Rajan presented by Metin Tekkalmaz.
Orthogonal Rendezvous Routing Protocol for Wireless Mesh Networks Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks -- Overview and a case study Yinzhe Yu Oct. 8, 2003.
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #5 Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks TBRPF.
Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets.
Roadmap-Based End-to-End Traffic Engineering for Multi-hop Wireless Networks Mustafa O. Kilavuz Ahmet Soran Murat Yuksel University of Nevada Reno.
1 Virtual Direction Routing for Overlay Networks Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
Routing Two papers: Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks (2000) Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (1999)
ENHANCING AND EVALUATION OF AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VANET.
1 Using Directionality in Wireless Routing Bow-Nan Cheng Advisors: Dr. Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Dr. Partha Dutta.
Itrat Rasool Quadri ST ID COE-543 Wireless and Mobile Networks
Routing in mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). 1. WHAT IS A MANET ? A MANET can be defined as a system of autonomous mobile nodes A MANET can be defined.
1 Spring Semester 2009, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #3 Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks AODV Routing.
Mobile Adhoc Network: Routing Protocol:AODV
CSE 6590 Fall 2010 Routing Metrics for Wireless Mesh Networks 1 4 October, 2015.
Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) and simulation in network simulator.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, OLSR, DSR AND GRP ROUTING PROTOCOL OF MOBILE ADHOC NETWORK – A REVIEW IJCSMC, Vol. 2, Issue. 6, June 2013, pg.359 – 362 Suchita.
Rendezvous-Based Directional Routing: A Performance Analysis Bow-Nan Cheng (RPI) Murat Yuksel (UNR) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (RPI)
Scalable Ad Hoc Routing the Case for Dynamic Addressing.
Designing Routing Protocol For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Navid NIKAEIN Christian BONNET EURECOM Institute Sophia-Antipolis France.
H AZY S IGHTED L INK S TATE R OUTING P ROTOCOL Eleonora Borgia Pervasive Computing & Networking Lab. PerLab IIT – CNR MobileMAN.
CSE 6590 Fall 2009 Routing Metrics for Wireless Mesh Networks 1 12 November, 2015.
Doc.: IEEE /1047r0 Submission Month 2000August 2004 Avinash Joshi, Vann Hasty, Michael Bahr.Slide 1 Routing Protocols for MANET Avinash Joshi,
S Master’s thesis seminar 8th August 2006 QUALITY OF SERVICE AWARE ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS Thesis Author: Shan Gong Supervisor:Sven-Gustav.
DRP: An Efficient Directional Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Hrishikesh Gossain Mesh Networks Product Group, Motorola Tarun Joshi, Dharma.
Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Challenges and Solutions (IEEE Wireless Communications 2004) Hao Yang, et al. October 10 th, 2006 Jinkyu Lee.
A Scalable Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks Eric Arnaud Id:
DHT-based unicast for mobile ad hoc networks Thomas Zahn, Jochen Schiller Institute of Computer Science Freie Universitat Berlin 報告 : 羅世豪.
Intro DSR AODV OLSR TRBPF Comp Concl 4/12/03 Jon KolstadAndreas Lundin CS Ad-Hoc Routing in Wireless Mobile Networks DSR AODV OLSR TBRPF.
1 Using Directionality in Mobile Routing Bow-Nan Cheng (MIT LL) Murat Yuksel (Univ Nevada - Reno) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (IBM IRL) (Work done at Rensselaer.
H AZY S IGHTED L INK S TATE Eleonora Borgia IIT – CNR Pisa - Dicember 4th, 2003.
November 4, 2003Applied Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis APOC 2003 Wuhan, China Cost Efficient Routing in Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless.
Directional Routing for Wireless Mesh Networks: A Performance Evaluation Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) ietf
Intro Wireless vs. wire-based communication –Costs –Mobility Wireless multi hop networks Ad Hoc networking Agenda: –Technology background –Applications.
Improving Fault Tolerance in AODV Matthew J. Miller Jungmin So.
On Mobile Sink Node for Target Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks Thanh Hai Trinh and Hee Yong Youn Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops(PerComW'07)
Performance Comparison of Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols Presented by Venkata Suresh Tamminiedi Computer Science Department Georgia State University.
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. What is a MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Networks)? Formed by wireless hosts which may be mobile No pre-existing infrastructure Routes between.
Routing Metrics for Wireless Mesh Networks
Author:Zarei.M.;Faez.K. ;Nya.J.M.
Virtual Direction Routing
Routing Metrics for Wireless Mesh Networks
AODV-OLSR Scalable Ad hoc Routing
Lecture 28 Mobile Ad hoc Network Dr. Ghalib A. Shah
Mobicom ‘99 Per Johansson, Tony Larsson, Nicklas Hedman
A comparison of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
Sensor Network Routing
任課教授:陳朝鈞 教授 學生:王志嘉、馬敏修
Ad hoc Routing Protocols
by Saltanat Mashirova & Afshin Mahini
Routing Metrics for Wireless Mesh Networks
A Probabilistic Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Vinay Singh Graduate school of Software Dongseo University
Presentation transcript:

1 Using Directionality in Mobile Routing Bow-Nan Cheng (MIT LL) Murat Yuksel (Univ Nevada - Reno) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (IBM IRL) (Work done at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

2 Motivation Main Issue: Scalability Infrastructure / Wireless Mesh Networks Characteristics: Fixed, unlimited energy, virtually unlimited processing power Dynamism – Link Quality Optimize – High throughput, low latency, balanced load Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANET) Characteristics: Mobile, limited energy Dynamism – Node mobility + Link Quality Optimize – Reachability Sensor Networks Characteristics: Data-Centric, extreme limited energy Dynamism – Node State/Status (on/off) Optimize – Power consumption Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion Scalability Layer 3: Network Layer

3 Scaling Networks: Trends in Layer 3 Flood-basedHierarchy/StructuredUnstructured/Flat Scalable Mobile Ad hoc / Fixed Wireless Networks DSR, AODV, TORA, DSDV Partial Flood: OLSR, HSLS LGF, VRR, GPSR+GLS Hierarchical Routing, Peer to Peer / Overlay Networks Wired Networks Gnutella Kazaa, DHT Approaches: CHORD, CAN OSPF, IEGRP, RIP OSPF Areas WSR (Mobicom 07) ORRP (ICNP 06) BubbleStorm (Sigcomm 07) LMS (PODC 05) Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

4 Trends: Directional Communications Directional Antennas – Capacity Benefits Theoretical Capacity Improvements - factor of 4 2 /sqrt( ) where and are the spreads of the sending and receiving transceiver ~ 50x capacity with 8 Interfaces (Yi et al., 2005) Sector Antennas in Cell Base Stations – Even only 3 sectors increases capacity by (Rappaport, 2006) A B C D A B C D Omni-directional A B C D A B C D Directional Directional/Directive AntennasHybrid FSO / RF MANETS Current RF-based Ad Hoc Networks: omni-directional RF antennas High-power – typically the most power consuming parts of laptops Low bandwidth Error-prone, high losses Free Space Optics: High bandwidth Low Power Dense Spatial Reuse License-free band of operation Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

5 ORRP Big Picture Up to 69% A 98% B 180 o Orthogonal Rendezvous Routing Protocol S T ORRP Primitive 1: Local sense of direction leads to ability to forward packets in opposite directions 2: Forwarding along Orthogonal lines has a high chance of intersection in area Introduction Wireless Mesh Networks Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks Overlay Networks ORRP High reach (98%), O(N 3/2 ) State complexity, Low path stretch (~1.2), high goodput, unstructured BUT.. What happens with mobility? 65% 55% 42% Increasing Mobility

6 A B What can we do? Replace intersection point with intersection region. Shift directions of send based on local movement information Route packets probabilistically rather than based on rigid next- hop paths. (No need for route maintenance!) Solution: a NEW kind of routing table: Directional Routing Table (DRT) R Mobile-ORRP (MORRP) Introduction Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

7 J K L M I H OP S N R Q F C G E A B MORRP Basic Example Original Path Original Direction ( ) New Direction ( ) R: Near Field DRT Region of Influence D: Near Field DRT Region of Influence S: Near Field DRT Region of Influence D D D R R R S 1.Proactive Element – Generates Rendezvous to Dest Paths 2.Reactive Element – Generates Source to Rendezvous Paths Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

8 The Directional Routing Table Dest ID Next Hop Dest ID Next Hop Beam ID Dest IDs (% of Certainty) Beam ID BCD:ZBCD:Z BBZ:ZBBZ:Z BCD:ZBCD:Z BBZ:ZBBZ:Z 113:3113:3 B(90%), C(30%). Z(90%), D(40%) B C Z D A Routing TableRT w/ Beam IDDirectional RT (DRT) ID ID set of IDsSet of IDs set of IDs Routing Tables viewed from Node A Soft State – Traditional routing tables have a hard timeout for routing entries. Soft State decreases the level of certainty with time. Uncertainty with Distance – Nodes closer to a source will have increasingly more information about the location of the source than nodes farther away Uncertainty with Time – As time goes on, without updates, one will have lesser amount of information about the location of a node Uncertainty with Mobility – Neighbors can potentially be covered by different interfaces based on mobility speed and direction Use Decaying Bloom Filter (DBF) Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

9 DRT Intra-node Decay Time Decay with Mobility Spread Decay with Mobility 7 8 x As node moves in direction +x, the certainty of being able to reach nodes covered by region 8 should decay faster than of region 7 depending on speed. This information is DROPPED. As node moves in direction +x, the certainty of being able to reach nodes covered by region 2 should be SPREAD to region 1 and 3 faster than the opposite direction. The information about a node in region 2 should be SPREAD to regions 1 and 3. a a x Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

10 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MORRP Fields of Operation Near Field Operation Uses Near Field DRT to match for nodes 2-3 hops away Far Field Operation RREQ/RREP much like ORRP except nodes along path store info in Far- Field DRT SR D Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

11 Performance Evaluation of MORRP Metrics Evaluated Reachability – Percentage of nodes reachable by each node in network (Hypothesis: high reachability) Delivery Success – Percentage of packets successfully delivered network-wide Scalability – The total state control packets flooding the network (Hypothesis: higher than ORRP but lower than current protocols out there) Average Path Length End to End Delay (Latency) Aggregate Network Goodput Scenarios Evaluated (NS2) Evaluation of metrics vs. AODV (reactive), OLSR (proactive), GPSR with GLS (position-based), and ORRP under various node velocities, densities, topology-sizes, transmission rates. Evaluation of metrics vs. AODV and OLSR modified to support beam- switched directional antennas. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

12 MORRP: Aggregate Goodput Results Aggregate Network Goodput vs. Traditional Routing Protocols MORRP achieves from 10-14X the goodput of AODV, OLSR, and GPSR w/ GLS with an omni-directional antenna Gains come from the move toward directional antennas (more efficient medium usage) Aggregate Network Goodput vs. AODV and OLSR modified with directional antennas MORRP achieves about 15-20% increase in goodput vs. OLSR with multiple directional antennas Gains come from using directionality more efficiently Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

13 MORRP: Simulations Summary MORRP achieves high reachability (93% in mid-sized, 1300x1300m 2 and 87% in large-sized, 2000x2000 m 2 topologies) with high mobility (30m/s). With sparser and larger networks, MORRP performs fairly poorly (83% reach) suggesting additional research into proper DRT tuning is required. In lightly loaded networks, MORRP end-to-end latency is double of OLSR and about 7x smaller than AODV and 40x less than GPSR w/ GLS MORRP scales well by minimizing control packets sent MORRP yields over 10-14X the aggregate network throughput compared to traditional routing protocols with one omnidirectional interface gains from using directional interfaces MORRP yields over 15-20% the aggregate network goodput compared to traditional routing protocols modified with 8 directional interfaces gains from using directionality constructively Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

14 MORRP: Key Contributions The Directional Routing Table A replacement for traditional routing tables that routes based on probabilistic hints Gives a basic building block for using directionality to overcome issues with high mobility in MANET and DTNs Using directionality in layer 3 to solve the issues caused by high mobility in MANETs MORRP achieves high reachability (87% - 93%) in high mobility (30m/s) MORRP scales well by minimizing control packets sent MORRP shows that high reach can be achieved in probabilistic routing without the need to frequently disseminate node position information. MORRP yields high aggregate network goodput with the gains coming not only from utilizing directional antennas, but utilizing the concept of directionality itself. MORRP is scalable and routes successfully with more relaxed requirements (No need for coordinate space embedding) Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

15 Thank You! Questions and Comments? Papers / Posters / Slides / NS2 Code (MORRP, ORRP, OLSR + AODV with Beam switched directional antennas) [ ] Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion