M ULTI R ETRANSMISSION R OUTE D ISCOVERY S CHEMES FOR A DHOC W IRELESS N ETWORKS. By Okundaye Izegbuwa Alice (100846820) Carleton University

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks By Lei Chen.
Advertisements

Multicasting in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Ravindra Vaishampayan Department of Computer Science University of California Santa Cruz, CA 95064, U.S.A. Advisor:
MANETs Routing Dr. Raad S. Al-Qassas Department of Computer Science PSUT
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.
Effects of Applying Mobility Localization on Source Routing Algorithms for Mobile Ad Hoc Network Hridesh Rajan presented by Metin Tekkalmaz.
1 Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks most slides taken with permission from presentation of Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
CS541 Advanced Networking 1 Dynamic Channel Assignment and Routing in Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks Neil Tang 3/10/2009.
ITIS 6010/8010 Wireless Network Security Dr. Weichao Wang.
Mobile and Wireless Computing Institute for Computer Science, University of Freiburg Western Australian Interactive Virtual Environments Centre (IVEC)
CS541 Advanced Networking 1 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) Neil Tang 02/02/2009.
Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) Sirisha R. Medidi.
Mobile and Wireless Computing Institute for Computer Science, University of Freiburg Western Australian Interactive Virtual Environments Centre (IVEC)
8/7/2015 Mobile Ad hoc Networks COE 549 Routing Protocols II Tarek Sheltami KFUPM CCSE COE 1.
Impact of Directional Antennas on Ad Hoc Routing Romit Roy Choudhury Nitin H. Vaidya.
Routing Two papers: Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks (2000) Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (1999)
The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
ENHANCING AND EVALUATION OF AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VANET.
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing, MAC and Transport Issues Material in this slide set are from a tutorial by Prof. Nitin Vaidya 1.
Itrat Rasool Quadri ST ID COE-543 Wireless and Mobile Networks
Dsr – dynamics source routing. basics Two types of routing –On-demand / reactive Information is only collected when required, I.e., when a packet needs.
1 Spring Semester 2009, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #3 Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks AODV Routing.
Mobile Routing protocols MANET
Mobile Adhoc Network: Routing Protocol:AODV
Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) and simulation in network simulator.
Ad-Hoc Networks. References r Elizabeth Royer and Chai-Keong Toh, " A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Wireless Mobile Networks, " IEE Personal.
Routing Protocols of On- Demand Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
Dilshad Haleem CST593 summer 2007 Routing In Wireless Mesh Networks CST593 Final Project by Dilshad Haleem Division of Computing Studies, ASU Polytechnic.
ENERGY-EFFICIENT FORWARDING STRATEGIES FOR GEOGRAPHIC ROUTING in LOSSY WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS Presented by Prasad D. Karnik.
Cache Management of Dynamic Source Routing for Fault Tolerance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.
Fault-Tolerant Papers Broadband Network & Mobile Communication Lab Course: Computer Fault-Tolerant Speaker: 邱朝螢 Date: 2004/4/20.
1 Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) Dr. R. B. Patel.
Load-Balancing Routing in Multichannel Hybrid Wireless Networks With Single Network Interface So, J.; Vaidya, N. H.; Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions.
Doc.: IEEE /1047r0 Submission Month 2000August 2004 Avinash Joshi, Vann Hasty, Michael Bahr.Slide 1 Routing Protocols for MANET Avinash Joshi,
SRL: A Bidirectional Abstraction for Unidirectional Ad Hoc Networks. Venugopalan Ramasubramanian Ranveer Chandra Daniel Mosse.
Traditional Routing A routing protocol sets up a routing table in routers A node makes a local choice depending on global topology.
A Scalable Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks Eric Arnaud Id:
1 Gossip-Based Ad Hoc Routing Zygmunt J. Haas, Joseph Halpern, LiLi Cornell University Presented By Charuka Silva.
Integrating Quality of Protection into Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Seung Yi, Prasad Naldurg, Robin Kravets University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector Protocol Hassan Gobjuka.
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.
a/b/g Networks Routing Herbert Rubens Slides taken from UIUC Wireless Networking Group.
CSR: Cooperative Source Routing Using Virtual MISO in Wireless Ad hoc Networks IEEE WCNC 2011 Yang Guan, Yao Xiao, Chien-Chung Shen and Leonard Cimini.
TCP OVER ADHOC NETWORK. TCP Basics TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) was designed to provide reliable end-to-end delivery of data over unreliable networks.
November 4, 2003Applied Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis APOC 2003 Wuhan, China Cost Efficient Routing in Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless.
Ad hoc Routing for Multilevel Power Saving Protocols Matthew J. Miller, Nitin H. Vaidya Ad Hoc Networks 2008 January University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Remote Deployment of Sensor Networks Presentation 3: Providing connectivity between sensor nodes and uplinks.
Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) ietf
Improving Fault Tolerance in AODV Matthew J. Miller Jungmin So.
Fundamentals of Computer Networks ECE 478/578
Doc.: IEEE /0174r1 Submission Hang Liu, et al. March 2005 Slide 1 A Routing Protocol for WLAN Mesh Hang Liu, Jun Li, Saurabh Mathur {hang.liu,
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking By Shaena Price. What is it? Autonomous system of routers and hosts connected by wireless links Can work flawlessly in a standalone.
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.
Author:Zarei.M.;Faez.K. ;Nya.J.M.
A Location-Based Routing Method for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Internet Networking recitation #4
A comparison of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
Routing with Directional Antennas
Sensor Network Routing
CBRP: A Cluster-based Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad hoc Networks
任課教授:陳朝鈞 教授 學生:王志嘉、馬敏修
Mobile and Wireless Networking
Ad hoc Routing Protocols
Mobile Computing CSE 40814/60814 Spring 2018.
Overview: Chapter 3 Networking sensors
Routing.
Vinay Singh Graduate school of Software Dongseo University
A Routing Protocol for WLAN Mesh
Routing in Mobile Wireless Networks Neil Tang 11/14/2008
A Talk on Mobile Ad hoc Networks (Manets)
Presentation transcript:

M ULTI R ETRANSMISSION R OUTE D ISCOVERY S CHEMES FOR A DHOC W IRELESS N ETWORKS. By Okundaye Izegbuwa Alice ( ) Carleton University

C ONTENTS  Introduction  Brief History  Problem with Conventional methods  Proposed Solution  Algorithms  Analysis of algorithms using predefined options  Results and Conclusion  Future Work  References  Questions.

I NTRODUCTION An Adhoc network is a collection of nodes which communicate and do not need any preconfigured communication infrastructure. Route discovery in Adhoc network is a process of creating a route from the source to a destination. It usually involves a Route request RREQ and a Route reply RREP packet being sent between source and destination to select a configured route. How can I send a message to node M?

B RIEF H ISTORY AODV and DSR are the most predominantly used reactive routing protocols for ad-hoc networks. - They shall be used for the purpose of this analysis. All existing Route Discovery Schemes apply retransmission of Route Requests and Route replies only once.

AODV Path from Source A – Destination I, A broadcasts the RREQ When its neighbor that is not the intended destination re-broadcasts a RREQ, it sets up a reverse path pointing towards the source. When the intended destination receives a Route Request, it replies by sending a Route Reply RREP. Route Reply travels along the reverse path set-up when RREQ was forwarded. Diagram from [NB]

DSR Route Discovery from Node S to D, Source node S floods(RREQ) Each node appends own identifier when forwarding RREQ Destination D on receiving the first RREQ, sends a RREP RREP is sent on a route obtained by reversing the route appended to received RREQ RREP includes the route from S to D on which RREQ was received by node D Diagram from [TK]

P ROBLEM WITH CONVENTIONAL METHOD A distant neighbor may accidentally receive the only route discovery message and happily use it to announce a new route, even though in reality it cannot provide service for traffic. Retransmitting once means than a neighbor with the best path to the destination might be missed, hence finding the optimal route is not guaranteed. Diagram from [TK]

P ROPOSED S OLUTION To effectively overcome the issues stated, a proposed solution will be to retransmit the RREQ and RREP more than once. This will most likely find better routes, and may find distant neighbors, thus increasing the success rate of route discovery Two different Algorithms for RREQ have been proposed and will be compared with the conventional route discovery scheme using the same metrics and conditions.

A LGORITHMS n- Retransmission (nR) Once a node decides to transmit a RREQ, it will do so exactly “n” times. When n = 1 this becomes equivalent to the traditional route discovery schemes. We shall call this “1R” n- Retransmission c- Reception(ncRR) When a node discovers that it is not the destination, it retransmits the Route request to its neighbors “n” times or till its number of received copies of the RREQ reaches “c” (c ≥ 2). Introducing the variable “c” helps control overhead, as nodes can stop retransmitting as soon as “c” number of RReq are heard.

EXAMPLE In the case of “12RR”, Node will make one retransmission, or will make no retransmission at all, if while waiting for its own retransmission to occur it receives two copies of RREQ from neighbors. For n3RR, node will retransmit at most n times, until two or more copies of the same RREQ are received from neighbors. When c>>>>>>> ncRR ≡ nR

The previous algorithms can be further combined with options based on route discovery and route reply decisions. Route Discovery Options. R1 R1 : The sender retransmits only upon receiving the first copy of received RREQ. When a route discovery message is received again, it is simply ignored. [1R, R1] is equivalent to the traditional terms of handling RREQ. R+: R+: If a node receives a route request with a better cumulative cost upon arrival, it will retransmit once again. In R+ the same node may decide to send RREQ upon receiving any route with better cost.

If we have [1R, R+] then one retransmission is sent each time If we have [nR, R+] then n retransmissions are made each time a better route is found to the same destination. In nR and ncRR if the current best route has not finished retransmitting “n” times and a route with a better cost is found then the counter “n” restarts with R+. Combining the options, we can define new algorithms [nR, R1] = nR1 [nR, R+] = nR+ [ncRR, R1] = ncRR1 [ncRR, R+] = ncRR+

nR+ Diagram

Route Reply Options The destination node might receive multiple copies of the same RREQ bearing different path information. In conventional route discovery schemes a destination node responds to every route request packet received. This may cause more overhead The two options are then as follows: B*: B*: The destination node replies all received RREQs with RREP B+: B+: The destination nodes replies back the first time and any time the measured value of path metric is better than previously received ones.

An RREP packet is sent back to the source node using the reverse path of the RREQ There are three options for the way a RREP is processed by nodes on the reply path. A1 A1 : Each node transmits the RREP exactly once, if any failure happens, process is stopped A3 A3 : Each node transmits the RREP once, if no transmission is heard from its neighbor, it retransmits two more times.

A NALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS USING THE PREDEFINED OPTIONS Goal: To prove that nR and ncRR are superior to 1R, using the different predetermined options. Metrics used for the observations include - Average EHC( expected hop count) which is the expected hop count to send an actual message over the link. - Success Rate - Message Overhead during Route discovery The simulation was run in MATLAB using 200nodes and the average node degree d is tested for d = 6,8,10,16,20,24,32,40, which simulate a network from sparse to dense.

o First analysis will be to get the best value for “n” we will compare 1R and nR for when n= 2, 3, 4. Using options R1, B* and A3.

Figure 1 shows that the average EHC decreases as the average network degree “d” increases, smaller EHC means a better route. We see that transmitting the packets more than twice does not lower EHC any further. In Figure 2, Success rate is improved by up to 58% in low density networks in high density networks transmitting more than once does not help. In Figure 3 The message overhead rises significantly with the increase of n or d. The best value of “n” in nR appears to be 2, however the message overhead is almost tripled compared to n1, ncRR is simulated using n=2 to see if the overhead is decreased.

Secondly we compare nR and ncRR using n = 2 and c = (3,4,5,6) with options R1, B* and A3.

Figure 4 and 5 shows that the average EHC is slightly lower in 2R than in 2cRR especially in low density networks, however from c≥3 and d≥16 the EHC and success rate become the same. Figure 6 shows that overhead is greatly reduced by 19.6% ~ 79.2% depending on the network density. This is a great improvement from the 2R algorithm Overall the ncRR scheme has the best trade off between quality of route, success rate and message overhead when n = 2 and c = 3 or 4

The options R1 and R+ are compared and R+ is found to have a better EHC lowered by 7.6% to 18.1%, and also a better success rate rising from 2.6% to 19.6% in low density networks. The options B* and B+ are also simulated against each other and B*is found to be more effective as it yields a higher success rate even though their EHC appear to be equal. The option A1 and A3 are also compared, A1 slightly raises the average EHC compared to A3.

R ESULTS AND C ONCLUSION ncRR is seen to find better routes than nR and 1R, when n = 2 and c =4 Using Options R+, B* and A3 provided optimal Route discovery and improved the average EHC with about 0.9%~31% and raised success rate with about 58%. The proposed route discovery scheme is superior to the existing ones.

F UTURE W ORK It is possible to have a counter based retransmission based on only a single parameter. In nCB, node is retransmitting RREQ until a total number of n own or retransmission from neighbors is heard. 1CB means no retransmission at all, since one cop of the message was already received. 2CB mode will make one retransmission or no retransmission if while waiting to retransmit it receives a copy of the RREQ from a neighbor. The implication of this is left for Future work.

R EFERENCES [JSK] X. Jin, Stojmenovic I., T. Kunz, “Multi- retransmission router discovery schemes for ad hoc wireless networks with a realistic physical layer” [SNK] I. Stojmenovic, A. Nayak, and J. Kuruvila. Design guidelines for routing protcols in ad ´hoc and sensor networks with a realistic physical layer. IEEE Communications Magazine, March 2005 [NB] Niels Olof Bouvin, Mobile P2P Systems & Recap (Based in part on a talk by Lars Michael Kristensen)11November 2005 [TK] Thomas Kunz, Adhoc Networks, SCE Carleton University January 2011.

Q UESTION 1 (a) What is the stated problem with the conventional route discovery method? (b) What was the solution proposed for this problem? (c) What goal did the proposed solution achieve?

A NSWER 1 (a) The convention route discovery method using the process of retransmitting the RREQ and RREP messages only once during route discovery, an implication of this is that, a distant neighbor may accidentally receive the only route discovery message and happily use it to announce a new route, even though in reality it cannot provide service for traffic and also retransmitting once means than a neighbor with the best path to the destination might be missed, hence finding the optimal route is not guaranteed. (b) The proposed solution is to retransmit the route request and route reply messages more than once. (c) Retransmitting more than once produced an increase success rate in optimal routes discovery with less overhead.

Q UESTION 2 Explain the ncRR Algorithm

A NSWER 2 ncRR stands for n- Retransmission Reception, it is the second Algorithm proposed in the multiple retransmission route discovery scheme, it introduces a counter “c” When a node discovers that it is not the destination, it retransmits the Route request to its neighbors “n” times or till its number of received copies of the RREQ reaches “c” (c ≥ 2). Introducing the variable “c” helps control overhead, as nodes can stop retransmitting as soon as “c” number of RReq are heard from their 1-hop neighbors.

Q UESTION 3 State the difference between the following Route Discovery and Route Reply Options (a) R1 and R+ (b) B* and B+ (c) A1 and A3

A NSWER 3 (a) R1 and R+ : In R1, The sender retransmits only upon receiving the first copy of received RREQ. When a route discovery message is received again, it is simply ignored. While in R+, if the same node receives a route request with a better cumulative cost upon arrival, it will retransmit once again. (b) B* and B+ : In B*, The destination node replies all received RREQs with RREP, while in B+: The destination nodes replies back the first time and any other time the measured value of path metric is better than previously received ones. (c) A1 and A3 : In A1, each node on the reply path transmits the RREP exactly once, if any failure happens the process is stopped, while in A3, Each node transmits the RREP once, if no transmission is heard from its neighbor, it retransmits two more times.

THANKYOU FOR LISTENING.