doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 1 A Comparison of Broadcast Routing Protocols Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at. Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 2 Abstract This submission compares the performance of classical flooding with that of a connected dominating set (CDS) algorithm. The CDS algorithm significantly outperforms classical flooding for dense topologies and does no worse than classical flooding for sparse topologies.

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 3 Simulation Architecture Comparisons use implementation code developed at the Naval Research Lab and integrated into Opnet –OLSR ( OLSR implemented as a UDP application OLSR constructs and maintains the IP routing table via calls to route add and route delete –SMF ( Simplified Multicast Forwarding implemented at Layer 2 SMF ‘simple’ mode implements classical flooding SMF ‘s-mpr’ mode implements a CDS algorithm that uses OLSR’s MPR set as relays for broadcast MSDU traffic. –MGEN ( General purpose traffic generator (TCP/UDP, unicast/multicast) Used here to generate UDP traffic sourced at node 0 and broadcast to nodes 1 – 49. Although the simulation is not an s conformant implementation, the comparison results are still strongly indicative of those that would be realized by an s implementation using flooding compared to one using the OLSR MPR set to limit the number of nodes used to relay broadcast traffic.

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 4 Opnet Communication Ranges 32 octet payload 64 octet payload 128 octet payload 256 octet payload 512 octet payload 1024 octet payload 32 octet payload 64 octet payload 128 octet payload 256 octet payload 512 octet payload 1024 octet payload 250 meters BroadcastUnicast (retry = 7) 11 Mbps; 5 mW; 15 F am

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 5 Opnet Sensing Ranges 2.0 Km1.0 Km1240 m 11 Mbps; 5 mW; -95 dBm 1.0 Km 500 m 11 Mbps; 5 mW; -87 dBm R sense = R comm x 5R sense = R comm x 2

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 6 Dense Topology Scenario with 50 Static Nodes 100 m

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 7 Throughput for Dense 50 Node Topology R sense = R comm x 5R sense = R comm x 2 Packet size (128 octets) Packet size (1024 octets) Packet size (128 octets) Packet size (1024 octets) Node 0 broadcast to Nodes Mbps load

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 8 Throughput for Static Grids 70m Spacing150m Spacing

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 9 Throughput for 200m Spacing GridLine

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 10 Dynamic 50 Node 12 m/s Scenario Beginning Node Locations Ending Node Locations

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 11 Throughput for Dynamic 50 Node Scenarios 1 Mbps constant load, 1 m/s1 Mbps constant load, 12 m/s

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 12 Conclusions The CDS algorithm used for this study is Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) operating in ‘s-mpr’ mode, i.e., using OLSR multipoint relays as the broadcast forwarding nodes. For dense topologies, the CDS algorithm outperforms flooding roughly on the order of three to one. It is interesting to note that the throughput gain for dense topologies is comparable to the gain achieved going from g to n. For sparse topologies, the CDS algorithm generally does no worse than flooding.

doc.: IEEE /0406r0 Submission March 2007 James P. Hauser, Naval Research LabSlide 13 References Macker, J. (editor), et al, "Simplified Multicast Forwarding for MANET", Internet Draft draft-ietf- manet-smf-02, Mar 2006.Simplified Multicast Forwarding for MANET Macker J. P., J. Dean, W. Chao, "Simplified Multicast Forwarding in Mobile Ad hoc Networks", IEEE MILCOM 2004 Proceedings, November 2004.