1. Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data Michael Meisel, Vasileios Pappas, and Lixia Zhang UCLA, IBM Research MobiArch’10, September 24, 2010 2011. 3. 13 Shinhaeng Oh (shoh@mmlab.snu.ac.kr) 1/22

2. CONTENTS Background – Internet Protocol vs. Named Data Existing Solutions for mobile networks – Ad-Hoc Networking over IP – Limitation of IP-Routing New Direction for mobile networks – NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking – Design Example : LFBL Conclusion 2/22

3. Introduction TCP/IP and CCN Protocol Stacks – Replace packets with Data Objects or Interests – Replace Addresses with Names of Objects 3/22

4. Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 4/22 201.239.0.101 212.123.3.214 198.102.182.104 162.201.193.210 1. Each node is assigned an IP address 112.191.203.117 1 2 4 3 5

5. Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 5/22 201.239.0.101 212.123.3.214 198.102.182.104 162.201.193.210 2. Applications communicate by sending data to specific destination addresses 112.191.203.117 1 2 4 3 5

6. Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 6/22 201.239.0.101 212.123.3.214 198.102.182.104 162.201.193.210 3. When node move, determine a single best path to the given destination IP, and delivers data 112.191.203.117 1 2 4 3 5

7. Limitations of the IP-Routing (1) Difficult to assign IP addresses (moving nodes) – IP addresses management is tightly controlled – It requires infrastructure support (e.g. DHCP) ad-hoc networks need infrastructure-free !! In mobile, IP address is less meaningful – Wired networks, IP represent topology location – But, ad-hoc network do not have fixed location – Temporary unique identifier for device is needed 7/22 MIT: 18.9.22.xxSNU: 147.46.174.xx

8. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (1) Assign IP address to each nodes --No longer needs – To forward interests & data packets, – Nodes can use application data names directly 8/22 interest forward or broadcast

9. Limitations of the IP-Routing (2) Data is invisible in today’s IP-centric architecture source destination – It’s sub-optimal delivery Accuracy of routing state maintained at each node Overhead to keep this state consistent --tradeoff – High node mobility – Constant movement in the aggregate at a large network 9/22

10. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (2) Caching (traditional approach) – Ideally, each cached object has to be retrieved in its entirety from the same caching node. – But, images & audios & videos cannot fit within one packet – Transparent caching techniques work only in static network Caching (NDN) – Intermediate node can forward to request node any part of file 10/22 subsequent request

11. Limitations of the IP-Routing (3) Receivers are in a better position to make forward decision than senders – In broadcast channel, nodes can hear the transmission – To keep all neighbors’ movement and connectivity changes will increase the routing table update overhead 11/22

12. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (3) Interest packets can be forwarded multiple path – More than one direction returns the request data – A node can evaluate which path gives the best performance – Send future Interest for same data source in that direction – Remove critical dependency on pre-computed single paths 12/22

13. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 13/22 REQUEST Name of application data Respons e

14. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 14/22 ACK Destination

15. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 15/22 ACK Destination 1 2

16. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 16/22 ACK Destination 2 1

17. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 17/22 ACK Destination

18. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 18/22 ACK Destination 1 2 3

19. Design Example: LFBL LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange – Name prefix announcements – Interest forwarding – Data return 19/22 ACK Destination

20. Performance Evaluation Implemented LFBL in QualNet network simulator – Effect of % of mobile nodes – Move at a fixed rate of 30m/s (random waypoint mobility) 20/22 various contents concurrently?

21. Conclusion Frequent changes in topology had a direct impact on the performance of current protocols Designed a new forwarding protocol: LBFL – For highly dynamic multi-hop wireless networks – Distributed forwarding capability with essentially no routing protocol Through named data networking approach, – We can sketched out promising architectural direction to develop effective and efficient solution for ad-hoc networks 21/22

22. QnA 22/22

23. Related Work: DSDV, AODV Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) is a table-driven routing scheme for ad hoc mobile networks based on Bellman-Ford algorithm – Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, they generally even if a link is present, odd used For example the routing table of Node A in Network DestinationNext Hop# of HopsSeq. numberInstall Time AA0A 46001000 BB1B 36001200 CB2C 28001500