1 / 36

On the Cost/Delay Tradeoff of Wireless Delay Tolerant Geographic Routing

On the Cost/Delay Tradeoff of Wireless Delay Tolerant Geographic Routing. Argyrios Tasiopoulos MSc , student, AUEB. Introduction. Many networks are characterized by: Intermittent Connectivity. Long or variable delays. In both cases traditional TCP/IP protocols fail.

tamra
Download Presentation

On the Cost/Delay Tradeoff of Wireless Delay Tolerant Geographic Routing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. On the Cost/Delay Tradeoff of Wireless Delay Tolerant Geographic Routing Argyrios Tasiopoulos MSc, student, AUEB Master Thesis presentation

  2. Introduction • Many networks are characterized by: • Intermittent Connectivity. • Long or variable delays. • In both cases traditional TCP/IP protocols fail. • Delay Tolerant Networking addresses these issues. 4 to 20 minutes Master Thesis presentation

  3. Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) • In Delay-Tolerant Networks each node can hold packets indefinitely in a persistent buffer. • The previous problems are addressed by store-and-forward message switching.

  4. Mobile Delay Tolerant Networks • In mobile DTNs, nodes can carry a packet physically in their buffer. • Therefore, we actually have store-carry-and-forward packet switching. Master Thesis presentation

  5. DTNs Protocol Design • In DTNs we have an extra degree of freedom regarding the delay in data delivery. • We can trade off delay in order to improve other metrics. • Our case of study concerning the improvement of aggregate transmission cost. • We care about the behavior of aggregate transmission cost of a packets given a delivery delay. WoWMoM San Francisco 2012

  6. Aggregate Transmission Cost • What we mean in this work when we talk about aggregate transmission cost? • The cost of interference (typically proportional to transmission area), and/or • the energy consumption of a transmission (typically fixed). Master Thesis presentation

  7. Coming next • Part A: Optimal Cost/Delay Tradeoff Formulation • Part B: Cost/Delay Tradeoffs in Geographic Routing • Part C: Simulation Environments and Results Master Thesis presentation

  8. Part A: Optimal Cost/Delay Tradeoff Formulation. Master Thesis presentation

  9. Optimal Cost/Delay Tradeoff • We take the typical approach of evolving graphs (Ferreira 2004). • We divide the time into discrete time intervals, called epochs. • We make the assumptions that during each epoch: • the network topology remains fixed, hence creates a network replica for the specific epoch, and • all packet transmissions can take place. Master Thesis presentation

  10. Cost/Delay Evolving Graph • We define as Cost/Delay Evolving Graph (C/DEG) the graph comprised by: • consecutive replicas, • link arcs, which connect nodes along the same replica, and • storage arcs, which connect the same nodes along consecutive replicas. Master Thesis presentation

  11. Punctual vs. Optimal Cost/Delay Curve • Given a packet source we can execute any one-to-many shortest path algorithm. • We define the Punctual Cost/Delay Curve (PC/DC), as the minimum-cost journey of exactlyt epochs, between two nodes. • We define the Optimal Cost/Delay Curve (OC/DC), as the minimum-cost journey of all journeys with the maximum duration oft epochs. WoWMoM San Francisco 2012

  12. Punctual Cost/Delay Curve Example WoWMoM San Francisco 2012

  13. Punctual vs. Optimal Cost/Delay Curve Example Master Thesis presentation

  14. Part B: Cost/Delay Tradeoffs in Geographic Routing. Master Thesis presentation

  15. Geographic routing • In geographic routing a source sends a message to the geographic location of the destination. R Master Thesis presentation

  16. Geographic routing • Then, the packet route from source to destination is calculated “on the fly”. Complete network topology Master Thesis presentation

  17. Protocol family • Each node which executes a protocol of this family: • Applies a Neighbor Evaluation Rule (NER) to its immediate neighbor nodes, which returns the best of them. • Calculates the minimum-cost path to the best neighbor. • Forwards the packet to the next hop node along the minimum-cost path. Master Thesis presentation

  18. Protocol Family Example Calculate shortest-cost path Forward the packet to the next hop node Execute NER Find the best Master Thesis presentation

  19. Protocol Family Variations • Next we define 5 member of this protocol family. • All rules differ on NER. • For the rest of this presentation: • node A is the packet holder which performs the NER, • node B is a candidate neighbor of A, and • node D the packet destination. Master Thesis presentation

  20. Motion Vector (MoVe)(LeBrun et al.,2005) • MoVe NER: Select as best the node with the current or future closest distance from the destination. Minimizes |ZD| Master Thesis presentation

  21. AeroRP (Peters et al., 2011) • AeroRP NER: Selects as best the node with the biggest relative velocity towards destination Maximizes vRB Master Thesis presentation

  22. Minimum Cost-per-Progress (MCpPR) • MCpPR NER minimizes the ratio: Master Thesis presentation

  23. Balance Ratio Rule (BRR) • Our first novel protocol minimizes the ratio: • We define αas theconversion coefficient. • Which strikes a balanced between cost and delay by trying to keep them both low. Master Thesis presentation

  24. Composite Rule (CR) • MCpPR rule tries to maximize the immediate transmission gains. • BRR tries to maximize the benefits of the physical transportation of store-carry-and-forward packet switching. • Hence, we define Composite Rule (CR) as the best of two worlds which minimizes simultaneously the ratios of MCpPR and BRR : Master Thesis presentation

  25. Achievable Cost/Delay Curve (AC/DC) • We define the AC/DC as the curve that give for each epoch, the minimum aggregate transmission cost that a protocol can achieve for a pair of nodes. • If the protocol has tunable parameters concerning the tradeoff, an achievable cost/delay curve (AC/DC) is calculated in a similar way to OC/DC, over the complete range of results of these parameters. Master Thesis presentation

  26. Achievable Cost/Delay Tradeoff Example Master Thesis presentation

  27. Part C: Simulation Environments and Results. Master Thesis presentation

  28. Performance Evaluation Settings • We evaluate our protocols in the 3 following settings: • empty space setting, • home region setting, and • urban setting. Master Thesis presentation

  29. Simulation parameters • The common tunable parameter for all these protocols is the restricted radius R’ which determines the maximum transmission hop length. • CR and BRR have the extra tunable parameter α. • Standard case: The nodes move with random velocities and we have a quadratic aggregate transmission cost function (equal to d2where d the transmission distance). Master Thesis presentation

  30. Empty Space Setting Master Thesis presentation

  31. Empty Space Setting – Fixed velocities and cost function Master Thesis presentation

  32. Home Region Setting Master Thesis presentation

  33. Urban Setting Master Thesis presentation

  34. Urban Setting-Fixed velocities Master Thesis presentation

  35. Conclusions • Our immediate contributions: • The formulation of optimal tradeoff between the packet delivery delay and the aggregate transmission cost existing in all DTNs. • The study of this tradeoff in the context of geographic routing • Our two novel rules with results close to the optimal. • Our most important contribution: • We set the agenda for a systematic evaluation of cost/delay tradeoffs in a variety of DTNs settings. Master Thesis presentation

  36. Thank you

More Related