1 / 34

Multicast + Network Coding in Ad Hoc Networks

Multicast + Network Coding in Ad Hoc Networks. CS 218 Fall 2008. Routing vs Network Coding. y 1. y 1. f 1 ( y 1 ,y 2 ,y 3 ). y 1. y 2. f 2 ( y 1 ,y 2 ,y 3 ). y 3. y 3. y 3. x. B. C. A. y. B. C. A. x  y. B. C. A. B. C. A. Benefit of Network Coding. y. x. B. C. A.

valiant
Download Presentation

Multicast + Network Coding in Ad Hoc Networks

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. Multicast + Network Coding in Ad Hoc Networks CS 218 Fall 2008

  2. Routing vs Network Coding y1 y1 f1(y1,y2,y3) y1 y2 f2(y1,y2,y3) y3 y3 y3

  3. x B C A y B C A x  y B C A B C A Benefit of Network Coding y x B C A x B C A y B C A y B C A y = x  (x  y) x 3 transmissions with NC 4 transmissions without NC (Katabi’05, Chou’04)

  4. a a ,b a a a+b a+b b a+b b b b ,a NC achieves multicast capacity • Alswede, Cai, Li, Yeung (2000): • mintЄT MinCut(s,t) is alwaysachievable by network coding • h = mintЄT MinCut(s,t)is “multicast capacity” a,b optimal routingthroughput = 1 network codingthroughput = 2 sender receiver coding node

  5. How to code? Given: Directed graph (V,E) Sender s Receiver set T (subset of V)

  6. Random Linear Coding Sender Every packet p carries e = [e1e2e3] encoding vector prefix indicating how it is constructed (e.g., coded packet p = ∑eixiwhere xiis original packet) x y z A αx + βy + γz buffer Random combination Intermediate nodes randomly mix incoming packets to generate outgoing packets Destination

  7. Random Linear Coding Original Packets p1 p2 p3 g*p1 + h*p2 + e*p3 = n3 a*p1 + b*p2 + c*p3 = n1 d*p1 + e*p2 + f*p3 = n2 n1 n2 n3

  8. Random Linear Coding (cont.) Original Packets p1 p2 p3 5*p1[1] + 8*p2[1] + 1*p3[1] = n1[1] 2*p1[1] + 3*p2[1] + 7*p3[1] = n2[1] 9*p1[1] + 6*p2[1] + 5*p3[1] = n3[1] [9 6 5] [5 8 1] [2 3 7] n1 n2 n3 Recover original by matrix inversion

  9. Random Linear Coding (cont.) An application generates a stream of frames … Block/Generation 1 Block 2 Network layer generates stream of coded packets … (delay) Generation 2 Generation 1 time A random linear combination of Block 1 frames A random linear combination of Block 2 frames

  10. Forwarding – RLC Source Receiver

  11. Random Network Coding Every packet p carries e = [e1e2e3] encoding vector prefix indicating how it is constructed (e.g., coded packet p = ∑eixiwhere xiis original packet) buffer random combination Receivers recover original by matrix inversion Intermediate nodes randomly mix incoming packets to generate outgoing packets

  12. Robust Multicast using NC • In tactical nets one must consider: • Random errors; External interference/jamming • Motion; path breakage • Target application: • Multicast (buffered) video streaming • Some loss tolerance • Some delay tolerance (store & playback at destination) - non interactive

  13. Problem Statement • Multicast streaming in mobile wireless networks is non-trivial • Streaming requires: high reliability (but not 100%), low delay (but not 0) • But network is: unreliable, bandwidth-limited • Major concern: packet drops • Lossy wireless channel (uncorrelated, random like errors) • Route breakage due to mobility, congestion, etc (correlated errors)

  14. Conventional vs NC Multicast • Conventional Approaches • Time diversity => O/H, delay? • Recovery scheme a la ARQ (Reliable Multicast) • (End-to-end) Coding (FEC, MDC, …) • Multipath diversity (ODMRP, …) => O/H? • NC Approach • Main ingredient: Random network coding (by Médardet al., Chou et al.) • Exploit time and multipath diversity • Controlled-loss (near 100%), bounded-delay (hundreds of ms) • Suitable for buffered streaming • Real time version (tens of ms delay bound) possible

  15. Simulation experiments • Settings • QualNet • 100 nodes on 1500 x 1500 m2 • 5 Kbytes/sec traffic (512B packet) - light load • Single source; multiple destinations • Random Waypoint Mobility • 20 receivers • Metrics • Good Packet ratio: num. of data packets received within deadline (1sec) vs. total num. of data packets generated • Normalized packet O/H: total no. of packets generated vs no. of data packet received • Delay: packet delivery time

  16. ODMRP vs C-Cast: Reliability Good Packet Ratio

  17. ODMRP vs C-Cast: Efficiency

  18. ODMRP vs C-Cast: Delay

  19. Throughput Bounds • Max NC throughput in wireless networks? • Previous simulation results based on light load. As load is increased, congestion leads to performance collapse • Evaluate max throughput analytically for a simple grid structure, the “corridor”: sender receivers

  20. Linear Programming Formulation maximize f Wireless medium contention and scheduling constraints Wireless flow conservation constraints

  21. Maximum Multicast Throughput CodeCast vs Conventional CORRIDOR MODEL Sender Receivers

  22. Link schedule achieving 2/3 throughput (Assuming time-slotted system) sender B C A A B A B receiver (3) (1) (2) (4)

  23. Link schedule for NC achieving throughput of 2/3 A B C D C B D A B A (3) (1) (2) (4) (5) (6) E F G H G H E F F E D C A B C D A+B C+D (9) (7) (8) (10) (11) (12)

  24. Multicast with multiple embedded trees (no NC): Link schedule achieves 2/5 throughput B A A B A B A (3) (1) (2) (4) (5) D C C D C D C B (9) (7) (8) (10) (6)

  25. Modeling Wireless Medium • We model the broadcast nature of the wireless medium using hyperarcs • An hyperarc (i,J) represents a specific usage of the broadcast link from the sender i to a set of destination nodes , where is the number of neighbors of node i • Total number of hyperarcs = Interference i i i (a) Examples of Hyperarcs in red

  26. Modeling Wireless Medium (cont) • Wireless medium is shared, which is a main factor that limits the capacity of wireless multi–hop networks. • To model this shared nature of the medium, we map it into a graph theory problem, the Maximal Independent Set Enumeration Problem. A Independent Set represents a set of non interfering hyperarcs. (By finding only maximal sets, the number of sets is reduced.) Conflict! i (a) I.S. (b) NO I.S. (c) Maximal I.S.

  27. Modeling Wireless Medium (cont) • All hyperarcs in a Maximal I.S. can be activated at the same time. Scheduling is always feasible when only one Maximal I.S. is exclusively activated in a time slot. • Let be the fraction of time in which the k-th Maximal I.S. is activated. Clearly we have: • Let be the time share allocated to a hyperarc (i, J). Then, sufficient and necessary condition for a link schedule to be feasible is: where . (L: link capacity)

  28. Server 4 1 3 6 2 5 4 1 6 2 5 3 Network Coding in P2P Swarming • P2P Swarming • File is divided into many small pieces for distribution • Clients request different pieces from the server/other peers • When all pieces are downloaded, clients can re-construct the whole file • Rare piece problem • P2P using Network Coding • Avalanche, Infocom’05 4 1 6 5 2 3 [Rodriguez, Biersack, Infocom’00]

  29. Multicast in VANETs - CodeTorrent • Content distribution in VANET such as ad movie clips etc • VANET challenges • Error-prone channel • Dense, but intermittent connectivity • High, but restricted mobility patterns • No guaranteed cooperativeness (only, users of the same interests will cooperate) • CodeTorrent approach • Single-hop data pulling • BitTorrent-style file swarming with random network coding to cope with dynamic environments

  30. Design Rationale • Why single-hop pulling? • Multi-hop data pulling does not perform well in VANET (routing O/H is high) • Users in multi-hop may not forward packets not useful to them (lack of incentive)! • Network coding • Mitigate a rare piece problem • Maximize the benefits of overhearing • Exploits mobility such that coded blocks are carried from AP and forwarded to other nodes • Mobility helps data dissemination

  31. Buffer Buffer Buffer Download a “coded” piece CodeTorrent: Basic Idea Internet Random Linear Combination of Blocks Outside Range of Gateway Exchange Re-Encoded Blocks Downloading a Coded Block from Gateway Meeting Other Vehicles with Coded Blocks

  32. Simulations - Setup • Qualnet • IEEE 802.11b / 2Mbps • Real-track mobility model (Westwood map) • 2.4x2.4 km2 • Distributing 1MB file • 4KB block / 250 pieces • 1KB per packet • # of APs: 3 • Randomly located at the road sides • Comparing CarTorrent (w/ AODV) and CodeTorrent Vicinity of UCLA

  33. Simulation Results • Overall downloading progress 200 nodes40% popularity

  34. Simulation Results • Speed helps disseminate from AP’s and C2C • Speed hurts multihop routing (CarT) • Car density+mhop promotes congestion (CarT) 40% popularity

More Related