510 likes | 630 Views
Joint Design of Routing and Medium Access Control for Hybrid Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Mobile Networks and Applications (January 2007) Presented by J.H. Su ( 蘇至浩 ). Authors(1/2). Xiaojiang (James) Du Received the Ph.D. degrees from University of Maryland College Park in electrical engineering.
E N D
Joint Design of Routing and Medium Access Controlfor Hybrid Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Mobile Networks and Applications (January 2007) Presented by J.H. Su (蘇至浩) OPLab, IM, NTU
Authors(1/2) • Xiaojiang (James) Du • Received the Ph.D. degrees from University of Maryland College Park in electrical engineering. • An Assistant Professor with the Department of Computer Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo. • His research interests are wireless sensor networks, mobile ad hoc networks, wireless networks, computer networks, network security, and network management. OPLab, IM, NTU
Authors(2/2) • Dapeng Wu • Received the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, in 2003. • Has been with Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, as an Assistant Professor. • His research interests are in the areas of networking, communications, multimedia, signal processing, and information and network security. OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Introduction (1/2) • Most existing routing protocols assume homogeneous MANETs. • Gupta and Kumar showed that per node capacity of a homogeneous wireless network is only w/√ (nlogn) • W is the node transmission capacity • n is the number of nodes OPLab, IM, NTU
Introduction (2/2) • Furthermore, in many realistic ad hoc networks, nodes are hybrid. • in a battlefield network • In this paper, we present a new routing protocol—Hybrid Routing (HR) protocol for hybrid MANETs. • node location information is used to reduce routing overhead OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Assumption of HR (1/2) • For simplicity, we consider there are only two types of nodes in the network. • Backbone-Capable nodes • general nodes • The main idea of HR protocol is to let most routing activities rely on B-nodes. • provides better reliability and fault tolerance • routing packets via B-nodes is more efficient than using general nodes • reduces the routing overhead and latency OPLab, IM, NTU
Assumption of HR (2/2) • The routing area is divided into several small, equal-sized squares—referred to as cells. • In HR protocol, we assume the routing area is fixed. • the position of each cell is also fixed • There is a unique id for each cell. • One (and only one) B-node is elected and maintained in each cell, and each B-node has a second address. • B-node can always communicate directly with B-nodes in all nearby cells. OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Routing among B-nodes (1/2) • B-nodes use their second addresses to communicate with each other. • A straight line L is drawn between the centers of cell CS and Cd. • Two border lines (blue lines) which parallel to line L with distance of W from L are drawn from CS to Cd. • the value of W depends on the density of BC-nodes in the network • All the cells that are within the two border lines are defined as routing cells. OPLab, IM, NTU
Routing among B-nodes (2/2) W W OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Route Discovery (1/4) • Consider a node S wants to send a data packet to a destination node D. • Case 1 : S is a B-node • Case 2 : S is a general node • S needs to know the current location of the destination node D. • Then S determines the routing cells between S and Bd, and sends Route Request (RR) packets to B-nodes in routing cells. OPLab, IM, NTU
Route Discovery (2/4) • The RRpacket includes the following fields: • Starting_B-node • Next_cells • Routing_cells • Path • Destination_cell OPLab, IM, NTU
Route Discovery (3/4) D 13 14 16 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 1 2 4 OPLab, IM, NTU S 3
Route Discovery (4/4) • If S does not receive a RP from Bs for a certain time: • S will initiate a B-node elecion • If Bs does not receive a RP from Bd for a certain time: • Bs will flood the RR packet to all B-nodes in the network • If Bd does not receive the Ack for a certain time • Bd will hold the data packet (before receiving Ack) and request the updated location information of node D • then Bd can send the data packet to the B-node closest to the new location of D OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Route Repair (1/2) OPLab, IM, NTU
Route Repair (2/2) • The RE packet includes the following fields: • Repairing_B-node • Next_cell • Routing_cells • Destination_cell • Destination_ node • Path OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Dissemination of Node Location Information • When a node moves out of its previous cell, it sends a location update packet (with its new location) to the B-node in the new cell (or the nearest B-node). • All B-nodes periodically send aggregated node location information to a special B-node B0. • If B0 also moves around, then B0 needs to multicast its current location to all B-nodes OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Election of B-node (1/2) • Initially, one B-node is elected in each cell if there are BC-nodes available in the cell. • Following events Initiates the B-node election process: • a B-node moves out of its current cell • a general node discovers there is no B-node in the cell OPLab, IM, NTU
Election of B-node (2/2) • The election process works as following: • the leaving B-node or the general node floods an election message to all the nodes in the cell • when a BC-node receives the election message, it broadcasts a claim message that claims it will become the B-node to all nodes in the cell (each BC-node defers a random time before its B-node claim) • if other BC-node hears a claim message during this random time, it then gives up its broadcast. OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing • Routing among B-nodes • Route Discovery • Route Repair • Dissemination of Node Location Information • Election of B-node • Hybrid MAC (HMAC) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Hybrid MAC (1/2) • The key idea is to combinetime-slotted mechanism with contention based mechanism. • A large time frame is divided into three sub-frames • G-to-G • B-to-B • B-to-G OPLab, IM, NTU
Hybrid MAC (2/2) • Inside each sub-frame, the corresponding nodes use contention-based mechanism— IEEE 802.11b to decide which node should transmit packets. • The sub-frame length depends on the amount of traffic of each subtype. OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Experiment Setting(1/3) • there are totally 20 time-slots • G-to-G sub-frame takes eight timeslots • B-to-B sub-frame takes eight time-slots • B-to-G sub-frame takes four time-slots • we present the simulations performed by distributing 100 nodes uniformly at random in an area of 1,000×1,000 m. • 25 Backbone-Capable (BC) nodes • 75 General nodes OPLab, IM, NTU
Experiment Setting(2/3) • The transmission range of a B-node and a general node is 400 and 100 m. • The side length of a cell is set as a=R/1.6. • There are 16 cells in the routing area • The width of the routing cells—W is set to 0 OPLab, IM, NTU
Experiment Setting(3/3) • Each simulation was run for 600 simulated seconds. • The source sent packet of 512 b at a rate of four packets per second. • We ran each simulation ten times to get an average result for each simulation configuration. • We compared our HR protocol with AODV (Ad-hoc on demand distance vector) routing protocol. OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Routing overhead under different mobility OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Routing overhead vs. transmission range OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Throughput under different traffic load OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Delay comparison OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Scalability AODV-S AODV-L HR-S HR-L OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
The performance of HMAC- Throughput OPLab, IM, NTU
The performance of HMAC- Delay OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Experiment Setting • Routing overhead under different mobility • Routing overhead vs. transmission range • Throughput under different traffic load • Delay comparison • Scalability • The performance of HMAC • The probability of having B-nodes • Performance for different BC-node densities • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Performance for different BC-node densities OPLab, IM, NTU
Agenda • Introduction • Assumption of HR • Hybrid Routing Protocol • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion OPLab, IM, NTU
Conclusion • Proposed Hybrid Routing Protocol to resolve routing problem in different type of node. • An efficient algorithm is provided to disseminate node location information among all B-nodes. • Proposed a novel HMAC protocol that can improve the efficiency of medium access in hybrid MANETs. OPLab, IM, NTU