1 / 20

Analysis of Aeronautical Gateway Protocol

Analysis of Aeronautical Gateway Protocol. Curtis Kelsey University of Missouri. Overview. Introduction Method Experiment Results Conclusion Summary. Introduction. Aeronautical Networks are unique Mixture of static & dynamic nodes Extremely high speed nodes

gerek
Download Presentation

Analysis of Aeronautical Gateway Protocol

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. Analysis of Aeronautical Gateway Protocol Curtis Kelsey University of Missouri

  2. Overview • Introduction • Method • Experiment • Results • Conclusion • Summary

  3. Introduction • Aeronautical Networks are unique • Mixture of static & dynamic nodes • Extremely high speed nodes • Custom network stack is necessary Dynamic airborne environment

  4. Introduction • ANTP • AeroTP (TCP) • AeroNP (IP) • AeroRP (Routing) • AeroGW* • AeroGW Converts • TCP  AeroTP • IP  AeroNP • Link/MAC  iNET MAC • PHY  iNET PHY

  5. Introduction • Conversions Occur: • Ground Stations • Aeronautical Nodes • Possible Overhead Implications • Less data transferred • Communication windows lost • Most Significant Delay • Egress conversion from MAC to IP (Similar to ARP) • Egress is not constrained by time due to node movement

  6. Method • Does delay caused by the conversion process result in excessive data loss? • Implementation of entire suite beyond the scope of one semester • Implement a network simulation • Use additional delay as control variable • Analyze data delivery

  7. ns3 Setup • http://www.nsnam.org/wiki/index.php/Installation • Virtualbox or Hyper-V • Requirements • Gcc/g++ > 3.4 • Python • Mercurial • Bazaar • Etc… • Downloading • clone http://code.nsnam.org/ns-3-allinone • wgethttp://www.nsnam.org/release/ns-allinone-3.13.tar.bz2

  8. ns3 Setup • Build • ./build.py –enable-examples –enable-tests • Configure • ./waf -d debug --enable-examples --enable-tests configure • Test • ./test.py –c core • Run a Project • ./waf –run <my_project>

  9. Experiment Model • 10 Airborne Nodes/Routing Nodes (Wireless) • Random Walk • Random Speed • 5 Ground Stations (Access Point) • Random Location • GS to Internet Direct Link • 100Mbps • 2ms delay

  10. Experiment Model • 1 Destination Internet Node (Wired) • 100Mbps • 1/10/100/1000ms delay • Traffic • 100-1kb packets/10 seconds • UDP • Zone • 1000 x 1000 area

  11. Experiment Construction • PointToPointHelper • Handles Wired/Wireless Bridge • CsmaHelper • Handles wired nodes • WifiHelper • Handles wireless nodes • MobilityHelper • Handles AN and RN Mobility

  12. Experiment Construction • Packet capture enabled • AP • Csma (Wired) • Wireless Nodes

  13. Results • Simulation ran for • 1ms additional delay • 10ms additional delay • 100ms additional delay • 1000ms additional delay • At Wireless Network Edge

  14. Results • Packets captured at • Wireless AP (Ground Station) • Wired Node • Pcap file processed with Tcpdump & sent to log files • Tcpdump –nn –tt –r (pcap file) > (log file)

  15. Results 3 • How many of the 100 packets got delivered? Wired Node Wireless Nodes

  16. Results • 1ms • 100% packet delivery • No delay between transmit/receive • 10ms • 100% packet delivery • No delay between transmit/receive • 100ms • 100% packet delivery • No delay between transmit/receive • 1000ms • 100% packet delivery • No delay between transmit/receive

  17. Conclusion • Delay implemented on wired node does not affect traffic across point to point link • Move delay variable to p2p link • Random walk & speed for wireless nodes is not causing dropped packets • Expand zone & define a high velocity • Amount of data transferred needs to be increased • Illustrates dropped connections

  18. References • (Primary Paper) E. K. ¸Cetinkaya and J. P. G. Sterbenz. Aeronautical Gateways: Supporting TCP/IP-based Devices and Applications over Modern Telemetry Networks. In Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference (ITC), Las Vegas, NV, October 2009. • Cetinkaya, E., & Rohrer, J. (2012). Protocols for highly-dynamic airborne networks. Proceedings of the 18th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, 411–413. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2348597 • Narra, H., Cetinkaya, E., & Sterbenz, J. (2012). Performance analysis of AeroRP with ground station advertisements. Proceedings of the first ACM …, 43–47. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2248337&ftid=1233995&dwn=1&CFID=118936837&CFTOKEN=41922410 • Sterbenz, J., Pathapati, K., Nguyen, T., & Rohrer, J. (2011). Performance Analysis of the AeroTP Transport Protocol for Highly-Dynamic Airborne Telemetry Networks. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA544743 • J. P. Rohrer, E. Perrins, and J. P. G. Sterbenz. End-to-end disruption-tolerant transport protocol issues and design for airborne telemetry networks. In Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference (ITC), San Diego, CA, October 2008 • A. Jabbar, E. Perrins, and J. P. G. Sterbenz. A cross-layered protocol architecture for highly-dynamic multihop airborne telemetry networks. In Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference (ITC), San Diego, CA, October 2008.

  19. Summary • Introduction • ns3 setup • Experiment Construction • Results • Conclusion • Summary

  20. Questions?

More Related