1 / 15

Using Directionality in Mobile Routing

Using Directionality in Mobile Routing. Bow-Nan Cheng ( MIT LL ) Murat Yuksel ( Univ Nevada - Reno ) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman ( IBM IRL ) (Work done at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ).

keefe
Download Presentation

Using Directionality in Mobile 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. Using Directionality in Mobile Routing Bow-Nan Cheng (MIT LL) Murat Yuksel (Univ Nevada - Reno) Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (IBM IRL) (Work done at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  2. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion • Infrastructure / Wireless Mesh Networks • Characteristics: Fixed, unlimited energy, virtually unlimited processing power • Dynamism – Link Quality • Optimize – High throughput, low latency, balanced load Motivation Scalability  Layer 3: Network Layer • Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANET) • Characteristics: Mobile, limited energy • Dynamism – Node mobility + Link Quality • Optimize – Reachability • Sensor Networks • Characteristics: Data-Centric, extreme limited energy • Dynamism – Node State/Status (on/off) • Optimize – Power consumption Main Issue: Scalability

  3. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion Scaling Networks: Trends in Layer 3 Flood-based Hierarchy/Structured Unstructured/Flat Scalable Mobile Ad hoc / Fixed Wireless Networks WSR (Mobicom 07) ORRP (ICNP 06) DSR, AODV, TORA, DSDV Partial Flood: OLSR, HSLS LGF, VRR, GPSR+GLS Hierarchical Routing, BubbleStorm (Sigcomm 07) LMS (PODC 05) Kazaa, DHT Approaches: CHORD, CAN Peer to Peer / Overlay Networks Gnutella OSPF, IEGRP, RIP OSPF Areas Wired Networks

  4. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion Trends: Directional Communications Directional/Directive Antennas Hybrid FSO / RF MANETS B’ B’ B B D’ D’ A D A D C C A’ A’ C’ C’ • Current RF-based Ad Hoc Networks: • omni-directional RF antennas • High-power – typically the most power consuming parts of laptops • Low bandwidth • Error-prone, high losses • Free Space Optics: • High bandwidth • Low Power • Dense Spatial Reuse • License-free band of operation Omni-directional Directional • Directional Antennas – Capacity Benefits • Theoretical Capacity Improvements - factor of 4p2/sqrt(ab) where a and b are the spreads of the sending and receiving transceiver ~ 50x capacity with 8 Interfaces (Yi et al., 2005) • Sector Antennas in Cell Base Stations – Even only 3 sectors increases capacity by 1.714 (Rappaport, 2006)

  5. Introduction Wireless Mesh Networks Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks Overlay Networks ORRP Big Picture Orthogonal Rendezvous Routing Protocol ORRP Primitive 1:Local sense of direction leads to ability to forward packets in opposite directions A Increasing Mobility • ORRP • High reach (98%), O(N3/2) State complexity, Low path stretch (~1.2), high goodput, unstructured • BUT.. What happens with mobility? 180o 98% 65% S 55% T Up to 69% 42% B 2: Forwarding along Orthogonal lines has a high chance of intersection in area

  6. Mobile-ORRP (MORRP) Introduction • What can we do? • Replace intersection pointwith intersection region. • Shiftdirections of send based on local movement information • Route packets probabilistically rather than based on rigidnext-hop paths. (No need for route maintenance!) • Solution: a NEW kind of routing table: Directional Routing Table (DRT) a A R B Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  7. C B R’ G S A F R Original Path R O P E Q N Original Path M D L D’ I H K J MORRP Basic Example R: Near Field DRT Region of Influence S R Original Direction (a1) S: Near Field DRT Region of Influence New Direction (a2) D D: Near Field DRT Region of Influence • Proactive Element – Generates Rendezvous to Dest Paths • Reactive Element – Generates Source to Rendezvous Paths Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  8. The Directional Routing Table Use Decaying Bloom Filter (DBF) • Soft State – Traditional routing tables have a hard timeout for routing entries. Soft State decreases the level of certainty with time. • Uncertainty with Distance – Nodes closer to a source will have increasingly more information about the location of the source than nodes farther away • Uncertainty with Time – As time goes on, without updates, one will have lesser amount of information about the location of a node • Uncertainty with Mobility – Neighbors can potentially be “covered” by different interfaces based on mobility speed and direction Routing Tables viewed from Node A Routing Table RT w/ Beam ID Directional RT (DRT) Dest ID Next Hop Dest ID Next Hop Beam ID Dest IDs (% of Certainty) Beam ID 4 C B C D : Z B B Z : Z B C D : Z B B Z : Z 1 1 3 : 3 B(90%), C(30%) . Z(90%), D(40%) . 1 2 3 4 B 3 1 A Z 2 D ID ID ID set of IDs Set of IDs set of IDs Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  9. DRT Intra-node Decay Time Decay with Mobility Spread Decay with Mobility a q2 > q1 > q3 q2 7 q3 x x q1 8 a As node moves in direction +x, the certainty of being able to reach nodes covered by region 8 should decay faster than of region 7 depending on speed. This information is DROPPED. As node moves in direction +x, the certainty of being able to reach nodes covered by region 2 should be SPREAD to region 1 and 3faster than the opposite direction. The information about a node in region 2 should be SPREAD to regions 1 and 3. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  10. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MORRP Fields of Operation • Near Field Operation • Uses “Near Field DRT” to match for nodes 2-3 hops away • Far Field Operation • RREQ/RREP much like ORRP except nodes along path store info in “Far-Field DRT” S R D Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  11. Performance Evaluation of MORRP • Metrics Evaluated • Reachability – Percentage of nodes reachable by each node in network (Hypothesis: high reachability) • Delivery Success – Percentage of packets successfully delivered network-wide • Scalability – The total state control packets flooding the network (Hypothesis: higher than ORRP but lower than current protocols out there) • Average Path Length • End to End Delay (Latency) • Aggregate Network Goodput • Scenarios Evaluated (NS2) • Evaluation of metrics vs. AODV (reactive), OLSR (proactive), GPSR with GLS (position-based), and ORRP under various node velocities, densities, topology-sizes, transmission rates. • Evaluation of metrics vs. AODV and OLSRmodified to support beam-switched directional antennas. Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  12. MORRP: Aggregate Goodput Results • Aggregate Network Goodputvs.Traditional Routing Protocols • MORRPachieves from10-14Xthe goodput ofAODV,OLSR, andGPSRw/GLSwith an omni-directional antenna • Gains come from the move toward directional antennas (more efficient medium usage) • Aggregate Network Goodput vs. AODV and OLSR modified with directional antennas • MORRP achieves about 15-20% increase in goodput vs. OLSR with multiple directional antennas • Gains come from using directionality more efficiently Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  13. MORRP: Simulations Summary • MORRP achieves high reachability (93% in mid-sized, 1300x1300m2 and 87% in large-sized, 2000x2000 m2 topologies) with high mobility (30m/s). • With sparser and larger networks, MORRP performs fairly poorly (83% reach) suggesting additional research into proper DRT tuning is required. • In lightly loaded networks, MORRP end-to-end latency is double of OLSR and about 7x smaller than AODV and 40x less than GPSR w/ GLS • MORRPscales well by minimizing control packets sent • MORRP yields over 10-14X the aggregate network throughput compared to traditional routing protocols with one omnidirectional interface  gains from using directional interfaces • MORRP yields over 15-20%the aggregate network goodput compared to traditional routing protocols modified with 8 directional interfaces  gains from using directionality constructively Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  14. MORRP: Key Contributions • The Directional Routing Table • A replacement for traditional routing tables that routes based on probabilistic hints • Gives a basic building block for using directionality to overcome issues with high mobility in MANET and DTNs • Using directionality in layer 3 to solve the issues caused by high mobility in MANETs • MORRP achieves high reachability (87% - 93%) in high mobility (30m/s) • MORRPscales well by minimizing control packets sent • MORRP shows that high reach can be achieved in probabilistic routing without the need to frequently disseminate node position information. • MORRP yields high aggregate network goodput with the gains coming not only from utilizing directional antennas, but utilizing the concept of directionality itself. • MORRP is scalable and routes successfully with more relaxed requirements (No need for coordinate space embedding) Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

  15. Thank You! • Questions and Comments? • Papers / Posters / Slides / NS2 Code (MORRP, ORRP, OLSR + AODV with Beam switched directional antennas) [ http://networks.ecse.rpi.edu/~bownan ] • bownan@gmail.com Introduction MORRP Key Concepts Simulation Results Conclusion

More Related