1 / 12

Efficient Flooding in Ad Hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study

Efficient Flooding in Ad Hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study. YJung and Mario Gerla University of California, Los Angeles. Introduction. Flooding The basic mechanism to propagate control messages Ex. route query flooding of reactive routing scheme Blind flooding

khalil
Download Presentation

Efficient Flooding in Ad Hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study

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. Efficient Flooding in Ad Hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study YJung and Mario Gerla University of California, Los Angeles

  2. Introduction • Flooding • The basic mechanism to propagate control messages • Ex. route query flooding of reactive routing scheme • Blind flooding • All nodes in the network (re)-broadcast the packet • Inefficiency • Redundant and superfluous packets • High probability of collision and contention • Heavy congestion of wireless medium

  3. Introduction (2) • Efficient flooding • A subset of dominant neighbors re-broadcast the flood packet to guarantee complete flooding • Contributions • We classify and evaluate existing efficient flooding schemes

  4. Overview of Efficient Flooding • Neighboring topology based protocol • Source-tree based protocol • Cluster-based protocol

  5. Multi-Point Relay (MPR) Use neighbors’ information within two hops Selects a minimal subset of forwarding neighbors (MPRNs) that covers all the nodes two-hop away GAF Use location information to choose minimal set of dominating nodes Excluded from our study due to the assumption of (extra) position information 1,3,4 2,3 2 1 4 1,3,4 2,3 3 1,2,3,4 Neighbor Topology based Protocol Stop forwarding MPR: Node 1 chooses node 2 as MPRN

  6. Builds a sh-path source-tree rooted at the flood initiator Rebroadcast if a node is on shortest path and non-leaf “Reverse Path Forwarding” Source-Tree Based Protocol S 2 1 3 4 5 Blue nodes (non-leafs) rebroadcast

  7. Clustering: grouping nodes into clusters Cluster head: a representative node of each group Gateway: a node connecting more than two clusters Ordinary nodes: Others Efficient Flooding: only cluster heads and gateways rebroadcast Two clustering mechanisms Active clustering: builds the cluster structure proactively Passive clustering: builds the clusters passively, using on-going data traffic ClusterHead Gateway Ordinary Node Cluster-based Protocol S

  8. Simulation Study • Environment • GloMoSim 2.0 • Target protocols: • MPR (F-MPR) • Active clustering with Lowest ID algorithm (F-AC) • Passive clustering (F-PC) • Reverse path forwarding (source-tree based protocol) (F-RPF) • Blind flooding (F-BF) • Protocols • UDP/802.11 DCF/two-ray propagation model • BW: 2MBits/sec • Power Range: 250meters • Single source initiates flooding 4 times per second

  9. Delivery Ratio rank: F-BF >> F-PC >> F-RPF >> F-AC >> F-MPR Flooding efficiency rank F-RPF >> F-MPR >> F-AC >> F-PC >> F-BF MPR suffers due to inaccurate neighbor information -> insufficient # of dominating nodes are chosen RPF works the best. But RPF needs a complex extension to be applied to multiple floodings (multiple source trees) PC works overall okay Performance Test v.s. Density Delivery Ratio Forwarding OH

  10. Performance v.s. Mobility Delivery Ratio Forwarding OH • Rank does not change from the previous results • Passive clustering outperforms all (but BF): keep stable with increase of mobility

  11. Applications : AODV Delivery Ratio Control OH Efficient flooding improves AODV performance at heavy load MPR works better than Pass Clustering at heavy load; but, MPR requires periodic table exchange – unfit for on-demand rtng

  12. Conclusion • A comparative study of efficient flooding mechanisms • Results: • Passive clustering performs well for a broad range of node mobility and network density values • Passive clustering is the most robust • Accurate neighbor information collection is very challenging due to unreliable pkt delivery • MPR, active clustering shows bad performance in high mobility • Each scheme has a different set of suitable applications • F-PC for reactive routing protocols • F-MPR, F-AC and F-RPF for proactive schemes

More Related