1 / 17

A Charging and Rewarding Scheme for Packet Forwarding in Multi-hop Cellular Networks

NCCR/MICS. A Charging and Rewarding Scheme for Packet Forwarding in Multi-hop Cellular Networks. N. Ben Salem * , L. Buttyán ** , J.-P. Hubaux * and M. Jakobsson *** * Laboratory of Computer Communications and Applications (LCA)

lahela
Download Presentation

A Charging and Rewarding Scheme for Packet Forwarding in Multi-hop Cellular 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. NCCR/MICS A Charging and Rewarding Scheme for Packet Forwarding in Multi-hop Cellular Networks N. Ben Salem*, L. Buttyán**, J.-P. Hubaux* and M. Jakobsson*** *Laboratory of Computer Communications and Applications (LCA) Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland **Department of Telecommunications, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary ***RSA Laboratories, Hoboken, NJ, USA

  2. Outline • Multi-hop Cellular Networks • 2. Model • System and trust model • Adversarial model • 3. The protocol • Session setup • Packet sending • Payment redemption • Security analysis • 5. Overhead of the solution • Communication Overhead • Computation Overhead 6. Conclusions and future work

  3. Set of base stations connected to a backbone • Cell = The geographical area under the control of a base station • A node beyond the reach of the base station coverage can • use other mobile stations as relays Backbone B Backbone A Multi-hop cellular networks • Combine the characteristics of cellular and ad hoc networks • Advantages: • Increase the coverage of the network • Small number of base stations (fixed antennas) • Reduce the energy consumption of the sending mobile station • Reduced interference

  4. Why would the intermediate nodes use their battery to relay packets for other nodes? Charge the initiator A of the communication Reward the cooperative forwarding nodes (and the operator) Initiator Correspondent BSB BSA j B A 1 i 1 Problem statement • Multi-hop cellular networks represent a new and promising paradigm, but … • No cooperation = the network does not work • We exclusively consider the packet forwarding service

  5. The initiator A wants to communicate with the correspondent B • A has to establish an end-to-end session with B (a session is a • secure route on which all the nodes are authenticated) • An initiator session between A and BSA • A correspondent session between BSB and B • Then, A and B exchange packets BSB BSA j B A 1 i 1 End-to-end session Initiator session Correspondent session Packet exchange Model System model: • This is done by establishing: • The operator charges A for the traffic (in both directions)

  6. Model Trust model and assumptions: • Node i shares a symmetric key Kiwith theoperator • The nodes trust the operator for: • not revealing secret keys • correctly transmitting packets • correctly performing billing and auditing • The nodes do not trust each other • The underlying routing protocol is secure • All the communications go through a base station • Nodes are mobile but we have a certain level of route stability Adversarial Model: • The nodes are rational: • they are potential attackers if cheating is beneficial • they will cooperate if they expect a gain • Collusions are possible • We consider the pessimistic case where all the attackers are under the control of a single entity

  7. AReq0 AReqID oldASID ARoute TrafficInfo MACA AReqi-1 AReqID oldASID ARoute TrafficInfo MACi-1 AReqi AReqID oldASID ARoute TrafficInfo MACi AReqa AReqID oldASID ARoute TrafficInfo MACa A layered MAC that BSA can verify Session Setup BSB BSA B A i j

  8. Req BReq0 PADi,1 PADi,2 PADi, SID seedi BReqID oldBSID BRoute TrafficInfo Ki MaxLength MaxLength MaxLength AConf Layered MAC authentication BConf MACa AReqID ASID MACA … MAC1 BReqID BSID MAC1 … MACb MACB Session Setup BSB BSA B A i j Stream Cipher Generation

  9. SPkt0,l SSID l Payloadl MACS SPkti-1,l Bodyi-1,l SSID  PADi,l = SSID l Bodyi,l SPkti,l SPkts,l Bodys,l SSID Encrypted data that BSS can decrypt Packet Sending BSD BSS D S i j Body0,l

  10. l Payloadl MACD DSID  PAD1,l Acknowledgement for the packet  PAD1,l = DSID Body0,l DPkti,l Iterative XOR DPktd,l Bodyd,l DSID The Body is decrypted MACD l Payloadl Packet Sending BSD BSS D S i j Body’0,l

  11. BSB BSA j B=D A=S 1 i 1 Payment Redemption • Charging and rewarding mechanism: • - When the packet SPkt of length L reaches BSS • A is charged n (L) • The forwarders in the up-stream are rewarded  (L)each • The operator is rewarded • - When the packet DPkt is injected in the down-stream • D is charged a small amount  • - When the packet DAck is received by a base station • The forwarders in the down-stream are rewarded  (L)each • D is refunded for each packet it acknowledges

  12. DPktd,l DSID Acknowledgement for the packet • D maintains:Batch= MACKD(DSID |  | Payload )  LastPkt;  LostPkts MACD l Payloadl Payment Redemption • Destination Acknowledgment: • One acknowledgement per session: • DAck = [ DSID | Batch | lastPkt | LostPkts | • MACKD(DSID | Batch | lastPkt | LostPkts ) ] • DAck is sent offline after the session is closed

  13. Security Analysis • Incentive to cooperate: • The up-stream nodes get rewarded only if SPkt reaches BSS • The down-stream nodes get rewarded only if D acknowledges DPkt • D is refunded only if it acknowledges DPkt • Disincentive against cheating: • Refusal to pay: • The MAC in the packet uniquely identifies S • Incorrect reward claims: • A node i is credited if it is part of both the session setup and the packet sending phases • A node i is the only node that is able to correctly compute the layered MAC in the session setup and the PAD in the packet sending • Free-riding: • The packets are encrypted at each hop • The nodes are not rewarded and the transmitted data is garbled • Emulated nodes: • A node is in several physical locations simultaneously • Some nodes seem to be always neighbors • Capture a rogue device

  14. Communication Overhead • Sizes of the fields: • Session Setup Phase: 144+NbFwdrs*64 bytes • Packet Sending Phase: 20 bytes per packet • Sending the Acknowledgement: 38+2*NbLostPkts bytes per session •  Numerical values? • Simulations: • 100 nodes in a 500x500 m2 cell with one base station in the center • Fixed power range of 100 m • RWP: uniform speed  [0,20] m/s; pause time  {0,60,120,300,600} s • We discard the first 1000 s of simulation time • 100 simulations for each value of the pause time • Figures of interest: • Average lifetime of a route (AverageLifeTime) • Average number of forwarding nodes (NbFwdrs) • Average percentage of disconnected nodes (NotConnected).

  15. Communication Overhead • Simulation Results: • Numerical example: • Mobility = 0s Pause time • Application = Voice over IP • Codec G.711 • frame size = 200 bytes • Values of the overhead: • During the 8.2s, it is possible to transmit 410 packets (= 65.6 kbytes) • Session setup : 0.3% of the total payload of the session • Packet sending : 11% of the packet size • Payment redemption : 0.3% of the total payload of the session for the pessimistic case where NbLostPkts=100

  16. Computation Overhead • Session Setup Phase (per session): • 2 MAC operationsfor each node • Packet Sending Phase (per packet): • 1 stream cipher encryption for each node (except D) • 1 MAC operation for S and D • Acknowledgment computation (for D): • 1 XOR operation per packet • 1MAC computation per session • What is the cost of a stream cipher encryption?

  17. Conclusions and future work • Conclusions: • We have addressed the problem of cooperation for packet forwarding in multi-hop cellular networks • We have proposed a solution based of a charging and rewarding mechanism • We have shown that the protocol encourages cooperation and that it resists to number of rational attacks • We have quantified the life time of the sessions and shown that the usage of our scheme leads to a very moderate overhead • Future work: • Malicious attacks • Several operators • Charge the correspondent

More Related