1 / 24

GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks

GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks. B. Karp, H. T. Kung Borrowed some Richard Yang‘s slides. Motivation. A sensor net consists of hundreds or thousands of nodes Scalability is the issue

lynley
Download Presentation

GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless 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. GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks B. Karp, H. T. KungBorrowed some Richard Yang‘s slides

  2. Motivation • A sensor net consists of hundreds or thousands of nodes • Scalability is the issue • Existing ad hoc net protocols, e.g., DSR, AODV, ZRP, require nodes to cache e2e route information • Dynamic topology changes • Mobility • Reduce caching overhead • Hierarchical routing is usually based on well defined, rarely changing administrative boundaries • Geographic routing • Use location for routing

  3. Scalability metrics • Routing protocol msg cost • How many control packets sent? • Per node state • How much storage per node is required? • E2E packet delivery success rate

  4. Assumptions • Every node knows its location • Positioning devices like GPS • Localization • A source can get the location of the destination • 802.11 MAC • Link bidirectionality

  5. Closest to D A Geographic Routing: Greedy Routing S D • Find neighbors who are closer to the destination • Forward the packet to the neighbor closest to the destination

  6. Benefits of GF • A node only needs to remember the location info of one-hop neighbors • Routing decisions can be dynamically made

  7. Greedy Forwarding does NOT always work • If the network is dense enough that each interior node has a neighbor in every 2/3 angular sector, GF will always succeed GF fails

  8. Dealing with Void: Right-Hand Rule • Apply the right-hand rule to traverse the edges of a void • Pick the next anticlockwise edge • Traditionally used to get out of a maze

  9. Right-Hand Rule Does Not Work with Cross Edges z u D • x originates a packet to u • Right-hand rule results in the tour x-u-z-w-u-x w x

  10. Remove Crossing Edge z u D • Make the graph planar • Remove(w,z)from the graph • Right-hand rule results in the tour x-u-z-v-x w x

  11. Make a Graph Planar • Convert a connectivity graph to planar non-crossing graph by removing “bad” edges • Ensure the original graph will not be disconnected • Two types of planar graphs: • Relative Neighborhood Graph (RNG) • Gabriel Graph (GG)

  12. Relative Neighborhood Graph • Connection uv can exist if w  u, v, d(u,v) < max[d(u,w),d(v,w)] not empty  remove uv

  13. Gabriel Graph • An edge (u,v) exists between vertices u and v if no other vertex w is present within the circle whose diameter is uv. • w  u, v, d2(u,v) < [d2(u,w) + d2(v,w)] Not empty  remove uv

  14. Properties of GG and RNG RNG • RNG is a sub-graph of GG • Because RNG removes more edges • If the original graph isconnected, RNG is also connected GG

  15. Examples Full graph GG subset RNG subset • 200 nodes • randomly placed on a 2000 x 2000 meter region • radio range of 250 m • Bonus: remove redundant, competing path  less collision

  16. greedy fails GPSR Greedy Forwarding Perimeter Forwarding have left local maxima greedy works greedy fails

  17. Implementation Issues • Graph planarization • RNG & GG planarization depend on having the current location info of a node’s neighbors • Mobility may cause problems • Re-planarize when a node enters or leaves the radio range • What if a node only moves in the radio range? • To avoid this problem, the graph should be re-planarized for every beacon msg • Also, assumes a circular radio transmission model • In general, it could be harder & more expensive than it sounds

  18. Performance evaluation • Simulation in ns-2 • Baseline: DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) • Random waypoint model • A node chooses a destination uniformly at random • Choose velocity uniformly at random in the configurable range – simulated max velocity 20m/s • A node pauses after arriving at a waypoint – 300, 600 & 900 pause times

  19. 50, 112 & 200 nodes • 22 sending nodes & 30 flows • About 20 neighbors for each node – very dense • CBR (2Kbps) • Nominal radio range: 250m (802.11 WaveLan radio) • Each simulation takes 900 seconds • Take an average of the six different randomly generated motion patterns

  20. Packet Delivery Success Rate

  21. Routing Protocol Overhead

  22. Related Work • Geographic and Energy Aware Routing (GEAR), UCLA Tech Report, 2000 • Consider remaining energy in addition to geographic location to avoid quickly draining energy of the node closest to the destination • Geographic probabilistic routing, International workshop on wireless ad-hoc networks, 2005 • Determine the packet forwarding probability to each neighbor based on its location, residual energy, and link reliability

  23. Beacon vector routing, NSDI 2005 • Beacons know their locations • Forward a packet towards the beacon • A Scalable Location Service for Geographic Ad Hoc Routing, MobiCom ’00 • Distributed location service • Landmark routing • Paul F. Tsuchiya. Landmark routing: Architecture, algorithms and issues. Technical Report MTR-87W00174, MITRE Corporation, September 1987. • Classic work with many follow-ups

  24. Questions?

More Related