1 / 24

Improving QoS Support in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Improving QoS Support in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Agenda Motivations Proposed Framework Packet-level FEC Multipath Routing Simulation Results Conclusions. Motivations. Challenges for improving QoS in MANET Network congestion, buffer overflow

saman
Download Presentation

Improving QoS Support in Mobile Ad Hoc 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. Improving QoS Support in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Agenda • Motivations • Proposed Framework • Packet-level FEC • Multipath Routing • Simulation Results • Conclusions

  2. Motivations • Challenges for improving QoS in MANET • Network congestion, buffer overflow Same as we met in wired networks, but bandwidth is much lower • Radio channel characteristics Multipath propagation, path loss, interference … • Frequent topology reconfigurations Constant rerouting & packet dropping due to link/path failures

  3. Motivations • QoS provisioning in MANET requires QoS-based routing protocol, Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol, and resource reservation protocol to work together. • This work focuses on improving QoS performance at the network layer, addressing packet losses due to link and path failures resulting from node mobility. • Improve packet delivery ratio • Improve end-to-end delay and jitter • Maintain low control overhead • Reduce bursty packet losses

  4. Proposed Framework • Multi-path routing protocol (MPR) • Spatial reutilization of wireless channel • Improve packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay and jitter, routing overhead • Reduce burstiness of packet losses • Packet-level Forward Error Correction scheme • Reduce average packet loss rate • Avoid retransmission

  5. Observations • Packet-level FEC can reduce packet loss, avoid retransmission and associated delay. • But, no significant gains can be attained by adopting packet-level FEC over single path routing in MANET. • Packet loss tends to be bursty due to frequent path failures • A packet interleaving scheme is needed. • Delay -- packets need to be buffered for interleaving before being sent out. • Memory requirements. • Multi-path routing can also act as a packet interleaver.

  6. Correlated Packet Loss in MANET

  7. A 3x4 Packet Interleaver • Input sequence: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] • Output sequence: [1, 4, 7, 10, 2, 5, 8, 11, 3, 6, 9, 12] • No impact on packet loss rate, but effectively reduces the average burst length, converting bursty losses to random losses.

  8. Multi-path Illustration

  9. Reed-Solomon Erasure Coding

  10. Multipath Routing Scheme • Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is chosen as the basis protocol for MPR implementation. • Major difference between MPR and DSR: • Route Discovery: • Target node replies indiscriminately to all incoming route requests carrying node-disjoint routes. • Intermediate nodes no longer reply to route requests. • Route Maintenance: • New route discovery initiated only after all active routes broke. • Packet Distribution: • Round robin packet distribution over multiple routes. • Up to 3 node-disjoint paths are concurrently in use.

  11. Simulation Model • All modifications were integrated directly into Qualnet. • Random waypoint mobility model. 50 mobile nodes randomly placed in a terrain of dimension (1500, 1500). • CBR traffic, 5 sessions, from 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 to 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, respectively. Each with 500 data packets of size 512 bytes. • IEEE 802.11 MAC with RTS/CTS. • Metrics: • Packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay and jitter, average routing overhead, burst length of packet loss.

  12. Simulation Results:Comparison among MPR, SPR, MPR-FEC and SPR-FEC

  13. Simulation Results:Comparison among MPR, SPR, MPR-FEC and SPR-FEC

  14. Simulation Results:Comparison among MPR, SPR, MPR-FEC and SPR-FEC

  15. Simulation Results:Comparison among MPR, SPR, MPR-FEC and SPR-FEC

  16. Correlated Packet Loss Histogram (1)

  17. Correlated Packet Loss Histogram (2)

  18. Correlated Packet Loss Histogram (3)

  19. Effects of Various FEC Redundancy Levels

  20. Effects of Various FEC Redundancy Levels

  21. Effects of Various FEC Block Sizes

  22. Effects of Various FEC Block Sizes

  23. Conclusions • MPR significantly outperforms SPR in all criteria. • SPR-FEC performs worse than SPR, due to inherent packet loss correlation in MANET. • MPR reduces most consecutive packet losses to single packet losses, desirable by real-time video/audio applications. • MPR-FEC further improves packet delivery ratio, but at the cost of higher delay, jitter and control overhead (compared to MPR). • Higher FEC redundancy may not always be good.

  24. The End Questions? Thanks!

More Related