1 / 22

Paper: IMPORTANT by Bai Sadagopan et al.

This paper explores the effect of mobility on the performance of ad hoc networks and proposes a set of parameters to characterize mobility. It discusses previous studies, introduces mobility models, and suggests additional metrics for measuring connectivity. The paper concludes by highlighting the influence of mobility on protocol performance and the need for dynamic protocol parameters.

spearl
Download Presentation

Paper: IMPORTANT by Bai Sadagopan et al.

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. Paper: IMPORTANTby Bai Sadagopan et al. Michalis Faloutsos

  2. The Problem: How important is mobility in ad hoc performance? • Mobility has been ignored or downplayed so far • Questions: • What is the effect of mobility on performance? • How does mobility affect performance?

  3. Contribution: Mobility is critical • Mobility affects the performance • Define a set of parameters (framework): • Mobility • Network connectivity • Protocol structure (building blocks) • Relative performance of protocols varies with mobility • Mobility affects: connectivity (link/path stability)

  4. Motivation and Significance • W need a systematic approach to simulations • Warn us: varying scenarios gives diff. Results • Provide a framework to characterize mobility

  5. Roadmap • Previous work • Definition of metrics for mobility and connectivity • Experimental results • Conclusions • Paper criticism

  6. Mobility models and studies • Way- point model • Group Mobility (RPGM) • Groups of nodes that follow a group leader • Each member has speed similar to leader: • Magnitude, angle (from x-axis) • Freeway: predetermined lanes two way • Manhattan: square lattice two-way traffic • Prob. 0.5 go straght, 0.25 turn left, 0.25 turn right

  7. Previous studies • Mobility does matter Pei et al. [11]: • Proactive and reactive protocols are similar performance johansson et al. [10] • Proactive protocols better throughput, and e2e delay, but reactive protocols less overhead Das et al. [8] (spot any contradiction?) • [8] introduced a mobility model limiting “change”

  8. Metrics: Capturing mobility

  9. Metrics: Spatial and Temporal Dependence • Spatial Dependence: movement similarity of nodes close together • Temporal Dependence: similarity of node movement with itself in the near past • Relative Speed: as in physics: difference of vectors

  10. Metrics for graph connectivity • Number of link changes: how many times there was a direct link between two nodes • Link duration: how long a link between nodes lasts • Path availability: fraction of time that two nodes are connected

  11. Simulation set up • Area: 1000m x 1000m • 40 nodes • 900 sec • RPGM groups of 1x40, and 4x10 • Speed: Vmax = 1,5,10,20,30,40,50,60 m/sec • Range: 250m

  12. Which metrics can distinguish mobility? • Average relative speed and spatial dependence are good metrics

  13. Metrics for connectivity • Average link duration distinguished mobility models Why this dip?

  14. Mobility affects protocol performance • AODV and DSDV thruput comparison varies • Proactive (DSDV) protocols sometimes better than reactive Transmission range 250m

  15. Mobility models • What do nodes do when they reach the end of the road?

  16. Conclusions • Mobility affects performance of protocols • DSR is a well “designed” protocol with optimized parameters • Other protocols are non-optimized then? • DSR: aggressive caching of routes • Good for low mobility

  17. Criticism • Mobility was examined, but what about other parameters: • Average path length of connection • Average duration of connection • Speed with respect to connection and simulation duration • Parameters of different protocols, were they optimized?

  18. Quick calculations • Relative distance in hops? 1000^2/40 = 25000 m^2 • Area of transmission: pi r^2 = 3.14 250^2 = 196,250 • Average neighborhood= 7.85 nodes • Node density! • Max straight path length: 1000 sqrt(2) / 250 = 5.65 hops • Average path length: approx 3 hops • Is that “enough”?

  19. Mean criticism • We knew that mobility is important • We knew that DSR seems to perform best • In one case AODV does better slightly • Do their results suggest what is the “right” simulation? No. • They provide some intuitive obseervations • Building blocks: do they actually explain something?

  20. Fair criticism • Provide a framework, first organized attempt • Provide metrics • Do thorough experiments • Explain they results they see (most of them) • Intersting work that makes you think

  21. How could I do things better • Model topology from a graph theoretic poin of view • More metrics: • Average path length • Average neighborhood • Node density • Path length inflation • Choice of source-destination pairs (skewed distr.) • Measure disconnectivity: scope, duration

  22. More how to do things better • Examine the effect of other parameters than just mobility • Show that subtle parameters in protocols can make significant changes • Argue that protocol parameters must be dynamic!

More Related