240 likes | 406 Views
Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data. Michael Meisel , Vasileios Pappas, and Lixia Zhang UCLA, IBM Research MobiArch’10, September 24, 2010 2011. 3. 13 Shinhaeng Oh (shoh@mmlab.snu.ac.kr). CONTENTS. Background Internet Protocol vs. Named Data Existing Solutions for mobile networks
E N D
Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data Michael Meisel, Vasileios Pappas, and Lixia Zhang UCLA, IBM Research MobiArch’10, September 24, 2010 2011. 3. 13 Shinhaeng Oh (shoh@mmlab.snu.ac.kr)
CONTENTS • Background • Internet Protocol vs. Named Data • Existing Solutions for mobile networks • Ad-Hoc Networking over IP • Limitation of IP-Routing • New Direction for mobile networks • NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking • Design Example : LFBL • Conclusion
Introduction • TCP/IP and CCN Protocol Stacks • Replace packets with Data Objects or Interests • ReplaceAddresses with Names of Objects
Ad-Hoc Networkingover IP 1. Each node is assigned an IP address 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210
Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 2. Applications communicate by sending data to specific destination addresses 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210
Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 3. When node move, determine a single best path to the given destination IP, and delivers data Sending data 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210
Limitations of the IP-Routing (1) • Difficult to assign IP addresses (moving nodes) • IP addresses management is tightly controlled • It requires infrastructure support (e.g. DHCP) • ad-hoc networks need infrastructure-free !! • In mobile, IP address is less meaningful • Wired networks, IP represent topology location • But, ad-hoc network do not have fixed location • Temporary unique identifier for device is needed SNU: 147.46.174.xx MIT: 18.9.22.xx
NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (1) • Assign IP address to each nodes --No longer needs • To forward interests &data packets, • Nodes can use application data names directly interest interest forward or broadcast
Limitations of the IP-Routing (2) • Data is invisible in today’s IP-centric architecture source destination • It’s sub-optimal delivery • Accuracy of routing statemaintained at each nodeOverhead to keep this state consistent --tradeoff • High node mobility • Constant movement in the aggregate at a large network
NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (2) • Caching (traditional approach) • Ideally, each cached object has to be retrieved in its entirety from the same caching node. • But, images & audios & videos cannot fit within one packet • Transparent caching techniques work only in static network • Caching (NDN) • Intermediate node can forward to request node any part of file subsequent request chunk
Limitations of the IP-Routing (3) • Receivers are in a better position to make forward decision than senders • In broadcast channel, nodes can hear the transmission • To keep all neighbors’ movement and connectivity changes will increase the routing table update overhead
NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (3) • Interest packets can be forwarded multiple path • More than one direction returns the request data • A node can evaluate which path gives the best performance • Send future Interest for same data source in that direction • Remove critical dependency on pre-computed single paths
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Response Response REQUEST Name of application data
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination 2 ACK 1
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK 1 2
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK 1 3 2
Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK
Performance Evaluation • Implemented LFBL in QualNet network simulator • Effect of % of mobile nodes • Move at a fixed rate of 30m/s (random waypoint mobility) various contents concurrently?
Conclusion • Frequent changes in topology had a direct impact on the performance of current protocols • Designed a new forwarding protocol: LBFL • For highly dynamic multi-hop wireless networks • Distributed forwarding capability with essentially no routing protocol • Through named data networking approach, • We can sketched out promising architectural direction to develop effective and efficient solution for ad-hoc networks
Related Work: DSDV, AODV • Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) is a table-driven routing scheme for ad hoc mobile networks based on Bellman-Ford algorithm • Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, they generally even if a link is present, odd used • For example the routing table of Node A in Network