Upload
nirav
View
47
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
E-ODMRP: Enhanced ODMRP with Motion Adaptive Refresh. Soon Y. Oh, Joon-Sang Park, Mario Gerla Computer Science Dept. UCLA. Multicasting in ad hoc nets. Why multicast in ad hoc nets? Group (1-to-many) communication Wireless “broadcast” medium ODMRP: On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
E-ODMRP: Enhanced ODMRP with Motion Adaptive Refresh
Soon Y. Oh, Joon-Sang Park, Mario GerlaComputer Science Dept.
UCLA
2
Multicasting in ad hoc nets Why multicast in ad hoc nets?
Group (1-to-many) communication Wireless “broadcast” medium
ODMRP: On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol One of the most widely used ad hoc
multicast routing protocol Simple yet high-performing
3
Join Query Join Reply Forwarding NodeLinkMulticast Route
On-demand approach: A source initiates JOIN QUERY flooding only when it has data to send The sender periodically floods JOIN QUERY control messages All intermediate nodes set up route to sender (backward pointer) Members send Join Reply messages following backward pointers Routes from sources to receivers build a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.
S
R
R
R
R
Forwarding Group
ODMRP: Initialization Phase
F
FF
F
4
Generalize to multiple sources
To make the procedure scalable to large number of sources: stagger “join query” floods aggregate join replies
S
R
R
R
R
S1
S2
Forwarding Group
F
FF
F
5
Source broadcasts data packet to neighbors Forwarding Group nodes forward multicast packets via
“restricted” flooding on the forwarding mesh Soft state
No explicit receiver join/leave messages Forwarding nodes clear state upon timeout
Extremely robust to mobility, fast fading, obstacles, jamming
S
R
R
R
R
S2
Forwarding Group
ODMRP: operation
6
Comparison: Packet Delivery Ratio
8
Problem: Forward Group maintenance
Mesh is very resilient to: Short term disruptions (jamming, fading, obstacles) Medium term (connectivity) disruptions, eg FG node
moving out of field FG maintenance
To overcome connectivity disruptions, need frequent mesh refresh
Short refresh interval (proportional to FG node longevity) needed to keep connectivity in the face of motion
Problem: Short refresh interval leads to high overhead
Refresh rate is a key performance parameter
9
Adaptive route refreshing Route refresh rate is adjusted on-the-fly to
environment, i.e., node mobility Adjustment is based on receivers’ loss reports to
source
Local route recovery Receiver estimates packet interval and calculate
time out eg. Interval * n If time out expires, the disconnected node
proactively grafts onto the FG mesh instead of waiting until next route refresh
Solution: motion adaptive refresh + local route recovery
10
Local Route RecoveryRing search with limited TTL
Disconnected node (say node A) floods RECEIVER JOIN locally, e.g. set packet TTL to 1
On reception of RECEIVER JOIN, a Listener node, a neighbor of any forwarder or receiver nodes, sets itself up as a Temporary Forwarders and start forwarding next several data packets
Node A sends passive ACKs to one of Temporary Forwarders (say node B)
Node B becomes a Forwarder and others clear their status and go back to Listeners
11
Local Route Recovery
Source
Forwarders
Receivers Listeners
Receiver Join
Data flow
A
B
C
D
12
Local Route Recovery
A
B
C
D
Source
Forwarders
Receivers Listeners
Receiver Join
Data flow
13
Local Route Recovery
A
B
C
Source
Forwarders
Receivers Listeners
Receiver Join
Data flow
D
14
Local Route Recovery (Cont.)
If failed Local Recovery, the disconnected node floods entire network with REFRESH REQUEST
On reception of REFRESH REQUEST, sources refresh FG by flooding JOIN QUERY
15
Adaptive Route Refresh Refresh interval varies between min and max
value, e.g. 3 sec and 30 sec On reception of REFRESH REQUEST (RR),
refresh interval is adjusted to: Max > Rfr >Min ( route lifetime/F, 3 sec) Route lifetime is the time difference between
the two events: last JOIN Query arrival and link breakage detection
F is a reduction coefficient, e.g. F=2 If no RR during a refresh interval, linearly and
slowly increase refresh interval
16
Passive ACK and Pruning Intermediate nodes overhear packet
transmission from downstream nodes Data packets serve as passive ACKs If a Forwarder misses several passive ACKs, it
prunes itself from the mesh Passive ACK suppression technique; a leaf
node skips sending a passive ACK if it receives duplicated packets Other node may send a passive ACK A leaf node is changing a upstream forwarder due
to mobility
17
Passive ACK Suppression & Pruning
Forwarders
Receivers
Passive ACK
Data flow
18
Passive ACK Suppression & Pruning
Forwarders
Receivers
Passive ACK
Data flow
19
Passive ACK Suppression & Pruning
Forwarders
Receivers
Passive ACK
Data flow
20
Simulation Results Settings
NS2.1b8 100 nodes on 1200x800m2
Random Way Point mobility model 512 byte/packet Constant bit rate traffic (4 packet/sec) 300 seconds simulation time Scenario 1: Varying mobility
Varying max speed (1 ~ 30m/s) and 0 sec pause time
1 group, 1 source, and 20 receivers
21
Simulation Results (Cont.) Scenario 2: Varying number of receivers
Varying number of receivers (10 ~ 50) 20 m/s max speed and 0 sec pause time
Scenarios 3: Varying data rate Varying data rate 4pkts/sec ~ 30pkts/sec 20 m/s max speed and 0 sec pause time 1 group, 1 source, and 20 receivers
Scenarios 4: Varying number of sources Varying number of sources (1 ~ 6) 20 m/s max speed and 0 sec pause time 1 group and 20 receivers
22
Results in various mobility cases
Packet Delivery Ratio
E-ODMRP maintains PDR degradation within 1% to ODMRP and surpasses ADMR’s PDR
23
Results in various mobility cases
Normalized Packet Overhead
E-ODMRP reduces the normalized overhead by 50% to ODMRP’s
24
Results in various group sizePacket Delivery Ratio
E-ODMRP scales with the number of receivers and shows best PDR with 50 receivers
25
Results in various group sizeNormalized Packet Overhead
E-ODMRP normalized overhead is superior to ODMRP and ADMR
26
Results in various Data RatePacket Delivery Ratio
E-ODMRP outperforms ODMRP and ADMR in high packet sending rate
27
Results in various Data RateNormalized Packet Overhead
E-ODMRP keeps lowest normalized overhead in high packet sending rate
28
Results in various number of Sources
Packet Delivery Ratio
PDR lines decrease by different factors and E-ODMRP surpasses others when there are more than three sources
29
Results in various number of Sources
Normalized Packet Overhead
E-ODMRP overhead is near-flat line, but ADMR’s overhead slope suddenly change
30
Conclusion E-ODMRP : Enhanced ODMRP with
motion adaptive refresh E-ODMRP reduces normalized packet
overhead up to 50% yet keeping similar PDR compared to ODMRP
E-ODMRP surpasses ADMR in any case
E-ODMRP achieves high packet delivery ratio with low overhead