Implementation Review

8/3/2019 Implementation Review

1/35

A Project Review Review#3

onMulticasting with Localized Control in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

(IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 52-64, JANUARY 2009 )

By Batch No#16

P. Nagamani (08121A0582)

T. Rajasekhar (08121A05B8)

K. Neeharika (08BF1A0551)

O. Muneendra (08121A0581)

Head Of Department: Guide:Prof. D.JATIN DAS, B.E., M.Sc [Tech-CS] Mr. V. RAMESH M. Tech,(Ph. D).,Professor & Head. Associate Professor.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE(Affiliated to JNTUA-Anantapur)

Sree Sainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati-517102.

2008-2012


2/35

Agenda of the Presentation

Abstract

Introduction

Statement of the problem

Objectives

Scope Literature Survey

Software and Hardware used

Physical Model

Mathematical Model

Network Model

Algorithm Explanation

Simulation model

References


3/35

Abstract

This project investigates how to support multicasting in

wireless ad hoc networks without throttling the dominant unicast

flows. Unicast flows are usually congestion-controlled with protocols

like TCP. Based on a cross-layer approach, this project proposes acompletely localized scheme to prevent multicast flows from

causing severe congestion and the associated deleterious effects on

other flows in wireless ad hoc networks. The proposed scheme

combines the layered multicast concept with the routing-basedcongestion avoidance idea to reduce the aggregated rate of

multicast flows when they use excessive bandwidth on a wireless

link.


4/35

Introduction

Protocols in wireless ad-hoc networks are also required

to be distributed for robustness and scalability.

If a distributed protocol only relies on local information

and local actions for fulfilling its functionality, then the

protocol is also localized.

In the sense of using only local resources, a localized

protocol is usually efficient and scalable, which are thebasic characteristics required for protocols in wireless ad

hoc networks.


5/35

One of the basic elements required for multicasting in

wireless ad hoc networks is multicast routing.

Instead of relying on end-to-end congestion control

schemes, this project proposes a fully localized scheme in the

network layer to support multicasting in wireless ad hoc

networks while maintaining fairness with unicast flows.

Introduction (Contd.)


6/35


7/35

Existing System

Existing routing protocols for multicasting in wireless ad hoc

networks such as MAODV and ODMRP , like unicast routing

protocols, only set up routing information in nodes but do

not have other controls over flows, such as congestioncontrol.

Existing multicast congestion control schemes largely fall

into two categories: single rate and multirate.

Existing multirate protocols, such as Receiver-driven

Layered Multicast (RLM), cannot ensure fairness with TCP ,

and even in wireline networks.


8/35

Disadvantages

In wireless ad hoc networks, the unfairness situation

becomes more severe with existing multicast congestion

control protocols.

Congestion control is not possibly effective for multicast

flows.


9/35

Proposed System

To design a scheme which effectively relieve congestion at

bottlenecks with multicast traffic.

To propose a fully localized scheme in the network layer to

support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while

maintaining fairness with unicast flows.


10/35

Advantages

Fair bandwidth allocation.

Delivered packet ratio is high.

No throttling of unicast flows.


11/35

To support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks

without congestion as like unicast flows.

To present a fully localized scheme to support

multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while preventing

unicast flows from being throttled.

Objectives


12/35

The proposed scheme is mainly designed to effectively

relieve congestion at bottlenecks with multicast traffic.

It is also designed to maintain general fairness in

bandwidth sharing among the competing flows at a

bottleneck.

Since the proposed scheme is not centralized, we do not

expect it to meet the requirements of fairness criteria otherthan the one we consider.

Scope


13/35

[1] S. Sarkar and L. Tassiulas, Back Pressure Based

Multicast Scheduling for Fair Bandwidth Allocation,

Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2001,pp no:1279-1290.

In multirate transmission, each source encodes its

signal in layers. The lowest layer contains the most important

information and all receivers of a session should receive it. If a

receivers data path has additional bandwidth, it receives higher

layers which leads to a better quality of reception. The bandwidth

allocation objective is to distribute the layers fairly. We present a

computationally simple, decentralized scheduling policy that attains

the maxmin fair rates without using any knowledge of traffic

statistics and layer bandwidths.

Literature Survey


14/35

[2] R. Gopalakrishnan, J. Griffioen, G. Hjalmtysson, C.

Sreenan, and S. Wen, A Simple Loss Differentiation

Approach to Layered Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 00,

Mar. 2000.

Layered multicast is a promising technique for

broadcasting adaptive-quality TV video to heterogeneous receivers.

A new layered multicast scheme, where we exploit a simple, coarse-

grained, two-tier loss differentiation architecture to achieve stable

and fair bandwidth allocation for viewers was proposed in this work.

Literature Survey(Contd.)


15/35

Literature Survey(Contd.)

[3] S. Bajaj, L. Breslau, and S. Shenker, Uniform versus

Priority Dropping for Layered Video, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM

98, Sept. 1998.

The relative merits of uniform versus priority

dropping for the transmission of layered video are analyzed here.

They first presented their original intuitions about these two

approaches, and then investigated the issue more thoroughly

through simulations and analysis in which we explicitly model the

performance of layered video applications. It is found that the

performance benefit of priority dropping is smaller than expected,

while uniform dropping has worse incentive properties than

previously believed.


16/35


17/35

DFD Level2 Diagram:


18/35


19/35

Use case Diagram For Receiver:


20/35

Sequence Diagram:-


21/35

ActivityDiagram:-


22/35

Operating System : Windows XP

Tool : NS2

Hardware used :

Processor : Intel Pentium IV

RAM : 1 GB

Hard Disk Drive : 80 GB

Requirements Specification

Software used:


23/35

Mathematical Model

Layer Blocking Selection Procedure:

Layer Releasing Selection Procedure:


24/35

Mathematical Model(Contd.)

The Jains fairness index F(t) at time t is then given by,

which attains the value of 1, when the allocation is totallyfair,


25/35

Network Model


26/35

Algorithm Explanation

To prove that the system of flows converges to fairness,

we use the following result,


27/35

Simulation Model

The project is divided into five modules:

Collecting flow information.

Embedding layer priority information.

Flow initialization.

Layer blocking & releasing.

Adjustment of multicast layers.


28/35

Collecting flow information:

A node collects flow information about the traffic

traversing its link to assist its congestion control operation.

The average per-flow rates of TCP flows and multicast

flows:


29/35

Embedding layer priority information:

The layer priority information in a multicast flow is

embedded in the multicast addresses used by the multicast

flow.

The multicast source allocates lower addresses to its higher

priority layers and higher addresses to its lower priority

layers.

A node in the network can determine the priority of a layer

in a multicast flow traversing its link by comparing the

address of the layer with the addresses of other layers in

the same multicast flow.


30/35

Flow initialization:

Each receiver adds layers gradually by subscribing to those

multicast groups, at the beginning of a multicast session.

If the added layer is not blocked in the network and its

packets are flowing into the receiver, the receiver adds

another layer.

This process continues until an empty layer is obtained by

the receiver.


31/35

Layer blocking & releasing:

Layer block is the modification of the multicast routing table

to stop a layer from entering a congested link.

Layer release is the modification of the routing table to

allow a blocked layer to traverse a link.

The layer blocking and releasing selection procedures

ensure that competing multicast flows share the bandwidth

available to them fairly.


32/35

Adjusting multicast layers:

Blocking or releasing of multicast layers on a link is done,

according to the state of the associated nodes output

queue.

The phases of a queue are classified as:


33/35

References

[1] Jun Peng, Biplab Sikdar, and Liang Cheng, Multicasting with LocalizedControl in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE

COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, pp. 52-64, JANUARY 2009.

[2] E.M. Royer and C.E. Perkins, Multicast Operation of the Ad Hoc On-

Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol, Proc. ACM MobiCom 99, pp.

207-218, Aug. 1999.[3] S.-J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C.-C. Chiang, On-Demand Multicast Routing

Protocol, Proc. IEEE Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf.(WCNC 99),

pp. 1298-1304, Sept. 1999.

[4] I. Rhee, N. Balaguru, and G. Rouskas, MTCP: Scalable TCPLike Congestion

Control for Reliable Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 99, pp. 1265-1273,

Mar. 1999.

[5] L. Rizzo, PGMCC: A TCP-Friendly Single-Rate Multicast Congestion

Control Scheme, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 00,pp. 120-132, Aug. 2000.


34/35

References(Contd.)

[6] S. ShiandM. Waldvogel,ARate-Based End-to-EndMulticastCongestion

ControlProtocol,Proc.FifthIEEE Symp.ComputersandComm (ISCC00),

July 2000.

[7] S.Bhattacharyya,D.Towsley,andJ. Kurose,TheLossPathMultiplicity

ProbleminMulticastCongestionControl,Proc.IEEE INFOCOM99,pp.

856-863, 1999.

[8] S.McCanne,V.Jacobson,andM.Vetterli,Receiver-DrivenLayered

Multicast,Proc.ACM SIGCOMM96,pp. 117-130,Aug. 1996.

[9] L.Vicisano,L.Rizzo,andJ.Crowcroft,TCP-LikeCongestionControlfor

LayeredMulticastDataTransfer,Proc.IEEE INFOCOM98,vol. 3,pp.996-

1003,Mar. 1998.

[10] J.Byers,M.Luby,M.Mitzenmacher,andA.Rege,ADigitalFountain

ApproachtoReliableDistributionofBulkData,Proc.ACM SIGCOMM98,

pp. 56-67, Sept. 1998.


35/35

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Documents

Implementation Review