1 Module 4 Notes MC
1 Module 4 Notes MC
A variant of distance vector routing was used in this ad-hoc network. In this approach, each
node sends a routing advertisementevery 7.5 s. These advertisements contain a neighbor table
with a list of link qualities to each neighbor. Each node updates the local routing table
accordingto the distance vector algorithm based on these advertisements. Received
packetsalso help to update the routing table. A sender now transmits a packet to itsfirst hop
neighbor using the local neighbor table. Each node forwards a packetreceived based on its
own local neighbor table. Several enhancements to thissimple scheme are needed to avoid
routing loops and to reflect the possibly fastchanging topology.
Routing
Adestination node might be out of range of a source node transmitting packets.Routing is
needed to find a path between source and destination and to forwardthe packets appropriately.
In the case of ad-hoc networks, each node mustbe able to forward data for other nodes. This
creates many additional problems.
Figure 8.20 gives a simple example of an ad-hoc network. At a certain timet1 the network
topology might look as illustrated on the left side of the figure.Five nodes, N1 to N5, are
connected depending on the current transmissioncharacteristics between them. In this
example, N4 can receiveN1 over a good link, but N1 receives N4 only via a weak link. Links
do not necessarilyhave the same characteristics in both directions. The reasons for this
are,e.g., different antenna characteristics or transmit power. N1 cannot receive N2 atall, N2
receives a signal from N1.
● Interference: In wired networks links exist only where a wire exists, andconnections are
planned by network administrators. In wireless ad-hoc networks, links come and go
depending on transmissioncharacteristics, one transmission interfere with another, and
nodesmay overhear the transmissions of other nodes. Interference creates newproblems by
‘unplanned’
links between nodes: if two close-by nodes forwardtwo transmissions, they might interfere
and destroy each other. Onthe other hand, interference might also help routing. A node can
learn thetopology with the help of packets it has overheard.
● Dynamic topology: The greatest problem for routing arises from the highlydynamic
topology. The mobile nodes may move as shown in Figure 8.20or medium characteristics
might change. This results in frequent changes intopology. In adhocnetworks, routing tables
must somehow reflect these frequent changesin topology, and routing algorithms have to be
adapted. Routing algorithmsused in wired networks would either react much too slowly or
generate toomany updates to reflect all changes in topology. This updating frequencymight
be too low to be useful for ad-hoc networks. Some algorithmsrely on a complete picture of
the whole network. While this works in wirednetworks where changes are rare, it fails
completely in ad-hoc networks.
At time t2, the topology has changed. Now N3 cannottake the same path to send
acknowledgements back to N1, while N1 can stilltake the old path to N3.
While even in fixed networks traffic flows are not exactly predictable,for ad-hoc networks
link capacities are additionally unknown. Thecapacity of each link can change from 0 to the
maximum of the transmissiontechnology used.
Periodic updates waste bandwidth and these resources are already scarce forwireless links.An
additional problem is interference between two or more transmissionsthat do not use the same
nodes for forwarding.
.
Considering all the additional difficulties in comparison to wired networks,the following
observations concerning routing can be made for ad-hoc networkswith moving nodes.
● Traditional routing algorithms known from wired networks will not work efficiently, e.g.,
distance vector algorithms such as RIP. These algorithms have not been designed with a
highly dynamictopology, asymmetric links, or interference in mind.
● Centralized approaches will not really work, because it takes too long to collectthe current
status and disseminate it again. Within this time thetopology has already changed.
● Many nodes need routing capabilities. While there might be some without,at least one
router has to be within the range of each node. Algorithms haveto consider the limited battery
power of these nodes.
● Ad-hoc networks will be connectionless, because it is not possible tomaintain a connection
in a fast changing environment and to forward datafollowing this connection..
Therefore Dynamic source routing (DSR), divides the task of routing into two separate
problems.
1. Route discovery: A node only tries to discover a route to a destination if it hasto send
something to this destination and there is currently no known route.
2. Route maintenance: If a node is continuously sending packets,it has to make sure that the
route is held upright. As soon as a node detectsproblems with the current route, it has to find
an alternative.
Dynamic source routing eliminates all periodic routing updates andworks as follows.
If a node needs to discover a route, it broadcasts a routerequest with a unique identifier and
the destination address as parameters. Anynode that receives a route request does the
following.
● If the node has already received the request, it drops the request packet.
● If the node recognizes its own address as the destination, the request hasreached its target.
● Otherwise, the node appends its own address to a list of traversed hops inthe packet and
broadcasts this updated route request.
The route request collects a list of addresses representinga possible path. The requestreaches
the destination and return with the list in reverse order. The destination may receive several
lists containingdifferent paths from the initiator. It return the best path, the first path,
orseveral paths to offer the initiator a choice.
Applying route discovery to the example in Figure 8.20 for a route from N1to N3 at time t1
results in the following.
● N1 broadcasts the request ((N1), id = 42, target = N3), N2 and N4 receivethis request.
● N2 then broadcasts ((N1, N2), id = 42, target = N3), N4 broadcasts ((N1, N4),id = 42,
target = N3). N3 and N5 receive N2’s broadcast, N1, N2, and N5receive N4’s broadcast.
● N3 recognizes itself as target, N5 broadcasts ((N1, N2, N5), id = 42, target =N3). N3 and
N4 receive N5’s broadcast. N1, N2, and N5 drop N4’s broadcastpacket, because they all
recognize an already received route request (andN2’s broadcast reached N5 before N4’s did).
N4 drops N5’s broadcast, N3 recognizes (N1, N2, N5) as an alternate, butlonger route.
● N3 now has to return the path (N1, N2, N3) to N1. This is simple assumingsymmetric links
working in both directions. N3 can forward the informationusing the list in reverse order.
The basic algorithm for route discovery can be optimized in many ways.
● To avoid too many broadcasts, each route request could contain a counter.Every node
rebroadcasting the request increments the counter by one. Knowingthe maximum network
diameter (take the number of nodes if nothing else isknown), nodes can drop a request if the
counter reaches this number.
● A node can cache path fragments from recent requests. These fragments cannow be used to
answer other route requests much faster (if they still reflectthe topology!).
● A node can also update this cache from packet headers while forwardingother packets.
● If a node overhears transmissions from other nodes, it can also use thisinformation for
shortening routes.
After a route has been discovered, it has to be maintained for as long as thenode sends
packets along this route. Depending on layer two mechanisms, differentapproaches can be
taken:
If the link layer uses an acknowledgement, the node can interpret this acknowledgement as an
intact route.
● If possible, the node could also listen to the next node forwarding thepacket, so getting a
passive acknowledgement.
● A node could request an explicit acknowledgement.
Alternative metrics
Due to the varying link quality and the fact thatdifferent transmissions can interfere, other
metrics can be more useful.
One other metric, called least interference routing (LIR), takes possibleinterference into
account. Figure 8.21 shows an ad-hoc network topology. SenderS1 wants to send a packet to
receiver R1, S2 to R2. Using the hop count as metric,S1 could choose three different paths
with three hops, which is also the minimum.
Possible paths are (S1, N3, N4, R1), (S1, N3, N2, R1), and (S1, N1, N2, R1). S2would
choose the only available path with only three hops (S2, N5, N6, R2).
Taking interference into account, this picture changes. To calculate the possibleinterference
of a path, each node calculates its possible interference (interferenceis defined here as the
number of neighbors that can overhear a transmission).Every node only needs local
information to compute its interference.
Flat ad-hoc routing: Flat ad-hoc routing protocols comprise those protocols that do not set
up hierarchieswith clusters of nodes, special nodes acting as the head of a cluster, ordifferent
routing algorithms inside or outside certain regions. All nodes in thisapproach play an equal
role in routing. The addressing scheme is flat.
This category again falls into two subcategories: proactive and reactive protocols.
Proactive protocols set up tables required for routing regardless of any trafficthat would
require routing functionality. DSDV, Many protocols belonging to this group are based ona
link-state algorithm as known from fixed networks. Link-state algorithms floodtheir
information about neighbors periodically or event triggered.
In mobile ad-hoc environments this method exhibits severe drawbacks: eitherupdating takes
place often enough to reflect the actual configuration of the networkor it tries to minimize
network load. Both goals cannot be achieved at thesame time without additional mechanisms.
Fisheye state routingand fuzzy sighted link-state attack this problem bymaking the update
period dependent on the distance to a certain hop. Routingentries corresponding to a faraway
destination are propagated with lower frequencythan those corresponding to nearby
destinations. The result are routingtables that reflect the proximity of a node very precisely,
while imprecise entriesmay exist for nodes further away. Other link-state protocols that try to
reduce thetraffic caused by link-state information dissemination are topology
broadcastbased on reverse path forwarding andoptimized link-staterouting. A general
advantage of proactive protocols is thatthey can give QoS guarantees related to connection
set-up, latency or other realtimerequirements. As long as the topology does not change too
fast, the routingtables reflect the current topology with a certain precision. The propagation
characteristics(delay, bandwidth etc.) of a certain path between a sender and a receiverare
already known before a data packet is sent. A big disadvantage of proactiveschemes are their
overheads in lightly loaded networks. Independent of any realcommunication the algorithm
continuously updates the routing tables. This generatesa lot of unnecessary traffic and drains
the batteries of mobile devices.
Reactive protocols try to avoid this problem by setting up a path betweensender and receiver
only if a communication is waiting. The two most prominentmembers of this group are
dynamic source routing (DSR), and ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV), an on-
demand version of DSDV. AODV acquires and maintainsroutes only on demand like DSR
does..
A dozen more reactive protocols already exist.A clear advantage of on-demand protocols is
scalability as long as there isonly light traffic and low mobility. Mobile devices can utilize
longer low-powerperiods as they only have to wake up for data transmission or route
discovery.
However, these protocols also exhibit disadvantages. The initial search latencymay degrade
the performance of interactive applications and the quality of apath is not known a priori.
Route caching, a mechanism typically employed byon-demand protocols, proves useless in
high mobility situations as routeschange too frequently.