0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views7 pages

1 Module 4 Notes MC

Uploaded by

Darshan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views7 pages

1 Module 4 Notes MC

Uploaded by

Darshan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs)

• Mobility support relies on the existence of at least some infrastructure. Mobile IP


requires, e.g., a home agent, tunnels, and default routers. DHCP requires servers and
broadcast capabilities of the medium reaching all participants or relays to servers.
• Cellular phone networks require base stations, infrastructure networks etc.
• However, there may be several situations where users of a network cannot rely on an
infrastructure, it is too expensive, or there is none at all. In these situations mobile ad-
hoc networks are the only choice
Advantages of MANETs
• Instant infrastructure: Unplanned meetings, spontaneous interpersonal
communications etc. cannot rely on any infrastructure.
• Disaster relief: Infrastructures typically break down in disaster areas. Hurricanes cut
phone and power lines, floods destroy base stations, and fires burn servers.
Emergency teams can only rely on an infrastructure they can set up themselves
• Remote areas: Even if infrastructures could be planned ahead, it is sometimes too
expensive to set up an infrastructure in sparsely populated areas. Depending on the
communication pattern, ad-hoc networks or satellite infrastructures can be a solution.
• Effectiveness: Services provided by existing infrastructures might be too expensive
for certain applications; a cheaper ad-hoc packet-oriented network might be a better
solution. Registration procedures might take too long, and communication overheads
might be too high with existing networks. Application-tailored ad-hoc networks can
offer a better solution.
Ad-hoc networking is an attraction to a lot of research interests. A working group at the IETF
that is focussing on mobile ad-hoc networking, called MANET, Figure 8.19 shows the
relation of MANET to mobile IP and DHCP. While mobile IP and DHCP handle the
connection of mobile devices to a fixed infrastructure, MANET comprises mobile routers,
too. Mobile devices can be connected either directly with an infrastructure using Mobile IP
for mobility support and DHCP as a source of many parameters, such as an IP address.
MANET research is responsible for developing protocols and components to enable ad-hoc
networking between mobile devices.

Figure 8.19 MANTEs and Mobile IP


One of the first ad-hoc wireless networks was the packet radio network started by ARPA in
1973. It allowed up to 138 nodes in the ad-hoc network and used IP packets for data
transport. This made an easy connection possible to the ARPAnet, the starting point of
today’s Internet.

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.

Figure 8.20 Example of Adhoc Network


This situation can change at t2 shows. N1 cannotreceive N4 any longer, N4 receives N1 only
via a weak link. But now N1 has anasymmetric but bi-directional link to N2 that did not exist
before.
Differencesbetween wired networks and ad-hoc wireless networks related to routing.
● Asymmetric links: Node A receives a signal from node B. But this is notthe quality of the
connection in reverse. Breceive nothing, have a weak link, or even have a better link than
thereverse direction. Routing information collected for one direction is ofalmost no use for
the other direction.
● Redundant links: Wired networks, have redundant links to survive linkfailures. In ad-hoc
networksnobody controls redundancy, many redundant links up tothe extreme of a
completely meshed topology. Routing algorithms for wirednetworks can handle some
redundancy, but a high redundancy can cause alarge computational overhead for routing table
updates.

● 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.

Assume node N1 wants to send data to N3 and needs an acknowledgment. If N1 had a


completeview of the network at time t1, which is not always the case in ad-hocnetworks, it
would choose the path N1, N2, N3, for this requires only two hops. Acknowledgements
cannot take the same path, N3chooses N3, N5, N4, N1.

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..

● A last alternative to forward a packet across an unknown topology is flooding.This


approach always works if the load is low, but it is very inefficient.
.
Destination sequence distance vector
Destination sequence distance vector (DSDV) routing is an enhancement todistance vector
routing for ad-hoc networks. Distance vector routing is used as routing information protocol
(RIP) inwired networks. It performs extremely poorly with certain network changes dueto the
count-to-infinity problem. Each node exchanges its neighbor table periodicallywith its
neighbors. Changes at one node in the network propagateslowly through the network (step-
by-step with every exchange).
DSDV now adds two things to the distance vector algorithm:
● Sequence numbers: Each routing advertisement comes with a sequencenumber. Within
ad-hoc networks, advertisements may propagate alongmany paths. Sequence numbers help to
apply the advertisements in correctorder. This avoids the loops that are likely with the
unchanged distancevector algorithm.
● Damping: Transient changes in topology that are of short duration and advertisements
containingchanges in the topology currently stored are therefore not disseminated further.
A node waits with dissemination if these changes are probablyunstable. Waiting time
depends on the time between the first and the bestannouncement of a path to a certain
destination.
The routing table for N1 in Figure 8.20 will be as shown in Table 8.2.For each node N1
stores the next hop toward this node, the metric (herenumber of hops), the sequence number
of the last advertisement for this node,and the time at which the path has been installed first.
The table contains flagsand a settling time helping to decide when the path can be assumed
stable.
Router advertisements from N1 now contain data from the first, third, andfourth columns
destination address, metric, and sequence number. Besides beingloop-free at all times, DSDV
has low memory requirements and a quick convergencevia triggered updates.

Table: Part of Routing Table for DSDV

Dynamic source routing


Whenever nodes exchange packets fromtime to time, i.e., the network is only lightly loaded,
we need DSDV or one of the traditionaldistance vector or link-state algorithms used for
updating routingtables and nodes exchangerouting information to keep track of the topology.

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.

Figure 8.21 Example for Least Interface Routing


In this example, the interference of node N3 is 6, that of node N4 is 5 etc.
Calculating the costs of possible paths between S1 and R1 results in the following:
C1 = cost(S1, N3, N4, R1) = 16,
C2 = cost(S1, N3, N2, R1) = 15,
and C3 = cost(S1, N1, N2, R1) = 12.
All three paths have the same number of hops, but the last path has thelowest cost due to
interference. Thus, S1 chooses (S1, N1, N2, R1). S2 also computesthe cost of different paths,
examples are C4 = cost(S2, N5, N6, R2) = 16 andC5 = cost(S2, N7, N8, N9, R2) = 15. S2
would, therefore, choose the path (S2, N7,N8, N9, R2), although this path has one hop more
than the first one.With both transmissions taking place simultaneously, there would havebeen
interference between them as shown in Figure 8.21. In this case, leastinterference routing
helped to avoid interference. Taking only local decisionsand not knowing what paths other
transmissions take, this scheme can justlower the probability of interference. Interference can
only be avoided if allsenders know of all other transmissions (and the whole routing
topology) andbase routing on this knowledge.

Overview of ad-hoc routing protocols


Many new routing algorithms, separates them into three categories: flat routing, hierarchical
routing, andgeographic-position-assisted routing.

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.

Hierarchical ad-hoc routing


Algorithms such as DSDV, AODV, and DSR only work for a smaller number ofnodes and
depend heavily on the mobility of nodes. For larger networks, clusteringof nodes and using
different routing algorithms between and withinclusters can be a scalable and efficient
solution. The motivation behind thisapproach is the locality property, meaning that if a
cluster can be established,nodes typically remain within a cluster, only some change clusters.
If the topologywithin a cluster changes, only nodes of the cluster have to be informed.
Nodes of other clusters only need to know how to reach the cluster. Theapproach basically
hides all the small details in clusters which are further away.
From time to time each node needs to get some information about thetopology. Again,
updates from clusters further away will be sent out less frequentlycompared to local updates.
Clusters can be combined to form superclusters etc., building up a larger hierarchy. Using
this approach, one or morenodes can act as clusterheads, representing a router for all traffic
to/from thecluster. All nodes within the cluster and all other clusterheads use these as
gatewayfor the cluster. Figure 8.22 shows an ad-hoc network with interconnectionto the
internet via a base station. This base station transfers data to and fromthe cluster heads. In this
example, one cluster head also acts as head of thesuper cluster, routing traffic to and from the
super cluster. Different routing protocolsmay be used inside and outside clusters.
Clusterhead-Gateway Switch Routing is a typicalrepresentative of hierarchical routing
algorithms based on distance vector (DV) routing. Compared to DV protocols, the hierarchy
helps toreduce routing tables tremendously. However, it might be difficult to maintainthe
cluster structure in a highly mobile environment. An algorithm based onthe link-state (LS)
principle is hierarchical state routing (HSR). Thisapplies the principle of clustering
recursively, creating multiple levels of clustersand clusters of clusters etc

Figure 8.22 Building Hirerchies in Mobile Ad Networks


This recursion is also reflected in a hierarchicaladdressing scheme. A typical hybrid
hierarchical routing protocol is the zonerouting protocol (ZRP, Haas, 2001). Each node
using ZRP has a predefined zonewith the node as the center. The zone comprises all other
nodes within a certainhop-limit. Proactive routing is applied within the zone, while on-
demand routingis used outside the zone.
Due to the established hierarchy, HSR and CGSR force the traffic to gothrough certain nodes
which may be a bottleneck and which may lead to suboptimalpaths. Additionally,
maintaining clusters or a hierarchy of clusters causesadditional overheads. ZRP faces the
problem of flat on-demand schemes as soonas the network size increases as many
destinations are then outside the zone.

Geographic-position-assisted ad-hoc routing


If mobile nodes know their geographical position this can be used for routingpurposes. This
improves the overall performance of routing algorithms if geographicalproximity also means
radio proximity. One wayto acquire position information is via the global positioning system
(GPS).GeoCastallows messages to be sent to all nodes in a specificregion. This is done using
addresses based on geographic information instead oflogical numbers. Additionally, a
hierarchy of geographical routers can beemployed which are responsible for regions of
different scale. The locationaidedrouting protocol (LAR) is similar to DSR, but limits
routediscovery to certain geographical regions. Another protocol that is based on
locationinformation is greedy perimeter stateless routing (GPSR). Thisuses only the
location information of neighbors that are exchanged via periodicbeacon messages or via
piggybacking in data packets. The main scheme of theprotocol, which is the greedy part, is
quite simple. Packets are always forwardedto the neighbor that is geographically closest to
the destination. Additionalmechanisms are applied if a dead end is reached.

You might also like