InterMR ( Inter - M ANET R outing for Heterogeneous MANETs) 12-Apr-15 1 SeungHoon Lee, Mario Gerla (UCLA) Starsky H.Y. Wong, Kang-Won Lee (IBM Research) Chi-Kin Chau, Jon Crowcroft (University of Cambridge, UK)

Challenges & Motivation 212-Apr-15 Police (P) Medical crew (MC) Firefighter (F) 1, Different technologies 2, Different routings 3, Different policies - WiFi - AODV - WiFi - DSDV - WiMAX - OSLR Heterogeneous Wireless Networks 4/12/20152

Challenges & Motivation 312-Apr-15 Police (P) Medical crew (MC) Firefighter (F) 1, Different technologies 2, Different routings 3, Different policies - WiFi - AODV - WiFi - DSDV - WiMAX - OSLR How can we enable interoperation among heterogeneous MANETs ? Heterogeneous Wireless Networks 4/12/20153

Related works (1)  Hybrid Routing (e.g., SHARP[1])  Balancing between proactive & reactive  Combining two different routing protocols  Cluster-based networking in MANETs [2]  Forming self-organizing clusters  Routing between cluster of nodes  Main goal is to improve the routing performance in a single MANET 412-Apr-15 4/12/20154 [1] V. Ramasubramanian, Z. J. Haas, and E. G. Sirer. SHARP: A hybrid adaptive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. In Proc. ACM MOBIHOC, June [2] Xiaoyan Hong, Mario Gerla, Yunjung Yi, Kaixin Xu and Taek Jin Kwon. “Scalable Ad Hoc Routing in Large, Dense Wireless Networks Using Clustering and Landmarks In Proc. ICC ‘02

Related works (2)  Border Gateway Protocol(BGP) [3]  Inter-domain routing among heterogeneous domains(ASs)  Enabling administrative control over intra-domain and inter-domain routing policy  BGP is for wired networks, not suitable for dynamic topology changes 512-Apr-15 4/12/20155 [3] Y. Rekhter and T. Li. RFC 1771: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), March 1995.

Challenges & Motivation  Inadequacy of existing ad hoc routing for MANETs  Improves network performance in a single MANET  Limitations of BGP  Not suitable for mobility  No split/merge  Only works well with hierarchical prefixes 612-Apr-15 4/12/20156

InterMR ( I nter - M ANET R outing for Heterogeneous MANETs) 712-Apr-15 4/12/20157

Design Goals (1) Preserve internal protocol architecture  No changes required in intra-MANET protocol stack  InterMR operates with any protocols (2) Effectively handle inter/intra MANET topology changes, while seamlessly providing inter-MANET routing 8 4/12/20158

Main Contributions (1) A new inter-MANET protocol architecture (2) Content/Attribute based MANET addressing  Transparent to split/merge  No DNS requirements (3) Dynamic Gateway Election  Maximizing network performance yet minimizing protocol overhead 9 4/12/20159

Protocol Architecture: InterMR Component  Interacts with intra-MANET protocol stack 10 4/12/ Routing: AODV/DSDV/TORA/DSR APP Traffic (CBR, video etc) Routing Table MAC/Link: a/b/… PHY Interface 0 (base interface) Internal Protocol Stack

 Interacts with intra-MANET protocol stack 11 4/12/ Routing: AODV/DSDV/TORA/DSR APP Traffic (CBR, video etc) Routing Table MAC/Link: a/b/… PHY Interface 0 (base interface) InterMR Table MAC/Link: a/b/… PHY Interface 1 InterMR Application Traffic and Existing Routing traffic unaware of InterMR Optional Internal Protocol Stack Protocol Architecture: InterMR Component

Protocol Architecture: Gateway  Gateway maintains InterMR component  Subset of nodes in each MANET  Maintains intra/inter MANET topology information  Propagating intra-MANET information to outside  Receiving inter-MANET information from other Gateways Apr-15 4/12/ MANET A Gateway MANET B A1 A2 B1 B2

Protocol Architecture: Gateway  Roles of Gateway  Handling inter-MANET routing  Enforcing inter-MANET routing policies  Monitoring security and performing authentication 13 4/12/ Apr-15 MANET A Gateway MANET B A1 A2 B1 B2

Protocol Architecture: e-InterMR, i-InterMR  e-InterMR  Inter-MANET communication by broadcasting (single hop)  Detecting external topology change (e-InterMR beacon)  Exchanging Inter-MANET routing information  i-InterMR  Intra-MANET communication by underlying routing protocol  Detecting internal topology change (i-InterMR beacon)  Synchronizing Inter-MANET routing information among intra Gateways Apr-15 4/12/ MANET A Gateway MANET B e-InterMR i-InterMR A1 A2 B1 B2 Non-Gateway

Dynamic MANET Addressing  Dynamic MANET Split/Merge  Detection by periodic i-InterMR beacon  Unique MANET Address  Generate a new MANET address based on attributes inside MANET  IP addresses, MAC, symbolic name, type of nodes (e.g., vehicle), contents stored in nodes  Represented by Bloom Filter  Guarantee uniqueness of MANTET address  To avoid routing inconsistencies/loops  Simply check attributes of each MANET 15 4/12/201515

Dynamic MANET Addressing  Bloom Filter & MANET address generation 16 4/12/ B1 B2 b1 b2 B Bloom Filter(BF) MANET address Hash

Dynamic MANET Addressing  Bloom Filter & MANET address generation  MANET Split  Generating New Bloom filters/ MANET addresses 17 4/12/ B1 B2 b1 b2 B Bloom Filter(BF) Hash MANET addr

Protocol Architecture: Routing Tables  Gateway maintains two routing tables  InterMR routing table  Inter-MANET topology information  Bloom filter of each MANET, next hop info.  Base routing table (i.e., AODV or DSDV)  Intra-MANET topology information  destinations in the same MANET 1812-Apr-15 4/12/ Gateway InterMRBase Inter-MANET information Intra-MANET destinations

4/12/ Protocol Architecture: Example 1912-Apr-15 A1 B1 B2 MANET A (AODV)MANET B (DSDV) C1 MANET C (DSR) b1 b2 c1 B3 a1 a2

Protocol Architecture: Example 2012-Apr-15 4/12/ e-InterMR A1 B2 MANET A (AODV)MANET B (DSDV) C1 MANET C (DSR) A1 InterMRAODV C1 InterMRDSR B2 InterMRDSDV B1 InterMRDSDV e-InterMR i-InterMR a1 b1 b2 c1 dst: a1, a2 BF[a1, a2,A1] next: MANET A BF[a1,a2,A1] next: B1 BF[a1,a2,A1] next: MANET B B3 B1 e-InterMR a2

Protocol Architecture: Example 2112-Apr-15 4/12/ e-InterMR A1 B2 MANET A (AODV)MANET B (DSDV) C1 MANET C (DSR) A1 InterMRAODV C1 InterMRDSR B2 InterMRDSDV B1 InterMRDSDV e-InterMR i-InterMR a1 b1 b2 c1 dst: a1, a2 BF[a1, a2,A1] BF[b1,b2..B3] next: MANETB BF[c1,C1] next: MANET B BF[a1,a2, A1] next: MANET A BF[b1,b2.,..B3] BF[c1,C1] next: B2 BF[a1,a2,A1] next: B1 BF[b1,b2..B3] BF[c1,C1] next: MANET C BF[a1,a2,A1] next: MANET B BF[b1,b2,…B3] next: MANET B BF[c1,C1] B3 B1 a2 dst: b1, b2 B1,B3 dst: b1, b2 B1,B3 dst: c1, C1

22  Static assignment may result:  Inter-MANET connectivity gets lost with node mobility  Node mobility causes  Loss of connectivity: Gateways are not able to communicate with other gateways  Partition Isolation: A partition without any gateways MANET A1 (AODV) MANET A1 (AODV) MANET B (DSDV) MANET B (DSDV) A1 B1 B2 MANET A2 (AODV) MANET A2 (AODV) Necessitate an adaptive approach A2 A3 A4 Gateway Deployment

23  Design Goals  Maximize network performance (i.e., inter-MANET connectivity)  Minimize the protocol overhead/ resource consumption (i.e., minimum number of active gateways)  Distributed algorithm  Local decision by each gateway  Become active only necessary Dynamic Gateway Election

24 Initial topology Active gateways: G1, G2, G3, G4 Inactive gateways: G5 Topology change Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3 G5 G1 G4G2

25 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2 Step 1: Collect Inter- MANET connectivity information –By e-InterMR G1: MANET A, B G4: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G5: MANET D e-InterMR Control Message

26 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2 i-InterMR Control Message Step 2: Exchange connectivity information –Gateways exchange beacons in the same MANET –Beacons contain the connectivity info.

27 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2 i-InterMR Control Message Step 2: Exchange connectivity information –Gateways exchange beacons in the same MANET –Beacons contain the connectivity info. G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D G1

28 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2 i-InterMR Control Message Step 2: Exchange connectivity information –Gateways exchange beacons in the same MANET –Beacons contain the connectivity info. G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D G1G2G3G4 G5

29 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1G2G3G4 G5 G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D

30 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1G2G3G4 G5 G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D

31 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1G2G3G4 G5 G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D

32 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1G2G3G4 G5 G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D

33 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D G1G2G3G4 G5

34 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D G1G2G3G4 G5 Active!

35 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision G1: MANET A, B G2: - G3: MANET C G4: MANET A, B G5: MANET D MANET: A, B, C, D G1G2G3G4 G5 Inactive

36 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3G4 G1 G5 G2  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Covers all of reachable MANETs with the minimum # of GWs  Local Decision

37 Dynamic Gateway Election: Example G3 G1  Step 3: Elect Active Gateways  Local Decision G1: Active G2: Active  Inactive G3: Active G4: Active  Inactive G5: Inactive  Active G4 G5 G2

38  Implemented InterMR in NS2  Performance metrics  # of Active gateways elected  Connectivity (# of reachable destinations)  Settings  Mobility Patterns  Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM)  Random Waypoint Mobility  100 nodes with 2 MANETs, 4 MANETs  Area: 1500mx1500m, 2000mx2000m Evaluation

Evaluation (1) – Reference Point Group Mobility 3912-Apr-15 4/12/  Outperforms Static GW assignment scheme  Guarantees inter-MANET connectivity  Adaptively elects more/less number of active GWs as network topology changes

Evaluation (2) – Random Waypoint 4012-Apr-15 4/12/  Network Connectivity decreases with RWP  InterMR elects more active GWs

Conclusion 4112-Apr-15 4/12/  Designed a novel Inter-MANET Routing protocol (InterMR)  Handles heterogeneity of MANETs & node mobility  Adaptively adjusts to topology changes via dynamic GW election  Scalable, yet maximizing network performance  Implemented, evaluated InterMR  NS2, various mobility patterns  Effectively achieves the maximal performance  Future work  Various performance metrics on gateway election  Resource balancing, Routing Policy, etc.

Question & Answer 4212-Apr-15 4/12/ Thank you!