Efficient Hop ID based Routing for Sparse Ad Hoc Networks Yao Zhao 1, Bo Li 2, Qian Zhang 2, Yan Chen 1, Wenwu Zhu 3 1 Lab for Internet & Security Technology,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Geographic Routing Without Location Information AP, Sylvia, Ion, Scott and Christos.
Advertisements

Communications Research Centre (CRC) Defence R&D Canada – Ottawa 1 Properties of Mobile Tactical Radio Networks on VHF Bands Li Li & Phil Vigneron Communications.
1 S4: Small State and Small Stretch Routing for Large Wireless Sensor Networks Yun Mao 2, Feng Wang 1, Lili Qiu 1, Simon S. Lam 1, Jonathan M. Smith 2.
1 Greedy Forwarding in Dynamic Scale-Free Networks Embedded in Hyperbolic Metric Spaces Dmitri Krioukov CAIDA/UCSD Joint work with F. Papadopoulos, M.
A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar
1 GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks B. Karp, H. T. Kung Borrowed slides from Richard Yang.
Minimum Energy Mobile Wireless Networks IEEE JSAC 2001/10/18.
SEEKER: An Adaptive and Scalable Location Service for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Jehn-Ruey Jiang and Wei-Jiun Ling Presented by Jehn-Ruey Jiang National Central.
Proposed ad hoc Routing Approaches Conventional wired-type schemes (global routing, proactive): –Distance Vector; Link State Proactive ad hoc routing:
Geographic Routing Without Location Information A. Rao, S. Ratnasamy, C. Papadimitriou, S. Shenker, I. Stoica Paper and Slides by Presented by Ryan Carr.
Self-Organizing Hierarchical Routing for Scalable Ad Hoc Networking David B. Johnson Department of Computer Science Rice University Monarch.
Stateless and Guaranteed Geometric Routing on Virtual Coordinate Systems Ke Liu and Nael Abu-Ghazaleh Dept. of CS, Binghamton University.
Good afternoon everyone.
Generated Waypoint Efficiency: The efficiency considered here is defined as follows: As can be seen from the graph, for the obstruction radius values (200,
Directional Routing for Wireless Mesh Networks: A Performance Evaluation Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing: Of Theory and Practice Fabian Kuhn Roger Wattenhofer Yan Zhang Aaron Zollinger.
A Mobile Infrastructure Based VANET Routing Protocol in the Urban Environment School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, PKU, Beijing, China.
Ad-Hoc Networks Beyond Unit Disk Graphs
XTC: A Practical Topology Control Algorithm for Ad-Hoc Networks
CPSC 689: Discrete Algorithms for Mobile and Wireless Systems Spring 2009 Prof. Jennifer Welch.
Worst-Case Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing Fabian Kuhn Roger Wattenhofer Aaron Zollinger.
Wireless Capacity. A lot of hype Self-organizing sensor networks reporting on everything everywhere Bluetooth personal networks connecting devices City.
Beneficial Caching in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Bin Tang, Samir Das, Himanshu Gupta Computer Science Department Stony Brook University.
GeoLANMAR Routing: Asymptotic Analysis in Large and Dense Networks Broadnets 2005 Boston, Oct 5, 2005 Mario Gerla, Biao Zhou (UCLA) F. de Rango, S. Marano.
Randomized 3D Geographic Routing Roland Flury Roger Wattenhofer Distributed Computing Group.
Geometric Spanners for Routing in Mobile Networks Jie Gao, Leonidas Guibas, John Hershberger, Li Zhang, An Zhu.
Georouting in ad hoc nets References: Brad Karp and H.T. Kung “GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks”, Mobicom 2000 M. Zorzi,
Dept. of Computer Science Distributed Computing Group Asymptotically Optimal Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Fabian Kuhn Roger Wattenhofer Aaron Zollinger.
1 Load Balance and Efficient Hierarchical Data-Centric Storage in Sensor Networks Yao Zhao, List Lab, Northwestern Univ Yan Chen, List Lab, Northwestern.
An Efficient Location Service for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Roland Flury Roger Wattenhofer Distributed Computing Group MLS.
1 A Novel Mechanism for Flooding Based Route Discovery in Ad hoc Networks Jian Li and Prasant Mohapatra Networks Lab, UC Davis.
1 Load Balance and Efficient Hierarchical Data-Centric Storage in Sensor Networks Yao Zhao, List Lab, Northwestern Univ Yan Chen, List Lab, Northwestern.
Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets.
Greedy Routing with Bounded Stretch Roland Flury, Roger Wattenhofer (ETH Zurich), Sriram Pemmaraju (Iowa University) Published at IEEE Infocom 2009 Introduction.
Geographic Routing Without Location Information A. Rao, C. Papadimitriou, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica In Proceedings of the 9th Annual international Conference.
On Self Adaptive Routing in Dynamic Environments -- A probabilistic routing scheme Haiyong Xie, Lili Qiu, Yang Richard Yang and Yin Yale, MR and.
Roadmap-Based End-to-End Traffic Engineering for Multi-hop Wireless Networks Mustafa O. Kilavuz Ahmet Soran Murat Yuksel University of Nevada Reno.
A Scalable Location Service for Geographic Ad Hoc Routing Jinyang Li, John Jannotti, Douglas S. J. De Couto, David R. Karger, Robert Morris MIT Laboratory.
An Algorithmic Approach to Geographic Routing in Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks - IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, Vol 16, Number 1, February 2008 D
Stochastic sleep scheduling (SSS) for large scale wireless sensor networks Yaxiong Zhao Jie Wu Computer and Information Sciences Temple University.
College of Engineering Non-uniform Grid- based Coordinated Routing Priyanka Kadiyala Major Advisor: Dr. Robert Akl Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
Efficient HopID Based Routing for Sparse Ad Hoc Networks Yan Chen Lab for Internet & Security Technology (LIST) Northwestern University
GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks EECS 600 Advanced Network Research, Spring 2005 Shudong Jin February 14, 2005.
Dual-Region Location Management for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Yinan Li, Ing-ray Chen, Ding-chau Wang Presented by Youyou Cao.
Minimizing Recovery State In Geographic Ad-Hoc Routing Noa Arad School of Electrical Engineering Tel Aviv University Yuval Shavitt School of Electrical.
Geographic Routing without Location Information Ananth Rao, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Christos Papadimitriou, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica MobiCom 2003.
1 Presented by Jing Sun Computer Science and Engineering Department University of Conneticut.
GLIDER: Gradient Landmark-Based Distributed Routing for Sensor Networks Qing Fang, Jie Gao, Leonidas J. Guibas, Vin de Silva, Li Zhang Department of Electrical.
Localized Low-Power Topology Control Algorithms in IEEE based Sensor Networks Jian Ma *, Min Gao *, Qian Zhang +, L. M. Ni *, and Wenwu Zhu +
Directional Routing for Wireless Mesh Networks: A Performance Evaluation Bow-Nan Cheng Murat Yuksel Shivkumar Kalyanaraman.
ProgessFace: An Algorithm to Improve Routing Efficiency of GPSR-like Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Chia-Hung Lin, Shiao-An Yuan, Shih-Wei.
Grid: Scalable Ad-Hoc Wireless Networking Douglas De Couto
Nov. 29, 2006GLOBECOM /17 A Location-based Directional Route Discovery (LDRD) Protocol in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Stephen S. Yau, Wei Gao, and Dazhi.
Performance Comparison of Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols Presented by Venkata Suresh Tamminiedi Computer Science Department Georgia State University.
VADD: Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks Zhao, J.; Cao, G. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, 鄭宇辰
Geographic Routing without Location Information. Assumption by Geographic Routing Each node knows its own location.  outdoor positioning device: GPS:
A Location-Based Routing Method for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
AODV-OLSR Scalable Ad hoc Routing
Group Multicast Capacity in Large Scale Wireless Networks
Virtual Domain and Coordinate Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks
Topology Control –power control
GPSR Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing
Surviving Holes and Barriers in Geographic Data Reporting for
任課教授:陳朝鈞 教授 學生:王志嘉、馬敏修
Greedy Routing with Bounded Stretch
CMPE 252A : Computer Networks
High Throughput Route Selection in Multi-Rate Ad Hoc Wireless Networks
Greedy Distributed Spanning tree routing (gdstr)
Adaptive Topology Control for Ad-hoc Sensor Networks
CMPE 252A : Computer Networks
Presentation transcript:

Efficient Hop ID based Routing for Sparse Ad Hoc Networks Yao Zhao 1, Bo Li 2, Qian Zhang 2, Yan Chen 1, Wenwu Zhu 3 1 Lab for Internet & Security Technology, Northwestern University 2 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 3 Microsoft Research Asia

Outline Motivation Hop ID and Distance Function Dealing with Dead Ends Evaluation Conclusion

Dead End Problem Geographic distance d g fails to reflect hop distance d h (shortest path length) But

Fabian Kun, Roger Wattenhofer and Aaron Zollinger, Mobihoc 2003 GFG/GPSR GOAFR+ better worse Network Density [nodes per unit disk] Shortest Path Span Frequency critical Greedy success Connectivity Geographic routing suffers from dead end problem in sparse networks Motivation

Related Work to Dead End Problem Fix dead end problem –Improves face routing: GPSR, GOAFR+, GPVFR –Much longer routing path than shortest path Reduce dead ends “Geographic routing without location information” [Rao et al, mobicom03] –Works well in dense networks –Outperforms geographic coordinates if obstacles or voids exist –Virtual coordinates are promising in reducing dead ends –However, degrades fast as network becomes sparser

Motivation Hop ID and Distance Function Dealing with Dead Ends Evaluation Conclusion Outline

Virtual Coordinates Problem definition –Define and build the virtual coordinates, and –Define the distance function based on the virtual coordinates –Goal: routing based on the virtual coordinates has few dead ends even in critical sparse networks virtual distance reflects real distance d v ≈ c · d h, c is a constant

What’s Hop ID Hop distances of a node to all the landmarks are combined into a vector, i.e. the node’s Hop ID L1L1 305 L2L L3L A

Lower and Upper Bounds Hop ID of A is Hop ID of B is A B LiLi Triangulation inequality (1) (2)

How Tight Are The Bounds? Theorem [FOCS'04)] –Given a certain number (m) of landmarks, with high probability, for most nodes pairs, L and U can give a tight bound of hop distance m doesn’t depend on N, number of nodes –Example: If there are m landmarks, with high probability, for 90% of node pairs, we have U≤1.1L

Lower Bound Better Than Upper Bound One example: 3200 nodes, density λ=3π Lower bound is much closer to hop distance

650 Lower Bound Still Not The Best H(S) = H(A) = H(D) = L(S, D) = L(A, D) = 3 |H(S) – H(D)|= |H(A) – H(D)|= L1L1 305 L2L L3L S D A

Other Distance Functions Make use of the whole Hop ID vector If p = ∞, If p = 1, If p = 2, What values of p should be used?

The Practical Distance Function The distance function d should be able to reflect the hop distance d h –d ≈ c · d h, c is a constant –L is quite close to d h (c = 1) If p = 1 or 2, Dp deviates from L severely and arbitrarily When p is large, Dp ≈ L ≈ d h – p = 10, as we choose in simulations

Power Distance Better Than Lower Bound 3200 nodes, density λ=3π

Outline Motivation Hop ID and Distance Function Dealing with Dead Ends Evaluation Conclusion

Dealing with Dead End Problem With accurate distance function based on Hop ID, dead ends are less, but still exist Landmark-guided algorithm to mitigate dead end problem –Send packet to the closest landmark to the destination –Limit the hops in this detour mode Expending ring as the last solution

Example of Landmark Guided Algorithm L1L1 305 L2L L3L S D D p (L 2, D)>D p (S,D) Dead End P Detour Mode Greedy Mode A D p (S, D)>D p (A, D)

Practical Issues Landmark selection –O(m · N) where m is the number of landmarks and N is the number of nodes Hop ID adjustment –Mobile scenarios –Integrate Hop ID adjustment process into H ELLO message (no extra overhead) Location server –Can work with existing LSes such as CARD, or –Landmarks act as location servers

Outline Motivation Hop ID and Distance Function Dealing with Dead Ends Evaluation Conclusion

Evaluation Methodology Simulation model –Ns2, not scalable –A scalable packet level simulator No MAC details Scale to 51,200 nodes Baseline experiment design –N nodes distribute randomly in a 2D square –Unit disk model: identical transmission range Evaluation metrics –Routing success ratio –Shortest path stretch –Flooding range

Evaluation Scenarios Landmark sensitivity Density Scalability Mobility Losses Obstacles 3-D space Irregular shape and voids

Simulated Protocols HIR-G: Greedy only HIR-D: Greedy + Detour HIR-E: Greedy + Detour + Expending ring GFR: Greedy geographic routing GWL: Geographic routing without location information [Mobicom03] GOAFR+: Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing [Mobihoc03]

Number of Landmarks 3200 nodes, density shows average number of neighbors Performance improves slowly after certain value (20) Select 30 landmarks in simulations

Density HIR-D keeps high routing success ratio even in the scenarios with critical sparse density. Shortest path stretch of HIR-G & HIR-D is close to 1.

Scalability HIR-D degrades slowly as network becomes larger HIR-D is not sensitive to number of landmarks

Conclusions Hop ID distance accurately reflects the hop distance and Hop ID base routing performs very well in sparse networks and solves the dead end problem Overhead of building and maintaining Hop ID coordinates is low

Thank You! Questions?

Lower Bound vs Upper Bound Lower bound is much close to hop distance

If two nodes are very close and no landmarks are close to these two nodes or the shortest path between the two nodes, U is prone to be an inaccurate estimation U(A, B) = 5, while d h (A, B)=2 U Is Not Suitable for Routing L1L1 305 L2L L3L A B

Landmark Selection

34 Hop ID Adjustment Mobility changes topology Reflooding costs too much overhead Adopt the idea of distance vector Neighbors {23, 13} Neighbors {23}

Build Hop ID System Build a shortest path tree Aggregate landmark candidates Inform landmarks Build Hop ID –Landmarks flood to the whole network. Overall cost –O(m*n), m = number of LMs, n=number of nodes

Mobility

GFG/GPSR GOAFR Network Density [nodes per unit disk] Frequency Geographic routing suffers from dead end problem in sparse networks Fabian Kun, Roger Wattenhofer and Aaron Zollinger, Mobihoc 2003 Motivation better worse Shortest Path Span Greedy success Connectivity critical

Virtual Coordinates Problem definition –Define the virtual coordinates Select landmarks Nodes measure the distance to landmarks Nodes obtain virtual coordinates –Define the distance function –Goal: virtual distance reflects real distance –d v ≈ c · d h, c is a constant