Ad Hoc Wireless Routing CS Winter 2001 Review of conventional routing schemes Proactive wireless routing schemes Hierarchical routing Reactive (on demand) wireless schemes

Wireless multihop routing challenges mobility need to scale to large numbers (100’s to 1000's) unreliable radio channel (fading etc) limited bandwidth limited power need to support multimedia (QoS)

Proposed Routing Approaches Conventional wired-type schemes (global routing, proactive): –Distance Vector; Link State Hierarchical (global routing) schemes: –Fisheye, Hierarchical State Routing, Landmark Routing On- Demand, reactive routing: –Source routing; backward learning Location Assisted routing (Geo-routing): –DREAM, LAR etc

Conventional wired routing limitations Distance Vector (eg, Bellman-Ford, DSDV): –routing control O/H linearly increasing with net size –convergence problems (count to infinity); potential loops Link State (eg, OSPF): –link update flooding O/H caused by frequent topology changes CONVENTIONAL ROUTING DOES NOT SCALE TO SIZE AND MOBILITY

Distance Vector Routing table at node 5 :

Link State Routing At node 5, based on the link state pkts, topology table is constructed: Dijkstra’s Algorithm can then be used for the shortest path {1} {0,2,3} {1,4} {2,4} {2,3,5} {1,4,5}

APPROACH: use hierarchical routing to reduce table size and table update overhead Proposed hierarchical schemes: –Fisheye (implicit hierarchy induced by "scope") –Hierarchical State Routing –Zone routing (hybrid scheme) –Landmark Routing

Fisheye State Routing Topology data base at each node - similar to link state (e.g., OSPF) Routing information is periodically exchanged with neighbors only –similar to distance vector Routing update frequency decreases with distance to destination –Higher frequency updates within a close zone and lower frequency updates to a remote zone –Highly accurate routing information about the immediate neighborhood of a node; progressively less detail for areas further away from the node

Scope of Fisheye

Message Reduction in FSR :{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} LSTHOP 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} LSTHOP 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} LSTHOP

Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) Main challenge: maintain/update the hierarchical partitions in the face of mobility Solution: distinguish between “physical” partitions and “logical” grouping –physical partitions are based on geographical proximity –logical grouping is based on functional affinity between nodes (e.g., tanks of same battalion, students of same class) Physical partitions enable reduction of routing overhead Logical groupings enable efficient location management strategies using Home Agent concepts

HSR - physical multilevel partitions Level = Level = Level = 2 DestID Path HSR table at node 5: HID(5): HID(6): (MAC addresses) Hierarchical addresses

HSR - logical partitions and location management Logical (IP like) type address –Each subnet corresponds to a particular user group (e.g., tank battalion in the battlefield, search team in a search and rescue operation, etc) –logical subnet spans several physical clusters –Nodes in same subnet tend to have common mobility characteristic (i.e., locality) –logical address is totally distinct from MAC address

HSR - logical partitions and location management (cont’d) Each subnetwork has at least one Home Agent to manage membership Each member of the subnet registers its own hierarchical address with Home Agent –periodical/event driven registration; stale addresses are timed out by Home Agent Home Agent hierarchical addresses propagated via routing tables; or queried at a Name Server

Landmark Routing Based on logical groupings as in HSR LandmarkA Landmark node is elected in each logical subnet (similar to Home Agent concept) Routing to a remote group is summarized by the route to the corresponding Landmark The routing information exchange is similar to FSR, with following modifications: –only landmark nodes are included in each update –the update frequency of landmark nodes is same as that of intra- scope update As a result, each node maintains accurate routes to its neighbors as well as to landmark nodes

Landmark Routing

On-Demand Routing Protocols Routes are established “on demand” as requested by the source Only the active routes are maintained by each node Channel/Memory overhead is minimized Two leading methods for route discovery: source routing and backward learning (similar to LAN interconnection routing)

Existing On-Demand Protocols Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) Signal Stability Based Adaptive Routing (SSA)

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Uses source routing instead of hop-by-hop routing No periodic routing update message is sent Nodes ignore topology changes not affecting active routes with packets in the pipe The first path discovered is selected as the route Two main phases –Route Discovery –Route Maintenance

DSR - Route Discovery Route RequestTo establish a route, the source floods a Route Request message with a unique request ID Route ReplyRoute Reply message containing path information is sent back to the source either by –the destination, or –intermediate nodes that have a route to the destination Route CacheEach node maintains a Route Cache which records routes it has learned and overheard over time

DSR - Route Maintenance Route maintenance performed only while route is in use Monitors the validity of existing routes by passively listening to acknowledgments of data packets transmitted to neighboring nodes Route ErrorWhen problem detected, send Route Error packet to original sender to perform new route discovery

Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) Primary Objectives –Provide unicast, broadcast, and multicast capability –Initiate forward route discovery only on demand –Disseminate changes in local connectivity to those neighboring nodes likely to need the information Characteristics –On-demand route creation Effect of topology changes is localized Control traffic is minimized –Two dimensional routing metric: –Storage of routes in Route Table

Route Table Fields: –Destination IP Address –Destination Sequence Number –HopCount –Next Hop IP Address –Precursor Nodes –Expiration Time Each time a route entry is used to transmit data, the expiration time is updated to current_time + active_route_timeout Next Hop Source A Precursor Nodes Destination

Unicast Route Discovery Node can reply to RREQ if –It is the destination, or –It has a “fresh enough” route to the destination Otherwise it rebroadcasts the request Nodes create reverse route entry Record Src IP Addr / Broadcast ID to prevent multiple rebroadcasts Source Destination Route Request Propagation Source broadcasts Route Request (RREQ)

Forward Path Setup Destination, or intermediate node with current route to destination, unicasts Route Reply (RREP) to source Nodes along path create forward route Source begins sending data when it receives first RREP Source Destination Forward Path Formation

Path Maintenance Movement of nodes not along active path does not trigger protocol action If source node moves, it can reinitiate route discovery When destination or intermediate node moves, upstream node of break broadcasts Route Error (RERR) message RERR contains list of all destinations no longer reachable due to link break RERR propagated until node with no precursors for destination is reached Source Destination ’ Source Destination ’

GloMoSim Simulation Layers Application Processing Propagation Model Mobility Frame Processing Radio Status/Setup CS/Radio SetupRTS/CTSFrame Wrapper Ack/Flow Control Clustering Packet Store/Forward VC Handle Flow Control Routing IP Wrapper IP/Mobile IP RSVP Transport Wrapper TCP/UDP Control Channel Radio MAC Layer Network IP Transport Application RTP WrapperRCTP Packet Store/Forward Clustering Routing Link Layer Application Setup Data Plane Control Plane

Performance Evaluation Enviroment PARSEC simulation enviroment –100 nodes –1000mx1000m square area –transmission range: 100m –channel data rate: 2 Mbps –random mobility model –UDP traffic between randomly selected node pairs –cluster-token MAC layer protocol HSR –2 level physical partition –1 level logical groupings, number of logical subnets varies with network size FSR –2 level fisheye scoping –fisheye radius is 2 hops

Control O/H vs. number of nodes

Control O/H vs. Traffic Pairs

Control O/H vs. Mobility (100 pairs)

Average Delay (ms)

Location-Aided Routing (LAR) Ko and Vaidya (Texas A & M) Location assisted (requires GPS) On-demand No periodic messages Route RequestsLAR works like DSR except it limits the flooded area of Route Requests using location information

LAR (cont’d) Scheme 1 –The source specifies a request zone which includes the source and the area where the destination may reside Route Requests – Nodes within the request zone propagate Route Requests Scheme 2 –The source specifies the distance between itself and the destination Route Requests –Nodes forward Route Requests if their distances to the destination is less than or equal to the distance indicated by the packet

DREAM Besagni, et al. (U of Texas, Dallas) Location assisted (requires GPS) Node coordinates (instead of routes) are recorded in the route table Distance EffectDistance Effect: Send location updates to nearby nodes more frequently Location update frequencies are adjusted to mobility rate

DREAM (cont’d) The source partially floods data to nodes that are in the direction of the destination The source specifies possible next hops in the data header using location information Next hop nodes select their own list of next hops and include the list into data header If the source finds no neighbors in the direction of the destination or has no fresh location information of the destination, data is flooded to the entire network

Location Based Routing Simulation (LAR and DREAM) 50 nodes; 750m X 750 m space Free space channel propagation model Radio with capture ability MAC: IEEE DCF 10 UDP data sessions with constant bit rate

Simulation Results (cont’d) Packet delivery ratio

Simulation Results Number of data packets transmitted per data packet delivered

Simulation Results (cont’d) Number of control bytes transmitted per data byte delivered

Conclusions Conventional (wired net) routing schemes suffer of O/H, mobility and scalability limitations Hierarchical routing reduces O/H and improves scalability (at the expense of accuracy). On Demand routing eliminates background routing control O/H. It introduces latency; it does not support QoS routing