Profiles and Multi-Topology Routing in Highly Heterogeneous Ad Hoc Networks Audun Fosselie Hansen Tarik Cicic Paal Engelstad Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

2 Improving Network Provider’s Business Case Ad hoc networks should be regarded as an opportunity rather than a threat to current business All network infrastructures should be available for the customers Customers should also cooperate making their private infrastructure available for fellow customers  Improving service and Internet availability Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

3 Rethinking Research Challenges Scalability –Has been the traditional research focus [1,2] –Tailored mechanisms for the ”weakest links” only Heterogeneity –Devices and wireless media technologies will provide a wide heterogeneity with respect to capabilities and properties [3] –Some schemes focus on heterogeneity, but on one parameter only [4,5]  We argue for a more holistic approach that covers not only scalability, but also heterogeneity in terms of many different aspects, simultaneously

4 Profiling the Routing in Ad Hoc Networks Device profiles for management of heterogeneous ad hoc networking systems –device type, power supply, energy level, wireless interface, offered data rate, supported and desired routing approach, mobility pattern, etc. “DiffServ-like” property classes –to reduce the attribute space. Configuring the device profile –by the user, operator or automatically based on current context Capability profiling may improve scalability, –by ensuring that the low-capacity components are not used for data forwarding.

5 Using Multiple Topology Routing (MTR) Utilizes independent logical topologies to compute different paths for different types of traffic –i.e., a router/device maintains different routing tables for different purposes. Explore the benefits of using MTR in ad hoc networks –Using multiple topologies for resilient routing as described in [6] –Profile-adjusted topologies Different routing processes Different traffic Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

6 Research Goals and Plans Explore the benefits of using profiles and multi-topology routing in ad hoc networks Develop a framework for profile specification and dissemination. –Profile granularity –Trade-offs with routing complexity –Device heterogeneity –Scalability, e.g. in terms of the dissemination of profile information Algorithms and mechanisms for building and maintaining consistent special- purpose topologies should be developed. –Avoiding routing loops is a goal in itself. As a first step: Use MT routing to improve the resilience of ad hoc networks using multi-topology routing as described in [6].

7 The following figures will show How different devices announce profiles and supported routing schemes –All devices should announce this in its neighborhood How different purpose topologies could be built based on this information –Topology for proactive routing processes –Topology for reactive routing processes –Topology for High-demanding applications How Multi-topology routing can improve resilience –Example of backup topologies for the proactive nodes –Example of how a node can move packets to a topology where a ”failed” next hop is isolated Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

8 OLSR, AODV, 1 Routing protocols, Profile Routing Protocols: OLSR, AODV etc. Profiles: 1,..., 8 (High capacity and stable, …, Low capacity and high mobility) Node A announces its supported routing protocol and profile in its neighborhood Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom A

9 AODV, 8 Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom B Node B announces its supported routing protocols and profile in its neighborhood Routing protocols, Profile Routing Protocols: OLSR, AODV etc. Profiles: 1,..., 8 (High capacity and stable, …, Low capacity and high mobility)

10 OLSR, 3 Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom Node C announces its supported routing protocols and profile in its neighborhood C Routing protocols, Profile Routing Protocols: OLSR, AODV etc. Profiles: 1,..., 8 (High capacity and stable, …, Low capacity and high mobility)

11 Resulting in: Proactive Routing Topology (e.g. OLSR) Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

12 Resulting in: Reactive Routing Topology (e.g. AODV) Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

13 Resulting in: Topology for high demanding applications Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

14 Improving Resilience using Multi-Topology Routing Fast local rerouting in connectionless networks like IP-based MANETs is difficult due to problems with looping [7] Our approach is to build multiple logical topologies in such a way that as many nodes as possible are isolated in one of the topologies. –An isolated node will not carry transit traffic –We call these backup topologies –These will typically be represented as additional routing tables. When a node detect that the next hop for the packet is not available, it moves the packet to a topology where the next hop is isolated All nodes should have the same view of topologies A node that moves packets to another topology must mark the packets to identify the topology for other nodes in the network In [6] we have investigated this approach for fixed IP networks –Very few backup topologies are needed to isolate every component once –Path lengths for recovered traffic are acceptable Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

15 Full Topology Backup Topology 1 Backup Topology 2 Backup Topology 3 Backup Topologies for the proactive nodes Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

16 S D Traffic from S to D in the full Topology Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

17 S D Node N detects a failure on the next hop towards D N Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

18 S D N Node N moves traffic to a backup topology 2 towards node D Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom

19 References 1.C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly dynamic destination sequenced distance-vector routing (dsdv) for mobile computers”, in Conference on Communications architectures, protocols and applications, 1994, pp. 234– D. B. Johnson, “Routing in ad hoc networks of mobile hosts,” in Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, S. Kurkowski, T. Camp, and M. Colagrosso, “Manet simulation studies: the incredibles,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 50 – 61, October C. Ma and Y. Yang, “A prioritized battery-aware routing protocol for wireless ad hoc networks,” in 8th ACM international symposium on Modeling, analysis and simulation of wireless and mobile systems, 2005, pp. 45 – C. E. Jones, K. M. Sivalingam, P. Agrawal, and J. C. Chen, “A survey of energy efficient network protocols for wireless networks,” Wireless Networks, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 342–358, August A. Kvalbein, A. F. Hansen, T. Cicic, S. Gjessing, and O. Lysne, “Fast IP network recovery using multiple routing configurations,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, Apr M. Shand and S. Bryant, ” IP Fast Reroute Framework ”, IETF Internet Draft, March 2006 Audun Fosselie Hansen – Poster, Infocom