O N D EMAND M ULTICAST R OUTING P ROTOCOL (ODMRP ) CSE December 2015

T YPES OF M ULTICAST R OUTING IN MANET S Tree-based One path between a source-receiver pair AMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV Mesh-based Multiple paths between a source-receiver pair ODMRP, CAMP Hybrid Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) 2

T YPICAL M ULTICAST R OUTING P ROTOCOLS AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers National University of Singapore Georgia Institute of Technology November 1998 [draft] ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing Protocol University of California at Los Angeles January 2000 [draft] 3

W HY COMPARE THEM ? AMRISODMRP Big difference TopologyShared (Core-based) TreeMesh of Nodes Main Similarity Mobility supportYes, based on MANET Driven modeOn-demand, do not store whole network topology Advantagessimple topology low overheads mobility robustness Disadvantagessensitive to mobility (low delivery ratio) complex topology high overheads 4

ODMRP Multicast Messages: JOIN-QUERY (J-Q); JOIN-REPLY (J-R); Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in AODV and DSR 5

Basic Operation of ODMRP On Demand Route and Mesh Creation Join Query Join Reply  S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership.  Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the packet.  Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its neighbors.  Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it own. If yes, it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.  Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a shortest path.  Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “ forwarding group ”. S R R R R R

ODMRP: J OIN R EPLY JOIN-REPLY message SenderNext Node S1I1 S2I2 7 SenderNext Node S1 J-R of R1J-R of I1

Concept of Forwarding Group Why a mesh? Links Multicast Routes Initial Route from S1 to R2 is Redundant Route FG R1 B C R3 A S1 R2 S2 S3

ODMRP: S ENDER A CTIONS Sender actions: Downstream Generate J-Q message; Broadcast J-Q ; Upstream Receive J-R (include the path info); 9

ODMRP: I NTERMEDIATE N ODES ( DOWNSTREAM ) Intermediate node actions: (downstream) – Receive J-Q, omit duplicated ones (use cached sequence numbers); – Store upstream node info; – Re-broadcast J-Q; 10

ODMRP: I NTERMEDIATE N ODES ( UPSTREAM ) Intermediate node actions: (upstream) Received J-R; If node is on the path Generate new J-R with node info and broadcast, route established! 11

ODMRP: R ECEIVER A CTIONS Receiver actions: Downstream Received J-Q; Generate J-R with path info; Upstream Broadcast J-R; 12

ODMRP: M AINTENANCE PHASE Soft state approach Sender repeat J-R periodically to maintain mesh. Node joins Sending J-R as discusses before. Node leaves Sender: stops sending J-Q; Receiver: stops sending J-R; Links break Receiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R; 13

A LGORITHM C OMPARISON (1) AMRISODMRP More differences Multicast topologyShared Delivery TreeMesh of Nodes InitializationGenerating msm-id;Store upstream info; MaintenanceAll nodes periodically send beacon message Sender periodically send J-Q msg Node joinsDetect beacon msg and perform branch reconstruction; Detect J-Q and response J-R; Node leavesStop beacon msg;Stop J-R or J-Q; Link-breakNo more beacon msg and perform BR; Receive new J-Q and reply with J-R; More and more differences (message types, routing table info…) 14

A LGORITHM C OMPARISON (2) AMRIS and ODMRP More Similarities Mobility supportYes, based on MANET Driven modeOn-demand, does not store whole network topology Broadcast messageYes Unicast capabilitiesYes Periodic messageYes Loop freeYes More similarities … 15

P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON (1) Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of mobile speed – # of data packets actually delivered to the destinations versus # of data packets supposed to be received – PDR of ARMIS is speed sensitive 16

P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON (2) Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of # of senders – PDR of AMRIS is not sensitive to # of senders – ODRMP’s performance improves as number of senders increases 17

P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON (3) Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of multicast group size – PDR of ODMRP is not sensitive to group size – AMRIS’s performance improves as group size grows 18

P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON (4) Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of network traffic load AMRIS has severe packet loss rates ODMRP suffers less 19

O VERHEAD C OMPARISON (1) Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a function of mobility speed – Control bytes are control packets and data packet headers – Not speed sensitive – AMRIS has lower ratio 20

O VERHEAD C OMPARISON (2) Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a Function of # of Senders – AMRIS is not affected by number of senders – ODMRP may not be efficient in large networks 21

Q UALITATIVE C OMPARISON Bandwidth Consumption – ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes than AMRIS – However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery ratio Power Consumption – Depends on mobility speed, number of senders, network traffic load, etc. – Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes 22

R EFERENCES “A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000 “Multicast over wireless mobile ad hoc networks: Present and future directions”, Carlos de Morais Cordeiro, Hrishikesh Gossain and Dharma P. Agrawal, IEEE Network, January 2003 “Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs”, Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik “Capacity of Wireless Mesh Networks Understanding Single Radio, Dual Radio and Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks” “On the Turbulence of Nintendo DS and Sony PSP Handheld Network Games”, Mark Claypool 23