1. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri {ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu} Berkeley Web Over Wireless Group wow.eecs.berkeley.edu Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California Berkeley MEWLANA-Mobile IP Enriched Wireless Local Area Network Architecture by Mustafa Ergen Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri {ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu} Berkeley Web Over Wireless Group wow.eecs.berkeley.edu Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California Berkeley

2. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Introduction  Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc Networks Overview  Motivation  Network Architecture  Protocol  Previous Work -MIPMANET -on demand routing  MEWLANA-TD - table driven routing  MEWLANA-RD –root driven routing (mesh networks)  Performance Analysis  Conclusion

3. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc Networks Mobile IP  Retain a fixed IP identity while moving.  Mobile Node (MN)  Home Agent (HA)  Foreign Agent (FA)  Correspondent Host (CH)  Agent Advertisement  Registration  Tunneling Ad-Hoc Network  No network infrastructure.  Special routing protocol Interne t HA FA MN CH FA A B

4. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Motivation Mobile IP in Ad hoc Network хHigh cost for building a large number of bases хTotal throughput limited by the number of cells in the area. хHigh power consumption of mobile stations having the same transmission range as bases. хAd hoc networks are limited to be small scale. The number of bases or the transmission ranges of both mobile stations can be reduced. Connections are still allowed without base stations Multiple packets can be simultaneously transmitted within a cell Paths are less vulnerable than the ones in ad hoc networks because the bases can help reduce the wireless hop count.

5. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Motivation  Does this new architecture impose new traffic characteristic?  Inside traffic, Outside Traffic  Can we classify the environments based on the traffic characteristics?  Small or large size ad hoc network  Intensity of inside and outside traffic  Does using one kind of ad hoc routing give optimum result in all environments?

6. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Motivation Example; Intensity of outside traffic = constant A conference  Big Size Network  High Inside Traffic A subway  Big Size Network  Negligible Inside Traffic A rescue mission  Small Size Network  High Inside Traffic

7. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Network Architecture FA MIP MN1 Adhoc/MIP MN4 Adhoc/MIP MN3 Adhoc/MIP MN2 Adhoc/MIP CH HA MIP none Internet/MIP FA Domain Ad Hoc Domain Ad Hoc Routing Protocols  Table Driven Routing :  DSDV, …  On Demand Routing  AODV, DSR, …  Route Driven Routing  TBBR (Tree Based Bidirectional Routing)

8. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Tree Based Bidirectional Routing Mesh Network: Routes from Foreign Agent to Mobiles Routes from Mobiles to Foreign Agent

9. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Protocol-Main Components  Discovering Base Station  Unicast or Broadcast  Registration Mechanism  Inform the HA of the current location of the mobile  Tunneling Mechanism from HA to FA  Delivery from FA to mobile  FA keeps a table of MAC address and IP address pair FA Domain FA MN2 MN1 Ad hoc Domain Gateway Mobile

10. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Beacon: Agent Advertisement Message (modified ICMP)  Domain specific info: DNS, CoA, hop count, source address.  FA and MN duplicates the beacon : hop count ++  Hop count is to limit the serviced nodes and a decision mechanism  MN`s new access point = CoA  Mobile establish the route to the FA Protocol-Agent Discovery

11. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Protocol-Registration  Normal Mobile IP Registration  Registration Request: MN4->MN3->MN2->MN1->FA->HA  Registration Reply: HA->FA->MN1->MN2->MN3->MN4  Registration Request can get lost:MN & HA not registered.  Registration Reply can get lost:MN not registered but HA.  Periodic registration update.

12. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Protocol-Tunneling Tunneling from HA to FA. Ethernet Header FA addr. HA addr. MN addr. CH addr. Packet MN addr. CH addr. Packet Decapsulating in FA. Ethernet Header MN addr. CH addr. Packet Sending from FA to MN. Gateway Mobile Node MAC Address

13. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Protocol-Hop Count Lifetime of agent advertisement = X hop count Change access point by considering hop count. FA1FA2 A B C D E F FA FA2 MN1 MN2 Ad hoc Domain

14. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Protocol-OVERHEAD  MIPO: Mobile IP Overhead  Beacon Flooding  AHRO: Ad Hoc Routing Overhead  Routing Table Formation  NHIT: Number of Hops for Inside Traffic  Source and Destination is in the same ad hoc domain  NHOT: Number of Hops for Outside Traffic Load = constant  Source and Destination is in different domains

15. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Previous Work-MIPMANET Designed with on demand routing  Agent Advertisement Beacon Flooding  Ad Hoc Routing AODV Create route before send  High MIPO  AHRO reduced  NHIT depends on size

16. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen MEWLANA-TD Designed with table driven routing  Agent Advertisement :Dynamic Beaconing Initiate advertisement when the routing table changes  Ad Hoc Routing DSDV- route table exchange  Low MIPO  High AHRO  NHIT depends on size

17. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen MEWLANA-TD CH MN4 HA Ad hoc Domain Internet MN2 MN1 FA MN3 Registration Data Packets via HA Route Optimization FA Domain  Dynamic Beaconing  There exists a route for each node  Low MIPO  High AHRO  NHIT depends on size

18. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen MEWLANA-RD. FA MN1 MN3 MN6 MN2 MN5 MN4 MN2 dstnexth. (1) * MN1 (2) MN1MN1 (2) MN4MN4 (2) MN5MN5 MN4 dstnexth. (1) * MN2 (1) MN2MN2 Internet MN1 dstnexth. (1) * FA (1) FAFA (2) MN2 MN2 (2) MN4 MN2 (2) MN5 MN2 (2) MN3MN3 (2) MN6 MN3 MN5 dstnexth. (1) * MN2 (1) MN2MN2 MN6 dstnexth. (1) * MN3 (1) MN3MN3 dstnexth. (1) * MN1 (1) MN1MN1 (2) MN6MN6 (1) Beacon (2) Reg. Request DLN=1 DLN=2 DLN=3 Depth Level Number (DLN): Hop Count: eliminate loop Routes (1) From mobile to FA : Beacon Routes (2) From FA to mobiles: Multi Hop Registration Request

19. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen MEWLANA-RD Multi Hop Registration Request - Destination IP Address UDP Header Type| Service Bits| Life Time Home Address Home Agent Care of Address Identification Extensions Source IP Address Ethernet Header Registration Request Fields - MN2 UDP Header Type| Service Bits| Life Time MN4 HA FA Identification Extensions MN4 Ethernet Header Registration Request Fields - MN1 UDP Header Type| Service Bits| Life Time MN4 HA FA Identification Extensions MN2 Ethernet Header Registration Request Fields - FA UDP Header Type| Service Bits| Life Time MN4 HA FA Identification Extensions MN1 Ethernet Header Registration Request Fields MN4MN2MN1FA

20. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen MEWLANA-RD -  Beacon flooding  Create tree  Performance degradation in inside traffic  If in different tree, connect with Mobile IP  High MIPO  No AHRO  Higher NHIT compared to others

21. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Empirical Classification

22. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Simulation Parameters NS-2  CBR Source : 1-10  10 packets per second  512bytes  Beacon Period: 1 sec.  Nodes:{4,8,32,64,128}  PF Performance Factor  B=C=D=1  A is scaling factor  PF: Performance Factor

23. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Simulation Performance Factor

24. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Conclusion  Classification of the environment  Size and traffic intensity  MEWLANA-TD : Small size and High inside traffic  Dynamic Beaconing  MEWLANA-RD: Large size and Low inside traffic  Eliminate Ad hoc Routing Protocol Overhead  MIPMANET : Large size and High inside traffic  Demand routing protocol when there is need.

25. MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE, PARIS 2002 M. Ergen Reference Royer, C. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks” IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 6, No.2, pp.46-55, April 1999. Broch J., Maltx D.,Johnson D.,Hu Y.,Jetcheva J., “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”, The fourth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking, October 25-30, 1998, Dallas, TX USA Ulf Jonsson, Fredrik Alriksson, Tony Larsson, Per Johansson, Gerald Q. Maquire Jr. MIPMANET-Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, MOBIHOC 2000. Hui Lei and Charles E. Perkins, “Ad hoc networking with Mobile IP” in Proceedings of 2nd European Personal Mobile Communication Conference, Sept. 1997.