2. Impact of Directional Antennas on Ad Hoc Routing Romit Roy Choudhury Nitin H. Vaidya

3. Ad Hoc Networks Typically assume Omnidirectional antennas A silenced node A B C D

4. Using Directional Antennas … A B C D A B C D  Spatial reuse increases  Wireless interference reduces  Range extension possible MAC layer performance shown to improve. [Zander, Ramanathan, Takai, RoyChoudhury, Kalyanaraman]

5. Are directional antennas also beneficial to ad hoc routing ? Do routing protocols need to be adapted to suit directional antenna systems ?

6. This Paper  Proposes a simple DiMAC protocol  Evaluates impact of DSR over DiMAC  Identifies key tradeoffs  Proposes optimizations to suit directional antennas – Directional DSR (DDSR)  Discusses issues where directional antennas may or may not be suitable

7. Antenna Model 2 Operation Modes: Omni and Directional A node may operate in any one mode at any given time

8. Antenna Model In Omni Mode: Nodes receive signals with Gain G o While idle a node stays in Omni mode In Directional Mode: Beamforms in any one of N static beams (switched) Directional Gain G d (G d > G o )

9. CB RTS CTS Directional MAC – DiMAC  A node listens omni-directionally when idle  Sender transmits Directional-RTS (DRTS) – Receiver receives RTS in the omni mode (DO links)  Receiver sends Directional-CTS (DCTS)  DATA,ACK transmitted and received directionally

10. CB Data ACK Directional MAC – DiMAC  A node listens omni-directionally when idle  Sender transmits Directional-RTS (DRTS) – Receiver receives RTS in the omni mode (DO links)  Receiver sends Directional-CTS (DCTS)  DATA,ACK transmitted and received directionally

11. Directional MAC – DiMAC  Directional Network Allocation Vector (DNAV)  Defer only in the direction of ongoing communication  Broadcast implemented through sweeping  Beam Handoffs (due to node mobility) handled through scanning  Send probe packets on recently used beams  Update neighbor cache based on replies to probes

12. Routing Protocols Many routing protocols for ad hoc networks rely on broadcast messages –For instance, flood of route requests (RREQ) Using omni broadcast will not discover far-away neighbors Need to implement broadcast using directional transmissions –A directional transmission, Omni reception = DO link

13. Dynamic Source Routing [Johnson] Sender floods RREQ through the network Nodes forward RREQs after appending their names Destination node receives RREQ and unicasts a RREP back to sender node, using the route in which RREQ traveled

14. Route Discovery in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Z Y Represents a node that has received RREQ for D from S M N L

15. Route Discovery in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Represents transmission of RREQ Z Y Broadcast transmission M N L [S] [X,Y] Represents list of identifiers appended to RREQ

16. Route Discovery in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Z Y M N L [S,E] [S,C]

17. Route Discovery in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Node C receives RREQ from G and H, but does not forward it again, because node C has already forwarded RREQ once Z Y M N L [S,C,G] [S,E,F]

18. Route Discovery in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Z Y M Nodes J and K both broadcast RREQ to node D N L [S,C,G,K] [S,E,F,J]

19. Route Reply in DSR B A S E F H J D C G I K Z Y M N L RREP [S,E,F,J,D] Represents RREP control message

20. DSR over DiMAC  DiMAC broadcast – RREQ transmitted sequentially on all N beams – sweeping  Sweeping allows DO links  Higher delay  Higher Overhead

21. Tradeoffs Higher tx range  Fewer hop routes  Lower end to end delay  Fewer link failures  Narrow beamwidth Narrow beamwidth  High sweeping delay  High sweeping overhead  Frequent handoffs Motivation to evaluate impact of directional antennas on routing

22. Evaluation  Simulation –Qualnet simulator 3.1 –Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic –Packet Size – 512 Bytes –802.11 transmission range = 250meters –Channel bandwidth 2 Mbps –DSR  DSR + 802.11 + Omni Antenna –DDSRx  DSR + DiMAC + x-Beam Antenna E.g., DDSR6  DSR over DiMAC, with beamwidth = 60 degrees

23. Route discovery latency … Single flow, grid topology (200 m distance) DSR DDSR4 DDSR6

24. Throughput DDSR18 DDSR9 DSR

25. Observations Advantage of higher transmit range significant only at higher separation between source-destination Grid distance = 200 m -- thus no gain with higher tx range of DDSR4 (350 m) over 802.11 (250 m). –However, DDSR4 has sweeping delay. Thus route discovery delay higher Sub-optimal routes chosen by DDSR because destination misses shortest RREQ, when beam- formed

26. Sub-optimal Routes in DDSR F J D receives RREQ from J, and replies with RREP Meanwhile, D misses RREQ from K – called Deafness N J RREP RREQ D K

27. Delayed RREP Optimization Due to sweeping – earliest RREQ need not have traversed shortest hop path. –RREQ packets “sweep-ed” to different neighbors at different points of time If destination replies to first arriving RREP, it can miss shorter-path RREQ Optimize by having DSR destination wait before replying with RREP –Waiting allows destination to gather all early RREQs

28. Bridging “Voids” using DDSR For randomly located nodes Using DDSR can be beneficial in sparse networks. Higher transmission range of directional antennas can communicate across “voids” in the topology.

29. Throughput and Beamwidth For randomly located nodes

30. Routing Overhead  Using omni broadcast, nodes receive multiple copies of same packet – Redundant  Broadcast Storm Problem  Using directional Antennas – can do better ? –Forward packets radially outward

31. Use K antenna elements to forward broadcast packet. K = N/2 in simulations  (No. Ctrl Tx)  (Footprint of Tx)  No. Data Packets Ctrl Overhead  = Selective-Forward Optimization Footprint of Tx

32. Selective-Forward Optimization Control overhead reduces Beamwidth of antenna element (degrees)

33. Mobility Link lifetime increases using directional antennas. –Higher transmission range - link failures are less frequent Handoff: Nodes moving out of beam coverage in order of packet-transmission-time –Low probability

34. Antenna handoff –If no response to RTS, MAC layer uses n adjacent antenna elements to transmit same packet –Route error avoided if communication re-established [RoyChoudhury02UIUC Techrep] Mobility

35. Aggregate throughput Over random mobile scenarios

36. Observations Randomness in topology aids DDSR. Voids in network topology bridged by higher transmission range (prevents partition) Higher transmission range increases link lifetime – reduces frequency of link failure under mobility Antenna handoff due to nodes crossing antenna elements – not too serious

37. Future work Directional route repair possible in DDSR Incorporate Anycasting in DDSR Reducing route alignment –Choosing zig-zag routes increase spatial reuse Power control based on the knowledge of neighborhood

38. Conclusion Directional antennas can be beneficial to routing –Fewer hop-count –Bridges network “voids” in sparse scenarios –Higher link lifetime However tradeoffs exist –Broadcast overhead higher –Handoffs possible when node moves beam beams –Deafness can cause sub-optimality

39. Conclusion Evaluation shows DDSR better than DSR when –Sparse networks –Large src-dest separation –Moderately narrow beamwidth

40. Thank you www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv

41. Issues  Broadcast storm: Using broadcasts, nodes receive multiple copies of same packet Optimize by using K out of N beams to forward broadcast packets

42. Performance Results indicate that routing performance can be improved using directional antennas

43. Issues: Sub-optimal Routes  Due to sweeping, shortest path RREQ may reach destination late  Sub-optimal routes may be chosen if destination node misses shortest request, while beamformed D receives RREQ from J D beamforms to send RREP D misses RREQ from K Using Omni, D gets all RREQs F J N J D K RREP RREQ

44. Performance Control overheadThroughput Vs Mobility Control overhead higher using DDSR Throughput of DDSR higher, even under mobility Latency in packet delivery lower using DDSR