1. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 1 ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETs Hamida SEBA PRISMa Lab. – G2Ap team http://www710.univ-lyon1.fr/~g2ap University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IUT A France

2. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 2 OUTLINE  Mobile Ad hoc Network Overview  Routing Protocols  Our Work  Future Work

3. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 3 Mobile Ad hoc Networks Collection of mobile devices  Infrastructure-less  Multi-hops  Wireless communications  Highly mobile  Dynamic topology  Peer to peer

4. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 4 Uses of Mobile Ad hoc networks  Social services  Dating, chatting  Work and productivity related / ”useful” areas  Emergency / crisis management  Military operations  Sensor Networks (industry, hospitals, offshore)  Entertainment  Game play  Information sharing  File sharing  Streaming media services  Commercials and sales / marketing

5. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 5 Challenges 1/2  Mobility  dynamic topology  Broken links  Scalability  may consist of a large number of nodes  Bandwidth Constraint  Wireless links provide limited bandwidth which is affected by surrounding environment  RF Connectivity  Wireless links may not be available at all time due to interference and propagation problems  Energy Constraints  Some ad hoc nodes operate on battery and their lifetime is limited by the available battery power.

6. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 6 Challenges 2/2  Each node must function as a host and router Static network protocols will not work

7. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 7 Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Networks 1/4  Routing in MANET have been subject to intense R&D efforts  Large number of routing protocols have been proposed for ad-hoc networks by academia and industry  Main ad hoc routing protocol categories include:  Proactive (Table-driven)  Reactive (On-demand)  Hierarchical/Clustering

8. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 8 Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Networks 2/4  Characteristics:  Derived from conventional link state routing  Routing tables are periodically populated with available routes regardless of whether they are actually needed  Advantages:  Route availability reduces delay (no route acquisition delay)  Good for real-time traffic QoS  Alternate QoSpath support  Disadvantages:  Possibly inefficient (due to unnecessary signaling message overhead)  Redundant routes may exist  Some computed routes may not be needed Proactive approach

9. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 9 Reactive approach Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Networks 3/4  Characteristics:  Route discovery initiated on-demand  Route maintained only while used  Typically consists of two phases: Route Discovery Route Maintenance  Advantages:  Eliminates periodic route advertisements  May reduce power and bandwidth requirements  Disadvantages:  Adds route-acquisition delay  May cause more signaling if route expiration times are too short

10. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 10 Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Networks 4/4  Characteristics:  The network is organized into clusters  Each cluster has a cluster-head  Intra-cluster routing and inter-cluster routing  Advantages:  May be a tradeoff between reactive and proactive routing  Disadvantages:  Traffic necessary to maintain clusters and cluster-heads Hybrid approach

11. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 11 ARPM : Motivations  Why another routing protocol ?  Perhaps not necessary  ARPM is not a new protocol, it uses existing protocols.  Hybrid Approach  But do simply and efficiently  Tradeoff between reactive and proactive routing without a systematic clustering

12. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 12 ARPM: algorithm ARPM adapts the routing process to the mobility of nodes Node i  mobility evaluation function fi If ncf > d then /* switch to a reactive activity */ f i = true /* proactive activity */ else f i = false; ncf: neighboring change frequency (number of neighboring changes per time unit d: threshold fi true false High mobility Reactive routing Low mobility Proactive routing

13. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 13 ARPM : node chart inactive proactive reactive fi becomes true fi becomes false fi becomes true and there is no route request New route request and fi is true new route request cease route maintenance fi becomes false routing table updated and fi is false

14. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 14 Simulation model S1S1 S2S2 S3S3 S4S4 SnSn S n-1  GloMoSim library  network of 100 nodes roaming randomly  1000  1000 m2 area  Sub-area around a virtual node where we evaluate ncf  radio transmission range is 120 meters  channel capacity is 2 Mbits/second.  IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol as the MAC layer  We implemented :  A reactive protocol: AODV  A proactive protocol: DSDV  ARPM

15. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 15 Simulation results Route Discovery Delay

16. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 16 Simulation results Message Overhead

17. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 17 Conclusion and Future work  ARPM  maintains good performance by adapting the routing process to the mobility of nodes  allows to switch easily between proactive and reactive mode of functioning  Good performance when compared to pure proactive and pure reactive approaches  More work to do…  Use an analytic model for the protocol dynamism  Compare ARPM with hybrid protocols

18. Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 18 Thank you Your questions ?