* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 3-1-3_Scalable
Survey
Document related concepts
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Wake-on-LAN wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Multiprotocol Label Switching wikipedia , lookup
Distributed operating system wikipedia , lookup
Backpressure routing wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
List of wireless community networks by region wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Proposed ad hoc Routing Approaches • Conventional wired-type schemes (global routing, proactive): – Distance Vector; Link State • Proactive ad hoc routing: – OLSR, TBRPF • On- Demand, reactive routing: – DSR (Source routing), MSR – AODV (Backward learning) • Scalable routing : – Hierarchical routing: HSR, Fisheye – OLSR + Fisheye – LANMAR (for teams/swarms) • Geo-routing: GPSR, GeRaF, etc – Motion assisted routing – Direction Forwarding Where do we stand? • OLSR and TBRPF can dramatically reduce the “state” sent out on update messages • They are very effective in “dense” networks. • However, the state still grows with O(N) • Neither of the above schemes can handle large scale nets from 10’s to thousands of nodes • What to do? Hierarchical Routing The previous schemes reduce control traffic O/H but do not significantly reduce routing table size Solution: use hierarchical routing to reduce table size In the process, reduce also control traffic O/H Proposed hierarchical schemes include: – Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) – Fisheye State Routing (FSR) – Landmark Routing – Zone routing (hybrid scheme) Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) • Loose hierarchical routing in Internet • Main challenge in ad hoc nets: maintain/update the hierarchical partitions in the face of mobility • Solution: distinguish between “physical” partitions and “logical” grouping – physical partitions are based on geographical proximity – logical grouping is based on functional affinity between nodes (e.g., tanks of same battalion, students of same class) • Physical partitions enable reduction of routing overhead • Logical groupings enable efficient location management strategies using Home Agent concepts HSR - physical multilevel partitions 3 1 Level = 2 HSR table at node 5: DestID Path 2 3 1 Level = 1 4 1 5-1 6 5-1-6 7 5-7 <1-2-> 5-1-6 <1-4-> 5-7 2 6 3 1 Level = 0 (MAC addresses) 8 5 11 7 4 9 10 <1-3> 5-7 Hierarchical HID(5): <1-1-5> addresses HID(6): <3-2-6> HSR - logical partitions and location management • Logical (IP like) type address <subnet,host> – Each subnet corresponds to a particular user group (e.g., tank battalion in the battlefield, search team in a search and rescue operation, etc) – logical subnet spans several physical clusters – Nodes in same subnet tend to have common mobility characteristic (i.e., locality) – logical address is totally distinct from MAC address HSR - logical partitions and location management (cont’d) • Each subnetwork has at least one Home Agent to manage membership • Each member of the subnet registers its own hierarchical address with Home Agent – periodical/event driven registration; stale addresses are timed out by Home Agent • Home Agent hierarchical addresses propagated via routing tables; or queried at a Name Server • After the source learns the destination’s hierarchical address, it uses it in future packets • Example: Landmark Routing Fisheye State Routing (FSR) 2 8 5 3 1 9 9 4 6 Hop=1 7 13 10 12 11 36 14 21 Hop>2 15 16 17 22 23 20 29 27 25 24 Hop=2 19 18 26 30 28 34 32 31 Scope of Fisheye 35 Fisheye State Routing (FSR) • Topology data base at each node - similar to link state (e.g., OSPF) • Routing information is periodically exchanged with neighbors only ( “Global” State Routing) – similar to distance vector, but exchange entire topology matrix • Routing update frequency decreases with distance to destination – Higher frequency updates within a close zone and lower frequency updates to a remote zone – Highly accurate routing information about the immediate neighborhood of a node; progressively less detail for areas further away from the node Message Reduction in FSR TC (Topology Control) message LST 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} HOP 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 4 5 LST 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} LST 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} HOP 2 1 2 0 1 2 HOP 3 2 1 1 0 1 Optimized “Fisheye” Link State Routing (OFLSR) • Based on Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) • Borrows idea from Fisheye State Routing (FSR) • Different frequencies for propagating the Topology Control (TC) message of OLSR to different scopes (e.g. different hops away) scope width scope 4 scope 1 scope 2 scope 3 Scalability Property of OFLSR • Scalability to Node Mobility Data Packet Delivery Ratio – – – – 100 nodes, 1600mX1600m field, 367m Tx range IEEE 802.11 radio, 2Mbps channel rate, 10 CBR flows OLSR confign: hello interval = 1s, TC interval = 2s OFLSR confign: 4 scopes, each scope is 2 hops except last one OLSR OLSR + FSR (scope) OLSR + FSR (probability) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 Node mobility speed (m/s) Data Packet Delivery Ratio 15 20 Scalability Property of OFLSR OLSR OLSR + FSR (scope) OLSR + FSR (probability) 0 5 10 15 20 Node Mobility (m/s) Total # of TC relayed message received 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 TC # of TC messages relayed • Scalability to Node Mobility 9000000 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 OLSR OLSR + FSR (scope) OLSR + FSR (probability) 0 5 10 15 node mobility (m/s) 20 Total # of TC received Scalability Property of OFLSR • Scalability to Network Size Data Packet Delivery Ratio – Keep node density, increase # of nodes, no mobility – OLSR confign: hello interval = 2S, TC interval = 4S – OFLSR confign: 4 scopes, each scope is 2 hops except last one 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 OLSR OLSR + FSR 100 200 300 400 Network Size (# of nodes) Delivery rate vs Network Size 500 Scalability Property of OFLSR • Scalability to Network Size 60000000 OLSR OLSR + FSR received 5000000 4000000 OLSR OLSR + FSR 50000000 40000000 30000000 1000000 of 2000000 # of TC 3000000 # TC relayed 6000000 0 20000000 10000000 0 100 200 300 400 Network Size (# of nodes) Total # of TC relayed 500 100 200 300 400 Network Size (# of nodes) 500 Total # of TC received Scalable Ad Hoc Routing using Landmarks and Backbones • The challenge – Tens of thousands of nodes – Nodes move in various patterns – QoS communications requirements – Hostile environment – jamming Routing • Current MANET solutions have limitations: – (a) proactive routing solutions (eg, Optimal Links State -OLSR) do not scale because of table size and control traffic overhead – (b) on demand routing cannot handle high mobility and dense traffic patterns – (c) explicit hierarchical routing introduces excessive address maintenance O/H in high mobility • MANET protocols do not scale in high mobility • Our approach: – Exploit implicit hierarchy induced by group mobility Solution: Landmark Routing Overlay • Main assumption: nodes move in groups (battlefield) • Groups are predefined or dynamically recognized • Node address: < group ID , Host address> • Landmark elected in each group • Landmarks advertisements maintain the landmark overlay Landmark Logical Subnet LANMAR Overlay Routing (cont) • Builds upon existing MANET protocols – (1) “local ” routing algorithm that keeps accurate routes within local scope < k hops (e.g., OLSR) – (2) Landmark routes advertised to all mobiles using DSDV – Like Internet: LS + DV Landmark Logical Subnet LANMAR Overlay Routing (cont) • Packet Forwarding: – A packet to “local” destination is routed directly using local tables – A packet to remote destination is routed to Landmark corresponding to logical addr. – Once the landmark is “in sight”, the direct route to destination is found in local tables • Benefits: low storage, low update traffic O/H Landmark Logical Subnet Landmark Routing In action LM1 Landmark LM2 LM3 Logical Subnet dest local routing Long haul routing source 1. Node address = {subnet ID, Host ID} 2. Look up local routing table to locate dest fail 3. Look up landmark table to find destination subnet LM1 4. Send a packet toward LM1 Link Overhead of LANMAR • Dramatic O/H reduction from linear to O(N) to O (sqrtN) LANMAR: Local Scope Optimization • Goal: find local routing scope size that minimizes routing overhead – size of landmark distance vector: O ( N / G) – size of local Link State topology map: O ( m * d ) H (Routing overhead) N: total # of nodes; d: avg # of one-hop neighbors (degree) Total O/H H H H lm local Local route O/H H local (h2d 1 ),0 1 Landmark O/H h* H lm ( N ) h 2d h (scope size) LANMAR enhances MANET routing schemes We compare: (a) MANET routing schemes: DSDV, OLSR and FSR; and (b) same MANET schemes, BUT with LANMAR overlay on top Delivery Ratio LANMAR-DSDV LANMAR-FSR OLSR LANMAR-OLSR FSR DSDV • DSDV and FSR decrease quickly when number of nodes increases • OLSR generates excessive control packets, cannot exceed 400 nodes Mobile Backbone Overlay • Landmark Overlay provides routing scalability • However the network is still flat - paths have many hops poor TCP and QoS performance!! • Solution: Mobile Backbone Overlay (MBO) • MBO is a physical overlay – ie long links • MBO provides performance scalability • LANMAR extends “transparently” to the MBO UAV Backbone Node Landmark Logical Subnet source dest. Landmark routing concept extends transparently to the multilevel backbone Fast BB links are “advertised” and immediately used When BB link fails, the many hop alternate path is chosen Backbone Network and LANMAR • Why a Backbone “physical” hierarchy? – To improve coverage, scalability and reduce hop delays • Backbone deployment – automatic placement: Relocate backbone nodes from dense to sparse regions (using repulsive forces) • Key result: LANMAR automatically adjusts to Backbone • Combines low routing O/H (LANMARK logical hierarchy) + low hop distance and high bandwidth (Backbone physical hierarchy) Extending Landmark to Hierarchical Network • Backbone nodes are independently elected • All nodes (including backbone nodes) are running the original LANMAR • In addition, backbone nodes re-broadcast landmark information via higher level links • Backbone Routes preferred by landmark (they are typically shorter) Extending Landmark (cont) • If backbone node is lost, Landmark routing “fills the gap” while a replacement backbone node is elected • Advantages – Seamless integration of “flat” ad hoc landmark routing with the backbone environment provides instant backup in case of failures – Easy deployment, simple changes to ordinary ground nodes – Remove limitations of strictly hierarchical routing Variable number of Backbone Nodes • Decrease of average end-to-end delay while increasing # of backbone nodes 60 Average end-end delay(sec) 50 40 30 20 10 Hierarchical Landmark Flat Landmark 0 0 9 18 # of back bone node s 27 36 Variable number of Backbone Nodes • Increase of delivery fraction while increasing # of backbone nodes 1 Delivery Fraction 0.9 0.8 0.7 Hierarchical Landmark 0.6 Flat Landmark 0.5 0 9 18 # of backbone nodes 27 36 Variable Speed with 1000 nodes Delivery fraction while increasing mobility speed 1.1 Hierarchical Landmark Flat Landmark 1 Delivery fraction AODV 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0 2 4 6 Mobility speed(m /sec) 8 10 LANMAR implementation in IPv6 LINUX environment • Use IPv6’s Group ID to distinguish groups • Support many more members in each group (than IPv4) • A packet to remote destination is routed to corresponding Landmark based on IPv6 address lookup IPv6: 48 bits Network ID Subnet Mask 0000 … 000 16 bits GroupID 11…11 64 bits Node ID 00000000 … 0000000