Post on 09-Feb-2016
description
1
Performing Gateway Load Balancing in MANETs
PhD DissertationFebruary 10th 2012
Vinh Pham
Vinh Pham, PhD Dissertation 2012
2
Outline• Introduction
– Motivation– MANET– Challenges– Main focus of the Thesis– Thesis overview
• Contributions– Part I: Mobility– Part II: Load balancing for Intradomain– Part III: Load balancing for Interdomain
• Concluding remarks
3
Motivation
Today- Mainly low bandwidth, single-hop, voice-only
Tomorrow- Based on MANET- Broadband multihop- Voice, data, video- Situational awareness, e.g. position sharing- Access critical information: victim info, maps,
construction drawings
Improving the information flow in emergency and rescue operations
4
MANET – What is it?Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Transmission range
• Infrastructureless• Dynamic: mobility, join/leave the network• Rapid deployment• Cost effective
AB
C
5
Challenges• Medium access: Contention-based random access
– Interference and collisions• Distributed routing
– Inconsistency and overhead• Link quality
– Varying, affected by topography, weather etc.• Node mobility
– Link breaks, packet loss, loss of connectivity• Network Capacity
– Low capacity, limited scalability
Need to overcome these challenges to achievehigher network performance!
6
Main Focus of the Thesis
• Mobility– Rerouting time due to mobility and link break
• Load balancing– Intradomain traffic– Interdomain traffic
7
Overview of the work
Part I
Part II
Part III
8
Contributions Part I
9
MobilityPaper A“Rerouting Time and Queueing in Proactive Ad Hoc Networks” V. Pham, E. Larsen, K. Øvsthus, P. Engelstad and Ø. Kure, In proceedings of the Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference 2007 (IPCCC 2007), New Orleans, USA, April 11-13, 2007, pp. 160-169.
10
Motivation• Discovery: Rerouting due to mobility exceeds the
expected 4-6 seconds.
A C
B
11
The contributions
• Analysing the rerouting time
• Proposed solution: Adaptive Retry Limit
12
Last successfull data transmission from A directly to C
Garbage packets are discarded from A’s queueLink is broken. A’s queue being filled up.A transmits data to CNew route to C. Last Hello from C received at A
Analysing a Link Break
A B
C
Queue Accumulation Phase
t0 t1 t2 t3
Queue Reduction Phase
Last Hello from C
I II III
t
td te
13
Solution – Adaptive Retry Limit
123
Packet 1 is transmitted 7 times and discarded
Assumption:• Retry limit = 7• All packets to the same destination
8 79 23789
Packet 2 is transmitted 6 times and discarded
789
Packet 7 is transmitted 1 time and discarded
9 8
In Out
Node A’s Interface Queue
14
Results
Gain
15
Conclusion - Part I
• Rerouting time is affected by:– Packet size and rate– MAC layer queue size– MAC layer retries
• Adapting the MAC layer retries reduces the rerouting time.
16
Contributions Part II
17
Load Balancing for Intradomain Traffic
Paper B“Routing of Internal MANET Traffic over External Networks” V. Pham, E. Larsen, K. Øvsthus, Ø. Kure and P. Engelstad, Mobile Information Systems Journal, iiWAS/MoMM special issue, Volume 5, Number 3, 2009
18
Motivation• Transit routing → Load balancing for intradomain traffic• Alleviate traffic load in the MANET• Improve performance of intradomain traffic:
– Throughput– E2E delay– Packet delivery probability
650 kbps
300 kbps
19
Contributions
• Analysis and simulation of transit routing
• Proposed solution: Cost metric algorithm for transit routing
20
Solution: The Cost Metric AlgorithmCost for ad hoc path
Ci = k
Cost for wired path, no interferenceCii = max(m,n)+c
Cost for wired path, with interferenceCii = sum(m,n)+c
c = constant between 0 and 1
A B
AP_a AP_b
nm
k
l
21
EvaluationA B C
Transit routing enabled
Transit routing not enabled
12
3
45
6
78
910 11
12
22
Results
Average enhancement = 40.3 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Throughput Comparison w/ background traffic
SP Transit
Source Destination Pairs
Thro
ughp
ut (k
pbs)
23
Conclusion - Part II
• Enabling transit routing can be beneficial• Reduce load in MANET• Increase E2E throughput• Reduce E2E delay• Increase probability for packet delivery
24
Contributions Part III
25
Load Balancing for Interdomain Traffic
Paper C-E“Performance Analysis of Gateway Load Balancing in Ad Hoc Networks with Random Topologies” V. Pham, E. Larsen, K. Øvsthus, P. Engelstad and Ø. Kure and, Proceedings of The 7th ACM International Symposium on Mobility Management and Wireless Access (Mobiwac09), Tenerife, Canary Islands October 26-30, 2009
“Gateway Load Balancing in Future Tactical Networks”, V. Pham, E. Larsen, K. Øvsthus, Ø. Kure and P. Engelstad, IEEE Military Communications Conference 2010 (MILCOM 2010), San Jose, CA, USA, October 31 - November 3, 2010
“A Radio Load Based Gateway Load Balancing Scheme with Admission Control” V. Pham, E. Larsen, Q. Le-Trung, P. Engelstad and Ø. Kure, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wireless and Pervasive Computing (ISWPC 2011), Hong Kong, China, February 23-25, 2011
26
Motivation
GW0 GW1Bottleneck
Global Internet
Address gateway load balancing → Load balancing for interdomain traffic
Focus on outbound traffic! However the result is anticipated to be applicable for inbound traffic as well!
27
Contributions
• Analysing the nature of gateway load balancing (LB)– Explore factors that impact the performance of LB
• Proposed solutions:– RLLB (Radio Load Based Load Balancing)– RLAC (Radio Load Based Load Balancing with Admission Control)
28
Analysis
29
Factors that affect LB• Shortcoming in previous work:
– Simple and small topologies– Grid or constructed topologies– Few topologies used in evaluation
• Needs many random topologies to statistically explore factors affecting the benefit of LB
• ~200 random topologies and thousands of simulations
• Factors that affect performance of LB:– Offered load – Gateway distance– Asymmetry level – Level of spatial reuse/sensing range– Network shape and size
• However, these factors alone cannot explain why the benefit of LB is high for certain topologies while it is poor for others. The layout of the topology is a crucial factor!
30
The congested area represents an obstacle preventing efficient rerouting of traffic!The efficiency of LB depends on where nodes are located relative to the congested centre area
Congestion Map
The centre of the area is most congested, not the area around the GWs!
# transmissions
31
Load Balancing Solution
32
Overview RLAC ArchitectureRadio Load Based Load Balancing Scheme with Admission Control
33
Radio Load Metric
• RL metric provides a measure for the condition in the network
• Pros: The RL info is FREE! RL does not depend on active probing such as in ETX, Packet Pair, RTT
(1 ) busynew previous
window
TL L
T
time (sec)Twindow
Tbusy
34
Gateway Selection
GW0 GW1
?Gateway selection algorithm needs to
consider:1. The load L at the GWs2. The distance h to the GWs3. The bottleneck capacity B to the GWs
L0 L1
h0
B0 B1
h1
Condition at the GWsThe properties of the path towards a specific GW
35
Synchronized ReroutingGW0 GW1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Problem: A group of nodes may simultaneously and repeatedly reroute their traffic back and forth from one GW to another.
Solution: Use a randomized rather than a deterministic gateway selection approach!
36
Randomized Gateway Selection
Draw a random number R ∈ [0,1], and let the outcome decide
Deterministic: If GWn is least congested then select it as default GW
Randomized:
01
1
00 11,10,0
5.0PP
PP
hcLbBaP
1.
2.
37
Randomized Gateway Selection Example
GW0 GW1
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1P0=1/3 P1=2/3
R4 R5R3
38
Admission Control (AC)• AC prevents traffic load from reaching a critical high
level• AC is enabled/disabled using: L, B and h • When the network load is high:
– Preempt nodes farther away while giving priority to nodes closer to the GWs– Cost is higher to send packets for nodes farther away– Reasonable to enable AC on nodes that have very low packet delivery ratio
• Disadvantage: Unfairness
39
Results
40
Static Topologies (1)
TS1
TS2
41
Static Topologies (2)
42
Mobile Topologies
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5 1m/s 2m/s3m/s 4m/s5m/s 10m/s1 m/s no_AC
Offered load per node(pkts/s)
Thro
ughp
ut E
nhan
cem
ent (
%)
43
Performance of LB in Mobile Topologies The performance of LB is lower in mobile topologies compared to static topologies because:
• More challenging to perform LB in mobile topologies:– Link breaks, shorter link life time and lower effective capacity– Cannot capture the changes in the topology fast enough due to the
inherent delay in the routing protocol.– The solution in paper A can be used to improve performance
• Condition for evaluation not same. LB is only feasible/ beneficial for a certain amount of the simulation time:– Low asymmetry level or the load is evenly distributed– Partitioning
44
Conclusion - Part IIIPerformance of LB is affected by:
– Asymmetry level, offered load, sensing range,…– Layout of topology
Static asymmetric topologies– LB can improve performance
Mobile topologies– More challenging– Low mobility: moderate enhancement– High mobility: low/no enhancement
45
Concluding Remarks• We are not there yet:
– Challenges need to be solved before we can realize a communication system of tomorrow
• Challenges addressed in this thesis:– Mobility – rerouting time– Load balancing – Intradomain and interdomain traffic
• Increased understanding has been provided through this work
• Proposed solutions that increase the network performance
46
Thank You!