Introduction MANET Examples Performance Matrics Conclusions 2.
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Introduction MANET Examples Performance Matrics Conclusions 2.
Design an Application Layer Multicast
CHUN-TING, WUTeacher: KAI-WEI, KE
2
Outline
Introduction MANET Examples Performance Matrics Conclusions
3
Overview
Traditional network architectures distinguish between two types of entities› end systems (hosts) and the network
(routers and switches). The key architectural question is: what
new features should be added to the IP layer?› Multicast and QoS
4
What is a multicast
Delivery of information to a group Creating copies only when the links to
the multiple destinations
5
Why multicasting
video-on-demand live media streaming video conferencing multiplayer games
Real time and large data flow
6
IP layer vs. Application layer
In deciding whether to implement multicast services at the IP layer or at end systems, there are two conflicting considerations that we need to reconcile.
7
IP layer vs. Application layer
First, IP Multicast requires routers to maintain per group state› violate the “stateless” architectural
principle, and introduce high complexity and serious scaling.
Second, IP Multicast calls for changes at the infrastructural level› slows down the pace of deployment.
8
Finally, IP Multicast is providing higher level features such as reliability, congestion control, flow control, and security has been shown to be more difficult than in the unicast case.
9
We consider a model in which multicast related features, such as group membership, multicast routing and packet duplication, are implemented at end systems, assuming only unicast IP service.
10
To be resolved
An overlay approach to multicast, however efficient, cannot perform as well as IP Multicast.
It is impossible to completely prevent some redundant traffic on physical links.
Communication between end systems involves increasing latency.
11
(b) naive unicast transmission. (c) the IP Multicast tree constructed by
DVMRP (d) an “intelligent” overlay tree
12
Conceptual comparison
Issues IP multicast Application multicast
efficiency in terms of delay/bandwidth
High Low — Medium
Complexity or Overhead
Low Medium — High
Ease of deployment Low Medium — High
OSI layer works Network layer Application layer
13
ALM properties
GROUP MANAGEMENT› Mesh First vs. Tree First› Source Specific Tree vs. Shared Tree› Refinement
ROUTING MECHANISM› Shortest Path› Minimum Spanning Tree› Clustering Structure
14
Mesh First vs. Tree First
Tree-based› Source node as the root, thus there is only
one single path between every pair of sender and receiver.
› It’s very efficient since the routing information needs to be maintained is very little.
Mesh-based› More than one path between each sender
and receiver pair exists.› More robust but less efficient.
15
Source Specific Tree vs. Shared Tree
Source-tree-based› It construct a multicast tree among all the member nodes
for each source node.(usually this is a shortest path tree)› More efficient.› Too much routing information to maintain.
Shared-tree-based› It constructs only one multicast tree for a multicast group
including several source nodes. (usually this is a minimum spanning tree)
› Every source uses this tree to do multicast. › Less efficient.› It reduces the overhead greatly by maintaining less routing
information.
16
Refinement
Constructed trees might be different› Depending upon the order of joining
requests› Construct the tree in real time and have no
a-priori knowledge of node arrivals
Local optimum to the global optimum and improves the system’s performance
17
Shortest Path
A Shortest Path Tree constructs a minimum cost path from a source node to all its receivers
A source-specific multicast tree or in graph theoretic terms a rooted tree
18
Minimum Spanning Tree
Construct a low cost tree Used by a shared tree
19
Clustering Structure
Construct a hierarchical cluster of nodes with each cluster having a head
Advantages› Reduction in control overhead› Faster joining and leaving› A sub-optimal tree
20
MANET
Form a temporary and dynamic wireless network on a wireless channel without the fixed infrastructure
Self-organizing collection of Mobile Nodes
Low bandwidth, mobility and low power Due to the limited transmission range,
multiple hops may be needed
21
IP network and MANET
router vs. forwarding node traverse internet vs. multi-hops routing fixed vs. topology changes frequently
22
Flooding-based
Proactive (table-driven)› continuously evaluate routes› maintain up-to-date routing information› periodically flood its location to other
nodes› maintains a location table
Reactive (on-demand)› routing creates routing only when desired› in searching of the destination
23
Quorum-based
Explicit› Location update is sent to a defined subset
(update quorum)› Location query is sent to a subset (query
quorum) Implicit
› Location servers are chosen via a hashing function
24
MAODV
Multicast On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol
This protocol uses broadcast to find the route in an on-demand way and constructs a shared routing tree.
25
26
MAODV Example
L
Group Join Process
Broadcast - RREQ
Only GM Responds
Multicast ActivationBroadcast Group Hello
Group member
Multicast Tree member
Ordinary node
Potential Group member
Multicast link
Communication link
27
MAODV Example
L
Leaving a Multicast Group
Non leaf NodeMust remain as a Tree
member
Leaf NodeCan remove itself
from MTAgain Leaf Node
Remove himself from MT
Group member
Multicast Tree member
Ordinary node
Potential Group member
Multicast link
Communication link
28
Local Connectivity Management
Node must periodically hear from active neighbors to know they are still within range
Every time hear broadcast, update lifetime
If no broadcast with hello_interval, broadcast Hello packet
Failure to hear from a neighbor for› (1 + allowed_hello_loss ) * hello_lifetime
indicates loss of link
29
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ)› <J_flag, R_flag, Bcast_ID,
Src_Addr, Src_Seq#, Dst_Addr, Dst_Seq#, HopCnt>
Node can reply to RREQ if› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough” route to
the destination Nodes create reverse route entry Record Src IP Addr / Broadcast ID
to prevent multiple processing
Source
Destination
RREQ
30
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ) Node can reply to RREQ if
› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough”
route to the destination Nodes create reverse
route entry Record Src IP Addr /
Broadcast ID to prevent multiple processing
Source
Destination
RREP
31
Unicast Route Discovery Source broadcasts
› Route Request(RREQ) Node can reply to RREQ if
› – It is the destination› – It has a “fresh enough”
route to the destination Nodes create reverse
route entry Record Src IP Addr /
Broadcast ID to prevent multiple processing
Source
Destination
32
Forward Path Setup
Nodes along path create forward route to dest
Source begins sending data when receives first RREP
Source
Destination
Data
33
Design properties
GROUP MANAGEMENT› Tree First› Shared Tree› No refinement
ROUTING MECHANISM› Minimum Spanning Tree
MANET ROUTING› Reactive› Flat
34
Performance Matrics
Latency› end-to-end delay
Bandwidth› throughput at the receiver
Stress› number of identical copies of a packet
carried by a physical link
35
Performance Matrics Resource Usage
› 57 / 30 / 32 Protocol Overhead
› total bytes of non-data traffic
36
Conclusions Although, MANET multicast is an ALM,
using wired mech. cannot perform well. Actually, there is no a “one-for-all”
scheme that works well with different scenarios.
Highly dynamic environment, nodes move arbitrarily, thus network topology changes frequently and unpredictably
Moreover, bandwidth and battery power are limited.
Make multicast extremely challenging
37
References
Tu, W. & Jia, W., “An End Host Multicast Protocol for Peer-to-Peer Networks,” LCN '05: Proceedings of the The IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 392-399
Hosseini, M., Ahmed, D., Shirmohammadi, S. & Georganas, N., “A Survey of Application-Layer Multicast Protocols,” Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, 2007, Vol. 9(3), pp. 58-74
Junhai, L., Danxia, Y., Liu, X. & Mingyu, F., “A survey of multicast routing protocols for mobile Ad-Hoc networks,” Communications Surveys Tutorials, IEEE, 2009, Vol. 11(1), pp. 78 -91
Perkins, C. & Royer, E., “Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing,” Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1999. Proceedings. WMCSA '99. Second IEEE Workshop on, 1999, pp. 90 -100