Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks
description
Transcript of Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks
![Page 1: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks
Stavros Toumpis Department of Informatics
Athens University of Economics and Business Athens, Greece
CROWN KICKOFF, 11/5/121
![Page 2: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PART A: Delay Tolerant Networks
2
![Page 3: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Definition• Delay in the delivery of packets is very large
(specifically, comparable to the time needed for the topology to change substantially)
• Two cases1. Very large delays are necessarily large (e.g.,
interplanetary networks [Burleigh et al. 2003]) 2. Very large delays are a design choice (e.g., Zebranet,
Juang et al. 2002). Delay is conscientiously traded off.
• In the context of wireless networks, large delays typically translate to communication by physical transportation of data (either partially or exclusively)
3
![Page 4: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Applications
• Interplanetary networks• Sensor networks (Zebranet)• The Internet • Vehicular Networks, for certain kinds of traffic
(GeoDTN+Nav)
4
![Page 5: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Recent History• Infostations [Goodman et al. ‘97]• Epidemic Routing [Vahdat/Becker ‘00]• Mobility Increases the Capacity of Wireless
networks [Grossglauser/Tse ‘01, Toumpis/Goldsmith ‘04]
• Data Mules [Shah et al. ‘03]• Zebranet [Juang et al. 02, Small/Hass ‘03]• Delay Tolerant Architecture [Jain et al. ‘03]• Spray and Wait [Spyropoulos et al. ‘05]• MaxProp [Burgess et al. ‘06] 5
![Page 6: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Earlier History• Much work in Operations Research in the
context of dynamic flows and networks (which are functions of time)
• Ford/Fulkerson constructed maximal flows in ‘54 and maximal dynamic flows in ’58!
• Ogier studied minimum delay routing and related problems in the ‘80s.
• Ferreira et al. [Ferreira 04,10] and Merugu et al. [Merugu et al. ‘04] applied dynamic flows in the context of (wireless) DTNs
6
![Page 7: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Classification of DTN Analysis
• Do we know the topology evolution of the network?– If YES, then we can study it using tools from
network optimization theory, notably dynamic flows and networks
– If NO, then we can use tools from probability and related fields (e.g., stochastic control)
7
![Page 8: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Why are DTNs interesting in the context of this project?
• If Wireless Networks added a spatial component to the analysis of networks…
• … then Delay Tolerant Networks add a time component…
• …and room for innovation is still there…• … particularly in the areas covered by this
project.
8
![Page 9: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Part B: Autonomous and Collaborative Protocols in DTNs
9
![Page 10: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Organization of the project
10
WP1: Understanding and influencing uncoordinated interactions of autonomic wireless networks
WP2: Optimization through network coordination
WP3: Autonomic and collaborative protocols in Wireless DTNs
Task 3.1: Autonomic operation of wireless DTNsTask 3.2: Coordinated operation of wireless DTNsTask 3.3 Realistic wireless DTN protocol design
![Page 11: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Task 3.1: Autonomic operation of wireless DTNs
• Main tool: probability theory• DTNs are frequently partitioned, therefore autonomic
operation based on local decisions is appealing/necessary– Nodes decide on next hop of packet– Nodes decide on what packet to transmit/delete– etc.
• Resources (bandwidth, buffer spaces) are typically constrained, so selfish behavior is expected– Nodes would like to only transmit/store their own packets, etc.
11
![Page 12: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Sub-Task 3.1.1: Geographic Routing
• In geographic routing, next hop for a packet is decided according to location of destination and topology near the current packet holder.
• Problem: find optimal behavior for current holder, based on local knowledge.
• An obvious tradeoff exists between transportation cost and packet delivery delay.
• Tool for performing the analysis: Stochastic Geometry
12
![Page 13: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Subtask 3.1.2: Delay-Throughput tradeoff of DTNs
• Fundamental tradeoff: The more copies of a packet are transmitted, the faster it will arrive at its destination, but the smaller the throughput becomes.
• Goal: evaluate the performance of network coding particularly in terms of this tradeoff– What is the optimal tradeoff– How well do practical protocols achieve it?
13
![Page 14: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Task 3.2: Coordinated operation of wireless DTNs
• Main tool: network optimization theory and dynamic flows.
• Main goal: study the tradeoff of delay with other metrics in a systematic manner.
• Common approach:– First, find optimum tradeoffs– Then, find good heuristics and compare them with
optimum tradeoffs
14
![Page 15: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Current status of Task 3.2
• Delay versus cost tradeoff – i.e., if we wait more, we will transport data with
smaller cost [Tasiopoulos et al. 12]
• Delay versus data volume tradeoff – i.e., if we wait more, we will transport more data
[Gitzenis et al. ‘12]
• Delay versus storage capacity tradeoff– i.e., if we wait more, we need less storage
capacity [Iosifidis/Koutsopoulos ‘11]15
![Page 16: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Task 3.3 Realistic wireless DTN protocol design
• Main tool: simulations• Aim: develop simulator for simulating the operation
of DTNs in the 10,000 node regime• Currently available tools:
– Generic, i.e., NS2, OMNET, etc. These are not good fits for DTN research, because large delays mean large buffers.
– Specialized (for example, ONE), but slow
• Our approach: fast, dedicated simulator written in C.
16
![Page 17: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Current status of Task 3.3• Features of our partially built simulator:
– Can handle 10,000+ nodes– Uses realistic channel model and includes a realistic
slotted MAC protocol– Can handle a variety of mobility models– We have evaluated a variety of well known DTN protocols
such as Spray and Wait, GeoDTN+Nav, Geocross, etc. – We have created our own protocol, DTFR (more later)
[Sidera ‘11]
• Main aim: use simulator to test ideas and protocols coming from other workpackages and tasks.
17
![Page 18: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Part C: Flow Optimization in Delay Tolerant Networks using Dual
Decomposition
Savvas Gitzenis (Informatics and Telematics Institute, CERTH, Greece)
George Konidaris, Stavros Toumpis (Informatics Department, AUEB, Greece)
(RAWNET 2012, 18/5/12, Paderborn18
![Page 19: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Our work• Mobile Wireless DTNs
– Topology changes due to node mobility
• Objective: Single commodity flow optimization• Challenge: Flow Optimization is a hard problem
in wireless networks even in non-DTN setting• Contributions:
1.Fast non-causal centralized algorithm (taking into account the structure of the problem)
2.Heuristic causal centralized algorithms(Heuristic causal decentralized algorithms are subject of future work)
19
![Page 20: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Network Model (1/2)
20
• N nodes 1,2,…,N with set of links A• T time epochs 1,2,…, T
– Topology (i.e., link properties) remains fixed during each epoch– (following Ferreira ‘02 and others)
• Traffic flow in epoch t is x(t)={xij(t), (i,j) in A}, t=1,2,…, T
– NB: x(t) describes volume of data, not data rate.
• x(t) must be inside capacity region R(t)• At transition from epoch t-1 to epoch t, node i must have
volume of data less than buffer size Bi(t), i=1,2,…, N, t=2,…, T
• Internal buffer size vectors B(t)={Bi(t), i=1,2,…N}
![Page 21: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Network Model (2/2)
21
• Let yi(t) be the data volume at node i at start of epoch t. Let y(t)={yi(t), i=1,2,…, N}
• Let zi(t) be the data volume at node i at end of epoch t. Let z(t)={zi(t), i=1,2,…, N}
• Let input cost function Ci(yi(1)), i=1,2,…, N
• Let utility function Ui(zi(T)), i=1,2,…, N
• Let external buffer size vectors B(1), B(T+1) such that
)1(,),1()()(
)1(,),1()1()1(
1
1
TBTBTT
BB
N
N
Bz
By
![Page 22: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Capacity Region Evolving Graph
(CREG)
22
11
31
41
21
x13(1) x34(1)
x23(1) x32(1)
x12(1)
x31(1)
x42(1)
x24(1)
z1(1) z2(1) z3(1) z4(1)
RE
PL
ICA
1
C1(y1(1))
z(1)≤ B(2)
x(1) ϵ R(1)
y1(1) y2(1) y3(1) y4(1) y(1)≤ B(1)
12
32
42
22
x13(2) x34(2)
x23(2) x32(2)
x12(2)
x31(2)
x42(2)
x24(2)
z1(2) z2(2) z3(2) z4(2)
RE
PL
ICA
2
λ1(1) λ2(1) λ3(1) λ4(1)
z(2)≤ B(3)
x(2) ϵ R(2)
λ(1)ϵR
y1(2) y2(2) y3(2) y4(2) y(2)≤ B(2)
C2(y2(1)) C3(y3(1)) C4(y4(1))
U1(z1(2)) U2(z2(2)) U3(z3(2)) U4(z4(2))
s1 s2 s3 s41 1 11
s1 s2s3 s42 2 22
s1 s2 s3 s43 3 33
• Replica t ↔epoch t• Vertices it , t=1,…,T
correspond to node i for different replicas
• Storage vertices sti
will be used in dual decomposition
![Page 23: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Problem DTN Utility Maximization (DTNUM)
23
1,...,2,1 ,1
, ,0)()(
)()(
,1
,
),(subject to
1maximize
),(:
),(:
N
1i1
Tt(t))(t
titytx
tztx
t )(t(t)
t (t)(t)
tt(t)
yCTzU
Ajijiij
Ajijiij
ii
N
iii
zy
Bz0
By0
Rx
![Page 24: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
A key idea• Complexity of problem is dominated by the
capacity regions, which are often very hard to describe accurately (e.g., Johansson&Soldati, ’06)– Even simple flow maximization problems can be shown
to be NP-complete (e.g., Ephremides&Truong ’90).
• Therefore, lumping multiple capacity regions in same problem is a bad idea.
• We will use duality to make sure that we never have to worry about more than one capacity region at a time.
24
![Page 25: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Solving DTNUM directly
25Epochs, TNodes, N
Com
puta
tion
Tim
e, T
(se
c)
![Page 26: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Solving DTNUM by Dual Decomposition
26Epochs, TNodes, N
Com
puta
tion
Tim
e, T
Co
mpu
tatio
n Ti
me,
T (
sec)
![Page 27: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Causal Algorithms• Finding optimum involves knowing complete
network evolution beforehand. • Greedy DTNUM Algorithm:
– Do greedy maximization at each epoch– Initial costs are assumed 0, and buffer spaces
increase
• Geographic DTNUM Algorithm:– Greedy optimization takes into account node
locations and direction of their movement– May be thought of as generalization of geographic
routing27
![Page 28: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Performance
(a): Optimal algorithm, (b) Geographic algorithm(c): Greedy algorithm, (d): Optimal algorithm, with 1/10 the speed of nodes
28
Total Epochs
Volu
me
![Page 29: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Part D: On the Cost/Delay Tradeoff of Wireless Delay Tolerant
Geographic Routing
29
A. Tasiopoulos*, Ch. Tsiaras$, S. Toumpis*
*Informatics Department, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
$Department of Informatics, Communication Systems Group, University of Zurich, Switzerland
(WOWMOM 2012, 25-28/6/12, San Francisco, CA)
![Page 30: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Basic Idea• In DTNs, there is a tradeoff between packet
delay and cost (including transmission and storage cost)
• Currently, tradeoff appears implicitly in formulations [Juang et al. ‘02, Jain et al. 04, Laoutaris et al. 09, Small et al. 03, etc.]
• We want to capture this tradeoff formally and explicitly– Under optimal operation – Using practical protocols
30
![Page 31: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Cost/Delay Evolving Graphs (C/DEGs)
• Time is divided in epochs
• The C/DEG is comprised of one subgraph for each epoch
• Transmission delay is 0.
31
11
41
31
21
12
42
32
22
13
43
33
23
14
44
34
24
c121
c112
c232
c143
c134c1
24
c11
c12 c1
3c1
4
c2
1
c22
c23
c24
c212
c221
c223
c31
c32
c33 c3
4
c332
c323
c343
c334
c421
c412
c443
c434c4
24
c132
c432
![Page 32: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Optimal Cost/Delay Curves (OC/DCs)
• Let two nodes i, j in a network• The OC/DC Cij(t) is the minimum cost with which i
can send a packet to j with a delay of at most t epochs.
• To calculate it, we need to find the minimum cost path between node i0 and the set of nodes i0, j1,…, jt
– Simple minimum cost path problem– Special structure permits fast calculation
32
![Page 33: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Example OC/DCs
33
![Page 34: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Achievable Cost/Delay Curves (AC/DCs)
34
• Let two nodes i, j in a network• The AC/DC Cij(t) is the minimum cost with
which i can send a packet to j with a delay of at most t epochs, assuming optimization over the parameters of the protocol
• To calculate it, we need simulations
![Page 35: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Example AC/DCs
35
![Page 36: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Delay Tolerant Geographic Routing• When node S has a packet for node D, it
sends it to one of its neighbors using only its local topology and the location of D.
• Traditionally, there is no delay. • Newer approach: wait for topology to change.
– MoVe [Lebrun et al. ‘05]– AeroRP [Peters et al. ‘11]– GeOpps [Leontiadis et al ‘07.]– BRR, CR [Tasiopoulos et al. ‘12]
36
![Page 37: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Rules for selecting next hop
1. MoVe: A selects node that will pass closest to D2. AeroRP: A selects node that approaches D fastest
3. Min-Cost-per-Progress Rule: minimize
4. Balanced Ratio Rule: minimize
5. Composite Rule: minimize
37
DZAD
adCr ZBBA
AB
BDAD
Cr BA
AB
ABABAB rrc ,min
![Page 38: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
![Page 39: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Part E: Delay Tolerant Firework Routing
39
A. Sidera$, S. Toumpis* $ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
*Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
(Med-Hoc-Net 2011, Sicily, Italy)
![Page 40: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
DTFR Operation
1. Homing Phase: travel to estimated location of destination using delay tolerant geographic routing
2. Explosion Phase: create multiple copies
3. Spread Phase: systematically search for destination
4. Lock Phase: do routing in usual sense when in same partition with destination
40
![Page 41: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Performance
41
![Page 42: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Analysis of Delay Tolerant Geographic Forwarding
• Assume mobile node, placed according to spatial Poisson process at any given time.
• Assume a packet destination at an infinite distance.
• There is an obvious tradeoff between– Speed vp with which packet moves towards the
destination– Transmission cost per distance, cp
• We find cp(vp) curve for specific forwarding protocol, under some approximations.
42
![Page 43: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Bibliography• L. R. Ford, Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson, “Constructing maximal dynamic flows from static
flows,“ Operations Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 419-433, May-June 1958.• D. J. Goodman, J. Borras, N. B. Mandayam, and R. D. Yates, “INFOSTATIONS: A
New System Model for Data and Messaging Services,” in Proc. Spring VTC ’97.• R. G. Ogier, “Minimum Delay Routing in Continuous-Time Dynamic Networks with
Piecewise-Constant Capacities,” in Networks, vol. 18, pp. 303-318, 1988. • A. Ephremides and T. V. Truong, “Scheduling broadcasts in multihop radio
networks,” in IEEE Trans. on Communications, 1990.• A. Vahdat and D. Becker, “Epidemic routing for partially connected ad hoc
networks,” Technical Report CS-2000-06, Duke University, 2000.• M. Grossglauser and D. N. C. Tse, “Mobility increases the capacity of ad-hoc
wireless networks,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 3, Anchorage, AL, Apr. 2001, pp. 1360-1369.
• P. Juang, H. Oki, Y. Wang, M. Martonosi, L.S. Peh, and D. Rubenstein, “Energy-efficient computing for wildlife tracking: design tradeoffs and early experiences with Zebranet,” in Proc. ASPLOS_X, Oct. 2002.
• A. Ferreira, “On models and algorithms for dynamic communication networks: the case of evolving graphs,” in Proc. Algotel 2002.
43
![Page 44: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
• S. Jain, K. Fall, and R. Patra, “Routing in a delay tolerant network,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Portland, OR, Aug.-Sep. 2004, pp. 145-157
• N. Laoutaris, G. Smaragdakis, P. Rodriguez, and R. Sundaram, “Delay tolerant bulk transfers on the internet,” in Proc. ACM Sigmetrics 2009, Seattle, WA, June 2009, pp. 229-238.
• T. Small and Z. J. Haas, “The shared wireless infostation model – a new ad hoc networking paradigm (or where there is a whale, there is a way),” in Proc. ACM MOBIHOC, Annapolis, MD, 2003.
• R. C. Shah, S. Roy, S. Jain and W. Brunette, “Data MULEs: Modeling and analysis of a three-tier system for sparse sensor networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 1, no. 2-3, pp. 215-233, Sep. 2003.
• S. Burleigh, A. Hooke, L. Torgerson, K. Fall, V. Cerf, B. Durst, K. Scott, H. Weiss, “Delay Tolerant Networking: An Approach to Interplanetary Internet,” in IEEE Communications Magazine, June 2003.
• A. Lindgren, A. Doria and O. Schelen, “Probabilistic routing in intermittently connected networks,” in ACM SIGMOBILE MCCR, vol. 7, Jul. 2003, pp. 19-20.
• A. Ferreira and A. Jarry, “Complexity of minimum spanning tree in evolving graphs and the minimum-energy broadcast routing problem,” in Proc. WiOpt, Cambridge, UK, Mar. 2004.
• S. Merugu, M. Ammar, and E. Zegura, “Routing in space and time in networks with predictable mobility,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep. GIT-CC-04-07, 2004, available at http://hdl.handle.net/1853/6492. 44
![Page 45: Autonomic and Collaborative Protocols in Wireless Delay Tolerant Networks](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/56815822550346895dc589e8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
• S. Toumpis and A. J. Goldsmith, “Large wireless networks under fading, mobility, and delay constraints,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, China, Mar.-Apr. 2004.
• D. G. J. LeBrun, C.-N. Chiah, and M. Zhang, “Knowledge-based opportunistic forwarding in vehicular wireless ad hoc networks,” in Proc. IEEE VTC Spring, vol. 4, Florence, Italy, May-June 2005, pp. 2289-2293.
• T. Spyropoulos, K. Psounis, and C. S. Raghavendra, “Spray and Wait: an efficient routing scheme for intermittently connected mobile networks,” in Proc. ACM WDTN, 2005.
• J. Burgess, B. Gallager, D. Jensen, B. N. Levine, “MaxProp: Routing for Vehicle-Based Disruption-Tolerant Networks,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom 2006.
• M. Johansson and P. Soldati, “Mathematical decomposition techniques for distributed cross-layer optimization of data networks,” in IEEE JSAC, Aug. 2006.
• I. Leontiadis and C. Mascolo, “GeOpps: Geographical opportunistic routing for vehicular networks,” in Proc. IEEE WOWMOM, Helsinki, Finland, June 2007.
• A. Ferreira, A. Goldman, and J. Monteiro, “Performance evaluation of routing protocols for MANETs with known connectivity patterns using evolving graphs,” Wireless Networks, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 627–640, Apr. 2010.
• K. Peters and A. Jabbar, and E. K. Cetinkaya and J. P. G. Sterbenz, “A geographical routing protocol for highly-dynamic aeronautical networks,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC, Cancun, Mexico, Mar. 2011
• A. Sidera and S. Toumpis, “DTFR: A geographic routing protocol for wireless delay tolerant networks,” in Proc. Med-Hoc-Net, Favignana Island, Italy, 2011.
45