Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 1 ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETs...

1Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th-29th Lyon France

ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETsMANETs

ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETsMANETs

Hamida SEBA

PRISMa Lab. – G2Ap team

http://www710.univ-lyon1.fr/~g2ap

University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IUT A

France


OUTLINE

Mobile Ad hoc Network Overview

Routing Protocols

Our Work

Future Work


Mobile Ad hoc Networks

Collection of mobile devices

Infrastructure-less

Multi-hops

Wireless communications

Highly mobile

Dynamic topology

Peer to peer


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


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.


Challenges 2/2

Each node must function as a host and router

Static network protocols will not work


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



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


Reactive approach


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



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


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


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 */

fi = true /* proactive activity */

else fi = 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


ARPM : node chart

inactive

proactivereactive

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


Simulation model

S1 S2

S3 S4

SnSn-

1

GloMoSim library network of 100 nodes roaming randomly

10001000 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


Simulation results

Route Discovery Delay


Simulation results

Message Overhead


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


Thank you

Your questions ?

Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 1 ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETs...

Documents

Transcript of Hamida SEBA - ICPS06 June 26 th -29 th Lyon France 1 ARMP: an Adaptive Routing Protocol for MANETs...