Spray Wait
-
Upload
raghavakesha -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of Spray Wait
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
1/31
Spray and Wait:An Efficient Routing Scheme for
Intermittently Connected Mobile Networks
Thrasyvoulos Spyropoulos, Konstantinos Psounis, Cauligi S. Raghavendra
(All from the University of Southern California)
SIGCOMM-2005, Philadelphia
Presented by: Harshal Pandya
On 10/31/2006 for CS 577 - Advanced Computer
Networks
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
2/31
Spray & Wait2
Abstract
Intermit tent ly Connected Mobi le Netwo rks (ICMN)aresparse wireless networks where most of the time there does
not exist a complete path from the source to the destination. Itcan be viewed as a set of disconnected, time-varying clustersof nodes
These fall into the general category of Delay TolerantNetworks, where incurred delays can be very large and
unpredictable.
Some networks that follow this paradigm are: Wildlife tracking sensor networks
Military networks
Inter-planetary networks
In such networks conventional routing schemes such as DSR& AODV would fail
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
3/31
Spray & Wait3
An example of Intermittently ConnectedMobile Networks (ICMN)
S is the source & D is the Destination
There is no direct path from S to D
In this case all the conventional protocols would fail Thus, the authors introduce a new routing scheme, called Spray
and Wait, that sprays a number of copies into the network, andthen waits till one of these nodes meets the destination.
3
S
D
1
2
45
7
8 10
11
12 13
14
1615
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
4/31
Spray & Wait4
Basic Idea behind Spray & Wait
In such networks, the traditional protocols will fail to discover a complete pathor will fail to converge, resulting in a deluge of topology update messages
However, this does not mean that packets can never be delivered in suchnetworks
Over time, different links come up and down due to node mobility. If thesequence of connectivity graphs over a time interval are overlapped, then anend-to-end path might exist
This implies that a message could be sent over an existing link, get bufferedat the next hop until the next link in the path comes up, and so on, until itreaches its destination
This approach imposes a new model for routing. Routing consists of asequence of independent, local forwarding decisions, based on currentconnectivity information and predictions of future connectivity information
In other words, nod e mo bi l i ty needs to be explo i ted in order to overcomethe lack of end-to-end connect iv i ty and del iver a message to i tsdest inat ion
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
5/31
Spray & Wait5
A possible solution
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
3
S
D
1
2
45
7
8 10
11
12 13
14
1615
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
6/31
Spray & Wait6
Advantages of Spray & Wait
Under lowload, Spray and Wait results in much fewertransmissions and comparable or smaller delays than flooding-
based schemes
Under highload, it yields significantlybetterdelays and fewertransmissions than flooding-based schemes
It is highly scalable, exhibiting good and predictable performancefor a large range of network sizes, node densities and connectivity
levels. As the size of the network and the number of nodes increase,the number of transmissionsper node that Spray and Wait requiresin order to achieve the same performance, decreases
It can be easily tuned onlineto achieve given QoS requirements,even in unknown networks
Using only a handful of copies per message, it can achievecomparable delays to an oracle-based optimal scheme thatminimizes delay while using the lowest possible number oftransmissions
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
7/31
Spray & Wait7
Related Work
A large number of routing protocols for wireless ad-hoc networkshave been proposed in the past. The performance of such protocols
would be poor even if the network was only slightly disconnected
When the network is not dense enough (as in the ICMN case), evenmoderate node mobility would lead to frequent disconnections
In most cases trepairis expected to be larger than the path duration,
this way reducing the expected throughput to almost zero accordingto the formula:
PD = average Path Duration
Another approach to deal with disconnections is to reinforceconnectivity on demand, by bringing additional communicationresources into the network when necessary(e.g. satellites, UAVs,etc.)
Abstract
Introduction
RELATED WORK
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
8/31
Spray & Wait8
Related Work
Similarly, one could force a number of specialized nodes(e.g. robots) tofollow a given trajectorybetween disconnected parts of the network in orderto bridge the gap
There, a number of algorithms with increasing knowledge about networkcharacteristics like upcoming contacts, queue sizes, etc.is compared with anoptimal centralized solution of the problem, formulated as a linear program
A number of mobile nodes performing independent random walks serve asDataMules that collect data from static sensors and deliver them to basestations
In a number of other works, all nodes are assumed to be mobileandalgorithms to transfer messages from any node to any other node, aresought for
Epidemic Rout ing : Here, each node maintains a list of all messages it carries, whose delivery is
pending. Whenever it encounters another node, the two nodes exchange all
messages that they dont have in common. This way, all messages are eventuallyspread to all nodes, including their destination But it creates a lot of contention for the limited buffer spaceand network capacity
of typical wireless networks, resulting in many message drops andretransmissions
Abstract
Introduction
RELATED WORK
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
9/31
Spray & Wait9
Related Work
Randomized Flood ing: One simple approach to reduce the overhead of flooding and improve
its performance is to only forward a copy with some probability p < 1
History-based orUti l i ty-based Rout ing : Here, each node maintains a utility value for every other nodein the
network, based on a timer indicating the time elapsed since the twonodes last encountered each other. These utility values essentiallycarry indirect information about relative node locations, which getdiffused through nodes mobility
Nodes forward message copies only to nodes with a higher utility bysome pre-specified threshold value Uthfor the messages destination.Such a scheme results in superior performance than flooding
But these schemes face a dilemma when choosing the utility threshold
Oracle-based algor i thm : This algorithm is aware of all future movements, and computes the
optimal set of forwarding decisions (i.e. time and next hop), which
delivers a message to its destination in the minimum amount of time. This algorithm cannot be implemented practically, but is quite useful to
compare against proposed practical schemes
Abstract
Introduction
RELATED WORK
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
Wh t h ld t f S &
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
10/31
Spray & Wait10
What should we expect from Spray &Wait ?
Perform significantly fewer transmissionsthan epidemic and other flooding-based routing schemes, under all conditions
Generate low contention, especially under high traffic loads
Achieve a delivery delaythat is better than existing single and multi-copyschemes, and close to the optimal
Be highly scalable, that is, maintain the above performance behavior despitechanges in network size or node density
Be simpleand require as little knowledge about the network as possible, inorder to facilitate implementation
Decouplethe number of copies generated per message, and therefore thenumber of transmissions performed, from the network size
Thus it should be a tradeoffbetween single and multi-copy schemes.
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
SPRAY & WAIT
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
11/31
Spray & Wait11
Definition
Definition 3.1 : Spray and Wait routing consists of thefollowing two phases:
Spray phase:For every message originating at a source node,L message copies are initially spreadforwarded by thesource and possibly other nodes receiving a copyto L distinctrelays
Wait phase:If the destination is not found in the sprayingphase, each of the L nodes carrying a message copy performsdirect transmission (i.e. will forward the message only to itsdestination)
This does not tell us how the Lcopies of a message are to bespread initially. So an improvement over Spray & Wait isBinary Spray & Wait
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
SPRAY & WAIT
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
12/31
Spray & Wait12
Binary Spray & Wait
Binary Spray & Wait: The source of a message initially starts with L copies; any node A that
has n > 1 message copies, and encounters another node B with nocopies, hands over to B, n/2 and keeps n/2 for itself; when it is left withonly one copy, it switches to direct transmission
To prove that Binary Spray and Wait is optimal, when node movementis IID, the authors state and prove a theorem
Theorem 3.1: When all nodes move in an IID manner, Binary Sprayand Wait routing is optimal, that is, has the minimum expected delayamong all spray and wait routing algorithms
Proof: Let us call a node activewhen it has more than one copies of amessage. Let us further define a spraying algorithm in terms of afunction f : N N as follows
When an active node with n copies encounters another node, it handsover to it f(n) copies, and keeps the remaining 1 f(n)
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
SPRAY & WAIT
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
13/31
Spray & Wait13
Binary Spray & Wait
Any spraying algorithm (i.e. any f) can be represented by the following binarytree with the source as its root: Assign the root a value of L; if the currentnode has a value n > 1 create a right child with a value of 1f(n) and a left
one with a value of f(n); continue until all leaf nodes have a value of 1
A particular spraying corresponds then to a sequence of visiting all nodes ofthe tree. This sequence is random. On the average, all tree nodes at thesame level are visited in parallel
Further, since only active nodes may hand over additional copies, the higherthe number of active nodes when icopies are spread, the smaller the
residual expected delay
Since the total number of tree nodes is fixed (21+log L 1) for any sprayingfunction f, it is easy to see that the tree structure that has the maximumnumber of nodes at every level, also has the maximum number of activenodes at every step.
This tree is the balanced tree, and corresponds to the Binary Spray and Waitrouting scheme. As Lgrows larger, the sophistication of the sprayingheuristic has an increasing impact on the delivery delay of the spray and waitscheme.
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
SPRAY & WAIT
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
14/31
Spray & Wait14
As the number of copies ofthe message increase, theSpray & Wait Mechanismslowly moves towardsoptimality. Binary Spray &Wait is better than SourceSpray & Wait
Figure compares the expected delay of Binary Spray & Waitand Source Spray & Wait as a function of the number ofcopies Lused, in a 100100 network with 100 nodes
This figure also shows the delay of the Optimal scheme.
Binary Spray & Wait
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
SPRAY & WAIT
Optimization
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
15/31
Spray & Wait15
Optimizing Spray & Wait
In many situations the network designer or the application itselfmight impose certain performance requirements on the protocols
(e.g. maximum delay, maximum energy consumption, minimumthroughput, etc.).
Spray and Wait can be tuned to achieve the desired performance.
To do so the authors summarize a few results regarding theexpected delay of the Direct Transmission and Optimal schemes
Lemma 4.1:Let M nodes with transmission range K performindependent random walks on a torus.
The expected delay of Direct Transmission is exponentially distributedwith average
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
16/31
Spray & Wait16
Optimizing Spray & Wait
The expected delay of the Optimal algorithm is:
Lemma 4.2:The expected delay of Spray and Wait, when Lmessage copies are used, is upper-bounded by:
This bound is tight when L
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
17/31
Spray & Wait17
Choosing L to Achieve a RequiredExpected Delay
Assume that there is a specific delivery delay constraint to be met.This delay constraint is expressed as a factor a times the optimal
delay EDopt(a > 1)
Lemma 4.3:The minimum number of copies Lminneeded for Sprayand Wait to achieve an expected delay at most a*EDopt, isindependent ofthe size of the network Nand transmission range K,and only depends ona and the number of nodes M
Thus we get the following equation from the previous upperbounded equation of EDsw
Note : EDsw = a*EDopt and approximate the harmonic numberHMLwith its Taylor Series terms up to second order, and solvethe resulting third degree polynomial
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
18/31
Spray & Wait18
Comparing Various L
L found through the approximation is quite accurate when the
delay constraint is not too stringent.
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
Estimating L when Network Parameters
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
19/31
Spray & Wait19
Estimating Lwhen Network Parametersare Unknown
In many casesboth Mand N, might be unknown
But for determining L, at least M is required
Hence we have to somehow estimate M to find out L
A straightforward way to estimate Mwould be to count unique IDs of nodesencountered already. This method requires a large database of node IDs tobe maintained in large networks, and a lookup operation to be performed
every time any node is encountered
A better method: We define T1as the time until a node encounters anyothernode. T1is exponentially distributed with average T1= EDdt/(M 1)
We similarly define T2as the time until two different nodes are encountered,then the expected value of T2equals EDdt (1/(M-1) + 1/(M-2))
Canceling EDdtfrom these two equations we get the following estimate for M:
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
20/31
Spray & Wait20
A better estimate of T1& T2
When a random walk i meets another random walkj, i andj become coupled
In other words, the next inter meeting time of i andj is not anymore exponentiallydistributed with average EDdt
In order to overcome this problem, each node keeps a record of all nodes with which it iscoupled
Every time a new node is encountered, it is stamped as coupled for an amount of timeequal to the mixing or relaxation time for that graph
Then, when node Imeasures the next sample inter meeting time, it ignores all nodesthat its coupled with at the moment, denoted as ck, and scales the collected sample T1,kby (Mck)/(M1)
A similar procedure is followed for T2. Putting it altogether, after n samples have beencollected:
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
21/31
Spray & Wait21
Comparing the online estimators of M
This method is more than two times faster than ID counting
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
Estimatedvalue of M
quickly
converges
with the
actual value
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
22/31
Spray & Wait22
Scalability of Spray and Wait
As the number of nodes in the network increases, the percentage ofnodes (Lmin/M) that need to become relays in Spray and Wait to
achieve the same performance relative to the optimal, actuallydecreases
Also, the performance of Spray & Wait improves faster than optimalscheme !!! This can be proved using Lemma 4.4
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
OPTIMIZATION
Simulation
Conclusion
Spray and Wait actually decreases the transmissions per
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
23/31
Spray & Wait23
Spray and Wait actually decreases the transmissions per
node as the number of nodes Mincreases
Lemma 4.4: Let L/M be constant and let L
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
24/31
Spray & Wait24
Scenario A : Effect of Traffic Load
Assumptions: 100 nodes move according to the random waypoint model in a 500 500 grid
with reflective barriers. The transmission range Kof each node is equal to 10
Each node is generating a new message for a randomly selected destination withan inter-arrival time distribution uniform in [1, Tmax] until time 10000
Tmaxis variedfrom 10000 to 2000 creating average traffic loads from 200 (lowtraffic) to 1000 (high traffic).
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
SIMULATION
Conclusion
Spray & Wait
is
significantly
better than
other
schemes
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
25/31
Spray & Wait25
Scenario B : Effect of Connectivity
The size of the network is 200200 and Tmaxis fixed to 4000(medium traffic load). The number of nodes Mand transmission
range K, are variedto evaluate the performance of all protocols innetworks with a large range of connectivity characteristics, rangingfrom very sparse, highly disconnected networks, to almostconnected networks.
As the
transmissionrange increases
more & more
nodes fall within
the range of each
other & the
percentage of
nodes in the max
cluster increases
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
SIMULATION
Conclusion
Scenario B: Number of transmissions for various
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
26/31
Spray & Wait26
Scenario B: Number of transmissions for various
transmission ranges for 100 & 200 nodes
For both networks, the number of
transmissionsfor spray and wait arevery lessin number as compared to
other schemes & are also more or
less independent from the
transmission rangeK
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
SIMULATION
Conclusion
Scenario B: Delivery delay for various
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
27/31
Spray & Wait27
Scenario B: Delivery delay for various
transmission ranges for 100 & 200 nodes
The delivery delay of Spray and Wait
is significantly better than that of
other schemes & depends on thetransmission range. As the
transmission range increases the
delay decreases.
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
28/31
Spray & Wait28
Conclusion
Spray and Wait effectively manages to overcome theshortcomings of epidemic routing and other flooding-based
schemes, and avoids the performance dilemma inherent inutility-based schemes
Spray and Wait, despite its simplicity, outperforms all existingschemes with respect to number of transmission sand
delivery delays, achieves comparable delays to an optimalscheme, and is very sc alableas the size of the network orconnectivity level increase
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Spray & Wait
Optimization
Simulation
CONCLUSION
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
29/31
Spray & Wait29
Some issues not discussed
Power consumed
Security
Constrained Mobility of Nodes
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
30/31
Spray & Wait30
Acknowledgements
The slide design has been adopted from the presentationby Mike Putnam (Because I liked it a lot)
Some figures have been adopted from the presentationby the authors
All other figures have been taken from the actual paper
-
8/13/2019 Spray Wait
31/31
Thank you
Questions ?