11
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for
rescue operations?
PhD Trial LectureErlend Larsen
January 28th 2011
Erlend Larsen, PhD Trial Lecture 2011
22
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Outline
• Rescue operations• MANET• TETRA• Evaluation• Conclusions
33
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
RESCUE OPERATIONS
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?
44
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Rescue operations
• Rescue– Operations that usually involve the saving of life, or prevention of
injury.
• Performed by trained personnel in Rescue Squads– Independent or part of larger organizations like
a fire, police, military, first aid squad, or ambulance services.
55
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Types of rescue operations
• Car accidents• Search and rescue• Air plane crash• Forest fires• Hurricanes• Earthquakes/
Tsunamis
• ?
66
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Scenario aspects - communication• Where
– Within existing infrastructure coverage?– Reachable by vehicles? (Boats, trucks, helicopter, etc.)– Moving or expanding disaster area? (Oil leakage, forest fire, search operation)
• When– Preparation– Duration
• Extent– Magnitude of the disaster– Needed equipment– Destroyed infrastructure
77
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Increasing capacity demand
Communication services in rescue operations• Voice communication
• Data communication– Short text and status messages– Sensor information– Database access– Still pictures– Streaming video– Real-time video
One-to-one and group communication
88
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Radio communication challenges• Voice communication
– Delay and jitter, and to some extent loss (QoS)
• Data communication– Capacity
• Reliability• Fairness and priority• Partitioning
99
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?
1010
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET
• Mobile Ad hoc NETworks
• Layer 3 (Networking) concept
• No single standardization body defines MANET:– IEEE 802.11 is a common PHY/MAC protocol– IETF MANET WG standardizes some routing protocols
• Active research field
1111
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET - Details
• IP-based
• Multi-hop communication without requirement for infrastructure
• Autonomous mobile platforms with routing functionality (nodes) move freely and arbitrarily
• Autoconfigurating and selfhealing network
Decentralized networking
1212
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET schematics
1313
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET – connected to infrastructure• MANETs can be connected to external networks
• Connecting networks:– Satellite– ADSL– Mesh– Ethernet– GSM– TETRA– …
• QoS-mapping can be a challenge
1414
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET – connected to infrastructure
1515
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET – Addressing communication challenges• Strengths:
– Capacity for data communication– Partitioning
• Weaknesses:– Voice communication– Reliability– Fairness and priority
1616
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
MANET conclusion
• Originates from computer networking• Intelligence in the nodes (routing)
• Advantages:– Independent of infrastructure– Low cost– Rapid deployment– Flexible– High capacity
• Disadvantages:– Immature– Multi-hop wireless communication poses QoS challenges– Dependent on infrastructure to reach HQ
1717
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?
1818
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA – TErrestrial Trunked RAdio• ETSI Standard for Private Mobile Radio, 1995-• In widespread use for emergency and crisis
communication– E.g., the new Norwegian Public Safety Radio Network
• Compared to other mobile communication technologies:– Faster call-setup– Higher spectral efficiency– Lower transmission frequency = wider coverage – Flexibility of the working modes
• One-to-one• One-to-many• Many-to-many
1919
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Schematics of TETRA
2020
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA - Details• Fully digital communication system
• Supported services– Voice– Circuit switched data– Packet switched data
• TDMA based medium access
• Switched infrastructure– (Proposal for TETRA-over-IP exists)
• Security– Authentication– Air Interface Encryption– End-to-End Encryption TETRA base station for public safety services
in The Netherlands
2121
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA
• 2 modes of operation– Trunked Mode of Operation (TMO)– Direct Mode of Operation (DMO)
• TMO– Infrastructure-based– Single wireless hop from terminal to base station– Access to external networks, e.g, PSTN, ISDN, GSM– Cell radius around 5 km– Maximum data rate: 28.8 Kbps
• DMO– Communication without reliance on infrastructure– Terminals share the channel using TDMA
2222
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA-DMO
• 4 operational modes:– Back-to-back – Direct communication– DM Repeater – Equipment to enlarge the DMO coverage– DM Gateway – Equipment to allow DMO equipment
communication with the trunked system– DM Dual Watch – Equipment can operate in DMO or TMO and
receive incoming calls on the other mode
• The maximum data capacity in DMO is 7.2 Kbps• The maximum simultaneous calls is 2 (with
Frequency Enhancing Mechanisms)
2323
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA revision 2
• High speed data 30 – 400+ kbps:– TETRA Enhanced Data Service – TEDS
• Compatible with TETRA 1– TETRA Advanced Packet Service – TAPS
• GPRS based overlay network
• Increased capacity reduces the cell range
2424
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TAPS in Belgium (30,000 km2) – number of base stations
Coding User Data Rate (per carrier)
User Data Rate (per slot)
Cell Radius Cell Area Number of BS
TETRA 1 28.8 7.2 5 km 78 km2 380 MSC-5B 179.2 22.4 1.69 km 7.42 km2 4043 MSC-6A 236.8 29.6 1.44 km 5.39 km2 5565 MSC-7B 358.4 44.8 0.98 km 2.5 km2 12000 MSC-8A 435.2 54.4 0.73 km 1.38 km2 21739 MSC-9A 473.6 59.2 0.56 km 0.81 km2 37037
2525
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA – Addressing communication challenges• Strengths:
– Voice communication– Reliability– Fairness and priority
• Weaknesses:– Data communication– Partitioning
2626
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
TETRA conclusion
• Originates from telecom networks• Intelligence in the network
• Advantages:– Mature– TDMA offers predictable service guarantee
• Disadvantages:– High cost– Requires planning of base stations– Dependent on infrastructure– Low data capacity
2727
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
EVALUATION
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?
2828
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Competing technologies?- Do MANET and TETRA provide similar service?
• Yes:– TETRA is a stand-alone emergency network, and:– There exist proposals for using MANET connected to external
networks as a stand-alone emergency network.
• No:– The differences between MANET and TETRA with regards to
maturity and QoS make it hard to view MANET as a stand-alone emergency network.
2929
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Supplementing technologies?- Does employing both TETRA and MANET improve the service?
• Yes:– TETRA has coverage (partitioning) problems in areas without
infrastructure– The data capacity in TETRA is very low, and MANET could alleviate
the need for using this capacity locally.– TETRA provides a reliable infrastructure for MANET.
– Future scenario(?): TETRA 2 with fewer BS extended with MANET
• No:
3030
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
CONCLUSIONS
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?
3131
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
Conclusions
• Communications systems for rescue operations must– Support voice and increasingly data communication
• MANET and TETRA may be considered competing technologies:– MANET: Immature, but proposals exist
• MANET and TETRA are supplementing technologies:– Dependence on infrastructure– Data capacity
3232
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
References• Luca Adamo, Romano Fantacci, Matteo Rosi, Daniele Tarchi, Federico Frosali, “Analysis and design of
a TETRA-DMO and IEEE 802.11 integrated network,” IWCMC '10 Proceedings of the 6th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference
• Eli Winjum, Paal Spilling, Øivind Kure, ”Ad Hoc Networks Used in Emergency Networks: The Trust Metric Routing Approach,” Technical Report FFI, 2005
• TETRA Association, http://www.tetramou.com• Dirk Kuypers, Marc Schinnenburg, “Traffic Performance Evaluation of Data Links in TETRA and
TETRAPOL,” Proceedings of European Wireless, 2005• A. K. Salkintzis, "Evolving public safety communication systems by integrating WLAN and TETRA
networks," Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.44, no.1, pp. 38-46, Jan. 2006• J. P. Macker and M. S. Corson, ”Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the IETF,” Mobile Computing and
Communications Review, vol.2, no.1, pp. 9-14, 1998• M. de Graaf et al., “Easy Wireless: broadband ad-hoc networking for emergency service,” The Sixth
Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking WorkShop, Corfu, Greece, June 12-15, 2007• D. S. Sharp, “Adapting Ad Hoc Network Concepts to Land Mobile Radio Systems,” Master Thesis,
Simon Fraser University, 2002• Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, http://wikipedia.org• Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org• R. Pinter, ”Introduction to TETRA Over IP (TOIP),” Simoco Digital Systems, 2008• Jo Dewaele, “User Requirements,” Presentation, TETRA TEDS Colloquium, ETSI, 2002
3333
Thank You!
Top Related