PhD Research Proposal

1
PhD Research Proposal

• Idris Skloul Ibrahim
• Supervisors
• Dr. Peter King Prof. Rob Pooley

Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture And
Protocols
2
Proposal Outlines
Proposal Outlines

• Problem Statement Objective
• Introduction
• MANET-based Applications
• MANET Routing Approaches
• Related Work Issues
• Conclusion Research Direction

3
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

Proposal Outline
The Problem Routing (and adaptation) challenges
in dynamic and mobile ad-hoc networks (in
addition to common constraints in a mobile ad-hoc
environment) extended to self-composable
networks
4
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
Proposal Objective

• Low overhead gt few control messages
• Provide a highly reactive service to help ensure
  successful delivery of data packets in spite of
  node movement or other changes in network
  conditions
• Conserve battery power
• by not sending periodic advertisements and by not
  needing to receive them
• Hosts wake-up from their sleep/standby modes to
  periodically check for messages
• Scalability and Zone Radius relationship in
  networks with thousands of nodes e.g. WSNs
  (main objective)

5
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

Introduction

• Computer Network Classifications
• 
  
• Wired
  Wireless
• Wireless Communication 1 Wireless
  Communication 2
• Infrastructure Non Infrastructure
  
• Mobile Ad Hoc N.
  
  (MANET)

6
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

Introduction

• Infrastructure Based Networks
• Uses fixed base stations (infrastructure)
  which are responsible for
• coordinating communication between the
  mobile hosts (nodes)

7
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

Introduction

• Ad-Hoc Networks
• Consists of mobile nodes which communicate with
  each other through
• wireless medium without any fixed infrastructure

8
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
Wireless Net. Basic Architecture
AP
Infrastructure Mode
Ad hoc Mode
9
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

Introduction

• Meaning of the word Ad hoc is for this, means
  for this purpose only, implies it is a special
  network for a particular application.
• A mobile ad-hoc network is a self configuring
  network of mobile routers (and associated hosts)
  connected by wireless linksthe union of which
  form an arbitrary topology.
• The routers are free to move randomly and
  organize themselves arbitrarily thus, the
  network's wireless topology may change rapidly
  and unpredictably.

10
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
History Of MANET

• The first generation goes back to 1972. At the
  time, they were called PRNET and were sponsored
  by DARPA
• The second generation of ad-hoc networks emerged
  in 1980s,when the ad-hoc network systems were
  further enhanced and implemented as a part of the
  SURAN (Survivable Adaptive Radio Networks)
  program. This provided a PSN to the mobile
  battlefield in an environment without
  infrastructure. This program proved to be
  beneficial in improving the radios' performance
  by making them smaller and cheaper
• In the 1990s, the concept of commercial ad-hoc
  networks arrived with NBC. and other
  communications equ. At the same time, the idea of
  a collection of mobile nodes was proposed at
  several research conferences. The IEEE 802.11
  subcommittee had adopted the term "ad-hoc
  networks".
• Mobile ad-hoc network was also be named as MANET
  by IETF.

11
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
Introduction
Why we are need to Use Ad-Hoc Network ?

• Easy of deployment
• Speed of deployment
• Decreased dependence on infrastructure

12
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols

MANET Characteristics Tradeoffs

• Characteristics
• Decentralized
• Self-organized
• Self-deployed
• Dynamic network topology
• Tradeoffs
• Bandwidth limited
• Multi-hop router needed
• Energy consumption problem
• Security problem
• Why traditional routing protocols are not
  suitable for MANET networks ?

13
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
MANET Medium Issues

• Hidden Terminal Problem
• Two nodes, out of each others radio range
  simultaneously try to transmit data to an
  intermediate node, which is in radio range of
  both the sending nodes.
• None of the sending nodes will be aware of the
  other nodes transmission, causing a collision to
  occur at the intermediate node.

Receiver
Sender
Sender
14
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
The Hidden Terminal Problem
Solution

• RTS-CTS handshake protocol
• A node that wishes to send data is required to
  ask for permission first, by sending a RTS to the
  receiving node. The receiving node then replies
  with a CTS message.
• The CTS message can be heard by all nodes within
  radio range of the receiving node, and instructs
  them not to use the wireless medium since another
  transmission is about to take place.
• The node that requested the transmission can then
  begin sending data to the receiving node

Receiver
Sender
Sender
RTS
Data
CTS
15
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
MANET Medium Issues

• Exposed node problem
• When a node overhears another transmission and
  hence refrains to transmit any data of its own,
  even though such a transmission would not cause a
  collision due to the limited radio range of the
  nodes.

Data


S
D
Y
X
16
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
Exposed Node Problem Solution

• Directional Antennas / separate Channels
• The exposed node problem is leads to sub-optimal
  utilization of the wireless medium. Some proposed
  solutions are the usage of directional antennas
  (instead of omni-directional antennas) or
  separate channels for control messages and data.
• A technique called transmission power control
  could serve a dual purpose in this context. By
  adjusting the transmission power of nodes,
  interference can be reduced at the same time as
  nodes save valuable energy.

17
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecture Protocols
MANET Application

• Personal area networking
• Cell phone, laptop, ear phone
• Emergency operations
• Search and rescue
• Policing and fire fighting
• Civilian environments
• Taxi cab network
• Meeting rooms
• Sports stadiums
• Boats, aircrafts
• Military use
• On the battle field

18
The Simpson's
Be home early, Homer.
Hmm, A MANET makes sense.
Yes. What are you doing, Nelson?
Dad, you can use Nelson if I am too fast.
Hi, Marge. I miss you.
I can hear u, Lisa.
Can u hear me?
19
MANET
Difficulties for routing
limited connectivity due to transmission range of signal Low bandwidth Higher error rates Vulnerable to interference Power consumption No specific devices to do routing Dynamic nature - high mobility and frequent topological changes
X
X
X
20
MANET Routing Protocols Classification
Uniform routing Proactive routing Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)
Uniform routing Proactive routing Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV) routing protocol
Uniform routing Proactive routing Fisheye State Routing (FSR)
Uniform routing Proactive routing Distance Routing Effect Algo. for Mobility (DREAM) Location-based routing
Uniform routing Reactive routing Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol
Uniform routing Reactive routing Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)
Uniform routing Reactive routing Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)
Uniform routing Reactive routing Location Aided Routing (LAR) Location-based routing
Uniform routing Reactive routing Associativity Based Routing (ABR) protocol Link-stability based routing protocol
Uniform routing Reactive routing Signal Stability-base adaptive Routing (SSR) Link-stability based routing protocol
Non-uniform routing Zone-based routing Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) Hybrid routing protocol
Non-uniform routing Zone-based routing Hybrid Adhoc Routing Protocol (HARP) Hybrid routing protocol
Non-uniform routing Zone-based routing Zone-based Hierarchical Link State routing (ZHLS) Hybrid routing protocol
Non-uniform routing Zone-based routing Grid Location Service (GLS) Location service
Non-uniform routing Cluster-based routing Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR)
Non-uniform routing Cluster-based routing Hierarchical State Routing (HSR)
Non-uniform routing Cluster-based routing Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP)
Non-uniform routing Core-node based routing Landmark Adhoc Routing (LANMAR) Proactive routing
Non-uniform routing Core-node based routing Core-Extraction Distributed Adhoc Routing (CEDAR) Proactive routing
Non-uniform routing Core-node based routing Optimised Link State Routing protocol (OLSR) Proactive routing
Source MINEMA
21
MANET Main Classification
Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Main Classification

• Proactive
• Table-Driven

Reactive On-Demand
Hybrid

• DSDV
• WARP
• DREAM

• DSR
• AODV
• TORA

• ZRP
• HARP

22
Aim Of Proposed Protocol
Related Work Issues

• Multipath Distance Vector Zone Routing Protocol
  MDVZRP

• Proactive Table Driven distanceltZone Radius
  ,and reactive On demand
  distancegtZones Radius

-Using Broadcast, and Unicast propagation
techniques

• We assume a Symmetrical links network.
  Unidirectional Problem

• Node uses a Hello message to discover its zone
  (R. table driven)

• Node uses Route Request to discover any node
  outside
• its zone. (on demand)

• Node should get Information from any route pass
  through it.

23
Aim Of Proposed Protocol
Related Work Issues

• Node broadcasts a forward Update message when
  gets a
• new route where one of hop lt R only (to reduce
  No. of messages.)

• In case of broken link node generates Err msg.
  Including
• the Segment_No. (Route No.) to identify the
  right broken link.

• Any node effected by Err msg. Deletes the
  specific route
• and Rebroadcasts Err msg. again and so on till
  reaches to a
• node which has no that route ( to prevent
  flooding the network by Err msg.)

• Number of Optimum Routes depends on the Number of
  neighbours where maximum number of routes from
  each neighbour is less than or equal Radius Size

24
Routing Algorithm
Example 1
1-2-4-3-8 1-2-4-7-8 1-2-4-3-7-8 1-2-4-7-3-8
1-2-5-4-3-8 1-2-5-4-7-8 1-2-5-4-3-7-8
1-2-5-4-7-3-8 1-3-8 1-3-7-8
1-3-4-7-8 1-4-7-8 1-4-3-8
1-4-7-3-8 1-4-3-7-8

5
4hops
2
6
Source
4
1
1
v
2hops
7
3
v
3hops
8
8
Destination
25
Node's Zone Radius metric
Symmetric Network

R2
Rgt2
2
5
1
R1
3
6
4
26
A Simple network
Example 2

• 
  

1-2 1-3
2
5
1
3
4
27
Nodes Routing Tables
Example2 ROUTING Tables

• Node(1) Node(2)
  Node(3)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 1 0 1-1 . 1 1 1
  1-2 . 1 1 1 1-3
  .
• 2 2 1 1-2 . 2 2 0
  2-2 . 2 1 2 1-2
  .
• 3 3 1 1-3 . 3 1 1
  1-3 . 3 3 0 3-3
  .
• 4 3 2 3-4 . 5 5 1
  2-5 . 4 4 1 3-4
  .
• 5 2 2 2-5 .
• Node(4) Node(5)
  
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No .
• 1 3 2 1-3 . 1 2 2
  1-2 .
• 3 3 1 3-4 . 2 2 1
  2-5 .
• 4 4 0 4-4 . 5 5 0
  5-5 .

28
A New Node Joins The Network
ROUTING TABLE DRIVEN

• Ds Nx No.h Seg_No
• 6 6 0 6-6
  Initialization
• 5 5 1 5-6
• 4 4 1 4-6
• 2 5 2 2-5
• 3 4 2 3-4
• 
  

2-5

3-4
1-2 1-3
2
1
5
5-6 Hello Hello
4-6
R.Upadte
3
6
R.Upadte
4
29
The New Nodes Routing Table
ROUTING TABLE CREATION

• Node(1) Node(2)
  Node(3)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 1 0 1-1 . 1 1 1
  1-2 . 1 1 1 1-3
  .
• 2 2 1 1-2 . 2 2 0
  2-2 . 2 1 2 1-2
  .
• 3 3 1 1-3 . 3 1 1
  1-3 . 3 3 0 3-3
  .
• 4 3 2 3-4 . 5 5 1
  2-5 . 4 4 1 3-4
  .
• 5 2 2 2-5 . 6 5 2
  5-6 . RUP 6 4 2
  4-6 . RUP
• Node(4) Node(5)
  Node(6)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 3 2 1-3 . 1 2 2
  1-2 . 2 5 2
  2-5 .A H M
• 3 3 1 3-4 . 2 2 1
  2-5 . 3 4 2 3-4
  .A H M
• 4 4 0 4-4 . 5 5 0
  5-5 . 4 4 1 4-6
  .A H M
• 6 6 1 4-6 . Hello 6
  6 1 5-6 .Hello 5 5
  1 5-6 .A H M

30
Route Request
ROUTE ON- DEMAND

• Ds Nx No.h Seg_No
• 6 6 0 6-6
• 5 5 1 5-6
• 4 4 1 4-6
• 2 5 2 2-5
• 3 4 2 3-4
• 1 4 3 1-3
• 1 5 3 1-2
• 
  

2-5

3-4
1-2 1-3
2
1
5
5-6 Hello
Hello 4-6
RRPL
3
RREQ
6
RREQ
4
RRPL
31
New Nodes Entire Routing Table
ROUTING TABLE CREATION

• Node(1) Node(2)
  Node(3)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 1 0 1-1 . 1 1 1
  1-2 . 1 1 1 1-3
  .
• 2 2 1 1-2 . 2 2 0
  2-2 . 2 1 2 1-2
  .
• 3 3 1 1-3 . 3 1 1
  1-3 . 3 3 0 3-3
  .
• 4 3 2 3-4 . 5 5 1
  2-5 . 4 4 1 3-4
  .
• 5 2 2 2-5 . 6 5 2
  5-6 . RUP 6 4 2
  4-6 . RUP
• Node(4) Node(5)
  Node(6)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 3 2 1-3 . 1 2 2
  1-2 . 2 5 2
  2-5 .A H M
• 3 3 1 3-4 . 2 2 1
  2-5 . 3 4 2 3-4
  .A H M
• 4 4 0 4-4 . 5 5 0
  5-5 . 4 4 1 4-6
  .A H M
• 6 6 1 4-6 . Hello 6
  6 1 5-6 .Hello 5 5
  1 5-6 .A H m
• 6 6 0
  6-6 .Initialization

32
Broken Link Error
REER Error Message

• 
  

REER
2-5

3-4
1-2 1-3
REER
2
5
1
5-6
4-6
REER
REER
REER
3
6
REER
4
REER
33
Nodes Routing Tables After RERR
ROUTING TABLES AFTER RERR

• Node(1) Node(2)
  Node(3)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 1 0 1-1 . 1 1 1
  1-2 . 1 1 1 1-3
  .
• 2 2 1 1-2 . 2 2 0
  2-2 . 2 1 2 1-2
  .
• 3 3 1 1-3 . 3 1 1
  1-3 . 3 3 0 3-3
  .
• 4 3 2 3-4 . 5 5 1
  2-5 . 4 4 1 3-4
  .
• 5 2 2 2-5 . 6 5 2
  5-6 . RERR 6 4 2 4-6
  . RUP
• Node(4) Node(5)
  Node(6)
• Ds 1st No.h S_No . Ds 1st No.h
  S_No . Ds 1st No.h S_No
• 1 3 2 1-3 . 1 2 2
  1-2 . 2 5 2
  2-5 .RERR
• 3 3 1 3-4 . 2 2 1
  2-5 . 3 4 2 3-4
  .FULLD
• 4 4 0 4-4 . 5 5 0
  5-5 . 4 4 1 4-6
  .FULLD
• 6 6 1 4-6 . Hello 6
  6 1 5-6 .RERR 5 5
  1 5-6 .RERR
• 6 6 0
  6-6 .Initialization

34
Conclusion
MDVZRP FOR MANET

• We proposed MDVZRP for MANET based on DV,AODV
• Allows sending packets by alternative paths and
  backward RERR to the source in case of unknown
  broken link
• Number of Optimum Routes depends on the Number of
  neighbours where Maximum Number from each
  neighbour is less than or equal Radius Size
• Low overhead and Faster than the standard
  protocols
• Latency is less than AODV (N( c/b t ) t R)
• Routing table size is less than DSDV (ltDSDV
  messages)
• No periodic route update packets.(lt ZRP control
  traffic )
• Network Performance v Radius size regarding to
  evaluation metrics data throughput, packet
  delivery ratio, routing overhead and average
  packet delay.