Rendezvous-Based Directional Routing: A Performance Analysis

1
Rendezvous-Based Directional RoutingA
Performance Analysis

• Bow-Nan Cheng (RPI)
• Murat Yuksel (UNR)
• Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (RPI)

2
Motivation

• Infrastructure / Wireless Mesh Networks
• Characteristics Fixed, unlimited energy,
  virtually unlimited processing power
• Dynamism Link Quality
• Optimize High throughput, low latency,
  balanced load

• Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANET)
• Characteristics Mobile, limited energy
• Dynamism Node mobility Link Quality
• Optimize Reachability

• Sensor Networks
• Characteristics Data-Centric, extreme limited
  energy
• Dynamism Node State/Status (on/off)
• Optimize Power consumption

Main Issue Scalability
3
Trends Directional Antennas

• Directional Antennas Capacity Benefits
• Theoretical Capacity Improvements - factor of
  4p2/sqrt(ab) where a and b are the spreads of the
  sending and receiving transceiver 50x capacity
  with 8 Interfaces (Yi et al., 2005)
• Sector Antennas in Cell Base Stations Even only
  3 sectors increases capacity by 1.714 (Rappaport,
  2006)
• Directional Antennas Simulations show 2-3X more
  capacity (Choudhury et al., 2003)

4
Trends Hybrid FSO/RF MANETs

• Current RF-based Ad Hoc Networks
• 802.1x with omni-directional RF antennas
• High-power typically the most power consuming
  parts of laptops
• Low bandwidth typically the bottleneck link in
  the chain
• Error-prone, high losses

Free-Space-Optical (FSO) Communications
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking

• High bandwidth
• Low power
• Dense spatial reuse
• License-free band of
• operation

• Mobile communication
• Auto-configuration

• Spatial reuse and angular diversity in nodes
• Low power and secure
• Electronic auto-alignment
• Optical auto-configuration (switching, routing)
• Interdisciplinary, cross-layer design

5
Scaling Networks Trends in Layer 3
Flood-based
Hierarchy/Structured
Unstructured/Flat Scalable
OLSR, HSLS, LGF Hierarchical Routing, VRR,
GPSRGLS
Mobile Ad hoc / Wireless Infrastructure Networks
DSR, AODV, TORA, DSDV
WSR (Mobicom 07) ORRP (ICNP 06)
Kazaa, DHT Approaches CHORD, CAN
BubbleStorm (Sigcomm 07)
Peer to Peer / Overlay Networks
Gnutella
SEIZE
Wired Networks
Ethernet
Routers (between AS)
6
ORRP Big Picture
Orthogonal Rendezvous Routing Protocol

• ORRP Primitive
• Local sense of direction
• leads to ability to forward
• packets in opposite
• directions

A
180o
98
S
T
Up to 69
B
Multiplier Angle Method (MAM) Heuristic to
handle voids, angle deviations, and perimeter
cases
7
Motivation

• Metrics
• Reach Probability
• Path Stretch / Average Path Length
• Total States Maintained
• Goodput
• End-to-End Latency
• Scenarios Evaluated
• Various Topologies
• Various Densities
• Various Number of Interfaces
• Various Number of Connections
• Transmission Rates
• Comparison vs. AODV, DSR

A
Path Stretch 1.2
1x4 3.24
98
57
By adding lines, can we decrease path stretch and
increase reach probability without paying too
much penalty?
B
8
Reachability Numerical Analysis
Punreachable Pintersections not in
rectangle
Probability of reach does not increase
dramatically with addition of lines above 2 (No
angle correction)
4 Possible Intersection Points
Reach Probability vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Reach Probability vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Reach Probability vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Reach Probability vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis
1 Line (180o) 2 Lines (90o) 3 Lines (60o)
Circle (Radius 10m) 58.33 99.75 100
Square (10mx10m) 56.51 98.30 99.99
Rectangle (25mx4m) 34.55 57 67.61
9
Path Stretch Analysis
Path stretch decreases with addition of lines but
not as dramatically as between 1 and 2 lines (No
angle correction)
Path Stretch vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Path Stretch vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Path Stretch vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis Path Stretch vs. Number of Lines Numerical Analysis
1 Line (180o) 2 Lines (90o) 3 Lines (60o)
Circle (Radius 10m) 3.854 1.15 1.031
Square (10mx10m) 4.004 1.255 1.039
Rectangle (25mx4m) 4.73 3.24 1.906
Grid (No Bounds) 1.323 1.125 1.050
10
NS2 Sim Parameters/Specifications

• All Simulations Run 30 Times, averaged, and
  standard deviations recorded

Reach Probability
Average Path Length
Goodput
End-to-End Latency
Number of Lines
Amount of State Maintained
Number of Control Packets
11
Effect of Number of Lines on Various Topologies
and Network Densities
Average Path Length decreases with addition of
lines under similar conditions. APL increases in
rectangular case because of higher reach of
longer paths
Dense - 98 - 99
Medium 95.5 - 99
Reach Probability increases with addition of
lines but not as dramatically as between 1 and 2
lines
Sparse - 90 - 99
Medium - 66 - 93
Sparse - 63 - 82
12
Numerical Analysis vs. Simulations
Angle Correction with MAM increases reach
dramatically!
Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density) Reach Probability (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Sims w/ Avg. Density)
1 Line (180o) 1 Line (180o) 2 Lines (90o) 2 Lines (90o) 3 Lines (60o) 3 Lines (60o)
Topology Boundaries Analysis Sims Analysis Sims Analysis Sims
Square 56.51 95.3 98.30 99.5 99.99 99.8
Rectangle 34.55 66.7 57 84.5 67.61 91.1
Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations) Path Stretch (Num Analysis w/o MAM vs. Simulations)
1 Line (180o) 1 Line (180o) 2 Lines (90o) 2 Lines (90o) 3 Lines (60o) 3 Lines (60o)
Topology Boundaries Analysis Sims Analysis Sims Analysis Sims
Square 4.004 1.54 1.255 1.272 1.039 1.21
13
Effect of Network Density
Average Path Length Eval
Total Packet Latency Eval
Average Path Length decreases for increased
number of lines in ORRP but still longer than
shortest path protocols
Total end to end Latency decreases for increased
number of lines in ORRP. This is significantly
better than DSR and AODV
14
Effect of Number of Connections and CBR Rate
Packet Delivery Success
Aggregate Network Goodput
Delivery Success increases for increased number
of lines but remains constant with number of CBR
connections
Aggregate Network Goodput increases for increased
number of lines. It is about 20-30X more network
goodput than DSR and AODV
15
Additional Simulation Results

• Network Voids
• Average path length fairly constant (Reach and
  State not different)
• Number of Interfaces
• Increasing of interfaces per node yields better
  results for reach, average path length, and
  average goodput to a certain point determined by
  network density.
• Number of Continuous Flows
• Average path length remains fairly constant with
  increased flows but increases with less lines.
  The average is still higher than AODV and DSR
  path lengths.
• Control Packets
• Control packets sent by ORRP with multiple lines
  are significantly more than with AODV and DSR
  because ORRP is hybrid proactive and reactive so
  CP increase with time. But because medium is used
  more efficiently, goodput remains high.

16
Summary

• Addition of lines yields significantly
  diminishing returns from a connectivity-state
  maintenance/control packets perspective after 1
  line
• Addition of lines yields better paths from source
  to destination and increases goodput
• Using Multiplier Angle Method (MAM) heuristic,
  even only 1 line provides a high degree of
  connectivity in symmetric topologies
• Addition of lines yields better aggregate godoput
  overall and about 20x more goodput than DSR and
  AODV
• Increasing the number of interfaces per node
  yields better results for reachability, average
  path length, and average goodput up to a certain
  point that is determined by network density
• As number of continuous flows increase, ORRP with
  increased lines delivers more packets
  successfully.

17
Future Work

• Mobile ORRP (MORRP)
• Hybrid Direction and Omni-directional nodes
• Expanding to overlay networks (virtual
  directions)
• Thanks!
• Questions or Comments chengb_at_rpi.edu

18
Effect of Number of Lines on Various Topologies
and Network Densities
Total States Maintained increases with addition
of lines (as expected)
19
ORRP Basic Illustration
Node C Fwd Table Node C Fwd Table Node C Fwd Table Node C Fwd Table
Dest Next Cost Dir
A B 2 120o
D D 1 230o
Node B Fwd Table Node B Fwd Table Node B Fwd Table Node B Fwd Table
Dest Next Cost Dir
A A 1 90o
B
C
A

• ORRP Announcements (Proactive)
• Generates Rendezvous node-to-destination paths

D
2. ORRP Route REQuest (RREQ) Packets (Reactive)
3. ORRP Route REPly (RREP) Packets (Reactive)
4. Data path after route generation
20
NS2 Sim Parameters/Specifications

• Reach Probability Measurements
• Send only 2 CBR packets (to make sure no network
  flooding) from all nodes to all nodes and measure
  received packets
• Average Path Length Measurements
• Number of hops from source to destination. If no
  path is found, APL is not recorded
• Total State Measurements
• Number of entries in routing table snapshot
• Throughput Scenarios
• 100 Random CBR Source-Destination connections per
  simulation run
• CBR Packet Size 512 KB
• CBR Duration 10s at Rate 2Kbps
• Mobility Scenarios
• Random Waypoint Mobility Model
• Max node velocities 2.5m/s, 5m/s, 7.5m/s
• Connectivity Sampling Frequency Every 20s
• Simulation Time 100s
• Number of Interfaces 12

• All Simulations Run 30 Times, averaged, and
  standard deviations recorded

21
Effect of Number of Lines on Networks with Voids
Reach Probability increases with addition of
lines but not as dramatically as between 1 and 2
lines. Void structure yielded higher reach for
sparser network
Total States Maintained increases with addition
of lines. Denser network needs to maintain more
states (because of more nodes)
Average Path Length remains fairly constant with
addition of lines due to fewer paths options to
navigate around voids

• Observations/Discussions
• Reach probability increases with addition of
  lines but only dramatically from 1-2 lines.
• Void structure yielded higher reach for sparse
  network (odd)
• Average Path Length remains fairly constant
  (higher APL with denser network) with addition of
  lines due to fewer path options (theres
  generally only 1 way around the perimeter of a
  void)

22
Effect of Number of Lines on Network Throughput
Packet Delivery Success increases with addition
of lines but not as dramatically as between 1 and
2 lines. Constant data streams are very bad (66
delivery success) for 1 line
Throughput increases with addition of lines due
to higher data delivery and decreased path length
(lower latency)
Average Path Length decreases with addition of
lines due to better paths found

• Observations/Discussions
• Reach probability increases with addition of
  lines but only dramatically from 1-2 lines.
• Constant data streams are not very good with 1
  line
• Average Path Length decreases with addition of
  lines (better paths found)
• Throughput increases with additional lines
  (higher data delivery decreased path length and
  lower packet delivery latency)

23
Effect of Number of Lines on Varying Network
Mobility
Average Path Length decreases with addition of
lines and decreases with max increased max
velocity. More lines has little additional
affect on APL in varying mobility
Reach Probability increases with addition of
lines but decreases with increased max velocity.
More lines has no additional affect on reach in
varying mobility.

• Observations/Discussions
• Reach probability increases with addition of
  lines but decreases with increased max velocity
• Average Path Length decreases with addition of
  lines (better paths found)
• More lines yields little to no additional
  affect on reach and average path length in
  varying mobile environments