1 / 19

Probabilistic Routing Schemes for Ad-Hoc Opportunistic Networks

This chapter explores probabilistic routing schemes for ad-hoc opportunistic networks, addressing the challenges of variable topology and selfishness. It discusses various schemes including epidemic routing, PROPHET, MAXPROP, Parametric Probabilistic Routing, and PROPICMAN.

bayer
Download Presentation

Probabilistic Routing Schemes for Ad-Hoc Opportunistic Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Routing in Opportunistic Networks Chapter 8: Probabilistic Routing Schemes for Ad-Hoc Opportunistic Networks 1Vangelis Angelakis, 2Elias Tragos, 3George Perantinos, and 1Di Yuan 1 Linköping University, Sweden 2 Foundation for Research and Technology –Hellas 3 Forthnet S.A.

  2. Wireless proliferation • Wireless RF Proliferation in the past decades • Bluetooth, 802.11a,b/g, 3/4G • Computing paradigms based on Wireless • Wireless Cloud • Internet of Things • Machine-to-Machine (ad-hoc) communication • Wireless medium backlashes • Range issues • Interference / Communication reliability

  3. Relaying and forwarding • Transmission range limitations -> need for relays • Key decisions in forwarding packets: 1. Whatto send (my packet or a relayed packet ?) 2.Towhom(to a relay or the destination ?) 3.Whento do so ( will I suffer collisions, cause interference ?) • Routing deals with 1,2 • Scheduling takes care of 3 once 1 and 2 have been decided • Relaying typically assumes: • Some topology knowledge • Collaborating nodes (limited/no selfishness) • Routing needs to work towards these assumptions

  4. Routing in Opportunistic Networks • The role of mobility 1. Buffering taking advantage of transitive transmission 2. Delay\Disruption -Tolerant Networking • Problems arising from opportunistic communication: • Topology is becoming too variable • Selfishness can arise to conserve resources • Opportunistic Networks’ routing needs to cope with these two

  5. Probabilistic Routing • Work-around: Probabilistic routing • Model and take into account the environment (too complex), or • Randomize on • Whom to send to and • When to send • Cross-layer routing approach, taking input from: • Physical layer • Access layer • Trade-off: performance / simplicity-effectivness

  6. Probabilistic Routing • Work-around: Probabilistic routing • Model and take into account the environment (too complex), or • Randomize on • Whom to send to and • When to send • Cross-layer routing approach, taking input from: • Physical layer • Access layer • Trade-off: performance / simplicity-effectivness

  7. Schemes Overview • Epidemic routing (Vahdat & Becker, 2000) • PROPHET (Lindgren, et al. 2003) • MAXPROP (Burgess, et al. 2006) • Parametric Probabilistic Routing (Barret, et al. 2005) • PROPICMAN (Nguyen, et al. 2007)

  8. Epidemic Routing 1/2 • Bio-inspired: packets are considered to infect nodes (Vahdat & Becker, 2000) • Assumes • Nodes are randomly mobile & have ordered identifiers • Resources sufficiency (battery / buffers) • Forwarding Decision: fixed – flooding • Buffers: FIFO • Buffer (hashed) “index”: Summary Vector (SV) • Reliability: ack’s

  9. Epidemic Routing 2/2 • Meeting a newly identified neighbor node • Exchange SVs • Exchange unknown messages For protocol sake the process is initiated by the node with the smaller identifier • Per-host queuing • New messages given preference over old ones in terms of buffer availability 1 A B SVA 2 Request: (SVA+SVB’) 3 Messages unknown to B

  10. PRoPHET (1/2) • PRoPHET: Probabilistic Routing Protocol using History of Encounters and Transitivity (Lindgren, et al. 2003) • Users move in a “not so random”, predictable fashion • Forwarding decision: by Delivery PredictabilityP(M,D) set up at every node M for each known destination D. • Epidemic Routing SV’s are used here too to exchange • Delivery Predictability values to updated own P(M,D) as follows:

  11. PRoPHET (2/2) • When the node M encounters another node N, the predictability for N  increases as: P(M, N)new = P(M, N)old + (1 - P(M,N)old) x Lenc, Lencis an initialization constant • The predictabilities for all destinations D other than N suffer ageing: P(M, D)new = P(M, D)old x γK, γis an aging constant K is a time factor • Transitive property updates the predictability of destinationD for which N has a P(N, D) value: P(M,D)new = P(M,D)old + (1 - P(M,D)old) x P(M,E) x P(E,D) x β βis ascaling factor • The assumption here is that M is likely to meet N again.

  12. MaxProp (1/2) • Motivated by pedestrian mobility and city vehicles (busses) (Burgess, et al. 2006) • Addressed resources issues considering vehicles • Bulky equipment • energy • Maintains ordered destination based queues • Addresses on top of PRoPHET • QoS • Stale data • Assumes • Unlimited buffer for own messages per node • Fixed size buffer for relaying messages • No topology knowledge/control

  13. MaxProp (2/2) • Communication steps (flooding-based!): 1. Neighbor Discovery (no knowledge of when the next opportunity to communicate will be) 2. Data Transfer • Transfer packets destined for neighbor peer, • Transfer routing information, • Acknowledge any delivered data, • prioritize “young” relayed packets, • Send un-transmitted packets by estimated delivery likelihood, • ensure only new packets are sent. 3. Storage Management (expunge packets to accommodate the relay buffers)

  14. PARAMETRIC PROBABILISTIC ROUTING (1/2) • Developed for Sensor Networks (Barret, et al. 2005) • Based on controlled flooding: • Packet forwarding decision by probability function • Probability function is based on: • distance to destination, • distance from original source to destination, • number of copies already received, … • Variations: 1. The Destination Attractor • Source-Destination distance and Current Relay-Destination distance 2. Directed transmission • uses also the number of hops packet has already traveled.

  15. PARAMETRIC PROBABILISTIC ROUTING (2/2) • Estimating distances to Destination: • Each sensor includes its current estimate of distance to D • receiving such information, each sensor updates its distance information • A sensor chooses as S-D distance the minimum of the currently received information from neighbors. • Potentially this leads to misinformation • Exponential scheme relaxes the problem, but enables wider flooding

  16. Propicman • Fully context-aware routing protocol (Nguyen, et al. 2007) • Node Profile: nodes exchanging data must have some information about each other. • Selection of best forwarders: • delivery probability based on the profile of the neighbors • For every neighbor a sender calculates 2-hop route delivery probability • Forwards only if own delivery probability is less than a potential relay • Security considerations • Assumptions for “community level” security (e.g. authentication, signatures) • Messages’ content is secure although the “evidences” of the node profile can be recovered.

  17. A Framework for Probabilistic Routing • Simulation framework for lower layer parameters inverstigation (Gazoni, et al. 2010) • Forwarding decision: • Probability function based on modular metric • Distance • ETX • Linear or piece wise • selection of shape and slope affects on the number of “certain forwarders” • can be varied upon execution to adapt to losses • Time to send • Back-off based scheme implemented (with variable or fixed window size) • Highly probable forwarders get to transmit early. • Passive acknowledgements via overhearing

  18. References • A. Vahdat and D. Becker. Epidemic Routing for Partially-connected Ad Hoc Networks. Technical Report: CS-200006, Duke University, April 2000. • A. Lindgren, A. Doria, and O. Schelén. Probabilistic Routing in Intermittently Connected Networks. In proc. of the 2003 ACM MobiHoc. • J. Burgess, et al. MaxProp: Routing for vehicle-based disruption-tolerant networks. In proc. of 2006 IEEE INFOCOM. • C. L. Barrett et al. Parametric Probabilistic Routing in Sensor Networks, Mobile Networks and Applications 10:4, pp 529-544, 2005. • H. A. Nguyen, et al. Probabilistic Routing Protocol for Intermittently Connected Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (PROPICMAN). In proc. of the 2007 IEEE WoWMoM. • Niki Gazoni, et al. A framework for opportunistic routing in multi-hop wireless networks. In proc. of the 2010 ACM PE-WASUN.

  19. Thanks for your attention!

More Related