1 / 32

# Worst-Case Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Worst-Case Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing. Fabian Kuhn Roger Wattenhofer Aaron Zollinger. s. Geometric Routing. ? ? ?. t. s. Greedy Routing. Each node forwards message to “best” neighbor. t. s. Greedy Routing.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Worst-Case Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing' - tanisha-soto

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Worst-Case Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Geometric Ad-Hoc Routing

Fabian Kuhn

Roger Wattenhofer

Aaron Zollinger

Geometric Routing

???

t

s

MobiHoc 2003

• Each node forwards message to “best” neighbor

t

s

MobiHoc 2003

• Each node forwards message to “best” neighbor

• But greedy routing may fail: message may get stuck in a “dead end”

• Needed: Correct geometric routing algorithm

t

?

s

MobiHoc 2003

• A.k.a. location-based, position-based, geographic, etc.

• Each node knows its own position and position of neighbors

• Source knows the position of the destination

• No routing tables stored in nodes!

• Geometric routing is important:

• GPS/Galileo, local positioning algorithm,overlay P2P network, Geocasting

MobiHoc 2003

MobiHoc 2003

• Introduction

• What is Geometric Routing?

• Greedy Routing

• Correct Geometric Routing: Face Routing

• Efficient Geometric Routing

• Lower Bound, Worst-Case Optimality

• Average-Case Efficiency

• Critical Density

• GOAFR

• Conclusions

MobiHoc 2003

• Based on ideas by [Kranakis, Singh, Urrutia CCCG 1999]

• Here simplified (and actually improved)

MobiHoc 2003

• Remark: Planar graph can easily (and locally!) be computed with the Gabriel Graph, for example

Planarity is NOT an assumption

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

Face Routing Properties

• All necessary information is stored in the message

• Source and destination positions

• Point of transition to next face

• Completely local:

• Knowledge about direct neighbors‘ positions sufficient

• Faces are implicit

• Planarity of graph is computed locally (not an assumption)

• Computation for instance with Gabriel Graph

MobiHoc 2003

• Introduction

• What is Geometric Routing?

• Greedy Routing

• Correct Geometric Routing: Face Routing

• Efficient Geometric Routing

• Lower Bound, Worst-Case Optimality

• Average-Case Efficiency

• Critical Density

• GOAFR

• Conclusions

MobiHoc 2003

• Theorem: Face Routing reaches destination in O(n) steps

• But: Can be very bad compared to the optimal route

MobiHoc 2003

s

t

MobiHoc 2003

What is the correct size of the bounding area?

• Grow area each time you cannot reach the destination

• In other words, adapt area size whenever it is too small

Theorem: AFR Algorithm finds destination after O(c2) steps, where c is the cost of the optimal path from source to destination.

Theorem: AFR Algorithm is asymptotically worst-case optimal.

[Kuhn, Wattenhofer, Zollinger DIALM 2002]

MobiHoc 2003

• Introduction

• What is Geometric Routing?

• Greedy Routing

• Correct Geometric Routing: Face Routing

• Efficient Geometric Routing

• Lower Bound, Worst-Case Optimality

• Average-Case Efficiency

• Critical Density

• GOAFR

• Conclusions

MobiHoc 2003

• AFR Algorithm is not very efficient (especially in dense graphs)

• Combine Greedy and (Other Adaptive) Face Routing

• Route greedily as long as possible

• Overcome “dead ends” by use of face routing

• Then route greedily again

• Similar as GFG/GPSR, but adaptive

MobiHoc 2003

• We could fall back to greedy routing as soon as we are closer to t than the local minimum

• But:

• “Maze” with (c2) edges is traversed (c) times  (c3) steps

MobiHoc 2003

• GOAFR traverses complete face boundary:

Theorem: GOAFR is asymptotically worst-case optimal.

• Remark: GFG/GPSR is not

• Searchable area not bounded

• Immediate fallback to greedy routing

• GOAFR’s average-case efficiency?

MobiHoc 2003

• Not interesting when graph not dense enough

• Not interesting when graph is too dense

• Critical density range (“percolation”)

• Shortest path is significantly longer than Euclidean distance

too sparse

critical density

too dense

MobiHoc 2003

• Shortest path is significantly longer than Euclidean distance

• Critical density range mandatory for the simulation of any routing algorithm (not only geometric)

MobiHoc 2003

1.9

1

0.9

1.8

Connectivity

0.8

1.7

0.7

1.6

0.6

Greedy success

1.5

Shortest Path Span

Frequency

0.5

1.4

0.4

Shortest Path Span

1.3

0.3

1.2

0.2

1.1

0.1

critical

1

0

10

15

0

5

Network Density [nodes per unit disk]

MobiHoc 2003

20

1

worse

18

0.9

16

0.8

14

0.7

12

0.6

Performance

10

0.5

Frequency

8

0.4

Face Routing

6

0.3

better

4

0.2

2

0.1

critical

Greedy/FaceRouting

0

0

0

5

10

15

Network Density [nodes per unit disk]

MobiHoc 2003

9

1

GFG/GPSR

worse

0.9

8

0.8

7

0.7

6

0.6

Frequency

5

0.5

Performance

0.4

4

GOAFR+

0.3

3

0.2

better

2

0.1

critical

1

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Network Density [nodes per unit disk]

MobiHoc 2003

CorrectRouting

Worst-CaseOptimal

Avg-CaseEfficient

ComprehensiveSimulation

Conclusion

MobiHoc 2003