Post on 16-Dec-2015
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-Mobile IP Enriched Wireless Local Area Network Architecture
byMustafa Ergen
Authors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj PuriAuthors: Mustafa Ergen and Anuj Puri{ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu}{ergen,anuj}@eecs.berkeley.edu}
Berkeley Web Over Wireless GroupBerkeley Web Over Wireless Groupwow.eecs.berkeley.eduwow.eecs.berkeley.edu
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of California BerkeleyUniversity of California Berkeley
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Introduction
Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc Networks Overview Motivation Network Architecture Protocol Previous Work -MIPMANET -on demand routing MEWLANA-TD - table driven routing MEWLANA-RD –root driven routing (mesh networks) Performance Analysis Conclusion
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Mobile IP & Ad-Hoc NetworksMobile IP Retain a fixed IP identity while moving.
Mobile Node (MN) Home Agent (HA) Foreign Agent (FA) Correspondent Host (CH)
Agent Advertisement Registration Tunneling
Ad-Hoc Network
No network infrastructure. Special routing protocol
Internet
Internet
HA
FA
MN
CH
FA
AB
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Motivation
Mobile IP in Ad hoc Networkх High cost for building a large number of basesх Total throughput limited by the number of cells in the area.х High power consumption of mobile stations having the same
transmission range as bases. х Ad hoc networks are limited to be small scale. The number of bases or the transmission ranges of both mobile
stations can be reduced. Connections are still allowed without base stations Multiple packets can be simultaneously transmitted within a
cell Paths are less vulnerable than the ones in ad hoc networks
because the bases can help reduce the wireless hop count.
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Motivation
Does this new architecture impose new traffic characteristic? Inside traffic, Outside Traffic
Can we classify the environments based on the traffic characteristics?
Small or large size ad hoc network Intensity of inside and outside traffic
Does using one kind of ad hoc routing give optimum result in all environments?
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Motivation
Example; Intensity of outside traffic = constant
A conference
Big Size NetworkHigh Inside Traffic
A subway
Big Size NetworkNegligible Inside Traffic
A rescue mission
Small Size NetworkHigh Inside Traffic
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Network Architecture
FAMIP
MN1Adhoc/MIP
MN4Adhoc/MIP
MN3Adhoc/MIP
MN2Adhoc/MIP
CHHAMIP
none
Internet/MIP
FA Domain
Ad Hoc Domain
Ad Hoc Routing Protocols
Table Driven Routing :DSDV, …
On Demand RoutingAODV, DSR, …
Route Driven Routing TBBR (Tree Based Bidirectional Routing)
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Tree Based Bidirectional Routing
Mesh Network:Routes from Foreign Agent to Mobiles
Routes from Mobiles to Foreign Agent
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Protocol-Main Components
Discovering Base StationUnicast or Broadcast
Registration MechanismInform the HA of the current location of the mobile
Tunneling Mechanism from HA to FA
Delivery from FA to mobile FA keeps a table of MAC address and IP address pair
FA Domain
FA MN2
MN1
Ad hoc Domain
Ad hoc Domain
Gateway Mobile
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Beacon: Agent Advertisement Message (modified ICMP)
Domain specific info: DNS, CoA, hop count, source address.
FA and MN duplicates the beacon : hop count ++
Hop count is to limit the serviced nodes and a decision mechanism
MN`s new access point = CoA
Mobile establish the route to the FA
Protocol-Agent Discovery
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Protocol-Registration
Normal Mobile IP Registration
Registration Request: MN4->MN3->MN2->MN1->FA->HA Registration Reply: HA->FA->MN1->MN2->MN3->MN4
Registration Request can get lost: MN & HA not registered.
Registration Reply can get lost: MN not registered but HA.
Periodic registration update.
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Protocol-Tunneling
•Tunneling from HA to FA.
Ethernet Header FA addr. HA addr. MN addr. CH addr. Packet
MN addr. CH addr. Packet
• Decapsulating in FA.
Ethernet Header MN addr. CH addr. Packet
• Sending from FA to MN.
Gateway Mobile Node MAC Address
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Protocol-Hop Count
• Lifetime of agent advertisement = X hop count• Change access point by considering hop count.
FA1 FA2
A
B
C
D
E
F
FA FA2
MN1 MN2
Ad hoc Domain
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Protocol-OVERHEAD
MIPO: Mobile IP OverheadBeacon Flooding
AHRO: Ad Hoc Routing Overhead Routing Table Formation
NHIT: Number of Hops for Inside Traffic Source and Destination is in the same ad hoc domain
NHOT: Number of Hops for Outside Traffic Load = constantSource and Destination is in different domains
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Previous Work-MIPMANET
Designed with on demand routing
Agent Advertisement Beacon Flooding
Ad Hoc RoutingAODVCreate route before send
High MIPOAHRO reducedNHIT depends on size
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-TD
Designed with table driven routing
Agent Advertisement :Dynamic BeaconingInitiate advertisement when the routing table changes
Ad Hoc RoutingDSDV- route table exchange
Low MIPOHigh AHRONHIT depends on size
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-TDDestination Next Hop
MN1 MN2 MN2MN3 MN2MN4 MN2FA FA* FA
MN2 MN1 MN1MN3 MN3MN4 MN3FA MN1* MN1
MN3 MN4 MN4MN2 MN2MN1 MN2FA MN2* MN2
MN4 MN3 MN3MN2 MN3MN1 MN3FA MN3* MN3
CH
MN4
HA
Ad hoc Domain
Internet
MN2
MN1
FA
MN3
RegistrationData Packets via HARoute Optimization
FA Domain
Dynamic Beaconing There exists a route for each
node
Low MIPO High AHRO NHIT depends on size
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-RD
.
FA
MN1
MN3
MN6
MN2
MN5
MN4
MN2 dst nexth.(1) * MN1(2) MN1 MN1(2) MN4 MN4(2) MN5 MN5
MN4 dst nexth.(1) * MN2(1) MN2 MN2
Internet
MN1 dst nexth.(1) * FA(1) FA FA(2) MN2 MN2(2) MN4 MN2(2) MN5 MN2(2) MN3 MN3(2) MN6 MN3
MN5 dst nexth.(1) * MN2(1) MN2 MN2
MN6 dst nexth.(1) * MN3(1) MN3 MN3
MN3 dst nexth.(1) * MN1(1) MN1 MN1(2) MN6 MN6
(1) Beacon(2) Reg. Request
DLN=1
DLN=2
DLN=2
DLN=3
DLN=3
DLN=3
Depth Level Number (DLN): Hop Count: eliminate loopRoutes (1) From mobile to FA : Beacon Routes (2) From FA to mobiles: Multi Hop Registration Request
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-RD
Multi Hop Registration Request
-
Destination IP Address
UDP Header
Type| Service Bits| Life Time
Home Address
Home Agent
Care of Address
Identification
Extensions
Source IP Address
Ethernet Header
Reg
istr
atio
n R
eque
st F
ield
s
-
MN2
UDP Header
Type| Service Bits| Life Time
MN4
HA
FA
Identification
Extensions
MN4
Ethernet Header
Reg
istr
atio
n R
eque
st F
ield
s
-
MN1
UDP Header
Type| Service Bits| Life Time
MN4
HA
FA
Identification
Extensions
MN2
Ethernet Header
Reg
istr
atio
n R
eque
st F
ield
s
-
FA
UDP Header
Type| Service Bits| Life Time
MN4
HA
FA
Identification
Extensions
MN1
Ethernet Header
Reg
istr
atio
n R
eque
st F
ield
s
MN4 MN2 MN1 FA
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
MEWLANA-RD
-
Beacon floodingCreate treePerformance degradation in inside trafficIf in different tree, connect with Mobile IP
High MIPONo AHROHigher NHIT compared to others
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Empirical Classification
Low High
Small
Large
Intensity level of Inside traffic
Ad Hoc network size
MIPMANET
MEWLANA-RD
MEWLANA-T
D
III
III
IV
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Simulation Parameters
NS-2
CBR Source : 1-1010 packets per second512bytesBeacon Period: 1 sec.Nodes:{4,8,32,64,128}PF Performance FactorB=C=D=1A is scaling factorPF: Performance Factor
NHITD
AHROC
MIPOB
APF
1111
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Simulation
Performance Factor
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Conclusion
Classification of the environmentSize and traffic intensity
MEWLANA-TD : Small size and High inside trafficDynamic Beaconing
MEWLANA-RD: Large size and Low inside trafficEliminate Ad hoc Routing Protocol Overhead
MIPMANET : Large size and High inside trafficDemand routing protocol when there is need.
MOBILE AD HOC CONFERENCE , PARIS 2002 M. Ergen
Reference
• Royer, C. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks” IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 6, No.2, pp.46-55, April 1999.
• Broch J., Maltx D. ,Johnson D.,Hu Y.,Jetcheva J., “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”, The fourth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking, October 25-30, 1998, Dallas, TX USA
• Ulf Jonsson, Fredrik Alriksson, Tony Larsson, Per Johansson, Gerald Q. Maquire Jr. MIPMANET-Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, MOBIHOC 2000.
• Hui Lei and Charles E. Perkins, “Ad hoc networking with Mobile IP” in Proceedings of 2nd European Personal Mobile Communication Conference, Sept. 1997.