HYBRID NETWORKS
description
Transcript of HYBRID NETWORKS
HYBRID NETWORKS
Gregg Bachmeyer Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth Integrating Infrastructure-based
and Infrastructure-less Networks
Darien Hirotsu Integrating DTN and MANET
Paradigms
Hybrid Networks- A Hybrid Architecture Of UMTS and BlueTooth For Indoor Wireless/Mobile Communications - Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks
- Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications
By Gregg Bachmeyer
for CMPE 257
Hybrid Networks
Hybrid networks refers to any networks that contain two or more communication standards
Personal Experience (2001)
D-Link DE 809TC HP 9000 apollo
400
MAC SE/3010Base-TIEEE 802.3, 10 mbs/hd
internet
Powermac 7100
10Base2IEEE 802.310mbs/hd
PhonenetAppletalk230kbs
PhonelinePPP/Slip56kbs
10Base-TIEEE 802.3100mbs/fd
Compaq Presario 7240
Common experience (2011)
internet
Dsl box
Speed differences
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
wiredwireless
19851990199520002005201020150.2
2
20
200
2000
20000
200000
wiredwireless
A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA UCLA Computer Science, 3803B Boelter
Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095,USA E-mail:
{tedkwon,rohitk,yenglee,gerla}@cs.ucla.edu
A. ZANELLA Universita degli Studi de Padova, Via
Gradenigo 6/A, 35131 Padova,Italia E-mail: [email protected]
UTMS Cell phone coverage Third generation mobile communications system
(3G) In process of changing to 4g
2 main interfaces UMTS–FDD based on wideband–CDMA▪ outdoor macro–cellular or micro–cellular communication
environments. UMTS–TDD based on combination of CDMA & TDMA▪ indoor pico–cellular communication environments.▪ Allows symmetetric radio resources between uplink and
downlink▪ Higher bit rate
Bluetooth
Limited radio coverage Referred to as scatternet or piconet
Primarily related to PANs (Personal area networks)
Bluetooth operates in the 2.4GHz ISM frequency band
uses a fast frequency–hopping technique to minimize interference
range of approximately 10 meters Supports many different addressing
types
Proposed Solution
using a hierarchical approach. UMTS base station UMTS UEs are hybrid devices that also
have a Bluetooth interface Scatternets Don’t use 802.11b because it will cause
interference with Bluetooth 802.11 has high power requirements
Topology of the architecture showing a 3x3 Bluetooth scatternet
3X3 piconets Gray lines show communication
routes possible uses • “Intelligent–Supermarket,” a
central server• Library• Cafeteria
Simulation Setup
GloMoSim (scalable simulation library) Bluetooth model ▪ Layer: Logical link control and adaptation
protocol▪ Connection :Asynchronous Connectionless
UMTS model ▪ turbo coding with 1/3 forward error correction
(FEC)▪ A dynamic radio resource allocation (frame-by-
frame) Routing Protocol: AODV
Network Configuration 2 setups
Common▪ D represents bluetooth polling cycle
2 hybrid devices, each of which serves 3 BT masters ▪ Bluetooth device is connected to the UMTS BS through a hybrid
device and another in which a single hybrid device may be used to connect more than one Bluetooth device to the UMTS BS
▪ Each BT master is a slave in the piconet of the hybrid unit. ▪ Each piconet contains 4 slaves ▪ D represents bluetooth polling cycle
six hybrid devices and six Bluetooth devices ▪ each hybrid device needs to service only one Bluetooth device. ▪ bandwidth wasted for polling is not significant in this case.
Underyling Protocol Issue The paper does not cover how to do
addressing so Ethernet protocol is assumed.
May need something like a protocol to traverse hybrid networks
Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: BridgingInfrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks
Rao Naveed Bin Rais University of Nice - INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France Email: [email protected]
Marc Mendonca University of California Santa Cruz, CA, USA Email: [email protected]
Thierry Turletti INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France Email: [email protected]
Katia Obraczka University of California Santa Cruz, CA, USA Email: [email protected]
Overall Issue
Original MeDeHa was only partial solution Does not deal with infrastructures
networks Improvement is MeDeHa++
Allow ad-hoc networks to act as gateways in, through, from networks.
MeDeHa++ Framework
The MeDeHa++ framework achieves the following goals: Seamless message delivery between two
nodes irrespective of network type. Partition mending through multihop ad-
hoc (MANET) “transit networks”. MANET routing protocol independence.
This allows MANET nodes to communicate with MeDeHa++ nodes without running MeDeHa++.
Expected new network combinations to support
GW nodes connecting two different MANETs
GW nodes connecting two different MANETs
MeDeHa++ Functional Components Notification Protocol
Neighbor Sensing▪ Broadcasts Hello messages (+ status) to build routing table
Neighborhood Information exchange▪ Many different messages to determine the gateway and neighbors
Routing and Contact Table Management Handles routing tables marking them as▪ Current neighbors▪ Recent neighbors▪ MANET neighbors
Relay Selection and Forwarding Uses the routing table to reduce replication of messages
Interaction with MANETs Helps in interaction with other routing protocols
MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks MANET Information Exchange
GW is detected by neighbor sensing MANET protocol GW consults the MANET routing table to keep info current GW keeps track of past encounters Notifies the AP about new infrastructure nodes to forward packets to
them Has a possibility of sending a leave network packet (can this really
happen?) Gateway Discovery in MANETs
Use the connectivity info to ▪ discover gateways▪ Exchange data and control information
Allows MANETs to act as “transit networks” Direct Neighbors can use MeDaHa++ Multihop connections can use IP encapsulation
MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks (cont…)
Proactive vs. Reactive MANET Routing GW node running AODV may not have all routing info necessary Proactive routing will provide better routing (like OLSR – Optimized
link state routing) Message Delivery to MANETs
GW node is used to bridge the MDH nodes GW passes information to MDH nodes with
recent neighbors packet GW nodes buffer packets to provide to the MDH nodes ( packets
expire after a time) Message Delivery across MANETs
Able to provide multihop communication between 2 GWs using MANET routing protocol as if GWs are neighbors
GWs exchange routing info with the MeDeHa++ messages Nodes and forward and receive packets
Test Setup
Simulation NS-3 simulator Measuring Packet delivery ratio.
Physical Linux Implementation with netfilter
4 Scenarios Convention Center Community InterConnection with MANETs KAIST Real Mobility Traces Hybrid Experiment Results
Scenario 1: Convention Center Convention Center
1000x1000 meter 60% access points
(senerio 1) 90 visitors▪ 20 sources +20 receivers▪ 30 gateways▪ 30 MeDeHa++ nodes▪ 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes
(senerio 2) 90 visitors (social affiliation) ▪ 3 groups of 20 affiliations▪ 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes
BonnMotion mobility model 1 hour 2 phases
▪ Forwarding vs. Replication▪ Relay Selection Strategy
Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 1 - Forwarding vs. Replication
Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)
Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)
Increases delivery chances (90% to 97%) Minimizes AD
Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 2 - Forwarding vs. Replication
Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)
Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER and SAR schemes for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)
Drastic decrease in AD due to increase of participating nodes in SAR (Social Affiliation Replication) – [due to ER relay restictions]
Increase in average PDR and increase in delay when using encounter based replication
Senerio 2 :Community Intercommunication with MANETs
3 different communities Areas▪ 600 x 600 meters▪ 400 x 400 meters
20 gateways 3 AP routers Each community has 10 nodes (2
gateways)
Senerio 2 :Community Inter-communication with MANETs (cont…)
Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for scenario 2
Impact of different encounter parameters on fraction of nodes while comparing forwarding and replication for scenario 2
Improves PDR slightly Slightly increases AD
Senerio 3: KAIST Mobility Traces Used real traces
2 hours 40 students Random student movement
Achieved Improvement in PDR Decrease in AD 2-copy replications perform
better than 1 Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication showing a comparison betweenMeDeHa and MeDeHa++ using KAIST mobility traces for 40 nodes
Scenario 4: Hybrid Experiment Results Systems
4 laptops as wireless stations 3 laptops as AP routers
▪ Has NS3 simulation of 30 workstations 2 briefcases Used OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing )
Outcomes Hybrid outcome matches that of what the
Simulation provided 2-copy replications perform
better than 1
Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication comparison resulting from a hybrid scenario involving real and simulation machines
Benefits
Many scenarios showed benefits in different ways including conceptually.
Networks became gateway dependent.
Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks forReal-Time Industrial Communications
Stefano Vitturi Italian National Council of Research, IEIIT–
CNR, Department of Information Engineering University of Padova
Via Gradenigo 6/B 35131 – Padova (Italy) [email protected]
Daniele Miorandi CREATE-NET v. Solteri 38 38100 – Trento (Italy) [email protected]
Using wireless in 802.11 in industrial situations
Factory automation using sensor and actuators. There are existing protocols that are used
R-FIELDBUS (High Performance Wireless Fieldbus In Industrial Related Multi-Media Environment)
PROFIBUS DP (Decentralized Peripherals) used to operate sensors/actuators from centralized controller
UDP (User Datagram Protocol ) DSSS(direct-sequence spread spectrum) physical
layer of IEEE 802.11 IP (Internet Protocol)
Hybrid configuration for stations using the UDP based communication profile
TCP - more reliable - has congestion control
UDP - removes the 802.1D need - can have packet lose
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ethernet PDU
Use UDP over TCP to move IP packets around. Supports realtime and non-realtime traffic Control a token at the application layer to Assumes that Ethernet, 802.11, reduce need
for TCP. TCP congestion control may negatively effect
network performance Uses SEND and SEND WITH REPLAY (which
allows confirmed transmission between the systems)
Industrial importance
Cyclic & Acyclic data Round robin scheme called Profibus DP
that include priorities levels. Queries slaves for cyclic data Then repeats the cycle for acyclic data
Stations are passive CSMA/CS in 802.11 limits the effect
of collisions.
Author conclusions
The outcome appears to allow usage of 802.11 for sensor networks
Using IEEE 802.15.3 instead of 802.11 and a TDMA setup could allow fewer collisions.
Field buses normally do not use UDP.
References Wireless Data Demystified by John R. Vacca A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH
FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS by T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA & A. ZANELLA
Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications by Stefano Vitturi & Daniele Miorandi
Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks by Rao Naveed Bin Rais, Marc Mendonca, Thierry Turletti, & Katia Obraczka