PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COMMON POWER ROUTING FOR AD-HOC NETWORK Zhan Liang Supervisor: Prof....
32
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COMMON POWER ROUTING FOR AD-HOC NETWORK Zhan Liang Supervisor: Prof. Sven-Gustav Häggman Instructor: Researcher Boris Makarevitch Helsinki University of Technology Communications Laboratory 18th, May, 2004
description
What is Ad-hoc A local area network, or some small networks, parts are time-limited, and only usable for the duration of a communication session The routers are free to move randomly, organize themselves arbitrarily The wireless topology vary rapidly and unpredictably
Transcript of PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COMMON POWER ROUTING FOR AD-HOC NETWORK Zhan Liang Supervisor: Prof....
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COMMON POWER ROUTING
FOR AD-HOC NETWORK
Zhan LiangSupervisor: Prof. Sven-Gustav HäggmanInstructor: Researcher Boris Makarevitch
Helsinki University of TechnologyCommunications Laboratory
18th, May, 2004
Contents Background Objectives Introduction Implementation Evaluation of COMPOW Conclusion Future Work
What is Ad-hoc A local area network, or some small
networks, parts are time-limited, and only usable for the duration of a communication session
The routers are free to move randomly, organize themselves arbitrarily
The wireless topology vary rapidly and unpredictably
Background Many power control methods are designed
and implemented over Ad-hoc network’s routing protocols (CLUSTERPOW, COMPOW, MINPOW, etc.)
Few evaluation reports on the power control methods can be found
Why power control methods? A big effect on improving network capacity
A higher transmit power: a higher range and a higher signal-to-noise ratio to
the receivermore interference to the adjacent nodes.
Power control reduce the interfering nodes improve the capacity
Energy Savings
Objectives To implement a common power control
method (COMPOW) over one Ad-hoc network’s routing protocol, AODV
To evaluate this power control method
Introduction Ad-hoc routing protocols
Power control methods
Ad-hoc routing protocols(1) Table-driven: all the nodes know the routing
information of the whole network
Source-initiated: routes are established only when the source nodes require them
Ad-hoc routing protocols(2)
Table-driven routing protocols
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV)
To find the shortest paths, the least hops
A routing table where all the routing information is stored
Source-initiated routing protocols(1)Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
A route cache to cache the known routes to the destinations
Main routing functions: Route discovery Route maintenance
Source-initiated routing protocols(2)Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) (1)
A combination of both DSR and DSDV protocols
The basic route-discovery and route-maintenance of DSR,
The hop-by-hop routing, sequence numbers and beacons of DSDV
Source-initiated routing protocols(3)Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) (2)
Route discovery:
Power control methods(1)
COMPOW (COMmon POWer) control method
CLUSTERPOW (CLUSTERing POWer) control method
MINPOW (MINimum POWer) control method
Power control methods(2) COMPOW
All the nodes use the same power level, the lowest power level at which the network is connected
Power control methods(3) CLUSTERPOW
To separate nodes into several different clusters
Power control methods(3) MINPOW
Each node chooses the transmit power level
Implementation of COMPOW(1)Simulation Assumptions (1)
Simulation Environment: NS2 Network card: CISCO Aironet 350 The channel is bi-directional link The free space loss with two ray ground
reflection model
Implementation of COMPOW(2)Simulation Assumptions (2)
The antennas are omni directional (same gain and attenuation in all horizontal directions)
The MAC layer protocol: IEEE 802.11b
Implementation of COMPOW(3)COMPOW over AODV: Route Discovery procedure
Implementation of COMPOW(4)Architecture
Implementation of COMPOW(5)Functions included in Simulation
Route Discovery
Route Maintenance
Route Release
Route Error handle
Evaluation of COMPOWTesting Scenarios
Scenario 1: 10 fixed nodes, 10 pairs of connection, 100 seconds, 250 m^2
Scenario 2: 25 fixed nodes, 25 pairs of connection, 100 seconds, 625 m^2
Scenario 3: 25 mobile nodes, 25 pairs of connection, 1000 seconds, 1000*1000 m^2
Results:Throughput vs. Load for fixed nodes (TCP)
Results:Throughput vs. Load for fixed nodes (UDP)
Results:Energy Consumption vs. Load for fixed nodes (TCP)
Results:Energy Consumption vs. Load for fixed nodes (UDP)
Results:Throughput vs. Load for mobile nodes
Results:Energy Consumption vs. Load for mobile nodes
Conclusions A network transmitting packets by TCP:
COMPOW performs good
A network transmitting packets by UDP: the lifetime of the COMPOW network may be even shorter than that of the network without using power control methods
Future works More complicated scenarios’ test acquire
a complete evaluation
Non-uniform load generation environment
Other Ad-hoc routing protocols a more complete evaluation of COMPOW
Q & A
Thank you for your attention!
