comparison of routing metrics for static multi-hop wireless networks
DESCRIPTION
Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks. Richard Draves, Jitendra Padhye and Brian Zill Microsoft Research. Multi-hop Wireless Networks. Routing in Multi-hop Wireless Networks. Mobile networks: Minimum-hop routing (“shortest path”) DSR, AODV, TORA …. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks
Richard Draves, Jitendra Padhye and Brian Zill
Microsoft Research
![Page 2: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Multi-hop Wireless Networks
Static Mobile
Motivating scenario
Community wireless networks (“Mesh Networks”)
Battlefield networks
Key challengeImproving network
capacity
Handling mobility, node failures, limited
power.
![Page 3: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Routing in Multi-hop Wireless Networks
• Mobile networks: – Minimum-hop routing (“shortest path”)– DSR, AODV, TORA ….
• Static networks: – Minimum-hop routing tends to choose long, lossy
wireless links – Taking more hops on better-quality links can improve
throughput [De Couto et. al., HOTNETS 2003]
![Page 4: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Link-quality Based Routing
• Metrics to measure wireless link quality:– Signal-to-Noise ratio– Packet loss rate– Round trip time– Bandwidth– …
Our paper: experimental comparison of performance of three metrics in a 23 node, indoor testbed.
![Page 5: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Contributions of our paper
• Design and implementation of a routing protocol that incorporates notion of link quality– Link Quality Source Routing (LQSR)– Operates at layer “2.5”
• Detailed, “side-by-side” experimental comparison of three link quality metrics: – Per-hop Round Tip Time (RTT) [Adya et al 2004]– Per-hop Packet Pair (PktPair)– Expected Transmissions (ETX) [De Couto et al 2003]
![Page 6: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Summary of Results
• ETX provides best performance
• Performance of RTT and PktPair suffers due to self-interference
• PktPair suffers from self-interference only on multi-hop paths
![Page 7: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Outline of the rest of the talk
• LQSR architecture (brief)
• Description of three link quality metrics
• Experimental results
• Conclusion
![Page 8: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
LQSR Architecture
• Source-routed, link-state protocol– Derived from DSR
• Each node measures the quality of links to its neighbors
• This information propagates throughout the mesh
• Source selects route with best cumulative metric
• Packets are source-routed using this route
![Page 9: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Link Quality Metrics
1. Per-hop Round Trip Time (RTT)
2. Per-hop Packet-Pair (PktPair)
3. Expected transmissions (ETX)
4. Minimum-hop routing (HOP)• Binary link quality
![Page 10: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Metric 1: Per-hop RTT
• Node periodically pings each of its neighbors– Unicast probe/probe-reply pair
• RTT samples are averaged using TCP-like low-pass filter
• Path with least sum of RTTs is selected
![Page 11: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Metric 1: Per-hop RTT
• Advantages– Easy to implement– Accounts for link load and bandwidth– Also accounts for link loss rate
• 802.11 retransmits lost packets up to 7 times• Lossy links will have higher RTT
• Disadvantages– Expensive – Self-interference due to queuing
![Page 12: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Metric 2: Per-hop Packet-Pair
• Node periodically sends two back-to-back probes to each neighbor– First probe is small, second is large
• Neighbor measures delay between the arrival of the two probes; reports back to the sender
• Sender averages delay samples using low-pass filter
• Path with least sum of delays is selected
![Page 13: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Metric 2: Per-hop Packet-Pair
• Advantages– Self-interference due to queuing is not a problem– Implicitly takes load, bandwidth and loss rate into
account
• Disadvantages– More expensive than RTT
![Page 14: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Metric 3: Expected Transmissions
• Estimate number of times a packet has to be retransmitted on each hop
• Each node periodically broadcasts a probe– 802.11 does not retransmit broadcast packets
• Probe carries information about probes received from neighbors
• Node can calculate loss rate on forward (Pf) and reverse (Pr) link to each neighbor
• Select the path with least total ETX
)P1(*)P1(
1
rf ETX
![Page 15: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Metric 3: Expected Transmissions
• Advantages– Low overhead– Explicitly takes loss rate into account
• Disadvantages– Loss rate of broadcast probe packets is not the same
as loss rate of data packets• Probe packets are smaller than data packets• Broadcast packets are sent at lower data rate
– Does not take data rate or link load into account
![Page 16: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Mesh Testbed
Approx. 61 m
Appro
x.
32
m
23 Laptops running Windows XP. 802.11a cards: mix of Proxim and Netgear.
Diameter: 6-7 hops.
![Page 17: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Link bandwidths in the testbed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Higher Bandwidth (Mbps)
Lo
wer
Ban
dw
dit
h (
Mb
ps)
• Cards use Autorate •Total node pairs: 23x22/2 = 253
• 90 pairs have non-zero bandwidth in both directions.
Bandwidths vary significantly; lot of asymmetry.
![Page 18: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Experiments
1. Bulk-transfer TCP Flows
2. Impact of mobility
![Page 19: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Experiment 1
• 3-Minute TCP transfer between each node pair– 23 x 22 = 506 pairs– 1 transfer at a time– Long transfers essential for consistent results
• For each transfer, record: – Throughput– Number of paths
• Path may change during transfer
– Average path length• Weighted by fraction of packets along each path
![Page 20: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Median Throughput
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
HOP ETX RTT PktPair
Med
ian
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (K
bp
s)
ETX performs best. RTT performs worst.
![Page 21: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Why does ETX perform well?
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Throughput (Kbps)
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Fra
cti
on
ETX
HOP
ETX performs better by avoiding low-throughput paths.
![Page 22: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Path Length with ETX
Pat
h L
eng
th w
ith
HO
P
Impact on Path Lengths
Path length is generally higher under ETX.
![Page 23: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Why does RTT perform so poorly?
RTT suffers heavily from self-interference
Median Number of Paths
0
5
10
15
20
25
HOP ETX RTT PktPair
Nu
mb
er o
f P
ath
s
![Page 24: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
What ails PktPair?
PktPair
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average Pathlength (Hops)
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (K
bp
s)
ETX
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average Path Length (Hops)
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (K
bp
s)
RTT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average Path Length (Hops)
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (K
bp
s)
PktPair suffers from self-interference only on multi-hop paths.
![Page 25: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Summary
• ETX performs well despite ignoring link bandwidth
• Self-interference is the main reason behind poor performance of RTT and PktPair.
Similar results for multiple simultaneous flows.
![Page 26: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Experiment 2
• Walk slowly around network periphery for 15 minutes with a laptop
• Mobile laptop is the sender, a corner node is receiver
• Repeated 1-minute TCP transfers
![Page 27: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Testbed Layout
Approx. 61 m
Appro
x.
32
m
![Page 28: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
HOP ETX
Metric
Me
dia
n T
CP
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (K
bp
s)
Shortest path routing is best in mobile scenarios?
![Page 29: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Conclusions
• ETX metric performs best in static scenarios
• RTT performs worst
• PacketPair suffers from self-interference on multi-hop paths
• Shortest path routing seems to perform best in mobile scenarios– Metric-based routing does not converge quickly?
![Page 30: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Ongoing/Future work
• Explicitly take link bandwidth into account
• Support for multiple heterogeneous radios per node– To appear in MOBICOM 2004
• Detailed study of TCP performance in multi-hop networks
• Repeat study in other testbeds
![Page 31: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
For more information
http://research.microsoft.com/mesh/
Source code, binaries, tech reports, …
![Page 32: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Backup slides
![Page 33: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
LQSR Architecture
• Implemented in a shim layer between Layer 2 and 3.
• The shim layer acts as a virtual Ethernet adapter– Virtual Ethernet addresses– Multiplexes heterogeneous
physical links
• Advantages:– Supports multiple link
technologies– Supports IPv4, IPv6 etc
unmodified– Preserves the link abstraction– Can support any routing
protocol
• Architecture:
• Header Format:
Ethernet 802.11 802.16
Mesh connectivity Layer with LQSR
IPv4 IPv6 IPX
Ethernet MCL
Payload:TCP/IP,
ARP,IPv6…
![Page 34: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Web transfers
• Simulated Web transfer using Surge
• One node serves as web server
• Six nodes along periphery act as clients
• Results: ETX reduces latency by 20% for hosts that are more than one hop away from server.
![Page 35: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Static Multi-hop Wireless Networks
• Motivating scenario: – Community wireless networks (“Mesh Networks”)
• Very little node mobility• Energy not a concern
• Main Challenge:– Improve Network capacity
• Minimum-hop count routing is inadequate– Tends to choose long, lossy wireless links [De Couto et.
al., HOTNETS 2003]
![Page 36: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static Multi-Hop Wireless Networks](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56814a46550346895db762f5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
“Traditional” Multi-hop Wireless Networks
• Envisioned for mobility-intensive scenarios
• Main concerns: – Reduce Power consumption– Robustness in presence of mobility, link failures
• Routing:– Minimum-hop routing (“shortest path”) with various
modifications to address power and mobility concerns– DSR, AODV, TORA ….