on demand multicast
TRANSCRIPT
IEEE Seminar On Mobile Ad Hoc Network(3725303)
At: GTU PG SCHOOL,GANDHINAGAR
Performance Evaluation Of On Demand Multicasting Routing Protocol
Presented by:
Group 3Group 3
Kamal Patel (141060753011)Kamal Patel (141060753011)
Khushbu Patel (141060753012)Khushbu Patel (141060753012)
Komal Patel (141060753013)Komal Patel (141060753013)
Riddhi Ghevariya Riddhi Ghevariya
(141060753015) (141060753015) April 21, 2015
Types of Multicast Routing in MANETs
Tree-basedOne path between a source-receiver pairAMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV
Mesh-basedMultiple paths between a source-receiver pairODMRP, CAMP
HybridZone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
2
Typical Multicast Routing Protocols
AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers
ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing Protocol
3
Why compare them?AMRIS ODMRP
Big difference
Topology Shared (Core-based) Tree Mesh of Nodes
Main Similarity
Mobility support Yes, based on MANET
Driven mode On-demand, do not store whole network topology
Advantages simple topologylow overheads
mobilityrobustness
Disadvantages sensitive to mobility (low delivery ratio)
complex topologyhigh overheads
4
ODMRP
Multicast Messages:JOIN-QUERY (J-Q);JOIN-REPLY (J-R);
Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in AODV and DSR
5
Basic Operation of ODMRP
On Demand Route and Mesh Creation
Join Query
Join Reply
S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership.
Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the packet.
Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its neighbors.
Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it own. If yes , it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its
FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.
Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a shortest path.
Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.
S
R
R
R R
R
ODMRP: Join Reply
JOIN-REPLY message
Sender Next Node
S1 I1
S2 I2
7
Sender Next Node
S1 S1
J-R of R1 J-R of I1
Concept of Forwarding Group
Why a mesh?
Links
Multicast Routes
Initial Route from S1 to R2 is < S1 -A- B- R2>
Redundant Route < S1- A- C- B- R2>
FG
FG
FG FG
FGFG
R1
BC
R3
A
S1
R2
S2
S3
ODMRP: Sender Actions
Sender actions:
DownstreamGenerate J-Q message;Broadcast J-Q ;
UpstreamReceive J-R (include the path info);
9
ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (downstream)
Intermediate node actions: (downstream)
– Receive J-Q, omit duplicated ones (use cached sequence numbers);
– Store upstream node info;
– Re-broadcast J-Q;
10
ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (upstream)
Intermediate node actions: (upstream)
Received J-R;
If node is on the pathGenerate new J-R with node info and broadcast, route established!
11
ODMRP: Receiver Actions
Receiver actions:
DownstreamReceived J-Q;Generate J-R with path info;
UpstreamBroadcast J-R;
12
ODMRP: Maintenance phase
Soft state approach
Sender repeat J-Q periodically to maintain mesh.
Node joinsSending J-R as discusses before.
Node leavesSender: stops sending J-Q;Receiver: stops sending J-R;
Links breakReceiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R;
13
Algorithm Comparison (1)AMRIS ODMRP
More differences
Multicast topology Shared Delivery Tree Mesh of Nodes
Initialization Generating msm-id; Store upstream info;
Maintenance All nodes periodically send beacon message
Sender periodically send J-Q msg
Node joins Detect beacon msg and perform branch reconstruction;
Detect J-Q and response J-R;
Node leaves Stop beacon msg; Stop J-R or J-Q;
Link-break No more beacon msg and perform BR;
Receive new J-Q and reply with J-R;
More and more differences (message types, routing table info…)14
Performance Comparison (1)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of mobile speed
– # of data packets actually delivered to the destinations versus # of data packets supposed to be received
– PDR of ARMIS is speed sensitive
15
Performance Comparison (2)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of # of senders
– PDR of AMRIS is not sensitive to # of senders
– ODRMP’s performance improves as number of senders increases
16
Performance Comparison (3)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of multicast group size
– PDR of ODMRP is not sensitive to group size
– AMRIS’s performance improves as group size grows
17
Performance Comparison (4)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of network traffic load
• AMRIS has severe packet loss rates
• ODMRP suffers less
18
Overhead Comparison (1)
Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a function of mobility speed
– Control bytes are control packets and data packet headers
– Not speed sensitive
– AMRIS has lower ratio
19
Overhead Comparison (2)
Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a Function of # of Senders
– AMRIS is not affected by number of senders
– ODMRP may not be efficient in large networks
20
Qualitative Comparison
• Bandwidth Consumption– ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes
than AMRIS– However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery
ratio
• Power Consumption– Depends on mobility speed, number of senders,
network traffic load, etc.– Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes
21
References“A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2010
D. Li, J. P. Wu, K. Xu, X. P. Zhang, Y. Cui1, and Y. Liu, “Performance Analysis of Multicast Routing Protocol PIM-SM,” 0-7695-2388-9/05 2011 IEEE.
D. A. Maltz, J. Broch, J. Jetcheva, and D. B. Johnson, Member, IEEE, “The Effects of On-Demand Behavior in Routing Protocols for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, August 2011.
C. R. Lin, “On-demand QoS Routing in Multihop Mobile Networks,” In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2012, April 2012, pp. 1735–1744.
22