Most of the existing techniques for
network reliability evaluation are based on
assumptions that all the nodes are perfect and the
communication links are static and irreplaceable.
However, these assumptions are not applicable for
mobile ad hoc networks because of the rapid changes
in connectivity and link characteristics due to nodes’
mobility. Reliability computations in mobile ad hoc
networks should consider the failures of nodes and
links in addition to the dynamic of network
connectivity caused by nodes’ mobility. This paper
studies three common approaches for achieving
scalable reliable broadcast in ad-hoc networks,
namely probabilistic flooding, counter based
broadcast, and lazy gossip. Specifically, the analysis
in this paper focuses on the tradeoffs between
reliability, latency, and the message overhead of the
protocol.
Most of the existing techniques for
network reliability evaluation are based on
assumptions that all the nodes are perfect and the
communication links are static and irreplaceable.
However, these assumptions are not applicable for
mobile ad hoc networks because of the rapid changes
in connectivity and link characteristics due to nodes’
mobility. Reliability computations in mobile ad hoc
networks should consider the failures of nodes and
links in addition to the dynamic of network
connectivity caused by nodes’ mobility. This paper
studies three common approaches for achieving
scalable reliable broadcast in ad-hoc networks,
namely probabilistic flooding, counter based
broadcast, and lazy gossip. Specifically, the analysis
in this paper focuses on the tradeoffs between
reliability, latency, and the message overhead of the
protocol.
Most of the existing techniques for
network reliability evaluation are based on
assumptions that all the nodes are perfect and the
communication links are static and irreplaceable.
However, these assumptions are not applicable for
mobile ad hoc networks because of the rapid changes
in connectivity and link characteristics due to nodes’
mobility. Reliability computations in mobile ad hoc
networks should consider the failures of nodes and
links in addition to the dynamic of network
connectivity caused by nodes’ mobility. This paper
studies three common approaches for achieving
scalable reliable broadcast in ad-hoc networks,
namely probabilistic flooding, counter based
broadcast, and lazy gossip. Specifically, the analysis
in this paper focuses on the tradeoffs between
reliability, latency, and the message overhead of the
protocol.
Mrs. K.Deeepika Reddy*1, K.Ramakrishna*2 Assistant Professor, Dept of Computer Applications, SNIST, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, AP, India M.C.A Student, Dept of Computer Applications, SNIST, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, AP, India
ABSTRACT: Most of the existing techniques for network reliability evaluation are based on assumptions that all the nodes are perfect and the communication links are static and irreplaceable. However, these assumptions are not applicable for mobile ad hoc networks because of the rapid changes in connectivity and link characteristics due to nodes mobility. Reliability computations in mobile ad hoc networks should consider the failures of nodes and links in addition to the dynamic of network connectivity caused by nodes mobility. This paper studies three common approaches for achieving scalable reliable broadcast in ad-hoc networks, namely probabilistic flooding, counter based broadcast, and lazy gossip. Specifically, the analysis in this paper focuses on the tradeoffs between reliability, latency, and the message overhead of the protocol.
I.INTRODUCTION Ad-hoc networks Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are an emerging technology that allows establishing instant communication infrastructures for civilian and military applications. MANET is a network architecture that can be rapidly deployed without relying on pre-existing fixed network infrastructure. The nodes in a MANET can dynamically join and leave the network, frequently, often without warning, and possibly without disruption to other nodes communication. The nodes in the network can be highly mobile, thus the network topology is rapidly changing. Nodes in the MANET exhibit nomadic behavior by freely migrating within some area, dynamically creating and tearing down associations with other nodes. Groups of nodes that have a common goal can create formations (clusters) and migrate together, similarly to military units on missions or to guided tours on excursions. MANETs are intended to provide a data network that is immediately deployable in arbitrary communication environments and is responsive to changes in network topology. MANETs are distinguished from other ad-hoc networks by rapidly changing network topologies, influenced by the network size and node mobility. Such networks typically have a large span and contain hundreds to thousands of nodes.
Features needed for MANET Robust routing and mobility management algorithms to increase the networks reliability and availability; e.g., to reduce the chances that any network component is isolated from the rest of the network. Adaptive algorithms and protocols to adjust to frequently changing radio propagation, network, and traffic conditions. Low-overhead algorithms and protocols to preserve the radio communication resource. Multiple (distinct) routes between a source and a destination -to reduce congestion in the vicinity of certain nodes, and to increase reliability and survivability. Robust network architecture to avoid susceptibility to network failures, congestion around high-level nodes, and the penalty due to inefficient routing. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1539
Fig: 1. Ad-hoc networks In this paper we discuss the growing dependency of the information and communication technology on wireless networks, network reliability becomes one of the primary concerns in the design, planning and deployment of wireless networks. The degree to which a wireless network is able to provide the required services needs to be quantitatively assessed by designing proper measurable quantities. These measurable quantities are called the network reliability measures. The typical network reliability problem is to calculate the probability that a certain set of nodes can communicate with each other for a given period of time. Based on the number of communicating nodes, there are three main formulations of the network reliability problem: two- terminal, K-terminal and all-terminal reliabilities [2]. In this paper we deal with the two-terminal reliability computation in mobile ad hoc networks. Two nodes are distinguished as source and destination nodes. The rest of the nodes function as relays to provide a communication path between the source and destination nodes. In wireless environment, relays and wireless links connecting them may fail randomly. Therefore, network operation is supported by the redundancy relays whose interconnections provide redundant paths between source and destination nodes. By understanding the contribution of redundant paths to the network operation, network designer can analyze the potential impact of nodes and links failures on the network performance. Hence, the methods for computing the network reliability are a valuable tool in network design and evaluation. The two-terminal reliability problem has been studied extensively for wired networks with unreliable links under assumptions that the nodes are fault-free, static and their locations are known. In addition, links connecting the nodes are assumed to be irreplaceable with known probabilities of operation [1] [3] [4]. However, the two-terminal reliability problem in wireless networks is quite different from that for wired networks. Wireless networks have several aspects that make them more susceptible to failures and loss of connectivity. These aspects include the medium characteristics and the properties of wireless devices [5]. For instance, the broadcast nature of wireless communication links makes them unique in their vulnerability to loss of connectivity due to interference, weather conditions, terrain effects and security breaches. Additionally, wireless mobile devices have limited power supplies, limited transmission range and ability to change their locations. Thus, the reliability computation techniques developed for wired networks cannot directly be utilized in wireless networks. A little research has been conducted in two-terminal reliability problem in wireless networks.
II.Related Work The study of broadcasting and multicasting protocols for wireless ad hoc networks. Here, we only discuss the most relevant protocols to our work. The simplest probabilistic broadcast protocol is probabilistic flooding. In this scheme, each node rebroadcasts a message with a fixed probability P. Works by Haas et al. and Sasson et al. study the rebroadcasting probability P with regard to the so called phase transition phenomena. Both works establish that the delivery distribution has a bimodal behavior with regard to some threshold probability P, in a sense that for any P >P almost all nodes will receive the message and for P <P almost none. Both works show that the threshold probability P is around 0:59 0:65; in [33] this is done analytically based on percolation theory while in [14] it is obtained by simulations. It is also noted in [14] that the threshold International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1540
probability depends on nodes density, yet without providing any theoretical means to evaluate this dependence We have shown that by making a few probabilistic assumptions, the delivery distribution function behaves in a concave manner rather than being bimodal. That is, nodes coverage initially grows fast with P. Then, at some critical point, the added coverage becomes negligible with further increase of P. Our protocol is designed with corrective measures that compensate for situations in which the simplifying assumptions do not hold. A generic epidemic model for information diffusion in MANETs has appeared in [24]. Other probabilistic approaches include counter-based, distance-based, and location-based mechanisms. The main idea in these schemes is that the additional space coverage obtained by each additional broadcast decreases with the number of broadcasts. For example, presents a variant of the probabilistic protocol in which every node monitors the transmissions of its neighbors and rebroadcasts a message if it has not heard M transmissions of the same message. Yet, those protocols suffer from increased latency due to the packet delay introduced at each hop and none of them guarantees reliable dissemination of messages to all nodes The works in utilize an adapted probabilistic flooding that makes use of local density. The approaches of those works are based on the observation that the retransmission probability P should be adjusted relatively to the local nodes density. In [47] this is done through counters, while in [35] the uniform density is assumed. In [28] a local nodes density is compared to a network-wide average nodes density (which is is assumed to be known) and the retransmission probability is set to a higher/lower value if the number of neighbors of a retransmitting node is less/more than the network average number of neighbors. However, those works contain little theoretical analysis of the proposed schemes and like other counter-based or probabilistic based schemes can also fail to provide reliability on certain topologies. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to provide a theoretical analysis of the optimal usage of nodes density in order to set P. The work in studies three variants of the above ideas. The first is to retransmit with probability k=ni, where k is some constant and ni is the size of the neighborhood. The second method is based on having each node learn its 2-hop Neighborhood and then computing the rebroadcasting probability based on 1-hop neighborhoods intersections. The final scheme also computes the probability according to k=n, but adds a mechanism in which if a node suspects that some of its neighbors did not receive the message, it rebroadcast the message regardless of its initial decision. Unlike the work in [6], we formally analyze the value of k. Also, we include a gossip and recovery mechanism, whereas none of the protocols in [6] do so. Consequently, RAPID is more reliable than any of the schemes of [6]. Moreover, RAPID has a variant that can deal with many forms of malicious behavior while the other protocols do not. We present the effect of nodes reliability on network's performance parameters such as packet loss and control message overhead. It is apparent that more research should be conducted in investigating the reliability problem in wireless networks.
III.Assumption and Problem Statement In this section, we formalize the problem statement and the assumptions considered in computing the two-terminal reliability in mobile ad hoc networks. A. Problem statement Given an ad hoc network G with N nodes, E edges, a source node, s, and a destination node, d. Each node has an operation probability of p n . The problem is to compute the probability that there exists an operational path between source node, s, and destination node, d, which is denoted as Rel s;d (G). All nodes, but source and destination nodes, are allowed to move freely according to a known mobility model. In addition, the nodes fail according to an exponential distribution with a parameter p (i.e., 1/pe -1p/t ). Therefore, the two-terminal reliability is a function of time and changes frequently due to nodes' movements and nodes' failures. Each edge in E has an operational probability, p e , which depends on the operational probabilities of the nodes the edge is connecting. Therefore, p e of edge e connecting node n i and n j can be expressed as p e =Pr(e exists j n i and n j
are operating). Since each of the Edges can have one of two states, working or failed, the state of the International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1541
network can be represented using a vector S(t)=[S1(t),S2(t), . . . , SE(t)]. The eth component of S(t) equal to 1 if edge e is working and 0 otherwise. Thus, the probability of a given state S(t) is P r (S(t)) = e=1 E p e Se(t) (1-p e ) 1-Se(t)
B. Assumptions we consider a wireless network consisting of N nodes with omnidirectional antennas and equal transmission ranges, R. In this network, wireless links, if exist, are assumed to be bidirectional. A bidirectional wireless link exists between two nodes if and only if these nodes are within each other transmission range and signal-to-interference-plus-noise-radio (SINR) exceeds a certain threshold value at both nodes. For two nodes to communicate with each other, there should be at least one operating path between them. An operating path implies that all the intermediate nodes and links are operating. A node is operating if and only if it preforms its indicated functions. A wireless link is operating if and only if it allows communication from its initial node to its terminal node. At any moment of time, the components of the network can be either in operational or failed state. Once a node fails, it stays in the failed state. On the other hand, wireless links can be brought back to the operational state if the two mobile nodes come close again in each other transmission range and satisfy the SINR requirement. At any time, the locations of the nodes are known or can be determine using the GPS techniques [11]. Fig. 2 depicts an ad hoc wireless network of five nodes.
Fig. 2. Wireless multi-hop network with five nodes.
IV.COMPUTING RELIABILITY
A. Probabilistic Flooding In the probabilistic approach, whenever a node receives a message, it applies some locally computable probabilistic mechanism to randomly determine whether it should broadcast the message or not. Probabilistic protocols are appealing since they are very simple and are inherently robust to failures and mobility. Moreover, these protocols enable messages to advance asynchronously, and therefore they exhibit very low latency in delivering messages. In order to obtain very high reliability levels with pure probabilistic broadcasting, one has to set the retransmission probability to high values. This in turn translates into a very large number of redundant messages. Below, we obtain the following results: We provide a model for analyzing an upper bound on the tradeoff in probabilistic flooding between the retransmission probability and reliability. In other words, this analysis formally captures the tradeoff between efficiency and reliability offered by pure probabilistic flooding. This enables designers to decide on a forwarding probability based on their goals w.r.t. this tradeoff. Second, our formal analysis shows that in order to achieve a given tradeoff point between reliability and efficiency, it is enough that a constant number of nodes in each one hop neighborhood will retransmit a message. Constant here means independent of the nodes density. This means that the forwarding probability of each node should be set in reverse proportion to the size of its neighborhood. However, for boosting the reliability beyond these levels, it makes more sense to utilize some complementing measures. Finally, we show that regardless of the forwarding probability, pure probabilistic protocols cannot ensure 100% reliability. This again hints that probabilistic flooding should be aided by another mechanism if one wishes to ensure extremely high levels of reliability. We now turn to the details of the analysis. 1) Formal Analysis of Probabilistic Flooding Probability: The theoretical analysis in this section relies on a formal graph model of wireless ad hoc networks. The network connectivity graph International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1542
G =(V;E) of an ad hoc network is a special case of a 2-dimensional Unit Disk graph, in which n nodes are embedded in the surface of a 2-dimensional unit torus, and any two nodes within Euclidean distance r of each other are connected. In our case we assume n nodes are placed uniformly at random in the rectangular area [a; b] and form a connected graph. We stress here that the uniform distribution of nodes in the space is only used in the theoretical analysis of this section, in order to set the retransmission probability in the most efficient way. The correctness of RAPID does not depend on this assumption. If the uniformity assumption does not hold, In this analysis we aim to estimate the reliability that can be provided by probabilistic forwarding alone. Specifically, we ask the following question: Suppose that each node in the system is given an independent opportunity to broadcast the same message m with probability min(1; _nq). How many nodes will receive the message m? Formally, let Yp be a random variable corresponding to the number of times that node p has received a given message.
B. Counter Based Broadcast The short coming of probabilistic flooding has led to the development of the counter-based approach and its distance-based and location-based derivatives and their combinations. The idea in these schemes is that rather than placing the randomness directly on the retransmission probability, the randomness is placed on the timing of the rebroadcasting. That is, every node p that receives a message m for the first time, decides to rebroadcast the message after some random time. If during this chosen period p hears k (the counter) retransmissions of m, then p decides to abort its retransmission. Interestingly, this is another way to ensure a constant number of retransmissions in each neighborhood. But, as opposed to the probabilistic method, the number of retransmissions is deterministically guaranteed by the protocol. Even counter based approach cannot guarantee reliable delivery of all messages on an arbitrary topology. In fact, if we assume that the nodes are uniformly distributed in the network, and that the random function used for setting the retransmission time is independent of the nodes location, then we can utilize our formal analysis.1 to calculate the reliability level of a counter-based protocol for a given k. Empirical studies have shown that counter- based schemes can obtain high delivery ratios with relative efficiency. Yet, these works do not include a formal analysis of this behavior. Moreover, as we now discuss, counter-based schemes are inherently slower than probabilistic schemes. 1) Latency: As mentioned before, the rebroadcasting time of each node is set randomly. However, in order for the protocol to succeed, the values should be set from a sufficiently large range so that the number of collisions will be small, or even zero. In other words, the range from which the rebroadcast timing is chosen must be proportional to the number of nodes in each neighborhood. For ensuring zero collisions, by using the birthday paradox, we can deduce that the range should be roughly where sl is the minimal slot required for a message transmitted by one node to be heard by any other node in its neighborhood and ni is the size of the neighborhood of node i. 2) On the Impossibility of Absolute Reliability: We claim that no counter-based scheme can guarantee reliable delivery of all messages on an arbitrary topology. When node s broadcasts a message m, nodes p and n1, nk receive it. If some of ni nodes rebroadcasts the message before node p, p will refrain from rebroadcasting m and therefore q will not receive m.
C. Lazy Gossip In lazy gossip nodes periodically gossip with their neighbors about the ids of messages they have received. This gossiping is performed in a deterministic manner, in the sense that each node sends such a gossip message as a broadcast to all its neighbors. Whenever a node q learns than one of its neighbors p has a message that q has missed, q explicitly asks p to retransmit this message. Here, there can be a few optimizations such as broadcasting requests for retransmissions, etc. Lazy gossip incurs a constant per node message overhead due to the need to periodically gossip about messages. The overall network overhead grows with the network density. However, due to its deterministic nature, lazy gossip can obtain absolute reliability. The shortcoming of lazy gossip mainly comes from its very high latency and the fact that for reliability, it International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1543
must gossip multiple times for each message. The latency stems from the fact that Messages are propagated only due to gossips, and these only occur periodically. In order to keep the message overhead reasonable, gossips might be performed once every several seconds, in which case forwarding a message across multiple hops can take dozens of seconds. Also, due to message loss, obtaining absolute reliability involves unlimited memory consumption and unbounded message sizes, at least in theory.
V.Performance Simulations: In this simulation, we first study the effect of different failure rates of nodes on the networks performance parameters such the packet lost rate and number of control messages. Then, we present the effect of network dynamics on the two terminal reliability. We have consider ad hoc networks of 6, 11 and 27 nodes placed in 600m_600m plane to construct a grid structure as shown. Grid structure was selected to ensure that high level of reliability can be obtained in each case. The transmission range of the wireless nodes was chosen to be 250m with two-ray ground propagation model [5]. Therefore, three hops at least are needed to create a path between the source node the destination node. Random way
(a) 6 nodes (b) 11 nodes (c) 27 nodes Fig. 3. Ad hoc networks with nodes placed in grid structure. Point mobility model (RWP) [12] is used to resemble the movement pattern of the wireless nodes. In this model, nodes are initially stay stall (i.e., paused) for a certain time. Then, they start to move around within the area of simulation with a known average speed for a given time. After the nodes reach their destination, they stay stall in their position for some time (i.e, pause time). After that, nodes again choose another random destination in the simulation field and move towards them. The whole process is repeated again and again until the simulation ends. If a node hits the simulation edge during its movement, it bounces back to the simulation area with the same speed and with an angle equal to the one it hits the border with. In this simulation, we consider different values for the average speed and pause time. The simulation environments and parameters of the ad hoc networks are shown in Table I
Parameters and constants used in all the simulations: Field space 600 x 600 _at space Number of nodes 6, 11, 27 Average node speed 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 ,30 (m/s) Node mobility Random waypoint model [12] Simulation run time 500 sec Node pause time 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 ,30 sec MAC layer type IEEE 802.11 Transmission range 250 m Number of packet 1000 packet Size of the packet 1000 byte Interval between packets Routing Protocol AODV [13]
VI.CONCLUSION In this paper, a simple algorithm for evaluating the two terminal reliability in mobile ad-hoc networks was developed. The proposed algorithm is an extension of algorithms for wired networks. It overcomes the limitation of the existing techniques which consider only the failures of static nodes. Additionally, this algorithm considers links failures and the connectivity changes due to nodes mobility. We find that the reliability of a wireless network depends not only on the components' reliability but also on the degree of redundancy in the network's topology and the distribution of nodes in the network.
VII.REFERENCES [1] D. Allen Hidden terminal problems in Wireless LANs. In IEEE 802.11 Working Group Papers, 1993. [2] Z.Bar-Yossef, R.Friedman, and G Kliot. RaWMS - Random Walk based Lightweight Membership International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013 ISSN: 2231-2803 http://www.ijcttjournal.org Page 1544
Service for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. In Proc. of the 7th ACM Intr. Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc), pages 238 249, 2006. [3] K. Birman, M. Hayden, O. Ozkasap, Z. Xiao, M. Budiu, , and Y. Minsky. Bimodal Multicast. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 17(2):4188, May 1999. [4] J . Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B.Johnson, Y.-C.Hu, and J . J etcheva. A performance comparison of multi- hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In Proc. of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), pages 8597,1998. [5] T. Camp, J.Boleng, and V. Davies. A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research. Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing (WCMC):, 2(5):483502, 2002. [6] J. Cartigny and D.Simplot. Border Node Retransmission Based Probabilistic Broadcast Protocols in Ad-Hoc Networks. Telecommunication Systems, 22(14):189204, 2003. [7] S. Rai, A. Kumar, and E. V. Prasad, .Computing Terminal Reliability of Computer Network,. Reliability Engineering, vol 16, no. 2, pp.109.119, 1986. [8] S. Rai and D. P. Agrawal, Distributed Computing Network Reliability .Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1990. [9] K. K. Aggarwal, J. S. Gupta, and K. B. Misra, .A simple method for reliability evaluation of a communication system,. IEEE Transaction on Communication, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 563.566, May 1975. [10] K. K. Aggarwal and S. Rai, .Symbolic Reliability Evaluation Using Logic Signal Relations,. IEEE Transaction on Reliability, vol. 27, no. 3,pp. 202.205, August 1978. [10] D. P. Agrawal and Q.-A. Zeng, Introduction to wireless and mobile systems. Paci c Grove, California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2003. [11] X. Chen and M. R. Lyu, .Reliability analysis for various communication schemes in wireless CORBA,. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 54,no. 2, pp. 232.242, J une 2005. [12] H. M. F. AboElFotoh, S. S. Iyengar, and K. Chakrabarty, .Computing Reliability and Message Delay for Cooperative Wireless Distributed Sensor Networks Subject to Random Failures,. IEEE Transaction on Reliability, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 145.155, March 2005.