An Introduction to

Ad Hoc Networking

Lars Michael Kristensen

Department of Computer Science
University of Aarhus
lmkristensen@daimi.au.dk
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Background

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Ad Hoc Networking
.. wireless communication between mobile nodes (MNs).

The network operates autonomously to provide connectivity:

No centralised control/components.
No fixed infrastructure (e.g, base stations and wired links).

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Ad Hoc Networking
.. a group of laptops operating in wireless ad hoc mode:

B
A
D
C
Important characteristics:
The mobile nodes acts as routers (multi-hop).
Highly dynamic topology due to mobility.
Varying and constrained bandwidth on links.
Power constrained (laptops, mobile phones, PDAs).

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Example: On-demand Ad Hoc Routing

RREQ(D)
RREP(D)

RREQ(D)
RREP(D)
B

A
D
RREQ(D)
C

November 2003

RREQ(D)

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Origins of Ad Hoc Networking

Defence Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Packet
Radio NETwork (PRNET) project (1972):

Based on broadcast
property of radios to
send/receive data packets.

SURAN - Survivable Radio Networks (1983).

DARPA Global Mobile (GloMo) Information Systems Program (1994).
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Ad Hoc Networking Today

Mobile wireless computing devices (Laptops, PDAs, mobile
phones) are now relatively inexpensive and widely used.

Wireless networking products (Wireless LAN,) with still

increasing bandwidth are becoming available.
Much of the communication is still based on fixed infrastructure
(e.g., WLAN) or point-to-point communication (e.g., infrared).
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Envisioned Application Areas

Military ad hoc networking:

Sensor networks for environmental monitoring.

Rescue operations in remote areas.
Remote construction sites.
Mobile conferencing.
Home networking.
Wireless Personal Area Networks.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Wireless Ad Hoc Networking

Sometimes there may be no network infrastructure available:

Remote areas.
Unplanned meetings.
Emergency relief personnel quickly deployed into an area.
Military where infrastructure has been destroyed or is untrusted.

Sometimes users wont want to use the available infrastructure:

Time to access and register on the service.
Cost of using the service.
Performance of the existing service and infrastructure.
Capacity of the existing service and infrastructure.

Can dynamically extend coverage range of any infrastructure:

Allow users to be further away from infrastructure serving them.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Protocols for Ad Hoc Networking

Network Layer: Routing between end-points.

Data Link Layer: Point-to-point Communication
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

10

Link and Medium Access

Control Layers

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

11

Wireless Links
Communication is based on radio waves.
Signal strength diminishes with distance and may vary significantly.
Radio waves may be blocked or absorbed by objects such as
buildings, mountains, and rain.
Radio waves may be reflected off objects: allows sender to reach
receiver although direct path is blocked, but creates multipaths.
Wireless links may be unidirectional.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

12

Wireless Links
Medium Access Control (MAC) needs to be exercised to deal with
interference between transmissions on the wireless medium (ether):

A number of MAC protocols have been defined to ensure coordinated

use of the wireless medium.
Typically based on sending Request To Send (RTS) and Clear To
Send (CTS) messages on a control channel to manage reservations.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

13

Hidden Terminal Problem

Two nodes (A and C) not within transmission range of each other
transmits simultaneously to a third node (B).
C is hidden from A and classical carrier sense is not appropriate.
CTS(B,A)

RTS(A,B)

Nodes that senses RTS or CTS must not transmit.

The Network Allocation Vector specifies time media is reserved
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

14

Exposed Node Problem

Data transmission from neighboring nodes can inhibit an exposed
node from transmitting data.
Reserved by A to B communication

C is not allowed to transmit because it receives RTS from A.

C could transmit to D without interfering with transmission from A to B.
This may significantly reduce performance of wireless networks.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

15

Link Layer Technologies

.. a number of link layer and MAC technologies have been proposed
for ad hoc networking.
IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Standard:
Distributed Coordination Function for ad hoc networks.
Distributed Foundation Wireless MAC (CSMA/CA).
HiperLan/2 (European Telecomunication Standards Institute):
Home Enviroment Profile for one-hop ad hoc networks.
Time Division Multiple Access using central controller elected
among mobile terminals.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

16

Link Layer Technologies

Bluetooth (Bluetooth Special Interest Group):
Piconets with one master and several slaves (star topology).
Scatternet can be formed by multiple overlapping piconets.

Home Radio Frequency (Home RF):

Shared Wireless Access Protocol (SWAP).
MAC layer similar to IEEE 802.11.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

17

Link Layer Technologies

A number of other link layer technologies are emerging.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

18

Routing in
Ad Hoc Networks

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

19

The Need for Multi-hop Routing

.. some nodes may be out of transmission range of others:

Obtaining full connectivity not feasible in general (e.g., battery power).

Ad hoc networking puts additional requirements on (mobile) nodes:
must act as routers forwarding packets to other peer nodes.
need to find new routes as nodes move or link conditions change.
.. the distinction between hosts and routers disappears.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

20

Routing Protocol Zoo for Ad Hoc Networks

IETF Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) working group:
The WG will operate under a reduced scope by targeting the promotion of a
number of core routing protocol specifications to EXPERIMENTAL RFC status.

First goal is to standardise intra-domain unicast routing protocols:

Proactive/periodic
DSDV
WRP

OLSR

Reactive/on demand
ZRP

TBRPF

DSR

AODV

TORA

SSR

LAR

ABR

A suite of routing protocols is most likely needed:

Many possible mobility scenarios/patterns.
Large variety of link layer/transmission technologies.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

21

IETF Standardisation Process

.. emphasis on operational experience.

RFC

We reject kings, presidents, and

voting.
We believe in rough consensus
and running code.
- Dr. David Clark, MIT (1992)
Moving from Proposed to Draft
Standard requires at least two
independent and interoperable
implementations.

Current status: little consensus and some running code.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

22

Routing Protocol Challenges

Conventional Routing Protocols:
Impossible to exchange information immediately and routing
information will in general be slightly out of date.
Routing information is not inexpensive to distribute and acquire.
Link conditions (e.g., congestion) may change frequently.
Scalability is important (e.g., size of routing tables).
Ad hoc Routing Protocols:
The nodes are often battery powered which makes the
consumption of energy a constraint.
Highly dynamic topology due to frequent movement of nodes
and nodes being powered off or entering sleep mode.
Wireless links are bandwidth constrained compared to wired
links, and might be unidirectional.
No natural hierarchy on the network addresses in the ad hoc
network.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

23

Graph Model of the Network

Can represent network as a graph G = (V, E):
V = nodes in the network.
E = between two nodes if they can communicate directly (1 hop).

Directed graph in case of unidirectional links.

Distance will be measured in the number of hops.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

24

Routing Protocols: Overview

Conventional next-hop unicast routing protocols:
Link-state: each node maintains a complete view of the topology and
periodically broadcasts information about its outgoing links to all
nodes.
Example: Open Shortest Path First (OSPF).
Distance-vector: each node maintains information about distance to
each destination via neighbors and periodically broadcasts to its
neighbors estimate of shortest distance for each destination.
Example: Routing Information Protocol (RIP).
Ad hoc routing protocols:
Periodic / proactive / table-driven: nodes periodically exchange
routing information and attempt to keep up to date routing information.
On-demand / reactive: nodes only try to find a route to a destination
when actually needed for communication.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

25

Example Routing Protocols

Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV).

Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV).
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR).

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

26

DSDV: Destination-Sequenced
Distance Vector Routing
A modification of standard distance-vector routing (e.g., Routing
Information Protocol (RIP)) based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm.
Problems with standard distance-vector routing for ad hoc networks:
Performs at its worst with many network changes.
Easily forms routing loops.
Ad hoc networking is thus a very difficult case for distance-vector.
DSDV enhancements to distance-vector routing:
Guarantees no loops by adding sequence numbers to updates.
Bandwidth efficiency through incremental updates.
Delay route advertisements to damp fluctuations.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

27

Bellman-Ford Algorithm
Node i periodically broadcast routing tables entries to neighbours:

Dest. Metric

First Hop

1 = D(i,B)

2 = D(i,C)

Nexthop neighbour for destination x is the neighbour j that minimizes

the estimated distance:
estimate from neighbour j
D(i,x) = 1 + D(j,x)
Routing table entry at node i for destination x is updated if:
D(i,x) < D(i,x) (a smaller distance becomes available) or
D(i,x) > D(i,x) (increase for current next hop neighbour j)

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

28

Distance-Vector Example

Current topology
of the network:

Routing table at node A:

Routing table at node D:

Dest. Metric First Hop

Dest. Metric First Hop

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

29

Distance-Vector Example

Suppose node D
moves closer
to node A

Routing update from D:

New routing table at A:

Dest. Metric First Hop

Dest. Metric First Hop

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

30

Routing Loops
Bellman-Ford based protocols are prune to routing loops:
A

Routing tables entries with respect to destination x:

(4,B)

(3,C)

(2,D)

(1,x)

(4,B)

(3,C)

(4,B)

(3,C)

(4,B)

(5,C)

(4,B)

(5,C)

(6,B)

(5,C)

(6,B)

(5,C)

C relearns distance
from B

Counting to infinity since routing information is summarised.

More complex scenarios are also possible.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

31

DSDV Sequence Numbers

Each node maintains a sequence number for itself.
Increment by 2 each time the local neighbor list changes, i.e.,
links are created or destroyed around the node.
Uses only even sequence numbers.
Each entry in routing table has a sequence number:
Routing update contains sequence number from each table entry.
Receiving a routing update: new entry always overrides old entry if
sequence number is greater.
When a link failure to a nexthop neighbor is noticed:
Pretend to have received new update from that neighbor
with metric infinity and next odd sequence number.
Routing loops cannot arise with the use of sequence numbers.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

32

AODV: Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector

Routing Protocol
Based on:
Next-hop distance-vector concept for routing table entries.
Sequence numbers in routing table entries to prevent creation
of routing loops.
Create route to destination when communication requires it.
Overall protocol operation:
Route (path) discovery for creating a route to destination.
Route (path) maintenance for dealing with topology changes.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

33

Route Discovery
.. flooding the network with route requests (RREQ) initiated by the source:
Creating route from node A to node I

RREQ

Broadcast sequence number and source address is used to

detect duplicate RREQ that have been received before.
Broadcast sequence number incremented whenever the node
initiates a route discovery.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

34

Route Discovery
Route Reply (RREP) is unicast back along reverse route:

RREP

Reverse route information in nodes not on reverse route will

eventually time out.
Intermediate nodes having a route to destination may send RREP.
Nodes on the discovered route automatically learns route to
destination via RREP.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

35

Path Maintenance
Link layer or periodic hello messages used to detect link failures.
Link layer failure:
Upstream neighbor sends RREP with next destination sequence
and infinity metric to active neighbors.
Ensures that routing tables entries for this route is overwritten
when RREP is propagated backwards.
Reinitiating of route discovery:
By source node or another (earlier) upstream neighbor.
Uses a larger destination sequence number than received in the
RREP.
Ensures that a new route is created or a never route is reused.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

36

AODV at 58th IETF

Implementation of AODV protocol demonstrated at 58th IETF
Meeting in Minneapolis, November 9-14, 2003.
Based on IEEE 802.11 ad-hoc mode.
Implemented as a routing daemon for Linux and Microsoft
Windows operating systems.
First ever large-scale, publicly-usable ad hoc network using
the AODV routing protocol.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

37

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

On-demand routing protocol based on source routing.
Divides routing problem into two parts:
Route Discovery: finds a route to a given destination
when the node needs a route and do not have one.
Route Maintenance: responds to changes in topology that
affect a route currently in use.
Characteristics of DSR:
Source routing avoids keeping information in intermediate
nodes and guarantees loop-free operation.
On-demand operation implies no overhead when nodes are
stationary and routes have already been created.
Supports unidirectional links and asymmetric routes.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

38

Route Discovery
Initiator initiates flooding of the network by broadcasting a Route
Request with a unique request identification in it.
When receiving a Route Request:
If the target node is yourself, return the recorded route to the
initiator in a Route Reply; initiator caches the route.
Else, if recently seen a request with this id, drop the Route
Request.
Otherwise, append own address to a route record in the
packet and rebroadcast the Route Request.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

39

Route Discovery
The Route Reply can be returned in various ways :
Target node uses a previously cached route to the source
node (initiator).
Destination performs a route discovery for the source with
the route reply piggybacked to avoid an infinite loop.
The reverse sequence of nodes can be use if all links are
bidirectional.
Rate of route requests limited using exponential back-off in case
the destination is not reachable.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

40

Route Maintenance
After transmitting a packet to the next hop:
Listen for link-level per-hop acknowledgement (present in
many wireless LANs), or
Listen for the next-hop node sending packet to its next hop
(passive acknowledgement), or
Set a bit in packet to request explicit next-hop
acknowledgement.

When a problem with forwarding is detected:

Send a Route Error message to original sender, identifying
the broken link.
Sender may use another cached routes or do new Route
Discovery if needed.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

41

Route Discovery Optimizations

Learn routes from forwarded and overheard packets:
Forwarded data packets, Route Requests, Route Replies, and
Route Errors (subject to unidirectional links).
Packets overheard while in promiscuous mode.
Generation of Reply to a Route Request by intermediate nodes:
Intermediate nodes check route cache for a route to the target.
If route is in cache, send a route Reply with concatenation of
record from the Route Request plus route from cache.
Reduce Route Requests flooding using expanding ring search:
Use small hop limit for first attempt at Route Discovery.
If no reply, increase hop limit for each subsequent re-attempt.
Useful if target node is close to initiator, but adds latency to the
Route Discovery procedure.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

42

Automatic Route Shortening

Shorten route if a downstream node overhear a packet early:
Suppose node A is transmitting to next-hop node B
Suppose C overhears this directly:

Node C can detect this since B is still listed as next hop

Node C can send a gratuitous Route Reply to A indicating the
shorter route A t C t D

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

43

DSR Implementation and Testbed

Tested and demonstrated regularly from Dec 1998Mar 1999:
5 cars driving 2025 MPH, looping between A and B
2 stationary nodes (E1 and E2) about 3 radio hops apart using
off-the-shelf WaveLAN wireless LAN radios
All routing between ad hoc
network nodes done with DSR
Integrated into Internet and
Mobile IP, allowing nodes to
join the ad hoc network
Traffic included ftp, telnet,
UDP CBR audio, real-time
kinematic (RTK) GPS
correction packets, real-time
statistics and position logging

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

44

Performance of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

The relative performance of a number of ad-hoc routing protocols has
been studied in Broach et. al, 1998 using the ns-2 simulator.
Routing protocols considered: DSDV, AODV, TORA, DSR.
Simulation model:
50 wireless mobile node moving in a 1500mx300 square.
Each node can buffer up to 50 packets waiting for transmission.
Routing protocols evaluated on the same 210 scenarios.
Nodes move between random points with a speed chosen
uniformly within [0,maxspeed].
The node is then stationary for a certain pause time.
A number of traffic sources (10,20,30) generates packets at a
constant bit rate.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

45

Application Data Packet Delivery

DSDV slow in responding to link breaks (propagate from destination).

AODV and DSR allows local repair and multiple routes.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

46

Routing Overhead

Routing overhead large in AODV due to flooding.

DSR allows routes to be learned by overheard packets.
November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

47

Path Optimality

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

48

Conclusions
Packet Delivery Ratio:
Small pause time and high speed in movement:
AODV and DSR clear winners.
DSDV performs reasonable for medium pause time and low
speed movement.
Routing Overhead:
DSR overhead lowest in number of packets.
AODV lowest in the number of bytes.
Path optimality: DSDV and DSR performs best.
No comparison done on packet delay.
Load balancing is not considered.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

49

Conclusions

Mobile Ad Hoc Networking:

Peer-to-peer wireless forwarding of packets without infrastructure.
Very dynamic, potentially rapidly changing network topology.
All communication is wireless over very limited shared resource.

Very active research in this area, increasing every year.

Main research issues currently:

Scalability: current flat routing protocol supports 200-300 nodes.
Client- server model?
Quality of service: bandwidth and constrained applications.
Security.
Internet connectvity: changing point of attachments.
Power control.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

50

References
C. Perkins. Ad Hoc Networking An Introduction. Chapter 1 in C. Perkins: Ad Hoc
Networking, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
E. M. Royer et al. A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile
Wireless Networks. IEEE Personal Communication, April 1999.
J. Broch et al. A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network
Routing Protocols. Proc. of MobiCom 1998.
S. Uskela. Link Technology Aspects of Multi Ad Hoc Networks. Seminar on Ad Hoc
Networking, Espoo, April 12-13, 2002. Networking Laboratory, Helsinki
University of Technology.
D. B. Johnson. Routing in Mobile and Wireless Data Networks. Tutorial at
FORTE2002.

November 2003

Peer-to-Peer Networking

51