IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO.
1, JUNE 2007
A Probabilistic Approach for
Managing Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks
Remi Badonnel, Radu State, Olivier Festor
Abstract— A pure management approach where all the nodes
are managed at any time is too strict for mobile ad-hoc
networks. Instead of addressing the management of the whole
network, we propose a probabilistic scheme where only a subset
of nodes is managed in order to provide a light-weight and
efficient management. These nodes are determined based on
their network behavior to favor subsets of well connected and
network participating nodes. With respect to such a selective
management scheme, we derive probabilistic guarantees on the
percentage of nodes to be managed. Our contribution is centered
on a distributed self-organizing management algorithm at the
application layer, its efficient deployment into a management
architecture and on a comprehensive simulation study. We will
show how to organize the management plane by extracting
spatio-temporal components and by selecting manager nodes
with several election mechanisms based on degree centrality,
eigenvector centrality and K-means paradigm.
Index Terms— Network management, mobile ad-hoc networks,
probabilistic analysis, management architecture.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A D-HOC networks are spontaneous networks deployed
without requiring a fixed network infrastructure such that
localized and temporal limited network connectivity can be
assured in some dedicated target deployment environments.
Examples include military applications, emergency rescue
teams, and other geographically challenging environments.
Such networks are highly dynamic, since nodes might come
and go, based on user mobility, out-of-reach conditions and
energy exhaustion. These factors interact strongly with the
network service, requiring new paradigms for the management
of ad-hoc networks.
Our paper proposes a new management approach for ad-
hoc networks centered on a novel configuration scheme for
the network management plane. This work is orthogonal to our
previous work published in [1]. In that paper we addressed the
issue of what to manage in an ad-hoc network, leaving beside
the issue of the how-to manage it. We complete now our work
with a new approach for organizing the management plane.
This approach can be applied to all management scenarios
where the administrators do not want to monitor and configure
all the network nodes, but where they only need to manage the
network in a less fine-grained manner. It can cover multiple
applications including mobility, connectivity, ressource usage,
quality of service, fault detection. The key idea is to relax the
Manuscript received October 20, 2006; revised February 22, 2007. The
associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for
publication was J. Hellerstein.
The authors are with the MADYNES Research Team, LORIA-INRIA
Lorraine, France (email: {badonnel, state, festor}@loria.fr).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TNSM.2007.030104.
1932-4537/07$25.00 
39
requirements on the management plane: we propose a new
scheme where only some spatio-temporal connected subsets
of nodes are managed. Such assumptions are well suited for
an ad-hoc network, where only nodes that had a more or less
network presence are interesting enough to be managed.
Our main contributions can be summarized in a) definition
of probabilistic management, b) concept formalization with a
distributed algorithmic method for organizing the management
plane, c) integration of this method into a management archi-
tecture, d) extensive set of simulations to obtain quantitative
and qualitative results of the method.
This article is consequently structured as follow: we intro-
duce the concept and the stakes of probabilistic management
in ad-hoc networks in Section II. We present the underly-
ing distributed algorithmic management method in Section
III by describing the spatio-temporal connectivity measure,
the extraction of spatio-temporal connected components and
the election of manager nodes. We detail several manager
election mechanisms based on degree centrality, eigenvector
centrality and K-means paradigm. We show in Section V how
to integrate the probabilistic approach into the ANMP man-
agement framework. Section VI presents and discusses a set
of simulations performed with a common network simulator.
Finally, we discuss related work in Section VII and conclude
the paper with pointers to future work in Section VIII.
II. P ROBABILISTIC M ANAGEMENT
Monitoring and managing ad-hoc networks is challenged by
several constraints which are not encountered in the common
fixed networks:
• Relevant management information: the challenge is to
identify the essential pieces of relevant information but
also to determine what management operations to be
taken in this context. While we have a fair amount of
understanding about what monitoring information should
be collected, few have focused on what management
actions to be taken and on the demonstration of their
effectiveness.
• Management domain related: since ad-hoc networks are
dynamically formed loosely coupled entities, the notion
of administrative domain, responsible for the overall
management can be challenging for some application
domains. Even if we consider an hybrid ad-hoc network
connected to the gateway of a company, cooperative
and role-based schemes should be further investigated to
organize the management plane in an efficient manner.
• Management node reliability and willingness to cooperate
(illustrated by Fig. 1): an agent/manager node is limited
c 2007 IEEE
40 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007
by its inherent limits (connectivity, failures) such that
the provided management data may be biased. How to
improve the reliability of management data which are
provided by other nodes, as well as the reliability of
data provided by the node itself? Additionally, malicious
nodes or non-cooperative nodes may provide false data
or no data at all. The key issue is to define distributed
monitoring and management paradigms, where we can
reducethe impact of bias or faulty information.
• Cost of monitoring: resources (battery power) are already
scarce in ad-hoc networks and monitoring and man-
agement actions are additional consumers in an already
resource under-powered context. Defining lightweight
schemes, where already available information is used and
resource availability and consumption can be minimal,
are the main issues.
Malicious
v4
Behavior
Agent
Non Cooperative Reliability?
Behavior v1
Legitimity?
Manager
v2
Agent v3 Reliabitity?
Agent
v5 Fault behavior
Agent
Fig. 1. Management node reliability issue: an agent/manager node may
provide biased management data because of its inherent limits such as
connectivity and failures (node v5 ). It may also provide false data or no
data at all (malicious node v4 or non-cooperative node v2 ). The key issue is
to define management paradigms where we can reducethe impact of bias or
faulty information.
The key assumption of the probabilistic management ap-
proach was motivated by the simple observation that ad-
hoc network management should not comprise the totality of
network elements (as it is typically the case in fixed networks).
If node behavior can be better described probabilistically
(a node might be on-line with a given probability), why
should we preserve a deterministic framework for the network
management?
The first paper describing conceptual management ap-
proaches for ad-hoc networks was published by Burgess in
[2], where a network model for ad-hoc networks is defined as
a probability matrix, where an element in row i and column
j is equal to the probability of nodes i and j to be directly
connected. Our work is partially motivated by that paper: if
we assume that such a matrix is known, why not restrict
the network management plane to the nodes that seem to
intercommunicate and have an effective network presence and
define a probabilistic management scheme? The probabilistic
nature of the management plane derives from the guarantees
that we can offer. Whereas in a fixed network, direct neighbor-
hood relationships among nodes are fixed and management is
defined to comprise the totality of the network nodes, it is quite
natural to approach an ad-hoc network with a probabilistic
framework. We will not guarantee in this framework that all
nodes will be managed, but we can give probabilistic bounds
on the percentage of nodes that are managed on average.
Our probabilistic management is a selective scheme
which consists in only managing the most interesting
nodes of the network based on a statistical analysis.
The notion of interesting is define with respect to relative
good network presence and topology relationship. We define
a spatio-temporal component to be a subset of the network
nodes, such that any pair of nodes have a high adjacency
probability. The term spatio-temporal is inspired by the spatial
dimension – nodes are required to be adjacent – and the
temporal one – nodes should have a high probability to be
adjacent. Since this probability is estimated over a given
time period, we identify pairs of nodes that tend to directly
interconnect. Such pairs can be aggregated in spatio-temporal
components. This can be done by identifying all connected
components in a graph built from the original network nodes,
where an edge between two nodes is constructed if and only
if a significant probability of adjacency for these nodes was
estimated.
We restrict the management plane to the first largest and/or
maybe the second largest connected component, assuming
that the nodes worth to be managed are located in these
components. Since these components are associated to the
largest node subsets having significant network presence and
frequent adjacent relationships, we consider it is a viable
approach for the specifics of ad-hoc networks. The notion of
spatio-temporal connectivity is related to the time averaged
connectivity of network nodes and does not represent an
instant snapshot connectivity view as proposed in [3]. We
relate the notion of adjacency to high probabilities of observed
direct neighborhood, such that our definition is broader in
scope than the simple instant connectivity one.
The management approach is centered around these con-
cepts. In the following sections, we will detail a distributed
management algorithmic method to estimate the adjacency
matrix and to construct the spatio-temporal connected com-
ponents. We will then show how this algorithmic method can
be supported by extending a management architecture.
III. D ISTRIBUTED A LGORITHMIC M ANAGEMENT M ETHOD
The algorithmic method for probabilistic management is
based on the spatio-temporal connectivity measure. A net-
work node evaluates its spatio-temporal connectivity with
its neighborhood and communicates that information to the
other network nodes in order to construct the spatio-temporal
connectivity matrix of the ad-hoc network. From this matrix,
the node is capable to detect spatio-temporal connected com-
ponents of the network and to elect its network manager. We
assume a minimal cooperation among nodes, where partial
control is allowed. If necessary, the cooperation could be
stimulated by considering an incentive approach such as [4].
BADONNEL et al.: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR MANAGING MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS 41

A. Spatio-temporal connectivity measure
An ad-hoc network is seen as a set of n mobile nodes
V = {v1 , v2 , ..., vn } moving in a given surface during a time
period T . The time period T is split in k measurement interval
[tl , tl+1 ] with tl = l × Tk for an integer l ∈ [0, k]. The choice
of optimal time period T and interval values [tl , tl+1 ] is not
addressed in this paper but an excellent analysis on timescales
for information flow to monitor ad-hoc networks can be found
in [5]. Each node vi measures the percentage of time pij it was
neighbor with a network node vj . On a time interval [tl , tl+1 ],
the measurements are locally stored in a list N l (vi ) composed
of tuples (vi , vj , pij ) and are subsequently exchanged and
merged among network nodes. The suffix l represents the time
factor and means the measure was performed during the time
interval [tl , tl+1 ].
The exchange of local measurements lead conceptually to
l
a network spatio-temporal connectivity matrix MST C (or at
least a partial view) obtained by concatenating the list of mea-
surements performed by the network nodes. Rows/columns
l
stand for a network node. The i-th row of MST C represents
the list of measurements N (vi ) of a node vi . If node vi was
l
neighbor with node vj on [tl , tl+1 ], an entry MST l
C [i, j] exists
and contains the percentage of time pij that the pair (vi , vj )
was directly connected on that time interval. As the goal is
to highlight network nodes presenting a high probability of
adjacency (and also to limit the management data), only the
spatio-temporal connectivity values which are higher than a
threshold value λ are considered in the matrix.
Spatio-temporal v6
components Agent
0.42
were neighbors on the time interval [tl , tl+1 ] and the percent-
age of time pij is higher than the predefined threshold. The
graph link is weighted by the percentage of time. Each network
node vi determines the connected component (noted CCvi ) of
which he is part by running through the graph. A connected
component corresponds to a subset of well-connected nodes
in V . The extraction of connected components in the spatio-
temporal connectivity graph is described by algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1: extraction of connected components
Data: spatio-temporal connectivity matrix MST l
C
Result: connected component CCvi of node vi
initialization
a) initialize the set CCvi with node {vi } as the
single element; // i.e. CCvi = {vi }
repeat
b) add to the set CCvi all the nodes connected
to a node element of CCvi ;
c) delete all the doubles of CCvi ;
until
no change in calculation of connected component CCvi
The CCvi set is initialized with a single element: the node
vi itself. The key idea of the graph component extraction is
to add recursively to the set CCvi the neighbor nodes of
each node already part of CCvi . A node vi can extract the
connected component CCvi , but can also extract the other
components CCvj (j = i) he is not part of, by initializing
a set CCvj with a node which is not already assigned and
by following the same approach. Each element of a resulting
0.45 v7 connected component has been a neighbor of another element
Agent
during at least a minimum percentage of time.

v1
Agent

C. Manager election in a connected component

0.50

0.47

v8
A connected component, such as CCvi , represents a set
Manager
0.6

v5 of network nodes with an high value of spatio-temporal

4

Manager connectivity. It represents a sub-domain to be managed by one

0.6

0.
2

40 manager, or possibly by several managers if the connected

v10 v2
0.44 v9
component size is significant. An election mechanism is
Agent Agent
Agent
required to determine the manager nodes in each connected
2
0.4

component. Assuming that each node in the network has an

v3
v4
unique identifier (MAC address), the simplest way is to define
an arbitrary election mechanism by electing the node with
Agent Percentage the minimal identifier. The Fig. 3 describes a spatio-temporal
of time
connected component where nodes are identified by a unique
name. We could consider that the node name is the election
Fig. 2. Extraction of spatio-temporal connected components: a spatio- criteria. In that case, node v1 will be elected as the manager
temporal component is a subset of network nodes, such that any pair of nodes
have a high adjacency probability. The term spatio-temporal is inspired by node even if this node is relatively isolated in the connected
the spatial dimension nodes are required to be adjacent and the temporal one component.
nodes should have a high probability to be adjacent. This mechanism is thus not efficient, as it does neither take
into account the structural properties of the connected com-
ponent nor the relative importance of nodes. We will define
more refined election mechanisms based on centrality and K-
B. Connected component extraction
means paradigm. These mechanisms will be applied to the data
l
The matrix MST C can be represented as a graph of n nodes set formed by the spatio-temporal connectivity measurements
as shown in Fig. 2. A graph edge exists between two nodes, limited to the nodes in the connected component. This data set
l
if the following double condition is respected: the two nodes is a submatrix noted SST C , where rows/columns represent the
42 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007

v9 Node Degree Node Eigenvector

v3 2.16 v6 0.52

0.48
v6 1.90 v3 0.47
v7
0.62 v8 v7 1.81 v5 0.39
1
0.7
v4 1.27 v4 0.37
v2 v6 Eigenvector-based
Manager
v5 1.26 v7 0.36
7

0.
0.5
0.

62
54

v8 1.62 v2 0.17
v3 Degree-based
Manager
v5 v2 0.54 v8 0.15
0.6
42

0.64
0.

v4
v9 0.48 v1 0.14
v1
v1 0.42 v9 0.12
Spatio-temporal
Component

Fig. 3. Degree-based and eigenvector-based elections of manager nodes in a spatio-temporal connected component: the graph on the left is a spatio-temporal
connected component. The two tables synthesizes respectively the degree centrality and the eigenvector centrality measurements of the component nodes. In
each of these tables, nodes are classified by order of importance, so that the first entries of a given table correspond to the nodes elected as managers. The
degree-based election selects node v3 as manager, while the eigenvector-based election selects node v6 . The degree centrality is a local measure limited to
the one-hop neighborhood information, whereas the eigenvector centrality takes recursively into account the importance of the neighbor nodes.

m nodes part of a connected component. Let us consider the We applied this election mechanism to the scenario presented
scenario presented in Fig. 3. The spatio-temporal connected in Fig. 3. The degree measure for a node vi is computed as the
component is composed of 9 ad-hoc nodes and is associated sum of the elements of the ith line of matrix SST l
C . Results
the following 9 × 9 matrix SST
to ⎡ l
C: ⎤ are synthesized in the first table of Fig. 3. Node v3 has the
0 0 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 highest degree centrality with a value of 2.16. It will be elected
⎢ 0 0 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ as the manager node. The time complexity of the degree-based
⎢0.42 0.54 0 0.63 0 0.57 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ election mechanism is of O(N ).
⎢ 0 0 0.63 0 0.64 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 2) Eigenvector-based election mechanism: The degree cen-
⎢ 0 0 0 0.64 0 0.62 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.57 0 0.62 0 0.71 0 0 ⎥ trality is a local measure limited to the one-hop neighborhood
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0 0.62 0.48⎥ information. An alternative measure is the eigenvector cen-
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.62 0 0
⎦
trality defined by Bonacich in [7]. The key idea is to define
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 0 0
l the centrality measure in a recursive way: the more a node
The matrix SST C is a symmetric matrix because it represents is directly connected to central nodes, the more the node is
an undirected graph. The two following election mechanisms
central. For such a non-oriented connected graph, Bonacich
are inspired by research work on centrality. The concept of
demonstrates that the problem can be reduced to the typical
centrality allows to quantify the relative importance of a
eigenvector problem defined by equation 2.
node in a network or a graph structure. Several variants of
C ×
x = λ × x
l
this measure have been defined in social networking [6]. The SST (2)
objective is to identify the nodes having a central position The vectors that solve this equation are called eigenvectors
in the connected component, and to elect them as manager and are associated with corresponding eigenvalues. The princi-
nodes. pal eigenvector vpr is the solution vector which is paired with
1) Degree-based election mechanism: A well-known cen- the highest eigenvalue. The eigenvector centrality ceig of node
trality measure is the degree centrality. A node is central if it vi corresponds to the ith element of the principal eigenvector
is directly connected to a maximal number of neighbor nodes. l
of matrix SST C , as mentioned in equation 3.
The degree centrality of a node is the number of links linked to
this node. Each link being weighted by a percentage of time, ceig (vi ) = vpr (i) f or a given node vi (3)
the centrality degree measure is defined by equation 1. We We solved the eigenvector problem for the scenario defined
calculate, for each node vi in the component, the sum of the in Fig. 3 using a symbolic mathematics software. The highest
values (in percentage of time) of each link connected to the eigenvalue of SSTl
C is equal to 1.457 and is paired with the
node. Nodes having the highest centrality degree are elected principal eigenvector defined in equation 4:
as manager nodes.
vpr = [ 0.14 0.17 0.47 0.37 0.39 0.52 0.36 0.15 0.12 ]T (4)

j=m
cdeg (vi ) = l
SST C (i, j) f or a given node vi (1) The elements of the principal eigenvector are ranked by order
j=1 of importance, which leads to the second table of Fig. 3. Node
BADONNEL et al.: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR MANAGING MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
v6 shows the highest value and is elected as manager node.
The two centrality approach do not provide the same results:
the degree centrality is a local measure while the eigenvector
degree takes additionally into account the importance of the
neighbor nodes themselves. A generalized version of the
eigenvector centrality has been defined in [8] in the case
of oriented connected graphs. The time complexity of the
eigenvector-based election mechanism is of O(N 3 ).
3) K-means election mechanism: As some ad-hoc nodes
may provide biased or false management data, a key issue
is to provide a reliable election capable to out-weight or
discard faulty information. We therefore propose an alternative
election mechanism where the measurements performed by
each node in the connected component are compared in order
to provide the best trade-off. The goal of the manager election
is basically to classify the connected component nodes in two
populations: agent nodes and manager nodes, favoring the
manager role to the nodes with the highest spatio-temporal
connectivity.
We use the K-means classification method [9] to divide the
connected component nodes in two clusters noted {c1, c2}.
A node vj in the connected component (column of matrix
l
SST C ) is seen as a point in a m-dimensional vector space,
where a dimension corresponds to the view of a node vi (row
j j
C ). The coordinates (x1 , x2 , .., xm ) of a point
l j
of matrix SST
vj correspond then to (SST l
C [1, j], S l
ST C [2, j], ...S ST C [m, j]).
l
j
The coordinate xj stands for the node self-measured up-time
percentage. In this vector space, the norm of a point va noted
||va || is given by equation 5 and the distance measure between
two points va and vb noted ||va − vb || is given by equation 6.
k=m
 manager nodes are located in the cluster with the centroid
||va || =  (SST
l
C [k, a])
2 (5)
k=1
k=m
 connected component composed of three nodes {v1 , v2 , v3 }
||va − vb || =  (SST
l
C [k, a] − SST C [k, b])
l 2 (6)
k=1
Intuitively, the K-means classification puts together ad-hoc
nodes showing similar spatio-temporal connectivity values to
form two clusters. The centroid of a cluster c corresponds
basically to the point whose coordinates are the mean of the
coordinates of all the points in the cluster. Assuming a cluster
c composed of k nodes {v1 , v2 , ..., vk }, the coordinates of
the centroid are thus given by equation 7 providing the i-th
coordinate in the m-dimensional vector space.
43
Algorithm 2: election of manager nodes
Data: spatio-temporal connectivity matrix SST l
C
Result: set of manager nodes for the connected
component
initialization
a) select two clusters {c1, c2} arbitrarily;
b) compute initial cluster centroids centroid(c1)
and centroid(c2) within those two clusters;
repeat
c) partition by assigning or reassigning all the points vj
of the connected component to their closest cluster
centroid;
d) compute the new cluster centroid of each cluster;
until
no change in cluster centroid calculation
finally
the manager set is the cluster (c1 or c2) whose centroid
has the highest norm;
minimize the objective function defined by equation 8 where
clusters c1 and c2 represent the two node populations and
where ||vj − centroid(c)|| is the distance between a point vj
and the centroid of its cluster c.
1  
E= ||vj − centroid(c)||2 (8)
2
c∈{c1 ,c2 } vj ∈c
After performing the algorithm, the two final clusters contain
network nodes with close spatio-temporal connectivity. The
presenting the highest spatio-temporal connectivity norm.
An illustrative example is shown in Fig. 4 with a simple
l
(presented on the left). The submatrix SST C is a 3 x 3 matrix
where rows/columns represents the three nodes in the con-
nected component. The K-means classification is performed
in a three-dimensional vector space (presented on the right)
where an axis represents the view (spatio-temporal connec-
l
tivity measure) of a given node (row of SST C ) and where
l
a point represents a node to be classified (column of SST C ).
The K-means algorithm divides the three nodes in two clusters
c1 and c2 represented by spheres in this three-dimensional
vector space. Cluster c1 is composed of nodes v2 and v3 ,
q=k q
centroid(c) q=1 xi
xi = (7)
k of centroid(c2) is higher than the norm of centroid(c1)
The K-means clustering for electing the manager nodes is
described in algorithm 2 and can be divided in two main steps.
In the first step of initialization, nodes of the connected com-
ponent are arbitrarily assigned to a cluster c1 or c2 and the cen-
troid of each cluster is calculated using previous equation 7. In
the second step, the algorithm reassigns iteratively each point
vj to the cluster c ∈ {c1, c2} whose centroid is nearest and
recalculate the centroids. The algorithm stops when the cluster
centroids are fixed (the coordinates do not change between two
iterations). The K-means algorithm corresponds actually to
while cluster c2 is composed of a single node v1 . A numeri-
cal calculation shows the spatio-temporal connectivity norm
(||centroid(c2)|| > ||centroid(c1)||). Manager nodes are lo-
cated in the cluster c2 whose centroid shows the highest norm.
The connected component will therefore be composed of a
single manager: node v1 . This election mechanism based on K-
means algorithm relies on the comparison of spatio-temporal
connectivity measures performed by different nodes in a
distributed manner. The comparison of these management data
improve the election reliability by out-weighting biased/false
data. The time complexity of this election algorithm is of
O(2N ).
44
v1
3
0.7
0.8
2
v2
0.12 v3
Spatio-temporal
Component
Fig. 4. K-means election of manager nodes in a spatio-temporal connected component: a simple scenario of a connected component composed of three
nodes {v1 , v2 , v3 } is presented on the left. The K-means classification method (presented on the right) divides the three nodes in two clusters c1 and c2
represented by spheres in this three-dimensional vector space. Ad-hoc nodes which will interact as managers are located in the cluster c2 whose centroid
shows the highest spatio-temporal connectivity norm. A single manager (node v1 ) is elected in this simple scenario.
IV. M ONITORING OF PATHOLOGICAL M OBILITY IN A
S PATIO - TEMPORAL C ONNECTED C OMPONENT
An ad-hoc node measures periodically the spatio-temporal
connectivity of the other network nodes. The manager nodes
can monitor the spatio-temporal connectivity variations over
time of nodes located in a spatio-temporal connected compo-
nent in order to detect pathological mobility behavior. While
normal mobility is difficult to define, in some specific target
deployment (for instance military applications), unpredicted
mobility patterns can seriously impact the network resilience
and service level and deteriorate the management plane or-
ganization. We mean by ”pathological mobility” a mobility
behavior that reveals underlying problems of ad-hoc nodes
such as:
• Failures due to miss-configuration and errors at the
physical layer may generate an atypical behavior, where
nodes are intermittent although from a mobility point of
view they did not change significantly,
• Routing failures which can be encountered when the
routing process is affected by voluntary and malicious
activity (attacks against the routing plane), errors in its
configuration or at the protocol stack level,
• Battery breakdown: spatio-temporal connectivity may be
lost for longer or shorter time periods because of battery
lifetime.
Pathological mobility can be inferred by analyzing sta-
tistically the variations of the spatio-temporal connectivity
measurements pij over time. Ad-hoc nodes with such a
mobility can involuntary corrupt management data and report
biased or faulty information because of their pathology. A
key issue is to define actions that compensate for the manage-
ment data provided by these problematic nodes. A possible
corrective operation consists in using a weight system to
estimate the reliability of agent nodes. The manager node
vi assigns reliability weights {w1 , w2 , ..., wm } to agent nodes
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007
v2
Cluster c2
X v1
X v2
X
v1
Cluster c1
X v3
v3 Centroids
{v1 , v2 , ..., vm }: management data reported by reliable agents
will have higher weights. At the network deployment, the
weight of the agents is initialized with a similar weight
w1 = w2 = ... = wm , because the manager do not already
know the agent nodes. When an agent vj is detected as patho-
logical, the manager decreases the weight wj of that agent. For
instance, the weight can be divided by two, each time the agent
shows an pathological mobility behavior. When the manager
will get management data from agents, it will more take into
account in the management process the information provided
by agents with high reliable weights. This corrective operation
limit the propagation and the impact of biased information in
the management plane.
V. M ANAGEMENT F RAMEWORK
We propose to integrate the probabilistic approach into the
ANMP (Ad-Hoc Network Management Protocol) management
framework [10] as presented in Fig. 5. ANMP defines a man-
agement protocol for ad-hoc networks, but also describes the
underlying management architecture and information model.
The protocol is fully compatible with SNMPv3 [11] and thus
with most of current management architecture. The key idea
of ANMP is to clusterize the management plane in order to
reduce the management message overhead. The management
plane is logically divided into a three-level hierarchy com-
posed of a top-level manager, SNMP managers performed
by cluster-head nodes (CH) and SNMP agents performed
by simple nodes (SN). ANMP introduces by default two
clustering algorithms at the application layer to organize the
management plane:
• Graph-based clustering algorithm (clusters of one hop
neighbors). Each network node has a unique identifier
and maintains the list of its one-hop neighbor nodes using
the network layer or the MAC layer. In a neighborhood,
the node with the minimum identifier is elected as the
cluster-head, if it has not joined any other cluster.
BADONNEL et al.: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR MANAGING MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
• Geographical-based clustering algorithm (clusters of up
to three-hop neighbors). This algorithm uses the global
positioning system in order to evaluate node positions.
Network nodes are split into rectangular clusters based
on their spatial density.
ANMP is defined at the application layer and draw a dis-
tinction between clusters for management and clusters for
routing, as they aim at different goals (respectively organizing
the management plane and maintaining routes). The authors
of ANMP conclude the paper in [10] by pointing out it would
be interesting to explore other way of clustering or methods
to group the nodes in the network.
We therefore introduce an additional clustering algorithm at
the application layer to implement the probabilistic approach
where clusters are defined by spatio-temporal connected com-
ponents. This extension is composed of three building blocks
(1) to evaluate the spatio-temporal connectivity, (2) to extract
the spatio-temporal connected components and (3) to elect the
spatio-temporal connected component manager(s).
Fig. 5. Integration of the probabilistic approach into the ANMP management
framework: ANMP is extensible to other clustering algorithms. In order to
organize the management plane based on the spatio-temporal approach, an
additional clustering algorithm is implemented over a piggybacked version of
the OLSR routing protocol.
The management algorithms are executed locally by the
network nodes based on information obtained from the routing
plane. The consistency of information and the robustness to
mobility of our management solution relies therefore on the
performances of the routing protocol.
The evaluation of spatio-temporal connectivity is based on
the piggybacking of OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol) [12]. This routing protocol is an optimization of
the classical link state algorithm adapted to the requirements
45
of mobile ad-hoc networks. As in a pure link state algorithm,
each node performs two main operations: (1) it determines
the list of direct-connected neighbor nodes by accomplishing
link sensing through periodic emission of hello messages and
(2) it exchanges this link state information with the other
nodes throughout the network by flooding topology control
messages. Due to the limited bandwidth of ad-hoc networks,
OLSR reduces the control overhead by selecting a subset
of nodes called Multi-Point Relays (MPRs) which forward
broadcast messages during the flooding process. The selection
of MPRs is based on an heuristic which consists in selecting
for a given node the minimal subset of one-hop neighbors to
reach all the two-hop neighbors, in order to reduce the number
of links used for forwarding topology information.
During the link sensing operation, an OLSR node uses a
neighborhood base (see RFC 3626 section 4.3). and maintains
the list of one-hop neighbor nodes by recording a set of tuples
(N neighbor main addr, N status, N willingness) describing
neighbors. The element N neighbor main addr stands for the
main address of a neighbor, N status specifies the link status
(symmetric or not) with the given neighbor and N willingness
is an integer specifies the willingness of the neighbor to carry
traffic on behalf of other nodes. We introduce an additional
entry in the neighbor tuple called N connectivity time perc to
maintain the percentage of time the neighbor was connected
to the node.
This new entry must then be integrated in the topology
control (TC) messages (defined in RFC 3626 section 9)
performing the advertisement of link states, so that the spatio-
temporal connectivity information is propagated in the ad-hoc
network. Including a sequence number, the format of a TC
message describes a set of Advertised Neighbor Main Address.
We define an additional field Advertised Neighbor Connec-
tivity Time Percentage to include the percentage of time the
neighbor was seen. Our spatio-temporal clustering algorithm
extension, defined over a piggybacked OLSR version, gives to
the ANMP architecture the capability to perform probabilistic
management.
The integration of the probabilistic approach into ANMP
implies to extend the management information base (MIB)
of this management framework and of the OLSR routing
protocol. A MIB corresponds basically to a database of
objects that can be monitored and managed by the network
management system [14]. We proposed an OLSR MIB module
in [13] which is partially described in Fig. 6. This partial
view details two groups: the first one called olsrGeneralGroup
provides general information on the OLSR node, on its net-
work interfaces compatible with OLSR (olsrInterfaceTable)
and on its willingness to interact as a MultiPoint Relay.
The second group olsrLocalInformationGroup describes the
local information of the OLSR node including the one-hop
neighborhood olsrNeighborSetTable and the two-hop neigh-
borhood olsrTwoHopNeighborSetTable. The table olsrNeigh-
borSetTable enumerates the one-hop neighbors and their link
status. We added to this table an additional entry olsrNeigh-
borConnectivityTimePerc (shown in grey on the figure). This
entry represents the percentage of time of connectivity in order
to fit with the routing protocol piggybacking.
46 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007
Fig. 6. Extension of the OLSR routing protocol MIB: The figure presents a
partial view of the OLSR MIB we proposed in [13]. The table olsrNeigh-
borSetTable enumerates the one-hop neighbors and their link status. We
added to this table an additional entry olsrNeighborConnectivityTimePerc
(shown in grey on the figure). This entry represents the percentage of time
of connectivity in order to fit with the routing protocol piggybacking.
The ANMP MIB is also extended to the probabilistic
management. The anmpTopologyMaintenance group of that
MIB is detailed in Fig. 7 with the grey entries corresponding
to the extension. This group contains objects related to the
topology information of the ad-hoc network. The anmpNeigh-
borTable defines the list of one-hop neighbors of a node
and is completed by the additional entry anmpNeighborCon-
nectivityTimePerc to ensure coherence with the OLSR MIB
extension. The anmpProtocolTable maintains an entry for each
protocol which may be used for topology maintenance in
the management plane. Each of the two clustering algorithms
provided by default with ANMP is represented by a group: an-
mpGraphClustering and anmpGeographicalClustering. These
groups are not detailed on the figure, but a more complete
description can be found in [10]. We introduce an additional
group called anmpSpatioTemporalClustering for applying the
probabilistic approach to the management plane organization.
This group maintains the information generated by the con-
nected component extraction algorithm (algorithm 1) and by
the manager election algorithm (algorithm 2) presented in
Section III. In particular, the table anmpSTCComponentTable
contains the list of spatio-temporal connected components.
Each entry anmpSTCComponentEntry in the table inventories
Fig. 7. Extension of the ANMP management framework MIB: this figure
details only the anmpTopologyMaintenance group of that MIB, with the grey
entries corresponding to our extension. We introduce an additional group
called anmpSpatioTemporalClustering for applying the probabilistic approach
to the management plane organization.
the characteristics of a connected component including the
list of its managers provided by the table anmpSTCCompo-
nentManagerTable and the list of its agents provided by the
table anmpSTCComponentAgentTable. These MIB extensions
allow to specify the management information implied by our
probabilistic approach in a standardized way.
VI. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
We describe in this section a set of simulations, in which
we apply the management algorithmic method to detect the
largest spatio-temporal connected components. The simula-
tions are performed using the widely-accepted network sim-
ulator ns-2 [15]. The data link layer is based on the wireless
IEEE 802.11 MAC model. The routing layer corresponds to
the standardized OLSR routing protocol (NRL’s implemen-
tation [16]). We consider an ad-hoc network composed of
n ∈ [5 − 30] mobile devices deployed in an urban area.
The nodes are moving in a squared surface with a 1000
BADONNEL et al.: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR MANAGING MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
meters side according to the commonly-used random way-
point (RWP) model [17] (being aware of the model limits
[18]): each node moves at constant speed s ∈ [0.5−10] m/s to
a destination point selected uniformly in the squared surface
and then waits during a pause time p ∈ [1 − 50] s before
moving to a new destination. The simulation parameters which
are not specified in the sum-up table I are set with the ns-2
default values. To avoid initialization discrepancy issues with
the RWP model [18], we used the steady-state mobility model
generator mobgen-ss where initial speeds and locations of
nodes are chosen from the stationary distribution to perform an
immediate convergence and provide more reliable simulations.
We determined experimentally the λ value (40%) based on an
initial set of simulations.
TABLE I
S IMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Simulator ns-2
Simulation time 1800 s
Simulation area 1000 m x 1000 m
Number of ad-hoc nodes 5-30 nodes
Mobility model random waypoint
mobgen - steady state
Speed 0.5 - 10 m/s
Pause time 1 - 50 s
Physical layer FSP / 2-RGR
MAC layer IEEE 802.11
Routing layer NRL OLSR
λ value 40%
In a first series of experiments we analyzed the probability
distribution of the ratio of the largest spatio-temporal con-
nected component to the overall network. These results are
shown in figure 8 and represent an extensive set of simulations
with different mobility parameters and node sizes. For each
individual setting, we performed 150 simulations to assure the
non-bias of the result.
On the x axis is plotted the percentage of the overall
node size which is located in the largest spatio-temporal
component, while the y axis stands for the percentage of
cases (simulations). A point (x,y) on the graph stands for
the percentage of simulations (y) such that the largest spatio-
temporal component was at least x. For instance we can
observe that the probability (y axis) of having at least 20%
of nodes in the largest component is about 95%. We could
have a best-effort type pragmatic management approach in
the style: we manage around 20% of the nodes and in this
case we will meet this requirement in 95% of the cases. We
can assure the management of the half of the nodes within one
single component with a probability close to 70%, which is
a relative good result. Such a best-effort type of management
could be implemented by one and only one manager station
following the spatio-temporal component.
A natural question is whether network mobility impacts the
management framework. Intuitively, higher mobility should
make things worse (ie.: smaller components sizes for the
same probability), but a precise quantification of this effect
is required. A second series of experiments addressed this
issue, where different mobility parameters were evaluated for
47
110
100
90
80
Percentage of cases (simulations)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Minimal percentage of nodes in the largest spatio-temporal component
Fig. 8. Probability distribution for the ratio of the largest spatio-temporal
connected component to the overall network: a point (x,y) on the graph
indicates the percentage y of simulations such that the largest spatio-temporal
component covers at least x percent of network nodes.
different node sizes. For each node size, 150 simulations were
performed to avoid any bias. These results are summarized in
Fig. 9. We expected to have good results for low mobility (ie.:
small speeds and large pause times), where by good results
we understand a high probability to have a large percentage of
the network nodes in the largest spatio-temporal component.
Such was the case indeed (note the case of speed = 0.5m/s
and pause time = 50s) where about 90% of the nodes are
located in the same component in about 90% of the cases. A
rather surprising result is however the case of small pause
times (speed = 0.5m/s and pause time = 1s), where 90%
of the nodes are located in the same component in around
80% of the cases. If we analyze the cases with varying pause
times and constant speed = 10m/s another interesting issue
is that the worst results are obtained with a high pause time.
This contradicts the initial hypothesis that a higher mobility
implies a smaller component size. It seems that in cases of
higher node speeds, the spatio-temporal connectivity is better
if nodes do not rest/pause. Such a result could be summarized
in one phrase Move fast but do not rest.
In the previous experiments we limited the analysis to
the largest spatio-temporal component. A natural extension
is to consider the two largest spatio-temporal components.
Figure 10 summarizes an experiment suite analogous to the
one illustrated in figure 8, but where the aggregated sizes of
the most important components is considered. We can observe
that in the extended case, about 50% of the nodes are located
in the two main components with a probability close to 90%.
That is, we can manage about 50% of the nodes with a
very high probability. We see that with respect to the one
component scenario, we get about 20% more nodes at the
same probability. If we consider in this case the requirement
48 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007

110 110

100 100

90 90

80 80
Percentage of cases (simulations)

Percentage of cases (simulations)

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 (0.5, 50) 40
(0.5, 10)
(0.5, 1)
30 (1, 50) 30
(1, 10)
(1, 1)
20 (5, 50) 20
(5, 10)
(5, 1)
10 (10, 50) 10
(10, 10)
(10, 1)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Minimal percentage of nodes in the largest spatio-temporal component Minimal percentage of nodes in the two largest spatio-temporal components

Fig. 9. Probability distribution for the ratio of the largest spatio-temporal Fig. 10. Probability distribution for the ratio of the two largest spatio-
connected component to the overall network according to the network temporal connected components to the overall network: the curve represents
mobility: each curve stands for different mobility parameters (speed, pause). the value of the aggregated ratios of the first and second spatio-temporal
connected components.

to manage at least 50% of the nodes, than we can achieve this

goal in about 90% of the cases. intelligence is spread over the network nodes according to
The last series of experiments presented in this paper are their capabilities. GUERILLA is organized in a two-tier ar-
illustrated in Fig. 11. Here we plotted the individual compo- chitecture. The higher-tier is composed of groups of peer-
nent sizes (expressed in percentage of the overall network node to-peer nomadic managers that maintain connectivity in the
size) where all simulations were done as previously described. management plane with the other managers. The lower-tier is
We conclude that the second largest component is relevant composed of agents and active probes (programmable scripts)
in about 80% of the cases, counting for around 15% of the which perform the localized management operations. This
network node size. This is relatively normal, since a small autonomic solution is conceptual and do not discuss the
sized first component implies a small sized second component. underlying clustering mechanism. However, it points out that
the management role depends on the node capability. The
probabilistic algorithm could take into account other factors
VII. R ELATED W ORK related to node state such as battery level and node process-
Lots of research efforts deal with connectivity issues in ing capability. In particular, a programmable middleware for
ad-hoc networks. The approaches in [19], [3], [20] define the dynamic deployment of services and protocols in ad-
how to optimize node connectivity in function of the network hoc networks is proposed by [23]. In this programmable
parameters such as power control parameters. However, they infrastructure, ad-hoc nodes can dynamically download and
focus on node connectivity at an instant time, while we are activate the required protocol and service software. Therefore,
interested in a probabilistic scheme based on the percentage of the platform can align the capabilities of heterogeneous ad-
time of connectivity, and while we consider the connectivity hoc nodes by using loadable plug-ins. The two management
is given as it is. An approach for organizing network nodes approaches ANMP and GUERILLA infers the use of n-hop
into clusters in which path availability can be bounded was clustering algorithms at the application layer. We consider that
proposed in [21], but this solution defined at the routing layer a pure and sound management approach, where all nodes are
aims at ensuring end-to-end network performance. managed at any time is too strict and we therefore propose
Among the pioneering approaches for managing ad-hoc a new relaxed clustering scheme where only some spatio-
networks, ANMP [10] presented in Section V proposes a temporal connected subsets of nodes are managed.
management protocol and a management architecture adapted Policy-based management approaches are also proposed in
to ad-hoc network specifics. Clustering algorithms (at the [24], [25], [26], [27]. For instance, Phanse in [25] elabo-
application layer) are used to organize the management plane rates a framework for policy-based management based on
and reduce the management messages overhead. We used three key mechanisms: service location, cluster management
ANMP as a support to integrate the probabilistic approach. and dynamic service redundancy. In particular, the hybrid
The GUERILLA management architecture proposed in [22] provisioning/outsourcing policy model is decentralized using
defines a self-management approach where the management a clustering algorithm to provide an efficient and robust
BADONNEL et al.: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR MANAGING MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
110
100
90
80
Percentage of cases (simulations)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Minimal percentage of nodes in the largest spatio-temporal components
Fig. 11. Probability distributions for the ratio of the first and second largest
spatio-temporal connected components to the overall network: the second
largest component is relevant in about 80% of the cases, counting for around
15% of the network node size.
management. The approach in [24] considers an alternative
policy management scheme where the policy distribution is
based on the synchronization of policy databases when two
network nodes meet. A probabilistic approach for policy-based
management can also be envisioned in ad-hoc networks.
The DAMON architecture [28] defines a distributed moni-
toring system based on agents for multi-hop networks: agents
perform the network monitoring and send the measurements to
data repositories. DAMON supports multiple data repositories
and includes an auto-discovery mechanism of data repositories
by the agents. This generic architecture is not dedicated to
specific network parameters and could therefore be appro-
priate for the storage of pathological mobility monitoring
data. A multi-tier architecture for efficient monitoring and
management is proposed in [29] where nodes are grouped to
ensure that they can be reached via a member of its group.
The approach is initially designed for sensor networks, but is
applicable to ad-hoc networks, since they present the similar
energy and bandwidth constraints. WANMon is a monitoring
tool described in [30] to monitor the resource usage in terms
of network traffic, energy, memory and CPU, but its scope is
limited to the host-level monitoring.
We introduced the concept of probabilistic management of
ad-hoc networks in [31]. We detail further in this paper the
management algorithmic scheme, describing several manager
election mechanisms based on degree centrality, eigenvector
centrality and K-means paradigm. The probabilistic scheme
can also provide a basis for identifying the pathological be-
havior of nodes such as introduced in section IV. We proposed
in [32] a more refined approach for detecting faulty nodes
in ad-hoc networks. Faulty behavior and intermittence are
closely related in ad-hoc networks: a node can have a regular
49
intermittence due to mobility and other ad-hoc specifics,
1st largest component
2nd largest component while faulty behavior can generate pathological intermittence
behavior. The key issue addressed was how to differentiate
pathological intermittence from regular intermittence and thus
identify faulty nodes from regular non-faulty ones. While
fault detection in fixed wired networks is not hindered by
the impossibility to observe a given node, ad-hoc networks
specifics do provide major challenges with respect to this
issue. We introduced in [32] an pathological intermittence
measure based on information theory allowing a local node to
detect pathological intermittent nodes by monitoring the rout-
ing plane. A distributed monitoring scheme, where network
nodes share their local measurements, is designed in order to
provide a reliable and robust detection of faulty nodes. Several
distributed methods of fault detection are defined including an
auto-configured detection method.
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
50 60 70 80 90 100 Instead of defining a pure and sound management approach,
we have presented in this paper a new probabilistic scheme for
configuring the management plane in an ad-hoc network. The
underlying key idea is the notion of spatio-temporal connected
nodes. A spatio-temporal connected component is a subset of
the ad-hoc network, such that nodes within such a component
have a high probability of being directly connected. The
term spatial derives from this neighborhood notion, while
the term temporal is related to the temporal behavior of this
neighborhood. In a store and forward oriented architecture,
such nodes are also capable to inter-communicate at a higher
hop-count. The management plane is limited to the largest
spatio-temporal connected components.
We have defined the underlying management self-
organizing algorithm for both extracting spatio-temporal con-
nected components and electing manager nodes. We have
detailed several manager election mechanisms based on cen-
trality degree, eigenvector centrality and K-means paradigm
and have shown how to apply them with realistic scenarios.
These election mechanisms aim at selecting nodes having
a structural importance in the spatio-temporal components,
and at limiting the propagation of biased and faulty infor-
mation in the management plane. The probabilistic approach
is integrated into the ANMP management framework over a
piggybacked ad-hoc routing protocol. We have subsequently
shown how to extend the ANMP management information
base.
The management approach is called probabilistic since its
behavior can only be guaranteed in a stochastic way. We
can ensure that a given percentage of the overall network
will be managed with a fixed apriori known probability. We
have estimated these probabilities using extensive network
simulations and we have performed a fine grained analysis
of the mobility impact on our framework. Although network
simulators present functional limits [33], the experimental
methodology is generic and can be applied to other mobility
scenarios. We are working on alternative mobility models
including the Manhattan grid model and the reference point
group mobility model. Our future work will consist in design-
ing an information theoric framework [32] for this probabilis-
50 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 1, JUNE 2007
tic scheme, and in extending the management algorithms to
take into account additional properties of nodes.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Badonnel, R. State, and O. Festor, “Management of Mobile Ad-
Hoc Networks : Evaluating the Network Behavior,” in Proc. of the 9th
IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Manage-
ment (IM’05), Nice, France, Apr. 2005, pp. 17–30.
[2] M. Burgess and G. Canright, “Scalability of Peer Configuration Manage-
ment in Logically Ad-Hoc Networks,” IEEE eTransactions on Network
and Service Management (eTNSM), vol. 1, no. 1, Apr. 2004.
[3] P. Santi and D. M. Blough, “An Evaluation of Connectivity in Mobile
Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks,” in Proc. of the International Conference
on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’02). Bethesda, MD, USA:
IEEE Computer Society, June 2002.
[4] L. Buttyan and J. P. Hubaux, “Stimulating Cooperation in Self-
Organizing Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” ACM/Kluwer Mobile Networks
and Applications, vol. 8, no. 5, Oct. 2003.
[5] R. D’Souza, S. Ramanathan, and D. T. Land, “Measuring Performance
of Ad-Hoc Networks using Timescales for Information Flow,” in Proc.
of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (IN-
FOCOM’03), San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2003.
[6] S. Borgatti and M. Everett, “A Graph-theoric Perspective on Centrality,”
Social Networks, 2006.
[7] P. Bonacich, “Factoring and Weighing Approaches to Status Scores and
Clique Identification,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, vol. 2, pp.
113–120, 1972.
[8] P. Bonacich and P. Lloyd, “Eigenvector-like Measures of Centrality for
Asymmetric Relations,” Social Networks, vol. 23, pp. 191–201, 2001.
[9] J. B. MacQueen, “Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of
Multivariate Observations.” Berkeley, CA: Proc. of the 5-th Berkeley
Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1967, pp. 281–
297.
[10] W. Chen, N. Jain, and S. Singh, “ANMP: Ad-Hoc Network Management
Protocol,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC),
vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1506–1531, Aug. 1999.
[11] W. Stallings, SNMP, SNMPv2, SNMPv3, and RMON 1 and 2. Addison
Wesley Longman, 3rd edition, 1999.
[12] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet, “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
(OLSR),” Oct. 2003, IETF RFC 3626.
[13] R. Badonnel, R. State, and O. Festor, “Management of Mobile Ad-
Hoc Networks: Information Model and Probe-based Architecture,” ACM
International Journal of Network Management (ACM IJNM), vol. 15,
no. 5, Sept. 2005.
[14] D. Perkins and E. McGinnis, Understanding SNMP MIBs. Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Inc., 1997.
[15] “Ns-2 network simulator,” http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
[16] “OLSR Extension for Ns-2,” Navy Research Laboratory OLSR Project,
http://pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/projects/olsr/.
[17] F. Bai, N. Sadagopan, and A. Helmy, “Important: a Framework to
Systematically Analyze the Impact of Mobility on Performance of
Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Networks,” in Proc. of IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’03), San
Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2003.
[18] J. Yoon, M. Liu, and B. Noble, “Random Waypoint Considered
Harmful,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer
Communications (INFOCOM’03), San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2003,
pp. 1312–1321.
[19] D. M. Blough, M. Leoncini, G. Resta, and P. Santi, “The K-Neigh
Protocol for Symmetric Topology Control in Ad-Hoc Networks,” in
Proc. of the 4th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networking and Computing (MOBIHOC’03), Annapolis, MD, USA,
June 2003, pp. 141–152.
[20] O. Dousse and P. Thiran, “Connectivity vs Capacity in Dense Ad-Hoc
Networks,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer
Communications (INFOCOM’04), Hong Kong, Mar. 2004.
[21] A. B. McDonald and T. Znati, “A Mobility Based Framework for
Adaptive Clustering in Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC), vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1466–
1487, Aug. 1999.
[22] C.-C. Shen, C. Jaikaeo, C. Srisathapornphat, and Z. Huang, “The
GUERILLA Management Architecture for Ad-Hoc Networks,” in Proc.
of IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM’02), Anaheim,
CA, USA, Oct. 2002.
[23] S. Gouveris, S. Sivavakeesar, G. Pavlou, and A. Malatras, “Program-
mable Middleware for the Dynamic Deployment of Services and Proto-
cols in Ad-Hoc Networks,” in Proc. of the 9th IFIP/IEEE International
Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM’05), Nice, France,
Apr. 2005, pp. 3–16.
[24] A. Munaretto, S. Mauro, P. Fonseca, and N. Agoulmine, “Policy-based
management of ad-hoc enterprise networks,” in Proc. of HP Openview
University Association 9th Annual Workshop, June 2002.
[25] K. Phanse, “Policy-Based Quality of Service Management in Wireless
Ad-Hoc Networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of the Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Aug. 2003.
[26] R. Boutaba, Y. Iraqi, and B. Ishibashi, “Policy-Based Routing in Ad-
Hoc Networks,” in Proc. of the First Ad-Hoc Networking Workshop
(Med-Hoc-Net’02), Sardegna, Italy, Sept. 2002.
[27] R. Chadha, H. Cheng, Y.-H. Cheng, and J. Chiang, “Policy-based Mobile
Ad-Hoc Network Management,” in Proc. of IEEE 5th International
Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POL-
ICY’04), New York, USA, June 2004.
[28] K. Ramachandran, E. Belding-Royer, and K. Almeroth, “DAMON: A
Distributed Architecture for Monitoring Multi-hop Mobile Networks,”
in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Sensor and Ad-Hoc
Communications and Networks (SECON’04), Santa Clara, CA, USA,
Oct. 2004.
[29] M. Younis, P. Munshi, and E. Al-Shaer, “Architecture for Efficient
Monitoring and Management of Sensor Networks, Workshop on End-to-
End Monitoring Techniques and Services,” in Proc. of the 6th IFIP/IEEE
International Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and
Services (MMNS’03), Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, Sept. 2003.
[30] D. Ngo and J. Wu, “WANMON: a Resource Usage Monitoring Tool
for Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks,” in Proc. of the 28th Annual IEEE
Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’03), Bonn, Germany,
Oct. 2003, pp. 738–745.
[31] R. Badonnel, R. State, and O. Festor, “Probabilistic Management of Ad-
Hoc Networks,” in Proc. of the 10th IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and
Management Symposium (NOMS’06), Vancouver, Canada, Apr. 2006.
[32] R. Badonnel, R. State, and O. Festor, “Using Information Theoric
Measures for Detecting Faulty Behavior in Ad-Hoc Networks,” LORIA
- INRIA Lorraine, Tech. Rep., May 2005.
[33] J.-Y. L. Boudec and M. Vojnovic, “Perfect Simulation and Stationarity of
a Class of Mobility Models,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference
on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’05), Miami, FL, USA, Mar.
2005.
Remi Badonnel is a research assistant at INRIA, France working on network
and service management. He is preparing a PhD thesis in Computer Science
at Henri-Poincare University, Nancy, France. He received a Master Science
Degree in Computer Engineering (2003) from ESIAL, Nancy, France. He
is working on designing, validating and implementing management models
and architectures for efficiently handling dynamic networks and services. His
research interests are directed towards Ad-Hoc Networking, Network Man-
agement and Self-Configuration (at INRIA), but also Change Management,
Service Delivery and Business Process (at IBM Research).
Radu State is a permanent researcher at INRIA, France working on network
and security management. He has a Ph.D. degree (2001) from Henri-Poincare
University, Nancy, France and Master of Science in Engineering (1998) from
the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. His research interests
are in the design of management models for highly dynamic environments
such as ad-hoc networks as well as in the security of the management plane.
He published more than 40 papers on network and service management issues
and serves in the TPC boards of several international conferences and journals,
including IFIP/IEEE IM, IFIP/IEEE DSOM, SAFIR, and A-ICT.
Olivier Festor is a research director at INRIA. He has a Ph.D. degree (1994)
and an Habilitation degree (2001) from Henri-Poincare University, Nancy,
France. His research interests are in the design of algorithms and models
for automated and scalable management for highly dynamic environments.
Member of the IRTF NMRG, he has published more than 70 papers in
network and service management and serves in the technical program and
organization committees as well as in the editorial boards of several interna-
tional conferences and journals. He was the TPC Co-chair of IM2005. He is
currently leading the EMANICS European Network of Excellence dedicated
to Management Solutions for the Internet and Complex Services.