Spanakis Manolis

CS539
Computer Science Department

16/03/2005

Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks
Routing Protocols
Hmm, A MANET
makes sense.
Dad, you can use
Nelson if I am
too fast.
Hi, Marge.
I miss you.
I can hear u, Lisa.
Can u hear me?
Yes. What are
you doing,
Nelson?
Be home early,
Homer.
The Simpson's
IETF MANET Working Group
The Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (manet)
Working Group is a chartered working group
within the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) to investigate and develop candidate
standard Internet routing support for mobile,
wireless IP autonomous segments.
The charter and official IETF Home Page for
manet are found at :
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-
charter.html
Description of Working Group
Purpose of MANET working group
standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for
wireless routing application within
both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics
due to node
motion or other factors.
Approaches are intended to be:
relatively lightweight in nature
suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments,
and address scenarios
MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure
hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and
mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET
specifications and management features.

Description of Working Group
Using mature components from previous work on
experimental reactive and proactive protocols, the
WG will develop two Standards track routing protocol
specifications:

Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP)
Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP)

Both IPv4 and IPv6 will be supported.
Routing security requirements and issues will also be
addressed.

Goals and Milestones:

Done Post as an informational Internet-Drafts a discussion of mobile ad-hoc networking and issues.
Done Agenda bashing, discussion of charter and of mobile ad hoc networking draft.
Done Discuss proposed protocols and issues. Redefine charter.
Done Publish Informational RFC on manet design considerations
Done Review the WG Charter and update
Done Submit AODV specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
Done Develop I-D for potential common manet encapsulation protocol approach
Done Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed routing protocols and design frameworks
Done Promote implementation, revision, and testing of initial proposed I-D(s)
Done Explore basic performance and implementation issues of initial approaches
Done Explore proposed proactive protocol design commonalities
Done Submit DSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
Done Submit OLSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
Done Submit TBRPF specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
Done Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort
Done Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus
Mar 05 Submit initial ID of RMP for WG review
Mar 05 Submit initial ID of PMP for WG review
Mar 05 Submit inital ID of generalized MANET flooding approach
Jun 05 Revise WG documents and review
Nov 05 Document initial implementation progress and experience Revise documents based upon implementation experience
Feb 06 Submit RMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
Feb 06 Submit PMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
Feb 06 Submit MANET flooding specification to IESG for publication as Experimental Standard
Mar 06 Review and update milestones
Current Status
Internet-Drafts:
The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks (DSR) (264775 bytes)
Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol
(DYMO) (48518 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing
Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation
Considerations (RFC 2501) (28912 bytes)
Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
Routing (RFC 3561) (90356 bytes)
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (RFC 3626)
(161265 bytes)
Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path
Forwarding (TBRPF) (RFC 3684) (107963 bytes)
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET)
Networks formed by a collection of wireless
mobile hosts
Without any pre-existing infrastructure or the
aid of any centralized administration
Network characteristics change over time
Routes between nodes may potentially contain
multiple hops
Number of hosts in the network
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET)
May need to traverse multiple links to reach a
destination
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET)
Mobility causes route changes
Why Ad Hoc Networks ?
Ease and Speed in deployment

Decreased dependence on infrastructure

Only possible solution to interconnect a group
of nodes

Many Commercial Products available today
MANET Applications
Body Area Networking
body sensors network,
Personal area Networking
cell phone, laptop, ear
phone, wrist watch
Emergency operations
search-and-rescue
(earthquakes, boats,
airplanes)
policing and fire fighting
Military environments
soldiers, tanks,
planes, battlefield
Civilian environments
taxi cab network
meeting rooms
sports stadiums
boats, small aircraft
Variations
Traffic characteristics may differ in different ad hoc
networks
bit rate, reliability requirements, unicast, multicast, host-based
addressing, content-based addressing, capability-based
addressing
Ad-hoc networks may co-exist and co-operate with
infrastructure-based networks
Mobility characteristics may be different
Speed, direction of movement, pattern of movement
Symmetric vs Asymmetric
Nodes capabilities and responsibilities
Issues in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Limited wireless transmission range
Broadcast nature of the wireless medium
Hidden terminal problem
Packet losses due to transmission errors
Mobility-induced route changes
Mobility-induced packet losses
Battery constraints
Potentially frequent network partitions
Ease of snooping on wireless transmissions
(security hazard)
Whats unique about a MANET ?

Moving nodes ever changing topology
Wireless links
various and volatile link quality
Pervasive (cheap) devices
Power constraints
Security
Confidentiality, other attacks
MANET Protocol Zoo

Topology based routing
Proactive approach, e.g., DSDV.
Reactive approach, e.g., DSR, AODV, TORA.
Hybrid approach, e.g., Cluster, ZRP.

Position based routing
Location Services:
DREAM, Quorum-based, GLS, Home zone etc.
Forwarding Strategy:
Greedy, GPSR, RDF, Hierarchical, etc.
Recent Research Topics
Routing
Better metric, higher throughput
A high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing. MobiCom 03.
Transport Layer
TCP performance: throughput, fairness, etc.
Enhancing TCP fairness in ad-hoc networks using neighborhood RED. MobiCom 03.
Improving fairness among TCP flows crossing wireless ad-hoc and wired networks.
MobiHoc 03.
MAC Layer
MAC protocol for directional antennas
A MAC protocol for full exploitation of directional antennas in ad-hoc wireless networks.
MobiHoc 03.
Recent Research Topics (cont.)
Security
Reliable routing against malicious nodes
Ariadne: A secure on-demand routing protocol for ad-hoc networks. MobiCom 2002.
Power Management
Power saving and power control
Asynchronous wakeup for ad hoc networks. MobiHoc 2003.
A power control MAC protocol for ad hoc network. MobiCom 2002.
Ad-hoc & p2p a Comparison
P2P is based on an IP network
Ad-hoc is based on a mobile radio network
Mobile Ad-hoc and Peer-to-Peer Networks
hold many similarities concerning their
routing algorithms and
network management principles
Both have to provide networking
functionalities in a completely unmanaged
and decentralized environment
Ie. To determine how queries (packets) are
guided through the network



Ad-hoc & p2p a Comparison
Ad-hoc & p2p - Differences
Ad-hoc & p2p - Similarities
Routing in Mobile
Ad-Hoc Networks
Routing Overview
Mobile wireless hosts
Only subset within range at given time
Want to communicate with any other node
Routing Overview
Network with nodes,
edges
Goal: transfer message
from one node to another
Which is the best path?
Who decides - source or
intermediate nodes?
msg
Which path?
Generally try to optimize one of the
following:
Shortest path (fewest hops)
Shortest time (lowest latency)
Shortest weighted path (utilize
available bandwidth, battery)
Who determines route?
Source (path) routing [Like airline travel]
Source specifies entire route
Intermediate nodes just forward to specified next hop

Destination (hop-by-hop) routing [Like postal
service]
Source specifies only destination in message header
Intermediate nodes look at destination in header,
consult internal tables to determine appropriate next
hop
MANET Routing
Standardization effort led by IETF Mobile Ad-
hoc Networks (MANET) task group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-
charter.html
9 routing protocols in draft stage, 4 drafts
dealing with broadcast / multicast / flow
issues
Other protocols being researched
utilize geographic / GPS info, ant-based
techniques, etc.
MANET Routing Properties
Qualitive Properties
Distributed operation
Loop Freedom
Demand Based
Operation
Security
Sleep period
operation
Unidirectional link
support

Quantitative Properties
End-to-End data
throughput
Delays
Route Acquisition time
Out of order delivery
(percentage)
Efficiency

MANET Routing Properties
No distinction between routers and end
nodes: all nodes participate in routing
No external network setup: self-configuring
Efficient when network topology is dynamic
(frequent network changes links break,
nodes come and go)
Self Starting
Adapt to network conditions
Why is Routing in MANET different ?
Host mobility
link failure/repair due to mobility may have
different characteristics than those due to other
causes
Rate of link failure/repair may be high when nodes
move fast
New performance criteria are used
route stability despite mobility
energy consumption
host position
Dynamic Solution much more difficult to be deployed
Routing Protocols
No Routing
Plain Flooding (PF)
Proactive protocols: determine routes independent of traffic
pattern, traditional link-state and distance-vector routing
protocols are proactive.
Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV)
Link State Routing
Reactive protocols: discover routes and maintain them only
if needed.
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)
Hybrid protocols
Zone Based Routing (ZBR)
Trade-Offs
Latency of route discovery
Proactive protocols may have lower latency since
routes are maintained at all times
Reactive protocols may have higher latency because a
route from X to Y will be found only when X attempts to
send to Y
Overhead of route discovery/maintenance
Reactive protocols may have lower overhead since
routes are determined only if needed
Proactive protocols can (but not necessarily) result in
higher overhead due to continuous route updating
Which approach achieves a better trade-off depends on
the traffic and mobility patterns
Routing Protocols
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
R
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Broadcast transmission
M
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
Nodes J and K both broadcast packet P to node R
Since nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their
transmissions may collide
=> Packet P may not be delivered to node R at all,
despite the use of flooding
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
C
G
I
K
Flooding completed
Nodes unreachable from S do not receive packet
Flooding may deliver packets to too many nodes
(in the worst case, all nodes reachable from sender
may receive the packet)
Z
Y
M
N
L
R
Flooding for Data Delivery: Advantages
Simplicity
Efficient than other protocols when rate of
information transmission is low enough
overhead of explicit route
discovery/maintenance incurred is higher
small data packets
infrequent transfers
many topology changes occur between
consecutive packet transmissions
Potentially higher reliability of data delivery
Flooding for Data Delivery: Disadvantages
Very high overhead
Data packets may be delivered to too many
nodes who do not need to receive them

Lower reliability of data delivery
If Broadcasting is unreliable (ie. 802.11 MAC)
Flooding of Control Packets
Many protocols perform (potentially limited)
flooding of control packets, instead of data
packets

The control packets are used to discover
routes

Discovered routes are subsequently used to
send data packet(s)

Dynamic Source Routing
Draft RFC at http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt

Source routing: entire path to
destination supplied by source in packet
header
Utilizes extension header following
standard IP header to carry protocol
information (route to destination, etc.)
DSR Protocol Activities
Route discovery
Undertaken when source needs a route
to a destination
Route maintenance
Detect network topology changes
Used when link breaks, rendering
specified path unusable
Routing (easy!)
Details
Intermediate nodes cache overheard routes
Eavesdrop on routes contained in headers
Reduces need for route discovery

Intermediate node may return Route Reply to
source if it already has a path stored
Encourages expanding ring search for route
Details (cont.)
Destination may need to discover route to
source to deliver Route Reply
piggyback Route Reply onto new Route Request
to prevent infinite loop

Route Request duplicate rejection:
Source includes identification number in Route
Request
Partial path inspected for loop
Route Maintenance
Used when link breakage occurs
Link breakage may be detected using link-layer ACKs,
passive ACKs, DSR ACK request
Route Error message sent to source of message being
forwarded when break detected
Intermediate nodes eavesdrop, adjust cached routes
Source deletes route; tries another if one cached, or
issues new Route Request
Piggybacks Route Error on new Route Request to
clear intermediate nodes route caches, prevent
return of invalid route
Issues
Scalability
Discovery messages broadcast throughout
network
Broadcast / Multicast
Use Route Request packets with data included
Duplicate rejection mechanisms prevent storms
Multicast treated as broadcast; no multicast-tree
operation defined
Scalability issues
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Represents a node that has received RREQ for D from S
M
N
L
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Represents transmission of RREQ
Z
Y
Broadcast transmission
M
N
L
[S]
[X,Y] Represents list of identifiers appended to RREQ
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Node H receives packet RREQ from two neighbors:
potential for collision
Z
Y
M
N
L
[S,E]
[S,C]
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Node C receives RREQ from G and H, but does not forward
it again, because node C has already forwarded RREQ once
Z
Y
M
N
L
[S,C,G]
[S,E,F]
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
Nodes J and K both broadcast RREQ to node D
Since nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their
transmissions may collide
N
L
[S,C,G,K]
[S,E,F,J]
Route Discovery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Node D does not forward RREQ, because node D
is the intended target of the route discovery
M
N
L
[S,E,F,J,M]
Route Reply in DSR
Route Reply can be sent by reversing the route in
Route Request (RREQ) only if links are guaranteed
to be bi-directional
To ensure this, RREQ should be forwarded only if it received
on a link that is known to be bi-directional
If unidirectional (asymmetric) links are allowed, then
RREP may need a route discovery for S from node D
Unless node D already knows a route to node S
If a route discovery is initiated by D for a route to S, then the
Route Reply is piggybacked on the Route Request from D.
If IEEE 802.11 MAC is used to send data, then links
have to be bi-directional (since Ack is used)
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
Node S on receiving RREP, caches the route
included in the RREP
When node S sends a data packet to D, the
entire route is included in the packet header
hence the name source routing
Intermediate nodes use the source route
included in a packet to determine to whom a
packet should be forwarded
Route Reply in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
RREP [S,E,F,J,D]
Node D sends back a Reply (RREP) to S with the path
NOTE: If node D does not know a rout back to S it might
be necessary to start its own rout discovery to S.
Data Delivery in DSR
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
DATA [S,E,F,J,D]
Packet header size grows with route length
DSR: Advantages
Routes maintained only between nodes
who need to communicate
reduces overhead of route maintenance
Route caching can further reduce route
discovery overhead
A single route discovery may yield many
routes to the destination, due to
intermediate nodes replying from local
caches
Packet header size grows with route length
due to source routing
Flood of route requests may potentially reach
all nodes in the network
Care must be taken to avoid collisions
between route requests propagated by
neighboring nodes
insertion of random delays before forwarding
RREQ
DSR: Disadvantages
DSR: Disadvantages
An intermediate node may send Route Reply
using a stale cached route, thus polluting
other caches
Increased contention if too many route replies
come back due to nodes replying using their
local cache
Route Reply Storm problem
Reply storm may be eased by preventing a
node from sending RREP if it hears another
RREP with a shorter route
Ad-hoc On-demand Distance
Vector Routing
Draft RFC at http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-manet-aodv-10.txt

Hop-by-hop protocol: intermediate
nodes use lookup table to determine next
hop based on destination

Utilizes only standard IP header

AODV Protocol Activities
Route discovery
Undertaken whenever a node needs a
next hop to forward a packet to a
destination
Route maintenance
Used when link breaks, rendering next
hop unusable
Routing (easy!)
Route Discovery
Route Request:
Source broadcasts Route Request (RREQ)
message for specified destination
Intermediate node Forward message toward
destination
Route Reply
Destination unicasts Route Reply msg to source
Intermediate node create next-hop entry for
destination and forward the reply
If source receives multiple replies, uses one
with lowest hop count
Route Maintenance
Used when link breakage occurs
Detecting node may attempt local repair
Route Error (RERR) message generated
Contains list of unreachable destinations
Sent to precursors: neighbors who recently
sent packet which was forwarded over broken
link
Propagated recursively
Route Requests in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Route Requests in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Broadcast transmission
M
N
L
Route Requests in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Reverse Path Setup in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Node C receives RREQ from G and H, but does not forward
it again, because node C has already forwarded RREQ once
Z
Y
M
N
L
Reverse Path Setup in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Reverse Path Setup in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Node D does not forward RREQ, because node D
is the intended target of the RREQ
M
N
L
Route Reply in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
Represents links on path taken by RREP
M
N
L
Route Reply in AODV
An intermediate node (not the destination) may
also send a Route Reply (RREP) provided that
it knows a more recent path than the one
previously known to sender S
To determine whether the path known to an
intermediate node is more recent, destination
sequence numbers are used
The likelihood that an intermediate node will
send a Route Reply when using AODV is not
as high as DSR
Forward Path Setup in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Forward links are setup when RREP travels along
the reverse path

Represents a link on the forward path
Data Delivery in AODV
B
A
S
E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
N
L
Routing table entries used to forward data packet.

Route is not included in packet header.
DATA
Why Sequence Numbers in AODV
To avoid using old/broken routes
To determine which route is newer
To prevent formation of loops




Assume that A does not know about failure of link C-D
because RERR sent by C is lost
Now C performs a route discovery for D. Node A receives
the RREQ (say, via path C-E-A)
Node A will reply since A knows a route to D via node B
Results in a loop (for instance, C-E-A-B-C )
A B C D
E
Summary: AODV
Routes need not be included in packet headers
Nodes maintain routing tables containing
entries only for routes that are in active use
At most one next-hop per destination
maintained at each node
DSR may maintain several routes for a single
destination
Unused routes expire even if topology does not
change
Hybrid Protocols
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
Zone routing protocol combines

Proactive protocol: which pro-actively updates
network state and maintains route regardless of
whether any data traffic exists or not

Reactive protocol: which only determines route
to a destination if there is some data to be sent
to the destination
ZRP: Example with
Zone Radius = d = 2
S
C
A
E
F
B
D
S performs route
discovery for D
Denotes route request
ZRP: Example with d = 2
S
C
A
E
F
B
D
S performs route
discovery for D
Denotes route reply
E knows route from E to D,
so route request need not be
forwarded to D from E
ZRP: Example with d = 2
S
C
A
E
F
B
D
S performs route
discovery for D
Denotes route taken by Data
Implementation Issues
Implementation Issues:
Where to Implement Ad Hoc Routing
Link layer

Network layer

Application layer
Issues in
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking
Issues other than routing have received much less attention so far
Other interesting problems:
Address assignment problem
MAC protocols
Improving interaction between protocol layers
Distributed algorithms for MANET
QoS issues
Applications for MANET
Algorithms for dynamic networks
Security
Privacy, Authentication, Authorization, Data integrity
Ad-Hoc Sensor networks
Addressing based on data (or function) instead of name,
send this packet to a temperature sensor

Related Standards
Activities
Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) Activities
IETF manet (Mobile Ad-hoc Networks) working group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html
IETF mobileip (IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile
Hosts) working group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mobileip-
charter.html
IETF PILC (Performance Implications of Link
Characteristics) working group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov
Related Standards Activities
BlueTooth
http://www.bluetooth.com
HomeRF
http://www.homerf.org
IEEE 802.11
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/
Hiperlan/2
http://www.etsi.org/technicalactiv/hiperlan2.htm
DYMO
Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol
(DYMO)
Ian Chakeres
Elizabeth Belding-Royer
Charlie Perkins
The Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) routing
protocol is intended for use by mobile nodes in
wireless multihop networks. It offers quick
adaptation to dynamic conditions, low processing
and memory overhead, low network utilization, and
determines unicast routes between nodes within the
network.
The Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) routing protocol enables dynamic,
reactive, multihop routing between participating nodes wishing to communicate.
The basic operations of the protocol are route discovery and management.
During route discovery the originating node causes dissemination of a Routing
Element (RE) throughout the network to find the target node. During
dissemination each intermediate node creates a route to the originating node.
When the target node receives the RE it responds with RE unicast toward
originating node. During propagation each node creates a route to the target
node. When the originating node is reached routes have been established
between the originating node and the target node in both directions. In order to
react quickly to changes in the network topology nodes should maintain their
routes and monitor their links. When a packet is received for a route that is no
longer available the source of the packet should be notified. A Route Error
(RERR) is sent to the packet source to indicate the current route is broken.
Once the source receives the RERR, it will re-initiate route discovery if it still has
packets to deliver. In order to enable extension of the base specification, DYMO
defines the handling of unsupported extensions. By defining default handling,
future extensions are handled in a predetermined understood fashion. DYMO
uses sequence numbers to ensure loop freedom [3]. All DYMO packets are
transmitted via UDP on port TBD. Chakeres, et al. Expires July 5, 2005
Goals
Create a unicast route
Simple, small
Easy to implement
Extendable
Enhancements & optimizations
IPv4 and IPv6
Basic internet connectivity
Use what we know
Route Discovery
Routing Element (RE)
Simple, common processing
REBlock
RREQ => RE A=1 MANETcast
RREP => RE A=0 Unicast hop-by-hop
Path accumulation
Optional accumulation, processing and
transmission

Route Maintenance
Avoid expiring good routes
Update reverse route lifetime on data
reception
Update forward route lifetime on data
transmission
Inform sources of broken routes quickly
Active links must be monitored
Several mechanisms available
Route Error (RERR)
Optional additional invalid routes

DYMO Short Term Goals
dymo-00 available
feedback already received (more expected)
dymo-01soon
MANET list discussion
Simple, quick implementation
Looking for DYMO implementers
Simulators and various OS
Please contact us