PowerPoint

Routing Metrics and Protocols for Wireless Mesh Networks2012.01.05Speaker : MA0G0101

1OutlineAbstract

Wireless Mesh Routing

Routing Metrics

Routing Protocols

Mesh Network Performance Analysis

Number of Hops

Packet Loss Rate

Network Delay

Throughput

Conclusion22AbstractWMNs are low-cost access networks built on cooperative routing over a backbone composed of stationary wireless routers.

WMNs must deal with the highly unstable wireless medium.

Therefore, the design of algorithms that consider link quality to choose the best routes are enabling routing metrics and protocols to evolve.3

3AbstractIn this work, we analyze the state of the art in WMN metrics and propose a taxonomy for WMN routing protocols.

Performance measurements for a WMN, deployed using various routing metrics, are presented and corroborate our analysis.4WMN

WMN4Wireless Mesh RoutingWMN backbone routers use multihop communication similarly to ad hoc networks.

5 15Wireless Mesh RoutingThe backbone routers typically are stationary, which permits routing metrics to model link quality instead of simply using the number of hops.

Assuming that the common-case application in WMNs is Internet access, traffic is concentrated on links close to the gateways.6

concentrated gateways6Routing MetricsAd hoc networks usually use the hop count as a routing metric.

This metric is appropriate for ad hoc networks because new paths must be found rapidly, whereas high-quality routes may not be found in due time.

In WMNs, the stationary topology benefits quality-aware routing metrics.7

ad hoc

7Routing MetricsWireless ad hoc network

88Routing MetricsExpected Transmission Count(ETX)ETXETXETX

ETX

99Routing MetricsETXABABAB7BA8BAAAB(10.2) x (10.3) 0.56ETX10.561.78Expected Transmission Time(ETT)ETT

10Routing Metricsminimum loss(ML)The minimum loss (ML) metric also is based on probing to compute the delivery ratio. ML finds the route with the lowest end-to-end loss probability.

weighted cumulative ETT (WCETT)The weighted cumulative ETT (WCETT) changes ETT to also consider intra-flow interference.Unlike ETX and ETT, WCETT is an end-to-end metric.11MLMLML

ETTWCETT ETTWCETT ETTETXETTWCETT

11Routing MetricsThe metric of interference and channel-switching (MIC)MIC uses virtual nodes to guarantee the minimum-cost routes computation. MIC also calculates its value based on the ETT metric.

modified ETX (mETX)The mETX metric also is calculated by broadcasting probes.The difference between mETX and ETX is that rather than considering probe losses.12MICMICMICETT

ETXmETXmETXmETXETX12Routing Metricseffective number of transmissions (ENT)ENT is an alternative approach that measures the number of successive retransmissions per link considering the variance.ENT also broadcasts probes and limits route computation to links that show an acceptable number of retransmissions according to upper-layer requirements.

interference aware (iAWARE)The iAWARE metric estimates the average time the medium is busy because of transmissions from each interfering neighbor.The higher the interference, the higher the iAWARE value.

13ENTENTENT

iAWAREiAWAREbusy iAWARE

13Routing MetricsTable 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the routing metrics discussed.

141Quality AwareData ratePacket size Intra-flow interference Inter-flow interference Medium instability14Routing ProtocolsAd hoc routingAd hoc routing protocols are usually proactive, reactive, or hybrid.

The proactive strategy operates like classic routing on wired networks. Routers keep at least one route to any destination in the network.

Reactive protocols, request a route to a destination only when a node has a data packet to send. 15Routing ProtocolsAd hoc

We propose a taxonomy for WMN routing protocols with four classes: ad hoc-based, controlled-flooding, traffic-aware, and opportunistic.15Routing ProtocolsControlled-floodingControlled-flooding protocols use algorithms designed to reduce control overhead.

We identify two baseline approaches that reduce the routing overhead as compared.

Classical flooding (Fig. 2a). In temporal flooding (Fig. 2b), the periodicity is set according to the distance from the source router. On the other hand, using spatial flooding (Fig. 2c), the distant nodes receive less precise or less detailed information from the source.

16

2a 2b 2c

1617

Flooding types: a) classical; b) temporal; c) spatial.A: B: C:17Routing ProtocolsIn practice, most protocols disseminate local-scope routing information, using the temporal approach.

The basic assumption is that flooding the network is not efficient because most communication in wireless networks is between nearby nodes.

Therefore, there is no need to send control packets to the distant nodes as frequently as to nearby ones.

18

18Routing ProtocolsAnother way to reduce overhead is to limit the number of nodes responsible for flooding the network.

A common approach is to use algorithms that find the minimum set of nodes required to forward routing information to all destinations in the network.19

19Routing ProtocolsOpportunisticOpportunistic protocols improve classical routing based on cooperative diversity schemes.

These protocols guarantee that the data is always forwarded whenever there is at least one next hop.

In addition, the chosen route likely uses the best quality links, considering short-term variations.20Opportunistic protocols

hop

20Routing ProtocolsWMN protocols and their respective routing metrics.21

WMN

ProtocolsMetrics21Mesh Network Performance AnalysisOur performance measurements were collected in the ReMesh mesh network deployed at the Fluminense Federal University (UFF) campus.

The mesh network deployed at UFF consists of nine mesh nodes labeled from ID0 to ID8 deployed at the third and fourth floors of the engineering building of the university (Fig. 3).

Wireless links connecting nodes were collected by monitoring the topology built by OLSR within each router, using a plug-in for the OLSR daemon.

The optimized link state routing(OLSR)22

UFF

UFF ID0 ID8

OLSROLSR

The optimized link state routing(OLSR)22Mesh Network Performance AnalysisDashed lines indicate low quality links with loss rates higher than 50 percent, and continuous lines indicate better quality links.23

UFF's mesh network50

23Number of HopsFigure 4a shows the average number of hops traversed to reach each node from node ID0 for each metric.24

average route length 4a ID0

24Number of HopsIt can be observed that on average, using the hop metric, each node is reached with the lowest number of hops, whereas the ML metric chooses paths with the highest number of hops.

ETX and ETT tend to select routes with the same number of hops, but not necessarily the same route.

Results are consistent with the physical distance between the nodes and with the quality of the links between them (Fig. 3).25ML

ETXETT

325Packet Loss Rateure 4b shows the average packet loss rate(PLR) experienced at each node ID for each metric.

26

packet loss rate

4b ID

26Packet Loss RateAs the distance to node ID0 grows, the use of the hop metric results in increasingly high packet-loss rates.

This behavior is expected because the hop metric does not consider the quality of the links and tends to forward packets through long noisy wireless links.

ETX and ETT metrics converged to packet loss rate in the order of 19 percent and 30 percent, respectively, regardless of the distance to node ID0.

27 ID0hop metric

ETXETT1930 ID0

27Packet Loss RateThe ML metric performed best among the four metrics, because it is designed to select routes with low loss links.

The ML metric resulted in PLR in the range of 5 percent for up to node ID6 and around 10 percent for nodes ID7 and ID8.

28ML

MLID65%ID7ID810%28Network DelayDuring the PLR experiment, the average round-trip-time (RTT) for packets traveling from node ID0 to each other node and back was also collected (Fig. 4c).29

round trip-time

ID0

29Network DelayAs the distance to node ID0 grows, the use of the hop metric results in high RTTs on the order of two seconds.

All other metrics achieved RTTs lower than 150 ms for ETX, 75 ms for ML, and 35 ms for ETT.

The ETT metric is the only one to estimate the transmission time, and this feature produced the best performance in terms of RTT.30ID0hop(RTT)

RTTETX150 ML75ETT35

ETTRTT30ThroughputFigure 4d shows the average throughput in kb/s experienced at each node ID for each metric.31

Throughput

4d kb / s ID31Throughputtypically ETX, ETT, and ML choose paths with a higher number of hops when compared to the hop metric.

For short distances, all metrics achieved high throughput with hop leading to throughputs in the order of 5 Mb/s.

As the distance increased, the hop metric throughputs dropped significantly to close to zero, whereas all other metrics exhibited similar performance resulting on throughputs in the order of 500 kb/s.32ETXETTMLhop metric

hopmetrices 5Mb/s

hop metrices 500kb/s32ConclusionRouting protocols were classified in four categories: ad hoc-based, traffic-aware, controlled-flooding, and opportunistic.

Our results confirm that the hop metric performs poorly because it is not aware of link-quality variations.

ML, ETX, and ETT, showed better results, considering the different performance measures in accordance with the design of each metric.33ad hoc-based, traffic-aware, controlled-flooding, and opportunistic

hop

MLETXETT33ConclusionThe design of WMNs presents a number of open issues, ranging from routing metrics to security.

This is accomplished by better reflecting PHY-layer variations onto routing metrics or by better using the available radio spectrum to directly improve the network throughput.34

PHY34