Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
25 36 49 64 81 100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
Node number
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
iv
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
(
k
b
it
\s
)
(a)
32 64 128 256
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Sending rate (kbit\s)
(b)
MDSRC
DSR
1 2 4 8 15.6
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Packet size (64bytes)
(c)
Fig. 2. Network throughput with MDSR-C and DSR
25 36 49 64 81 100
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Node number
P
a
c
k
e
t
lo
s
s
r
a
t
io
(a)
32 64 128 256
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sending rate (kbit\s)
(b)
1 2 4 8 15.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Packet size (64bytes)
(c)
MDSRC
DSR
Fig. 3. Packet loss rate with MDSR-C and DSR
the trafc rate is high. Then the node will be congested and
packet forwarding capability is decreased. However, DSR does
not take into account the above situation in selecting routes but
MDSR-C does. As illustrated in Fig. 2(c), MDSR-C performs
better than DSR when the packet size becomes larger. This
is because, for a constant trafc rate, the less the packet size,
the more packets will be generated. Too many packets in the
network will cause heavy channel contention, which will cause
more collisions in some areas for broadcast packets.
In a static wireless backbone, collision and congestion are
the main causes of packet loss. The proposed routing scheme
based on the congestion of both node and link could avoid
congested nodes and congested links with less congested
routes being selected to deliver packets. Therefore, MDSR-C
reduces the packet loss probability caused by buffer overow
and link congestion as illustrated in Fig. 3. Particularly, against
the number of nodes in the network as shown in Fig. 3(a),
MDSR-C has lower packet loss rate than DSR, not only
because MDSR-C could avoid congested nodes and links but
also due to the use of multiply paths, both of which could
make the route more reliable. As shown in Fig. 3(b), MDSR-
C also outperforms DSR when the sending rate is increased.
In this case, more packets per seconds need to be sent, which
increases contention accordingly. For DSR, if a node of the
route is congested, all its upstream nodes could be congested
consequently too, which most likely causes the buffer to
overow. Furthermore, too many packets passing the same
area would cause heavy contention and collision therein. The
proposed routing scheme uses less congested nodes to reduce
buffer overow and less congested links to avoid contention
and collision. Similarly, as illustrated in Fig. 3(c), MDSR-C
also performs better than DSR against packet sizes.
Now we discuss packet delays versus the mean number
of hops of paths. As we know, the longer a packet travels,
the larger the delay is. MDSR-C is not based on minimum
hop counts; instead it tries to use routes with better quality,
which however may be longer. That is, MDSR-C may increase
the mean number of hops and packet delays. As illustrated in
Figs. 4-5, the delay is also larger for a larger mean number
of hops. In Fig. 4(b) and Fig. 5(b), when the sending rate is
below 128 kbit/s, DSR uses a larger mean number of hops
to send packets, and the delay is also larger than MDSR-C.
This is because the proposed routing protocol considers the
congestion of both nodes and links, making the route is more
reliable than DSR. Also, this could reduce route rediscovery
operations. But in DSR, it allows the intermediate node to
reply the RREQ packet, making the delay and mean number
of hops unstable since the node just knows a part of the
path while the unknown part is unpredictable. The results
are similar for sending rates larger than 128 kbit/s. Besides
using longer hop count but less congested routes in MDSR-
C, another reason leading to this result is that MDSR-C does
A Congestion-Aware Multipath Routing with Cross Layer Design for Wireless Mesh Networks
25 36 49 64 81 100
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Node number
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
e
la
y
(
s
)
(a)
32 64 128 256
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Sending rate (kbit\s)
(b)
MDSRC
DSR
1 2 4 8 15.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Packet size (64bytes)
(c)
Fig. 4. Packet delay with MDSR-C and DSR
25 36 49 64 81 100
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
Node number
M
e
a
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
h
o
p
s
(a)
32 64 128 256
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Sending rate (kbit\s)
(b)
MDSRC
DSR
1 2 4 8 15.6
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Packet size (64bytes)
(c)
Fig. 5. Mean path length in the number of hops with MDSR-C and DSR
not allow an intermediate node to initiate an route discovery
procedure to save broken links. This could increase the delay
and mean number of hops. As illustrated in Fig. 4(c) and Fig.
5(c), MDSR-C has similar results.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we propose two congestion-aware routing met-
rics, BOR and SFSR, to enable routing protocols to consider
congestion issues. Then we use these two metrics to modify
DSR to nd multiple less congested routes to improve the
throughput of networks. The simulation study has shown that
the proposed routing scheme achieves signicant throughput
enhancement with much more reliable packet delivery. There
are some issues still open. In our scheme, once a route is
selected, it will not be changed unless it is broken. This may
decrease the performance of this route if some nodes become
congested. Furthermore since multipath routing is not suit for
TCP applications, we do not add TCP trafc in our simulation.
Therefore, our future work is to make the routing protocol to
automatically adjust packet delivery strategy according to the
congestion information on a route and support TCP trafc.
REFERENCES
[1] I.F. Akyildiz, X.D. Wang and W. Wang, Wireless mesh networks: a
survey, Computer Networks, vol. 47, Mar. 2005, pp. 445-487.
[2] I.F. Akyildiz and X.D. Wang, A Survey on Wireless Mesh Networks,
IEEE Radio Communications Magazine, vol. 43, Sept. 2005, pp. 23-30.
[3] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination Dequenced
Distance-vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, ACM SIG-
COMM, 1994.
[4] D.B. Johnson and D.A. Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks, Mobile Computing, 1996, vol. 353.
[5] C. Perkins, Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing, MILCOM
panel on Ad Hoc Networks, 1996.
[6] S-J. Lee and M. Gerla, Split multipath routing with maximally disjoint
paths in ad hoc networks, in Proc. of International Computer Congress
(ICC), Hong Kong, China, Dec. 2001.
[7] G. Karbaschi and A. Fladenmuller, A link-quality and congestion-aware
cross layer metric for multi-hop wireless routing, in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, Washington, USA, Nov. 2005.
[8] W. Song and X.W. Fang, Routing with Congestion Control and Load
Balancing in Wireless Mesh Networks, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. ITS
Telecom., Chengdu, China, Jun. 2006.
[9] R. Draves, J. Padhye and B. Zill, Routing in multi-radio, multi-hop
wireless mesh networks, in Proc. Annual Int. Conf. Mobile Computing
and Networking, Philadelphia, USA, Sept. 2004.
[10] D.S.J. De Couto, D. Aguayo, J. Bicket and R. Morris, A high-
throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing, Wireless Net-
works, vol. 11, Jul. 2005.
[11] L. Iannone, R. Khalili, K. Salamatian and S. Fdida, Cross-layer routing
in wireless mesh networks, in Proc. Int. Sym. Wireless Com. Systems,
Mauritius, Sept. 2004.
[12] L.Y. Jiang and G.Z. Feng, A MAC Aware Cross-Layer Routing
Approach for Wireless Mesh Network, in Proc. WiCOM, Wuhan, China,
Sept. 2006.
[13] V.P. Mhatre, H. Lundgren and C. Diot, MAC-aware routing in wireless
mesh networks, in Proc. of WONS 07, Obergurgl, Austria, Jan. 2007.
[14] Z.W. Ke, L.Y. Li, Q. Sun and N.S. Chen, A QoS Multicast Routing
Algorithm for Wireless Mesh Networks, in Proc. SNPD, Qingdao,
China, Jul. 2007.
[15] The Network Simulator NS-2, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam /ns/.
Proceedings of the 15th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC 2009)-157