Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2000 2000
1800 1800
1600 1600
1400 1400
# pkts recvd
# pkts recvd
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
2000 2000
1800 1800
1600 1600
1400 1400
# pkts recvd
# pkts recvd
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
of the network routes becomes shorter, decreasing the route varies from 90% to 80%. We can see a gradual decrease in
discovery and setup time. The effect of this is reflected by data delivery as the maximum speed increases in this range.
the steady improvement in packet delivery of both gossip Increase in the maximum speed causes the nodes to move
and MAODV with increase in the transmission range. How- faster and more frequently in the random waypoint model.
ever, this runs a risk of increasing the congestion in the net- This causes an increase in the frequency of link breakages,
work, which could affect the performance of the protocols. affecting the overall performance of the system.
5.3. Packet Delivery vs. Maximum Speed 5.4. Packet Delivery vs. Number of Nodes
The maximum speed of the nodes was varied in two The number of nodes was varied from 40 to 100. In one
phases, from 0.1m/sec to 1 m/sec in steps of 0.1m/sec and experiment, the transmission range was adjusted in such a
from 1m/sec to 10m/sec in steps of 1m/sec. The transmis- way that the average number of neighbors of a node re-
sion range was set constant at 75m and the number of nodes mained approximately the same. As the number of nodes
was fixed at 40. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show variation of packet in the network increases, the routing distance between the
delivery with speed for both the phases. These graphs con- nodes goes up, and hence the frequency of link failures in
tinue to illustrate that our protocol achieves better packet the network also increases. Fig. 6 shows the variation of
delivery with a decreased variation in the number of pack- packet delivery with the increase in the number of nodes.
ets received by the group members. At very low values As the number of nodes increases, the packet delivery rate
of maximum speed, upto 0.3m/sec, our protocol gives near tends to decrease gradually because of the above mentioned
100% packet delivery. At higher speeds, the data delivery reasons. In another experiment, the transmission range was
Speed = 0.2 Speed = 0.2 Power = 55
2200 2200
2000 2000
1800 1800
1600 1600
1400 1400
# pkts recvd
# pkts recvd
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
Figure 6. Packet Delivery vs Number of Nodes Figure 7. Packet Delivery vs Number of Nodes
keeping the average number of neighbors for when the transmission range is constant at
a node approximately constant 55m and maximum speed is 0.2m/sec
kept constant at 55m and the number of nodes was varied tree. The effectiveness of anonymous gossip depends on
from 40 to 100. Fig. 7 shows the results of this experiment. the values chosen for the size of the history table and the
As the number of nodes is increased, the connectivity of lost table, besides the gossip interval. We are currently
the network increases improving packet delivery. However, doing more experiments to study the performance of AG
the traffic in the network also increases and beyond a point under different parameters. Implementing anonymous gos-
this leads to congestion decreasing the number of packets sip with other multicast protocols, such as ODMRP[10] and
delivered. AMRIS[8], could also be done in a similar manner without
adding extra complexity. We believe that AG would be able
5.5. Performance Analysis
to improve the reliability of these protocols as well.
The simulation results show that AG can improve the re-
liability of multicast routing protocols without the use of ac- 6. Related Work
knowledgements, and without adding significant overhead Despite the importance of reliable multicast in mobile
to them. The overhead analysis of gossip is presented in Fig. ad-hoc applications, not much work has been done on it. In
8. Goodput is defined as the percentage of non-duplicate [9], Pagani et al propose a protocol that guarantees validity,
messages received through gossip replies to the total num- agreement, integrity and termination for multicast in such
ber of messages received through gossip replies. In other environments. The protocol is characterized in two phases:
words goodput gives a measure of the redundant traffic - the scattering phase, in which a message is diffused from
more the goodput, more the number of useful messages car- the source to all its destinations, and the gathering phase,
ried by gossip replies and lesser is the redundancy. In our in which the source collects all the acknowledgements mes-
simulations goodput is measured at different group mem- sages from the destinations. Most of the communication
bers for two values each of transmission range and maxi- is done on a forwarding tree, that is an on demand source-
mum speed. Fig. 8 shows that the goodput is close to 100 centered routing tree, with the lifetime of at most the time
percent for most of the cases under which the experiments needed to scatter and gather a single message. In case, the
were run. It implies that nearly all the gossip replies were tree links break, no effort is made to repair it, and flood-
useful and very few duplicates were received. This can be ing is used for further communication. For reliability, a
attributed to the parameters that were chosen for gossip. For message is buffered at each of the clusterheads along the
a different messaging rate these parameters would have to tree, as long as its ack from the downstream nodes is not re-
be adjusted to give a comparable goodput. In general the ceived. Using this mechanism, the protocol provides strong
gossip rate should be tuned so that the network does not get guarantees for message delivery as long as the conditions
congested and the goodput is nearly 100 percent. of eventual subsidence, liveness and clusterhead stability is
AG works even when the multicast tree is broken, re- satisfied. While this protocol provides these guarantees in a
covering packets dropped during the maintenance of the slow moving network where the failures are rare, the per-
Goodput
100 could be satisfied with an unreliable multicast as long as
most of the messages reach the destination. While [9] de-
99.5
scribes a protocol for the first case, we do not address that
problem here. At the same time we would like to emphasize
99
that stronger reliability guarantees can be obtained by devel-
goodput(%)
98.5
oping protocols that function over the underlying multicast
and our gossip protocol. Work is being done on the Sp-
98 inglass project[16] in Cornell University, where protocols
45m, 0.2m/s
for leader election, consensus and other advanced proper-
97.5 75m, 0.2m/s
45m, 2m/s
ties are being developed over bimodal multicast. As a fu-
75m, 2m/s ture work, we would like to develop efficient algorithms to
97
5 10 15 20
node
25 30 35 40
do the same over probabilistic multicast protocols in mobile
ad-hoc networks.
Figure 8. Goodput at different group members In this work, we have not tried to improve upon the effi-
for 2 values each of transmission range and ciency and scalability of MAODV itself. Our protocol could
maximum speed be used with any existing multicast protocol, without signif-
icantly changing the existing protocol. AG inherits limita-
tions from the underlying protocol; for example, in the work
described here, AG would not work if the links were unidi-
formance decreases dramatically with the increasing size rectional. On the other hand AG introduces little overhead
of the network. There is also degradation in performance beyond that associated with the underlying mechanisms. In
with increase in mobility. The reasons for the poor perfor- the future, with much better and efficient multicast proto-
mance can be attributed to two main aspects of the protocol. cols coming up, we would like to improve upon their relia-
Firstly, since buffer size, in practice, is bounded, a situation bility by using the gossip protocol. Our work with MAODV
could arise when old messages are still stored in most of is the first effort in improving reliability of the existing mul-
the node buffers. This gives rise to a situation where newer ticast protocols. It is possible to get improvements by using
messages cannot be accommodated since older messages anonymous gossip on the other protocols proposed in [6],
have to be stored to provide the strong guarantees. The sec- [10], [8] and [7].
ond reason for decrease in performance is the use of ack Acknowledgements
messages. This proves to be very expensive in wireless net- We are extremely grateful to Indranil Gupta and Robert
works where the physical layer is bandwidth constrained. Van Renesse for the useful discussions and Chaitanya
Another approach to achieve reliability in ad-hoc net- Swamy and Sheela Tiwary for reviewing the paper.
works is proposed in [13]. This protocol guarantees best
effort delivery using an adaptive flooding scheme called References
hyper-flooding. The nodes do not keep any state regarding [1] Kenneth P. Birman, Mark Hayden, Oznur Ozkasap,
the multicast routes. Whenever a sender has to multicast Zhen Xiao, Mihai Budiu and Yaron Minsky. “Bimodal
a message, it broadcasts the message to all its neighbors Multicast”. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
who in turn re-broadcast the packet. Some optimizations Vol. 17, Issue 2, May 1999, 41-88.
are made to prevent packets from looping forever in the [2] Elizabeth M. Royer and Charles E. Perkins. “Multicast
network. The advantage of this protocol is the reliability Operation of the Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vec-
it provides for high-speed networks. On the other hand this tor Routing Protocol”. Proceedings of the fifth annual
protocol is extremely expensive since it generates a large ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile com-
number of messages, and may easily congest the network. puting and Networking(MOBICOM). Aug. 1999, 207-
Especially when the multicast group is sparsely distributed 218.
in a dense network or when all the nodes are not moving at
high speeds, the protocol decreases the throughput consid- [3] Sally Floyd, Van Jacobson, Steve McCanne, Ching-
erably. Gung Liu and Lixia Zhang. “A Reliable Multicast
Framework for Light Weight Sessions and Application
7. Concluding Remarks and Future Work Level Framing”. In Proceedings of the ’95 Symposium
Many of the exciting applications for wireless ad-hoc on Communication Architectures and Protocols (SIG-
networks will require reliable multicast although the degree COMM). ACM. August 1995, Cambridge MA.
of reliability demanded by them may vary. Few applica-
tions might demand special properties from the protocol, [4] Sanjoy Paul, K. K. Sabnani, J. C. Lin, S. Bhattacharya.
many may be satisfied with best effort delivery and others “Reliable Multicast Transport Protocol(RMTP)”. IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, special [16] Cornell University. “Spinglass: Adaptive Probabilistic
issue on Network Support for Multipoint Communica- Tools for Advanced Networks.”
tion, April 97, Vol 15, No. 3.
[17] Xiang Zeng, Rajive Bagrodia, and Mario Gerla. “Glo-
[5] T. Speakman and D. Farinacci and S. Lin and A. MoSim: A Library for Parallel Simulation of Large-
Tweedly. “Pretty Good Multicast”. Internet draft, scale Wireless Networks”. Proceedings of the 12th
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-speakman- workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation, May
pgm-spec-00.txt 26 - 29, 1998, Banff Canada, 154-161.
[6] Prasun Sinha, Raghupathy Sivakumar, Vaduvur Bhar- [18] R. Bagrodia, R. Meyer, M. Takai, Y. Chen, X. Zeng,
gavan. “MCEDAR: Multicast Core-Extraction Dis- J. Martin, B. Park, and H. Song. “Parsec: A Parallel
tributed Ad-Hoc Routing”. Proceedings of IEEE Wire- Simulation Environment for Complex Systems”. IEEE
less Communications and Networking Conference, Computer, Vol. 31(10), October 1998, pp. 77-85
September 1999.