Chapter 1 Ad Hoc Networks

1.1 Introduction
As understood presently, an Ad Hoc network may be defined as a self-organising, selfhealing wireless network in which mobile nodes are responsible for discovery of each other and subsequent cooperation so that communication is possible [1], [5]. The word Ad Hoc is defined as: Improvised and often impromptu [7]. For this reason when the term is applied to an Ad Hoc network, it generally implies that the network, unlike a fixed network or a cellular one, cannot rely on the presence of fixed infrastructure and/or human intervention. The network should therefore be capable of self-organisation for communication to be possible and should be self-healing in view of network failures. In order to evaluate the properties of an Ad Hoc network, it is useful to benchmark it with a commercial Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) type cellular network consisting of fixed Base Station Subsystems (BSSs) and Mobile Terminals (MTs). In a cellular network it is necessary to plan the coverage and capacity a priori. In Ad Hoc networks coverage is entirely dependant on the amount of nodes present and the distribution of these nodes; both of which are dynamic in nature. Resources such as computational power, bandwidth, storage capacity and battery life are scarce at all nodes in an Ad Hoc network, unlike cellular networks where this is the case only at the MTs. Security is also a bigger issue since trust is not inherent to nodes in an Ad Hoc network, as it is to a BSS in a commercial cellular network. On the other hand, an Ad Hoc network has several advantages. Since an Ad Hoc network does not rely on a fixed infrastructure, no single point of failure is introduced in the network, thereby making the network more resilient. Moreover, it can be rapidly deploye in areas where a xed infrastructure is not available, is not trusted or cannot be relied on [1]. Finally, a densely populated Ad Hoc network also inherently achieves redundancy of routes, thereby further improving resiliency.

1.2 EVOLUTION OF AD HOC NETWORKS

The 1972 US Department of Defence sponsored project PRNET evolved into the Survivable Adaptive Radio Networks (SURAN) program in the early 1980s. In both cases, the scope for the projects was military in nature; that of providing packet-switched networking in a battlefield, without relying on any fixed infrastructure. The advent of mobile computing and viable wireless digital communication, approximately a decade later, rekindled interest in such networks. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) started standardisation of the High Performance Radio Local Area Network/1 (HIPERLAN/1) in 1991 [8]; an Ad Hoc networks standard. The IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) working group adopted the term Ad Hoc for such

networks and included them in its standardisation initiatives. In turn, the US Department of Defence funded other projects related to Ad Hoc networks, including the Global Mobile Information Systems (GloMo) and Near-Term Digital Radio (NTDR) [1]. In 1996, ETSI released the rst edi on of the HIPERLAN/1 standard. 1997 was a year of considerable activity for commercial Ad Hoc networking. The IEEE 802.11 working group released its rst standard, IEEE 802.11 [9]. ETSI formed the Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN) working group to work on HIPERLAN/2. The IETF formed the MANET charter with the intent of investigating and standardising routing protocols for MANETs. In 1998, the Bluetooth special interest group was founded to develop a cable replacement (PAN) technology for electronic devices, based on Ad Hoc networking. Since then, standardisation has progressed under these standardisation bodies as follows: The Bluetooth special interest group released v. 1.0 of the standard in 1999 [10]. Since then, Bluetooth standardisation has been carried out in close cooperation with the IEEE 802.15 PAN working group, resul ng in the release of the IEEE 802.15.1 standard in 2002, this being based on the Bluetooth specica on v. 1.1. The ETSI BRAN working group released the rst edi on of the HIPERLAN/2 standard in 2000 [11]. The IEEE 802.11 working group released two other standards in 1999, IEEE 802.11a and IEEE 802.11b [9], and another one this year, IEEE 802.11g. The IETF MANET charter has submitted four Internet drafts to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) this year for the publication of Request For Comments (RFC) documents. To date, one document has been published. Error! Reference source not found.) summarizes the evolution of Ad Hoc networking. The advent of commercial Ad Hoc networking is marked by the release of the IEEE 802.11b and Bluetooth v. 1.0 standards in 1999, due to the introduc on of devices based on these standards to the market and the widespread popularity that these devices gained.

1.3 Challenges in Ad Hoc Networks

Although ad hoc networks are treated with little difference in the IEEE standards for wireless networks as a whole, some unique features make ad hoc networks distinct from other types of wireless networks such as wireless cellular networks. These unique features also bring some new challenges compared with other type of wireless networks. The first unique feature is infrastructureless. Ad hoc networks are usually deployed in emergent and temporary situations such as accidents or public gatherings, where mobile nodes may join the network at will, move around, or become disconnected at any time. The node mobility generates rapid changes in network connectivity and link characteristics. In ad hoc networks, some research work has been done in this area to analyze the link characteristics either via simulations [3] - [5] or analytical models [6] [7]. These research work has their own restrictions. [3] - [5] only provided the simulation results. [6] and [7] analyzed the link and path availabilities with two different mobility models. However, these studies are not enough to describe the link status in ad hoc networks. In our research work, we propose an analytical model to study the link stability using more metrics, i.e., link duration, link holding time, and link breaking probability. Our model can be easily extended to describe a routing path stability. Because of the above-mentioned feature, the state of ad hoc networks is far less predictable than that of other networks and it is quite natural for individual nodes to share a common wireless channel via distributed mechanisms. Thus, how the medium access control (MAC) protocol is designed to allocate the communication resources efficiently and fairly of ad hoc networks largely determines the network performance, which can be measured in term of throughput, transmission delay, and fairness etc. In the literature, the IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol has been widely used due to its compatibility with the IEEE 802 MAC protocol suite [9].

The IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol has defined two fundamental medium access control methods: the contention-based distributed coordination function (DCF) and contention-free based point coordination function (PCF). The IEEE 802.11 DCF, which provides a controlled access method to the shared wireless media called Carrier-Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA), is the most popular MAC protocol used in both infrastructure WLAN and ad hoc networks. Therefore, in this research work, we focus our analysis on the performance of DCF mechanism. Since the release of the IEEE 802.11 standard, many research efforts have been devoted to modeling the performance of the IEEE 802.11 DCF medium access method. In [10], Bianchi used Markov chain model to analyze DCF operation and provided a close-form to calculate the saturated throughput of the IEEE802.11 DCF protocol. In particular, Bianchi modeled the idealistic assumption of only collision errors, that packet retransmissions are unlimited and a packet is being transmitted continuously until its successful reception. [11] extended Bianchis model to include the finite retry limits as defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard. [12] analyzed the channel capacity - i.e., maximum throughput - when using the basic CSMA/CA protocol. In [13], although the authors tried to analyze the performance of CSMA/CA, the analysis is only based on p-persistent CSMA, not the exact CSMA/CA. All these papers are restricted to the analysis in single-hop ad hoc networks. [14] used a linear feedback model to evaluate the performance of the IEEE 802.11 DCF protocol without assuming the traffic to be in a saturated state. However, the nodes in all above studies are stationary without mobility. In this study, we take the mobility effect into account to study the performance of the IEEE 802.11 DCF protocol with a general traffic load (from light traffic to heavy traffic) in dynamic environment. In mobile ad hoc network, it is unrealistic to expect such a network to be fully connected, in which a mobile node can communicate directly with every other nodes in the network via wireless channels. As a result, another important feature emerges multi-hop communication. Each node in the network has to take the responsibility of relaying packets for its peers and a packet may traverse multiplenodes before it reaches the destination. Two typical problems, namely hidden node and exposed node problems, come along with multi-hop communication. The work from [15] analyzed the impact of hidden node problem and obtained the saturated throughput of CSMA/CA with RTS/CTS in a two-hop ad hoc networks. A simple model to derive the saturated throughput of collision avoidance protocols based on a RTS/CTS handshake in a two-hop ad hoc networks is presented in [16]. Up to now, the studies mainly focus on the saturated throughput in fixed ad hoc networks. In our research work, we release these restrictions and analyze the throughput of CSMA/CA protocol in dynamic ad hoc networks with general traffic load. In classical analysis of MAC protocols, it is assumed that all packets involved in collision are destroyed. This is somewhat unrealistic assumption in mobile networks because of the difference in power levels of the transmitted packets at the receiver introduced by multipath fading, shadowing, and path loss. In ad hoc networks, a packet with the strongest received power might be successfully decoded at the receiver even in presence of simultaneous transmissions of multiple packets. This phenomena is called capture effect. Although there are many studies to analyze the performance of MAC protocols [10] - [14], few consider the capture effect [17] [18]. Their models essentially rely on the p-persistent CSMA protocol, which differ from the standard protocol in the selection of the backoff interval. In our research work, by using the probability and statistical methods, we calculate the probability of capture effect. We take this capture effect into account and theoretically predict the

performance of CSMA/CA protocol in an ad hoc network considering path loss, multipath fading, and shadowing. Wireless channels are severely affected by time-varying losses due to path loss, shadowing, and multipath fading. While the variation in the losses due to path loss and shadowing is relatively slow, the variation due to multipath fading is quite fast. The fading envelope due to multipath fading often follows a Rayleigh distribution, so that the envelope squared has an exponential distribution. Most notably, the correlation in the multipath fading behavior and its effect on the performance of MAC protocols have not been adequately addressed in the literature so far. The primary focus of chapter 6 is to address this void. In this chapter, the influence of time-varying channel on the performance of CSMA/CA protocol is analyzed.

1.4 Differences between Cellular and Ad Hoc Wireless Networks

Table 1 Differences between Cellular and Ad Hoc Wireless Networks
Cellular Infrastructure networks Fixed, prelocated cell sites and base station Static backbone network topology Relatively caring environment and stable connectivity Detailed planning before base station can be installed High setup costs Large setup time Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Infrastructureless networks No base station, and rapid deployment Highly dynamic network topologies with multihop Hostile environment (noise, losses) and irregular connectivity Ad hoc network automatically forms and adapts to changes Cost-effective Less setup time

to variation in performance and coverage and to switch gateways when beneficial. To enhance the prediction of the best overall performance, a network- layer metric has a better overview of the network. Ad hoc networking brings features like easy connection to access networks, dynamic multihop network structures, and direct peer-to-peer communication. The multihop property of an ad hoc network needs to be bridged by a gateway to the wired backbone. The gateway must have a network interface on both types of networks and be a part of both the global routing and the local ad hoc routing. Users could benefit from ubiquitous networks in several ways. User mobility enables users to switch between devices, migrate sessions, and still get the same personalized services. Host mobility enables the users devices to move around the networks and maintain connectivity and reachability.

1.5 applications of Ad Hoc networks

1) Military applications: Ad Hoc networks are particularly suited to the battlefield scenario where soldiers require a portable, instantaneous and resilient communica ons system opera ng in a hos le environment. As noted in Chapter 1, such networks have recently been fielded by the US military. 2) Commercial applications: The current application of commercially available Ad Hoc networking devices is for the creation of Personal Area Networks (PANs). In a PAN, a users electronic devices, such as a laptop, mobile phone, and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) collaborate amongst each other for data exchange and synchronisation. Future applications

of commercial Ad Hoc networks will include networking in temporary offices, in classrooms or at conferences [1]. To some extent, these applica ons are already possible; albeit restricted to communication between neighbouring nodes. This restriction arises because Ad Hoc routing protocols have not yet been standardised. 3) Emergency and rescue applications: Ad Hoc networks in the future could be deployed in emergency and rescue situations where the fixed infrastructure may have been destroyed due to an earthquake or other catastrophe. 4) Sensor networks: Ad Hoc networks may also connect sensor networks. A typical application of such networks is for the collection of environmental data, such as pollution measurements. Nodes for this application would have to be small, low cost and low power, so that large numbers could be deployed into an area of interest.

1.6 MAC Protocols

1.6.1 DESIGN GOALS OF A MAC PROTOCOL FOR AD HOC WIRELESS NETWORKS
The following are the important goals to be met while designing a medium access control (MAC) protocol for ad hoc wireless networks:

The operation of the protocol should be distributed. The protocol should provide QoS support for real-time traffic. The access delay, which refers to the average delay experienced by any packet to get transmitted, must be kept low. The available bandwidth must be utilized efficiently. The protocol should ensure fair allocation (either equal allocation or weighted allocation) of bandwidth to nodes. Control overhead must be kept as low as possible. The protocol should minimize the effects of hidden and exposed terminal problems. The protocol must be scalable to large networks. It should have power control mechanisms in order to efficiently manage energy consumption of the nodes. The protocol should have mechanisms for adaptive data rate control (adaptive rate control refers to the ability to control the rate of outgoing traffic from a node after taking into consideration such factors as load in the network and the status of neighbor nodes). It should try to use directional antennas which can provide advantages such as reduced interference, increased spectrum reuse, and reduced power consumption.

Since synchronization among nodes is very important for bandwidth reservations, the protocol should provide time synchronization among nodes. The protocol should have mechanisms for adaptive date rate control. It should try to use directional antennas which can provide advantages such as reduced interference, increased spectrum reuse ,and reduced power consumption. Since synchronization among node is very important for bandwidth reservations, the protocol should provide time synchronization among nodes.

1.6.2

CLASSIFICATIONS OF MAC PROTOCOLS

MAC protocols for ad hoc wireless networks can be classified into several categories based on various criteria such as initiation approach, time synchronization, and reservation approaches. Figure 6.2 provides a detailed classification tree. In this section, some of the classifications of MAC protocols are briefly discussed. Ad hoc network MAC protocols can be classified into three basic types:

Contention-based protocols Contention-based protocols with reservation mechanisms Contention-based protocols with scheduling mechanisms

Apart from these three major types , there exist other MAC protocols that cannot be classified clearly under any ony one the of the above three types of protocols .