Homogeneous hierarchical routing scheme for proactive protocols - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Jun 27, 2023 232 likes •444 views

Homogeneous hierarchical routing scheme for proactive protocols presented in 2nd OLSR INTEROP / WORKSHOP 2005 1 J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber Introduction Ad-hoc networks are usually viewed as small- scale networks. However, future development of

SLIDE 1

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 1

Homogeneous hierarchical routing scheme for proactive protocols

presented in 2nd OLSR INTEROP / WORKSHOP 2005

SLIDE 2

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 2

Introduction

Ad-hoc networks are usually viewed as small- scale networks. However, future development

mobile communications will require protocols that accommodate with very large networks.

SLIDE 3

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 3

Classical “flat” approach

The classical flat addressing and routing approach requires one entry in the routing table for each node in the network. This automatically disqualifies protocols that work this way for large to very large networks. Moreover, testing has shown that most existing protocols hardly sustain networks with more than 500 nodes.

SLIDE 4

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 4

A hierarchical approach

To make large networks manageable, a hierarchical scheme is proposed. Nodes will only need to maintain tables to some specific nodes, which will be local area neighbors at the lowest level and distant nodes in the higher levels.

SLIDE 5

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 5

Limited range OLSR

Nodes run OLSR in a limited manner and discover neighboring nodes in their area.

SLIDE 6

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 6

Similar node selection

Nodes select similar nodes among the

in their area.

SLIDE 7

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 7

Next-level direct neighbours

Selected similar nodes are consided direct neighbors in a new level of the protocol. A new instance of OLSR is launched at this level.

SLIDE 8

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 8

Stacked OLSR

Recursively, nodes discover similar neighboring nodes in a bigger, higher-level area. The process is repeated until the whole network is covered.

SLIDE 9

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 9

Similarity

The selection

similar nodes need a similarity function that evaluates the level of similarity between two nodes. Similar nodes in an area must be sufficiently scattered to ensure that the protocol works correctly. Therefore, this function must be carefully chosen.

SLIDE 10

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 10

Similarity criterion

Suffixes in IP addresses have been chosen because

their availability and because unlike IP prefixes, they are usually distributed randomly. In this proposal, the level of similarity is the number

equal digits

the IP address represented in hexadecimal.

SLIDE 11

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 11

Limiting the size of the local area

The size of the area can easily be limited by using a mechanism based on the TTL in Link State updates. A method to dynamically modify the size of the local area is necessary to cope with cases where the physical network is too sparse or too dense.

SLIDE 12

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 12

Impact on routing table size

Each node needs only to store routing entries for known nodes in its areas, at each level. The number of levels depends on the size of the addresses. In our case, there are 8 levels because an IPv4 address represented in hexadecimal is 8 digits long. Therefore, the routing tables will be no larger than the number of levels times the area size.

SLIDE 13

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 13

Impact on overhead

Basically, in plain OLSR nodes need to send their link state to every other node in the network. With this hierarchical scheme, only the nodes in the local areas (at each level) of a node need this information. Moreover, in higher levels the impact

mobility should be reduced, so the retransmission rates can be lower.

SLIDE 14

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 14

Routing

Nodes that want to send a message first check if the receiving node is known in the lowest level of their routing table.

 If so, routing takes place as usual.  If

not, the message is sent to

intermediary node in the area of the emitter. The address of this node must be similar to the destination. The message will then be routed in the upper level.

SLIDE 15

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 15

Routing - Example

To ease the understanding

the algorithm, let's consider an example on an idealized network.

 The traffic in the upper

level can be considered as “encapsulated”.

SLIDE 16

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 16

Related work

 OLSR – Optimised Link State Routing.  A routing scheme using local areas and two levels

has already be proposed in ZRP – Zone Routing protocol, however the second level uses a reactive protocol.

 FSR – Fisheye State Routing proposed a reduction

f route update messages for distant nodes

 Bit Serial algorithm – the routing algorithm looks

like the one used to find a vertex in a hypercube

SLIDE 17

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 17

Further work

Further investigation is necessary to discover real-world performance

this protocol.

 Simulation will provide an estimation of the

protocol's abilities

 Large scales introduces the problem of

trust about the data forwarded by neighbors.

SLIDE 18

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 18

Conclusion

This hierarchical approach would qualify for large scale networks because it is structurally capable of coping with large quantities of nodes. Also, the homogeneous aspect does not impose additional responsibilities on so-called “clusterhead” nodes in other protocols. Finally, it is possible to implement it in a relatively transparent manner to IP networks.

SLIDE 19

J-C. Haessig, J. Gaber 19