on demand multicast

IEEE Seminar On Mobile Ad Hoc Network(3725303)

At: GTU PG SCHOOL,GANDHINAGAR

Performance Evaluation Of On Demand Multicasting Routing Protocol

Presented by:

Group 3Group 3

Kamal Patel (141060753011)Kamal Patel (141060753011)

Khushbu Patel (141060753012)Khushbu Patel (141060753012)

Komal Patel (141060753013)Komal Patel (141060753013)

Riddhi Ghevariya Riddhi Ghevariya

(141060753015) (141060753015) April 21, 2015

Types of Multicast Routing in MANETs

Tree-basedOne path between a source-receiver pairAMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV

Mesh-basedMultiple paths between a source-receiver pairODMRP, CAMP

HybridZone Routing Protocol (ZRP)

2

Typical Multicast Routing Protocols

AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers

ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing Protocol

3

Why compare them?AMRIS ODMRP

Big difference

Topology Shared (Core-based) Tree Mesh of Nodes

Main Similarity

Mobility support Yes, based on MANET

Driven mode On-demand, do not store whole network topology

Advantages simple topologylow overheads

mobilityrobustness

Disadvantages sensitive to mobility (low delivery ratio)

complex topologyhigh overheads

4

ODMRP

Multicast Messages:JOIN-QUERY (J-Q);JOIN-REPLY (J-R);

Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in AODV and DSR

5

Basic Operation of ODMRP

On Demand Route and Mesh Creation

Join Query

Join Reply

S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership.

Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the packet.

Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its neighbors.

Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it own. If yes , it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its

FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.

Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a shortest path.

Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.

S

R

R

R R

R

ODMRP: Join Reply

JOIN-REPLY message

Sender Next Node

S1 I1

S2 I2

7

Sender Next Node

S1 S1

J-R of R1 J-R of I1

Concept of Forwarding Group

Why a mesh?

Links

Multicast Routes

Initial Route from S1 to R2 is < S1 -A- B- R2>

Redundant Route < S1- A- C- B- R2>

FG

FG

FG FG

FGFG

R1

BC

R3

A

S1

R2

S2

S3

ODMRP: Sender Actions

Sender actions:

DownstreamGenerate J-Q message;Broadcast J-Q ;

UpstreamReceive J-R (include the path info);

9

ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (downstream)

Intermediate node actions: (downstream)

– Receive J-Q, omit duplicated ones (use cached sequence numbers);

– Store upstream node info;

– Re-broadcast J-Q;

10

ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (upstream)

Intermediate node actions: (upstream)

Received J-R;

If node is on the pathGenerate new J-R with node info and broadcast, route established!

11

ODMRP: Receiver Actions

Receiver actions:

DownstreamReceived J-Q;Generate J-R with path info;

UpstreamBroadcast J-R;

12

ODMRP: Maintenance phase

Soft state approach

Sender repeat J-Q periodically to maintain mesh.

Node joinsSending J-R as discusses before.

Node leavesSender: stops sending J-Q;Receiver: stops sending J-R;

Links breakReceiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R;

13

Algorithm Comparison (1)AMRIS ODMRP

More differences

Multicast topology Shared Delivery Tree Mesh of Nodes

Initialization Generating msm-id; Store upstream info;

Maintenance All nodes periodically send beacon message

Sender periodically send J-Q msg

Node joins Detect beacon msg and perform branch reconstruction;

Detect J-Q and response J-R;

Node leaves Stop beacon msg; Stop J-R or J-Q;

Link-break No more beacon msg and perform BR;

Receive new J-Q and reply with J-R;

More and more differences (message types, routing table info…)14

Performance Comparison (1)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of mobile speed

– # of data packets actually delivered to the destinations versus # of data packets supposed to be received

– PDR of ARMIS is speed sensitive

15

Performance Comparison (2)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of # of senders

– PDR of AMRIS is not sensitive to # of senders

– ODRMP’s performance improves as number of senders increases

16

Performance Comparison (3)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of multicast group size

– PDR of ODMRP is not sensitive to group size

– AMRIS’s performance improves as group size grows

17

Performance Comparison (4)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of network traffic load

• AMRIS has severe packet loss rates

• ODMRP suffers less

18

Overhead Comparison (1)

Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a function of mobility speed

– Control bytes are control packets and data packet headers

– Not speed sensitive

– AMRIS has lower ratio

19

Overhead Comparison (2)

Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a Function of # of Senders

– AMRIS is not affected by number of senders

– ODMRP may not be efficient in large networks

20

Qualitative Comparison

• Bandwidth Consumption– ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes

than AMRIS– However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery

ratio

• Power Consumption– Depends on mobility speed, number of senders,

network traffic load, etc.– Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes

21

References“A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2010

D. Li, J. P. Wu, K. Xu, X. P. Zhang, Y. Cui1, and Y. Liu, “Performance Analysis of Multicast Routing Protocol PIM-SM,” 0-7695-2388-9/05 2011 IEEE.

D. A. Maltz, J. Broch, J. Jetcheva, and D. B. Johnson, Member, IEEE, “The Effects of On-Demand Behavior in Routing Protocols for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, August 2011.

C. R. Lin, “On-demand QoS Routing in Multihop Mobile Networks,” In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2012, April 2012, pp. 1735–1744.

22