Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract— Large military ad hoc networks are often charac- environment. There is one feasible solution to extend the intra-
terized by the interconnection of heterogeneous domains. The domain routing protocol to the inter-domain routing protocol
same trend is emerging in civilian MANETs (e.g., search and is adding inter-domain functions into the intra-domain proto-
rescue, vehicular networks). In these networks it is important
to be able to efficiently propagate information across domains col. However, the revision may introduce additional control
in multicast mode (e.g., situation awareness dissemination, com- overhead and decrease the packet delivery ratio. To build
mands, streams). Several multicast protocols have been developed an efficient and scalable multicast routing, we introduce the
for single domain MANET. However, few can be extended to geographical assisted multicast inter-domain routing (GMIDR)
inter-domain operation. In fact, multicast routing across different protocol.
MANET domains faces the challenges of node motion, topology
changes, dynamic gateway election and, possibly, connectivity The main goal of our protocol is to achieve a scalable and
interruption. To overcome these challenges, especially to achieve efficient multicast routing in inter-domain networks. Also, it is
routing scalability and at the same time maintains efficient rout- important to minimize the control overhead and provide ways
ing, this paper proposes the Geo-assisted Multicast Inter-domain to handle inter-domain policy compliance and heterogeneity.
Routing (GMIDR) protocol based on geographical assistance and We utilize geo-routing protocol and cluster techniques to
cluster technology. Intensive simulation results show that the
GMIDR protocol is scalable and stable with various numbers achieve these goals. The proposed GMIDR applies the geo-
of multicast group members, and it outperforms other multicast routing strategy to reduce network overhead. Namely, each
protocols. Geocast by applying GMIDR shows the flexibility of node is aware of its own geographical location, and the geo-
the protocol. routing protocol looks for the node in the multicast group
based on the location information, which consumes much less
I. I NTRODUCTION
control overhead. To enable scalable and efficient routing,
The mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) inter-domain mul- cluster techniques is introduced. Clusters as the basic structure
ticasting comes out as an efficient communication paradigm in GMIDR in each domain help the protocol to obtain effi-
for the emerging multicast communications across multiple cient communication among different domains. Furthermore,
domains, e.g., large military operations, emergency and rescue multicast group cluster heads (GCHs) are elected within
missions. For instance, a commander-in-general would send the multicast group covering the entire multicast group. A
the order to the army, navy and air forces to cooperate each multicast tree is established from source to each GCH instead
other to finish an overall military mission. Also, a remote of each member in the multicast group. The GCH acts as
rescue surgery may need cooperation from multiple doctors the stronghold in its group cluster. It obtains the data from
physically located in different regions. These above-mentioned outside the group cluster, and delivers to all its children within
missions cover several areas and need fast response. Therefore, the group cluster. By taking advantage of GCH, our proposed
it is very important to define a network routing policy to protocol consumes very low control overhead on the group
disseminate data to different domains. Some civilian MANET management.
applications would also require an inter-domain multicast The remainder of this paper is organized in the following
routing protocol. For example, a vehicle driver may wish to way. The related work is briefly reviewed in section II. The
send a traffic situation message to a group of cars in different basic structure behind the protocol is discussed in section
domains. Multicast TV [4] on public transportation such as III. We describe the protocol design of GMIDR in details
buses requires scalable transmission to provide the multimedia in section IV. The performance evaluations are presented in
service. section V and the last section of the paper is our conclusion.
Towards this end, Ji and Corson have developed the Dif-
II. R ELATED W ORK
ferential Destination Multicast (DDM) protocol [1] which
aims to adapt to small multicast groups. SENCAST [2] is a A. Geo-based inter-domain routing (GIDR)
routing protocol designed for large ad hoc emergency network. Geo-based inter-domain routing (GIDR) [5] protocol for
However, these protocols are hard to meet the inter-domain MANET is an efficient unicast protocol to apply the clustering
multicast routing requirements. To the best of our knowledge, technique and geo-routing protocol to obtain the efficient com-
very few multicast procotols are designed to inter-domain munication and achieve the scalability. Clusters are assigned
table to find the destination node. If the destination node Fig. 1: Overview of GMIDR
locates in the local domain, the source can deliver the data via
local routing protocol. However, if no information is found in
the local routing table, the data will be transmitted to a cluster
B. Multicast Group Cluster Head (GCH)
head. Then the cluster head forwards the packet until it reaches
to the destination. We introduce the multicast group cluster head (GCH) to
The GIDR protocol uses geographical direction forwarding achieve the scalability of the multicast routing. As we have
routing as the routing mechanism to transmit the package to already indicated, multicast GCH is the node elected in the
the destination. Specifically, it exploits greedy forwarding as multicast group to assist the accomplishment of the multicast
its basic mode of operation to tackle the routing issue in data delivery. It would be a great complicated multicast tree
MANET. Whereas, the selected next hop may be not satisfied if the data packet were transmitted to every multicast group
with the greedy forwarding condition due to the presence member directly. Instead, the multicast tree is built only
of holes or obstacles. Instead of perimeter routing, GIDR between the source and GCHs. There are several GCHs chosen
switches to the direction forwarding. The packet is ”direction” in the multicast session to cover the entire group. The most
forwarded to the ”most promising” node in the indicated efficient GCHs are the dominating set of the multicast group.
direction. However, the construction of a dominating set is a complicated
GIDR works well in unicast inter-domain routing applica- question and costs very much computation resources. By
tions, but it is inefficient to send messages to a large group of relaxing the selection condition, we propose a distributed GCH
receivers. Therefore, we propose the GMIDR multicast inter- election algorithm. Our strategy of GCH election is described
domain protocol to adapt to new situations transmitting data as following: the first step is to find nodes with maximal
to large group members as we described in Section I. number of neighbors in the multicast group. If existing GCHs
cannot cover the whole group, the protocol will continuously
B. On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol(ODMRP) choose the GCH in the rest of the group until every node
in the multicast group can be reached in one hop by some
ODMRP [3] is an on demand multicast routing protocol for GCH. Obviously, multicast group clusters may overlap each
multihop wireless network. It reduces the network traffic by other during the election using this algorithm. To balance the
creating routes on demand. Each source and receiver keeps work load of each GCH, it is better to make the overlapping
broadcast join query and join reply to construct the routes. It nodes distribute evenly into clusters. Our scheme is to partition
maintains a forwarding group between sources and receivers overlapping nodes based on parity of the node ID. Namely, if
to forward multicast packet via scoped flooding. However, the overlapping node ID is odd, we consider it as a member
ODMRP suffers from a route acquisition. Meanwhile, it has of the old multicast group cluster. While if the overlapping
a problem of excessive flooding when number of multicast node ID is even, we put it to the new multicast group cluster.
senders are more. Besides, ODMRP is designed for one The algorithm is abstracted as Algorithm 1.
domain multicasting. It cannot work directly on the inter- GCHs compose the main trunk of the multicast tree. It takes
domain multicast directly. the role of stronghold to deliver multicast data to every end
of the multicast group. It is impossible that fixed multicast
III. P ROTOCOL D ESIGN GCHs cover the entire multicast group permanently due to
the mobility of networks. Hence, it is necessary to elect GCHs
A. Overview of GMIDR
periodically, but the reelection of GCHs in the entire multicast
The general architecture of GMIDR is represented in Fig. group leads to the reestablishment of the multicast tree, which
1. CHs are elected in each domain and multicast group cluster makes the multicast routing instable. Therefore, we introduce
heads (GCHs) are elected in the multicast group. Each GCH a scheme to ensure that the whole group can be covered by
finds routes to the source node. Then the source uses Reversed GCHs without frequent GCH reelection. Our approach is that
Path Forwarding (RPF) [6] technique to build multicast trees. each node periodically (i.e. 10s) checks its status if it still has
Following the established multicast tree, multicast data packets connection to its GCH. If it loses the connection from its GCH,
can be delivered from the source to every GCH. Upon a GCH it checks if there any other GCHs around. If it detects one in
receiving the data packet, it distinguishes its children from range, it switches its GCH to the one detected. Otherwise, it
members in the multicast group, and then forwards the packets elected itself as a temporary GCH. By this mean, all GCH
to its children. relationship subjection can be checked based on local routing
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings
Delivey ratio
60%
show applications of GMIDR in subsection C. 2
40%
100% 4
7
x 10
one starts with 10 multicast group members, 5 new nodes
join in and 5 nodes leave the group during the time of the
Control overhead (bytes)
80%
3
simulation. 10% of nodes are CHs and there are 5 senders
Delivery ratio
60%
GMIDR protocol outperforms than the ODMRP protocol. This radius in the simulation area of 1500m * 1500m. There are
outstanding performance attributes to the geo-based routing two domains and 20 nodes in each domain. The speed of
protocols. GMIDR can find each node by its geographical each node ranges from 10m/s to 50m/s. There is one source
location. It is efficient to forward packets to destinations. We sending packets at the rate of 5s per packet. The simulation
also conclude from Fig. 4(a) that both curves are in decreasing length is 200s simulation time. We measured the rate of nodes
trend as the increasing of speed. The higher mobility makes a receiving packets in geocast region as a function of node speed
lower delivery achievements. as shown in Fig.5. The rate is calculated by the number of
nodes receiving packets in geocast region over the number
7
of nodes bypass the geocast area. The figure shows that the
100% x 10
4
success rate of more CHs is higher owe to its sufficient inter-
60%
2
nodes speed from the perspective of single curve. We interpret
40% it as two reasons. Firstly, the high speed makes the network
1
20% GMIDR GMIDR
ODMRP
changed frequently and it is difficult to maintain a stable
ODMRP
0%
10 20 30 40 50
0
10 20 30 40 50
connection. Secondly, nodes with higher speed stay shorter
Mobility speed (m/s) Mobility speed (m/s)
in the geocast area and thus they have less chance to receive
(a) Delivery ratio (b) Control overhead
packets.
Fig. 4: Delivery ratio and control overhead: GMIDR vs.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
ODMRP
The proposed GMIDR protocol provides a scalable multi-
Fig. 4(b) represents the comparison of control overhead cast routing mechanism for mobile ad-hoc networks. We intro-
between GMIDR and ODMRP. The overhead of ODMRP duce multicast GCHs to manage the multicast group. To over-
increases as the increasing of node speed. This is conformed come the challenges caused by network mobility, the GMIDR
with the original ODMRP protocol. The curves show that protocol sends periodical beacons to guarantee the connectivity
ODMRP costs more control overhead than GMIDR. This is of the multicast routes. We also introduce the GCH-reelection
because GMIDR can detect neighbors by their locations but mechanism to ensure the efficiency of the GCHs and the
ODMRP needs to send beacons to aware of their neighbor- stability of the multicast tree. In our protocol, joining and
hoods. Though the result is somehow effected by functions we leaving multicast group have little impact on delivery ratio
added to ODMRP, considering GMIDR also including those and control overhead. The experimental comparison results
functions, we can conclude that GMIDR is better performed shows the scalability of the protocol with different number
than ODMRP in terms of overhead. of multicast group members. We also compared GMIDR with
other multiple protocol in the inter-domain mode. It shows
C. GMIDR Applications GMIDR outperformed than ODMRP in terms of delivery ratio.
In addition, by taking advantage of geo-routing protocol, the
50% GMIDR can be exploited to the geocast.
10 CHs
40% R EFERENCES
20 CHs
30%
Rate