PhD Literature Review

Bryce Thomas

Supervision Prof. Ian Atkinson (principal) JCU A/Prof. Bruce Litow (associate) JCU Dr. Raja Jurdak (co) CSIRO

COPYRIGHT BY BRYCE THOMAS Some Rights Reserved

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Contents
1 Introduction 2 Major Networking Paradigms - Historical Perspective 2.1 The Telephone System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 6

3 Dissemination and CCN 8 3.1 CCN Network Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 CCN Packet Primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 CCN Forwarding Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 CCN as Applied to Internet-based Mobile Ad Hoc Networks 11 4.1 CCN Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 CCN Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5 Works Related to Dissemination via Mobile Ad Hoc works 5.1 Individual Behavioural Patterns of Mobile Users . . . . . 5.2 Mobile User Classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Mobility and Trac Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Nodal Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusion Net. . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 13 13 13 14

Introduction

The engineering principles and architecture of todays Internet were created in the 1960 and 70s. Networking aimed to solve the problem of resource sharing remotely accessing scarce and expensive devices such as card readers, high speed tape drives or even supercomputers. The resulting communication model was one of a conversation between exactly two hosts; a resource consumer and a resource provider [16]. This is embodied in the Internet Protocol (IP) [14], whose packet header species exactly two addresses; a source and a destination. Over several decades, network usage has evolved to be dominated by content distribution and retrieval. At ends with this phenomenon is current 3

networking technology which still only speaks of connections between hosts. Applications wanting to access content and services are made to map from what the user cares about to the networks notion of where that content lives [16]. A number of works [1, 5, 7, 16, 20, 27, 28] towards content-centric future Internet architectures have surfaced in recent years, looking to better meet the demands of todays applications and mobile environments. One promising long-term approach is Content-centric Networking (CCN) [16]. CCN treats small (e.g. IP packet-sized) chunks of named data as the primary Network layer abstraction, rather than host-addressed packets. CCN routes directly on the names of data, without any notion of host at its lowest level. A device wishing to retrieve some content requests the content by name (e.g. /jcu/web/home/banner/segment1). The request is subsequently fullled by an (ideally) close by node possessing the relevant data. A salient feature of CCN is that a piece of named content may be retrieved from any node which has previously come into possession of a copy, trusted or untrusted, and that contents validity, provenance and relevance can be veried by the receiver regardless. This is possible because CCN cryptographically signs the binding between a piece of contents name and a piece of contents data, when the content is created. This signature resides with the content as it travels through the network. CCN signs content at the packet level, leaving content amenable to very ne-grained secure caching at nodes throughout the network. One of the interesting questions this raises is, to what extent does such a ne-grained caching system reduce the demand nodes place on their upstream infrastructure at various levels in the network? The related research proposal is concerned with answering the following sub-question to what extent could wireless mobile devices reduce their demands on xed upstream infrastructure if they were to share common interest content directly among themselves? Self-conguring infrastructureless mobile networks are referred to as mobile ad hoc networks, or MANETs. A MANET augmented by existing infrastructurebased access to the Internet is referred to as an Internet-based MANET. Internet-based MANETs are motivated by a number of factors. These include: 1) lower latency and higher bandwidth; 2) reduced cost (c.f. cellular data plan pricing); 3) more ecient utilisation of nite spectrum through non-interfering short-range transmission; 4) access to content when outside of infrastructure range; and in some instances 5) lower power consumption. The ecacy of packet-level sharing of cached content in Internet-based 4

MANETs has received little attention in the literature to date. Existing works focus on individual behavioural patterns [3, 9, 10, 25], classifying mobile users [11, 19], mobility and trac models [12, 26, 31] or rudimentary nodal encounters [8, 13, 17, 30] (e.g. two Wi-Fi devices connected to the same access point concurrently). To the best of the authors knowledge, no works to date go any further in evaluating the opportunities for actual packet-level content sharing in Internet-based MANETs based on real packet traces. The research proposal complimenting this literature review suggests merging a trace of wireless nodal encounters with a packet-granularity trace of ingress trac to the same wireless nodes in order to analyse opportunities for content sharing. Using CCN as a conceptual framework and identifying identical packets being received by multiple mobile devices, it will be possible to evaluate what portion of all packets could have percolated through a MANET without eliciting the xed infrastructure for the purpose of content retrieval. The remainder of this document provides a conspectus of the existing literature relevant to the proposed research project. Section 2 gives a historical overview of the major networking paradigms in use over the last century. Section 3 reviews dissemination, the paradigm behind CCN and related network architectures. Section 4 describes CCN in the context of Internet-based MANETS. Section 5 describes existing works pertaining to dissemination in Internet-based MANETS and Section 6 provides some concluding remarks.

Major Networking Paradigms - Historical Perspective

The two major networking paradigms in use over the last century have close ties to 1) the telephone system and 2) the Internet. This section gives a historical perspective on how these two important paradigms have emerged and the salient features of each. Later in Section 3, a third networking paradigm is explored dissemination, which underlies CCN and related network architectures.

2.1

The Telephone System

The invention of the modern telephone represents the culmination of works of many individuals spanning several decades or even centuries. The rst 5

commercial telephone exchange began operations on January 28, 1878 in a storefront of the Boardman Building in New Haven, Connecticut[2] a pivotal point in the history of the commercial telephone. The utility of the telephone system ultimately depended on running wires connecting individual premises to a central oce as well as wires interconnecting central oces. The revenue model which then emerged around the telephone was to charge callers for the service of dynamically constructing wire paths to callees, enabling phone calls to be made. This is overtly evident in the manual service exchanges used throughout the late 19th century and much of the 20th century. A caller wishing to make a call would lift the receiver o the hook and be greeted by a human operator. The operator would proceed to ask the caller what number they would like to be connected to. Depending on whether or not the specied callees number was connected to the same central oce or not, the operator woud either plug the callers line directly into a switchboard jack corresponding to the callee, or into the jack corresponding to another central oce, where the operator would speak to an inward operator in order to coordinate upstream connection of the call. Around the mid twentieth century, manual service exchanges were being supplanted by automatic telephone exchanges using electromechanical devices such as the Strowger switch [29]. These electromechanical devices were in turn superceded by silicon-based technologies. Regardless of which method the telephone network used to connect users, whether via manual or automated service exchanges, the networking paradigm which emerged focused on wires, dynamically building paths between end nodes (in this case, phones). This is generally referred to simply as circuitswitching. Circuit-switched networks like the telephone system provision sucient resources during connection formation to meet the requirements of the connection throughout its duration. Furthermore, the bit delay is constant during a circuit-switched connection. Circuit-switched networking will be contrasted with packet-switched networking next, in the Internet.

2.2

The Internet

September 1962 saw the publication of esteemed engineer Paul Barans seminal paper, On Distributed Communications Networks [4]. This paper introduced the concept of segmenting data into small, explicitly addressed pieces. Each piece of data could be routed from the source to the destination independently, potentially over dierent paths, based on localised routing deci6

sions. This networking strategy is now simply referred to as packet-switching. The objective of the packet-switching architecture described by Baran was to provide a networking substrate capable of withstanding a nuclear attack, by virtue of being able to route around destroyed links and nodes. The rst experimental implementation of a packet-switched network came seven years after Barans initial exposition with the creation of the ARPANET in December 1969 [6]. Though the ARPANET integrated the idea of segmenting data to be routed independently across the network, it should be noted that the principal motivation was to accomodate inherently unreliable hardware, not to survive a nuclear attack [21]. Though dicult to dene a date the Internet was created, November 22, 1977 saw the rst successful demonstration of TCP/IP, interconnecting three disparate networks, one of which was the ARPANET [6]. The Internet has since grown to connect billions of users globally. The Internet is distinctly dierent to the traditional telephone system in its use of packet-switching, rather than circuit-switching technology. At the cost of variable delay, packet-switching has allowed the Internet to utilise shared transmission channels more eciently, especially under bursty trafc loads. Furthermore, packet-switched networks like the Internet do not incur the connection setup overhead of circuit-switched networks (though using TCP at the Transport layer largely negates this). This can permit far greater eciency for short transmissions across links with a high bandwidthdelay product[22]. Finally, packet switched networks are more resilient to link or component failures in the network, as data can be re-routed ex post facto resulting in an Internet relatively resilient to component failure. The networking paradigm behind the Internet moved the focus away from wires and onto endpoints. One of the features carried over from the telephone system however was the abstraction of a conversation between exactly two hosts. In the telephone system, the conversation is implicit in the concatenation of wires connecting a caller to a callee. In the Internet, the conversation is explicit in the addressing of an IP packet whose header specify exactly two addresses, a source and a destination [14]. A third networking paradigm focused not on wires or on endpoints but on data is described in the next section.

Dissemination and CCN

The Internet Protocol was created in a time in which machines cost several million dollars, occupied multiple rooms and were largely inaccessible to the vast majority of the population. The problem networking aimed to solve was resource sharing remotely accessing scarce and expensive resources such as card readers, high speed tape drives or even supercomputers [16]. The resulting communication model was one of a conversation between exactly two hosts; a resource consumer and a resource provider. This model is embodied in the Internet Protocol (IP) [14] whose packet header species exactly two addresses; a source and a destination. Over several decades, the cost of both storage and computational resources has fallen dramatically and network use has evolved to be dominated by content distribution and retrieval. This has lead to a number of architectural research works [1, 5, 7, 16, 20, 27, 28] looking to promote data to the primary network abstraction, rather than host addresses. One of the more promising long-term approaches is Content-centric Networking (CCN) [16]. CCN treats small (e.g. IP packet-sized) chunks of named data as the primary Network layer abstraction, rather than host-addressed packets. The remainder of this section gives a broad overview of CCN. The interested reader is referred to [16] for an in-depth exposition.

3.1

CCN Network Stack

CCN replaces IP packets at the thin waist of the network stack with chunks of named content. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Devices wishing to retrieve some piece of content request it from the network directly by name, without having to perform the translation from what the user cares about (named data) to where that data is stored (i.e. IP host addresses). As illustrated in Figure 1, above the thin waist CCN doe not use a traditional transport layer protocol and instead has a security layer which provides a stronger notion of content integrity (described shortly in section 3.2). Because CCN names data directly, many of the existing application layer naming schemes are rendered redundant, and so a File Stream (i.e. reconstitution of content chunks into meaningful data objects) is shown as the application layer abstraction 1 . Below the thin waist, the CCN Strategy layer handles the forwarding
CCN is at least as general as IP and so in practice CCN can run atop of anything and anything can run atop of CCN, including existing protocols
1

decisions of interests in content chunks.

Figure 1: CCN moves the universal component of the network stack from IP to chunks of named content [16].

3.2

CCN Packet Primitive

The two CCN packet types interests and data are illustrated in Figure 2 and an example content name is shown in Figure 3. The desire to receive some content is expressed by transmitting an interest with the appropriate content name, along with some associated metadata. Importantly, the data packet response includes not only the content name and its associated data, but a cryptographic signature of the binding between the name and its data. This signature allows the receiver to verify that the received data is a complete, uncorrupted copy of what the publisher sent (validity), that the publisher is one the receiver trusts (provenance) and that the content is the answer to the question asked (relevance). The interested reader is referred to [15] for an extended discussion of securing named content.

Figure 2: CCN packet types [16].

Figure 3: Example Content Name [16].

3.3

CCN Forwarding Engine

Figure 4 illustrates the key components of a CCN router (any networked device can potentially act as a router in a CCN network). The Content Store is essentially a cache which can store any seen content at a packet granularity. The Pending Interest Table (PIT) holds a record of all requests the router has seen, but has not yet fullled. Finally, the Forwarding Information Base (FIB) holds a record of which faces2 content for a given prex may be accesThe term face rather than interface is used because packets are not only forwarded over hardware network interfaces but also exchanged directly with application processes within a machine.
2

10

sible over. Note that unlike IP, CCN is not restricted to forwarding interests over a single interface.

Figure 4: CCN forwarding engine model [16].

CCN as Applied to Internet-based Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a network of mobile devices which communicate via wireless links without the assistance of any dedicated infrastructure. An Internet-based MANET combines a regular MANET with traditional infrastructure to provide either multi-hop access to the Internet or access to Internet content cached by other mobile devices [23]. The CCN security and caching model make it an attractive option for Internet-based MANETS. This is elucidated in the remainder of this section.

4.1

CCN Security

Current IP networks trust content based on where (from what host) and how (over what sort of pipe) it was obtained [16]. A client must therefore retrieve content directly from its original source in order to trust it. CCN 11

ties security to content itself, not the host over which it was retrieved. The crucial implication of this security model on Internet-based MANETs is that it allows trust to be placed in content that is retrieved from untrusted sources. This allows nodes in a MANET to securly share cached content among one another without needing to retrot an auxillary security mechanism.

4.2

CCN Caching

CCN is built around the notion of packet-level content cachability. Such ne-grained caching is likely to work well in dynamic environments such as MANETs, where connectivity is intermittent and devices may only encounter one another for very short durations. Traditional application layer object-level caching schemes are likely less eective as they require that an encounter last long enough for the entirety of an object to be transferred. Furthermore, objects such as streaming video which users often access only certain segments of are notoriously dicult to cache at the object level.

Works Related to Dissemination via Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

The idea of MANETs transferring information among a network of mobile nodes without xed infrastructure is not in itself new and can in fact be traced back to the mid 70s with the DARPA Packet Radio Network (PRNet) [18]. In more recent times, the proliferation of cheap mobile devices has lead to renewed interest in MANETs for, among other things, sensing, consumer and military applications. A vast number of routing protocols have been proposed for MANETs, many of which are described in [24]. Still, very little work has been done towards analysing opportunities for reducing mobile devices reliance on xed infrastructure for content access, in the context of Internet-based MANETs. Those works closest in relevance however are described in the remainder of this section.

5.1

Individual Behavioural Patterns of Mobile Users

Several works [3, 9, 10, 25] have looked at the behavioural patterns of users in various mobile environments. These works however have primarily focused on characterizing individual user behaviour and general usage properties of 12

various wireless networks. Such analyses do not address any corresponding implications on the opportunities for Internet-based mobile ad hoc networking and so are only of peripheral interest.

5.2

Mobile User Classication

Works in [11] and [19] describe techniques for classifying users into behavioural groups based on trace data taken from wireless LANs. Though descriptive of usage characteristics, these works again do not address the implications on information dissemination opportunities if Internet-based MANETs were to be formed.

5.3

Mobility and Trac Models

Works in [12, 26, 31] look to generate realistic synthetic mobility and trac models based on existing wireless network traces. Though these models are useful in constructing realistic simulations, they do not directly answer the question of what opportunities exist for the dissemination of data through Internet-based MANETs.

5.4

Nodal Encounters

A number of existing works [8, 13, 17, 30] have considered the encounters of mobile nodes in various environments. [8] recorded 9 months of bluetooth encounters of 100 mobile phones given to students and faculty at MIT university. [13] recorded three days of bluetooth encounters of 41 Intel iMotes given to participants at the 2005 Infocom conference. [17] analysed nodal encounter patterns of ve university campuses with user bases ranging from 275 to 44,751 users and recording lengths of one month. [30] recorded two sets of nodal encounters of two groups of university students given PDAs, each group being around 20 students in size and the experiments lasting for two-and-a-half weeks and eight weeks. Of all works in the literature, these works on nodal encounters perhaps come closest to describing what opportunities are likely to exist for dissemination of content via mobile ad hoc networks. The works in [17] and [30] particularly are motivated by the question of, given some set of nodal encounters, what opportunities exist for data transfer through a MANET. Where these works fall short of what is outlined in the related research proposal is 13

that they do not integrate realistic packet data traces. Specically, evaluating the ecacy of an Internet-based MANET requires some knowledge of what content individual devices are demanding from the network and how much of this content in turn overlaps between devices which encounter one another.

Conclusion

History has seen several major networking paradigms deployed at scale, most recently that of the Internet and before that the telephone system. Dissemination is a possible future networking paradigm, with CCN representing a promising dissemination architecture. CCN is well suited to Internet-based MANETS due to its secure packet primitive which is cachable at and retrievable from any node in the network, including mobile nodes. Many works have been published in recent times examining various characteristics of real-life mobile networks and some of these have considered their implications on MANETs specically. A lacunae however exists in addressing how eective an Internet-based MANET scheme is likely to prove at reducing mobile nodes reliance on access to xed infrastructure.

References
[1] The fp7 4ward project. http://www.4ward-project.eu/, 2011. [2] National historic landmarks program site of the rst telephone exchange. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/DOE_dedesignations/ Telephone.htm, 2011. [3] Magdalena Balazinska and Paul Castro. Characterizing mobility and network usage in a corporate wireless local-area network. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Mobile systems, applications and services, MobiSys 03, pages 303316, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1066116.1066127. URL http://doi. acm.org/10.1145/1066116.1066127. [4] P. Baran. On distributed communications networks. Communications Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 12(1):1 9, march 1964. ISSN 00961965. doi: 10.1109/TCOM.1964.1088883. 14

[5] Matthew Caesar, Tyson Condie, Jayanthkumar Kannan, Karthik Lakshminarayanan, and Ion Stoica. Ro: routing on at labels. In ACM SIGCOMM Conference, pages 363374, 2006. doi: 10.1145/1159913. 1159955. [6] Vint Cerf. The internet today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= KeAIwLp9YmA, 2009. [7] D.R. Cheriton and M. Gritter. Triad: A new next-generation internet architecture. Technical report, Stanford University, 2000. [8] Nathan Eagle and Alex (Sandy) Pentland. Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 10: 255268, March 2006. ISSN 1617-4909. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00779-005-0046-3. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00779-005-0046-3. [9] Tristan Henderson, David Kotz, and Ilya Abyzov. The changing usage of a mature campus-wide wireless network. In Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, MobiCom 04, pages 187201, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-868-7. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1023720.1023739. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1023720.1023739. [10] W. Hsu and A. Helmy. On important aspects of modeling user associations in wireless lan traces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop Wireless Network Measurement, April 2006. [11] Wei-jen Hsu, Debojyoti Dutta, and Ahmed Helmy. Mining behavioral groups in large wireless lans. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Mobile computing and networking, MobiCom 07, pages 338341, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. ISBN 978-159593-681-3. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1287853.1287899. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1287853.1287899. [12] Wei-Jen Hsu, Thrasyvoulos Spyropoulos, Konstantinos Psounis, and Ahmed Helmy. Modeling spatial and temporal dependencies of user mobility in wireless mobile networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 17: 15641577, October 2009. ISSN 1063-6692. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.

15

1109/TNET.2008.2011128. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET. 2008.2011128. [13] Pan Hui, Augustin Chaintreau, James Scott, Richard Gass, Jon Crowcroft, and Christophe Diot. Pocket switched networks and human mobility in conference environments. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Delay-tolerant networking, WDTN 05, pages 244251, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. ISBN 1-59593026-4. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1080139.1080142. URL http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/1080139.1080142. [14] RFC 791 Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program, Protocol Specication. Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1981. URL http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791. [15] Van Jacobson and Diana K. Smetters. Securing network content. Technical report, PARC, October 2009. [16] Van Jacobson, Diana K. Smetters, James D. Thornton, Michael F. Plass, Nicholas H. Briggs, and Rebecca L. Braynard. Networking named content. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Emerging networking experiments and technologies, CoNEXT 09, pages 112, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. ISBN 978-1-60558636-6. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1658939.1658941. URL http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/1658939.1658941. [17] Wei jen Hsu and Ahmed Helmy. On nodal encounter patterns in wireless lan traces. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 9:15631577, 2010. ISSN 1536-1233. doi: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10. 1109/TMC.2010.123. [18] J. Jubin and J.D. Tornow. The darpa packet radio network protocols. Proceedings of the IEEE, 75(1):21 32, jan. 1987. ISSN 0018-9219. doi: 10.1109/PROC.1987.13702. [19] Minkyong Kim and David Kotz. Periodic properties of user mobility and access-point popularity. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 11:465479, August 2007. ISSN 1617-4909. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00779-006-0093-4. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00779-006-0093-4. 16

[20] Teemu Koponen, Mohit Chawla, Byung-Gon Chun, Andrey Ermolinskiy, Kye Hyun Kim, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 37:181192, August 2007. ISSN 0146-4833. doi: http://doi.acm. org/10.1145/1282427.1282402. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 1282427.1282402. [21] Barry Leiner, Vinton Cerf, David Clark, Robert Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry Roberts, and Stephen Wol. A brief history of the internet. http://www.isoc.org/internet/ history/brief.shtml, 2011. [22] Alberto Leon-Garcia and Indra Widjaja. Communication Networks: Fundamental Concepts and Key Architectures. McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition, 2003. [23] Sunho Lim, Wang-Chien Lee, Guohong Cao, and Chita R. Das. Cache invalidation strategies for internet-based mobile ad hoc networks. Comput. Commun., 30:18541869, June 2007. ISSN 0140-3664. doi: 10.1016/ j.comcom.2007.02.020. URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=1242852.1243199. [24] Changling Liu and Jorg Kaiser. A survey of mobile ad hoc network routing protocols. Technical report, Minema, 2005. [25] Marvin McNett and Georey M. Voelker. Access and mobility of wireless pda users. SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev., 9:4055, April 2005. ISSN 1559-1662. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1072989. 1072995. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1072989.1072995. [26] Maria Papadopouli, Haipeng Shen, and Manolis Spanakis. Characterizing the duration and association patterns of wireless access in a campus. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wireless Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus, April 2005. URL http://www.cs.unc.edu/\~maria/eu05. pdf. [27] M. Sarela, T. Rinta Aho, and T. Tarkoma. RTFM: Publish/subscribe internetworking architecture. ICT Mobile Summit, 2008. [28] Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker, and Sonesh Surana. Internet indirection infrastructure. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 17

12:205218, April 2004. ISSN 1063-6692. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1109/TNET.2004.826279. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET. 2004.826279. [29] Almon Strowger. Us patent 447918 - automatic telephone exchange. http://www.google.com/patents?id=PShCAAAAEBAJ&printsec= frontcover&dq=447918&hl=en&ei=hz07ToaXLKremAXi9uX3Ag&sa= X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw, 1891. [30] Jing Su, Alvin Chin, Anna Popivanova, Ashvin Goel, and Eyal de Lara. User mobility for opportunistic ad-hoc networking. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pages 4150, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-7695-2258-0. doi: 10.1109/MCSA.2004.29. URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1038268.1039077. [31] C. Tuduce and T. Gross. A mobility model based on wlan traces and its validation. In INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings IEEE, volume 1, pages 664 674 vol. 1, march 2005. doi: 10.1109/INFCOM. 2005.1497932.

18