• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

How to perform route discovery?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "How to perform route discovery?"

Copied!
71
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

DFS-Based Routing

Jain et al.: Geographic Routing Algorithm (GRA)

Intermediate node handles message greedily

Concave node maintains route to destination node

Start route discovery for outdated routing tables

Stuck packet is routed to destination after successful route discovery

How to perform route discovery?

(2)

DFS-Based Routing

Depth first search from concave node S

Yields an acyclic path from S to D

Node X puts its address on route discovery packet p

Forward to neighbor who has not seen p before

Select neighbor Y which minimizes |XY|+|YD|

If no possible neighbor exists, remove address from p and send it back to the node from which p was originally received

Alternative implementation: memorize DFS data in nodes

Other metrics may be applied on next neighbor selection

Quality-of-service paths (delay and bandwidth criteria, connection time, …)

X W

1 2 3

Y1

Y2 root Y3

t1, t6: path = …W

t2: path = …W X

t3: path = …W X Y1

t4: path = …W X Y2 t5: path = …W X Y3

(3)

Data Communication

Memoryless Guaranteed Delivery

(4)

Motivation

Disadvantage of greedy recovery based on memorizing traffic

Traffic may increase

Memorized data may be outdated

Greedy routing does not suffer from this fact

Instantaneous forwarding decision

Not affected by previous (and probably outdated) state information

Question: is there a recovery strategy which

preserves greedy’s memoryless property?

(5)

The Face Recovery Principle

Locally construct a planar graph

Visit face sequence providing progress towards T

Traverse faces according to the left/right hand rule

Return into greedy mode whenever possible

S F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

T

A B

C D

(6)

Face Recovery Details

When to change current face traversal?

How to decide the next face locally?

(7)

Example 1

Greedy-Face-Greedy GFG, [Bose et al., 1999]

(8)

GFG – The face routing part

P  S repeat

Let F be the face with P on boundary and intersecting PT

Traverse* F until reaching an edge that intersects PT at some point Q≠P P  Q

until P=T

*counterclockwise if inner, clockwise if outer face

T S

P

F

(9)

GFG – The face routing part

P  S repeat

Let F be the face with P on boundary and intersecting PT

Traverse* F until reaching an edge that intersects PT at some point Q≠P P  Q

until P=T

*counterclockwise if inner, clockwise if outer face

T S

Q

F P

(10)

GFG – The face routing part

P  S repeat

Let F be the face with P on boundary and intersecting PT

Traverse* F until reaching an edge that intersects PT at some point Q≠P P  Q

until P=T

*counterclockwise if inner, clockwise if outer face

T S

F P

(11)

GFG – The face routing part

P  S repeat

Let F be the face with P on boundary and intersecting PT

Traverse* F until reaching an edge that intersects PT at some point Q≠P P  Q

until P=T

*counterclockwise if inner, clockwise if outer face

T S

P

F

(12)

Example 2

Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing GOAFR,

[Kuhn et al., 2003]

(13)

Face Routing Part of GOAFR

P  S repeat

Explore the complete boundary of face F containing the line PT Advance to Q on F’s boundary which is closest to T and set P  Q until reaching T

S T

F P

(14)

Face Routing Part of GOAFR

P  S repeat

Explore the complete boundary of face F containing the line PT Advance to Q on F’s boundary which is closest to T and set P  Q until reaching T

S T

Q

F

P

(15)

Face Routing Part of GOAFR

P  S repeat

Explore the complete boundary of face F containing the line PT Advance to Q on F’s boundary which is closest to T and set P  Q until reaching T

S T

Q

F P

(16)

Face Routing Part of GOAFR

P  S repeat

Explore the complete boundary of face F containing the line PT Advance to Q on F’s boundary which is closest to T and set P  Q until reaching T

S T

Q

F

P

(17)

General Face Change Mechanism

Observation: face can be traversed in two directions

After crossing variant: U selects V

Before crossing variant: U selects W

Best angle variant: U selects W

S T

V

U

W

(18)

Comparison of Variants

(19)

FACE over Dominating Set

Fact: localized planar graph construction prefers short edges over long ones

Affects performance of face traversal: increased hop count

How to reduce number of network nodes used by FACE?

Remember: connected dominating set – subset S of nodes of a graph G which satisfies

Induced subgraph G[S] is connected

Each node in G is either in S or has a one-hop neighbor in S

Datta et al.: Perform FACE algorithm only on internal nodes defined by a connected dominating set

Gabriel graph construction performed on DS only

If concave node is no internal node forward to neighbor in DS

Route along Gabriel graph until

Local minimum handled

Or node with destination in its neighbor list reached

(20)

Shortcut-Based FACE Routing

Possibly more neighbor nodes along path produced by face traversal

Locally construct planar graph used by all neighbor nodes → 2-hop neighbor information needed!

Perform a local planar graph traversal until reaching the last node in view and send packet to that node directly

S

D

(21)

Geographical Cluster Based

Routing

(22)

The main Idea

Connect neighboring clusters connected by a pair of nodes

No UDG assumption; nodes need to be connected within one cluster

Message loosely follows faces of the planar overlay graph

Graph exploration requires local knowledge of all adjacent clusters

Forwarding requires connectivity within Cluster C

S u T

F1 F2 F3 w

C v

D

(23)

GCR versus FACE

(24)

GCR Enables Local Traffic Dispersion

v

A B C

(25)

The Impact of Mobility

Routing on sub graph Routing on overlay

Source Node

Destination Node Destination Cluster

Source Cluster

(26)

Performance Study on Success Rate

(27)

The Advantages of Overlays

No geometric network requirements

Cluster membership sufficient

Greedy forwarding even in recovery mode

More robust to mobility

(28)

The Bad News

Disconnection

S

u

v

T

(29)

The Bad News

Disconnection

Consider all edges

A

B

C

(30)

The Bad News

Disconnection

Consider all edges

Not implicitly planar C

D A

B

(31)

The Bad News

Disconnection

Consider all edges

Not implicitly planar

Remove bad edges

Always possible?

Local detection?

(32)

Planarity and Connectivity

(33)

Planarization by Edge Removal

Undirected graph

Unit disk graph

Circular transmission range

Unique sending radius

Aggregated UDG ?

Observation

Redundancy Property

Locally detectable intersection

Planarity and connectivity?

C

D

A

B A

B

C

D (a)

(b)

R vw

E w

v, ) (

(34)

Redundancy Property not Sufficient

Assumption

Arbitrary network

Redundancy property

Conflicting goals

Planarity

Connectivity

Additional property?

( co-existence property)

u1 u2

u3

u4 u5

v1

v3 v2 v4

v5

w

(35)

Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Construction

Properties

(36)

Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Construction

Gabriel graph on UDG

Properties

u v

w

(37)

Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Construction

Gabriel graph on UDG

Aggregation afterwards

Properties

(38)

Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Construction

Gabriel graph on UDG

Aggregation afterwards

Properties

Connected

No regular intersection

Localized construction

Planar?

(39)

Irregular Intersection Problem

A B C

u w

v

A B C

u w

v

A B C

u w

v Aggregated Graph

Sub Graph 1

Sub graph 2

(40)

Purged Aggregated Gabriel Graph

A

B C

Irregular intersection ABxC

(41)

Purged Aggregated Gabriel Graph

A

C

B

Irregular intersection ABxC

UDG  exists AC or BC

(42)

Purged Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Irregular intersection ABxC

UDG  exists AC or BC

Remove AB

A

C

B

(43)

Purged Aggregated Gabriel Graph

Irregular intersection ABxC

UDG  exists AC or BC

Remove AB

Introduce implicit edge BC

Properties

Planar

Connected

Localized construction possible

Forwarding along implicit edge BC?

A

C

B

(44)

Localized Multicasting

(45)

The Localized Multicasting Problem

Known information

Current node

Neighbors

Destinations

T1

T3

T2 S

B A

D C

(46)

The Localized Multicasting Problem

Known information

Current node

Neighbors

Destinations

Building blocks

Message split

T1

T3

T2 S

B A

D C

(47)

The Localized Multicasting Problem

Known information

Current node

Neighbors

Destinations

Building blocks

Message split

Next hop selection

T1

T3

T2 S

B A

D C

?

(48)

The Localized Multicasting Problem

Known information

Current node

Neighbors

Destinations

Building blocks

Message split

Next hop selection

Recovery

T1

T3

T2 S

B A

D C

?

?

(49)

The MSTEAM Algorithm

(50)

EMST Backbone Assisted Localized Routing

T9

T7

T6

T4

T1

T3 S

T8

T5

T2 T1,…,T9

Additional requirement:

Location information

(51)

EMST Backbone Assisted Localized Routing

T8 T9

T7

T6

T5

T4

T1

T2

T3 S

EMST(S,T1,…,T9)

(52)

EMST Backbone Assisted Localized Routing

T8 T9

T7

T6

T5

T4

T1

T2

T3

D1

D2 D3

S

(53)

EMST Backbone Assisted Localized Routing

T8 T9

T7

T6

T5

T4

T1

T2

T3 A

B

C

S

T7,T8,T9

T1,T2,T3 T4,T5,T6

(54)

EMST Backbone Assisted Localized Routing

T8 T9

T7

T6

T5

T4

T1

T2

T3 A

B

C

EMST(C,T7,T8,T9 )

EMST(B,T4,T5,T6 )

EMST(A,T1,T2,T3)

(55)

The Cost over Progress Framework

T3

T1

W V

T2 S

Which one is the better next hop node?

T1,T2,T3

(56)

The Cost over Progress Framework

Approximate expected number of hops H(S,V)

H(S,V)  (|EMST(S,T1,T2,T3)| - |EMST(V,T1,T2,T3)|) / |EMST(S,T1,T2,T3)|

Approximate expected cost C(S,V) = cost(S,V) * H(S,V)

Select node X which provides progress and minimizes C(S,X)

Example: cost(S,X) = b |SX| + c

T3

T1

W V

T2 S

(57)

Example: EMST(s,t0,…,t9)

s

t0

t1 t2

t3

t4

t5

t6 t7

t8

t9

(58)

Example: Final Multicasting Result MT(s,t0,…,t9)

s

t0

t1 t2

t3

t4

t5

t6 t7

t8

t9

(59)

MFACE: Traversal Start

S T6

T5

T4

T3

T1

T2

F1 F2

(60)

MFACE: Traversal Start

S T6

T5

T4

T3

T1

T2

F1 F2

(61)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T1

T2 T3

(62)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T1

T2 T3

(63)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T1

T2 T3

(64)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T1

T2 T3 p

(65)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T1

T2

(66)

MFACE: Traversal Continue

S

U

V W

F1 F2

F3

T2

(67)

Other Geographic Routing

Approaches

(68)

Geocasting

Reach nodes in a certain area

Geocasting Components

Routing towards the area

Single-path, multi-path

Restricted directional flooding

Dissemination inside the area

Location-aware flooding

Reducing redundant transmissions

Geocast with guaranteed

delivery?

(69)

Geographic Hash Table (GHT) (1)

Idea: hashing on geographical positions

Put() and Get() operations map to the same device near to the hashed location

Mapped device stores data

Use of planar graph routing to find the same device

Source F1 F2 F4 Sink

F5

F6 F3

(70)

Geographic Hash Table (GHT) (2)

Problem: changing network topology

Storing node might disappear

Put() and Get() may retrieve different storing nodes

Source F1 F2 F4 Sink

F5

F6 F3

(71)

Geographic Hash Table (GHT) (3)

Solution

Replication along the face perimeter

Periodic refresh messages traveling along the perimeter

New home node selected when

Refresh packet is missing for a certain timeout

Node closer to destination receives refresh packet

D E

F B

C

A home

replica

D E

F B

C

D E

F B

C

(a) (b) (c)

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

and Chaum, Cr´ epeau, Damg˚ ard [CCD88] showed the existence of information the- oretically secure general multiparty computation protocols. Both papers proved that there exists

– When node S wants to send a packet to node D, but does not know a route to D, node S initiates a route discovery. – Source node S floods Route

Figure 8b shows that although NED pays a lit- tle bit more time than Feature-based similarity in distance computation, by combining with a metric index (existing implementation of

Yen: Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(2):206 – 19, 2006.

1 Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of

Angenommen der binäre Suchbaum ist stark (d.h. maximal) entartet, auf welche Anzahl (minimal, maximal,.. durchschnittlich) von Vergleichen ändert sich

The final version of the image editor has to be finished before end of May 2021 (to make it available for the exams) and thesis must be submitted not later

Deswegen wurde für die 3 positiven Substanzen, bei denen die Stimulationsindices für die getesteten Konzentrationen alle über 3 lagen, versucht, näherungsweise einen „EC 3 -analogen