Optimized Link State Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks

Qamar Abbas Tarar Mobile ad-hoc networks based on wireless LAN

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Problems in MANETs
Scalability QoS

Security
Interoperation with the Internet Limited Battery Life Node Mobility Unreliable radio channel Hidden terminal problem Route maintenace Unpredictable link properties

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Classification of Routing Protocols for MANETS

Unicast-Routing Protocol for MANET (Topology-based)

Table-Driven/ Proactive

Hybrid

On-Demanddriven/Reactive
DSR AODV TORA

Clusterbased/ Hierarchical
LANMAR CEDAR

DistanceVector
DSDV

LinkState
OLSR TBRPF FSR STAR

ZRP

CBRP
MANET: Mobile Ad hoc Network (IETF working group)
OLSR Protocol 3

Qamar A Tarar

Proactive vs Reactive Routing Protocols

Proactive Routing Protocols (DSDV, OLSR)

+ Routes to all reachable nodes in the network available. + Minimal initial delay for application. - Larger signalling traffic and power consumption.
Reactive Routing Protocols (DSR, CBR etc)

+ Smaller signalling traffic and power consumption. - A long delay for application when no route to the destination available

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Structure

OLSR

Overview Multipoint relays Neighbor sensing MPR selection MPR information declaration Routing table calculation Extensions in OLSR

Conclusions

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Overview
OLSR
Developed by IETF Table driven Inherits Stability of Link-state protocol Selective Flooding Periodic Link State Information generated only by MPR MPRs employed for optimization

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Link State Routing (eg, OSPF)

Each node periodically floods status of its links Each node re-broadcasts link state information received from its neighbour Each node keeps track of link state information received from other nodes Each node uses above information to determine next hope to each destination

24 retransmissions to diffuse a message up to 3 hops Retransmission node

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

OLSR Overview
In LSR
protocol a lot of control messages unnecessary duplicated

In OLSR
only MPR retransmit control messages:

Reduce size of control message; Minimize flooding

Other advantages (the same as for LSR):

As stable as LSR protocol; Proactive protocol(routes already known); Does not depend upon any central entity; Tolerates loss of control messages; Supports nodes mobility. Good for dense network

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Optimized Link state routing (OLSR)

24 retransmissions to diffuse a message up to 3 hops Retransmission node

11 retransmission to diffuse a message up to 3 hops Retransmission node

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

Description of OLSR

MPR (Multipoint relays) MPR selector

P S

Symmetric 1-hop neighbours

X Y

Symmetric strict 2-hop neighbours

A D B

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

10

Neighbor sensing
Each node periodically broadcasts Hello message:

List of neighbors with bi-directional link List of other known neighbors.

Hello messages permit each node to learn topology up to 2 hops

Based on Hello messages each node selects its set of MPRs

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

11

Example of neighbor table

One-hop neighbors Neighbors id State of Link B G C Bidirectional Unidirectional MPR Two-hop neighbors Neighbors id E D Access though C
C

Also every entry in the table has a timestamp, after which the entry in not valid

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

12

Multipoint Relays (MPR)

Reduce re-transmission in the same region Each node select a set of MPR Selectors MPR Selectors of node N - MPR(N)
- one-hop neighbors of N

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

13

Multipoint Relays (MPR)

Reduce re-transmission in the same region Each node select a set of MPR Selectors MPR Selectors of node N - MPR(N)
- one-hop neighbors of N

N
MPR set of Node N
Set of MPRs is able to transmit to all two-hop neighbors Link between node and its MPR is bidirectional.

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

14

Multipoint Relays (MPR)

Every node keeps a table of routes to all known destination through its MPR nodes Every node periodically broadcasts list of its MPR Selectors (instead of the whole list of neighbors). Upon receipt of MPR information each node recalculates and updates routes to each known destination

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

15

MRP selection in OLSR

Node B 1 Hop Neighbors A,C,F,G 2 Hop Neighbors D,E MPR(s) C

Available BW OLSR: node B will select C as its MPR So all the other nodes know that they can reach B via C D->B route is D-C-B, whose bottleneck BW is 3

10

3
40 110 50

60
25

10

100
30

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

16

MRP selection in OLSR

Node B 1 Hop Neighbors A,C,F,G 2 Hop Neighbors D,E MPR(s) C

Available BW OLSR: node B will select C as its MPR So all the other nodes know that they can reach B via C D->B route is D-C-B, whose bottleneck BW is 3

10

3
40 110 50

60
25

10

100
30
17

Optimal route (i.e., path with maximum bottleneck bandwidth: D-F-B (bottleneck bandwidth of 10)
Qamar A Tarar OLSR Protocol

Multi-Point Relays/routers

Passes Topology Information

Acts as router between hosts

Minimizes information retransmission Forms a routing backbone

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

18

Structure of an OLSR Network

MPRs form routing backbone Other nodes act as hosts

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

19

Structure of an OLSR Network

MPRs form routing backbone Other nodes act as hosts

As devices move

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

20

Structure of an OLSR Network

MPRs form routing backbone Other nodes act as hosts

As devices move
Topological relationships change Routes change Backbone shape and composition changes

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

21

MPR information declaration

TC Topology control message:

Sent periodically. Message might not be sent if there are no updates and sent earlier if there are updates Contains: MPR Selector Table

Sequence number

Each node maintains a Topology Table based on TC messages

Routing Tables are calculated based on Topology tables

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

22

Topology Table
Destination address Destinations MPR MPR Selector sequence number Holding time

MPR Selector in the received TC message

Last-hop node to the destination. Originator of TC message

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

23

Topology Table (cont)

Upon receipt of TC message:

If there exist some entry to the same destination with higher Sequence Number, the TC message is ignored If there exist some entry to the same destination with lower Sequence Number, the topology entry is removed and the new one is recorded If the entry is the same as in TC message, the holding time of this entry is refreshed If there are no corresponding entry the new entry is recorded

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

24

Routing Table

Each node maintains a routing table to all known destinations in the network Routing table is calculated from Topological Table, taking the connected pairs Routing table:

Destination address Next Hop address Distance

Routing Table is recalculated after every change in neighborhood table or in topological table

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

25

Extensions in OLSR
Qos OLSR Fast OLSR Towards IPv6 OLSR Power saver mode Change in the contents of TC packet

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

26

QoS Routing: Difficulties in QoS routing

Due to mobility Availability and manageability of Link state metrics Link quality changes quickly and continuously Computational cost and protocol overhead affect the performance of the QoS routing protocol Protocol performance evaluation is complex

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

27

Proactive QoS Routing

Advantages suitable for the unpredictable nature of Ad-Hoc networks
suitable for the requirement of quick reaction to QoS demands makes call admission control possible avoids the waste of network resources

Disadvantages introduces additional protocol overhead

trade-off between the QoS performance and traditional protocol performance

But..
Little work has been done to analyse the impact of the additional overhead on pro-active QoS routing
Qamar A Tarar OLSR Protocol 28

QoS Versions of OLSR

OLSR protocol does not guarantee to find the best bandwidth route
5
10 60 25 110 50 100
10

3
40

3 heuristics are proposed to enhance

OLSR in bandwidth aspect

The heuristics select good bandwidth neighbour as MPR

30

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

29

QoS Versions of OLSR

OLSR_R1: similar to OLSR (i.e., choose 1-hop neighbours that cover
max. number of 2-hop neighbours), tie-breaker now max BW
Node 1 Hop Neighbors 2 Hop Neighbors B A,C,F,G D,E MPR(s) C 5 40 110 50 100
30

10
3 10

OLSR_R2: select the best BW neighbors as MPRs until all the 2-hop neighbors are covered.
Node 1 Hop Neighbors 2 Hop Neighbors MPR(s) B A,C,F,G D,E F

60
25

OLSR_R3: selects the MPRs in a way such that

all the 2-hop neighbors have the max. bottleneck BW path through the MPRs to the current node.
Node 1 Hop Neighbors 2 Hop Neighbors B A,C,F,G D,E
Qamar A Tarar

MPR(s) A,F
30

OLSR Protocol

Evaluation of QoS OLSR

Simulation: generate networks, run OLSR algorithms, compare results against paths calculated by Link-State algorithm (i.e. complete knowledge, all-pair shortest path) Network area: 1000 M 1000 M Number of nodes: 100 Transmission range: 100 M, 200 M, 300 M

Bandwidth: assigned randomly

Results are averaged over 100 randomly generated networks

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

31

Performance Metrics
Error rate: percentage of routes with non-optimal bandwidth Average difference: for routes with non-optimal bandwidth, how far off the optimal bandwidth are we Overhead: the average number of control messages transmitted per node MPR count: average number of MPRs in the network

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

32

Experimental Results
Algorithm Transmissi on Range
300 M 200 M 100 M
OLSR_R1

Performace
Error Rate 28% 41% 12% 14% 21% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Average difference 46% 51% 45% 22% 26% 44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Overhead 12 24 5 12 24 5 18 33 5.7 26 38 5.7 1245 979 28

Cost
MPR Count 65 68 42 65 68 42 70 72 45 71 73 44 100 100 100

Standard OLSR

300 M 200 M 100 M

OLSR_R2

300 M 200 M 100 M

OLSR_R3

300 M 200 M 100 M

Pure Link State

300 M 200 M 100 M

Algorithm

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

33

Fast OLSR

Due to Proactive nature,routes available when needed

However In dense network, due to fast node Mobility, links valid only for short time period.

Hence to minize packet loss,

broken links between node and its
neighbors must be quickly detected.

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

34

Neighbor Discovery in Fast OLSR

3-procedures: Switch to Fast-Moving/Default mode: In Fast mode,send Fast-Hellos and vice versa. A Fast-Hello is smaller than a Hello Establishing fast Links:

A node in Fast-Moving mode sends Fast-Hello

messages at high frequency. Refresh Fast links & Detect new broken links: by sending periodic Fast-Hellos

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

35

Towards IPv6 OLSR

OLSR operate well with both IPv4 and IPv6

To operate with IPv6, the only required change is to replace the IPv4 addresses with IPv6 address.
The minimum packet and message sizes should be adjusted accordingly, considering the greater size of IPv6 addresses.

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

36

Power saver mode

A node can indicate if it agrees to keep the packets of its neighbors Any node, who wants to go in sleep mode, will select ONLY that neighbor as MPR who can keep its packets TC packet will diffuse this info, and all data packets will be routed through that power saver node

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

37

Change in the contents of TC packet

Instead of advertising its set of MPRs, a node will list its neighbors who has selected him as an MPR Many nodes (loosely connected, or at the boundaries) will not be selected MPR any node. So they will not send any TC (25% less overhead) Less frequent changes in this set

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

38

Conclusions
Advantages

Route immediately available Reactivity to topological changes can be adjusted by setting the time interval for HELLO messages Minimize flooding by using MPR

Can be integrated into existing system as it requires no change to IP format

Disadvantages
Bigger overhead

Qamar A Tarar

Need more power

Not all allgoritms pubically documented Needs more operational experience to debug
OLSR Protocol 39

Readings

G. Pei, M. Gerla, and X. Hong, " LANMAR: Landmark Routing for Large Scale Wireless Ad Hoc Networks with Group Mobility," In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM MobiHOC 2000, Boston, MA, Aug. 2000. R. Ogier, F. Templin, M. Lewis, " Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF) ," IETF Internet Draft , July 28 2003. Thomas Clausen, Philippe Jacquet, " Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) ," IETF Internet Draft , July 3 2003. X. Hong, K. Xu, and M. Gerla, " Scalable Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks " IEEE Network Magazine, July-Aug, 2002, pp. 11-21 Thomas Kunz,Ying Ge, Louise Lamont, Quality of Service Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks Using OLSR Carleton University, CRC,2002 M Benzaid, P Minet and K A Agha, Integrating fast mobility in the OLSR routing protocol INRIA, LRI, France,September 2002.
OLSR Protocol 40

Qamar A Tarar

Q&A

Qamar A Tarar

OLSR Protocol

41