I MPORTANT: A framework to systematically

analyze the "Impact of Mobility on Performance

Of RouTing in Ad-hoc NeTworks"
Fan Bai
*
, Narayanan Sadagopan
+
, Ahmed Helmy
*


* Department of Electrical Engineering
+
Department of Computer Science
University of Southern California
{fbai,helmy}@ceng.usc.edu, narayans@cs.usc.edu
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 2
Motivation and Contributions
Mobility Models and Metrics
Experiments and Observation
Relationship between Mobility and Performance
Building Blocks Approach
Conclusion and Future work
Outline
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 3
MANET
Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of
wireless mobile nodes forming a network without using
any existing infrastructure
Mobility and traffic are two significant factors affecting
protocol performance. In current simulation,
Mobility Pattern: usually, uniformly and randomly chosen
destinations (random waypoint model)
Traffic Pattern: usually, uniformly and randomly chosen
communicating nodes
Impact of mobility on ad hoc routing protocols is expected
to be significant
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 4
Motivation
Randomized models (including random waypoint) do not
capture
Spatial dependence (correlation) of movement among nodes
Existence of barriers or obstacles constraining mobility
A systematic framework is needed to investigate the
impact of various mobility models on the performance
of different routing protocols for MANETs
This study attempts to answer
Whether? Especially, to what degree does mobility affect routing
protocol performance?
If the answer to 1 is yes, why?
If the answer to 1 is yes, how?
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 5
Framework Overview
Mobility
Models
Mobility
Metrics
Connectivity
Graph
Connectivity
Metrics
Performance
Metrics
Routing
Protocol
Performance
Random Waypoint
Group Mobility
Freeway Mobility
Manhattan Mobility
DSR
AODV
DSDV
Relative Speed
Spatial Dependence
Link Duration
Throughput
Overhead
Building
Block
Analysis
Flooding
Caching
Error Detection
Error Handling
Error Notification
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 6
Framework Components
Whether? and How much?
Rich set of mobility models that capture characteristics of different
type of movement
Protocol independent metrics such as mobility metrics and
connectivity graph metrics to capture the above characteristics
Why?
Analysis process to relate performance with a specific
characteristic of mobility
How?
Systematic process to study the performance of protocol
mechanistic building blocks across various mobility characteristics
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 7
Mobility Metrics
Relative Speed (mobility metric I)
The magnitude of relative speed of two nodes, average over all
neighborhood pairs and all time


Spatial Dependence (mobility metric II)
The value of extent of similarity of the velocities of two nodes that
are not too far apart, average over all neighborhood pairs and all
time

= =
=
=
s =
T
t
N
i
N
i j
j
j j i i
R y x y x dist if t j v t i v
P
S R
0 1 1
2 ) ) , ( ), , (( ) | ) , ( ) , ( |
1

= =
=
=
s
-
=
T
t
N
i
N
i j
j
j j i i spatial
R y x y x dist if
t j v t i v
t j v t i v
t j v t i v
t j v t i v
P
D
0 1 1
2 ) ) , ( ), , (( )
| ) , ( || ) , ( |
) , ( ) , (
)) , ( ), , ( max(
)) , ( ), , ( min( 1




For example, RWP model, Vmax=30m/s, RS=12.6m/s, Dspatial=0.03
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 8
Connectivity graph metric
Average link duration (connectivity metric I)
The value of link duration, average over all nodes pairs



j and i between link a is there if j i LD
P
D L
N
i
N
i j
j

=
=
=
=
1 1
) , (
1
Performance Metrics
Throughput(performance metric I): delivery ratio
Overhead(performance metric II): number of routing
control packets sent
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 9
Parameterized Mobility Models
Random Waypoint Model (RWP)
Each node chooses a random destination and moves towards it with a random
velocity chosen from [0, Vmax]. After reaching the destination, the node stops
for a duration defined by the pause time parameter. This procedure is
repeated until simulation ends
Parameters: Pause time T, max velocity Vmax
Reference Point Group Model (RPGM)
Each group has a logical center (group leader) that determines the groups
motion behavior
Each nodes within group has a speed and direction that is derived by
randomly deviating from that of the group leader



Parameters: Angle Deviation Ratio(ADR) and Speed Deviation Ratio(SDR),
number of groups, max velocity Vmax. In our study, ADR=SDR=0.1
In our study, we use two scenarios: Single Group (SG) and Multiple Group
(MG)
max
max
() ) ( ) (
() | ) ( | | ) ( |
u u u + =
+ =
ADR random t t
V SDR random t V t V
leader member
leader member

Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 10
Freeway Model (FW)
Each mobile node is restricted to its lane
on the freeway
The velocity of mobile node is temporally
dependent on its previous velocity
If two mobile nodes on the same freeway
lane are within the Safety Distance (SD),
the velocity of the following node cannot
exceed the velocity of preceding node
Parameter: Map layout, Vmax
Manhattan Model (MH)
Similar to Freeway model, but it allows node
to make turns at each corner of street
Parameter: Map layout, Vmax
Parameterized Mobility Models
Map for FW
Map for MH
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 11
Mobility Models Summary
Application
Spatial
Dependence
Geographic
Restriction
Random
Waypoint
Model
Group
Mobility
Model
Freeway
Mobility
Model
Manhattan
Mobility
Model
General
Battlefield
Metropolitan
Traffic
Urban
Traffic
No No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 12
Simulation done by our mobility generator and
analyzer:
Number of nodes(N) = 40, Simulation Time(T) = 900 sec
Area = 1000m x 1000m
Vmax set to 1,5,10,20,30,40,50,60 m/sec across simulations
RWP, pause time T=0
SG/MG, ADR=0.1, SDR=0.1
FW/MH, map layout in the previous slide
Experiment I: Analysis of mobility
characteristics
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 13
Objective:
validate whether proposed
mobility models span the
mobility space we explore
Relative speed
For same Vmax, MH/FW is
higher than RWP, which is
higher than SG/MG
Spatial dependence
For SG/MG, strong degree of
spatial dependence
For RWP/FW/MH, no obvious
spatial dependence is observed
Mobility metrics
Relative Speed
Spatial Dependence
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 14
Connectivity graph metric
Link duration
For same Vmax, SG/MG is higher
than RWP, which is higher than
FW, which is higher than MH
Summary
Freeway and Manhattan model
exhibits a high relative speed
Spatial Dependence for group
mobility is high, while it is low for
random waypoint and other
models
Link Duration for group mobility
is higher than Freeway, Manhattan
and random waypoint
Link duration
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 15
Simulations done in ns-2:
Same set of mobility trace file used in experiment1
Traffic pattern consists of source-destination pairs chosen at
random
20 source, 30 connections, CBR traffic
Data rate is 4packets/sec (low data rate to avoid congestion)
For each mobility trace file, we vary traffic patterns and run
the simulation for 3 times
Experiment II: Protocol Performance
across Mobility Models
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 16
Results and Observations
Performance of routing protocols may vary drastically
across mobility patterns
Eg : DSR









There is a difference of 40% for throughput and an order
of magnitude difference for routing overhead across
mobility models!
Throughput Routing Overhead
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 17
Which Protocol Has the Highest
Throughput ?

Random Waypoint : DSR?
Manhattan : AODV or DSR?
We observe that using different mobility models may alter
the ranking of protocols in terms of the throughput!


Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 18
Which Protocol Has the Lowest
Overhead ?

RPGM(single group) : DSR? Manhattan : DSDV?
We observe that using different mobility models may alter
the ranking of protocols in terms of the routing overhead!









Recall: Whether mobility impacts protocol performance?
Conclusion: Mobility DOES matter, significantly, in evaluation
of protocol performance and in comparison of various protocols!
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 19
Recall: If mobility affects protocol performance, why?
We observe a very clear trend between mobility metric,
connectivity and performance
With similar average spatial dependency
Relative Speed increases Link Duration decreases Routing
Overhead increases and throughput decreases
With similar average relative speed
Spatial Dependence increase Link Duration increasesThroughput
increases and routing overhead decreases
Conclusion: Mobility Metrics influence Connectivity
Metrics which in turn influence protocol performance
metrics !
Putting the Pieces Together
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 20
Putting the Pieces Together
Relative Velocity
Spatial Dependence
Link Duration
Throughput
Overhead
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 21
Recall: How mobility affects the protocol performance?
Idea:
The protocol is decomposed into its constituent mechanistic,
parameterized building block, each building block is to implement
a well-defined functionality
Various protocols choose different parameter settings for the same
building block. For a specific mobility scenario, the building block
with different parameters behaves differently, which in turns affect
the overall performance of the protocol
We are interested in the contribution of building blocks to
the overall performance in the face of mobility
Case study:
Reactive protocols like DSR and AODV
Mechanistic Building Blocks
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 22
Building Block Diagram for reactive
protocols
Route Maintenance
Flooding Caching
Range of Flooding
Num of Entry
Caching Style
Expiration Timer
Error
Detection
Error
Handling
Error
Notification
Detection
Method
Handling
Mode
Recipient
Add Route
Cache
Route
Reply
Notify
Route
Invalidate
Localized/Non-localized method
Route Setup
Notify
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 23
Examples
Caching
DSR uses aggressive caching, AODV does not
Evaluation: Ratio of number of route replies from cache to total number
of route reply aggressive caching is useful ? How about cache validity?






Error Handling
DSR uses localized salvaging, it only happens 2%~8% across various
mobility model salvaging barely has an effect !
AODV
DSR
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 24
Defined protocol independent metrics to capture a few
mobility characteristics of interest and proposed a rich set of
mobility models
Evaluated protocols over mobility models that span the
above mobility characteristics
Performance trends and comparison results vary widely
with the choice of mobility
Establish the logical relationship between mobility and
protocol performance
Propose a method to analyze the interplay between building
block and mobility
Mobility patterns are IMPORTANT
Conclusions
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 25
Future Work
Investigate more protocol independent metrics. e.g., path
duration[1]
Establish the general framework to evaluate the design
choice based on building block methodology[2]
Investigate the effect of other parameters. e.g., node
density
Investigate other mobility models and other routing
protocols, e.g. ZRP,GPSR & expansion model
Integrate the mobility tool with ns-2 [3]
[1] N.Sadagopan, F.Bai, B.Krishnamachari, A.Helmy, PATHS: analysis of PATH duration Statistics and their impact on
reactive MANET routing protocols MobiHoc 2003.
[2] F.Bai, N.Sadagopan, A.Helmy, BRICS: A Building-block approach for analyzing RoutIng protoCols in ad hoc networkS- a
case study of reactive routing protocols, USC-CS-TR-02-775, in submission.
[3] http://www-scf.usc.edu/~fbai/mobility.html
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 26
Thanks!
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 27
Related Work
Random Waypoint based evaluation
Mobility model: only Random Waypoint model
[1] concluded that reactive protocols like DSR and AODV
would perform better than proactive protocols such as
DSDV under high mobility rate, while DSDV would
perform quite well under low mobility rate
[2] observed that DSR would outperform AODV in less
demanding situations, but AODV would outperform DSR at
heavy traffic and high mobility scenario
Consistent with our observations
[1]J.Broch, D.A.Maltz, D.B.Johnson et al, A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols,
MOBICOM 1998.
[2]S.R.Das, C.E.Perkins, E.M.Royer, Performance Comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc network,
INFOCOM 2000.
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 28
Scenario based evaluation
[3] proposed models for realistic scenarios like conference,
disaster relief and event coverage
Conclusion about reactive and proactive protocol is similar
to [1]
[4] introduced the Reference Point Group Model(RPGM), it
is observed that AODV, DSDV and HSR would perform
worse with random waypoint model than with RPGM
[5] proposed a generic mobility framework, Mobility Vector
Model, from which all realistic mobility patterns like
MPGM can be derived

Related Work
[3] P.Johansson, T.Larsson, N.Hedman et al, Scenario-based performance analysis of routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc
network, MOBICOM 1999.
[4] X.Hong, M.Gerla et al, A group mobility model for ad hoc wireless network, ACM/IEEE MSWiM 1999.
[5] X.Hong, T.Kwon, M.Gerla et al, A mobility framework for ad hoc wireless networks, ACM MDM 2001.
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 29
Link Duration
Re-run the single group mobility model for three
times
Apr 2, 2003 INFOCOM 2003 30
The reciprocal of average path duration is analytically shown to
have a linear relationship with the throughput and overhead



For DSR
Pearson Correlation between 1/PD and throughput is 0.9165, -0.9597 and 0.9132
for RW, FW and MH, respectively
Pearson Correlation between 1/PD and overhead is 0.9753, 0.9812 and 0.9978 for
RW, FW and MH, respectively
Relationship between LD and PD?
Linear Correlation between Average Path
Duration and Protocol Performance
) ) 1 ( (
) 1 (
N P P
PD
T
Overhead
r
PD
t
Throughput
Hit Hit
repair
+ =
=
[1] N.Sadagopan, F.Bai, B.Krishnamachari, A.Helmy, PATHS: analysis of PATH duration Statistics and their
impact on reactive MANET routing protocols MobiHoc 2003.