Title: Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static MultiHop Wireless Networks
1Comparison of Routing Metrics for Static
Multi-Hop Wireless Networks
- Richard Draves, Jitendra Padhye and Brian Zill
- Microsoft Research
Presented by Hoang Nguyen CS598JH - Spring 06
Some slides adopted from the authors and from
Professor Robin Kravets
2Multi-hop Wireless Networks
3Routing in Multi-hop Wireless Networks
- Mobile Networks
- Minimum-Hop
- DSR, AODV
- Static Networks
- Minimum-Hop vs. More Hops
- Link-quality Based Routing
- Signal-to-Noise ratio
- Packet loss rate
- Round-trip-time
- Bandwidth
Experimental Comparison
4Contributions
- Design and Implementation of LQSR (Link Quality
Source Routing) protocol - LQSR DSR with link quality metrics
- Experimental Comparison of link quality metrics
- Minimum-hop (HOP)
- Per-Hop Round Trip Time (RTT)
- Per-hop Packet Pair (PktPair)
- Expected Transmission (ETX)
5Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
6Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
7DSR Route Discovery
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
8DSR Route Discovery
X,Y Represents list of identifiers appended
to RREQ
Broadcast transmission
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
9DSR Route Discovery
Node H receives packet RREQ from two neighbors
potential for collision
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
10DSR Route Discovery
Node C receives RREQ from G and H, but does not
forward it again, because node C has already
forwarded RREQ once
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
11DSR Route Discovery
Nodes J and K both broadcast RREQ to node D Since
nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their
transmissions may collide
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
12DSR Route Discovery
Node D does not forward RREQ, because node D
is the intended target of the route discovery
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
13DSR Route Reply
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
14DSR Data Delivery
Packet header size grows with route length
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
15DSR Route Caching
P,Q,R Represents cached route at a node
(DSR maintains the cached routes in a
tree format)
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
16DSR Route Caching
Assume that there is no link between D and
Z. Route Reply (RREP) from node K limits flooding
of RREQ. In general, the reduction may be less
dramatic.
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
17DSR Route Error
J sends a route error to S along J-F-E-S when its
attempt to forward the data packet S (with route
SEFJD) on J-D fails Nodes hearing RERR update
their route cache to remove link J-D
Z
RERR J-D
S
E
F
B
C
M
L
J
A
G
H
D
K
I
N
Adopted from Professor Robin Kravets lectures
18Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
19Per-hop Round Trip Time (RTT)
- Node periodically pings each of its neighbors
- RTT samples are averaged using exponentially
weighted moving average - Path with least sum of RTTs is selected
20Per-hop Round Trip Time (RTT)
- Advantages
- Easy to implement
- Accounts for link load and bandwidth
- Also accounts for link loss rate
- 802.11 retransmits lost packets up to 7 times
- Lossy links will have higher RTT
- Disadvantages
- Expensive
- Self-interference due to queuing
21Per-hop Packet Pair (PktPair)
- Node periodically sends two back-to-back probes
to each neighbor - First probe is small, second is large
- Neighbor measures delay between the arrival of
the two probes reports back to the sender - Sender averages delay samples using low-pass
filter - Path with least sum of delays is selected
22Per-hop Packet Pair (PktPair)
- Advantages
- Self-interference due to queuing is not a problem
- Implicitly takes load, bandwidth and loss rate
into account - Disadvantages
- More expensive than RTT
23Expected Transmissions (ETX)
- Estimate number of times a packet has to be
retransmitted on each hop - Each node periodically broadcasts a probe
- 802.11 does not retransmit broadcast packets
- Probe carries information about probes received
from neighbors - Node can calculate loss rate on forward (Pf) and
reverse (Pr) link to each neighbor - Select the path with least total ETX
24Expected Transmissions (ETX)
- Advantages
- Low overhead
- Explicitly takes loss rate into account
- Disadvantages
- Loss rate of broadcast probe packets is not the
same as loss rate of data packets - Probe packets are smaller than data packets
- Broadcast packets are sent at lower data rate
- Does not take data rate or link load into account
25Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
26LQSR
- DSR-like
- Route Request, Route Reply and Route Error
- Link-quality metrics is appended
- Link-state-like
- Link caching (not Route caching)
- Reactive maintenance
- On active routes
- Proactive maintenance
- Periodically floods RouteRequest-like Link Info
27Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
28Mesh Testbed
23 Laptops running Windows XP. 802.11a cards
mix of Proxim and Netgear. Diameter 6-7 hops.
29Link bandwidths in the testbed
- Cards use Autorate
-
- Total node pairs
- 23x22/2 253
- 90 pairs have non-zero bandwidth in both
directions. -
Bandwidths vary significantly lot of asymmetry.
30Experiments
- Bulk-transfer TCP Flows
- Impact of mobility
31Experiment 1
- 3-Minute TCP transfer between each node pair
- 23 x 22 506 pairs
- 1 transfer at a time
- Long transfers essential for consistent results
- For each transfer, record
- Throughput
- Number of paths
- Path may change during transfer
- Average path length
- Weighted by fraction of packets along each path
32Median Throughput
ETX performs best. RTT performs worst.
33Why does ETX perform well?
ETX performs better by avoiding low-throughput
paths.
34Impact on Path Lengths
Path length is generally higher under ETX.
35Why does RTT perform so poorly?
RTT suffers heavily from self-interference
36Why PktPair gets worse?
PktPair suffers from self-interference only on
multi-hop paths.
37Summary of Experiment 1
- ETX performs well despite ignoring link bandwidth
- Self-interference is the main reason behind poor
performance of RTT and PktPair.
38Experiment 2
39Median
40Outline
- DSR Revisited
- Link quality metrics revisited
- LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing)
- Experimental results
- Conclusion
41Conclusions
- ETX metric performs best in static scenarios
- RTT performs worst
- PacketPair suffers from self-interference on
multi-hop paths - Shortest path routing seems to perform best in
mobile scenarios