Evaluation of Ad hoc Routing Protocols under a Peer-to-Peer Application - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Evaluation of Ad hoc Routing Protocols under a Peer-to-Peer Application

Description:

Evaluation of Ad hoc Routing Protocols under a Peer-to-Peer Application Authors: Leonardo Barbosa Isabela Siqueira Antonio A. Loureiro Federal University of Minas ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:137
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: isab127
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Evaluation of Ad hoc Routing Protocols under a Peer-to-Peer Application


1
Evaluation of Ad hoc Routing Protocols under a
Peer-to-Peer Application
  • Authors Leonardo Barbosa
  • Isabela Siqueira
  • Antonio A. Loureiro

Federal University of Minas Gerais
Brazil Computer Science Department -
http//www.dcc.ufmg.br
2
Summary
  • Introduction
  • Motivation
  • P2P implemented protocol
  • Simulation and results
  • Conclusion
  • Questions

3
What is P2P?
  • Distributed paradigm
  • Dynamic topology
  • Nodes have equivalent funcionalities and
    provision capacities (peers)
  • Peers play the role of servers and clients
    simultaneously (servents)

4
What are P2P applications?
  • P2P sharing systems
  • Able to share
  • Hard disk space
  • Files
  • CPU
  • Phenomena in the Internet
  • Examples Gnutella, Freenet, Napster, ICQ

5
P2P Applications and MANETs
  • P2P paradigm is the basis for both MANETs and P2P
    applications
  • Central units are non-existent in both
    environments
  • Their nodes are clients and servers at the same
    time
  • Self-organizing networks
  • Responsible for routing queries in a distributed
    environment

6
Faithfulness to the Model
  • P2P applications
  • Usually built over a network based on the
    Client/Server model
  • Clients of foreign servers
  • Neighbors might be geographically many hops apart
  • MANETs
  • Implement their own communication mechanism
  • Only communicate with servents
  • Peers are only a single-hop away from their
    neighbors

7
Motivation
  • Similarities between the systems
  • Scarcity of work in which both systems coexist
  • Could P2P applications become killer
    applications in MANETs?

8
By means of this...
MANET
Direction and Speed
Out of Range
Ad hoc Connection
Transmission Range
9
... and this ...
P2P Application Network
Router Peer Connection among P2P application
nodes Connection among routers and
peers Connection among routers
10
... this was built!
P2P Application Network over a MANET
Ad hoc node P2P application node Connection
among P2P application nodes Connection among
application and MANET nodes
11
P2P Implemented Protocol
  • Based on Gnutella
  • Joining the network
  • Transmission of a broadcast message searching for
    neighbors
  • BROADCAST-SEND
  • Achieved peers respond
  • BROADCAST-REPLY
  • Neighbors election

12
P2P Implemented Protocol
  • Searching
  • Query transmissions to neighbor peers
  • QUERY-SEND
  • Process goes on until the information is found or
    dropped
  • In case it is found, the servent that owns the
    file wanted responds to the query-source peer
  • QUERY-REPLY
  • Transferring files
  • Establishment of an end-to-end communication
  • Fragmentation and transference of the information

13
P2P Implemented Protocol
  • Controlled flooding
  • Each peer has a cache to avoid a request being
    handled twice
  • P2P header includes TTL
  • Connectivity control
  • PING and PONG messages

14
Simulation
  • 40 mobile nodes, 12 executing an instance of the
    P2P application
  • Grid 200m x 200m
  • MAC protocol IEEE 802.11
  • Energy consumption 0.3W (Tx), 0.2W (Rx)
  • Each scenario was simulated 33 times
  • Simulation time 300 s

15
Simulation
  • Evaluated protocols
  • Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR)
  • Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing
    (DSDV)
  • Ad Hoc On Demand Distance-Vector (AODV)

16
Analysis Methods
  • Workload
  • Amount of requests per peer
  • Size of shared files
  • Mobility
  • Pause time
  • Speed
  • Network Density
  • Number of nodes
  • Transmission range
  • Amount of Peers

17
Workload
Overhead (pkts)
Queries (amount)
  • DSDV presented the most overhead and stability
    when the number of queries were augmented (2000
    packets on average)
  • The behavior of the other protocols were similar

18
Mobility
Latency (s)
Speed (m/s)
  • Latency as function of speed increased
    exponentially when DSR protocol was used (climbed
    to 10x more)
  • All protocols provided more information
    unavailability and worse P2P connectivity in low
    levels of mobility

19
Network Density
Delivery Ratio ()
Nodes (amount)
  • The curves of the delivery ratio as function of
    the amount of nodes behaved equivalently for the
    three protocols
  • The curves climbed rapidly when the network was
    little densed
  • Above 20 nodes delivery ratio was between 60 and
    70

20
Peers
Hops (number)
  • DSR was the protocol that calculated the worst
    routes and had
  • the major impact when the number of peers
    increased
  • There was an increase in the range from 10 to 20
    peers

Peers (amount)
21
Conclusion
  • There is no silver bullet, each of the
    protocols analysed performed well in some
    scenarios for some metrics while had drawbacks in
    others
  • It is important to identify accurately
    characteristics of the P2P application (load,
    amount of peers etc.) in order to opt for a
    protocol

22
Questions?
  • Thank you for your attention!
  • Contacts
  • E-mail leob,isabela,loureiro_at_dcc.ufmg.br
  • Home Page
  • http//www.dcc.ufmg.br/leob
  • Research Group Site
  • http//www.lecom.dcc.ufmg.br/tbb
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com