Olsr

Qamar A Tarar OLSR Protocol 1
Optimized Link State Routing

Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks
Qamar Abbas Tarar

Mobile ad-hoc networks based on wireless LAN
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
Unicast-Routing Protocol for
MANET (Topology-based)
Table-Driven/
Proactive
Hybrid On-Demand-
driven/Reactive
Clusterbased/
Hierarchical
Distance-
Vector
Link-
State
ZRP DSR
AODV
TORA
LANMAR
CEDAR
DSDV OLSR
TBRPF
FSR
STAR
MANET: Mobile Ad hoc Network
(IETF working group)
Classification of Routing Protocols for
MANETS

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

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
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
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
Description of OLSR

MPR (Multipoint relays)

MPR selector

Symmetric 1-hop
neighbours

Symmetric strict 2-hop
neighbours
D
S
B
M
X
Y
Z
P
A
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

Example of neighbor table
One-hop neighbors
Neighbors id State of Link
B Bidirectional
G Unidirectional
C MPR

Two-hop neighbors
Neighbors id Access though
E C
D
C

Also every entry in the table has a timestamp, after which the
entry in not valid
Multipoint Relays (MPR)
N
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
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

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.
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

MRP selection in OLSR
Node 1 Hop Neighbors 2 Hop Neighbors MPR(s)
B A,C,F,G D,E 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
30
100
50
110
25
60
10
40
5
10
D->B route is D-C-B, whose
bottleneck BW is 3

3
MRP selection in OLSR
B A,C,F,G D,E 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
30
100
50
110
25
60
10
40
5
10
D->B route is D-C-B, whose
bottleneck BW is 3

3
Optimal route (i.e., path with
maximum bottleneck bandwidth:
D-F-B (bottleneck bandwidth of 10)
Multi-Point Relays/routers
Passes Topology Information
Acts as router between hosts
Minimizes information retransmission
Forms a routing backbone
Structure of an OLSR Network
MPRs form routing backbone
Other nodes act as hosts
As devices move

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

Extensions in OLSR
Qos OLSR

Fast OLSR

Towards IPv6 OLSR

Power saver mode

Change in the contents of TC packet
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
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
QoS Versions of OLSR
30
100
50
110
25
60
10
40
5
10
OLSR protocol does not guarantee
to find the best bandwidth route

3 heuristics are proposed to enhance
OLSR in bandwidth aspect

The heuristics select good bandwidth
neighbour as MPR

3
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

B A,C,F,G D,E C
OLSR_R2: select the best BW neighbors as
MPRs until all the 2-hop neighbors are covered.
B A,C,F,G D,E F
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.
B A,C,F,G D,E A,F
30
100
50
110
25
60
10
40
5
10
3
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

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
Experimental Results

Algorithm

Transmissi
on
Range

Performace

Cost

Error
Rate

Average difference

Over-
head

MPR
Count

Standard
OLSR

300 M

28%

46%

12

65

200 M

41%

51%

24

68

100 M

12%

45%

5

42

OLSR_R1

300 M

14%

22%

12

65

200 M

21%

26%

24

68

100 M

8%

44%

5

42

OLSR_R2

300 M

0%

0%

18

70

200 M

0%

0%

33

72

100 M

0%

0%

5.7

45

OLSR_R3

300 M

0%

0%

26

71

200 M

0%

0%

38

73

100 M

0%

0%

5.7

44

Pure Link
State
Algorithm

300 M

0%

0%

1245

100

200 M

0%

0%

979

100

100 M

0%

0%

28

100

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.
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

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.
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
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
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
Need more power
Not all allgoritms pubically documented
Needs more operational experience to debug
Conclusions
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.
Q & A

Olsr

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Olsr

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Qamar A Tarar OLSR Protocol 1

Optimized Link State Routing

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi