On demand multicast

1. IEEE Seminar On Mobile Ad Hoc Network(3725303)
At: GTU PG SCHOOL,GANDHINAGAR
Performance Evaluation Of On Demand Multicasting Routing Protocol
Presented by:
Group 3Group 3
Kamal Patel (141060753011)Kamal Patel (141060753011)
Khushbu Patel (141060753012)Khushbu Patel (141060753012)
Komal Patel (141060753013)Komal Patel (141060753013)
Riddhi GhevariyaRiddhi Ghevariya
(141060753015)(141060753015)
April 21, 2015

2. Types of Multicast Routing in
MANETs
Tree-based
One path between a source-receiver pair
AMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV
Mesh-based
Multiple paths between a source-receiver pair
ODMRP, CAMP
Hybrid
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
2

3. Typical Multicast Routing
Protocols
AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol
Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers
ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing
Protocol
3

4. Why compare them?
AMRIS ODMRP
Big difference
Topology Shared (Core-based) Tree Mesh of Nodes
Main Similarity
Mobility support Yes, based on MANET
Driven mode On-demand, do not store whole network topology
Advantages simple topology
low overheads
mobility
robustness
Disadvantages sensitive to mobility (low
delivery ratio)
complex topology
high overheads

5. ODMRP
Multicast Messages:
JOIN-QUERY (J-Q);
JOIN-REPLY (J-R);
Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in
AODV and DSR
5

6. Basic Operation of ODMRP
On Demand Route and Mesh Creation
Join Query
Join Reply
 S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership.
 Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the
packet.
 Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its
neighbors.
 Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it
own. If yes , it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its
FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.
 Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a
shortest path.
 Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.
S
R
R
R R
R

7. ODMRP: Join Reply
JOIN-REPLY message
Sender Next Node
S1 I1
S2 I2
Sender Next Node
S1 S1
J-R of R1 J-R of I1

8. Concept of Forwarding Group
Why a mesh?
Links
Multicast Routes
Initial Route from S1 to R2 is < S1 -A- B- R2>
Redundant Route < S1- A- C- B- R2>
FG
FG
FG FG
FGFG
R1
B
C
R3
A
S1
R2
S2
S3

9. ODMRP: Sender Actions
Sender actions:
Downstream
Generate J-Q
message;
Broadcast J-Q ;
Upstream
Receive J-R (include
the path info);
9

10. ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes
(downstream)
Intermediate node
actions: (downstream)
– Receive J-Q, omit
duplicated ones (use
cached sequence numbers);
– Store upstream node info;
– Re-broadcast J-Q;
10

11. ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes
(upstream)
Intermediate node
actions: (upstream)
Received J-R;
If node is on the path
Generate new J-R
with node info and
broadcast, route
established!
11

12. ODMRP: Receiver Actions
Receiver actions:
Downstream
Received J-Q;
Generate J-R with
path info;
Upstream
Broadcast J-R;
12

13. ODMRP: Maintenance phase
Soft state approach
Sender repeat J-Q periodically to maintain mesh.
Node joins
Sending J-R as discusses before.
Node leaves
Sender: stops sending J-Q;
Receiver: stops sending J-R;
Links break
Receiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R;
13

14. Algorithm Comparison (1)
AMRIS ODMRP
More differences
Multicast topology Shared Delivery Tree Mesh of Nodes
Initialization Generating msm-id; Store upstream info;
Maintenance All nodes periodically send
beacon message
Sender periodically send
J-Q msg
Node joins Detect beacon msg and
perform branch reconstruction;
Detect J-Q and response
J-R;
Node leaves Stop beacon msg; Stop J-R or J-Q;
Link-break No more beacon msg and
perform BR;
Receive new J-Q and
reply with J-R;
More and more differences (message types, routing table info…)

15. Performance Comparison (1)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a
function of mobile
speed
– # of data packets actually
delivered to the
destinations versus # of
data packets supposed to be
received
– PDR of ARMIS is speed
sensitive

16. Performance Comparison (2)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a
function of # of senders
– PDR of AMRIS is not
sensitive to # of senders
– ODRMP’s performance
improves as number of
senders increases

17. Performance Comparison (3)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a
function of multicast
group size
– PDR of ODMRP is not
sensitive to group size
– AMRIS’s performance
improves as group size
grows

18. Performance Comparison (4)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a
function of network
traffic load
• AMRIS has severe packet
loss rates
• ODMRP suffers less

19. Overhead Comparison (1)
Number of Control Bytes
Transmitted Per Data
Bytes Delivered as a
function of mobility
speed
– Control bytes are control
packets and data packet
headers
– Not speed sensitive
– AMRIS has lower ratio

20. Overhead Comparison (2)
Number of Control Bytes
Transmitted Per Data
Bytes Delivered as a
Function of # of
Senders
– AMRIS is not affected by
number of senders
– ODMRP may not be
efficient in large networks

21. Qualitative Comparison
• Bandwidth Consumption
– ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes
than AMRIS
– However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery
ratio
• Power Consumption
– Depends on mobility speed, number of senders,
network traffic load, etc.
– Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes
21

22. References
“A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast
Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and
Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2010
D. Li, J. P. Wu, K. Xu, X. P. Zhang, Y. Cui1, and Y. Liu, “Performance
Analysis of Multicast Routing Protocol PIM-SM,” 0-7695-2388-9/05
2011 IEEE.
D. A. Maltz, J. Broch, J. Jetcheva, and D. B. Johnson, Member, IEEE,
“The Effects of On-Demand Behavior in Routing Protocols for
Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, August 2011.
C. R. Lin, “On-demand QoS Routing in Multihop Mobile Networks,”
In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2012, April 2012, pp. 1735–1744.
22