1 Heterogeneity in Multi-Hop Wireless Networks Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign nhv © 2003 Vaidya.

1

Heterogeneity inMulti-Hop Wireless Networks

Nitin H. Vaidya

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv

© 2003 Vaidya

2

Summary

Heterogeneity is essential Heterogeneity is beneficial

Research Agenda Develop protocols that exploit the heterogeneity Develop mechanisms to better evaluate wireless systems

Proof by example …

3

Heterogeneity

Many dimensions of heterogeneity:

Architecture

Physical capability of hosts

Higher layers

4

Architecture

Multi-hop wireless networks

Pure ad hoc networks

Hybrid networks

5

Pure Ad Hoc Networks

No “infrastructure” All communication over (one or more) wireless hops

EA

B CD

X

Z

Ad hoc connectivity

Y

6

Hybrid Networks

Infrastructure + Ad hoc connectivity

EA

B CD

AP1 AP2

X

Z

infrastructure

Ad hoc connectivity

Y

7

Hybrid Networks

Infrastructure may include wireless relays

EA

CD

AP1 AP2

X

Z

infrastructure

Ad hoc connectivity

Y

B

RP

8

Hybrid Networks

Heterogeneity Some hosts connected to a backbone, most are not Access points may have more processing capacity, energy

EA

B CD

AP1 AP2

X

Z

infrastructure

Ad hoc connectivity

Y

9

Hybrid Networks

Heterogeneous wireless technologies

EA

B CD

AP1 AP2

X

Z

infrastructure

Y

Type 1(3G)

Type 2(802.11)

10

Hybrid Networks

Heterogeneity is essential

Pure ad hoc or pure infrastructure networks inadequate for many environments

Heterogeneity is beneficial …

11

Benefit over Pure Ad Hoc Networks

Infrastructure provides a frame of reference Can assign approximate locations to the mobiles

– Provide location-aware services

– Reduce route discovery overhead

AP0 AP1 AP2 AP3

A

B DR2R1 R3

A

12

Benefit over Pure Ad Hoc Networks

Infrastructure can reduce diameter of the network Lower delay Potentially greater per-flow throughput

EA

CD

AP1 AP2

X

Z

infrastructure

Ad hoc connectivity

Y

B

RP

13

Infrastructure Facilitates New Trade-Offs (hypothetical curves)

User density distributionaffects the trade-offAd hoc-ness = K

co

nn

ec

tiv

ity

ov

erh

ea

d

Poor Man’s Ad Hoc Network

14

Infrastructure Helps in Resource AllocationAddress Assignment

Unique IP addresses need to be assigned to hosts in a network

DHCP used in traditional networks

Difficult to use DHCP in pure ad hoc networks

But Can also be deployed on the infrastructure in a hybrid network

15

Infrastructure Helps in Resource AllocationAddress Assignment

Impossible to detect address duplication in networks that can get partitioned

• Unbounded delays cause difficulty

Clusters of hosts may partition from the infrastructure, rejoin, over time

Need a mechanism to assign unique addresses despite partitions

• Impossible with unbounded message delays

16

If a problem cannot be solved

Change the problem

17

Weak Duplicate Address Detection

Packets from a given host to a given address

should be routed to the same destination,

despite duplication of the address

Achievable despite unbounded delay, but incurs overhead

Infrastructure to the rescue: Use weak DAD only for nodes partitioned from the infrastructure

Can this extend to other resource allocation problems?

18

Benefit over Pure Infrastructure Networks

Ad hoc routing increases the “reach” of the infrastructure

Connectivity can be traded with overhead

Example: Limit “ad hoc-ness” to K hops

19

Hybrid Networks: Research Issues

How to implement infrastructure?

How to deploy relays/access points?

• Density, distribution

What functionality should be given to relays and access points?

• Should they cooperate? With each other? With mobiles?

Are relays an optimization or necessary components?

Should the spectrum be divided between the infrastructure and ad hoc components?

20

Hybrid Networks: Research IssuesHow to design protocols?

How to trade “complexity” with “performance” ?

• Parameterize ad hoc-ness ?

How to design protocols that maximize “performance” for a given complexity?

• Power control: How should the heterogeneity affect power control?

• MAC: Should the infrastructure do more work?

• Routing: Reduce overhead using infrastructure

• Transport: How to approach theoretical capacity bounds?

• How to deal with potentially unbounded delays?

The answers to the above questions are inter-dependent

• Power control, MAC, routing, transport protocols affect each other’s behavior

• Cross-layer design needed

21

Heterogeneity

Many dimensions of heterogeneity:

Architecture

Physical capability of hosts– Antennas

– Topology control mechanisms

– Processing capability

– Energy availability

Higher layers

22

Antenna Capabilities

“Fixed beam” antennas prevalent on mobile devices Omnidirectional antennas

“Movable beam” antennas likely to become more prevalent over time Switched, steered, adaptive, smart …

– Can form narrow beamforms, which may be changed over time

Re-configurable antennas– Beamforms can be changed over time by reconfiguring the

antenna

Different devices may incorporate different antennas

23

Antenna Heterogeneity

All antennas are not made equal

Beamforms: Only directional, or omni too?

Timescale: Can beams be “moved” at packet timescales?

Single beam or multiple beams?

Variations with time?

24

Antenna Capabilities

Protocols designed for omnidirectional (fixed beam) antennas inadequate with movable beam antennas

State of the art: MAC Protocols designed for specific antenna capabilities

Need “antenna-adaptive” MAC and routing protocols that allow for antenna heterogeneity

25

Antenna Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity is essential

Enforcing homogeneity will limit benefits from antenna improvements

Heterogeneity is beneficial

Devices can employ best antennas that they can “afford”– Device constraints: energy, processing, size, weight, $$– Access points may use more capable antenna than mobiles

Antenna-adaptive protocols allow separation of the antenna as a “layer” in the protocol stack

26

Antenna Heterogeneity: Research Challenge

How to design “antenna-adaptive” protocols ?

Need to develop suitable antenna abstractions that span a range of antenna designs

Forces us to think about essential characteristics of antennas

– Example: Variability of beam patterns a more fundamental property than directionality

27

Evaluation of Wireless Networks

28

Capacity

Capacity analysis:

• Capacity results useful to determine the gap between actual performance and the best case scenario

• Significant progress in recent years

• Need further work to model heterogeneous environments

29

Evaluation of Wireless Protocols

Benchmarks: Need benchmarks for comparison of different protocols

• State of the art: Toy benchmarks, almost no real data (for evaluating multi-hop wireless networks)

Simulations

• Commonly used simulation models are poor

• Need better physical layer models accessible to protocol community

30

Evaluation of Wireless Protocols

Experimentation:

“Full scale” experiments not always practical

Need mechanisms to build and experimentally evaluate “scaled models” of the network

– Physical dimensions

– Mobility

– Number of hosts

– Traffic density

How to “scale down” the network, and still maintain essential behaviors?

31

Conclusions

32

Conclusions

Heterogeneity essential, and beneficial

Heterogeneity Complexity ? Not necessarily Thinking about heterogeneity useful in arriving at better abstractions

Need protocols that can exploit heterogeneity

Need approaches for realistic comparative evaluation of protocols

33

Thanks!