Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data

1. Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data Michael Meisel, Vasileios Pappas, and Lixia Zhang UCLA, IBM Research MobiArch’10, September 24, 2010 2011. 3. 13 Shinhaeng Oh (shoh@mmlab.snu.ac.kr)

2. CONTENTS • Background • Internet Protocol vs. Named Data • Existing Solutions for mobile networks • Ad-Hoc Networking over IP • Limitation of IP-Routing • New Direction for mobile networks • NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking • Design Example : LFBL • Conclusion

3. Introduction • TCP/IP and CCN Protocol Stacks • Replace packets with Data Objects or Interests • ReplaceAddresses with Names of Objects

4. Ad-Hoc Networkingover IP 1. Each node is assigned an IP address 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210

5. Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 2. Applications communicate by sending data to specific destination addresses 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210

6. Ad-Hoc Networking over IP 3. When node move, determine a single best path to the given destination IP, and delivers data Sending data 3 2 198.102.182.104 1 212.123.3.214 5 201.239.0.101 4 112.191.203.117 162.201.193.210

7. Limitations of the IP-Routing (1) • Difficult to assign IP addresses (moving nodes) • IP addresses management is tightly controlled • It requires infrastructure support (e.g. DHCP) • ad-hoc networks need infrastructure-free !! • In mobile, IP address is less meaningful • Wired networks, IP represent topology location • But, ad-hoc network do not have fixed location • Temporary unique identifier for device is needed SNU: 147.46.174.xx MIT: 18.9.22.xx

8. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (1) • Assign IP address to each nodes --No longer needs • To forward interests &data packets, • Nodes can use application data names directly interest interest forward or broadcast

9. Limitations of the IP-Routing (2) • Data is invisible in today’s IP-centric architecture source destination • It’s sub-optimal delivery • Accuracy of routing statemaintained at each nodeOverhead to keep this state consistent --tradeoff • High node mobility • Constant movement in the aggregate at a large network

10. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (2) • Caching (traditional approach) • Ideally, each cached object has to be retrieved in its entirety from the same caching node. • But, images & audios & videos cannot fit within one packet • Transparent caching techniques work only in static network • Caching (NDN) • Intermediate node can forward to request node any part of file subsequent request chunk

11. Limitations of the IP-Routing (3) • Receivers are in a better position to make forward decision than senders • In broadcast channel, nodes can hear the transmission • To keep all neighbors’ movement and connectivity changes will increase the routing table update overhead

12. NDN for Ad-Hoc Networking (3) • Interest packets can be forwarded multiple path • More than one direction returns the request data • A node can evaluate which path gives the best performance • Send future Interest for same data source in that direction • Remove critical dependency on pre-computed single paths

13. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Response Response REQUEST Name of application data

14. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK

15. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination 2 ACK 1

16. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK 1 2

17. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK

18. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK 1 3 2

19. Design Example: LFBL • LFBL: Listen First, Broadcast Later • Uses a variation of NDN’s 3-way exchange • Name prefix announcements • Interest forwarding • Data return Destination ACK

20. Performance Evaluation • Implemented LFBL in QualNet network simulator • Effect of % of mobile nodes • Move at a fixed rate of 30m/s (random waypoint mobility) various contents concurrently?

21. Conclusion • Frequent changes in topology had a direct impact on the performance of current protocols • Designed a new forwarding protocol: LBFL • For highly dynamic multi-hop wireless networks • Distributed forwarding capability with essentially no routing protocol • Through named data networking approach, • We can sketched out promising architectural direction to develop effective and efficient solution for ad-hoc networks

22. QnA

23. Related Work: DSDV, AODV • Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) is a table-driven routing scheme for ad hoc mobile networks based on Bellman-Ford algorithm • Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, they generally even if a link is present, odd used • For example the routing table of Node A in Network