Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design and Implementation of Partial Mesh Community Wireless Network in Himalayan Region
Design and Implementation of Partial Mesh Community Wireless Network in Himalayan Region
Index Terms-Community Wireless Network, Sustainable Rural Networks, Partial Mesh Network
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Architecture of Network
The architecture of this network intends to provide a partial
meshed, non-hierarchical network topology based on commodity infrastructure and technology. The Fig. 1 depicts the
network architecture of the community wireless network.
The design is comprised of three network areas (here we
categorize area as layer), each area is using a different connection settings. The test-bed network consists of the Network
Management and Operations Center known as backhaul for the
network [4] [8], which is located in the fairly accessible area,
a number of repeater radios locations with collocated poles or
towers fall under bridging layer while client nodes and user
PCs are categorized under third layer.
A. Environment
Our test-bed is located on a mountainous region of Nepal,
with the wireless clients placed in roof of house, community
office and school building. We have kept our network firewall
and network server near to the ISP. In contrast our wireless
AP is managed in fairy visible LOS area; our wireless radios
have 12dBi dual-polarized antennas which are the key feature
to build long distance network connection.
The node density in the hillside is consciously kept high
enough to enable a wide variety of multi-hop path choices for
extension of network in nearby community. 4 of the nodes
are used for repeating and transmitting signal while 2 of them
are used in 2 different schools and 2 are used in community
offices. There are 2 assembled computers in school while
one each computer is running in community office nodes. To
manage each node remotely, inbuilt firmware can be accessed
from any location once they are connected with the network.
B. Hardware
At the moment, the test-bed consist of a server side wireless
AP and other hardware devices used for backhaul. It consists
of an integrated network firewall, server for monitoring and
management, router, transmitter and antenna. Other components used in each node has one 2.4GHz High Power Wireless
Outdoor CPE TL-WA5210G and Ubiquiti Networks Nano
Station. Instead of configuring ad-hoc mode and fixing the
frequency band and channel number, we used the default configuration for the radios
as default configuration available
in radios are enough to carry out our network requirements.
In particular, these radios all perform auto-rate selection and
have RTS/CTS (Request to Send / Clear to Send) disabled.
IV. NETWORK ARCHITECTURE DESIGN
We have focused in different aspects while deploying the
network such as architecture of network, monitoring power
supply and software used. Each has been designed to specifically address our goals of increasing component robustness,
enabling fault diagnosis, and supporting fault prediction.
B. Partial Mesh
Recently, we witness that there are plenty of WMNs (Wireless Mesh Networks), in which communications are performed
between multi-hop fixed nodes and wireless nodes. However
due to the constraint of LOS sites it is very difficult to set
up full mesh networks in the hilly areas [13]. Nonetheless,
it is suggested to set up few nodes which are connected to
other nodes thereby establishing partial mesh networks. Full
mesh is very expensive to implement, however it can provides
redundant route in the network such that whenever one of
those node fails, Network traffic can be directed to any of the
other nodes. Full mesh network should be implemented for
back bone networks. Considering our tangible constraint we
have decided to build partial mesh in our purposed network
topology which is shown in Fig. 1. The big advantage of mesh
network is the ability to transmit data via repeater nodes to
the final destination. In partial networks however these repeater
nodes are less in numbers, it allows the majority of the network
to be up and running even if there are multiple link cuts or
equipment failures [11].
c.
Monitoring
D. Power Supply
A. Related Works
V. SITE SURVEY
B. Findings
c.
LOS Analysis
TABLE I
MAJOR LOCATIONS AND DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS
Test Parameters
Link Distance (Km)
WLAN B/W Clear Day (Mbps)
WLAN B/W Rainy Day (Mbps)
Internet B/W (Kbps)
Number of Users
Network Usage (Hours)
Simpani
0.4
37.64
26.45
240
4
6.8
Dhital
13
34.34
23.08
230
4
3.5
Kaskikot
17
34.12
22.88
200
2
2.2
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Usage analysis over 24 hours (a) Plot of total web traffic; (b) Traffic classification by protocol; (c) Web traffic classification by domain visited
Fig. 5.
In order to successfully operate a co-operative and sustainable model, a CWN should technically be owned and operated
by the members (Subscribers, not free account users) of local
communities. However, in practice CWN are predominantly
run by temporary volunteering actions that are lacking long
term vision, management and sustainable approach.
C. Business Model
FUTURE WORKS
CONCLUSION