Toward Using Node Mobility to Enhance

Greedy Forwarding in Geographic Routing

for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Juzheng (Alex) Li and Sol M. Shatz

Concurrent Software System Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois at Chicago
 Introduction
Geographic routing, especially the greedy forwarding
mode in geographic routing is rapidly gaining its
reputation in the context of wireless sensor networks
and mobile ad hoc networks.

 Generally, it does not require and store global network topology

information at each node.

 Resilient to frequent unpredictable topology changes

 An example
Source
Source

Destination
 But… …
Greedy forwarding may not always work.
 It may fail simply due to a lack of “closer” neighbors.
 Perimeter routing
Then the second phase of geographic routing is
engaged: perimeter routing
 Planar graph construction & Face routing
 Motivation
Keep the desired features:
 greedy forwarding

Avoid undesired features:

 perimeter routing
 Observation
To deliver a packet, there are two ways:
 Transmission hops (like shown previously)
 Node mobility
 Our approach
Revisit of greedy forwarding itself

Progress vs Potential

Motion Potential

Motion Potential assisted greedy

forwarding
 Our approach
Revisit of greedy forwarding itself

Progress vs Potential

Motion Potential

Motion Potential assisted greedy

forwarding
Revisit of greedy forwarding
 Our approach
Revisit of greedy forwarding itself

Progress vs Potential

Motion Potential

Motion Potential assisted greedy

forwarding
 Progress vs. Potential
Progress: direct progress
 Progress region
Potential: indirect contribution
 Potential region
 Our approach
Revisit of greedy forwarding itself

Progress vs Potential

Motion Potential

Motion Potential assisted greedy

forwarding
 Motion potential
The “strength” to move closer to the
destination.
 Motion potential calculation
• Case 1: Node can move into destination’s direct
communication range;
• Case 2: Node will not achieve direct communication
with destination
(Both based on node’s current motion)
Motion potential calculation
 Our approach
Revisit of greedy forwarding itself

Progress vs Potential

Motion Potential

Motion Potential assisted greedy

forwarding
Mobility based Adaptive Greedy Forwarding
(MAGF)
 Two cases
Case 1: Source will keep the packet
 Source node has the highest motion potential
score

Case 2: Source will pass the packet to a

“potential” node
 Source node’s score is not the highest
Case 1

Tcache
 Case 2

Tcache + T0
 Simulation setup
• Size of environment 2400 * 2000
• Node’s communication range 250

• GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless

Routing (standard geographic routing)
• MAGF: Mobility based adaptive greedy
forwarding
 Simulation results
Delivery rate
 Network density
 Node mobility
 Simulation results
Average hop count:
 Network density
 Node mobility
 Future work
(1) Delay - Energy tradeoff study

(2) Sophisticated node mobility predication

and corresponding motion potential
calculation
Thank you

Any questions?
&
Any advice?