Project Presentation

Quality of service
in
ad-hoc networks

Presented By: Abbas Agane

ELG 5125 - University of Ottawa
November 29, 2005
1
 Agenda
 Introduction  Ad-hoc QoS interconnectivity with
 Ad-hoc Network definition
Fixed Network
 Overview: Ad-hoc networks
 Domain services
 Network architecture
 Model for QoS ad-hoc
 Applications of ad-hoc networks

 Ad-hoc networks characteristics and

interaction with the host
requirements domain
 Overview: QoS  Mechanism of operation

 What is QoS ?
 Ad-hoc QoS interaction with
 The need of QoS in MANETs
the host domain architecture
 Why QoS is hard in MANETs
 End-to-end Qos in MANETs
 Current Solutions for Support in
MANETs connected to Fixed Networks
 Flexible QoS Model for MANETs (DS-SWAN)
 INSIGNIA-MANETs QoS Signaling  DS-SWAN for upstream

 Cluster-based Routing Protocol  Conclusions

 SWAN for MANETs  Q&A

2
 Ad Hoc Network definition

 An ad-hoc network is a wireless LAN, in which some

devices are part of the network only for the duration of
a communication session or while in some close
proximity to the rest of the network.

 A "mobile ad hoc network" (MANET) is an autonomous

system of mobile routers (and associated hosts)
connected by wireless links forming an arbitrary graph.
Routers are free to move randomly and organize
themselves arbitrarily; network topology may change
rapidly and unpredictably. May operate in a stand-alone
fashion, or may be connected to the Internet.

 An ad hoc network can be regarded as a “spontaneous

network”: a network that automatically “emerges”
when nodes gather together 3
 MANET – Mobile Ad hoc NETworks

B C

A D

- Mobility - Self configuring and healing - Rapid Deployment

- High capacity - Independent of public infrastructure - Relaying
- Internet compatible standards-based wireless systems 4
 Network Architecture

 Flat network  Multi-layered network

infrastructure infrastructure

Cluster Cluster
Head Head

Cluster
Head

5
 Applications of Ad Hoc Networks
 Personal communications

 cell phones, laptops

 Cooperative environments
 taxi cab network

 meeting rooms

 Emergency operations

 policing and fire fighting

 Military environments
 Battlefield

 Network of sensors or
floats over water
6
 Ad Hoc Networks Characteristics and
Requirements
 Autonomous and spontaneous nature of nodes
 Distributed Algorithms to support security, reliability and
consistency of exchanged and stored information
 Time-varying network topology (no pre-existing
infrastructure or central administration)
 Scalable routing and mobility management techniques to
face network dynamics
 Fluctuating link capacity and network resources
 Enhanced functionalities to improve link layer performance,
QoS network support and end-to-end efficiency
 Low-power devices
 Energy conserving techniques at all layers

7
 What is QoS ?
 Hard to agree on a common definition of QoS
 A QoS enabled network shall ensure:
 That its applications and/or their users have their

QoS parameters fulfilled, while at the same time

ensuring an efficient resource usage
 That the most important traffic still has its QoS

parameters fulfilled during network overload

 What are the most important QoS parameters:
 Throughput, availability, delay, jitter and packet

loss

8
 The need for QoS in MANETs
Applications have special service requirements
 VoIP: delay, jitter, minimum bandwidth
 Needs intelligent buffer handling and queueing
High mobility of users and network nodes
 Routing traffic is important
 No retransmission of lost broadcast messages
 Routing contol messages must be prioritized
For use in emergency and military operations
 User traffic prioritization is needed
 user, role, situation etc
Wireless bandwidth and battery capacity are scarce resources
 Need efficient resource usage
 E.g. only route high priority traffic through terminals that are low on
power
 Need QoS aware routing 9
 Why QoS is Hard in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks?
 Dynamic network topology
 Flow stop receiving QoS provisions due to path

disconnections
 New paths Must be established, causing data loss and

delays
 Imprecise state information
 Link state changes continuously

 Flow states change over time

 No central control for coordination

 Error-prone shared medium
 Hidden terminal problem
 Limited resources availability
 Bandwidth, battery life, storage, processing capabilities

 Insecure medium
10
 Current Solutions for QoS support
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
 Because of the unique characteristics of the ad-hoc environment
three models provide some good insight into the issues of QoS
in MANETs
 These models provide a comprehensive solutions, namely
 INSIGNIA
 FQMM
 SWAN

FQMM Can be integrated

 with multiple routing  Flexibility!
INSIGNIA
SWAN protocols

11
 Flexible QoS Model for MANETs (FQMM)
 First QoS Model proposed in 2000 for MANETs by Xiao et al
 Proposes a “hybrid” provisioning that combines the per-flow
granularity on IntServ and per-class granularity of DiffServ
 Adopts DiffServ, but improves the per-class granularity to per-flow
granularity for certain class of traffic
 Built over IntServ and DiffServ models, it can operate with extranet traffic
 Classification is made at the source node
 QoS provisioning is made on every node along the path
 FQMM Model provisions the traffic into two portions
 the highest priority is assigned per-flow granularity.
 the rest is assigned per-class granularity. core

 Three types of nodes defined ingress

2
Ingress (transmit)
4

3
1
 Interior (forward) egress
6 7
 Egress (receive) 5

12
 INSIGNIA – MANETs QoS Signaling
 First signaling protocol designed solely for MANETs by Ahn et al.
1998
 In-band signaling

 Base and enhanced QoS levels

 Per-flow management
 Resources management adapted as technology

 Intelligent packet scheduling

 Flow reservation, restoration and adaptation

 QoS reports periodically sent to source node

 Source node takes action to adapt flows to observed network

condition
 Routing
 Any routing protocol can be used

 Route maintenance procedure will affect

 In-band signaling
 Establish, adapt, tear down reservations

 Control information embedded in data packets

13
 INSIGNIA – OPTION Field
 Supports in-band signaling by adding a new option field in the IP
header to carry the signaling control
 Reservation Mode (REQ/RES): indicates whether there is already
a reservation for this packet.
 If “no”, the packet is forwarded to INSIGNIA Module which in

coordination with a AC may either:

grant resources  Service Type = RT (real-time).
deny resources Service Type = BE (best-effort).
 If “yes”, the packet will be forwarded with the allowed

resources.
 Bandwidth Request (MAX/MIN): indicates the requested amount
of bandwidth.
Reservation Service Payload Bandwith Bandwith Request
Mode Type Indicator Indicator
REQ/RES RT/BE RT/BE MAX/MIN MAX MIN
1 bit 1 bit 1 bit 1 bit 16 bits

The INSIGNIA OPTION field 14

 INSIGNIA – Bottleneck Node
 During the flow
reservation reservation/service/bandwidth bottleneck node

process a node
may be a REQ/RT/MAX REQ/RT/MIN
MD
bottleneck: REQ/RT/MAX M2
M3 REQ/RT/MIN
The service will Ms
M1
M4
degrade from
RT/MAX -> RT/MIN. M5

 If M2 is heavy-loaded it may also degrade

the service level to BE/MIN where there is
actually no QoS.
15
 Cluster-based Routing Protocol for
Mobile Ad hoc Networks
 When network size increase, flat routing schemes
become infeasible.  hierarchical routing
 Explicit hierarchy
 Group nodes geographically close to each other

into explicit clusters

 Clusterhead

 Communicate to other nodes on behalf of the

cluster
 Clustering is: a distributed, efficient, scalable protocol
 Use clustering approach to minimize on-demand
route discovery traffic
 use “local repair” to reduce route acquisition delay

and new route discovery traffic

 suggest a solution to use uni-directional links

16
 Cluster Formation
routing: showing a data path from source to destination
Destination

Source

17
 Cluster Formation
 Objective:
 Form small, stable clusters

with only local information

 Mechanism:
 Variations of “min-id” cluster formation algorithm.
 Nodes periodically exchange HELLO pkts to
maintain a neighbor table
 neighbor status (C_HEAD, C_MEMBER, C_UNDECIDED)
 link status (uni-directional link, bi-directional link)
 maintain a 2-hop-topology link state table
Node ID Node Status
Neighbor ID Neighbor Link
HELLO status status
message … … …
format: Adjacent cluster
ID
… 18
 SWAN
Stateless Wireless Ad Hoc Networks
 An alternative to INSIGNIA with improved scalabilities properties
 Is a stateless network scheme designed specifically for MANETs
with no need to process complex signaling, or to keep per-flow
information, to achieve scalability and robustness
 Promotes rate control system that can be used at each node to
treat traffic either as real-time or best-effort
 Excessive real-time traffic is automatically demoted to best-effort
 While provides a model that deals with traffic on a per-class , it
uses merely two level of service, best-effort and real-time traffic
 Both level of service can be mapped to DCSPs with known PHB
(based on bandwidth requirement) to facilitate extranet QoS
 May decide to demote part of the real-time traffic to best-effort
service due to lack of resources
 The transmission rate for the best-effort traffic is locally estimated
and adjusted to accommodate the bandwidth required by Real
Time traffic
 Supports source-based admission control and distributed
congestion control for real-time traffic
 Uses explicit congestion notification (ECN) 19
 ad-hoc QoS interconnectivity with
fixed network
 Ad-Hoc network needs to cling to a host network in order to
gain access to the internet
 Co-operation between ad hoc network and the host network can
facilitate end-to-end QoS support
 Framework proposed by Morgan and Kunz defines a solution for
interaction between ad hoc and host networks
 This framework is not affected by the specific QoS model
implemented on either side
 Ad-Hoc network may decide to implement INSIGNIA, SWAN, or
FQMM, while host network may decide to implement DiffServ or
IntServ
 Ad-hoc networks rely on the host network resources and
services in order to access to the outside world
 The host network provides support for the ad-hoc by providing
access to specific domain services and agreements
 Domain services are expressed in terms of three major
components

20
 Domain services
 Service Level Agreement (SLA): Fixed networks define SLA as a
contract between a customer and service provider that
specifies, what services the network service provider will
furnish
 Ad hoc domain: may decide to use any protocol such as SLP

(service Location Protocol ) to locate specific services such

as a mail server, based on individual needs
 Traffic Conditioning Agreement (TCA): Specifying classifier rules
and any corresponding traffic profiles and metering and shaping
rules which are to apply the traffic streams selected by the
classifier
 An example of TCA is the DSCP mapping, and packet
fragmentation
 Ad Hoc network: need to adopt a set of DSCP codes in order

to be able to deal with DiffServ QoS traffic

 Service Provisioning Policy: how traffic conditioners are
configured on domain boundary nodes and how traffic streams
are mapped to behaviour aggregates to achieve a range of
services
21
Model for QoS ad-hoc interaction
with host domain

Network Elements [1],[2] 22

 Mechanism of Operation
 The GW to the proposed friendly domain can use SLA and TCA
proposed by its fixed domain only
 GW(A’) adopts SLA and TCA proposed by domain DS’
 While GW(A”) adopts SLA and TCA proposed by domain DS”
 The GW has to achieve a compromise between the costs using
different services
 When a GW looses link connectivity during a per-class, extranet
packets have to be rerouted to an alternate GW
 Otherwise it will return to the originating node with a proper
error code
 GWs have to create a table of the in-service DSCP
 This table provides a way of finding an alternate GW
 When a GW looses link connectivity during a per-flow session,
extranet packets have to be returned to the sender with an
error report

23
 Aggregate RSVP
 Is used to solve the scalability issues of RSVP protocol
 It is particular efficient for inter-domain reservations
 The terminal ad hoc network is good to employ aRSVP
 Since, all ad-hoc extranet traffic have to pass through an access
network
 aRSVP is used to configure an aggregate PHB between nodes A’,
A”, on one hand and D’, D” on the other hand
 All end-to-end reservations that use RSVP will use the same
aggregate if they belong to the same class
 All same class reservations will share resources reserved by a
single aRSVP
 This raises the problem of dealing with bursty traffic, because it
will simply eat up the resources of other flow
 Because, Bursty traffic will simply eat up resources of other flows
 Proved that the performance degradation due to bursty flow comes
with performance enhancement in the form of reduction of delay in
the tail of the delay distribution
24
 Pro-active and reactive approach
 Proactive approach, by allowing the first or best AN to place an
aRSVP request to reserve all classes of traffic (i.e. DSCP)
 Then other users will use pre-configured services, and only solicit a
request for upgrade when needed
 Problem is the reservation of unused resources in anticipation of
future need
 Unused resources can be released until needed. When needed,
they can simply activated
 Reactive approach, by reserving services only when needed
 When services for a new DSCP are needed, the GW will broadcast a
solicit message requiring all ANs to reply with the level of service
and cost they can obtain from a specified host domain
 GW then will apply a selection criteria to choose which AN should
provide aRSVP connection
 Reactive approach does not reserve unused resources like the
proactive one
 However, a certain delay is expected to find the right AN, and to
perform versus reactive aRSVP reservation can be determined from
the service policy-provisioning repository 25
 Ad-hoc QoS interaction with
host domain Architecture

Architecture Elements [1], [2]

Ad-hoc may employ FQMM, SWAN, or INSIGNIA, and may be using

dRSVP
Ad-hoc will have a traffic forwarding algorithm, which will use the

service policies in order to perform QoS routing

SLA, TCA, and service provisioning policies, are all imported

GW has a common access to SLA, TCA, and service provisioning policies 26


 End-To-End QoS in MANETs
Connected to Fixed Networks
DS-SWAN (Diff-SWAN)
 New protocol proposed by Remondo, designed to support end-to-
end QoS in ad-hoc networks connected to fixed DiffServ domain
 DS-SWAN warns nodes in the ad-hoc networks when congestion is
excessive for the correct functioning of real-time applications
 These nodes react by slowing down best-effort traffic
 DS-SWAN significantly improves end-to-end delays for real-time
flows without starvation of background traffic
 DS-SWAN, the ingress edge router periodically monitors the
number of Expedited Forwarding (EF) packets that are dropped by
its token bucket meter
 On the other hand, the corresponding nodes in the fixed IP
network periodically monitor the average end-to-end delays of the
real-time flows
 DS-SWAN has been designed to combat the effect of congestion
due to excess of best-effort traffic on end-to-end delay real-time
flows

27
 DS-SWAN for upstream traffic

 For Real-time traffic, the DiffServ service class is the Expedite Forwarding
PHB (Peer-Hop Behaviour)
The number of dropped packets at the ingress edge router and the end-to-
end
delay of the real-time connection are associated with the QoS parameters of
the SWAN model in the ad hoc network
 If the rate of the best-effort leaky bucket traffic shaper is lower, then best-
effort traffic is more efficiently restricted and real-time traffic is not so much
28
 DS-SWAN for upstream traffic
(cont’)
 When a destination node detects that the end-to-end
delay of one VoIP flow approached the threshold (i.e.
becomes greater than 140ms), it sends a QoS_LOST
warning to the ingress edge route
 When the edge router sends a QoS_LOST to the ad
hoc network, it sends the message only to the VoIP
sources generating flows that have problems to keep
their end-to-end delay under 150ms, which will
obviously also arrive at the intermediate nodes along
the routes
 All these nodes forward the QoS_LOST message to all
their neighbours because they may be contending
with them for medium access

29
 DS-SWAN for upstream traffic (cont’)

 The nodes in the ad hoc network use

priority scheduling at the MAC layer to
prioritize routing packets and QoS_LOST
packets
 When a node in ad hoc network receives
the QoS_LOST message, it will react by
modifying the parameter value in the
AIMD rate control algorithm
 Every time that a QoS_LOST message is
received , the node decreases the value
of c by ∆c-bit/s with a certain minimum
value
 When no QoS_LOST message is
received during T seconds the node
increases the value of c by ∆c+bit/s
unless the initial value of c has
reached
 For r is opposite of the above results
r-> ∆r-bit/s/ ∆c+bit/s

30
 Conclusion
 In this project, I have presented different existing QoS
model for wireless ad-hoc networks and a proposed
frameworks for ad-hoc interconnectivity with fixed
domains
 INSIGNIA, SWAN, FQMM and DS-SWAN, each model
provide the basics for a more comprehensive model
 Mobile nodes can connect to the Internet gateways of
different types, providing different QoS
 Classified different approach with respect to different
mobility scenarios
 Furthermore, I presented existing classified different
level of QoS for hybrid fixed networks
 In order to achieve an end-to-end QoS approach, QoS
information in both fixed and ad-hoc networks should
be involved
 This demands an interaction between the sections 31
 References
 [1] Towards End-to-End QoS in Ad-Hoc Networks Connected to Fixed Networks
David Remondo Catalonia Univ. of Technology (UPC)
 [2] An architectural framework for MANET QoS interaction with access domains
Yasser Morgan and Thomas Kunz, Carleton University
 [3]A proposal for an ad-hoc network QoS gateway Yasser Morgan and Thomas
Kunz, Carleton University
 [4] A Glance at Quality of Services in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks Zeinalipour-Yazti
Demetrios (csyiazti@cs.ucr.edu)
 [5] Quality of Service in Ad-Hoc Networks Eric Chi, Antoins Dimakis el
(smartnets@uclink.berkeley.edu)
 [6] QoS in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Prasant Mohapatra, Jian Li and Chao Gui,
University of California
 [7] QoS-aware Routing Based on Bandwidth Estimation for Mobile Ad Hoc networks
Lei Chen and Wendi Heinzelman, University of Rochester{chenlei,
wheinzel}@ece.rochester.edu
 [8] Dynamic Quality of Service for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks
M. Mirhakkak, N. Schult, D. Thomson, The MITRE Corporation
 [9] Network Architecture to Support QoS in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Lei Chen and Wendi Heizelman, University of Rochester
32
 Q&A

Thank You!

Questions?
33