On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP )CSE 6590
Ap
ril 21
, 20
23
Types of Multicast Routing in MANETs
Tree-based One path between a source-receiver pair AMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV
Mesh-based Multiple paths between a source-receiver pair ODMRP, CAMP
Hybrid Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
2
Typical Multicast Routing Protocols AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol
Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers National University of Singapore Georgia Institute of Technology November 1998 [draft]
ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing Protocol University of California at Los Angeles January 2000 [draft]
3
Why compare them?AMRIS ODMRP
Big difference
Topology Shared (Core-based) Tree Mesh of Nodes
Main Similarity
Mobility support Yes, based on MANET
Driven mode On-demand, do not store whole network topology
Advantages simple topology
low overheads
mobility
robustness
Disadvantages sensitive to mobility (low delivery ratio)
complex topology
high overheads
4
ODMRP
Multicast Messages: JOIN-QUERY (J-Q); JOIN-REPLY (J-R);
Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in AODV and DSR
5
Basic Operation of ODMRPOn Demand Route and Mesh Creation
Join Query Join Reply
S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership. Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the
packet. Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its
neighbors. Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it
own. If yes , it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.
Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a shortest path.
Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.
S
R
R
R R
R
ODMRP: Join Reply
JOIN-REPLY message
I1S1
I2S2
R1
R1
Sender Next Node
S1 I1
S2 I2
7
Sender Next Node
S1 S1
J-R of R1 J-R of I1
Concept of Forwarding Group
Why a mesh? Links
Multicast RoutesInitial Route from S1 to R2 is < S1 -A- B- R2>
Redundant Route < S1- A- C- B- R2>
FG
FG
FG FG
FGFG
R1
BC
R3
A
S1
R2
S2
S3
ODMRP: Sender Actions
Sender actions: Downstream
Generate J-Q message;
Broadcast J-Q ; Upstream
Receive J-R (include the path info);
9
ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (downstream)
Intermediate node actions: (downstream)
– Receive J-Q, omit duplicated ones (use cached sequence numbers);
– Store upstream node info;– Re-broadcast J-Q;
10
ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (upstream)
Intermediate node actions: (upstream)
Received J-R; If node is on the path
Generate new J-R with node info and broadcast, route established!
11
ODMRP: Receiver Actions
Receiver actions: Downstream
Received J-Q; Generate J-R with
path info; Upstream
Broadcast J-R;
12
ODMRP: Maintenance phase
Soft state approach Sender repeat J-R periodically to maintain
mesh. Node joins
Sending J-R as discusses before. Node leaves
Sender: stops sending J-Q; Receiver: stops sending J-R;
Links break Receiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R;
13
Algorithm Comparison (1)
AMRIS ODMRP
More differences
Multicast topology Shared Delivery Tree Mesh of Nodes
Initialization Generating msm-id; Store upstream info;
Maintenance All nodes periodically send beacon message
Sender periodically send J-Q msg
Node joins Detect beacon msg and perform branch reconstruction;
Detect J-Q and response J-R;
Node leaves Stop beacon msg; Stop J-R or J-Q;
Link-break No more beacon msg and perform BR;
Receive new J-Q and reply with J-R;
More and more differences (message types, routing table info…)14
Algorithm Comparison (2)
AMRIS and ODMRP
More Similarities
Mobility support Yes, based on MANET
Driven mode On-demand, does not store whole network topology
Broadcast message Yes
Unicast capabilities Yes
Periodic message Yes
Loop free Yes
More similarities …
15
Performance Comparison (1)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of mobile speed
– # of data packets actually delivered to the destinations versus # of data packets supposed to be received
– PDR of ARMIS is speed sensitive
16
Performance Comparison (2)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of # of senders
– PDR of AMRIS is not sensitive to # of senders
– ODRMP’s performance improves as number of senders increases
17
Performance Comparison (3)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of multicast group size
– PDR of ODMRP is not sensitive to group size
– AMRIS’s performance improves as group size grows
18
Performance Comparison (4)
Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of network traffic load
AMRIS has severe packet loss rates
ODMRP suffers less
19
Overhead Comparison (1)
Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a function of mobility speed
– Control bytes are control packets and data packet headers
– Not speed sensitive– AMRIS has lower ratio
20
Overhead Comparison (2)
Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a Function of # of Senders
– AMRIS is not affected by number of senders
– ODMRP may not be efficient in large networks
21
Qualitative Comparison
• Bandwidth Consumption– ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes than
AMRIS– However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery
ratio
• Power Consumption– Depends on mobility speed, number of senders,
network traffic load, etc.– Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes
22
References “A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless
Multicast Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000
“Multicast over wireless mobile ad hoc networks: Present and future directions”, Carlos de Morais Cordeiro, Hrishikesh Gossain and Dharma P. Agrawal, IEEE Network, January 2003
“Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs”, Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik
“Capacity of Wireless Mesh Networks Understanding Single Radio, Dual Radio and Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks”
“On the 802.11 Turbulence of Nintendo DS and Sony PSP Handheld Network Games”, Mark Claypool
www.wikipedia.org 23