Implementation Review
-
Upload
ravi-preethu -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Implementation Review
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
1/35
A Project Review Review#3
onMulticasting with Localized Control in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks
(IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 52-64, JANUARY 2009 )
By Batch No#16
P. Nagamani (08121A0582)
T. Rajasekhar (08121A05B8)
K. Neeharika (08BF1A0551)
O. Muneendra (08121A0581)
Head Of Department: Guide:Prof. D.JATIN DAS, B.E., M.Sc [Tech-CS] Mr. V. RAMESH M. Tech,(Ph. D).,Professor & Head. Associate Professor.
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE(Affiliated to JNTUA-Anantapur)
Sree Sainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati-517102.
2008-2012
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
2/35
Agenda of the Presentation
Abstract
Introduction
Statement of the problem
Objectives
Scope Literature Survey
Software and Hardware used
Physical Model
Mathematical Model
Network Model
Algorithm Explanation
Simulation model
References
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
3/35
Abstract
This project investigates how to support multicasting in
wireless ad hoc networks without throttling the dominant unicast
flows. Unicast flows are usually congestion-controlled with protocols
like TCP. Based on a cross-layer approach, this project proposes acompletely localized scheme to prevent multicast flows from
causing severe congestion and the associated deleterious effects on
other flows in wireless ad hoc networks. The proposed scheme
combines the layered multicast concept with the routing-basedcongestion avoidance idea to reduce the aggregated rate of
multicast flows when they use excessive bandwidth on a wireless
link.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
4/35
Introduction
Protocols in wireless ad-hoc networks are also required
to be distributed for robustness and scalability.
If a distributed protocol only relies on local information
and local actions for fulfilling its functionality, then the
protocol is also localized.
In the sense of using only local resources, a localized
protocol is usually efficient and scalable, which are thebasic characteristics required for protocols in wireless ad
hoc networks.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
5/35
One of the basic elements required for multicasting in
wireless ad hoc networks is multicast routing.
Instead of relying on end-to-end congestion control
schemes, this project proposes a fully localized scheme in the
network layer to support multicasting in wireless ad hoc
networks while maintaining fairness with unicast flows.
Introduction (Contd.)
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
6/35
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
7/35
Existing System
Existing routing protocols for multicasting in wireless ad hoc
networks such as MAODV and ODMRP , like unicast routing
protocols, only set up routing information in nodes but do
not have other controls over flows, such as congestioncontrol.
Existing multicast congestion control schemes largely fall
into two categories: single rate and multirate.
Existing multirate protocols, such as Receiver-driven
Layered Multicast (RLM), cannot ensure fairness with TCP ,
and even in wireline networks.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
8/35
Disadvantages
In wireless ad hoc networks, the unfairness situation
becomes more severe with existing multicast congestion
control protocols.
Congestion control is not possibly effective for multicast
flows.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
9/35
Proposed System
To design a scheme which effectively relieve congestion at
bottlenecks with multicast traffic.
To propose a fully localized scheme in the network layer to
support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while
maintaining fairness with unicast flows.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
10/35
Advantages
Fair bandwidth allocation.
Delivered packet ratio is high.
No throttling of unicast flows.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
11/35
To support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks
without congestion as like unicast flows.
To present a fully localized scheme to support
multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while preventing
unicast flows from being throttled.
Objectives
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
12/35
The proposed scheme is mainly designed to effectively
relieve congestion at bottlenecks with multicast traffic.
It is also designed to maintain general fairness in
bandwidth sharing among the competing flows at a
bottleneck.
Since the proposed scheme is not centralized, we do not
expect it to meet the requirements of fairness criteria otherthan the one we consider.
Scope
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
13/35
[1] S. Sarkar and L. Tassiulas, Back Pressure Based
Multicast Scheduling for Fair Bandwidth Allocation,
Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2001,pp no:1279-1290.
In multirate transmission, each source encodes its
signal in layers. The lowest layer contains the most important
information and all receivers of a session should receive it. If a
receivers data path has additional bandwidth, it receives higher
layers which leads to a better quality of reception. The bandwidth
allocation objective is to distribute the layers fairly. We present a
computationally simple, decentralized scheduling policy that attains
the maxmin fair rates without using any knowledge of traffic
statistics and layer bandwidths.
Literature Survey
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
14/35
[2] R. Gopalakrishnan, J. Griffioen, G. Hjalmtysson, C.
Sreenan, and S. Wen, A Simple Loss Differentiation
Approach to Layered Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 00,
Mar. 2000.
Layered multicast is a promising technique for
broadcasting adaptive-quality TV video to heterogeneous receivers.
A new layered multicast scheme, where we exploit a simple, coarse-
grained, two-tier loss differentiation architecture to achieve stable
and fair bandwidth allocation for viewers was proposed in this work.
Literature Survey(Contd.)
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
15/35
Literature Survey(Contd.)
[3] S. Bajaj, L. Breslau, and S. Shenker, Uniform versus
Priority Dropping for Layered Video, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM
98, Sept. 1998.
The relative merits of uniform versus priority
dropping for the transmission of layered video are analyzed here.
They first presented their original intuitions about these two
approaches, and then investigated the issue more thoroughly
through simulations and analysis in which we explicitly model the
performance of layered video applications. It is found that the
performance benefit of priority dropping is smaller than expected,
while uniform dropping has worse incentive properties than
previously believed.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
16/35
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
17/35
DFD Level2 Diagram:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
18/35
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
19/35
Use case Diagram For Receiver:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
20/35
Sequence Diagram:-
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
21/35
ActivityDiagram:-
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
22/35
Operating System : Windows XP
Tool : NS2
Hardware used :
Processor : Intel Pentium IV
RAM : 1 GB
Hard Disk Drive : 80 GB
Requirements Specification
Software used:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
23/35
Mathematical Model
Layer Blocking Selection Procedure:
Layer Releasing Selection Procedure:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
24/35
Mathematical Model(Contd.)
The Jains fairness index F(t) at time t is then given by,
which attains the value of 1, when the allocation is totallyfair,
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
25/35
Network Model
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
26/35
Algorithm Explanation
To prove that the system of flows converges to fairness,
we use the following result,
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
27/35
Simulation Model
The project is divided into five modules:
Collecting flow information.
Embedding layer priority information.
Flow initialization.
Layer blocking & releasing.
Adjustment of multicast layers.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
28/35
Collecting flow information:
A node collects flow information about the traffic
traversing its link to assist its congestion control operation.
The average per-flow rates of TCP flows and multicast
flows:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
29/35
Embedding layer priority information:
The layer priority information in a multicast flow is
embedded in the multicast addresses used by the multicast
flow.
The multicast source allocates lower addresses to its higher
priority layers and higher addresses to its lower priority
layers.
A node in the network can determine the priority of a layer
in a multicast flow traversing its link by comparing the
address of the layer with the addresses of other layers in
the same multicast flow.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
30/35
Flow initialization:
Each receiver adds layers gradually by subscribing to those
multicast groups, at the beginning of a multicast session.
If the added layer is not blocked in the network and its
packets are flowing into the receiver, the receiver adds
another layer.
This process continues until an empty layer is obtained by
the receiver.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
31/35
Layer blocking & releasing:
Layer block is the modification of the multicast routing table
to stop a layer from entering a congested link.
Layer release is the modification of the routing table to
allow a blocked layer to traverse a link.
The layer blocking and releasing selection procedures
ensure that competing multicast flows share the bandwidth
available to them fairly.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
32/35
Adjusting multicast layers:
Blocking or releasing of multicast layers on a link is done,
according to the state of the associated nodes output
queue.
The phases of a queue are classified as:
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
33/35
References
[1] Jun Peng, Biplab Sikdar, and Liang Cheng, Multicasting with LocalizedControl in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE
COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, pp. 52-64, JANUARY 2009.
[2] E.M. Royer and C.E. Perkins, Multicast Operation of the Ad Hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol, Proc. ACM MobiCom 99, pp.
207-218, Aug. 1999.[3] S.-J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C.-C. Chiang, On-Demand Multicast Routing
Protocol, Proc. IEEE Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf.(WCNC 99),
pp. 1298-1304, Sept. 1999.
[4] I. Rhee, N. Balaguru, and G. Rouskas, MTCP: Scalable TCPLike Congestion
Control for Reliable Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 99, pp. 1265-1273,
Mar. 1999.
[5] L. Rizzo, PGMCC: A TCP-Friendly Single-Rate Multicast Congestion
Control Scheme, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 00,pp. 120-132, Aug. 2000.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
34/35
References(Contd.)
[6] S. ShiandM. Waldvogel,ARate-Based End-to-EndMulticastCongestion
ControlProtocol,Proc.FifthIEEE Symp.ComputersandComm (ISCC00),
July 2000.
[7] S.Bhattacharyya,D.Towsley,andJ. Kurose,TheLossPathMultiplicity
ProbleminMulticastCongestionControl,Proc.IEEE INFOCOM99,pp.
856-863, 1999.
[8] S.McCanne,V.Jacobson,andM.Vetterli,Receiver-DrivenLayered
Multicast,Proc.ACM SIGCOMM96,pp. 117-130,Aug. 1996.
[9] L.Vicisano,L.Rizzo,andJ.Crowcroft,TCP-LikeCongestionControlfor
LayeredMulticastDataTransfer,Proc.IEEE INFOCOM98,vol. 3,pp.996-
1003,Mar. 1998.
[10] J.Byers,M.Luby,M.Mitzenmacher,andA.Rege,ADigitalFountain
ApproachtoReliableDistributionofBulkData,Proc.ACM SIGCOMM98,
pp. 56-67, Sept. 1998.
-
8/3/2019 Implementation Review
35/35
THANK YOUTHANK YOU