You are on page 1of 17

Dynamic Message Prioritization in Tactical Wireless MANET

Gregory L. Mayhew Adjunct Professor of Systems Engineering Department of Systems Engineering Missouri University of Science and Technology 600 West 14th Street, 223 Engr Mgmt Rolla, MO 65409 573-341-7211;

Abstract—Normal design practice is to decouple the design of applications using a network from the design of the network itself. Designers optimize network performance by only focusing on network transport layer mechanisms for robustness (connectivity), efficiency (throughput), & speed of service (latency). Applications offer loads to the network and rely on the QoS function in the network to prioritize the traffic flows. By contrast, network centric operations focus on application layer features like situation awareness and synchronization to enhance force effectiveness. Therefore, in contrast to enterprise networks in which QoS processes messages based on fixed priorities by data type, in mission orientated MANET, QoS must be a cooperative function between application and network resource management that uses dynamic priority allocation derived from task priorities established by commanders within echelon hierarchies1,2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. INTRODUCTION ARMY “BANDWIDTH” NEEDS ARCHITECTURE LAYERS INTERNET QOS SPECTRUM FOR MOBILE NETWORKS MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS ARCHITECTURE COMPARISONS BRIGADE FORCE STRUCTURE MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS TRAFFIC ATTRIBUTES MISSION QOS ARCHITECTURE CONCLUSIONS

However, for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET), the wireless datalink capacity is very limited, link reliability is less due to wireless infrastructure, and network topologies are not deterministic. Therefore, to maintain quality of service from the users’ perspective, the application layer software design must be cognizant of network constraints and quality of service (QoS) must be achieved by considering mechanisms at both the application and transport layers. QoS approaches based solely on the data type (voice, music, video, etc.) without considering user task priorities will be inadequate in tactical operation when MANET radio provides the network centric infrastructure. Wireless, mobile, ad-hoc communication networks operate in an environment that is distinctly different from static landline commercial communication systems for which most recent network routing innovations have been developed. Commercial landline networks can guarantee performance levels over the long term by over-provisioning infrastructure resources, whereas wireless mobile ad-hoc networks face many infrastructure challenges that impact QoS performance. These challenges include constraints on the assets currently available, RF spectrum allocation limits, highly variable link quality due to weather and terrain, and rapid changes in topology and data routing due to mobility. In a dynamic wireless environment, QoS is the capability to prioritize information, applications, services, and network resources within constraints in order to meet users’ needs consistent with overall task priorities. Traditional networks generally seek to optimize overall performance by focusing on transport layer mechanism for robustness (connectivity), efficiency (throughput), and speed of service (latency) on a message basis. Under some conditions, satisfying the users’ overall task priority is paramount, even if this results in ‘suboptimal’ topologies or overall network performance. In MANET, user tasks at application layer contain important indicators for establishing priorities at the transport layer. QoS must be a cooperative function between application and network resource management that uses dynamic priorities derived from task priorities rather than data types.

Normal design practice is to decouple the design of applications using a network from the design of the network itself. This approach led to the seven layer Open System Interconnect model (OSI) and the four layer TCP/IP internet model. This architecture approach is feasible when the underlying network resources are essentially unconstrained.
1 2

978-1-4244-3888-4/10/$25.00 ©2010 IEEE. IEEEAC paper #1119, Version 5, Updated 2009:12:15


such as latency and jitter for voice packets. maneuver. administration. On the other hand. This approach injects Internet methods which assumes common. data 10 Databases NTDR. multi-mission brigade with 3. voice 33 Logistics SINGARS. Quality of Service is the architecture and methodologies for prioritizing message distribution in order to meet these overall communication network metrics. ubiquitous priority scheme for all participants. and fire support. reflecting role and importance. Based on these projected requirements. demand reduction can mitigate this discrepancy between projected requirements and availability of network capacity. These radios are generally dedicated to either data or voice nets [20]. and data transmissions. voice 20 Fire support SINGARS. this paper advocates that the priority schemes for MANET in tactical operations must be based on the task importance that the data is inherently supporting. Communication resources are mostly static based on assignment of frequency channels. In contrast. information integrity. Table I – Brigade Communication System Architecture Purpose Type Communication Users Command HF. and artillery. and Finishing Decisively. First. Table 1 gives typical networks for First Striker Brigade.2. data 71 Administration SINGARS. eight networks facilitate the functions of battle command. logistics. Acting First. Operational effectiveness can be increased when sensors. the capacity of the existing communication architecture will continue to fall short of the required capability. At this echelon. video. command networks have fewer participants. this architecture only supports a small fraction of a rapid deployment. and logistic functions are synchronized through a common picture of the battlespace. database updates. To achieve a network centric fighting force. armored personnel carriers. lethality. and near term data radio (NTDR).200 soldiers and 800 vehicles. if the traffic load is not constant. this paper examines the typical approach for quality of service in MANET. then usage of the frequency channels and supporting radios is quite high. However. high frequency (HF). The network centric approach is focused on getting right information to the right user at the right time. ARMY “BANDWIDTH” NEEDS The present Army is organized around highly mechanized battalions of heavy equipment – tanks. as shown in 2 Figure 1 [20]. The network must support voice. sensing. and security are key quality attributes for this future communication architecture. voice 17 Sensing SINGARS. The US Army’s transition to knowledge-based and network centric fighting force has resulted in an exponential increase in demand for communication exchanges. If the users are generating frequent data or engaged in constant voice communication. The networks use a variety of datalinks such as single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINGARS). The Army is transitioning to networked communications in which all users are interconnected as part of an information grid. enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS). mobility. voice 10 Maneuver functions have the largest networks with about seventy users sharing position reports. intelligence. voice 31 Maneuver EPLRS. This Internet derived architecture assigns priorities based on delivery attributes of the data type. demand reduction cannot jeopardize information dominance that is crucial to “Seeing First. the Army has made major investments which combine Mobile Ad Hoc and Internet technologies.” In addition to overall data capacity. command. Figure 1: Bandwidth Needs of a Brigade Combat Team . data 34 Intelligence SINGARS. then the channel is not utilized efficiently because unused time and frequency assets cannot be made available to other users. These networks are organized along functional lines. interoperability. rather than simply attributes of the data itself. However. The total utilization of these resources depends on the users on that frequency channel. Clearly. However. with different participant using different systems.

In either case. DiffServ service is statistical (not guaranteed) but scales well due to less overhead. Tactical traffic flows are consistent with the hierarchical military echelon structure. the objective is to provide reliable delivery of multi-packet messages over an internet layer that is not reliable on a per packet basis. these applications include battle planning. and cost. In the physical layer. In the data link layer.3. error rates. The QoS parameters for packets include loss rate. QoS mechanisms include congestion avoidance. Standard TCP assumes packet loss implies network congestion so lowers transmission rates whereas packet loss could also be due to jamming (hence bit error rates) or terrain blockage. Higher order modulation schemes such as 16 Phase Shift Keying increase link capacity at the expense of receiver complexity. detection. latency variation (jitter). IntServ guarantees service but does not scale well due to overhead. In the network layer. The QoS parameters include bit error rates. the priority structure in any mission orientated QoS architecture must reflect the hierarchical attributes of the network users as well as the dynamics of battlefield conditions. improvements at any particular level can be integrated easily into existing networks. or contention based. Traffic shaping and rate limiting is also used. delay. latency. IntServ requires a deterministic topology so that link capacity is allocated to guarantee per hop behavior. link capacity can be severely constrained when radios must operate in antijamming (AJ) and low probability of intercept (LPI) modes. and delay variations (jitter). the objective is to transport bits from source to destination over a link. TCP acknowledgements. marking. decomposes network attributes into layers as shown in Figure 2. reservation. latency (delays). unlike proprietary communication systems. and traffic shaping. Link layer resources include basic link capacity and queue capacity. network management. The application layer is responsible for the load offered to the network. Thus the assumptions of low traffic loads and randomly diffuse user traffic that are the basis of QoS in enterprise networks are not valid in tactical MANET. the objective is to allocate link resources among multiple users according to priority. and control. Rather. ARCHITECTURE LAYERS The Open System Interconnect (OSI) model for networks. Spreading codes and forward error correction codes improve link reliability at the cost of overhead. and logistics. and spectrum. and time outs to determine the cause of packet loss and causes TCP to react accordingly. QoS parameters for packets include throughput. the objective is to deliver individual packets between hosts that may reside on different subnets using different physical / link layers but share a common addressing architecture. Users communicate over standard interfaces using standard protocols without concern for any layer’s specific implementation. Complementary approaches for the network layer are – Integrated Services (IntServ) and Differentiated Services (DiffServ). Traffic generally consumes most of available network resources. both IntServ and DiffServ are data model views of traffic that presume an entity above properly marks all traffic. 10]. power. 3 Figure 2: OSI and TCP/IP Network Models . ATCP uses explicit congestion notification (ECN). power. fire control. TCP/IP presumes a high-rate data-link and guaranteed physical layer that cannot be presumed in MANET. Allocation mechanisms are priority. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) / Internet Protocol (IP) is a suite of standards that specify how computers communicate and a set of conventions for routing traffic over networks. Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) messages. Link resources include time. weight. In a battlefield situation. Network layer techniques for packet management include classification. Spectrum reuse algorithms can help to optimize value of a very constrained resource. TCP uses packet error and loss detection to determine when to retransmit packets and when to adjust transmission rates on the links. In a tactical MANET. This enables products to be developed independently with public specifications that feature interoperability. Furthermore. Ad-hoc Transmission Control Protocol (ATCP) adapts TCP to MANET but leads to message delay [9. DiffServ puts a class of service indicator in the packet header to request per hop behavior [3 to 7]. metering. Statistical multiplexing on shared mediums lowers costs and increases performance when activity is low but does not guarantee packet delivery as activity increasingly consumes the constrained resources. In the transport layer. and throughput.

and availability. This decomposition of protocols is shown in Figure 3. Every datagram is handled independently. timeliness of packet delivery. Network Layer Three is transmitted as IP datagrams. IP routing is on a hop-by-hop basis. then IP discards the packet and may send an ICMP message back to the source. IP provides a best effort service. 24]. IPv4 datagram prefixes 20 bytes of control information to an MTU packet.4. Each transmission has a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of 1500 bytes. In network centric operations. The Ethernet is a packet switched local area technology invented by Xerox PARC in the 1970s which became IEEE standard 802.3. and the probability of packet loss. 23. IP also does not maintain state information about successive datagrams. reliability. QoS is viewed as short-term network behavior during connectivity so QoS becomes a question of transmission speed. INTERNET QOS Perspectives on Quality of Service (QoS) have a tendency to be one of two extremes. these layers have high reliability and availability that is an underlying design assumption for the protocols at the Network Layer Three and Transport Layer Four [22. IP does not guarantee that each datagram successfully gets to its destination. The layered architecture of communication systems enables the overall approach to be decomposed into manageable techniques and protocols which are developed and upgraded independently in operational networks. QoS is viewed as long-term network reachability. This control information includes source and destination addresses. amount of jitter in packet streams. Hosts and routers base intermediate routing decisions on connection tables. Destination address does not change. Ethernet hardware does not provide information to the sender about whether the packet was delivered. so they can arrive out of order. To consumers on the Internet. Ethernet is a 10 Mbps broadcast bus technology with best-effort delivery semantics and distributed access control. connectionless datagram delivery service. The Physical Layer One and Data Link Layer Two are generally provided by an Ethernet service using fiber optics. If congestion exists. In a non RF environment. Ethernet also uses Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD). but link (encapsulation) addresses can change on each hop. IP is an unreliable. Between these two extremes are engineering issues about graceful transition and degradation. Figure 3: Internet Suite of Protocols by Communication Architecture Layer 4 .

UDP header is eight bytes while a TCP header is 20 bytes. Specific numerical tolerances for some data types are given in Table III.The IP header includes a type-of-service field which is not supported by most TCP/IP implementations today. UDP is a connectionless. and end-to-end reliability for network clients. Jitter is the fluctuating component in packet arrivals in a data stream. Latency is the total end-to-end delay for a packet. routers have an unpredictable temporal response to transient congestion. Goal in QoS-enabled environment is to provide predictable service delivery to certain types of traffic regardless of other types of traffic flowing through the network at any given time. Packet loss in IP networks is packet discarding due to congestion and queue overflow. packet stream service. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an experimental protocol to signal congestion. When QoS perspective is on data characteristics as a proxy for types of traffic. So routers seeing imminent congestion can set a flag bit so that the destination notifies the source to start slowing transmissions. assembles packets into the proper order at the destination. maximize throughput. TCP is more appropriate for long messages traversing WANs. High High Document Transfer Scavenger Applications without Very High Very High forwarding assurance Operations & SNMP Low Medium Maintenance Audit Records File Transfer Imagry Low Medium (High Throughput) Interactive Instant Message (IM) Low Low Transactions User Authentication Streaming Video Streaming Low Medium Audio Streaming Video Video Conference Low None Voice VOIP Medium Very Low Short Message Sensor to Shooter Low Medium Circuit Emulation UAV Control Low Low Signaling SIP setup Low Low Inter-Net Control Net Configuration None Low Network Control Routing None Low Tolerance to Jitter High Very High High High High Medium Low None High Medium High High High 5 . maintains a timer for automatic retransmission if segments aren’t acknowledged. Both UDP and TCP partition application messages at the source and reassembles messages at the destination. limited mechanisms exist for auditing usage of network resources. no methods exist for endto-end service quality. Third. and minimize cost. increasing importance of timeout algorithms. one packet service whereas TCP is a connection. In addition. unreliable. UDP is more appropriate for short messages which are confined to a LAN. Web Browsing. or packet loss requirements. TCP provides a totally different service to application layer than UDP. provides end-to-end flow control. an alternative expression of the QoS goal is allow traditional bursty traffic to share the same infrastructure as traffic with more rigorous latency. discards duplicate packets. Even though TCP and UDP use the same IP in the network layer. reliable. The general tolerance of particular data types to various per hop behaviors are given in Table II [8]. and verifies a mandatory end-to-end checksum for message reliability. maximize reliability. jitter. UDP essentially uses IP layer as is while TCP attempts to mitigate the issues with the IP layer. UDP partitions messages up to 64K bytes into IP datagrams while TCP partitions much larger messages into variable length segments. no priority mechanisms exist for different traffic classes. Fourth. TCP acknowledges data received by another end. good retransmission. The packet loss rates and variability in round-trip times are normally higher on WAN than LAN. First. The IP layer has four weaknesses that TCP tries to mitigate. Dropping packets essentially wastes resources used to get the packet to any intermediate router. The four TOS bits are maximize delay. Aggregate Service Class Elastic Preferred Elastic Inelastic / Real Time Network Control Table II – GIG Service Class and Expected QoS Per-hop Attributes Granular Tolerance to Tolerance Service Class Example Packet Loss to Latency Default Email. Second.

14 Assured transfers Forwarding 1 Other 0. Expedited Voice 41. Weighting schemes such as weighed fair queuing adjust the priority by category. These assignments are by flow types regardless of the tactical purpose that the data supports. 24 Best Effort (7) QoS Span of Mechanism Control Queuing Structures Node EF Qs Tail-Drop Ranges for QoS Reaction Time Longer AF/BE Queues Random Early Drop MI QoS Routing ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification] Multiple Nodes End-toEnd (Per Flow) Alternate Routing based on desired QoS Round Trip Time + Congested Queuing Time QoS Monitor & End-toControl [ECN End Not Available] (Per Class) IP Reroute Network Aggregated RTT Measurements + Congested Queuing Time ~10-6 Secs ~10-3 Secs ~10-2 Secs ~10-1 Secs ed Q ht vg. The Global Information Grid assignment of flow types to DSCP code points is shown in Table IV. 30 Assured Mulimedia Forwarding 3 Block transfer 18. rip tQ or rop ng p d T eig g A h W in S l-D Lo l-Dro oun me v D i i R Ti Ta Ta Mo RE Table Updates ~1 10s of Secs d Secs ~1 Min. In today’s backbone networks. and packet loss rates are 10-5. 20. and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). 36. and schedule mechanisms over stable end-to-end paths. Assured Forwarding (four flows) is intermediate. latency for coast-to-coast flows is less than 120 msec. IntServ has per flow QoS guarantees by incorporating complex classify. IntServ design is for real-time streaming & interactive applications which have uniform rate traffic flows. As shown in Figure 4. IntServ meets QoS by explicit a-priori scheduling of packet hops for a unidirectional flow. 43. The observed end-to-end QoS is built from the concatenation of per-hop QoS characteristics of individual hops along any given route. e t g te ga rip n i e t a T u d es gr tri Ro e Up Ag und es Re bl Ro Tim a T Retries + Routing Figure 4: Span of Control for Per-hop QoS Mechanisms 6 . 8. Differentiated Services (DiffServ). 12. Realtime voice and video are very sensitive to latency and jitter. bit error rates are less than 1012 . DiffServ is minimalist counterpoint to IntServ. These assignments are also static rather than dynamic during a tactical engagement. End-to-end QoS uses three network models – Integrated Services (IntServ). Assured Video 32 Forwarding 4 Streaming 26. the span of control and reaction times for per-hop QoS is quite short. 16. 22 Assured & transactions Forwarding 2 Batch (long) 10. Furthermore. Categories have there own per hop behaviors. Within a flow type. 28. and Best Effort is lowest. The relative priorities usually are Expedited Forwarding is highest. data types are discerned further by Differentiated Service Code Points (DSCPs). queue. DiffServ classifies data into seven major flow categories. 38. This approach is not feasible in MANET because paths can change frequently and traffic flows can be variable. these assignments universal meaning that all network participants are assigned the same priority structure.1 % UDP 5 sec NA 1% TCP 2 sec NA zero batch 1 minute NA zero In wireline IP networks congestion is the exception. These services were historically carried on separate circuits. Table IV – Proposed GIG DiffServ Architecture Flow Type DSCP (10) Behavior Routing & 56. 40 Forwarding (EF) Continuous 34. Per-hop QoS focuses on data characteristics of packets. 48 Network net mgmt Control Continuous 47.Table III – Nominal QoS Per-hop Values Service Maximum Maximum Maximum Type Latency Jitter Loss Rate Voice 200 msec 50 msec 2% Push Talk 5 sec 50 msec 2% RT Video 200 msec 50 msec 4% Teleops 75 msec NA 0. 45. DiffServ accommodates variable topologies and variable rate traffic flows.

In business and residential areas. Thus. ground plan effects are an important factor. In VHF radio wave propagation. The UHF band supports data communications at sufficient rates to be useful in many mobile applications. tactical MANET is bandwidth (e. and consumer products. Higher frequencies and wider spectrum allocations facilitate higher capacities. the Army’s MANET program mentioned later. even in foliage. data rate) constrained. Due to other users in the UHF band. the UHF band is extremely crowded and obtaining spectrum is difficult. In conclusion. the properties of the UHF band have had a significant influence on architecture of mobile communication systems. The UHF band is high enough to mitigate problems in the UHF band while low enough to mitigate problems in the SHF band. Interference between the direct beam and the ground reflected beam often lead to an effective fourth power law interference.. The SHF band requires more sophisticated and expensive antennas relative to UHF. power lines. This spectrum is absolutely non-contiguous because of existing systems and users. The SHF band supports much higher data rates. so the underlying presumption of surplus capacity by Internet Protocols is not satisfied. The subsequent sections of this paper advocate that Dynamic Message Prioritization is a better means to implement QOS in a tactical MANET. absorption due to foliage and other objects limits range. industrial equipment. Antennas and electronics are very inexpensive. the US Army will only have 55 MHz of available spectrum [20]. Man made noise is the VHF band can be 18 dB above background galactic thermal noise. The placement of these other users limits channel bandwidths to at most 3 MHz. both commercial and other military services. 55 MHz represents 44 channels at 1. most frequency bands are crowded and moving current occupants is a major effort. The UHF band also propagates well in a variety of terrains. Man made noise power statistics are non-stationary in time and location [21]. But. The UHF spectrum is technically ideal for mobile communications. The Federal Communication Commission required a decade to clear spectrum in order to terminate analog TV in the VHF bands and commence high definition digital TV in the UHF bands. Hence for a brigade combat team of 3200 soldiers. Figure 5: Spectrum Characteristics Contribute to Mobile Communication Architectures 7 . This band is strictly direct line-of-sight propagation. SPECTRUM FOR MOBILE NETWORKS A naïve approach to solving the Army’s communication needs is to suggest that the Army use higher frequency bands than the current HF and lower UHF based systems. In SHF radio wave propagation. man made noise is due to automotive ignition.g. These factors drive the subnet architecture of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Spectrum is a finite resource and only a portion of the RF spectrum is suitable for mobile communications. However. Man made noise diminishes to low galactic levels by the middle UHF band.5.25 MHz per channel (Internet T1 rate) or 18 channels at 3 MHz per channel. so this band supports microwave and satellite applications.

These extra hops for actual message routing and overhead consume capacity. Although this simplifies network design. bit errors leading to packet errors become more probable. 33]. weather. and other network utilities are in development. but connected after initial entry to either a fixed (cell tower) or predicable (satellite) infrastructure for routing. addressing. network management. Orthogonal Domain Multiple Access (ODMA) • Combined TDM/FDM uses spectrum efficiently in varying topologies. framing. As a decentralized architecture. Each network node must facilitate reachability by storing and forwarding each other’s data packets. organized connectivity. and medium access control. the multi-hop. The communication architecture must also be reconfigurable as operational environments change. and dynamic network centric resources for emergencies.6. USAP) Layer 1 Signal in Space (OFDM. Also. Anti-Jam (AJ). Logical Link Control (Mobile Internet) handles error control and flow control. framing. In MANET. HSLS. Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) Figure 6: MANET Protocols in Layers 1 and 2 8 . 29]. Preliminary indications are that. In MANET. these functions are partitioned into two sublayers as shown in Figure 6 [30. Bandwidth Efficient Advanced Modulation (BEAM). incompatibilities between control timers in MAC and TCP layers can cause unfairness when CSMA and FAMA are in the MAC layer. Rapid deployment of independent mobile users can provide survivable. BEAM. but must rely on the infrastructure itself being deployable. and routing. MANET must discover network participants and relatively low cost routes. Data link layer 2 performs important functions such as error control. Ad-hoc networks inherit the traditional challenges of wireless communications such as bandwidth optimization. mobile infrastructure has new challenges such as network configuration. MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS Both military and commercial users desire to exchange multimedia data among distributed users. Thus. awareness of routing over two hop neighbors rather than just nearest neighbors can significantly smooth traffic flows in an ad hoc networks. a message from a source node to a destination node may not have a permanent direct line of sight due to mobility or obstacles. multipath. 26]. Unified Slot Allocation Protocol (USAP) • Controls ODMA time-slot allocation • Spatial reuse of slots to increase total network capacity • Dynamic ALOHA contention slots for low latency & hi priority traffic Mobile Data Link Layer (ODMA. disaster relief. networks are organized as a series of layers. Multi-Point Relays (MPR) • Nodes chosen to relay the flooding LSUs. These units provide flexible links between radios. and military. Army’s MANET development is the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Such scenarios cannot rely on centralized. End-to-end flow monitoring on encrypted and unencrypted paths. foliage. LPI) Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). SEFA. 32. physical layer 1 is the signals in space. each one built on the one below it. because of the differences in layers one and two between mobile ad-hoc networks and wired IP networks. topology. a full-duplex software defined radio. and electronic warfare. Medium Access Control (Mobile Data Link) handles addressing. the TCP/IP baseline of robustness at this layer is an invalid assumption in MANET. Because nodes are mobile. But these two communities approach mobility in a much different manner. AJ. The military supports mobile users. the network topology can change rapidly and unpredictably over time. and medium access. device discovery. the behavior of a protocol can be affected by the protocol above or below it in the stack. efficient. terrain. power control. all network activity is performed by the nodes. JTRS has two major waveforms for both voice and data: Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) & Wideband Network Waveform (WNW) [27. performance in mobile ad-hoc networks can be significantly impacted by inter-layer interactions [25. Hazy Sighted Link State protocol (HSLS) • Frequency and Area of flooding is optimized. Commercial architectures allow user mobility. MPR) Multi-level Abstracted Link State Routing (MALSR) • Mobile Intranet based on multiple mechanisms & protocols: Simple Efficient Flooding Algorithm (SEFA from BBN) • Uses multi-hop channelized broadcasts to flood Link State Updates (LSU) resulting in efficient bandwidth utilization. Traditionally. As energy per bit to noise ratio decreases. and transmission quality. rescue. Mobile ad-hoc networks are an innovative step in the evolution of wireless networks. 31. addressing. In addition. 28. These signals are affected by propagation. Mobile Intranet Layer Layer 2 (MALSR. In particular. In ad hoc networks. Mobile ad-hoc networks are different due to their large degree of freedom and self-organizing capabilities.

and robotics. MANET should be cognizant of 1) organizational hierarchy. home. multiple diverse users make general use of a high rate fixed infrastructure to perform multiple. power control. These situations each have further but distinctive impacts on MANET technologies. and self-routing. addressing. So techniques developed for one situation may not perform adequately in another situation. simpler. ERD is not effective No clear authority for flow control Rapid planning (hours. the multi-hop links and lack of fixed infrastructure increase complexity in network configuration. and link quality. QoS is often a reactive arbitration when user demand temporarily exceeds network demand. backbone Dynamic routing and rerouting Stable routing. priority assignments can by extremely dynamic based on new commander’s orders. Ad hoc networks are an evolution of traditional wireless networks. MANET networks can be categorized based on the specific usage and situation supported. Furthermore. On the other hand. device discovery. QoS should incorporate the knowledge available during planning stages to proactively manage QoS in the constrained MANET infrastructure as well as perform reactive arbitration when user demand temporarily exceeds network demand. and changing infrastructure. 2) prioritized task basis for traffic from network subscribers. even with no congestion Dominated be queuing delays Dominated by framing and hop count Very low: typical end-to-end << 10-3 High: typical end-to-end > 10-2 Dominated by queue overflow Often dominated by RF loss Packet loss implies congestion on path Packet loss due to many factors Notified via Explicit Congestion Notification Hard to distinguish congestion from other factors Transport Layer using TCP reduces flow rates Early Random Detection drops packet as queue fills Traffic flow control (shaping. Key differences between commercial telecom networks and military MANET are summarized in Table V. video) commander intent using available resources Fixed or slowly varying topology Rapidly varying wireless topology Organization: LAN. In the tactical environment. Dynamic military operations can’t rely on fixed vulnerable communication infrastructures on the battlefield. WAN. in a battlefield. sensor. mobile ad-hoc networks have common devices with medium sophistication that autonomously self organized into networks.7. On the other hand. individual computing. days) Major “real time” adjustments likely Capacity is RF spectrum constrained Secure network “invisible” to non-secure side Difficult to identify specific bottlenecks Major constraints on monitoring overhead 9 . Also. and 3) user mobility [1]. reliable connectivity Nodes or subnets may be disconnected Mobility limited to host attachment to network Both hosts and network nodes are mobile High capacity: 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps Low capacity: < T1 shared by many users Fixed or slowly varying Dynamic. very expensive central hubs and many. pervasive. sophisticated. Historically. Feature Role of QoS Topology Mobility Link Capacity Latency Packet Loss Rate Congestio n Detection Congestio n Avoidance Network Planning Network Monitorin g Table V – Comparison of Subscriber and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Subscriber (Enterprise) Network MANET Probabilistic but nearly guaranteed performance for Enhance force effectiveness as defined by converged services (voice. Tactical QoS must incorporate a mission level understanding towards deciding how priorities are set initially and evolve over time. often uncoordinated tasks. These include networks for enterprise. Statistical multiplexing rather than reservation schemes help maximize access and utilization of this shared resource. battlefield events. tactical. topology. ARCHITECTURE COMPARISONS Today’s wireless infrastructure depends on hub-and-spoke networks that have few. In the enterprise environment. very inexpensive handsets. Ad-hoc networks inherit the standard challenges of wireless and mobile communications such as bandwidth utilization. MANETs have been used for tactical situations to improve survivability and overcome line-of-sight wireless limitations. Priority assignments executed by the transport layer are essentially static. policing) Long term planning (years) based on trends Minor short term adjustments Capacity is commodity that is readily increased All nodes and links are visible and monitored Congestion bottlenecks easily identified Minimum constraints on monitoring overhead TCP cannot distinguish between congestion and link loss. rapidly varying Capacity bottleneck is typically access WAN Capacity bottlenecks can occur anywhere in net Low latency: typical end-to-end < 100 msec High latency: typical end-to-end > 100 msec Relatively stable with minimum congestion Dynamic.

The aviation squadron conducts integrated air-ground operations and reconnoiters threats. The relationships of data flows to the mission and the force structure are important in establishing message priorities. aviation. Decisions are means by which the commander translates his vision of the end state into action. and video communications. performs field maintenance. MDMP continues at all echelons during operations.000 radios. and counter mobility Intelligence • Processes that facilitate understanding of enemy. protective and special purpose fires. logistics. and Civilian (METT-TC). Time. MDMP process starts with mission assignment. & • Includes tasks associated with forces in Maneuver combination with artillery fires . multi-mission brigade can contain six battalions and thirty six companies as shown in Figure 7. The intelligence company also manages entire MANET assets to establish voice. and prolonged endurance • Support for humans. The mobile network enables focused combat power. and weather • Surveillance and reconnaissance Fire Control • Collective and coordinated use of artillery fires and information • Targeting processes for artillery fires • Integrating and synchronizing artillery fires across other warfighting functions Protection • Processes that preserve the forces so the commander can apply combat power • Includes protecting personnel. suppressive. MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS Military decision making process (MDMP) is foundation on which planning in a time constrained environment is based. examines the battlefield conditions. and information Sustainment • Sustain forces throughout range of operations to ensure action. each armored battalion has its own headquarters and could have a multi-disciplinary force consisting of armor. The artillery battalion provides fire support of tactical maneuvers including destructive. then when and what to decide. an artillery battalion.8. Troops. The intelligence company assesses information that enhances a commander’s understanding of operational environment. Terrain and Weather. As shown in Table VII. physical assets. health services. Decision making is knowing if to decide. A brigade has six major mission categories that are executed using warfighting functionalities as defined in Army field manuals and summarized in Table VI [11 to 16]. The MDMP relies on doctrine and established symbols that facilitate a rapid and consistent assessment of the situation. a surveillance squadron. Table VI – Warfighting Functionalities Command & • Tasks and processes that support Control commander exercising authority • Adjust plans to future operations while focusing on current operations • Rapid synchronization and adaptation across echelons of command Force • Processes that move forces to achieve a Projection position of advantage relative to enemy Maneuver. 10 A rapid deployment. improved enemy detection. It includes understanding the consequences of decisions. and provides emergency resuscitative surgery. infantry. 9. The eight major elements are headquarters (HQ). Estimates are revised when important new information is received or during major situation changes. 800 vehicles. and issues orders. and level two medical aids. The QoS approach should assign a consistent priority to all messages that are associated with a given task assigned to a particular unit within the brigade hierarchy. the threat. extended reach. Enemy. Enhancement mobility. and a support battalion. multi-mission brigade has about 3. BRIGADE FORCE STRUCTURE A rapid deployment. reaches logical decisions. and deployed forces’ capabilities. an intelligence company. data. and 1. assesses contingencies. The support battalion does all replentishment. terrain. and other services HQ BIC HQ RECON Armor MCS INF IN Mortar HQ RECON Armor MCS INF IN Mortar HQ RECON Armor MCS INF IN Mortar AVN SVC HQ Artillery HHB Artillery NLOS Battery NLOS Battery Battery Medical Support HQ Sustainment Maintenance Figure 7: Brigade Force Structure Headquarters develops plans and operational orders to synchronize the warfighting functionalities to achieve the mission. three force battalions. As the main fighting force. and shortened planning cycles. and mortars.200 soldiers. . Brigade is modular organization tailorable based on Mission.

and to determine potential feasible solutions. Details of the mission plans are formulated using Automated Battle Command System (ABCS). The commander’s guidance must focus on the essential tasks supporting mission accomplishment. by controlling real time access of mission applications to the shared network transport layer. It links the mission and the concept of operations by stating the key tasks that are the basis for subordinates to exercise initiative when unanticipated oppor-tunities arise or when the original concept of operations no longer applies. ABCS differs from each separate BAS by incorporating a Service Orientated Architecture (SOA) and information servers. The CCIR also focus his subordinates. Intent is normally expressed in four or five sentences and is mandatory for all orders. Several mission analysis steps have direct impact on data prioritization and routing in a tactical MANET. continuous process of analyzing the threat and the effects of the environment on the unit. concise statement of what forces must do to succeed with respect to the enemy. These features enable horizontal information exchange and increased interoperability. The ABCS consists of 11 battlefield automated systems (BAS) which provide the capabilities for warfighter’s mission needs. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) The Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) is a systematic. QoS in a tactical MANET must facilitate the implementation of a chosen feasible solution. and to validate course of action. and Sustainment. Commander’s guidance should include priorities for all combat and support elements. The Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR) identify information needed by the commander to support his battlefield visualization. voice. where. to clearly define the tactical problem. Ultimately. assist in the allocation of resources. CCIR include priority intelligence on enemy. Mission analysis enables the commander to visualize the battlefield. CCIR are time sensitive items that affect decision points and hence affect mission success. the commander provides the staff with enough additional guidance and preliminary decisions to focus staff activities in the detailed planning of the mission tasks. and streaming video. in order to maximize force effectiveness per commander’s intent. Staff officers assist in developing the situation template within their own areas of expertise. Intelligence / Electronic Warfare. This guidance emphasizes in broad terms when. and executing operations by horizontally integrating the command and control network. The CCIR help the commander filter information available to him by defining what is important to mission accomplishment.Table VII – Military Decision Making Process 1) Receipt of Mission 2) Mission Analysis 3) Course of Action Development 4) Course of Action Analysis 5) Course of Action Comparison 6) Course of Action Approval 7) Orders Production Step 2 Mission Analysis is crucial to the MDMP. The 11 BAS are grouped into five logical battlefield functional areas – Maneuver. Each BAS aids in planning. terrain. and how he intends to mass his combat power to accomplish the mission. Thus ABCS provides a network centric data sharing and management capability in order to increase force effectiveness. [34] These battle command applications use mix of data flow types – short messages. to make critical 11 . coordinating. The IPB identifies the intelligence collection needed to support developing the unit’s course of action. and desired end state. After approving mission analysis briefing. IPB identifies the facts and assumptions that determine the likely courses of action by the enemy. Table VIII – Mission Analysis Analyze higher HQs order Conduct Initial IPB Determine essential tasks Review available assets Determine constraints Critical facts and assumptions Conduct risk assessment Determine CCIR Issue reconnaissance annex Plan use of available time Write restate mission Conduct mission analysis briefing Approve restated mission Develop commander’s intent Commander’s guidance Warning Orders Review facts & assumptions decisions. Air Defense. and assist staff in making recommendations. Each BAS within the ABCS support soldiers that have specialized battlefield functional area. Fire Support. The mission and commander’s intent must be understood two echelons down. CCIR are generally limited to ten items to enhance comprehension. and current capabilities of the commander’s units. imagery. essential elements of unit’s operation that if compromised would lead to mission failure. block (file) transfer. Commander’s intent is a clear.

a subnet for maintenance unit in brigade rear can have a priority template that is different from the priority template in subnet for a company that is engaging the enemy. a majority of the traffic load travels within the basic echelons. maneuver. Second. in per-hop QoS using DSCPs. First. low priority users has appeared in selected commercial Internet lines [38]. without some weighting scheme. per-hop QoS admission control schemes generally make access decisions on a per message basis. All flow types supporting a high priority tasks should have higher priority than flow types from a lower priority task. higher priority messages of the same flow type get intermingled with lower priority messages of the same flow type and then transferred on a first come first serve basis. Two important points about QoS based on task missions in bandwidth constricted MANETs. IP networks with fixed capacity exhibit this same starving phenomenon as constrained MANET with TCP/IP. These other functions are planning. Note that in Figure 9. End-to-end QoS that is task orientated would assure that these critical messages are given highest priority and that sensing then consumes residual bandwidth on a lower priority basis. high priority users at the expense of high rate. TCP increases your transmission rate until congestion causes dropped packets. voice. Figure 9: Traffic Data Flow During Battle First. Artillery. mission critical messages could be starved of network access. the mix is not expected to change. Two further points about QoS. Other types of functions consume far less bandwidth but are critical to the success of the mission. All of these message should be assigned the same priority and granted admission based on this priority. Then TCP repeatedly halves the transmission rate until the congestion is gone. sensing in various forms is expected to consume 80 percent of available bandwidth [20]. Each subnet can have its own priority template based on its tasking. Most local Figure 8: Traffic Data Flow Composition The per-hop QoS approaches have a tendency to assign resources based on volume of traffic to keep queues clear. and engagement all trigger interactions which are reflected in the traffic load. TRAFFIC ATTRIBUTES Sensing functions are important to detecting battlespace objects. Activities such as planning. units within Brigade Combat Team are tasks organized. such as data. Second. etc. If providers see persistent congestion. flow control. but only have about 1/3 of the traffic load. giving all users the same priority scheme. However. Judicious traffic management (admission control. a task may require a variety of flow types. then most providers have responded by increasing capacity. However. As shown in Figure 8. Using per-hop QoS in TCP/IP in tactical MANET is a mismatch because this Internet scheme is egalitarian. and Support also send about 10% up to Brigade. as discussed about DSCPs.10. a UDP scheme works better on short messages in LAN while TCP/IP scheme works better on longer message in WANs. and imagery. As an example. These objects are synthesized into a common situational awareness using various levels of fusion. This phenomenon of starving low rate. and voice. The traffic load is bursty in nature as shown in Figure 9.) will be necessary to prevent sensing data from choking the network. issuing orders. Recon. As discussed earlier. such as platoons. Only ten percent of traffic traverses echelons. each echelon is serviced by its own subnet in a tactical MANET because of limitations on total number of users. A task flow may have many messages that are exchanged as part of task. while the load level changes. behaving like a local area network (LAN). behaving like a wide area network as shown in Figure 10. However. maneuver control. Consequently. 12 . Different flow types within a task might be subject to different priorities if admitted or assigned on a per-hop QoS basis. Level 1 fusion reconciles geographic circles of precision on tracks whereas Level 4 fusion extracts intelligence.

5% HQ RECON MCS Armor MCS INF IN Mortar 1.3% Support HQ Sustainment Maintenance Medical Figure 10: Tactical Network Traffic Patterns Operation Phase Planning Command and Control Warfighting Functions Plus Training Staging / Mobiliztion Command and Control 25% 30% Sustainment Intelligence 25% 20% Training 20% Sustainment 15% Maneuver: 5% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Maeuver 10% Intelligence 15% Training 15% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Sustainment 20% Intelligence 20% Training 10% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Protection 10% Sustainment 10% Training: 5% Protection 15% Fires: 5% Training: 5% 20% Maneuver 10% Intelligence 15% Maneuver 20% Intelligence 15% Intelligence 15% Protection 15% Fires 10% Training: 5% Sustainment 15% 20% Fires Maneuver 30% 25% 20% Movement Command and Control 20% Operations Command and Control Consolidate Command and Control 15% Sustainment Redeploy Command and Control 20% Maneuver Priority High Low Figure 11: Representative Battle Command Application Priority by Phase of Battle 13 .4% Artillery HHB Artillery Battery IN 1.5% HQ AVN SVC 1.8% 95% HQ 20% RECON 67% 19% 33% MCS 5% Armor MCS INF IN 25% Mortar 5% 38% RECON 38% INF IN 0% Mortar MCS Armor MCS 1.xx DIV UA 0.1% 95% BGD 55% 87% 5% 1.5% HQ HQ BIC 5.

and medical files. Flows in tactical MANET generally change faster than the control loop can respond. Rather the task nature of the video is relevant. reserve • Role / position of the message requestor or receiver • Flow type – voice. such as streaming multimedia and batch file transfer. Given the constrained network resources. since most interactions are bursty. chat • Message type – medical evacuation request. video. Commander’s orders and medical evacuation requests are very short messages that will always have the highest priority. the attributes of the traffic. file transfer. combat replenishment. However. Intelligence has high priority during early planning stages. • QoS policies in effect • Perceived quality of performance – teleop. Control theory requires that the response time of a control loop be about ten times faster than the main information path. Most traffic on the Internet is across WANs. this control loop performance requirement is typically not satisfied. SNMP. Video should not be assigned the same DiffServ code point just because it is an MPEG (moving pictures experts group) file. network integration. imagery transfer • Network assets available – spectrum capacity. These schemes try to use limited bandwidth resources more efficiently by admitting low precedence flows between uncongested users ahead of high precedence flow between congested users. QED has been developed by General Dynamics for the WIN-T program [36]. 2CAB versus its Recon Troop) • Mission – Operational: conduct attack. Thus. These techniques are measurement based admission control (MBAC). rehearsal • Application – intelligence. As an example. transaction. suppose a commander wants to set up a half hour collaborative planning session. factors that affect message priority include: • Current task organization (e. combat. MISSION QOS ARCHITECTURE Key attributes of a QoS architecture for mission orientated MANET are (1) QoS is a cooperative function between the application layer and the transport layer. The QoS alternative is to adjust priority of all message interactions associated with this task so these messages transmit with minimal latency and any network resource not consumed by the planning tasks is available on a non-contention basis. the mission task priorities change based on battle phases. so the TCP/IP scheme is more appropriate in that environment. discovery request). network fires • Value of BSO – immediate threat. (3) priority level must by dynamic rather than static for the same information based on current conditions. fires control (lethality) has high priority during the actual engagement. Flow monitoring between source and destination pairs has been used to provide some end-to-end QoS. high value target. this wastes significant amounts of highly constrained network resources. and sustainment as priority during recovery post engagement. From a mission perspective rather than a data model perspective. As shown in Figure 11. Directed Throughput Graphs (DTG) have been developed by Telecordia for the JTRS program [35]. a fixed. network management (polls. (2) priorities must be derived from task assignments rather than data types. These approaches are only effective for sustained flow. These methods use short timing messages between source and destination. call for fire. (4) signal officers must have QoS templates that enable rapid but rational shifting of priority assignments in order to avoid inducing oscillatory or thrashing behavior into the network. the nature of the network flows. etc. etc. teleops. sustainment. Applications 14 11. command and control. QoS function must be proactive using admission control to dynamically meter network access. support operations.g. ICMP. en route mission planning. battle damage images.. Tactical QoS needs to be dynamic rather than static like in Internet QoS. friendly force. • Role of echelon in the operation – main effort. In a tactical MANET environment with bursty traffic. the subnet structure linkage to the echelons. allocation assignment of the necessary resources until this high priority activity is complete. maneuver has high priority during the initial engagement. task orders. weather updates. As another example. Information Assurance traffic (signatures. consider various mission video types – detection reports. policy updates) • Operating mode – training. ISR analysis. The end-to-end delivery times are extrapolated to predict trends and slow admission at the source as delivery times increase due to congestion. One approach is to do . Target information should have highest real time priority whereas a CAT scan file should be flow controlled in off hours.traffic in a subnet could be handled UDP in a tactical MANET. first report or subsequent detection • Platform operational / threat condition – under threat. out of ammunition. Engineering: mission thread. weapons monitoring. Applications cannot just dump traffic on the network and expect QoS function to reactively accommodate all requests. and the dynamic conditions of the battlefield all point to an end-toend QoS scheme being more relevant in a tactical than the standard per-hop QoS scheme of TCP/IP in the Internet. supporting effort. node availability QoS must be a cooperative function between the application layer and the transport layer.

). priority assignments must account for expected events. units assigned to tasks. Priority. etc. the first sighting of a battlespace object is highest priority but subsequent sighting reports are just redundant traffic on the network. etc. operational mode (combat. These priority assignments can be captured in QoS templates for both the basic plan and all contingency plans. Which applications get which priorities during which time periods depends on task priority assignments by the unit commander. critical network resources must be allocated in the planning process based on task priority and continuously reallocated as tasks are completed or evolve. For example. the user can make a more logical decision about sending a high resolution piece of an image or the entire image at low resolution. etc. Mission planning and MDMP contain vital information for QoS mechanisms in a tactical MANET. QoS must start from the mission layer. If the link only has space for short messages. rehearsal. message type (medical evacuation. For example.).). role of echelon. and risk of not making outcomes critical to mission Operating System & Computation Services Datalink Transport Signals in Space Figure 12: Network Planning and Allocation Processes 15 . In a mission model view of QoS. priorities for message groups. Logistics status and resupply requests are low priority. etc. high priority file such an ISR analysis or battle damage report. then DiffServ data model approach fis short low priority messages into available capacity. On the other hand. a mission model viewpoint will flow control large. In circuit switched tactical networks carrying only voice during World War II. Thus. QoS architecture in a tactical MANET cannot use static DiffServ code points. Planning Support functions GUI Display Functions for Critical Information engagement: aspirations per interaction / message & Computation Resources Mission Execution & Networked Resources Aggregated demands: quality and volume of communications and computation during stages of engagement Choice and arrangement of assets and their assigned roles during engagement Signals Officer feedback and control Planning for Multiple Concurrent Missions Planning / Managing Networked Communications & Computational Services Embedded Real Time Network Operations Optimization of available assets to maximize quality and volume to sustain both global connectivity and mission Scheduling / marking Feedback path indicating feasibility. Rather. Thus. Understanding how assets are organized by tasks to fulfill missions is vital to correctly assigning real time priorities to task messages rather than a data flow type basis. network mgmt). commanders and signal officers could rapidly adjust to events in battlefield. threat conditions. video. Flash. intel. tasks.are given nominal rates that are available to them and must adjust their processing. call for fire. into the available capacity. Extending this over multiple data flows with DSCPs has proved problematic. leading to elaborate queuing structures that most tactical radios do not support. A mission model viewpoint can prevent priority inversion that often occurs is highly loaded networks [2]. routine traffic unless the unit is actively engaging the enemy. The battle phases and the current mission tasks will determine proactive constraints on application loads. the priority templates should adjust based on eminent battlefield conditions and then remain static (15 minutes to hours) as long as those battlefield conditions persist.). Routine [37]. network assets available. data type (voice. Just as artillery assets are currently allocated in planning process based on task priority and continuously reallocated as tasks are completed or evolve. Situation information which is vital to a platoon on the front can be delayed and summarized for the commander. and spatial / temporal conditions. role of message generator or recipient. application (command. and hierarchical traffic flows. Appling MLPP architecture to tasks and their associated data flows is more intuitive. Mission analysis inherently has significant insight for information flows that support key mission tasks as in Figure 12. Commander’s intent manifests itself through the detailed mission planning process and through allocation of brigade assets to specific tasks as in Figure 12. network mode (LPI. admission control policies used the Multi Level Precedence and Preemption (MLPP) – Flash Override. fire control.

terrain. Chang. “A New Approach for Providing Quality of Service in a Dynamic Network Environment”. 2001. Signal officers need planning tools that estimate network performance. and electronic countermeasures. IP networks also tend to be egalitarian. QoS becomes a proactive mechanism for preventing network congestion. October 2000. [3] Cansever. & Levesque. Schult. greater information sharing. Military forces are incorporating information technologies. and command & control applications that will enable deployed units to operate at an ever increasing level of synchronization. The tactical MANET is a key resource to serve particular mission goals established by the commander. need validation that planned priorities are implemented by network mechanisms. Chapter 2. and Waldo. Communication network assets are critical to this information processing. [6] Sucec. the military tactical environment is constrained by the assets available at deployment time. “Constructing Predictable Applications for Military Ad-hoc Wireless Networks”. and Palumbo. A mission model view that accounts for dynamic priority to groups of messages is more logical QoS architecture in a tactical MANET than using a data model view with fixed priority as in an enterprise network. Therefore.12. “Quality of Service Support in Mobile Ad-hoc IP Networks”. October 2006. Proceedings of MILCOM. While fixed commercial landline networks can guarantee performance levels over the long term by over-provisioning infrastructure resources. QoS in a tactical MANET must have cooperation between the application and transport layers. Proceedings of MILCOM. Ad Hoc Networking. [5] Guenkova-Luy and Kassler. By using the priority information inherent in MDMP. which gives the same QoS importance regardless of relative importance of the call. such as voice. June 2004. [4] Mirhakkak. and need methods for real time QoS priority adjustments. Addison Wesley. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications. “A DoD Perspective on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks” by Freebersyse and Leiner. REFERENCES [1] C. As an example. all voice call packet flows may map into a single DSCP. capacity. an internet QoS approach with static differentiation of a limited set of data types is insufficient for a mission orientated MANET. In tactical MANET. tactical military networks have severe RF spectrum constraints and highly variable link quality due to mobility. weather. and congestion. and need monitoring tools that summarize real-time performance. The QoS per hop mechanisms are based on the performance characteristics 16 required to support a specific flow type. The relative importance of similar flows with respect to each other is not a consideration. CONCLUSIONS Summary of rationale for task orientated QoS is: • Layered architecture simplifies design • IP networks presume robust OSI layers 1 & 2 • IP networks have per-hop QoS on data flows • IP networks have egalitarian priorities • IP networks have static priority schemes • Mobile ad-hoc networks provide infrastructure capabilities for tactical mission operations • Tactical MANET architecture based on subnets due to sizes of operational tactical units • MANET networks have adopted Internet protocols • OSI Layers 1 & 2 are very different in MANET • Tactical MANET networks are capacity constricted • Mission plan defines tasks and task priorities • Units are organized to execute specific task • Task priorities are dynamic by battle phases • MANET subnets are linked to unit task roles • Information for a task can use all data flow types • Tactical MANET need task based priorities • Tactical MANET need dynamic priorities • Tactical MANET can have local subnet priorities • Task based priorities are consistent with end-toend QoS rather than per-hop QoS • Lower layers behaviors affect overall performance • Understanding protocol interactions should increase performance in MANET Network Centric Operations in military tactical environment is a transformational technology that emphasizes increased combat power through improved detection capabilities. Michelson. loss. and Thomson. the most important metric is how well network assets served the mission priorities. 1020-1025. Perkins. In particular. October 1999. and faster execution. Mobile Networks”. Davis. Samtani. pp. Proceedings of MILCOM. latency. “A Resource Friendly Approach for Estimating Available . The TCP assumption that packet loss is due to network congestion does not hold in a wireless environment where link fading is often the dominant cause of packet loss. Muzello. “End-to-End Quality of Service Coordination for Multimedia Applications in Heterogeneous. Hence the relationships of data flows to the mission and the force structure are important in establishing the initial data priorities and how these data priorities evolve based on evolving conditions. Wireless technologies have increased the QoS challenge by introducing a more dynamic and unprecedented operating environment with respect to network topology. [2] Reeve. more organic reconnaissance capability.

McGraw Hill. [18] Marshall. Contract DAAB-7-03-9-K601. June 2004. MacMillan Technical Publishing. [33] Wu and Tseng.” Proceedings of MILCOM 1997. Quality of Service in IP Networks. 22. 2002. [37] W. Proceedings of MILCOM.Bandwidth in Secure Mobile Wireless IP Networks”. pp. and Bagrodia. Ad Hoc Wireless Networks. “TCP Performance in Wireless Multi-Hop Networks. 41-50. Vol. pp. [11] U. No.” IEEE Spectrum.” US Department of Commerce. Cham. Comer. Session 12P1. Session 12P1. Army FM 6-02 Signal Theatre Operations. and Welsh. Elmasry. [20] Eric Larson et al. “Toward New and Better Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. Marather. 3. 2007.43 Signal Leader Guide. [32] G. [14] U. Tang. [27] Adam Baddeley.S.” Proceedings of the Third ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc ’02). 2005. Barns. [19] Macker. “End-to-End Quality of Service Coordination for Mobile Multimedia Applications”. Kassler. [12] U.S.S. [16] U. Stevens. Conti. pp. Russell. [25] Barrett. [22] R. “Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. 1011-1018. [35] Northrup Grumann Network Management report. Abramson. October 2006. No. pp 194-215. Aggelou. [10] Qureshi. Faster Internet Protocol. [30] Basagni. December 2008. 2000.rand. http://www. October 2. [15] U. “Precedence and Priority Access Implementation for Department of Defense Data Networks.S. July 2001. [13] U. Wiley Interscience. [36] McCann. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Comm. June 2004. and Bell. [26] Gerla. Prentice Hall. “Adaptation and Integration across the Layers of Self Organizing Wireless Networks to Achieve Performance and Scalability”. “A Fairer. 1590343.S. [34] “Lessons Learned from Developing the ABCS 6. pp. October 2006.. October 2006. Proceedings of MILCOM. Wireless Ad Hoc Networking. ITT Document Control No. TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1. 19. [8] Global Information Grid (GIG) Concept Reference Document.71 Network Operations. May 2005. . 1991. [9] Liu and Singh. [24] Grenvill Armitage. and Mandato. “Going Forward with JTRS. 2004. Session 12O1. 889-903. Proceedings of IEEE Intern. 1300-1315.4 Solution. Chao. Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1. Briscoe. [17] Ramming. [7] Guenkova-Luy. Giordano. on Comm. Proceedings of MILCOM. Drozda. Army FMl 6-02. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. DAAB07-02-C-403.70 Army Electronic Spectrum Management Operations.” Defense Acquisition Review. 1994. Army FM 6-02. Prentice Hall. Proceedings of MILCOM. Adison Wesley. “Future Army Bandwidth Needs and Capabilities. 17 [23] D. 1995. October 2004. 1999. [21] NTIA Report 02-390. Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. [31] Murphy and Manojo. Army FM 6-02 C4 Operations. 2004. Conf.” Military Information Technology.S. and Marathe. Defense Information Agency . Vol. 7. pp. Contract No. October [38] B. [29] Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW) for Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Auerbach Publications. December 2001. and Downard. Specification No AJ01120. “A Measurement Approach for Multilevel Admission of Heterogeneous Traffic in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks. “Characterizing the Interaction Between Routing and MAC Protocols in Ad Hoc Networks. 2004. “Explicit Congestion Control for Efficient Reliable Transport in IP-based Tactical Networks”.” Technical Report NN. 2005.” Proceeding of IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA). and Stojmenovic. Army FM 6-02. [28] Waveform Design Specification for Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW). 92-103. Department of Defense. “Man Made Noise Power Measurements at VHF and UHF Frequencies. Mobile Ad Hoc Networking. “ATCP: TCP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”.’ Rand Corporation Report 09652. Army FM LandWarNet Operations.