You are on page 1of 7

International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013

ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1538

Reliable Computing In Ad Hoc Networks

Mrs. K.Deeepika Reddy*1, K.Ramakrishna*2
Assistant Professor, Dept of Computer Applications, SNIST, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, AP, India
M.C.A Student, Dept of Computer Applications, SNIST, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, AP, India

ABSTRACT: Most of the existing techniques for
network reliability evaluation are based on
assumptions that all the nodes are perfect and the
communication links are static and irreplaceable.
However, these assumptions are not applicable for
mobile ad hoc networks because of the rapid changes
in connectivity and link characteristics due to nodes
mobility. Reliability computations in mobile ad hoc
networks should consider the failures of nodes and
links in addition to the dynamic of network
connectivity caused by nodes mobility. This paper
studies three common approaches for achieving
scalable reliable broadcast in ad-hoc networks,
namely probabilistic flooding, counter based
broadcast, and lazy gossip. Specifically, the analysis
in this paper focuses on the tradeoffs between
reliability, latency, and the message overhead of the

Ad-hoc networks
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are an
emerging technology that allows establishing instant
communication infrastructures for civilian and
military applications. MANET is a network
architecture that can be rapidly deployed without
relying on pre-existing fixed network infrastructure.
The nodes in a MANET can dynamically join and
leave the network, frequently, often without warning,
and possibly without disruption to other nodes
communication. The nodes in the network can be
highly mobile, thus the network topology is rapidly
changing. Nodes in the MANET exhibit nomadic
behavior by freely migrating within some area,
dynamically creating and tearing down associations
with other nodes. Groups of nodes that have a
common goal can create formations (clusters) and
migrate together, similarly to military units on
missions or to guided tours on excursions. MANETs
are intended to provide a data network that is
immediately deployable in arbitrary communication
environments and is responsive to changes in
network topology. MANETs are distinguished from
other ad-hoc networks by rapidly changing network
topologies, influenced by the network size and node
mobility. Such networks typically have a large span
and contain hundreds to thousands of nodes.

Features needed for
Robust routing and mobility management
algorithms to increase the networks reliability
and availability; e.g., to reduce the chances that
any network component is isolated from the rest
of the network.
Adaptive algorithms and
protocols to adjust to
frequently changing radio
propagation, network, and
traffic conditions.
Low-overhead algorithms
and protocols to preserve
the radio communication
Multiple (distinct) routes between a
source and a destination -to reduce
congestion in the vicinity of certain
nodes, and to increase reliability and
Robust network architecture to avoid
susceptibility to network failures,
congestion around high-level nodes, and
the penalty due to inefficient routing.
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1539

Fig: 1. Ad-hoc networks
In this paper we discuss the growing dependency
of the information and communication technology on
wireless networks, network reliability becomes one
of the primary concerns in the design, planning and
deployment of wireless networks. The degree to
which a wireless network is able to provide the
required services needs to be quantitatively assessed
by designing proper measurable quantities. These
measurable quantities are called the network
reliability measures. The typical network reliability
problem is to calculate the probability that a certain
set of nodes can communicate with each other for a
given period of time. Based on the number of
communicating nodes, there are three main
formulations of the network reliability problem: two-
terminal, K-terminal and all-terminal reliabilities [2].
In this paper we deal with the two-terminal reliability
computation in mobile ad hoc networks. Two nodes
are distinguished as source and destination nodes.
The rest of the nodes function as relays to provide a
communication path between the source and
destination nodes. In wireless environment, relays
and wireless links connecting them may fail
randomly. Therefore, network operation is supported
by the redundancy relays whose interconnections
provide redundant paths between source and
destination nodes. By understanding the contribution
of redundant paths to the network operation, network
designer can analyze the potential impact of nodes
and links failures on the network performance.
Hence, the methods for computing the network
reliability are a valuable tool in network design and
evaluation. The two-terminal reliability problem has
been studied extensively for wired networks with
unreliable links under assumptions that the nodes are
fault-free, static and their locations are known. In
addition, links connecting the nodes are assumed to
be irreplaceable with known probabilities of
operation [1] [3] [4]. However, the two-terminal
reliability problem in wireless networks is quite
different from that for wired networks. Wireless
networks have several aspects that make them more
susceptible to failures and loss of connectivity. These
aspects include the medium characteristics and the
properties of wireless devices [5]. For instance, the
broadcast nature of wireless communication links
makes them unique in their vulnerability to loss of
connectivity due to interference, weather conditions,
terrain effects and security breaches. Additionally,
wireless mobile devices have limited power supplies,
limited transmission range and ability to change their
locations. Thus, the reliability computation
techniques developed for wired networks cannot
directly be utilized in wireless networks. A little
research has been conducted in two-terminal
reliability problem in wireless networks.

II.Related Work
The study of broadcasting and multicasting
protocols for wireless ad hoc networks. Here, we
only discuss the most relevant protocols to our work.
The simplest probabilistic broadcast protocol is
probabilistic flooding. In this scheme, each node
rebroadcasts a message with a fixed probability P.
Works by Haas et al. and Sasson et al. study the
rebroadcasting probability P with regard to the so
called phase transition phenomena. Both works
establish that the delivery distribution has a bimodal
behavior with regard to some threshold probability P,
in a sense that for any P >P almost all nodes will
receive the message and for P <P almost none. Both
works show that the threshold probability P is around
0:59 0:65; in [33] this is done analytically based on
percolation theory while in [14] it is obtained by
simulations. It is also noted in [14] that the threshold
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1540

probability depends on nodes density, yet without
providing any theoretical means to evaluate this
dependence We have shown that by making a few
probabilistic assumptions, the delivery distribution
function behaves in a concave manner rather than
being bimodal. That is, nodes coverage initially
grows fast with P. Then, at some critical point, the
added coverage becomes negligible with further
increase of P. Our protocol is designed with
corrective measures that compensate for situations in
which the simplifying assumptions do not hold. A
generic epidemic model for information diffusion in
MANETs has appeared in [24]. Other probabilistic
approaches include counter-based, distance-based,
and location-based mechanisms. The main idea in
these schemes is that the additional space coverage
obtained by each additional broadcast decreases with
the number of broadcasts. For example, presents a
variant of the probabilistic protocol in which every
node monitors the transmissions of its neighbors and
rebroadcasts a message if it has not heard M
transmissions of the same message. Yet, those
protocols suffer from increased latency due to the
packet delay introduced at each hop and none of them
guarantees reliable dissemination of messages to all
nodes The works in utilize an adapted probabilistic
flooding that makes use of local density. The
approaches of those works are based on the
observation that the retransmission probability P
should be adjusted relatively to the local nodes
density. In [47] this is done through counters, while
in [35] the uniform density is assumed. In [28] a local
nodes density is compared to a network-wide average
nodes density (which is is assumed to be known) and
the retransmission probability is set to a higher/lower
value if the number of neighbors of a retransmitting
node is less/more than the network average number
of neighbors.
However, those works contain little
theoretical analysis of the proposed schemes and like
other counter-based or probabilistic based schemes
can also fail to provide reliability on certain
topologies. To the best of our knowledge, our work is
the first to provide a theoretical analysis of the
optimal usage of nodes density in order to set P. The
work in studies three variants of the above ideas. The
first is to retransmit with probability k=ni, where k is
some constant and ni is the size of the neighborhood.
The second method is based on having each node
learn its 2-hop
Neighborhood and then computing the rebroadcasting
probability based on 1-hop neighborhoods
intersections. The final scheme also computes the
probability according to k=n, but adds a mechanism
in which if a node suspects that some of its neighbors
did not receive the message, it rebroadcast the
message regardless of its initial decision. Unlike the
work in [6], we formally analyze the value of k. Also,
we include a gossip and recovery mechanism,
whereas none of the protocols in [6] do so.
Consequently, RAPID is more reliable than any of
the schemes of [6]. Moreover, RAPID has a variant
that can deal with many forms of malicious behavior
while the other protocols do not. We present the
effect of nodes reliability on network's performance
parameters such as packet loss and control message
overhead. It is apparent that more research should be
conducted in investigating the reliability problem in
wireless networks.

III.Assumption and Problem Statement
In this section, we formalize the problem statement
and the assumptions considered in computing the
two-terminal reliability in mobile ad hoc networks.
A. Problem statement
Given an ad hoc network G with N nodes, E edges, a
source node, s, and a destination node, d. Each node
has an operation probability of p
. The problem is to
compute the probability that there exists an
operational path between source node, s, and
destination node, d, which is denoted as Rel
(G). All
nodes, but source and destination nodes, are allowed
to move freely according to a known mobility model.
In addition, the nodes fail according to an exponential
distribution with a parameter p (i.e., 1/pe
Therefore, the two-terminal reliability is a function of
time and changes frequently due to nodes'
movements and nodes' failures. Each edge in E has
an operational probability, p
, which depends on the
operational probabilities of the nodes the edge is
connecting. Therefore, p
of edge e connecting node
and n
can be expressed as p
=Pr(e exists j n
and n

are operating). Since each of the Edges can have one
of two states, working or failed, the state of the
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1541

network can be represented using a vector
S(t)=[S1(t),S2(t), . . . , SE(t)]. The eth component of
S(t) equal to 1 if edge e is working and 0 otherwise.
Thus, the probability of a given state S(t) is
(S(t)) =

B. Assumptions
we consider a wireless network consisting of N nodes
with omnidirectional antennas and equal transmission
ranges, R. In this network, wireless links, if exist, are
assumed to be bidirectional. A bidirectional wireless
link exists between two nodes if and only if these
nodes are within each other transmission range and
signal-to-interference-plus-noise-radio (SINR)
exceeds a certain threshold value at both nodes. For
two nodes to communicate with each other, there
should be at least one operating path between them.
An operating path implies that all the intermediate
nodes and links are operating. A node is operating if
and only if it preforms its indicated functions. A
wireless link is operating if and only if it allows
communication from its initial node to its terminal
node. At any moment of time, the components of the
network can be either in operational or failed state.
Once a node fails, it stays in the failed state. On the
other hand, wireless links can be brought back to the
operational state if the two mobile nodes come close
again in each other transmission range and satisfy the
SINR requirement. At any time, the locations of the
nodes are known or can be determine using the GPS
techniques [11]. Fig. 2 depicts an ad hoc wireless
network of five nodes.

Fig. 2. Wireless multi-hop network with five


A. Probabilistic Flooding
In the probabilistic approach, whenever a node
receives a message, it applies some locally
computable probabilistic mechanism to randomly
determine whether it should broadcast the message or
not. Probabilistic protocols are appealing since they
are very simple and are inherently robust to failures
and mobility. Moreover, these protocols enable
messages to advance asynchronously, and therefore
they exhibit very low latency in delivering messages.
In order to obtain very high reliability levels with
pure probabilistic broadcasting, one has to set the
retransmission probability to high values. This in turn
translates into a very large number of redundant
messages. Below, we obtain the following results:
We provide a model for analyzing an upper bound on
the tradeoff in probabilistic flooding between the
retransmission probability and reliability. In other
words, this analysis formally captures the tradeoff
between efficiency and reliability offered by pure
probabilistic flooding. This enables designers to
decide on a forwarding probability based on their
goals w.r.t. this tradeoff. Second, our formal analysis
shows that in order to achieve a given tradeoff point
between reliability and efficiency, it is enough that a
constant number of nodes in each one hop
neighborhood will retransmit a message. Constant
here means independent of the nodes density. This
means that the forwarding probability of each node
should be set in reverse proportion to the size of its
neighborhood. However, for boosting the reliability
beyond these levels, it makes more sense to utilize
some complementing measures.
Finally, we show that regardless of the forwarding
probability, pure probabilistic protocols cannot
ensure 100% reliability. This again hints that
probabilistic flooding should be aided by another
mechanism if one wishes to ensure extremely high
levels of reliability. We now turn to the details of the
1) Formal Analysis of Probabilistic Flooding
Probability: The theoretical analysis in this section
relies on a formal graph model of wireless ad hoc
networks. The network connectivity graph
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1542

G =(V;E) of an ad hoc network is a special case of a
2-dimensional Unit Disk graph, in which n nodes are
embedded in the surface of a 2-dimensional unit
torus, and any two nodes within Euclidean distance r
of each other are connected. In our case we assume n
nodes are placed uniformly at random in the
rectangular area [a; b] and form a connected graph.
We stress here that the uniform distribution of nodes
in the space is only used in the theoretical analysis of
this section, in order to set the retransmission
probability in the most efficient way. The correctness
of RAPID does not depend on this assumption. If the
uniformity assumption does not hold, In this analysis
we aim to estimate the reliability that can be provided
by probabilistic forwarding alone. Specifically, we
ask the following question: Suppose that each node in
the system is given an independent opportunity to
broadcast the same message m with probability
min(1; _nq). How many nodes will receive the
message m? Formally, let Yp be a random variable
corresponding to the number of times that node p has
received a given message.

B. Counter Based Broadcast
The short coming of probabilistic flooding has led to
the development of the counter-based approach and
its distance-based and location-based derivatives and
their combinations. The idea in these schemes is that
rather than placing the randomness directly on the
retransmission probability, the randomness is placed
on the timing of the rebroadcasting. That is, every
node p that receives a message m for the first time,
decides to rebroadcast the message after some
random time. If during this chosen period p hears k
(the counter) retransmissions of m, then p decides to
abort its retransmission. Interestingly, this is another
way to ensure a constant number of retransmissions
in each neighborhood. But, as opposed to the
probabilistic method, the number of retransmissions
is deterministically guaranteed by the protocol. Even
counter based approach cannot guarantee reliable
delivery of all messages on an arbitrary topology. In
fact, if we assume that the nodes are uniformly
distributed in the network, and that the random
function used for setting the retransmission time is
independent of the nodes location, then we can
utilize our formal analysis.1 to calculate the
reliability level of a counter-based protocol for a
given k. Empirical studies have shown that counter-
based schemes can obtain high delivery ratios with
relative efficiency. Yet, these works do not include a
formal analysis of this behavior. Moreover, as we
now discuss, counter-based schemes are inherently
slower than probabilistic schemes.
1) Latency: As mentioned before, the rebroadcasting
time of each node is set randomly. However, in order
for the protocol to succeed, the values should be set
from a sufficiently large range so that the number of
collisions will be small, or even zero. In other words,
the range from which the rebroadcast timing is
chosen must be proportional to the number of nodes
in each neighborhood. For ensuring zero collisions,
by using the birthday paradox, we can deduce that the
range should be roughly where sl is the minimal slot
required for a message transmitted by one node to be
heard by any other node in its neighborhood and ni is
the size of the neighborhood of node i.
2) On the Impossibility of Absolute Reliability: We
claim that no counter-based scheme can guarantee
reliable delivery of all messages on an arbitrary
topology. When node s broadcasts a message m,
nodes p and n1, nk receive it. If some of ni nodes
rebroadcasts the message before node p, p will refrain
from rebroadcasting m and therefore q will not
receive m.

C. Lazy Gossip
In lazy gossip nodes periodically gossip with their
neighbors about the ids of messages they have
received. This gossiping is performed in a
deterministic manner, in the sense that each node
sends such a gossip message as a broadcast to all its
neighbors. Whenever a node q learns than one of its
neighbors p has a message that q has missed, q
explicitly asks p to retransmit this message. Here,
there can be a few optimizations such as broadcasting
requests for retransmissions, etc. Lazy gossip incurs a
constant per node message overhead due to the need
to periodically gossip about messages. The overall
network overhead grows with the network density.
However, due to its deterministic nature, lazy gossip
can obtain absolute reliability.
The shortcoming of lazy gossip mainly comes from
its very high latency and the fact that for reliability, it
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1543

must gossip multiple times for each message. The
latency stems from the fact that
Messages are propagated only due to gossips, and
these only occur periodically. In order to keep the
message overhead reasonable, gossips might be
performed once every several seconds, in which case
forwarding a message across multiple hops can take
dozens of seconds. Also, due to message loss,
obtaining absolute reliability involves unlimited
memory consumption and unbounded message sizes,
at least in theory.

In this simulation, we first study the effect of
different failure rates of nodes on the networks
performance parameters such the packet lost rate and
number of control messages. Then, we present the
effect of network dynamics on the two terminal
reliability. We have consider ad hoc networks of 6,
11 and 27 nodes placed in 600m_600m plane to
construct a grid structure as
shown. Grid structure was selected to ensure that
high level of reliability can be obtained in each case.
The transmission range of the wireless nodes was
chosen to be 250m with two-ray ground propagation
model [5]. Therefore, three hops at least are needed
to create a path between the source node the
destination node. Random way

(a) 6 nodes (b) 11 nodes (c) 27 nodes
Fig. 3. Ad hoc networks with nodes placed in
grid structure.
Point mobility model (RWP) [12] is used to
resemble the movement pattern of the wireless nodes.
In this model, nodes are initially stay stall (i.e.,
paused) for a certain time. Then, they start to move
around within the area of simulation with a known
average speed for a given time. After the nodes reach
their destination, they stay stall in their position for
some time (i.e, pause time). After that, nodes again
choose another random destination in the simulation
field and move towards them. The whole process is
repeated again and again until the simulation ends. If
a node hits the simulation edge during its movement,
it bounces back to the simulation area with the same
speed and with an angle equal to the one it hits the
border with. In this simulation, we consider different
values for the average speed and pause time. The
simulation environments and parameters of the ad
hoc networks are shown in Table I

Parameters and constants used in all the
Field space 600 x 600 _at space
Number of nodes 6, 11, 27
Average node speed 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 ,30
Node mobility Random waypoint model
Simulation run time 500 sec
Node pause time 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 ,30 sec
MAC layer type IEEE 802.11
Transmission range 250 m
Number of packet 1000 packet
Size of the packet 1000 byte
Interval between packets
Routing Protocol AODV [13]

In this paper, a simple algorithm for evaluating the
two terminal reliability in mobile ad-hoc networks
was developed. The proposed algorithm is an
extension of algorithms for wired networks. It
overcomes the limitation of the existing techniques
which consider only the failures of static nodes.
Additionally, this algorithm considers links failures
and the connectivity changes due to nodes mobility.
We find that the reliability of a wireless network
depends not only on the components' reliability but
also on the degree of redundancy in the network's
topology and the distribution of nodes in the network.

[1] D. Allen Hidden terminal problems in Wireless
LANs. In IEEE 802.11 Working Group Papers,
[2] Z.Bar-Yossef, R.Friedman, and G Kliot. RaWMS
- Random Walk based Lightweight Membership
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) volume 4 Issue 6June 2013
ISSN: 2231-2803 Page 1544

Service for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. In Proc. of
the 7th ACM Intr. Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing (MobiHoc), pages 238
249, 2006.
[3] K. Birman, M. Hayden, O. Ozkasap, Z. Xiao, M.
Budiu, , and Y. Minsky. Bimodal Multicast. ACM
Transactions on Computer Systems, 17(2):4188,
May 1999.
[4] J . Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B.Johnson, Y.-C.Hu,
and J . J etcheva. A performance comparison of multi-
hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In
Proc. of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference
on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom),
pages 8597,1998.
[5] T. Camp, J.Boleng, and V. Davies. A survey of
mobility models for ad hoc network research.
Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing
(WCMC):, 2(5):483502, 2002.
[6] J. Cartigny and D.Simplot. Border Node
Retransmission Based Probabilistic Broadcast
Protocols in Ad-Hoc Networks. Telecommunication
Systems, 22(14):189204, 2003.
[7] S. Rai, A. Kumar, and E. V. Prasad, .Computing
Terminal Reliability of Computer Network,.
Reliability Engineering, vol 16, no. 2, pp.109.119,
[8] S. Rai and D. P. Agrawal, Distributed Computing
Network Reliability .Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer
Society Press, 1990.
[9] K. K. Aggarwal, J. S. Gupta, and K. B. Misra, .A
simple method for reliability evaluation of a
communication system,. IEEE Transaction on
Communication, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 563.566, May
[10] K. K. Aggarwal and S. Rai, .Symbolic
Reliability Evaluation Using Logic Signal Relations,.
IEEE Transaction on Reliability, vol. 27, no. 3,pp.
202.205, August 1978.
[10] D. P. Agrawal and Q.-A. Zeng, Introduction to
wireless and mobile systems. Paci c Grove,
California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2003.
[11] X. Chen and M. R. Lyu, .Reliability analysis for
various communication schemes in wireless
CORBA,. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol.
54,no. 2, pp. 232.242, J une 2005.
[12] H. M. F. AboElFotoh, S. S. Iyengar, and K.
Chakrabarty, .Computing Reliability and Message
Delay for Cooperative Wireless Distributed Sensor
Networks Subject to Random Failures,. IEEE
Transaction on Reliability, vol. 54, no. 1, pp.
145.155, March 2005.