You are on page 1of 35

A Project Review Review#3 on Multicasting with Localized Control in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

(IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 52-64, JANUARY 2009 )

By
P. Nagamani T. Rajasekhar K. Neeharika O. Muneendra Head Of Department: Prof. D.JATIN DAS, B.E., M.Sc [Tech-CS] Professor & Head.

Batch No#16
(08121A0582) (08121A05B8) (08BF1A0551) (08121A0581) Guide: Mr. V. RAMESH M. Tech,(Ph. D)., Associate Professor.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE


(Affiliated to JNTUA-Anantapur) Sree Sainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati-517102. 2008-2012

Agenda of the Presentation


Abstract Introduction Statement of the problem Objectives Scope Literature Survey Software and Hardware used Physical Model Mathematical Model Network Model Algorithm Explanation Simulation model References

Abstract
This project investigates how to support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks without throttling the dominant unicast flows. Unicast flows are usually congestion-controlled with protocols like TCP. Based on a cross-layer approach, this project proposes a completely localized scheme to prevent multicast flows from causing severe congestion and the associated deleterious effects on other flows in wireless ad hoc networks. The proposed scheme combines the layered multicast concept with the routing-based congestion avoidance idea to reduce the aggregated rate of multicast flows when they use excessive bandwidth on a wireless link.

Introduction
 Protocols in wireless ad-hoc networks are also required to be distributed for robustness and scalability.  If a distributed protocol only relies on local information and local actions for fulfilling its functionality, then the protocol is also localized.  In the sense of using only local resources, a localized protocol is usually efficient and scalable, which are the basic characteristics required for protocols in wireless ad hoc networks.

Introduction (Contd.)
 One of the basic elements required for multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks is multicast routing.  Instead of relying on end-to-end congestion control

schemes, this project proposes a fully localized scheme in the network layer to support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while maintaining fairness with unicast flows.

Statement of the Problem


 Multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks throttle the dominant unicast flows.  There are no congestion controlling protocols for multicast flows in wireless ad hoc networks, and multicast flows can therefore cause severe congestion and throttle TCP-like flows in these environments.

Existing System
 Existing routing protocols for multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks such as MAODV and ODMRP , like unicast routing protocols, only set up routing information in nodes but do not have other controls over flows, such as congestion control.  Existing multicast congestion control schemes largely fall into two categories: single rate and multirate.  Existing multirate protocols, such as Receiver-driven

Layered Multicast (RLM), cannot ensure fairness with TCP , and even in wireline networks.

Disadvantages
 In wireless ad hoc networks, the unfairness situation becomes more severe with existing multicast congestion control protocols.  Congestion control is not possibly effective for multicast flows.

Proposed System
 To design a scheme which effectively relieve congestion at bottlenecks with multicast traffic.  To propose a fully localized scheme in the network layer to support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while maintaining fairness with unicast flows.

Advantages
 Fair bandwidth allocation.  Delivered packet ratio is high.  No throttling of unicast flows.

Objectives
 To support multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks without congestion as like unicast flows.  To present a fully localized scheme to support

multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks while preventing unicast flows from being throttled.

Scope
 The proposed scheme is mainly designed to effectively relieve congestion at bottlenecks with multicast traffic.  It is also designed to maintain general fairness in bandwidth sharing among the competing flows at a bottleneck.  Since the proposed scheme is not centralized, we do not expect it to meet the requirements of fairness criteria other than the one we consider.

Literature Survey
[1] S. Sarkar and L. Tassiulas, Back Pressure Based Multicast Scheduling for Fair Bandwidth Allocation, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2001,pp no:1279-1290.

In multirate transmission, each source encodes its signal in layers. The lowest layer contains the most important information and all receivers of a session should receive it. If a receivers data path has additional bandwidth, it receives higher layers which leads to a better quality of reception. The bandwidth allocation objective is to distribute the layers fairly. We present a computationally simple, decentralized scheduling policy that attains the maxmin fair rates without using any knowledge of traffic statistics and layer bandwidths.

Literature Survey (Contd.)


[2] R. Gopalakrishnan, J. Griffioen, G. Hjalmtysson, C. Sreenan, and S. Wen, A Simple Loss Differentiation

Approach to Layered Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 00, Mar. 2000.

Layered multicast is a promising technique for broadcasting adaptive-quality TV video to heterogeneous receivers. A new layered multicast scheme, where we exploit a simple, coarsegrained, two-tier loss differentiation architecture to achieve stable and fair bandwidth allocation for viewers was proposed in this work.

Literature Survey (Contd.)


[3] S. Bajaj, L. Breslau, and S. Shenker, Uniform versus

Priority Dropping for Layered Video, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 98, Sept. 1998.

The

relative

merits

of

uniform

versus

priority

dropping for the transmission of layered video are analyzed here. They first presented their original intuitions about these two approaches, and then investigated the issue more thoroughly through simulations and analysis in which we explicitly model the performance of layered video applications. It is found that the performance benefit of priority dropping is smaller than expected, while uniform dropping has worse incentive properties than previously believed.

Physical Model
Data Flow Diagram:

DFD Level2 Diagram:

Use case Diagram For Sender:-

Use case Diagram For Receiver:

Sequence Diagram:-

Activity Diagram:-

Requirements Specification
Software used:
Operating System Tool : Windows XP : NS2

Hardware used :
Processor RAM Hard Disk Drive : Intel Pentium IV : 1 GB : 80 GB

Mathematical Model
Layer Blocking Selection Procedure:

Layer Releasing Selection Procedure:

Mathematical Model(Contd.)
The Jains fairness index F(t) at time t is then given by,

which attains the value of 1, when the allocation is totally fair,

Network Model

Algorithm Explanation
To prove that the system of flows converges to fairness, we use the following result,

Simulation Model
The project is divided into five modules:

 Collecting flow information.  Embedding layer priority information.  Flow initialization.  Layer blocking & releasing.  Adjustment of multicast layers.

Collecting flow information:


A node collects flow information about the traffic traversing its link to assist its congestion control operation. The average per-flow rates of TCP flows and multicast flows:

Embedding layer priority information:


 The layer priority information in a multicast flow is embedded in the multicast addresses used by the multicast flow.  The multicast source allocates lower addresses to its higher priority layers and higher addresses to its lower priority layers.  A node in the network can determine the priority of a layer in a multicast flow traversing its link by comparing the address of the layer with the addresses of other layers in the same multicast flow.

Flow initialization:
 Each receiver adds layers gradually by subscribing to those multicast groups, at the beginning of a multicast session.  If the added layer is not blocked in the network and its packets are flowing into the receiver, the receiver adds another layer.  This process continues until an empty layer is obtained by the receiver.

Layer blocking & releasing:


 Layer block is the modification of the multicast routing table to stop a layer from entering a congested link.  Layer release is the modification of the routing table to allow a blocked layer to traverse a link.  The layer blocking and releasing selection procedures ensure that competing multicast flows share the bandwidth available to them fairly.

Adjusting multicast layers:


 Blocking or releasing of multicast layers on a link is done, according to the state of the associated nodes output queue.  The phases of a queue are classified as:

References
[1] Jun Peng, Biplab Sikdar, and Liang Cheng, Multicasting with Localized Control in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks , IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 1, pp. 52-64, JANUARY 2009. [2] E.M. Royer and C.E. Perkins, Multicast Operation of the Ad Hoc OnDemand Distance Vector Routing Protocol, Proc. ACM MobiCom 99, pp. 207-218, Aug. 1999. [3] S.-J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C.-C. Chiang, On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol, Proc. IEEE Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf.(WCNC 99), pp. 1298-1304, Sept. 1999. [4] I. Rhee, N. Balaguru, and G. Rouskas, MTCP: Scalable TCPLike Congestion Control for Reliable Multicast, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 99, pp. 1265-1273, Mar. 1999. [5] L. Rizzo, PGMCC: A TCP-Friendly Single-Rate Multicast Congestion Control Scheme, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 00,pp. 120-132, Aug. 2000.

References(Contd.)
[6] S. Shi and M. Waldvogel, A Rate-Based End-to-End Multicast Congestion Control Protocol, Proc. Fifth IEEE Symp. Computers and Comm (ISCC 00), July 2000. [7] S. Bhattacharyya, D. Towsley, and J. Kurose, The Loss Path Multiplicity Problem in Multicast Congestion Control, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 99, pp. 856-863, 1999. [8] S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli, Receiver-Driven Layered Multicast, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 96, pp. 117-130, Aug. 1996. [9] L. Vicisano, L. Rizzo, and J. Crowcroft, TCP-Like Congestion Control for Layered Multicast Data Transfer, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 98, vol. 3, pp. 9961003, Mar. 1998. [10] J. Byers, M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, and A. Rege, A Digital Fountain Approach to Reliable Distribution of Bulk Data, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 98, pp. 56-67, Sept. 1998.

THANK YOU