On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP )CSE 6590

Ap

ril 21

, 20

23

Types of Multicast Routing in MANETs

Tree-based One path between a source-receiver pair AMRoute, AMRIS, MAODV

Mesh-based Multiple paths between a source-receiver pair ODMRP, CAMP

Hybrid Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)

2

Typical Multicast Routing Protocols AMRIS: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol

Utilizing Increasing ID Numbers National University of Singapore Georgia Institute of Technology November 1998 [draft]

ODMRP: On-demand Multicasting Routing Protocol University of California at Los Angeles January 2000 [draft]

3

Why compare them?AMRIS ODMRP

Big difference

Topology Shared (Core-based) Tree Mesh of Nodes

Main Similarity

Mobility support Yes, based on MANET

Driven mode On-demand, do not store whole network topology

Advantages simple topology

low overheads

mobility

robustness

Disadvantages sensitive to mobility (low delivery ratio)

complex topology

high overheads

4

ODMRP

Multicast Messages: JOIN-QUERY (J-Q); JOIN-REPLY (J-R);

Similar to Route Request and Route Reply in AODV and DSR

5

Basic Operation of ODMRPOn Demand Route and Mesh Creation

Join Query Join Reply

S floods a Join Query to entire network to refresh membership. Receiving node stores the backward learning into routing table and rebroadcasts the

packet. Finally when query reaches a receiver creates a Join Reply and broadcasts its to its

neighbors. Node receiving the Join Reply checks whether the next node id in Join Reply matches it

own. If yes , it is a part of the forwarding group, sets its FG_FLAG and broadcasts its join reply built upon matched entries.

Join Reply is propagated by each forwarding group member until it reaches source via a shortest path.

Routes from sources to receivers builds a mesh of nodes called “forwarding group”.

S

R

R

R R

R

ODMRP: Join Reply

JOIN-REPLY message

I1S1

I2S2

R1

R1

Sender Next Node

S1 I1

S2 I2

7

Sender Next Node

S1 S1

J-R of R1 J-R of I1

Concept of Forwarding Group

Why a mesh? Links

Multicast RoutesInitial Route from S1 to R2 is < S1 -A- B- R2>

Redundant Route < S1- A- C- B- R2>

FG

FG

FG FG

FGFG

R1

BC

R3

A

S1

R2

S2

S3

ODMRP: Sender Actions

Sender actions: Downstream

Generate J-Q message;

Broadcast J-Q ; Upstream

Receive J-R (include the path info);

9

ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (downstream)

Intermediate node actions: (downstream)

– Receive J-Q, omit duplicated ones (use cached sequence numbers);

– Store upstream node info;– Re-broadcast J-Q;

10

ODMRP: Intermediate Nodes (upstream)

Intermediate node actions: (upstream)

Received J-R; If node is on the path

Generate new J-R with node info and broadcast, route established!

11

ODMRP: Receiver Actions

Receiver actions: Downstream

Received J-Q; Generate J-R with

path info; Upstream

Broadcast J-R;

12

ODMRP: Maintenance phase

Soft state approach Sender repeat J-R periodically to maintain

mesh. Node joins

Sending J-R as discusses before. Node leaves

Sender: stops sending J-Q; Receiver: stops sending J-R;

Links break Receiver: receives new J-Q and replies with J-R;

13

Algorithm Comparison (1)

AMRIS ODMRP

More differences

Multicast topology Shared Delivery Tree Mesh of Nodes

Initialization Generating msm-id; Store upstream info;

Maintenance All nodes periodically send beacon message

Sender periodically send J-Q msg

Node joins Detect beacon msg and perform branch reconstruction;

Detect J-Q and response J-R;

Node leaves Stop beacon msg; Stop J-R or J-Q;

Link-break No more beacon msg and perform BR;

Receive new J-Q and reply with J-R;

More and more differences (message types, routing table info…)14

Algorithm Comparison (2)

AMRIS and ODMRP

More Similarities

Mobility support Yes, based on MANET

Driven mode On-demand, does not store whole network topology

Broadcast message Yes

Unicast capabilities Yes

Periodic message Yes

Loop free Yes

More similarities …

15

Performance Comparison (1)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of mobile speed

– # of data packets actually delivered to the destinations versus # of data packets supposed to be received

– PDR of ARMIS is speed sensitive

16

Performance Comparison (2)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of # of senders

– PDR of AMRIS is not sensitive to # of senders

– ODRMP’s performance improves as number of senders increases

17

Performance Comparison (3)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of multicast group size

– PDR of ODMRP is not sensitive to group size

– AMRIS’s performance improves as group size grows

18

Performance Comparison (4)

Packet Delivery Ratio as a function of network traffic load

AMRIS has severe packet loss rates

ODMRP suffers less

19

Overhead Comparison (1)

Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a function of mobility speed

– Control bytes are control packets and data packet headers

– Not speed sensitive– AMRIS has lower ratio

20

Overhead Comparison (2)

Number of Control Bytes Transmitted Per Data Bytes Delivered as a Function of # of Senders

– AMRIS is not affected by number of senders

– ODMRP may not be efficient in large networks

21

Qualitative Comparison

• Bandwidth Consumption– ODMRP tends transmit more control bytes than

AMRIS– However, ODMRP has higher packet delivery

ratio

• Power Consumption– Depends on mobility speed, number of senders,

network traffic load, etc.– Not a problem for vehicle-based mobile nodes

22

References “A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless

Multicast Protocols”, Sung-Ju Lee, William Su, Julian Hsu, Mario Gerla, and Rajive Bagrodia, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000

“Multicast over wireless mobile ad hoc networks: Present and future directions”, Carlos de Morais Cordeiro, Hrishikesh Gossain and Dharma P. Agrawal, IEEE Network, January 2003

“Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs”, Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik

“Capacity of Wireless Mesh Networks Understanding Single Radio, Dual Radio and Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks”

“On the 802.11 Turbulence of Nintendo DS and Sony PSP Handheld Network Games”, Mark Claypool

www.wikipedia.org 23