assessment model for opportunistic routing

Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, and Susana Sargento waldir.junior@ulusofona.pt

Oct 24th, 2011IEEE Latincom 2011, Belém-PA/Brasil

Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing

2

Agenda

• Introduction

• Carried Analysis

• Our Work

• Evaluation and Results

• Conclusions and Future Work

3

Introduction

• Powerful devices

• Spontaneous networks

• Opportunistic contacts

- Intermittent connectivity

• Many routing solutions

- Epidemic, encounter history, social aspects ...

• Different classifications

- Identify different families

- Application requirements to algorithm mapping

• Different performance metrics and experimental setups

4

Motivation

• Clear classification of solutions

• Fair way to assess routing performance

- Importance of a homogeneous evaluation

- Parameter setups and performance metrics can favour some proposals

5

Goal

6

Close Look atDifferent Proposals

7

Performance Metric Identification

8

Existing Classifications

• Identify common aspects of solutions

- Routing strategy and metrics

9

Proposed Taxonomy

• Performance metrics

- Delivery probability, cost, and delay

• Experimental setup

- Network density (area, # of nodes, ...)

- Traffic (sources/destinations, load, ...)

10

Universal Evaluation Framework

• Heterogenous mobility

- Human (Working Day Movement)

- Veicular (Bus Movement)

- Random (Shortest Path Map-Based Mov.)

• Nodes belonging to different home/office/entertainment location

• Epidemic, PROPHET, and BubbleRap

11

Scenario

• Epidemic vs. PROPHET

- Better performance

- ~2.1x for Epidemic

- ~2.6x for PROPHET

- From 22% to ~46%

12

Results

• Epidemic vs. PROPHET

- More forwardings

- Over 44x for Epidemic

- Over 34x for PROPHET

- From 12% to 47%

13

Results

• Epidemic vs. PROPHET

- Greater delay

- ~5.5x for Epidemic

- ~9.5x for PROPHET

- From ~27% to ~37%

14

Results

• PROPHET vs. BubbleRap

- Better performance

- 55% for PROPHET

- 33% for BubbleRap

- Over 17 perc. points

15

Results

• PROPHET vs. BubbleRap

- Cost from ~40% to ~70%

16

Results

• For fair assessment

- Imperative to consider similar conditions

- Same performance metrics

• Both taxonomy and UEF should be updated to comply with future new trends

17

Conclusions andFuture Work

• To FCT for financial support via PhD grant (SFRH/BD/62761/2009) and UCR project (PTDC/EEA-TEL/103637/2008)

18

Acknowledgements

Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, and Susana Sargento waldir.junior@ulusofona.pt

Oct 24th, 2011IEEE Latincom 2011, Belém-PA/Brasil

Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing