Download - A Brief History of Communication
A Brief History of Communication
David Tse
Communication Systems What goes into the engineering of these systems?
Key Ingredients• Software• Hardware• Communication architecture, with
coding and signal processing algorithms
Communication channels can be very nasty!
Channel distortion, noise, interference……How do we communicate reliably over such channels?
Communication has a long history
• Smoke signals, telegraph, telephone…
• 1895: invention of the radio by Marconi
• 1901: trans-atlantic communication
State of affairs:Early 20th century
• Most communication systems are analog.
• Engineering designs are ad-hoc, tailored for each specific application.
Big Questions• Is there a general methodology for
designing communication systems?
• Is there a limit to how fast one can communicate?
Harry Nyquist (1928)• Analog signals of
bandwidth W can be represented by 2W samples/s
• Channels of bandwidth W support transmission of 2W symbols/s
From CT to DT Nyquist converted the continuous-time
problem to a discrete-time problem.
But has he really solved the communication problem?
No. You can communicate infinite number of bits in one continuous-valued symbol!
Claude Shannon (1948) His information theory
addressed all the big questions in a single stroke.
Randomness Shannon thought of both
information sources and channels as random and used probability models for them.
encodersource channel decoder
Everything is bits Shannon showed the universality
of a digital interface between the source and the channel.
source SourceEncoder
Channel encoder channel
Bit stream
Information is like fluid• Every source has an entropy rate H
bits per second.• Every channel has a capacity C
bits per second• Reliable communication is possible
if and only if H < C.
Simple example: binary symmetric channel
0
1
0
1
1-p
p1-p
p
1
p
C
10.50
C = 1+ p log p + (1-p) log (1-p)
Initial Reactions Engineers didn’t understand what he was
talking about.• People were still stuck in the analog world.• Complexity way too high for
implementation technology of the day.• He didn’t really tell people exactly how to
design optimal communication systems.
50 years later….• Our communication infrastructure
is going fully digital.• Most modern communication
systems are designed according to the principles laid down by Shannon.
Internet
S
D
Lessons for Us• Think different• Think big• Think simple
Mobility in Embedded Networks
People and their stuff
Transportation systems(e.g., cars)
Environmental and wildlife monitoring(e.g., Princeton ZebraNet Wildlife Tracker)
Inventory and supply chainmanagement (e.g., RFID tags)
Ubiquitous Mobility• All nodes potentially move
– Network topology changes with time• Efficient routes require knowledge of
topology– Control traffic: distance vector or link state
updates, flooded discovery packets, …
Shanno• Scaling to large networks?– How costly is the dissemination of enough
information to allow for “reasonably good routes”?
– Does control traffic grow more quickly than capacity of the network?
Position-based Routing• Position-based routing:
– Geographic coordinates rather than graph to make routing decisions
• Local routing decisions based on positions of destination and neighbors
• Separation into– Location service: where is the destination?– Local routing protocol: select next hop
towards destination
Bla• Bullet 1• Bullet
– Bullet 2.0– Bullet 2.1
• Bullet 3
Location Services• Challenge: construct a distributed
database out of mobile nodes• Approaches:
– Virtual Home Region: hash destination id to geographic region -> rendez-vous point for source and dest (Giordano & Hamdi, EPFL tech. report, 1999)
– Grid Location Service: quad-tree hierarchy, proximity in hashed id space (Li et al., Mobicom 2000)
– DREAM: Distance Routing Effect Algorithm (Basagni & Chlamtac & Syrotiuk, Mobicom 1998)
Last Encounter History• Question:
– Do we really need a location service?• Answer:
– No (well, at least not always)• Observation:
– Only information on network topology available for free at a node is local connectivity to neighboring nodes
– But there is more: history of this local connectivity!• Claim:
– Collection of last encounter histories at network nodes contain enough information about current topology to efficiently route packets
Last Encounter Routing• Can we efficiently route a packet from a source to
a destination based only on LE information, in a large network with n nodes?
• Assumptions:– Dense encounters: O(n^2) pairs of nodes have
encountered each other at least once– Time-scale separation: packet transmission (ms) <<
topology change (minutes, hours, days)– Memory is cheap (O(n) per node)
• Basic idea:– Packet carries with it: location and age of best (most
recent) encounter it has seen so far– Routing: packet consults entries for its destination along
the way, “zeroes in” on destination
Definition: Last Encounter Table
A
B
encounter at Xbetween A and B at t=10
B: loc=X, time=10C: ...
A: loc=X, time=10C: ...D: ...
X
Fixed Destination
A
Moving Destination
A
A
A
AA
A
Exponential Age Search (EASE)
time
-T
0
?
source destination
EASE: Messenger Nodes
time
-T
0
-T/2
EASE: Searching for Messenger Node
time
-T
0
-T/2
Search: who has seendest at most T/2 secs ago?
EASE: Forwarding the Packet
time
-T
0
-T/2
Forwarding towards new positionwith T:=new encounter age
EASE: Sample RouteDef:
anchor point of age T = pos. of dest. T sec ago
EASE:- ring search nodes
until new anchor point of age less than T/2 is found
- go there and repeat with T=new age
src
dst
Performance of EASE• Length of routes clearly depends on
mobility process– Cannot work without locality– Counterexample: i.i.d. node positions every
time step• Model:
– 2-D lattice, N points, fixed density of nodes– Each node knows its own position– Independent random walks of nodes on
lattice• Cost = forwarding cost + search cost
Cost of EASE Routes• Claim:
– The asymptotic expected cost for large N of EASE routes is on the order of shortest route, i.e., total forwarding cost is O(shortest path):
• Forwarding cost:– Geometric series of ages -
> geometric series of EASE segments
– Total length = O(shortest path)
Search Cost
• Single step search cost is small compared to forwarding cost:– Show that density of messenger nodes
around current anchor point is high– Depends on:
• Number of unique messenger nodes encountered by destination = O(log T)
• Distance traveled by messenger nodes= same order as destination
Interpretation: Distance Effect and Mobility Diffusion
• Observation: required precision of destination’s location can decrease with distance– DREAM algorithm: exploit distance effect to decrease state
maintenance overhead– When a node moves by d meters, inform other nodes in disk of
radius c*d meters– Relax separation of location service and routing service
• Basic idea behind last encounter routing:– Exploit mobility of other nodes to diffuse estimate of
destination’s location “for free”– Concurrently for all nodes
destination
Improvement: Greedy EASE
Simulation: Random Walk Model
•N nodes•Positions i.i.d.•Increments i.i.d.
Simulation: Random Walk Model
Heterogeneous Speeds: Slow Dest
Heterogeneous Speeds: Fast Dest
Heterogeneous Speeds
Simulation: Pareto Random Walk
•N nodes•Positions i.i.d.•Increments i.i.d.,heavy-tailed distancedistribution
Simulation: Random Waypoint
•N nodes•Positions i.i.d.•Every node has awaypoint•Moves straight towardswaypoint at constantspeed•When reached, newwaypoint selecteduniformly over area
Pareto RW and Random Waypoint
Related Idea: Last Encounter Flooding
• With coordinate system– Last-encounter information: time + place– EASE/GREASE algorithms
• Blind, no coordinate system– Last-encounter information: time only– FRESH algorithm: flood to next anchor
point– Henri Dubois-Ferrière & MG & Martin
Vetterli, MOBIHOC 03
FRESH: Last Encounter Flooding
Summary: Last Encounter Routing• Last Encounter Routing uses position information that is
diffused for free by node mobility– Last encounter history: noisy view of network topology– Packet successively refines position estimate as it moves
towards destination– Mobility creates uncertainty, but also provides the means to
diffuse new information• No explicit location service, no transmission overhead
to update state!– Only control traffic is local “hello” messages– At least for some classes of node mobility, routes are efficient!– Key ingredients: locality, homogeneity, mixing of trajectories
• Rich area for more research:– Prediction– Integration with explicit location services & routing protocols– More realistic mobility models
• Ref: MG & Martin Vetterli, IEEE INFOCOM 03