Download - Robust Messaging Minitask Report
Robust Messaging Minitask Report
Notre Dame
Ohio State
PARC
UC Berkeley
UC Irvine
Hongwei Zhang & Vinod Kulathumani, OSU
Dec 2003
2
Scope
• Comparative study of existing messaging protocols for well-understood scenarios (e.g., A Line In The Sand, Pursuer Evader, Red Force Tagging, Shooter Location) reliability delay throughput/goodput scalability
• Comparison at scale of 100 nodes by testbed-based experiments
• Comparison at the scale of 1000 nodes by simulations
3
Issues
• Importance of testing at scale repeatable result: What works for n nodes does not work for 10n nodes !
several observed routing results for 10-20 nodes do not port to 50-100
nodes
• Importance/hardness of validating simulation completeness & precision especially, fidelity of simulation model (e.g., radio transmission, collision) several observed discrepancies between simulations & experiment complexity of building adequate mathematical models due to
large space of dimensions hardness of extract parameters from expt. traces in protocol independent way
• Benefits of standardized API for porting codes between simulation & experimentation for composability (plug & play) for easy comparison of different protocols
4
Contributions
Notre Dame
• Robust routing strategy for Red Force Tagging
• Partial list of robustness techniques
PARC
• Modeling & Simulation Environment for Ad-hoc Routing Applications in
Wireless Sensor Networks
• Baseline Routing Strategies
Spanning tree, Flooding
• Meta Adaptive Routing Strategies based on Reinforcement Learning
Adaptive tree, constraint-based search, constrained flooding
• Test Case Studies
5
Contributions (contd.)
OSU
Experiments
compared GridRouting/ReliableComm & MintRoute wrt A Line In The
Sand scenario
generated experimental traffic traces for different types of events in
the A Line In The Sand scenario
Simulation
compared GridRouting/ReliableComm with GridRouting/TDMA in
Prowler wrt A Line In The Sand scenario
defined a uniform interface between modules of Prowler
Compiled a list of existing protocols, papers, and studies related
to robust-messaging
6
Contributions (contd.)
UC Berkeley Midterm demo 7/2003 report: Landmark Routing tree
evader information reaches landmark landmark forwards information via crumb-trail to pursuer
Alec Woo et al Sensys 11/2003 report: MintRoute tree routing distance vector with minimum transmission cost metric link quality estimates used to calculate expected total # of trans.
Jason Hill’s Surge report on robust routing 19 node experiment-based fine grain analysis of a multihop data
collection application using Alec’s routing protocol
UC Irvine TDMA-based routing experiment & simulations in various traffic
pattern scenarios
7
Outline
• OSU Experimental study of GridRouting/ReliableComm & MintRoute
• PARC Network & application modeling Strategy learning for wireless ad hoc routing
• UCI Experiment Simulations
Experimental study: GridRouting/ReliableComm vs. MintRoute
OSU
9
Overview
• Objective Comparative study of the performance of
GridRouting/ReliableComm & MintRoute/QueuedSend in the A Line In The Sand scenario
For GridRouting/ReliableComm , study the impact of node location, power level, and maximum number of retransmissions on the end-to-end delay as well as reliability
• Metrics:
Mean and variance in Packet delivery ratio (per event basis) End-to-end delay Goodput for a given event
10
Software components
RadioCRCPacket
ReliableComm
GridRouting
LITeS
GenericComm-Promiscuous
QueuedSend
MintRoute
LITeS
OSU UCB
Not using beta/CC1000RadioAck due to availability as well as weather constraint
11
Network testbed
• 7 * 7 grid of MICA2 motes
0 1 2 3 4 5 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
Base station
12
Application traffic
• Car moving across the network from left to right at a
speed of 5~15 MPH
• A mote generates a “start” message at the beginning of
an event; the mote generates an “end” message at the
end of the event
• All the messages are sent to the base station, which
performs higher-level detection and classification
13
GridRouting/ReliableComm vs. MintRoute
Power level = 9Power level = 9
Metrics
GridRouting & ReliableComm MintRoutewithout
ACKno ACKACK w/ max. 1 retransmit
ACK w/ max. 2 retransmit
Packet delivery ratio (%)
Mean 46.72 33.69 54.41 33.72
Variance 5.53 4.7 5.41 4.21
Delay(seconds)
Mean 7.4513 8.8889 18.7303 0.1102
Variance 0.3093 0.1772 1.3616 0.0071
Goodput(packets/sec)
Mean 3.6701 2.2978 3.5734 2.7645
Variance 1.3782 1.1103 1.3479 0.8948
14
Per-node packet delivery ratio: GridRouting/ReliableComm
Base station
15
Per-node packet delivery ratio: MintRoute
Base station
16
Summary: GridRouting vs. MintRoute
• GridRouting provides better packet delivery ratio & goodput
• The packet delivery ratio for each individual mote is distributed more evenly in GridRouting
• End-to-end delay is shorter in MintRoute
• To do: Compare GridRouting/ReliableComm with MintRoute/RadioACK
17
Outline
• OSU Experimental study of GridRouting/ReliableComm and MintRoute
• PARC Network & application modeling Strategy learning for wireless ad hoc routing
• UCI Experiment Simulation
Network and Application Modeling and Strategy Learning for Wireless Ad-hoc Routing
PARC
19
Outline
• One Modeling and Simulation Environment for Ad-hoc
Routing Applications in Wireless Sensor Networks
• Two Baseline Routing Strategies
• Three Meta Adaptive Routing Strategies based on
Reinforcement Learning
• Four Test Case Studies
20
RMASE: Routing Modeling & Application Simulation Environment
• Motivation: Comparing Routing Algorithms in a Systematic Way
• Functions: Network Models:
Generate Network Topologies Radio and Fault Models:
Set Transmission Parameters and Fault/Alive Probabilities Application Models:
Generate Application Scenarios Performance Metrics:
Calculate Performance Metrics for Simulated Runs Layered Routing Architecture
• Developed on Prowler with Application Name ‘generator’
21
Network Topology Models (I)
• Default Regular Grid• Parameter Settings
22
Network Topology Models (II)
• Small and Large Random Offsets
23
Network Topology Models (III)
• Grid Shifts
24
Network Topology Models (IV)
• Distance and Density
25
Network Topology Models (V)
• Fixed and Random Holes
26
Radio and Fault Models
• Prowler’s Radio Model Signal Fading Formula
Asymmetric Link Dynamic Link Random Error
Collision
• Energy Use Model One unit for every transmission
• Faulty/Alive Model If fault, become alive with probability p If alive, become fault with probability q
27
Application Models
• Source and Destination
Specifications
• Source Rate: r packages per second
• Initialization Time
• Source Amount: n total packages per source
• Source/Destination Distance
• Source Trace given by a trace file
28
Performance Metrics
• Latency (s): Tarrived – Tsent
• Throughput (p/s): N/T N: the total number of packets received T: the duration of simulation
• Loss Rate: n/N n: the number of packets missing N: the total number of packets received
• Energy Use: Σipi
The total number of packets sent in the network
MinimizeMaximize
Minimize
Minimize
29
Layered Routing Architecture
StatsStats
AppApp
MACMAC
RouterRouter
generator_application
Init_ApplicationPacket_SentPacket_ReceivedClock_Tick
Send_Packet
30
Baseline Routing Strategies
StatsStats
AppApp
MACMAC
FloodFlood
StatsStats
AppApp
MACMAC
SpanTreeSpanTree
Ignore_DuplicateIgnore_Duplicate
Unconstrained Flood Routing Spanning Tree Routing
31
Meta Routing Strategies based on Reinforcement Learning
• Meta-Routing Strategies: destination specification: constraints on attributes
cost function: function on attributes
meta-strategies: independent to destination and cost specification
StructuredSource-Destination Path
Spanning Tree
Adaptive Spanning Tree
ConnectionlessReal-time Search
Flooding
Constraint-based SearchConstrained Flooding
Reinforcement Learning
32
Application Studies
• Case I (OSU): A Line in the Sand (LIS) Network: 10x10, offset 0.1, hole <6.5, 4.5, 2, 9, 1> Source: dynamic, given by trace Destination: static, fixed 300 sec, 3 runs
• Case II (ND): Red Force Tagging (RFT) Network: 5x10, offset 0.1 Source: mobile, fixed, unique Destination: static, fixed, unique 30 sec, 4p/s, 5 runs
• Case III (UCB): Pursuer Evader Game (PEG) Network: 7x7, offset 0.1 Source: dynamic, fixed, unique Destination: mobile, fixed, unique 15 sec, 4p/s, 5 runs
• Case IV (Vanderbilt): Shooter Locator (SL) Source: dynamic, random, not unique Destination: static, fixed, unique Future work
33
Routing Strategies Comparisons
• Five Strategies Flood Spanning tree Adaptive tree Constraint-based search Constrained flooding
• Four metrics Latency Throughput Loss rate Energy
34
A Line in the Sand
Flood
Span Tree
Adaptive Tree
Constraint-based Search
Constrained Broadcast
35
Red Force Tagging
Flood
Span Tree
Adaptive Tree
Constraint-based Search
Constrained Broadcast
36
Pursuer Evader Game
Flood
Span Tree
Adaptive Tree
Constraint-based Search
Constrained Broadcast
37
Take Away Points
• Rmase Provides a virtual experimental platform for studying routing
strategies
• None of the routing strategy is superior to others;
performance depends on the network and application types metrics the application cares about
• The relationship between simulation and hardware Simulation makes assumptions Hardware verifies assumptions
UCI
TDMA-based Routing Experiments & Simulations
39
Routing Tree
• Motes 24 Mica2 motes
• Topology 6x4 grid with 4 ft. spacing,
outdoors PowerNode at upper left corner to
test the longest routing paths
• Communication settings Size of TDMA slot = 48 msec 12 TDMA slots per cycle Packet transmission frequency: 1.736Hz
(one per TDMA cycle) Radio transmission power: 3 Total number of packets: 36,840 Data contents of msgs:
3 ~ 24 bytes (variable sizes)
• Metric: Response Time = Sensing-to-
Tracking Time
PN
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
PowerNode master gate worker
40
Experimental Results & Observations
Hop
count
End-to-End
delivery
success
rate
Equivalent
one-hop
reliability
End-to-End Response
Time (msec)
Max Min Avg
1 98.39% 98.39% 32 32 32
3 89.67% 96.40% 992 368 620
5 77.50% 95.03% 1664 848 1280
• Every worker node was programmed to generate sensor data reports once every TDMA round. ==>Multiple simultaneous reports were handled without unnecessary collisions.
• Over 95% of one-hop link reliability is achieved ==> Reflects high performance of the global clock synchronization mechanisms built.
• 18 out of 24 motes reported their environment sensing data. 17 out of 18 motes experienced negligible variances in power node response times ==> Proves highly deterministic nature of the protocol.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
mote ID
su
ccess r
ate
(%
)
# hops = 1
# hops = 3
# hops = 5
End-to-End Delivery Success Rate
41
Simulation of TDMA & Routing with Prowler
TDMA Scheduler
Prowler with TDMA
Neighborhoodinformation of
each node
TDMA schedule& Routing tree
Response time& Queue length
• Application layer:
Describe the motes’ handling of events: Packet_Sent, Packet_Received,
Clock_Tick.
It also implements the mote initiation and data file storage.
• Radio channel layer:
On top of the CSMA layer, a layer which executed TDMA and routing was built. Worker nodes, gate nodes, and master nodes were all simulated.
42
Simulation Setup
• Network topology 4x6 grid (UCI), 5x10 grid (UND), and 10x10 grid (OSU)
• Simulation scenarios Heavy load: message demand of 1 packet per TDMA round Average load: message demand of 1 packet per 2 TDMA rounds Tracking of one moving target
Trajectory: one linear movement along one axis (OSU’s application model)
As long as a mote detects the target, it transmits one packet per TDMA round.
• Packet losses due to buffer overflow
• Evaluation metric: Worst-case response time
43
Simulation Results
Worst-case Response Time from Different Scenarios
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
4x6 grid 5x10 grid 10x10 grid
resp
on
se t
ime
(sec
)
Average load
Heavy load
Tracking
Robust Messaging: Fundamental issues and strategies in “Red Force Tagging”
What causes difficulties?
(A) Node reliability
(B) Node locations (incl uncertainty)
(C) Channel characteristics (incl interference)
Note: Power trivially solves all robustness (and latency)
problems. So, for a meaningful problem, maximum power
and average power must be bounded
Notre Dame
45
Difficulties I
(A) Node reliability
If failures are independent with failure rate p and nodes are uniformly
randomly distributed with density λ, the node density is (1-p)λ
(B) Node locations
Perfectly known locations: The variance in internode distances results in varying link quality or stringent requirements for power control (in particular for nearest-neighbor routing)
Uncertainty in positions: Can be viewed as uncertainty in the channel.
Lifetime is an issue in irregular networks.
46
Difficulties II
(C) Channel characteristics
Channel is unknown due to fading and interference (and
localization errors)
- Slow fading: obstacles, multipath geometry (lognormal)
- Fast fading: mobility (Rayleigh, Rice)
- Interference: makes channel estimation difficult
(need to distinguish between noise and interference)
Remark: Low path loss exponents are desirable in terms of power
consumption. But the average per-node throughput goes to zero if
=m in an m-dimensional network
To achieve good scaling, we need high
47
Robust Messaging Strategies
Techniques to achieve robustness:
• Avoid random node placement. Deploy nodes regularly
• No nearest-neighbor routing in random networks
• Estimate link quality. Choose good links
• Exploit time, frequency, and path diversity:
* retransmissions (with implicit/explicit ACK); coding
* frequency hopping or spread-spectrum
* multipath routing; find backup routes
• Reduce interference (good MAC, spread-spectrum, light
traffic [high data rates], power control, directional
transmission)
48
Characteristics: Mobile Tagmote. Large amount of data.
Only one connection active. Throughput is crucial.
Approach:
- Regular network topology
- Always use maximum power
- Use ARQ-N ACKnowledgments (increases throughput)
- Keep track of number of “retries” for a link estimate
- Maintain list of multiple next-hop neighbors (multi-tree structure)
Robust Messaging in Red Force Tagging
Achievable reliability: 90-100% with a goodput of 200bytes/s.