HYBRID NETWORKS

Gregg Bachmeyer Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth Integrating Infrastructure-based

and Infrastructure-less Networks

Darien Hirotsu Integrating DTN and MANET

Paradigms

Hybrid Networks- A Hybrid Architecture Of UMTS and BlueTooth For Indoor Wireless/Mobile Communications - Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

- Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications

By Gregg Bachmeyer

for CMPE 257

Hybrid Networks

Hybrid networks refers to any networks that contain two or more communication standards

Personal Experience (2001)

D-Link DE 809TC HP 9000 apollo

400

MAC SE/3010Base-TIEEE 802.3, 10 mbs/hd

internet

Powermac 7100

10Base2IEEE 802.310mbs/hd

PhonenetAppletalk230kbs

PhonelinePPP/Slip56kbs

10Base-TIEEE 802.3100mbs/fd

Compaq Presario 7240

Common experience (2011)

internet

Dsl box

Why hybrid networks can be hard to deal with

Reliability Speed Addressing/Routing Intent

Speed differences

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

wiredwireless

19851990199520002005201020150.2

2

20

200

2000

20000

200000

wiredwireless

A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS

T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA UCLA Computer Science, 3803B Boelter

Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095,USA E-mail:

{tedkwon,rohitk,yenglee,gerla}@cs.ucla.edu

A. ZANELLA Universita degli Studi de Padova, Via

Gradenigo 6/A, 35131 Padova,Italia E-mail: zanella@dei.unipd.it

UTMS Cell phone coverage Third generation mobile communications system

(3G) In process of changing to 4g

2 main interfaces UMTS–FDD based on wideband–CDMA▪ outdoor macro–cellular or micro–cellular communication

environments. UMTS–TDD based on combination of CDMA & TDMA▪ indoor pico–cellular communication environments.▪ Allows symmetetric radio resources between uplink and

downlink▪ Higher bit rate

Bluetooth

Limited radio coverage Referred to as scatternet or piconet

Primarily related to PANs (Personal area networks)

Bluetooth operates in the 2.4GHz ISM frequency band

uses a fast frequency–hopping technique to minimize interference

range of approximately 10 meters Supports many different addressing

types

Proposed Solution

using a hierarchical approach. UMTS base station UMTS UEs are hybrid devices that also

have a Bluetooth interface Scatternets Don’t use 802.11b because it will cause

interference with Bluetooth 802.11 has high power requirements

A Hybrid Architecture of Bluetooth and UMTS

Topology of the architecture showing a 3x3 Bluetooth scatternet

3X3 piconets Gray lines show communication

routes possible uses • “Intelligent–Supermarket,” a

central server• Library• Cafeteria

Simulation Setup

GloMoSim (scalable simulation library) Bluetooth model ▪ Layer: Logical link control and adaptation

protocol▪ Connection :Asynchronous Connectionless

UMTS model ▪ turbo coding with 1/3 forward error correction

(FEC)▪ A dynamic radio resource allocation (frame-by-

frame) Routing Protocol: AODV

Network Configuration 2 setups

Common▪ D represents bluetooth polling cycle

2 hybrid devices, each of which serves 3 BT masters ▪ Bluetooth device is connected to the UMTS BS through a hybrid

device and another in which a single hybrid device may be used to connect more than one Bluetooth device to the UMTS BS

▪ Each BT master is a slave in the piconet of the hybrid unit. ▪ Each piconet contains 4 slaves ▪ D represents bluetooth polling cycle

six hybrid devices and six Bluetooth devices ▪ each hybrid device needs to service only one Bluetooth device. ▪ bandwidth wasted for polling is not significant in this case.

Underyling Protocol Issue The paper does not cover how to do

addressing so Ethernet protocol is assumed.

May need something like a protocol to traverse hybrid networks

Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: BridgingInfrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

Rao Naveed Bin Rais University of Nice - INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France Email: nbrais@sophia.inria.fr

Marc Mendonca University of California Santa Cruz, CA, USA Email: msm@soe.ucsc.edu

Thierry Turletti INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France Email: turletti@sophia.inria.fr

Katia Obraczka University of California Santa Cruz, CA, USA Email: katia@soe.ucsc.edu

Overall Issue

Original MeDeHa was only partial solution Does not deal with infrastructures

networks Improvement is MeDeHa++

Allow ad-hoc networks to act as gateways in, through, from networks.

MeDeHa++ Framework

The MeDeHa++ framework achieves the following goals: Seamless message delivery between two

nodes irrespective of network type. Partition mending through multihop ad-

hoc (MANET) “transit networks”. MANET routing protocol independence.

This allows MANET nodes to communicate with MeDeHa++ nodes without running MeDeHa++.

Expected new network combinations to support

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs

A typical example of message delivery in MANET

MeDeHa++ Functional Components Notification Protocol

Neighbor Sensing▪ Broadcasts Hello messages (+ status) to build routing table

Neighborhood Information exchange▪ Many different messages to determine the gateway and neighbors

Routing and Contact Table Management Handles routing tables marking them as▪ Current neighbors▪ Recent neighbors▪ MANET neighbors

Relay Selection and Forwarding Uses the routing table to reduce replication of messages

Interaction with MANETs Helps in interaction with other routing protocols

MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks MANET Information Exchange

GW is detected by neighbor sensing MANET protocol GW consults the MANET routing table to keep info current GW keeps track of past encounters Notifies the AP about new infrastructure nodes to forward packets to

them Has a possibility of sending a leave network packet (can this really

happen?) Gateway Discovery in MANETs

Use the connectivity info to ▪ discover gateways▪ Exchange data and control information

Allows MANETs to act as “transit networks” Direct Neighbors can use MeDaHa++ Multihop connections can use IP encapsulation

MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks (cont…)

Proactive vs. Reactive MANET Routing GW node running AODV may not have all routing info necessary Proactive routing will provide better routing (like OLSR – Optimized

link state routing) Message Delivery to MANETs

GW node is used to bridge the MDH nodes GW passes information to MDH nodes with

recent neighbors packet GW nodes buffer packets to provide to the MDH nodes ( packets

expire after a time) Message Delivery across MANETs

Able to provide multihop communication between 2 GWs using MANET routing protocol as if GWs are neighbors

GWs exchange routing info with the MeDeHa++ messages Nodes and forward and receive packets

Test Setup

Simulation NS-3 simulator Measuring Packet delivery ratio.

Physical Linux Implementation with netfilter

4 Scenarios Convention Center Community InterConnection with MANETs KAIST Real Mobility Traces Hybrid Experiment Results

Scenario 1: Convention Center Convention Center

1000x1000 meter 60% access points

(senerio 1) 90 visitors▪ 20 sources +20 receivers▪ 30 gateways▪ 30 MeDeHa++ nodes▪ 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

(senerio 2) 90 visitors (social affiliation) ▪ 3 groups of 20 affiliations▪ 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

BonnMotion mobility model 1 hour 2 phases

▪ Forwarding vs. Replication▪ Relay Selection Strategy

Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 1 - Forwarding vs. Replication

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Increases delivery chances (90% to 97%) Minimizes AD

Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 2 - Forwarding vs. Replication

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER and SAR schemes for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Drastic decrease in AD due to increase of participating nodes in SAR (Social Affiliation Replication) – [due to ER relay restictions]

Increase in average PDR and increase in delay when using encounter based replication

Senerio 2 :Community Intercommunication with MANETs

3 different communities Areas▪ 600 x 600 meters▪ 400 x 400 meters

20 gateways 3 AP routers Each community has 10 nodes (2

gateways)

Senerio 2 :Community Inter-communication with MANETs (cont…)

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for scenario 2

Impact of different encounter parameters on fraction of nodes while comparing forwarding and replication for scenario 2

Improves PDR slightly Slightly increases AD

Senerio 3: KAIST Mobility Traces Used real traces

2 hours 40 students Random student movement

Achieved Improvement in PDR Decrease in AD 2-copy replications perform

better than 1 Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication showing a comparison betweenMeDeHa and MeDeHa++ using KAIST mobility traces for 40 nodes

Scenario 4: Hybrid Experiment Results Systems

4 laptops as wireless stations 3 laptops as AP routers

▪ Has NS3 simulation of 30 workstations 2 briefcases Used OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing )

Outcomes Hybrid outcome matches that of what the

Simulation provided 2-copy replications perform

better than 1

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication comparison resulting from a hybrid scenario involving real and simulation machines

Benefits

Many scenarios showed benefits in different ways including conceptually.

Networks became gateway dependent.

Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks forReal-Time Industrial Communications

Stefano Vitturi Italian National Council of Research, IEIIT–

CNR, Department of Information Engineering University of Padova

Via Gradenigo 6/B 35131 – Padova (Italy) vitturi@dei.unipd.it

Daniele Miorandi CREATE-NET v. Solteri 38 38100 – Trento (Italy) daniele.miorandi@create-net.it

Using wireless in 802.11 in industrial situations

Factory automation using sensor and actuators. There are existing protocols that are used

R-FIELDBUS (High Performance Wireless Fieldbus In Industrial Related Multi-Media Environment)

PROFIBUS DP (Decentralized Peripherals) used to operate sensors/actuators from centralized controller

UDP (User Datagram Protocol ) DSSS(direct-sequence spread spectrum) physical

layer of IEEE 802.11 IP (Internet Protocol)

Hybrid configuration for stations using the UDP based communication profile

TCP - more reliable - has congestion control

UDP - removes the 802.1D need - can have packet lose

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ethernet PDU

Use UDP over TCP to move IP packets around. Supports realtime and non-realtime traffic Control a token at the application layer to Assumes that Ethernet, 802.11, reduce need

for TCP. TCP congestion control may negatively effect

network performance Uses SEND and SEND WITH REPLAY (which

allows confirmed transmission between the systems)

Industrial importance

Cyclic & Acyclic data Round robin scheme called Profibus DP

that include priorities levels. Queries slaves for cyclic data Then repeats the cycle for acyclic data

Stations are passive CSMA/CS in 802.11 limits the effect

of collisions.

Mean cycle time vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd = 10

Mean cycle time

Deviation

Mean alarm latency vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd =10.

Mean cycle time vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.

Mean cycle time

Deviation

Mean alarm latency vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.

Author conclusions

The outcome appears to allow usage of 802.11 for sensor networks

Using IEEE 802.15.3 instead of 802.11 and a TDMA setup could allow fewer collisions.

Field buses normally do not use UDP.

References Wireless Data Demystified by John R. Vacca A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH

FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS by T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA & A. ZANELLA

Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications by Stefano Vitturi & Daniele Miorandi

Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks by Rao Naveed Bin Rais, Marc Mendonca, Thierry Turletti, & Katia Obraczka