DTN

Delay-Tolerant Networks
Delay-Tolerant Networks
Acknowledgements: Most materials presented in the slides are based on the tutorial
slides made by Dr. Ling-Jyh Chen, Dr. Kevin Fall and Dr. Thrasyvoulos Spyropoulos.
Legacy Networks
Legacy Networks
Internet, Telephone network
Wired or fixed links
A SUCCESS STORY!
Wireless Networks: Cellular
Wireless Networks: Cellular
Cellular Networks: Wired backbone + wireless last link
A SUCCESS STORY for voice/SMS!
Internet? (GPRS): not really (low bandwidth + high price)

Wired
Backbone
Wireless Last Hop
Wireless Networks: WiFi
Wireless Networks: WiFi
802.11, wimax
Still: only wireless

local-loop
Higher bandwidth
than cellular:
54Mbps
Much cheaper/KB
Wireless Networks: WiFi (2)
Wireless Networks: WiFi (2)
Only Partial Coverage: HOTSPOTS
No real mobile computing!

Wireless Networks:
Wireless Networks:
Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks
Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks
Self-organized: no wired infrastructure
Peer-to-peer: nodes are routers
Examples: sensor nets; disaster recovery, etc.

Disaster Recovery
Target Tracking
Wireless Networks
Wireless Networks
Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (2)
The past approach: apply the successful and well

understood Internet paradigm to ad hoc networks also
Assume existence of explicit links (strong enough SINR)
Establish end-to-end paths
Mobility might change these paths: re-establish them

S
D
End-to-end path
node
link
Wireless Networks
Wireless Networks
Ad-hoc Networks: A success story?
NOT REALLY!
No real ad hoc application (killer app) out there
except maybe some military networks
Why? Most wireless networks are NOT like the

Internet!
The Internet Assumptions
The Internet Assumptions
E2E path doesnt have really long delay
Reacting to flow control in -RTT effective
Reacting to congestion in 1-RTT effective
E2E path doesnt have really big, small, or

asymmetric bandwidth
Re-ordering might happen, but not much
End stations dont cheat
Links not very lossy (<1%)
Connectivity exists through some path
Even MANET routing usually assumes this

More Internet Assumptions
More Internet Assumptions
Nodes dont move around or change addresses
Easy to assign addresses in hierarchy
Thought to be important for scalability
In-network storage is limited
Not appropriate to store things long-term in network
End-to-end principle
Routers are flakier than end hosts

Non-Internet-Like Networks
Non-Internet-Like Networks
Random and predictable node mobility
Military/tactical networks (clusters meet clusters)
Mobile routers w/ disconnections
Big delays, low bandwidth (high cost)
Satellites
Exotic links (deep space comms, underwater

acoustics)
Big delays, high bandwidth
Busses, mail trucks, delivery trucks, etc.

Challenged Networks
Challenged Networks
Intermittend/scheduled/opportunistic links
High error rates/low usable capacity
Very large delays
Different network architectures

Characteristics 1: Path and Link
Characteristics 1: Path and Link
characteristics
characteristics
High latency, low data rate
e.g. 10 kbps, 1-2 second latencies
Asymmetric data rates
Disconnection
Non-faulty disconnections
Motion
Low-duty-cycle operation
Routing subsystem should not treat predictable disconnections

as faults and can use this information to pre-schedule messages
Long queueing times
Conventional networks rarely greater than a second
Challenged network could be hours or days due to disconnection

Characteristics 2: Network Architectures
Characteristics 2: Network Architectures
Interoperability considerations
Networks may use application-specific framing

formats, data packet size restrictions, limited node
addressing and naming etc.
Security
End-to-end approach not attractive
Require end-to-end exchanges of keys
Undesirable to carry traffic to destination before

authentication/access control check
Characteristics 3: End System Characteristics
Characteristics 3: End System Characteristics
Limited longevity
Round-trip time may exceed nodes lifetime making

ACK-based policies useless
Low duty cycle operation
Disconnection affects routing protocols
Limited resources
Affects ability to store and retransmit data due to

limited memory
IP Routing May Not Work
E2E path may not exist
Lack of many redundant links
Path may not be discoverable (e.g., fast oscillations)
Traditional routing assumes at least one path exists,

fails otherwise
Routing algorithm solves wrong problem
Wireless broadcast media is not an edge in a graph
Objective function does not match requirements

Different traffic types wish to optimize different criteria
Physical properties may be relevant (e.g., power)
E2E path may not exist
Lack of many redundant links
Path may not be discoverable (e.g., fast oscillations)
Traditional routing assumes at least one path exists,

fails otherwise
Routing algorithm solves wrong problem
Wireless broadcast media is not an edge in a graph
Objective function does not match requirements

Different traffic types wish to optimize different criteria
Physical properties may be relevant (e.g., power)
Inter-Planetary Internet (IPN)
Inter-Planetary Internet (IPN)
Networking in Space
Networking in Space
Existing satellite networks for deep space

missions:
Proprietary, not that efficient, one for each mission
NASA/JPL: Extend the idea of Internet in outer

space
One reusable network for all missions
Gain from experience already acquired

Extending the Internet in Space
Extending the Internet in Space
Long Propagation Delays vs.
Long Propagation Delays vs.
Chatty Internet Protocols
Chatty Internet Protocols
Propagation Delay is much larger than transmission

time! (minutes around our solar system)
Internet protocols are chatty

TCP:
S: Hi! You want to talk? (SYN) 20min
R: Sure! Lets establish a session (SYN+ACK) 20min
S: Ok, lets go for it! (ACK) 20 min
..
(slow start phase)
S: Can you send me the pic of Mars?
..
TCP chatiness
TCP chatiness
More than 3h for one 1MB pic!
transmission time (1MB/128Kbps) = 1min !!!
Idea: Bundles
Idea: Bundles
Bundle: Application-meaningful message
Contains all necessary info packed inside one

bundle (atomic message)
Next hop has immediate knowledge of storage and

bandwidth requirements
Optional ACKs
Depending on class service
Goal: Avoid chattiness
Minimize number of propagation delays paid

Intermittent Connectivity
No more links! Now we have contacts

Contact 1:
Dish A sees earth Sat B from 12:30h to 12h:45h
Contact 2:
Sat B sees rover C on mars from 17:30h to 18:30h
Idea: Store-
Idea: Store-
Carry
Carry
-and-Forward
-and-Forward
Store a bundle for a looong period of time.
Forward when the next contact is available
Hours or even days until appropriate contact.
Postal system: move packages from one storage place to

another (switch intersection), along a path that eventually
reaches the destination
How is this different from Internet routers store-and-

forward?
1) Persistent storage (hard disk, days) vs memory storage
(few ms)
2) Wait for next hop to appear vs. wait for table-lookup and
available outgoing routing port
Store-Carry-and-Forward (2)
3
S
D
1
2
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
15
DTN vs End-to-end Internet Operation
DTN vs End-to-end Internet Operation
Networking in Space
Networking in Space
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneous networks to interconnect
Link delay, asymmetry, error rate, reliability mechanism
Different protocol stack + Different node capabilities

Examples:
Earths Internet: short delays, low error rate, TCP reliability
Sensor network at Mars: short delays, high error rate, data
aggregation at sink(s)
Satellite backbone: long delays, high error rate, LTP
(lightweight transport protocol)
Boundles: A Store and Forward Overlay
Boundles: A Store and Forward Overlay
What About Retransmission?
What About Retransmission?
Custody Transfers
Custody Transfers
Error rates can be high in wireless links
What if a retransmission is needed?

Contact 1: Dish A sees earth Sat B from 12:30h to 12:45h
Contact 2: Sat B sees rover C on mars from 17:30h to 18:30h
Contact 3: Dish A sees Sat B again in one week
Its better that B takes custody of message and retries sending it
itself
Custody Transfer (2)
Moving the Retransmission Point Closer
Moving the Retransmission Point Closer
Benefits of hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end error

control
For paths with many lossy links re-Tx

requirements are much higher for end-to-end
(linear vs. exponential)
E.g. 3 links each with error 1-p:
(hop-by-hop) 3/p extra bandwidth
(end-to-end) 3/(p^3) extra bandwidth
Retransmission overhead is increased by long

propagation delays
Regions and DTN Gateways
Regions and DTN Gateways
DTN gateways are interconnection points between dissimilar

network protocol and addressing families called regions
e.g. Internet-like, Ad-hoc, Mobile etc.
DTN gateways
Perform reliable message routing & security checks
Store messages for reliable delivery
Resolve globally-significant name tuples to locally-resolvable names

for internal destined traffic
Name Tuples: two variable length portions
Region name
Globally-unique hierarchically structured region name
Used by DTN gateways for forwarding messages
Entity name
Resolvable within the specified region, need not be unique outside
it
E.g. { internet.icann.int, http://www.ietf.org/ }

Naming
Naming
Delay Tolerant Networks (DTN)
Delay Tolerant Networks (DTN)
Kevin Fall (~2002): maybe these idea is not only

useful for deep space networks
DTN: Very Brief History
DTN: Very Brief History
DTNRG chartered as IRTF research group (end of 2002)

Chair: Kevin Fall (Intel Research Berkeley)
Architecture evolved from deep-space-focused Interplanetary

Internet project
Funded by DARPA 1999-2002
IRTF Group IPNRG retired when DTNRG formed
DTN became a DARPA program in 2004
11+ Internet draft
Implementation: simulator (DTNSIM) and Linux codes

(DTN2)
Intermittent Connectivity:
The Technical Argument
Wireless links are not like wires!

S
D
End-to-end path
node
link
Intermittent Connectivity may appear because of: p
propagation effects: shadowing, deep fades

A
B
B
B
X
The Technical Argument(2)
Intermittent Connectivity may appear because of:
Propagation effects, shadowing, deep fades
Mobility: paths change too fast; huge overhead for maintenance

A
C
B
C
Intermittent Connectivity may appear because of:
Propagation effects, shadowing, deep fades
Mobility: paths change too fast; huge overhead for maintenance
Power: nodes shut down to save power or hide

A
B
C
B
Save power
(e.g. sensor)
Low probability of detection (LPD)
(e.g. army node)
The Economical Argument
The Economical Argument
Maybe its cheaper to not assume connectivity

rather than enforce it
Rural areas (countryside, freeways) :
overprovision of base stations?
OR just live with a sparse network and episodic

connectivity?
Sensor Networks (attached on animals):
Enough Tx power for connectivity? ($100/node)
Very low power nodes? (e.g. RFID, $1/node)

Wireless Connectivity: A Different View
Wireless Connectivity: A Different View
S
D
X
X
path
disruption!
S
D
X
X
path
disruption!
S
D
End-to-end path
node
link
Applications: Sensor Networks for
Habitat Monitoring
Habitat Monitoring
ZebraNet (Princeton)
Biologists want to learn animal habits
Size of herds
Mobility patterns (running, sleeping, grazing)
Daily habits (watering)
Attach tracking collars on animals
Current technology surprisingly inefficient
Satellite trackers: high energy, low bit rate
GPS trackers: often have to retrieve collar for data
Sensor nodes with wireless radios?

Habitat Monitoring (2)
Habitat Monitoring (2)
Increase power for connectivity?
Considerably reduce lifetime of network! (power law)
What about obstacles?
Live with a sparse network (connected clusters)
Use DTN principles to carry traffic towards sink

Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
Z
Herd of zebras
(range of few meters)
Herd of zebras
(range of few meters)
base station
Vehicular Networks
Vehicular Networks
Drive-Thru Internet
Drive-Thru Internet
Vehicle-to-roadside (base station, sensors)

Vehicular Networks
Vehicular Networks
Drive-Thru Internet (2)
Drive-Thru Internet (2)
Asynchronous operation: OK for e-mail!
Web caching; Local information; download news
Enough bandwidth even at high speeds!

write email
Internet
send email
send email email reply
email reply
Vehicular Networks (VANETs)
Vehicular Networks (VANETs)
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Networks
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Networks
Accident Prevention
Traffic Reports
Can be combined with Vehicle-to-Roadside

Why Vehicular DTN Networks?
Why Vehicular DTN Networks?
Gradual deployment => initially sparse network
Even dense deployments: Paths change too fast!

Before enough time to be discovered
An example
An example
UCLAs Vehicular Sensor Network

Internet to Remote Communities
Internet to underdeveloped countries/remote villages
Rural Kiosks (shared among villagers)
Sell/buy agricultural products
Banking/Transactions with government
Land Titles (Hernando Soto)
Satellite: low bandwidth, expensive
Microwave links: expensive, unreliable(?)
Dial-up: low bandwidth, unreliable (?)
Power network: UNRELIABLE!

(2)
(2)
Email, cached/asynchronous services
Use: Village bus, postmans vehicle, passing cars
Equip with radio, antenna, and storage
Use: dial-up, satellite, microwave links when available

Internet to Nomadic Communities
Internet to Nomadic Communities
The SAAMI nomadic community of Lapland

Application: Underwater Networks
Application: Underwater Networks
Acoustic signal: short range; longer prop delays
Environmental sensors: Information collected

by mobile base stations, or even animals
equipped with transceivers (e.g. whales)
Tactical (military) Networks
Tactical (military) Networks
Communicating beyond enemy lines
Need to retain connectivity despite jamming,

losses
Powering down nodes (LPD/LPI)

Ad-Hoc Networks (revisited)
Ad-Hoc Networks (revisited)
DTN is not only for extreme networks
Maybe it can be used to achieve real mobile computing

without the need for a connected network
Why?
Why?
Hotspots
Now we have to look for the hotspot
Mobile computing = the user moves until he can

compute!!
Extend Access Point (WiFi) connectivity with ad-hoc

subnetworks
Data maybe available at local peers
Establish a peer-to-peer network between local

nodes
Local news/info may be available at a node nearby
Peer-to-peer wireless
Pocket Switched Networks
Pocket Switched Networks
HAGGLE project (www.haggleproject.org)
Conference
Campus
Summarizing:
Summarizing:
Delay Tolerant Architecture for Wireless
Delay Tolerant Architecture for Wireless
A necessity:
Deep space communications, underwater

networks
Remote, underdeveloped areas

A choice:
Sensor networks
Vehicular networks
Extension:
Peer-to-peer wireless
Protocol Design: A Paradigm Shift
Protocol Design: A Paradigm Shift
Current protocols are problematic for

challenged environments
Too many assumptions do not hold
Need new protocols that take the realities of

these emerging wireless environments as
starting points; no ad-hoc fixes
Security and Application Issues
Security and Application Issues
Security: avoid using infrastructure
Public Key: need a connected server which will

map name-to-public-key
Reputation Systems: revoking a certificate

might take a very long time
Application: must be delay tolerant
Network is delay tolerant; what about users??
Applications, interfaces with persistence

More about Security Issue
More about Security Issue
Problems:
Secure opportunistic channel establishment
Mutual opportunistic authentication
Protection from overrun entities
PKI works poorly if connectivity is poor
Approach using Hierarchical Identity Based

Crypto (HIBC)
IBC: generate public key based on a string (e.g.,

address) but private key must be generated by
private key generator
HIBC: cooperating hierarchy of PKGs
No lookup required to find disconnected nodes

public key
More about Security Issue (2)
More about Security Issue (2)
Bootstrap
New user communicates w/PKG over secure

channel to get initial key pair
Can also used tamper-resistant device
Reversal of accumulated source route used for PKG

to reach new node
Use of Time
Add datastamp to public key IDs helps to minimize

compromise time if device is lost
Time-based keys instead of CRLs (Certificate

Revocation List)
Fail-safe vs fail-insecure (CRLs)
Routing
Routing
Legacy Routing
Legacy Routing
Graph: G = {V,E}
V: set of nodes
E: set of links
w(e): E
cost function (capacity, energy, queue size)
Routing (S,D):
path P
SD
= {v
0
,,v
i
,,v
N
:

v
i
V, v
0
= S, v
N
= D}
such that e
ii+1
E
and
+
i
1 ii
P
) w(e min
SD
Legacy Routing
Legacy Routing
Proactive Protocols (table-driven)
Proactive Protocols (table-driven)
Link-state, distance vector
Obtain global topology information (Topology Updates)
Dijkstras, Bellman-Ford algorithm
Calculate minimum cost paths
Distributed algorithms
Dijkstras algorithm
Shortest paths from A to V-{A}

Initialization: cost C(A)=0, C(v) = ; set Q = {empty}
Loop: pick v Q: C(v) is minimum; Q = Q + {v}
if C(v) + w
vj
< C(j) => C(j) = C(v) + w
vj

Terminate: when Q = V
Example of Dijkstras Algorithm
Example of Dijkstras Algorithm
D
B
C
A
4 2
3
6
1
L(B)=4
L(C)=6
L(D)=
L(A)=0
Step 1
B
D
C
A
4 2
3
6
1
L(B)=4
L(C)=5
L(D)=6
L(A)=0
Step 2
B
D
C
A
4 2
3
6
1
L(B)=4
L(C)=5
L(D)=6
L(A)=0
Step 3
L(D)=6
B
D
C
A
4 2
3
6
1
L(B)=4
L(C)=5
L(A)=0
Step 4
Legacy Routing
Legacy Routing
Reactive Protocols
Reactive Protocols
DSR, AODV
Step 1) Flood Route Request message (RREQ)
Step 2) Nodes that forward RREQ append their ID on header
Step 3) The path that reaches D first = shortest path
Step 4) Send back Route Reply (RREP) with reverse path from
that found in header
If path breaks
Repeat route discovery
Or fix locally if other subpaths available are known (route

maintenance)
Legacy Routing for DTN
Legacy Routing for DTN
S
D
Proactive Routing
(DSDV, OLSR)
Flood Periodic Topology Updates (UPD)
S learns next hop to D
UPD reaches only

same cluster as D!
UPD
UPD
UPD
UPD
UPD
S
D
Reactive Routing
(DSR, AODV)
Flood Route Request (REQ)
S waits for reply from D
REQ reaches only same cluster as
S!
REQ
REQ
REQ
REQ
DTN Routing
DTN Routing
Graph is disconnected and/or time-varying
G(t) = {V, E(t)}
G = {V,C}, C = set of contacts c

i
c
i
= {v
i
,v
j
,t
start
,t
finish,
bandwidth,prop. delay,}
Types of Contacts
Types of Contacts
Scheduled contacts
E.g. satellite links, message ferry
All info known
Probabilistic contacts
Statistics about contacts known

E.g. mobility model, or past observation+prediction
Bus relay, sensors with random wake-up schedule
Opportunistic contacts
Not known before it occurs
E.g. a tourist car that happens to drive by the village
Routing: Scheduled Networks
Routing: Scheduled Networks
DTN Routing for Scheduled
DTN Routing for Scheduled
Contacts
Contacts
Problem Setting:
Set of contacts c
i
Set of storage capacities bc

i
:v
i
V
Set of messages m
i
= {s,d,t,m}
Future traffic demand

Evaluation Metrics
Messages Delivered
Average Delay (why?)
Connected with message drops
Connected with throughput

Knowledge Oracles
Knowledge Oracles
Problem 1) Assume we know data about (oracle)
Contacts Summary (Oracle)

Statistics about all contacts (frequency, duration, capacity);
e.g. contact time c
ij
occurs every T minutes
Contacts (Oracle)
Specific info about all contacts;

e.g. contact c
ij
(t
1
), c
ij
(t
2
), c
ij
(t
n
)
Queuing (Oracle)
Info about all queue sizes Q(n
ij
,t) (all nodes and all times)
Traffic Demand Oracle
Info about all future traffic demand

m
1
= {s
1
,d
1
,t
1
,m
1
}, m
1
= {s
2
,d
2
,t
2
,m
2
},etc.
Problem 2) Implement each oracle (centralized/distributed)
Routing Algorithm Classes
Routing Algorithm Classes
Zero Knowledge
No oracles used; only current/local view available
Worst-case performance (baseline)
Complete Knowledge
All oracles used + buffer (resource) information
Optimal performance (for comparison only)
Partial Knowledge
Explore tradeoffs of using only some of the

available oracles
Routing with Zero Knowledge
Routing with Zero Knowledge
Oracles used: None
Algorithm: First Contact
Look at currently available contacts
Choose one in random or first that comes up
Performance: Random Routing
Random walk on time-varying connectivity graph
Cycles, oscillate between nodes, dead-end

Routing with Partial Knowledge
Routing with Partial Knowledge
Computing minimum cost (shortest) paths
Delay:
Transmission
Propagation
Queuing = Waiting for contact + waiting for queue

to drain
Link weight w(e,t) = message arriving at edge e at

time t, is predicted to arrive at end of e at time t +
w(e,t)
Modify Dijkstras algorithm

Minimum Expected Delay (MED)
Minimum Expected Delay (MED)
Algorithm
Algorithm
Oracles used: Contact Summary
Edge cost = average waiting time
average contact wait + transmission + propagation
Regular routing => minimize average path

delay
Downsides:
No reaction to congestion
Ignores a good link even if it is available

Dijkstra with time-varying costs
Dijkstra with time-varying costs
Pseudo-code
+
t"
t
s)} t, Q(e, (m x)dx c(e, | min{t" s) m, t, (e, t'
Dijkstra with time-varying costs (2)
Dijkstra with time-varying costs (2)
Message size = m
Edge Capacity = c(e,t)
Edge Propagation Delay = d(e,t)
Queue backlog = Q(e,t,s)
w(e,t) = w(e,t,m,s) = t(e,t,m,s) t + d(e,t)
Dijkstras with Time-varying Costs
Dijkstras with Time-varying Costs
Example
Example
D
B
C
A
c
AB
=(5,7),(13,16),(20,22)
L(B)=5
L(C)=9
L(D)=
L(A)=0
Step 1
Time = 0
c
AC
(9,10),(14,17),(25,26),
c
BD
=(3,4),(11,15),(26,28)
c
CD
=(6,7),(13,15),(23,25)
c
BC
=(7,10),(14,15),(26,30)
w
AB
(0) = 5
w
AC
(0) = 9
Dijkstras with Time-varying Costs (2)
Dijkstras with Time-varying Costs (2)
Example
Example
D
B
C
A
c
AB
=(5,7),(13,16),(20,22)
L(B)=5
L(C)=9
L(D)=
L(A)=0
Step 1
Time = 5
c
AC
=(9,10),(14,17),(25,26),
c
BD
=(3,4),(11,15),(26,28)
c
CD
=(6,7),(13,15),(23,25)
c
BC
=(7,10),(14,15),(26,30)
w
BC
(5) = 2
w
AC
(5) = 6
L(C)=7
L(D)=11
Earliest Delivery (ED)
Earliest Delivery (ED)
Oracles used: Contacts
Q(e,t,s) = 0
Ignores queuing info
Ignores buffer occupancy
Source routing
ED is optimal if:
1. Low traffic rates (e.g. 1 msg)
2. Or infinite bandwidth and buffer
Problems
If an edge is missed due to lack of bandwidth => may

result in disastrous behavior
Earliest Delivery with Local
Earliest Delivery with Local
Queuing (EDLQ)
Queuing (EDLQ)
Oracles used: Contacts
PLUS: look at local queues for choosing paths:

e = (s,*) Q(e,t,s) = data queued for e at time t
otherwise Q(e,t,s) = 0
Problems:
Buffer overflow
Potential loops (not consistent topology view between

nodes when running Dijkstra)
Earliest Delivery with Global
Earliest Delivery with Global
Queuing (EDAQ)
Queuing (EDAQ)
Oracles used: Contacts, Queuing
Q(e,t,s) = data queued for e at time t at node s
Source routing
Requires bandwidth reservation (ensure that no

later arrivals change the experienced queue size)
How is this to be implemented?
Current queuing knowledge depends on reservations

up to now
Still no bandwidth
Variations and Practical
Variations and Practical
Considerations
Considerations
Re-computing routes for ED (earliest delivery)
Message might miss contact due to queuing
If missed => re-compute remaining shortest path (at

intermediate node)
Implementing queuing oracle with local info
Local queuing keeps track of messages it forwards

and their path
Extrapolate (expected) queue sizes at other nodes

(based on capacity and traffic assumptions)
Message/Path splitting
Message fragmentation
Multi-path routing (e.g. for MED algorithm)

Routing with Complete Knowledge
Routing with Complete Knowledge
What are we missing??
Buffer constraints
Future traffic demand
How do we solve this?

Multi-commodity flow problem: balance flows over
links
Dynamic version: balance flows over contacts
We can formulate a Linear Program for the problem

in hand
note: variable space might grow exponentially

Routing with Complete Knowledge (2)
Routing with Complete Knowledge (2)
Many ideas from graph theory and network

flow problems
Optimize some metric (e.g. average path cost)
While abiding to constraints (e.g. link/buffer

capacities)
Transport Networks with time-varying graphs
Quickest transshipment of cargo with time-varying

links (e.g. a periodic cargo flight)
Dynamic Network Flows
Rather difficult problems in general

Performance Comparison
Performance Comparison
A network of (20) city buses with radios
Varying traffic load
Conclusion 1: ED(-,LQ,AQ) algorithms better
Conclusion 2: ED algorithm optimal for small loads

Performance Comparison (2)
Large bandwidth => ED is optimal
Small bandwidth => ED closer to MED

Higher transmission range => more contacts => easier to route
Smaller buffer space => ED* schemes perform better

Practical Routing for DTNs
Practical Routing for DTNs
How to implement Oracles
The contact oracle:
No need to assume full knowledge
MED: expected contact delay (average over all

future contacts)
MEED: estimate future contact delay, based

on past contacts (sliding window)
MEED Algorithm
MEED Algorithm
(Minimum Estimated Expected Delay)
(Minimum Estimated Expected Delay)
Keep history of past contacts
Maintain running average
Sliding window
Large window => slow reaction to changes
Small window => too many updates, oscillations
Link-state epidemic dissemination
Whenever a contact changes significantly (x% form

previous estimate) => flood topology update packet
Link-state Topology => Epidemic
Link-state Topology => Epidemic
Dissemination
Dissemination
Message vector i
Table with topology updates from nodes NS
i
Two nodes meet: exchange message vectors

NS
A
and NS
B
Exchange topology updates not in common

until NS
A
=NS
B
Flood new topology updates further

Calculating the Routing Path
Calculating the Routing Path
Eventually topology updates from all nodes

(global topology) not all equally fresh
Source Routing? Intermediate hops might have

more recent info than source
Hop-by-Hop Routing? What if an infrequent

contact (large expected wait) arrives first?
Per-contact routing = assign current contact

cost 0
Example of MEED routing
Example of MEED routing
Link AB (path ABD) are better on average

than link AC (path ACD)
But if at time t link AC is up, then ACD is

better! (per contact routing)
Link-state DTN Routing:
Link-state DTN Routing:
Conclusion
Conclusion
Link-state overhead: O(N

2
)
If node mobility not restricted everyone sees everyone

else, eventually
Can be an interesting approach IFF:

-
Nodes are static: e.g. sensor with wake-up
schedule
-
Topology changes infrequently/network is dense
BUT: If mobility pattern does not have enough

structure (e.g. IID) then it degenerates to random
forwarding
Extensions?
Extensions?
How to extend to keep track of

1) average queuing
2) average traffic requirements
Approximate other algorithms
EDLQ
EDAQ
LP?
Message Ferrying
Message Ferrying
A sparse network of production nodes
Nodes may be static (e.g. sensors) => how to

bridge partitions?
Nodes may be mobile, but slow => long delays
waiting for a contact to occur may take time
Solution: Use specialized nodes (DataMules or

Message Ferries) to carry traffic between
production nodes
Ferries are always mobile
No energy considerations
Message Ferrying
Message Ferrying
1. Enforce Ferry Trajectory
1. Enforce Ferry Trajectory
Robots, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) Li al 03,

Zhao et al 04
S
D
DataMule
DataMule
DataMule
DataMule
The problem: design optimal trajectories
Message Ferrying
Message Ferrying
2. Use Existing Trajectories
2. Use Existing Trajectories
Scheduled mobility: Uncontrolled but predictable

mobile nodes (e.g. city buses) Jain et al. 04
S
D
Predict ferry mobility
Optimal use of available ferry bandwidth
Production node trajectory

Message Ferrying: The Problem
Message Ferrying: The Problem
Space
Space
Ferry mobility
1. Designed for non messaging reasons (buses)
2. Optimized for message transfer (robots)
Production node mobility
Static vs. Mobile
Number of ferries
Single vs. Multiple ferries
Ferry relaying:
Yes/No
Node Relaying
Node-to-ferry vs. node clustering

Ferries for non-messaging
Ferries for non-messaging
reasons
reasons
No explicit trajectory design + known schedules

=> could apply principles from earlier presented
algorithms (e.g. ED, MED, etc.)
No trajectory design + no/limited knowledge of

schedules
=> use opportunistic routing, e.g. epidemic (later)
Focus on trajectory design cases

Static Nodes + Single Ferry
Static Nodes + Single Ferry
b
ij
= traffic (rate) requirement from node i to j
Ferry route L of length |L|
Ferry speed f: ferry cycle T = |L|/f
= average delay for traffic from i to j
Wait for ferry: T/2f
Upload data (queuing at node): f(ferry in range, upload rate)
Wait for destination (on ferry): T/2f
Download data to recipient: f(ferry in range, download rate)
average delay for all traffic

L
ij
d
j i,
ij
j i,
L
ij ij
L
b
d b
d
Static Nodes + Single Ferry (2)
Static Nodes + Single Ferry (2)
Problem: find trajectory L, such that:
-
- while satisfying traffic matrix B = {b
ij
}
L
ij
L
d min
(Delay Problem)
(Bandwidth Problem)
Delay Problem
Delay Problem
Assume infinite/enough bandwidth for b

ij
All data uploaded when encountered
,such that L passes by all nodes

Step 1: TSP approximation algorithms
Step 2: Local optimization
L
ij
L
d min
If b
ij
= b
ji
=> d
L
= |L|/f
Delay Problem = Traveling Salesman Problem (NP-complete)
Traveling Salesman Problem
Traveling Salesman Problem
Given a (connected) weighted graph
Find a path that:
Visits all nodes exactly once
And has a minimum cost

Bandwidth Problem
Bandwidth Problem
Increase route (local detour) to satisfy bandwidth

requirement
Minimize amount of increase (Linear Program)

minimize
subject to
i
j
j
i
s
x | L |
2r)W (x
+
+
Path extension for i

Tx rate
Traffic demand
of i (per cycle)
0
i i
j
j j i
x 2rW, | L | s x s Wx
i
i
x
Optimal Trajectory Design:
Optimal Trajectory Design:
The online problem
The online problem
Previous case: traffic requirements known in

advance => offline, optimal solution
What if traffic requests arrive on-demand
Problem: design trajectory to optimally serve

existing requests
Minimize message drop rate
Minimize expected delivery delay

Mobile Nodes + Single Ferry
Mobile Nodes + Single Ferry
Ferry has a predefined route, which is known
Nodes decide when to move close to the ferry

to upload data (Node-Initiated Message
Ferrying, NIMF)
Task (e.g. sensing)
Receiver
Mobile Nodes + Single Ferry (2)
Mobile Nodes + Single Ferry (2)
Goal 1: minimize time not performing task
E.g. time moving = time not sensing
Goal 2: minimize message drop ratio
While working, outgoing messages accumulate in

buffer => buffer overflow
While not going to ferry, incoming messages

accumulate in ferry => buffer overflow
Messages have TTL => if not delivered in time they

are dropped
When to Move Towards Ferry?
When to Move Towards Ferry?
Keep msg drop rate low:
D
i
(t) = msg drop rate at i (outgoing)
D
f->i
(t) = msg drop rate for i at ferry (incoming)
G
i
= msg arrival rate at i
G
f->i
= msg arrival rate at ferry for I
(D
i
(t) + D
f->i
(t))/(G
i
+

G
f->i
) > (condition 1)
Keep fraction of time not performing task low:
(task time)/(total time) > w (condition 2)
Shortcomings of NIMF
Shortcomings of NIMF
What if node task is correlated with message

delivery?
e.g. task = sensing data that needs to be periodically

transmitted to a sink
Conditions 1 and 2 may not be able to be

satisfied at the same time! WHY?
How are the nodes mobile? Robots? A person

decides to move close to the bus?
Static Nodes + Multiple Ferries
Static Nodes + Multiple Ferries
Case 1: No ferry interaction
Case 2: Ferry relaying
Ferries can exchange data with each other
Synchronization between ferries

Case 3: Node relaying
Node overhead for storing inter-relay traffic

Ferry Trajectory Design
Ferry Trajectory Design
Phase 1: Assign nodes to ferries
Phase 2: Choose path for each ferry
Phase 3: Fine tune route to meet traffic demand

Single-Route Algorithm (SIRA)
Single-Route Algorithm (SIRA)
All nodes follow the same route
Constant speed and distance
No interaction
Phase 1: all nodes to all ferries
Phase 2,3: similar to single ferry
step 1: Traveling Salesman approximation

step 2: Local delay optimizations (wait
m
= wait
1
/m)
step 3: minimum route extension to satisfy traffic

Ferries
Multi-Route Algorithm (MURA)
Multi-Route Algorithm (MURA)
Different Routes + no Relaying
Algorithm:
Step 1: assume n ferries assign one to each
node
Step 2: estimate ED (expected delay) and
reassign until m ferries and ED minimum
Step 3: refine assignment for end-to-end
feasibility
Step 4: calculate optimal route for each ferry
independently
Estimating ED (expected weighted
Estimating ED (expected weighted
delay)
delay)
Calculate weighted delay per route
Say route with k relays
Route delay is a tuple (E*,E)
E* = excess capacity
E = expected delay if capacity is met
a = total data rate
= service rate of route = 0.5 k W
'
< + +
'
<
+
a if ),
a -
a
)(1
k
1
L(1
a if 0,
E
a if 0,
a if ), a L(1
E
'
*
(Re)assigning Nodes to Routes
Re-assign based on 4 operations goal is to

get m ferries and minimum ED
Op.1) overlap (i,j): extend one route to include
node of other
Op.2) merge (i,j): combine routes i,j into one;
ferries = k
i
+k
j
Op.3) merge
-
(i,j): combine routes i,j into one;
ferries = k
i
+k
j
-1
Op.4) reduce(i): k
i
= k
i
- 1
Problem 1: sender-destination not in same route
Problem 2: route traffic demand > route capacity

Continue overlap/merge until assignment is feasibleOR
The algorithm
Node Relaying Algorithm (NRA)
Node Relaying Algorithm (NRA)
Multi-hop routing:
node S ferry f
i
node r ferry f
j
node D
Bound number of hops to maintain throughput

(Gupta et. al)
Overhead on relaying nodes

Node Relaying Algorithm (NRA) (2)
Node Relaying Algorithm (NRA) (2)
For each S-D pair n

ij
: geographic routing => path of cells (e.g.
C2,C3,C4)
Overlap operation between C

x
,C
y
=> shared node is relay
Assign ferries: 1 to each cell -> add extra ferry to highest EWD
Ferry Relaying Algorithm (FRA)
Ferry Relaying Algorithm (FRA)
Data is relayed between ferries => no node

relaying
Similar to NRA algorithmuntil last step
After routes are calculated per cell, need to

synchronize between cells (not easy)
Performance Analysis
with Multiple Ferries
with Multiple Ferries
Some simulation results show that MURA (non-

relaying) has the best performance
Is it because of the extra resources required by

message relaying?
Is it because of the specific algorithms chosen

for relaying (i.e. could find better ones)
Does it depend on traffic pattern? if uniform

traffic, and no traffic weights, wouldnt MURA
routes need to cover ALL nodes??
Multiple Ferries with Independent
Multiple Ferries with Independent
but Known Routes
but Known Routes
Ferry mobility is not related to data delivery (e.g.

bus of networks)
Hence, it cannot be changed
Calculate inter-ferry contacts based on their

mobility schedules
Apply algorithms like MED, ED, etc.
Maybe even MEED, or some opportunistic

routing if schedules are not fully deterministic
(e.g. traffic jam, etc.)
Summarizing: DTN Routing
Summarizing: DTN Routing
Scheduled/Known Contacts:
Modified Dijkstra Algorithm (time-dependent weights)
Dynamic Flow Problems
Enforced Contacts with Specialized Nodes (Ferries):
Design of Optimal Mobility Paths (TSP)
Optimal Assignment of Ferries
Opportunistic Contacts?
Contacts not known in advance
No extra nodes; only the mobility of the nodes themselves

is available
Routing: Opportunistic
Routing: Opportunistic
Networks
Networks
Routing with Scheduled Contacts
Routing with Scheduled Contacts
Set of contacts C: known
Set of nodes V: known

A
C
B
D
D
Tx Range
(B,D) = {10,12},{19,21}
(C,D) = {8,10},{15,17}
D
(B,D) = {10,12},{19,21}
(C,D) = {8,10},{15,17}
Tx Range
D
Routing with Unknown Contacts
Routing with Unknown Contacts
Opportunistic Routing
Opportunistic Routing
Set of contacts C: unknown!
Set of nodes V: often unknown too!

A
C
B
D
D
Tx Range
(B,D) = ??
(C,D) = ??
D
WHERE IS D?
D
WHERE IS D?
D
WHERE IS D?
Epidemic Routing
Epidemic Routing
Give a message copy to every node encountered
essentially: flooding in a disconnected context

A
C
B
D
D
E
F
D
D
D
D
Epidemic Routing (2)
Message Vectors
Message Vectors
Node A encounters node B

Dest ID Seq. Num.
D 0
G 1
F 0
Dest ID Seq. Num.
D 0
E 0
F 0
F 1
Message Vector of A Message Vector of B
(G,1)
(E,0),(F,1)
Message Vectors
Message Vectors
After message exchange

Dest ID Seq. Num.
D 0
E 0
F 0
F 1
G 1
Dest ID Seq. Num.
D 0
E 0
F 0
F 1
G 1
Message Vector of A Message Vector of B
Encounters
Encounters
Two nodes encounter each other when they are inside

Transmission Range
How do they know?
Beacons: periodically transmit a HELLO message to discover

neighbors
e.g. Bluetooth association
Implications:
1. Some encounters might be missed
2. Encounter not immediately when in range
Encounter => MSG vector exchange (+other info)
Delay of Epidemic Routing
Delay of Epidemic Routing
(a coloring problem analog)
(a coloring problem analog)
S
D
1
2
2
T1 = 1 red any blue
T2 = any of 2 red any blue
K
1 i
i
T
M
1 K
1 M
1
ED
M nodes
I.I.D. mobility
Epidemic Routing Performance
Epidemic Routing Performance
Delay for Epidemic Routing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

d
e
l
a
y

(
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s
)
epidemic
optimal
Transmissions for Epidemic Routing
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
t
o
t
a
l

t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
epidemic
optimal
Redundant copies reduce delay
But: too much redundancy is wasteful and often

disastrous (due to contention)
increasing traffic
increasing traffic
Too many transmissions
Plagued by contention
Randomized Flooding (Gossiping)
Randomized Flooding (Gossiping)
Spread the message with a probability p 1
p = 1) epidemic
p = 0) direct transmission
D
E
D
Outcome < p) Give a copy
D
Outcome > p) Dont give copy
K-neighbor Epidemic
K-neighbor Epidemic
Each node receiving a copy, can copy it again

up to K times
F
E
D
D
G
J
K = 2
D
Already given 2 copies!
Node E cannot fwd more
Flooding-based Schemes
Flooding-based Schemes
Can reduce the transmissions of epidemic
With some penalty on delay!
Given long enough time, all nodes receive a

copy
Still flooding-based!
Lets re-think the problem. Must we flood

everyone (or almost everyone)?
Single-copy vs. Multi-copy
Single-copy vs. Multi-copy
routing strategies
routing strategies
Single-copy: only a single copy of each message exists in the

network at any time
Multi-copy: multiple copies of a message may exist concurrently

in the network
Single-copy Multi-copy
+ lower number of transmission
+ lower contention for shared resources
+ lower delivery delay
+ higher robustness
Choosing A Next Hop
Choosing A Next Hop
A local and intuitive criterion: A forwarding step is efficient

if it reduces the expected distance from destination
usually: reduction of expected distance => reduction of

expected hitting time
Efficient Routing : Ensure that each forwarding step on the
average reduces distance or hitting time with destination
A
Destination
B
C
Direct transmission
Direct transmission
Forward message only to its destination

simplest strategy
minimizes transmissions
S
C
B
D
D
E
F
D
The Delay of Direct Transmission
The Delay of Direct Transmission
EM: expected meeting time

2 nodes starting from stationary distribution
EM > ED: EM is a lower bound on delay!
ET: expected hitting

1 node is static (with position from uniform distribution
S
D
D
D
Randomized routing
Randomized routing
A node forwards message to a new node with probability p; NO
Duplication! Its Hand-over!
A
C
B
D
D
E
F
D
D
D
Randomized
Randomized
Why Transmitting is Faster Than Not!
Transmission Speed is Faster than Nodes Speed!

A
C
B
D
D
F
D
D
D
ET
D
A B
d
B
E
A
T
D
= ET(d)
2
1) ET(d 1) ET(d
T E
D B
+ +
Randomized
P
AB
= P
BA
=
t
X
(Y): time since X last saw Y
Indirect location information
diffused with node mobility

smaller timer closer distance
For most mobility models

Utility-based Routing
Utility-based Routing
A
D
B
t
B
(D) = 100
t(D) = 0
t(D) = 26
t(D) = 68
t
A
(D) = 138
t(D) = 218
Last encounter timers
D
D
Utility U
X
(Y) = f(t
X
(Y))
Policy: forward to B iff
U
B
(D) > U
A
(D) + U
th
Utility-based Routing (contd)
Utility-based Routing (contd)
Result 1: Utility-based routing has a larger expected delay
reduction than the simple randomized policy
ET
D
A B
d
B
E
A
T
D
= ET(d)
2
1) ET(d 1) ET(d
T E
D B
+ +
Randomized
1) ET(d ) P (1 1) ET(d P T E
BA BA D B
+ +
Utility-based
P
AB
= P
BA
= P
AB
< P
BA
>
t
A
(D) = 20
Problems with Utility Routing
Problems with Utility Routing
Timer values are good indicators of proximity only if their value is small.
Timers/utility updated only when destination is found
If sources (relays) neighbors happen to have larger timers, message gets stuck for a long
time
A
D
t
A
(D) = 20
t
A
(D) = 200
t
A
(D) = 20
Transitivity Idea
Transitivity Idea
If A sees B, and B has recently seen D, then A is

probably close to D too.
update t
A
(D) when A encounters B
cache of most fresh entries for scalability
(d
AB
): expected time to cover distance d
AB
t
A
(D) = t
B
(D) + (d
AB
)
(d
AB
) = (d
AB
)
2
(random walk)
(d
AB
) = d
AB
(random waypoint)
No transitivity Transitivity
PDF of timer value of A for D, when A is far from D
Seek and Focus
Seek and Focus
A hybrid routing strategy
A hybrid routing strategy
Set of node utility values: A time-varying, probabilistic

utility-field with the global maximum at destination
Utility-based routing is a greedy search of the field
Issue: message often gets stuck at local maxima

Seek and Focus
Seek phase: If current utility is below U
f
perform randomized
forwarding (quickly look for a good lead)
Focus phase: If current utility is above U
f
perform utility-based
routing for at most T
f
time units (follow the lead)
Re-seek phase: If no better relay is found for T
f
, perform
randomized routing for at most T
seek
or until a better relay is found
(if stuck at local maximum, do perimeter search)
Oracle-based optimal
Oracle-based optimal
algorithm
algorithm
Assume all future movements are known
Then, the algorithm picks the sequence of

forwarding decisions that minimizes delay
Note that flooding (multi-copy strategy) has the

same delay as this algorithm when there is no
contention
Effect of Connectivity
Random Walk (local model)
Random Walk (local model)
Delivery Delay (Random Walk)
10
100
1000
10000
100000
40 (8.6%) 50 (14.8%) 60 (27.7%) 70 (52.9%) 80 (79.2%)
Tx Range (connectivity %)
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s

(
L
O
G

S
C
A
L
E
)
Transmissions (Random Walk)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
40 (8.6%) 50 (14.8%) 60 (27.7%) 70 (52.9%) 80 (79.2%)
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
p
e
r

m
s
g
)
randomized
utility (no trans)
utility (trans)
seek&focus (trans)
optimal
Randomized has smallest delay
But, with order(s) of magnitude more transmissions
Utility-based with transitivity performs very few transmissions
But, with up to 10x worse delay than randomized
Without transitivity things are even worse
Seek & Focus achieves both low delays (close to randomized)

and low transmissions (slightly higher than utility-based)
randomized
randomized
Y-axis:
Transmissions per msg
X-axis: Tx Range
(Connectivity)
Increasing connectivity Increasing connectivity
Y-axis: Delivery delay
(LOG SCALE)
utility
utility
seek&focus
seek&focus
optimal
Random Waypoint (non-local)
Random Waypoint (non-local)
Delivery Delay (Random Waypoint)
10
100
1000
10000
30 (5.7%) 40 (8.6%) 50 (14.8%) 60 (27.7%) 70 (52.9%)
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s

(
L
O
G

S
C
A
L
E
)
Transmissions (Random Waypoint)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
30 (5.7%) 40 (8.6%) 50 (14.8%) 60 (27.7%) 70 (52.9%)
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
p
e
r

m
s
g
)
random
utility (no trans)
utility (trans)
seek&focus
optimal
Randomized not fast for non-local mobility models
A bad forwarding decision is costly
Still high transmissions
Utility-based has good delays and low transmissions
Choice of the right transitivity function is important!
No transitivity, or wrong transitivity (e.g. random walk) is really bad.
Seek & Focus achieves even better delays
Yet, with slightly more transmissions

randomized
randomized
utility
utility
Single-copy Strategies:
Single-copy Strategies:
Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned
Utility-based forwarding can be a good routing

primitive
ONLY IF utility function is correctly designed!

(transitivity + mobility model stats)
Seek and Focus (hybrid) is the best candidate if

a single-copy routing scheme has to be used
can fix some of the utility-based routing shortcomings
BUT, best single-copy strategy still an order of

magnitude slower than optimal!
2-hop Scheme
2-hop Scheme
Source gives a copy to any relay encountered
Relays can only give copy to destination

Src
C
B
Dst
D
E
F
D
D
D
Relay C cannot FWD to B
Relay C can FWD to Dst
2-hop Scheme Performance
2-hop Scheme Performance
How many transmissions?

(M-1)/2
Delay?
T1 = time until source meets any node (M-1)
T2 = time until source meets any node (M-2)
epidemic: time until 2 red meet any of M-2 (smaller)

BUT: a relay node may meet destination in the
meantime!
1) ED(n
n M
1 n M
ET ED(n)
1 n
+

+
+
Rem. Delay
after n copies
Prob{next node
not DST)
Controlled Replication
Controlled Replication
(Spraying)
(Spraying)
2-hop scheme uses (M-1)/2 copies
Still a lot! Only half of epidemic
Limit number of copies to L (small, fixed)
Transmissions = L!
L = 2) Achieves O(1) per node capacity and

deals with Kumars and Guptas conjecture
(capacity 0) (Grossglauser et al. 01)
L > 2 and L = O(1): (constant L)
Still capacity gain
Transmissions << M
Multi-path diversity to reduce delay (Spray & Wait)

Source Spraying
Source Spraying
Only source can give a copy (like 2-hop)
Start with L copies; give one to L-1 first relays

met
Delay (Src Spray) > Delay (2-hop)
Assuming no contention!
Tree-based Spraying
Tree-based Spraying
Use forwarding tokens; SRC starts with L tokens
When L = 1, can only forward to DST

Src
C
B
Dst
D
E
F
D
D
D
D
L = 4
L = 2
L = 2
L = 1
L = 1
L = 1
L = 1
Tree-based Spraying (2)
Tree-based Spraying (2)
I.I.D. movement => Binary is optimal (n

j
= j/2)
Heterogenous => high complexity

L
L-n
1
n
1
j
j-n
j
n
j
Binary Spraying = Time-limited
Binary Spraying = Time-limited
Epidemic
Epidemic
Do epidemic spreading until time T
After T, switch to direct transmission
If T = ET
L
then the same as token-based (on
average
Remember: ET
L
= time until epidemic covers L
nodes
Replication Method Matters
Replication Method Matters
1. Efficient spraying becomes more important for large L
2. Few copies suffice to achieve a delay only 2x the optimal!
(analysis)
Delay of Spray and Wait
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5 10 15 20
L (# of copies)
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s
source spray and wait
binary spray and wait
optimal
100x100 network with 100 nodes
Effect of Traffic Load
Effect of Traffic Load
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
T
o
t
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
random-flood
utility-flood
seek&focus
spray&wait(L=16)
spray&wait(L=10)
(Rand. Way. - 500x500 grid, 100 nodes, Tx Range = (Rand. Way. - 500x500 grid, 100 nodes, Tx Range =
10) 10)
Transmissions Delay
Low traffic >10x epidemic
3-4x other multi-copy
same as epidemic
1.4-2.2x other schemes
High traffic 1.8-3.3x same as above
increasing traffic
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
e
p
i
d
e
m
i
c
r
a
n
d
o
m

f
l
o
o
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
y

f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
(
L
=
1
0
)
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
(
L
=
1
6
)
s
e
e
k
&
f
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

D
e
l
a
y

(
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s
)
increasing traffic
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
e
p
i
d
e
m
i
c
r
a
n
d
o
m

f
l
o
o
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
y

f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
(
L
=
1
0
)
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
(
L
=
1
6
)
s
e
e
k
&
f
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

D
e
l
a
y

(
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s
)
increasing traffic increasing traffic
Covered by Relay 1
3
Spray and Wait: A good scenario
Spray and Wait: A good scenario
S
D
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
15
Relays are highly mobile
Relays routes are uncorrelated
Covered
by Relay 2
3
Spray and Wait: A bad scenario
Spray and Wait: A bad scenario
S
D
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
15
Relays move slowly
Relays move locally and are correlated
Node S community
Node Ds community
Spray & Wait Performance
Spray & Wait Performance
Spray and Wait has desirable performance
IF nodes move frequently around the network

(e.g. VANETs, a mesh network over city
buses, etc.)
But, Spray and Wait may get in trouble if
nodes mobility is restricted inside a local area
nodes mobility is extremely slow (e.g. human

mobility)
Spray & Focus
Spray & Focus
1
st
Phase: Binary Spraying
like Spray & Wait
2
nd
Phase: Utility-based routing with transitivity
for each copy
Advantages:
still: few transmission + redundant copies
plus: take advantage of good transmission

opportunities
copies dont get stuck in local neighborhood

Effect of Connectivity: Random Walk
Effect of Connectivity: Random Walk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
-
f
l
o
o
d
r
a
n
d
o
m
-
f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
s
p
r
a
y
&
f
o
c
u
s T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
K = 15 (7.8%)
K = 20 (14.9%)
K = 25 (35.9%)
K = 30 (68%)
K = 35 (92.5%)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
e
p
i
d
e
m
i
c
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
-
f
l
o
o
d
r
a
n
d
o
m
-
f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y
&
w
a
i
t
s
p
r
a
y
&
f
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

D
e
l
a
y

(
t
i
m
e

u
n
i
t
s
)
Transmissions Transmissions Delivery Delay Delivery Delay
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
-
f
l
o
o
d
r
a
n
d
o
m
-
f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y

&

w
a
i
t
s
p
r
a
y

&

f
o
c
u
s
e
p
i
d
e
m
i
c
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
-
f
l
o
o
d
r
a
n
d
o
m
-
f
l
o
o
d
s
p
r
a
y

&

w
a
i
t
s
p
r
a
y

&

f
o
c
u
s
Transmissions: still ~10x improvement for both protocols
Spray & Wait is slow: suffers from locality of movement
Spray & Focus is the fastest:
Takes advantage of locality
Close-to-optimal (unless very low transmission range)

fastest
slow!
(500x500 square, 100 nodes) (500x500 square, 100 nodes)
Heterogeneous Scenarios
Heterogeneous Scenarios
Community (local) Nodes
Base Stations (p
static
)
Fast/Mobile Nodes (p
fast
)
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
stay inside
community
1-p
R
(i)
Roam around network
(infrequent)
Base Stations (p
static
)
fast
)
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
stay inside
community
1-p
R
(i)
Roam around network
(infrequent)
Effect of Connectivity:
Effect of Connectivity:
Community-based Mobility
(contd)
(contd)
Delay Improvement by Spray and Focus
0
5
10
15
20
25
40 (8.6%) 50 (14.8%) 60 ( 27.7%) 70 (79.2%)
Transmission Range (Connectivity %)
D
e
l
a
y
(
S
W
)

/

D
e
l
a
y

(
S
F
)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1: Homogenous
Community nodes (100%)

Scenario 2: Two types of nodes
Roaming nodes (10%)

Scenario 3: Four types of nodes
Local nodes (40%)
Roaming nodes (10%)
Static nodes (10%)

Spray Routing: Summarizing
Spray Routing: Summarizing
Non-local mobility models: Spray and Wait

10x fewer transmissions AND smaller delay!
Spray and Focus has similar performance; but we dont really
need it
Local mobility models: Spray and Focus

Spray and Wait is slow
Spray and focus has close-to-optimal performance
Why does spraying work?

Law of diminishing returns for number of copies used
Improvements
Improvements
Smart Replication
Who should get the copies?
Other Utility Functions
Energy
Mobility
Trustworthiness
GPS location
Queue Size
Hybrid
An Analytical Framework
Why do we need it?
Why do we need it?
Confirm our previous observations
Predict performance under a larger range of

settings
Use this theory for system-design
e.g. choose the right number of copies for Spraying

approaches
An analytical framework for
An analytical framework for
mobility-assisted routing
mobility-assisted routing
Component 1) Hitting and Meeting Times:
the basic building block;
depends on mobility model;
calculated for: random walk, random direction, random

waypoint, and a new model
Component 2) Multiple copies
Component 3) Forwarding a message
Plug n calculate: calculate the delay of any

scheme by combining the right components
Assumptions
Network area:
Random walk: grid (torus) discrete movement
Waypoint-based models: square (torus) continuous movement
Infinite bandwidth, infinite buffers
calculate delivery delay
Notation:
M: number of nodes
N: network area
K: transmission range (small enough to have partial

connectivity )
E
A
T
B
: expected hitting time from A to B
ET: expected hitting time starting from stationary distribution
EM: expected meeting time between two nodes starting from

stationary distribution
Random Walk
Random Walk
Hitting Time (Tx Range K 0)
Hitting Time (Tx Range K 0)
Hitting time ET = E
X
T
A
(EM still equal to ET/2)
X
Y
A(K)
K = 3
1) E
X
T
A
= E
X
T
Y
- E
A
T
Y
2) E
X
T
Y
= cNLogN
3)
N
1 2
2 K 2
T E
K
1 K
Y A

,
_
,
_

+
1 2
2 K 2
cLogN N ET
K
1 K
p = 0.25
Random Direction (Random Waypoint)
Random Direction (Random Waypoint)
Hitting Time
Hitting Time
Movement is a set of epochs

Method:
1. Probability that any given epoch
hits the destination
2. Expected number of such
epochs (geometric)
3. Multiply by the expected
duration of each epoch T
e
epoch
start
epoch
finish
D
N
N
K
L
S
N
2KL
P
hit

2KL
N
P
1
N
hit
e

e
T
2KL
N
ET
4. EM: divide by (normalized) relative
speed between S and D, v
r

r
v
ET
EM
]
|] v E[|
|] v v E[|
S
D S

Modeling Epidemic Spreading

Case Study: Epidemic Routing/Optimal
Case Study: Epidemic Routing/Optimal
S
D
M nodes
Tx Range = K
1 - M
EM
2) - 2(M
EM
1
2
2
1) - (M
H
EM ED
1 M-
opt

where H
M-1
is the
harmonic sum

H
M1
1
i
i1
M1

Markov Chains (Probabilistic Model)
Markov Chains (Probabilistic Model)
Epidemic Routing
2-hop Routing
N+1: nodes
1/: meeting time
state i: i copies
state A: DST found
Prob(ii+1,t) = (N-
i)*i*t
Modeling Epidemic Spreading:
Modeling Epidemic Spreading:
Fluid Models (Deterministic)
Assume N (num. of nodes)
I(t) = average number of infected nodes at time t

(1)
P(t) = P(T
d
<t) CDF of delivery delay
P(t+dt)-P(t) = Prob{t T
d
t + dt}
= Prob{DST meets one of n
I
(t) infected nodes in [t,t+dt]} * Prob(T
d
>t)
= E[Prob(DST meets n
I
(t) | n
I
(t)] * (1-P(t))
= E[n
I
(t)dt]*(1-P(t))
= I(t) * (1-P(t)) dt
=> (2)
I I) (N (t) I
'

P) (1 I (t) P
'

Modeling Epidemic Spreading (2):
Modeling Epidemic Spreading (2):
Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)
Or systems of ODEs
Sometimes PDEs, too.
Solve (1) for I(t) its a separable ODE
Replace I(t) in (2) and solve for P(t)
Expected Delay
Nt
1)e (N 1
N
I(t)

+
Nt
e 1) (N
N
P(t)

+
1) (N
lnN
P(t))dt (1 ET
0
d
Modeling Message Forwarding

Modeling Message Forwarding
Case Study 2: Randomized algorithm
D
q: probability of Tx jump
q =
1-q: probability of random walk jump
f(K)
f(K): average transmission distance
Average jump length:
D = 1 q + q f(K)
p P(at least one node within range)
Approximate actual message movement with a random

walk performing D independent 1-step jumps at each
time slot
Note: This walk is slower than the actual walk
would reach destination later, on the average
Define an appropriate martingale to show that:

1 D
ED 2
ED
dt
rnd
+
Destination
movement
Message
movement
Note: D + 1 2 randomized is faster than direct transmission
Random Direction/Waypoint: Similar procedure gives
exact result
Message Forwarding (contd)
Message Forwarding (contd)
Utility-based algorithms
Utility-based algorithms
(no transitivity)
(no transitivity)
0 1 2 r-1 r r+1 r-2 r+2 r-K r+K N
Prob{node with higher utility within range AND node is closer to D}
+tx p
tx
p
Prob{node with higher utility within range AND node is farther than D}
p: probability of no forwarding =>
random walk step
p
p p
p
p p p p p
p p p
D
ED
util
is simply the expected hitting time from stationarity
to a state K
*Similar procedure for seek and focus without transitivity
Source Spray and Wait
Source Spray and Wait

ED
dt
i(M- i)
Time until a new
node is found
If not destination,
add extra term
+

,
_

i M
1 i M
P(not destination)
If new node found by
source, forward another
copy
1) ED(i
i
1
+
ED(i)
i
1 i
+
If found by relay,
do nothing
Expected remaining
delay after i copies
are spread
ED(i)
If destination, stop
A similar recursion procedure gives the delay of Optimal Spray

and Wait
Case Study: Choose the Number of
Case Study: Choose the Number of
Copies for Spray and Wait
Copies for Spray and Wait
Exact delay not in closed form
Derive a bound in closed form
This is an upper bound for any Spray and Wait algorithm

ED
sw
ES +
ML1
M1
EW
Spray Phase
Wait Phase
Probability a wait
phase is needed
1 L
1 i
i M
EM
ES

L
EM
EW
Bound is tight for L<<M
Choosing L to achieve specified
Choosing L to achieve specified
delay
delay
Suppose we want to achieve ED

sw
= ED
opt
for
some >1
We choose the minimum L that satisfies

1) - (M
H
EM =
L
EM

1 M
1 L M

i M
EM
1 M-
1 L
1 i

1.5 2 3 4 6 8 10
L
min
21 13 8 6 4 3 2
Some values (for M=100):

Upper bound on ED
sw
ED
opt
What If Network Parameters Are
What If Network Parameters Are
Unknown?
Unknown?
Estimation of M (200x200 grid)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
number of samples
M

v
a
l
u
e
Actual M = 200
Estimated M
1 M
EM
T
1
Applies to any mobility model with exponential meeting times

Method:
,
_
2 M
1
1 M
1
EM T
2
1 2
1 2
2T T
3T 2T
M
Estimator:
To compute L
min
we need to know M
Use meeting times statistics and do online estimation

Routing: Other Issues
Routing: Other Issues
Epidemic Routing: Wasted Resources
Epidemic Routing: Wasted Resources
Epidemic routing hands over a copy to every

node encountered
Even after the message has been delivered!
After the destination is encountered by at least

one relay, no need to keep other copies around
anymore
Unnecessary transmissions (energy, throughput)
Valuable buffer space

Reducing Resource Waste
Reducing Resource Waste
Dis-infection Schemes
Dis-infection Schemes
After one copy has been delivered:

1. Inform other nodes to stop spreading more
copies
No need to give extra copies to non-infected

nodes
1. Remove copy from buffers
Clear up buffer space of infected nodes

Full Erase
Full Erase
When encountering the destination => delete message

from buffer
Node may get a copy again!

A
C
B
dst
D
E
F
D
D
D
D
Delete local copy
X
D
IMMUNE
IMMUNE
Delete packet AND maintain an antipacket
msg id: e.g. (src,dst,seq)
Implies that node is recovered

A
C
B
D
D
E
F
D
D
D
D
Delete local copy
X
B
Recovered Node
msg: (S,D,0)
No new copy to
recovered nodes
D
IMMUNE-TX
IMMUNE-TX
Propagate anti-packet to already infected nodes

A
C
B
dst
D
E
F
D
D
D
D
Delete local copy
X
B
Recovered Node
msg: (S,D,0)
No new copy to
recovered nodes
C
C recovered!
msg: (S,D,0)
D
Avoided this Tx
VACCINE
VACCINE
Propagate anti-packet to ANY node encounter
Vaccinate susceptible nodes

A
C
dst
D
E
F
D
D
B
No new copy to
recovered nodes
C
C recovered!
msg: (S,D,0)
Vaccinate E
D
E
Avoid this Tx, too
SIR Model
SIR Model
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
I: infected nodes
Nodes with a copy, and no anti-packet
R: recovered nodes
Nodes with an anti-packet
S: susceptible nodes (S = N I R)
Havent ever received a copy or anti-packet

SIR Model: ODEs
SIR Model: ODEs
Immune:
Immune-TX
I (t) R'
I - I R) - I - (N (t) I
'
1) I(R (t) R'

1) I(R - I R) - I - (N (t) I
'
+
+
Total number of transmissions
Total number of transmissions
E[Tx] = lim
t
{I(t) + R(t)} I(0)
Immune
I (t) R'
I - I R) - I - (N (t) I
'
1 I(0) 1, - R - I - N
dR
dI

N R 1)e N ( I(R)
R
+ +

N] 1)e N [( lim R(t) lim 0 I(t) lim
R
t t t
+ +

N R(t) lim
t 10 N

>
1 - N E[Tx]
Total Number of Transmissions
Total Number of Transmissions
IMMUNE-TX
1) I(R (t) R'
1) I(R - I R) - I - (N (t) I
'
+
+
1 R
1 1)R - (N R
I(R)
2
+
+ +

2
5 2N N 3 - N
E[Tx]
2
+ +

Performance of Buffer
Performance of Buffer
Management
Management
The more aggressive the recovery scheme
1) the less the total transmissions (ignoring overhead of
antipackets)
2) the smaller the buffer occupancy
Queuing Policies
Queuing Policies
Limited buffer space
Nodes with little memory (e.g. sensors)
Nodes might offer only a small chunk of memory for

3
rd
party traffic
What if a message has to be dropped?

Queuing Policies (2)
Queuing Policies (2)
When new packet arrives on buffer and buffer
is full:
Droptail
drop it if buffer is full
Drophead
drop the oldest packet in buffer (most hops or least

time to TTL expiration)
rational(?): large time in the network => little chance

to be delivered before TTL expires
Drophead-sp (source-prioritized)
Dont drop a source packet for an arriving relay

packet
Queuing Policies: Performance
Queuing Policies: Performance
Drophead: fast infenction, high packet loss for small buffers
Drophead-sp: slower infenction, higher delivery ratio

buffer droptail drophead
drophead
(sp)
5 0.97 0.22 0.05
10 0.95 0.03 0.0
20 0.90 0.002 0.0
QoS Provision
QoS Provision
Multi-type traffic: what about traffic of different

priorities (e.g. emergency messages vs.
advertisements)
Multiple queues? Different forwarding policies
E.g. never drop type A for type B
Different routing policies?

Reducing the overhead of epidemic:
Network Coding
Network Coding
So far we were not changing packets content

Replication
Forwarding
Drops
Coding may combine one or more packets

x
1
x
2
x
3
Outgoing links
Incoming links
x
1
x
2
x
3
Store-and-forward
x
1
x
2
x
3
Network Coding
Network Coding
So far we were not changing packets content

Replication
Forwarding
Drops
Coding may combine one or more packets

Outgoing links
Incoming links
x
1
x
2
x
3
Network Coding
f(x
1
,x
2
,x
3
)
Coding Packets: A simple example
Coding Packets: A simple example
XOR: The simplest combination:

2 1 2 1
x x ) x , f(x
1 0 1 1
msg x
1
:
0 1 1 0
msg x
2
:
1 1 0 1
f(x
1
,x
2
):
De-coding Packets: A simple
De-coding Packets: A simple
example
example
Assume node that send x

1
receives the coded packet
f(x
1
,x
2
)
1 0 1 1
msg x
1
:
0 1 1 0
msg x
2
:
1 1 0 1
f(x
1
,x
2
):
Butterfly Network: Store-and-
Butterfly Network: Store-and-
Forward
Forward
Two sources: S1, S2
R1,R2: receive traffic from both S1 and S2

S1
S2
R2 R1
x
1
x
2
x
1
x
1
Time 1
x
2
x
2
Time 2
x
1
Time 3
x
1
x
2
3 units:
received x
1
,x
2
x
2
Time 4
4 units:
received x
1
,x
2
Butterfly Network: Network
Butterfly Network: Network
Coding
Coding
Two sources: S1, S2
R1,R2: receive traffic from both S1 and S2

S1
S2
R2 R1
x
1
x
2
x
1
x
1
Time 1
x
2
x
2
Time 2
Time 3
3 units:
received x
1
,x
2
3 units:
received x
1
,x
2
2 1
x x
2 1
x x
2 1
x x
Network Coding for Wireless
Broadcast nature of medium: natural ground for

network coding
A B C
B
x
1
A
x
2
B
x
1
A
x
2
B
x
1
A
x
2
No coding: delay = 4
Broadcast nature of medium: natural ground for

network coding
A B C
B
x
1
A
x
2
B
x
1
A
x
2
Coding: delay = 3
2 1
x x
2 1
x x
2 1
x x
Linear Network Coding
Linear Network Coding
m packets
n linear combinations
b
1
= a
11
x
1
+ a
12
x
2
++ a
1m
x
m
b
2
= a
21
x
1
+ a
22
x
2
++ a
2m
x
m
.
b
n
= a
n1
x
1
+ a
n2
x
2
++ a
nm
x
m
independent linear combinations m
Centralized choice of coefficients => Decode!
Distributed) a
i
random and independent
=> decode (prob 1)
Network Coding for Challenged Nets
Network Coding for Challenged Nets
The model
The model
Set of nodes V
N(u): {iV: i neighbor of u}
Set of sources S V (m = |S|)
Messages: x
i
, i=1,,m
x
i
= [x
i1
, x
i2
,, x
iM
], M symbols F
2
k
=

(0,2
k
-1)
K > 8 to ensure independence for random coding
Encoding vectors: g
i
= [g
i1
, g
i2
,, g
im
],
m symbols F
2
k
Encoding matrix G:
row i = (g
i1
,,
,
g
im
| , ,, )
m
1 j
j1 ij
x g

m
1 j
j2 ij
x g

m
1 j
jM ij
x g
Encoding
vector
g
i
*G
i
(G
i
= i
th
symbols of all x
i
}
Encoding Matrix: Example
1 0 0 5 4 1 2
1 1 1 6 3 2 2
- - - - - - -
g
1
=[1,0,0]
g
2
=[1,1,0]
M = 4 (symbols per message)
Encoding vectors (2)
Encoding matrix G at node 1
m = 3 messages in total
Each message contains M = 4 symbols in F
8
1 0 0 5 4 1 2
1 1 1 6 3 2 2
0 1 1 3 7 3 4
g
1
=[1,0,0]
g
2
=[1,1,0]
8
g
2
=[0,1,1]
New encoded message arrived: increase
rank of matrix G?
No! Linearly dependent with 1,2 (x
3
= x
1
XOR x
2
(mod 8))
1 0 0 5 4 1 2
1 1 1 6 3 2 2
1 0 1 2 4 1 0
g
1
=[1,0,0]
g
2
=[1,1,0]
8
g
2
=[1,0,1]
New encoded message arrived: increase
rank of matrix G?
Yes! 3 linearly dependent vectors (Gaussian elimination)
Network Coding for Challenged Nets:
Network Coding for Challenged Nets:
Forwarding
Forwarding
At time t-dt node i receives an innovative

message/vector
With probability d: send (g

i
(t),y
i
(t)) = r
i
(t)*G
i
(t)
r
i
(t) = random vector (in F
2
k
)
Like gossiping: instead of forwarding new message,

forward a linear combination of all messages
currently in buffer!
All nodes in N(i) receive (g

i
(t),y
i
(t))
If not innovative discard
If innovative, add to matrix G and do same process
Need at most m innovative messages to decode
Can probably decode some elements before that!

Performance of Network Coding
Performance of Network Coding
Increase Delivery Ratio: better utilize forwarding

opportunities
Increase average delay (have to wait for multiple

messages to be received
Generation Management:
Generation Management:
Which messages to code
Which messages to code
together?
together?
Assume infinitely large network with a percentage of

nodes being sources
Do we code messages from all sources??
Coding matrix G will be huge!
Delay until all messages decoded
Code messages of subsets of sources together
How do we choose subsets??
Code multiple messages of same source
How many generations??

Network Coding Gains
Network Coding Gains
Generation management: Larger generations

Better coding gains (throughput, energy, delivery)
Larger potential end-to-end delay, complexity
Related nodes in same generation?
Types of traffic
Multiple single-source single-destination messages
One source-one destination, multiple messages
Many sources-one destination
Multiple one source-many destinations messages

(multicast, broadcast)
End-to-end vs. hop-by-hop decoding
End-to-end vs. hop-by-hop decoding
1) Decoding of messages at end nodes
This is what we were looking at so far
Issues with generation management
Potentially long/unbounded delays

1) Opportunistic Network (De-)Coding
Keep track of neighbors messages
Code only if next hop can decode

x
1
x
2
x
3
f(x
1
,x
2
,x
3
)
x
1
x
3
x
1
x
2
x
3
f(x
1
,x
2
,x
3
)
x
1
x
2
Erasure Coding
Erasure Coding
Provide better fault-tolerance by adding

redundancy without the overhead of strict
replication (e.g., Reed-Solomon, Gallager,
Tornado, and IRA codes)
Applications: P2P, overlay routing, WSN, data

storage, etc.
Erasure Coding
Erasure Coding
(r=2, n=4)
A B C D
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
B-1
B-2
B-3 C-1
C-4
D-1
A B C D
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
Lossy Channel Lossy Channel
Layered Multiple Description Coding (LMDC)
Layered Multiple Description Coding (LMDC)
Layered coding
Unequal erasure coding
Video
Web Document
LMDC Examples
LMDC Examples
Transport Layer Issues in DTNs
Transport Layer Issues in DTNs
TCP offers:
Ports
Still used by the overlay bundle layer
Sequencing
Still there, but for bundles
Connection
Impossible in most DTN cases
Reliability
Late ACKs. Large RTT.
Congestion Control
Very difficult to get up-to-date congestion info in partitioned

environments;
Reliability in DTNs:
Hop-by-Hop
Hop-by-Hop
Each message copy forwarded is

acknowledged by the next hop
This holds also if multiple message copies are

propagated (e.g. epidemic)
Hop-by-hop reliability has minimum delay
No need to wait for end-to-end ack
BUT: Hop-by-hop reliability does not

guarantee end-to-end reliability
Active Receipt
Active Receipt
Intermediate node may: lie, shut down, break down.
Active receipt: generated by destination when it

receives the message
Active receipt = new message

Other nodes route it as a normal message
Epidemic spreading of receipt to guarantee

acknowledgement
ACK size < MSG size => less overhead
Vaccinates/Cures other nodes encountered in the
meantime (essentially VACCINE)
Passive Receipt
Passive Receipt
Active receipt: floods two messages
Often, most overhead is MAC access
Passive Receipt:
- generated by destination when it receives the
message
- can only be passed to infected nodes (essentially
IMMUNE-TX)
Plus: less overhead than active receipts
Minus: larger delay than active receipts

Network-Bridged Receipt
Network-Bridged Receipt
Assume complementary network:

DTN + (low bandwidth, connected network)
Cellular network
DTN network: send bulky data (with delay tolerance;
e.g. ftp)
Cellular network: send immediate small ACK
Could even be used for disinfection(?)

Reliability in DTNs
Reliability in DTNs
What else could we try?
Where is each approach applicable?
What is the penalty of late ACKs?
What about ACKing multiple messages
Can we take advantage of mobility/social

structure to improve?
Congestion Control in DTNs
Connected Network
D
Buffer Full
D
D
D
D
D
Message Drop!
Congestion
Notification
Cut back send rate!
S D
Disconnected Network
D
Buffer Full
D
D
D
D
Message Drop!
Congestion
Notification
Cut back send rate!
D
D
D
S
DDDD
No Congestion!
Irrelevant Notification!
Unnecessarily reduce
throughput!
May not see S

Mobility Models
Mobility Models
Random Walk
Random Walk
All nodes perform independent random walks
Move to any neighboring location with probability

p = 0.25
Uniform stationary distribution
torus: on boundary reflect on other side

Brownian Motion as an extension
Normal distribution increments

Random Waypoint
Random Waypoint
Choose a point in the network uniformly
Choose speed randomly
Pause for a random amount of time
Choose another point uniformly and repeat

Pause
Random Direction
Random Direction
Random Waypoint has some problems
Non uniform stationary distribution: concentration in

center
If not started from stationary distribution =>

convergence issues: slowly drifting from uniform to
center
Random Direction
1. Choose direction uniformly in 360
o
2. Move for exponential amount of time
3. Reflect or turn-around on boundary
Uniform Stationary Distribution
Other Models
Other Models
Manhattan Model
All nodes move within restricted street

borders
Grid structure (vertical and horizontal

streets, like Manhattan)
Stop lights?
Freeway Model
Nodes move on lanes of one line; lanes in

both directions
Potentially other crossing freeways
Speed considerations between nodes in

same lane
Group Mobility
Subset of nodes associated with a leader
Followers make move based on leaders

move
Impact of Mobility Model on
Impact of Mobility Model on
Performance
Performance
A study comparison between DSR, AODV,

TORA, and DSDV under Random Waypoint
All routing protocols (proactive and reactive)

Showed DSR was better overall
Comparison for different mobility models (Rand.

Waypoint, Freeway, Manhattan, etc.)
Winner depends on mobility model; AODV
actually better in more cases
Some Common Assumption of
Some Common Assumption of
Synthetic Mobility Models
Synthetic Mobility Models
No location preference
Uniform choice of destination
Uniform stationary distribution
IID node mobility
Every node is doing the same
Statistically equivalent
Real-life Mobility
Real-life Mobility
Base Stations (p
static
)
fast
)
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
stay inside
community
1-p
R
(i)
Roam around network
(infrequent)
Base Stations (p
static
)
fast
)
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
stay inside
community
1-p
R
(i)
Roam around network
(infrequent)
Common Mobility Models:
Common Mobility Models:
What is Wrong?
What is Wrong?
Location preference?
Nodes dont visit all locations equally frequently
Usually: spent most of the time in a small subset of locations

(e.g. office, house, library, etc.)
Identical node behavior?
Different nodes; some more mobile than others
Vehicles vs. pedestrians; first-year student vs. graduate student
Does time play any role?
Morning: commute to work
Noon: lunch
Weekend-vs-week
What else?
Social relationships
Traces From Real Wireless Networks
Traces From Real Wireless Networks
WLAN (WiFi) traces
Collect logs from deployed WLANs in campuses
Association(s) between user node and Access

Point(s) (AP)
Traces of contacts between different wireless

nodes (ad hoc mode)
PDAs carried around by users
Logs of different encounters (e.g. PDA associations)

DTN: We Care About Contacts
DTN: We Care About Contacts
Contact traces => we get this directly
WLAN traces: translate Node-AP associations

into Node-Node associations
Same AP at the same time => contact
Not always true
What happens between APs?

Public DTN Traces
Public DTN Traces
ZebraNet
Bus trace (SF, Toronto, DieselNet)
Campus trace (UCSD, Dartmouth, MIT)
Conference trace (Infocom, SIGCOMM)
Enterprise trace (Intel, IBM)

http://crawdad.org
Traces: What Have We Learned?
Traces: What Have We Learned?
Location/Node preference
Tend to see specific locations/nodes, more often

than other
Node Heterogeneity
Some nodes see all locations/nodes; others a small

subset
Behavior over time
Different for different time of day, day of week, etc.
Periodic behavior
Capture Location Preference

local
C
i
Community (e.g. house, campus)
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
Rest of the network
Roam outside community
(Rand. Direction or Waypoint)
p
R
(i)
stay inside
community
Continue roaming
1-p
R
(i)
Community-based Mobility (2)
Capture Node Heterogeneity
Each node may have a different community

local roam
p
L
(i)
1-p
L
(i)
1-p
R
(i)
p
R
(i)
Node i
local roam
p
L
(j)
1-p
L
(j)
1-p
R
(j)
p
R
(j)
Node j
Multiple Communities (house, office, library, cafeteria)

House
(C
1
)
Community (e.g. house, campus)
p
11
(i)
p
12
(i)
Rest of the network
p
21
(i)
Office
C
2
Library
C
3
p
23
(i)
p
32
(i)
Multiple Communities (house, office, library, cafeteria)

C
1
C
2
p
11
(i)
p
12
(i)
p
21
(i)
p
22
(i)
C
4
C
3
p
32
(i)
p
43
(i)
p
24
(i)
Inter-Community Mobility?
Intra-Community Mobility?
Capture time-dependent behavior
t = {morning, noon, weekend,}

C
1
C
2
p
11
(i)
(t)
p
12
(i)
(t)
p
21
(i)
(t)
p
22
(i)
(t)
C
4
C
3
p
32
(i)
(t)
p
43
(i)
(t)
p
24
(i)
(t)
Mobility Profile
Mobility Profile
Macroscopic View of Mobility
Node i: {
(i)
(C
1
),
(i)
(C
2
),,
(i)
(C
n
)}
Approach 1: Route towards most popular

communities (e.g. geographic routing)
Approach 2: {
(i)
(C
1
),
(i)
(C
2
),,
(i)
(C
n
)} =
coordinates in an n-dimensional space
Route to nodes whose distance is small in this
n-dimensional space
Multi-tiered Community
Multi-tiered Community
Roaming outside local community is not uniform either!
Move further away from local community with

decreasing probability
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
p
12
(i)
(t)
p
13
(i)
(t)
p
14
(i)
(t)
Inter-contact Times
Inter-contact Times
Time between subsequent encounters with the

same node
Consecutive transmission opportunities to a

given node
Contact-based trace measurements: what is

the distribution of inter-contact times?
WLAN traces (Dartmouth, UCSD)
Inter-node (ad hoc mode) traces (Cambridge,

Toronto)
CCDF for Inter-contact Times
CCDF for Inter-contact Times
LOG-LOG plots
Straight line in log-log plot => power law/heavy-tailed (slope = exponent)
CCDF for Inter-contact Times (2)
CCDF for Inter-contact Times (2)
WLAN traces: similar behavior

Power Law Distributions
Power Law Distributions
P[X > x] = x
-a
Infinite variance
a < 2: infinite mean
There is a high probability that some very large

values will be drawn if X is sampled sequentially
Contrast: exponential decay variables
Very large values: almost improbable
Most of the mobility models (synthetic)

presented so far had exponential tails
Power Law Distributions:
Power Law Distributions:
Complications
Complications
Theory: most analysis (Markov, ODEs,

combinatorics) assumes exponential tail
Essentially for X
1
,X
2
,,X
n
IID and exponential
E[min{X
1
,X
2
,,X
n
}] = EX / n
Protocol Performance
Opportunistic routing: give a copy randomly
Depending on the exponent (a) any opportunistic

protocol (e.g. direct transmission, 2-hop,
spray&wait) may have infinite delay!
But is it REALLY Heavy-tailed?
But is it REALLY Heavy-tailed?
Power-law only within a range of CCDF
What about the rest of the tail (artifact of experiments, or not

power-law really)?
Lognormal Seems Fit Better
Lognormal Seems Fit Better
Inevitable Censorship in Measurements
Inevitable Censorship in Measurements
5x10^3
0.4
6.6x10^6
0.06
Survival Curve Survival Curve
P(T>t)
6x10^4
0.2
UCSD trace
censored data censored data
Self-Similarity Test
Self-Similarity Test
Hurst values are located between [0.5,1]
Time-Variance Plot, R/S Plot, Periodogram Plot, Whittle

Estimator
Social Networks
Social Networks
Social Networks
Social Networks
Social Network: who interacts with whom? Who

is a friend of whom?
Graph model: Vertices = humans, Weighted

Edges = strength of interaction
Social Network-based Mobility
Social Network-based Mobility
Model
Model
1. Create (simulation) or Derive (from existing
info e.g. department affiliation) a social
network among all nodes
2. Assign nodes to communities according to
social network
3. Assign communities to locations
4. Induce mobility based on social network
Communities in Social Networks
Social networks have high clustering co-efficient
Interaction Matrix = Connectivity Matrix
For all weights > threshold => assume a connected link
Identify Communities: Find nodes that connect

communities (intuition: shortest paths go through these)
Community 1 Community 2 Community 3
Social networks have high clustering co-efficient
Interaction Matrix = Connectivity Matrix
For all weights > threshold => assume a connected link
Identify Communities: Find nodes that connect

communities (intuition: shortest paths go through these)
Community 1 Community 2
B: connects 1,2
Mapping Communities to
Mapping Communities to
Locations
Locations
Assume a grid with different locations of interest
Geographic consideration might gives us the candidate locations

Mobility Between Communities
Mobility Between Communities
p
c
(i)
= attraction of node i to community/location c
p
2
(B)
(t)
p
1
(B)
(t)
C} {j
w
p
C j
ij
(i)
C
p
3
(B)
(t)
Social Network-based Mobility Model
Social Network-based Mobility Model
Can reproduce similar behavior to (heavy-tailed)

traces
Inter-contact times
Contact durations
Some issues
Nodes move only between specific (community)

locations
Different social graph weights depending on time of

day
Evolve social graph weights

Social Networks for Information
Social Networks for Information
Dissemination
Dissemination
Social networks are often better to find information that is

location, community, or time-specific!
Small World and Scale-Free properties
Separation/diameter is smaller than random networks
Query can often be answered quicker through peers
Example: where is a good Thai restaurant in Nice?
Approach 1: Find PC => Google => look websites that

rate restaurant => hope the one suggested IS actually
good
Approach 2: Ask friend who lives in Nice (he might now,

or have heard, or ask another friend)
What if we could do this wirelessly also?

PeopleNet Architecture
PeopleNet Architecture
Cellular Networks (WiMaX) as main

infrastructure
Bluetooth peer-to-peer networks (WiFi ad

hoc)
Users transmit querys
Request query: who knows/has X? (ticket to

Monaco rally)
Offer query: I have/know Y
Queries are tagged according to some subject

(e.g. sports, finance, news, etc.)
PeopleNet Architecture (2)
PeopleNet Architecture (2)
A query is sent to a subset of locations/base

stations that have been assigned to the given
query type
Geography might play a role: e.g. where is the closest

local bookstore?
A few users receive the query through

infrastructure, and propagate further using peer-to-
peer messages
If a match is found, requesting user is notified

(SMS, email)
Further Issues
Further Issues
Research Issues
Research Issues
Routing
Buffer Management
Power Management
Auto-Configuration
Network Reliability
Free-riders
Black holes
Worm holes
Information Security
Data Encryption
Real-world applications (and killer applications)
Underwater Networks, Vehicular Networks, People Networks,

Scientific Monitoring Networks, etc.

DTN

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DTN

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Delay-Tolerant Networks

Internet, Telephone network

Wired or fixed links

Cellular Networks: Wired backbone + wireless last link

A SUCCESS STORY for voice/SMS!

Internet? (GPRS): not really (low bandwidth + high price)

Still: only wireless

Only Partial Coverage: HOTSPOTS

No real mobile computing!

Self-organized: no wired infrastructure

Peer-to-peer: nodes are routers

Examples: sensor nets; disaster recovery, etc.

The past approach: apply the successful and well

Assume existence of explicit links (strong enough SINR)

Establish end-to-end paths

Mobility might change these paths: re-establish them

Ad-hoc Networks: A success story?

No real ad hoc application (killer app) out there

except maybe some military networks

Why? Most wireless networks are NOT like the

E2E path doesnt have really long delay

Reacting to flow control in -RTT effective

Reacting to congestion in 1-RTT effective

E2E path doesnt have really big, small, or

Re-ordering might happen, but not much

End stations dont cheat

Links not very lossy (<1%)

Connectivity exists through some path

Even MANET routing usually assumes this

Nodes dont move around or change addresses

Easy to assign addresses in hierarchy

Thought to be important for scalability

In-network storage is limited

Not appropriate to store things long-term in network

Routers are flakier than end hosts

Random and predictable node mobility

Military/tactical networks (clusters meet clusters)

Mobile routers w/ disconnections

Big delays, low bandwidth (high cost)

Exotic links (deep space comms, underwater

Big delays, high bandwidth

Busses, mail trucks, delivery trucks, etc.

High error rates/low usable capacity

Very large delays

Different network architectures

High latency, low data rate

e.g. 10 kbps, 1-2 second latencies

Asymmetric data rates

Routing subsystem should not treat predictable disconnections

Long queueing times

Conventional networks rarely greater than a second

Challenged network could be hours or days due to disconnection

Networks may use application-specific framing

End-to-end approach not attractive

Require end-to-end exchanges of keys

Undesirable to carry traffic to destination before

Round-trip time may exceed nodes lifetime making

Low duty cycle operation

Disconnection affects routing protocols

Affects ability to store and retransmit data due to

E2E path may not exist

Lack of many redundant links

Path may not be discoverable (e.g., fast oscillations)