Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Initial Scenario Description

From: Philippe Jacquet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:32:46 +0100

Dear Pratik,

I have tried a formula that we have developped for OLSR on TDMA (see 
[1]). It is very convenient because it allows to quickly identify the 
potential bottlenecks in the system parameters and to check its 
potential limits. I tried on your scenarios (see attached file). It is 
based on powerful analytic tools that take into acccount the wave 
propagation model and the latest Gupta and Kumar scaling properties. Of 
course extensive simulations would be needed in order to catch the 
specifities of each scenarios.

The model works only on homogeneous networks where all nodes have the 
same propagation properties. We are trying to work out an heterogeneous 
model. For this purpose I need to ask you what are the main reasons for 
radio range discrepancies: is it a difference in wave propagation or a 
difference in transmit power?

I hope this helps,
Philippe

[1] C. Adjih, E. Baccelli, P. Jacquet, “/Link State Routing in Ad Hoc 
Wireless Networks 
<http://self.d.free.fr/cv/publications/MILCOM_2003.pdf>/,“ Proceedings 
of MILCOM 2003 - IEEE Military Communications Conference, vol. 22, no. 
1, pp. 1274-1279, Boston, USA, Oct. 2003. 
http://self.d.free.fr/cv/publications/MILCOM_2003.pdf

Bose, Pratik wrote:

>Tom, 
>
>Will look into radio parameters and get back to the mailing list. On
>your question on disconnectedness, the actual scenario has actual
>trajectory of vehicles, so there might a difference of how much
>connected the network is between the two different mobility models (i.e.
>random vs. defined-trajectory), but the vehicles do move in a larger
>grid area, and therefore can be subject to this behavior regardless. 
>
>Also, what do you think about upgrading the software to support
>different speeds or ranges for vehicles in a given scenario. Is that a
>change that can be incoporated ? All the scenarios seem to be have this
>key characteristic, and truthfully, different speeds and ranges will be
>true for any real world deployment.....
>
>Thanks, 
>
>Pratik
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Henderson, Thomas R [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 12:11 PM
>>To: Bose, Pratik; [email-masked]
>>Subject: RE: [Ospf-manet] Initial Scenario Description
>>
>>Pratik,
>>Thanks for distilling your scenarios into something that we 
>>can try to use. Questions below:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bose, Pratik [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:43 PM
>>>To: [email-masked]
>>>Subject: RE: [Ospf-manet] Initial Scenario Description
>>>
>>>A first and quick glance at the software seems to indicate 
>>>      
>>>
>>that GTNetS 
>>    
>>
>>>does support the capability of specifying different radio 
>>>      
>>>
>>ranges and 
>>    
>>
>>>velocity for nodes. However the current software does not 
>>>      
>>>
>>incorporate 
>>    
>>
>>>this capability. We should consider whether the software can be 
>>>upgraded with this functionality , if the effort is not 
>>>      
>>>
>>'too much'. We 
>>    
>>
>>>can then simulate any desired real world scenario.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think that it is doable within reasonable effort.  Radio 
>>range should be very easy to set on a per-node basis, 
>>although making range a function of whether moving or pausing 
>>would be new; mobility will require a little bit more work.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Having said that, the info below presents an actual deployment 
>>>scenario, followed by tailored extractions which can be run on the 
>>>software as it stands today without the above modification.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Pratik
>>>
>>>OSPF MANET Scenario Definitions
>>>
>>>Real world deployment scenarios for OSPF-MANET are expected to have 
>>>different levels complexity. As per IETF-64 the current scenario is 
>>>defined as follows:
>>>
>>>Scenario ID: 1
>>>Grid Size = 500 m^2
>>>Radio Range = 250 m
>>>Velocity = 10 m/s
>>>Pause Time = 40 s
>>>
>>>The following scenarios are proposed as additions to the above 
>>>scenario based on deployment models for different ground 
>>>      
>>>
>>and airborne 
>>    
>>
>>>wireless networks. However while defining the scenario certain 
>>>constraints of the current simulation runs may require a 
>>>      
>>>
>>'tailoring' 
>>    
>>
>>>of the scenario. The scenarios are thus presented here in 
>>>      
>>>
>>two steps. 
>>    
>>
>>>The actual deployment scenario is first described, which is then 
>>>tailored to one or more scenarios to match current simulation 
>>>constraints.
>>>
>>>A typical Actual Ground Deployment Scenario
>>>
>>>No. of Mobile Nodes = 300
>>>No. of Static Nodes = 800
>>>Grid Size = 300,000 m x 300,000 m
>>>Radio Range = 1000 m, 2000 m, 12000 m
>>>Velocity = 10 m/s
>>>Pause Time = 1 hour
>>>Radio Range during Pause = 12000 m
>>>
>>>The above deployment scenario is tailored into the 
>>>      
>>>
>>following scenario 
>>    
>>
>>>based on analysis of each node's characteristics and the 100 node 
>>>limit for current scenarios:
>>>
>>>Scenario ID: 2
>>>No. of Nodes = 100
>>>Grid Size = 150,000 m x 150,000 m
>>>Radio Range = 1000 m
>>>Velocity = 10 m/s
>>>Pause Time = 1 hr
>>>Radio Range during Pause = 12000 m
>>>
>>>Note: Scenario ID 2 is arrived by considering only a portion of the 
>>>mobile nodes in the Actual Deployment Scenario. It also 
>>>      
>>>
>>eliminates all 
>>    
>>
>>>static nodes from the scenario and picks only a certain 
>>>      
>>>
>>type of mobile 
>>    
>>
>>>nodes with one value of radio range.\
>>>      
>>>
>>A few questions:
>>- are you comfortable with how the radio is modeled (see 
>>section 3.2 of our technical report)?  For instance, the 
>>relationship between carrier-sense threshold and receive 
>>threshold, as governed by the parameter alpha?
>>- how about the MAC-- do you assume TDMA?
>>- we are not running simulations for multiple hours, so in 
>>effect, pause time of 1 hour means a static node.  It seems 
>>to me that your model will have most modes paused at any 
>>given instant, in any case.
>>- the density (100 nodes) in your grid size, along with the 
>>radio range, seems to suggest that the network will be mostly 
>>disconnected.  Is that intentional?
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Actual Airborne Deployment Scenario
>>>No. of Airborne Nodes = 60
>>>No. of Ground Mobile Nodes = 300
>>>No. of Static Nodes = 800
>>>Grid Size = 200,000 m x 200,000 m
>>>Radio Range = 20,000 m to ground nodes Radio Range of 
>>>      
>>>
>>Airborne Nodes 
>>    
>>
>>>(LOS) = 300,000 m Velocity = 300 m/s Pause Time = N/A Radio Range 
>>>during Pause = N/A
>>>
>>>Tailoring of this scenario can be as Scenario ID 4 & 5 below. 
>>>But Scenario ID 4 requires a change to the capability that 
>>>      
>>>
>>different 
>>    
>>
>>>radio ranges/velocity are specified vehicles in a scenario
>>>
>>>Scenario ID: 4
>>>No. of Airborne Nodes = 60
>>>No. of Ground Mobile Nodes = 40
>>>Grid Size = 200,000 x 200,000 m
>>>Radio Range = 20,000 for airborne nodes; 2000 m for ground nodes 
>>>Velocity = 300 m/s for airborne nodes; 10 m/s for ground 
>>>      
>>>
>>nodes Pause 
>>    
>>
>>>Time = 1 hour for ground nodes Radio Range during Pause = 
>>>      
>>>
>>12000 m for 
>>    
>>
>>>ground nodes
>>>
>>>
>>>Note: Certain limitiation exist in this tailoring. First the planes 
>>>will sometimes not see each other which may often not be 
>>>      
>>>
>>the case with 
>>    
>>
>>>their LOS range of 300 km. But what this scenario is trying to 
>>>simulate is the communication between ground nodes and 
>>>      
>>>
>>airborne nodes.
>>    
>>
>>>Scenario ID: 5
>>>No. of Airborne Nodes = 60
>>>Grid Size = 200,000 x 200,000 m
>>>Radio Range = 300,000 m
>>>Velocity = 300 m/s for airborne nodes
>>>Pause Time = N/A
>>>Radio Range during Pause = N/A
>>>
>>>Scenario 5 forms the other sliver of the actual deployment scenario.
>>>This scenario simulates only the planes talking to each other. In 
>>>comparion to Scenario 1 Scenario 5 constructs a smaller grid/range 
>>>ratio with faster moving vehicles
>>>      
>>>
>>In the airborne case, I would be somewhat concerned that our 
>>radio/MAC models are not adequate for good modeling.  Do you 
>>have assumptions on those aspects?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tom
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ospf-manet mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet