Real-World Performance of current Mesh Protocols in a small-scale - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

real world performance of current mesh protocols in a
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Real-World Performance of current Mesh Protocols in a small-scale - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Real-World Performance of current Mesh Protocols in a small-scale Dual-Radio Multi-Link Environment Karl Jonas Manuel Hachtkemper Michael Rademacher manuel.hachtkemper@inf.h-brs.de karl.jonas@h-brs.de michael.rademacher@h-brs.de 22. ITG


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Real-World Performance of current Mesh Protocols in a small-scale Dual-Radio Multi-Link Environment

Manuel Hachtkemper

manuel.hachtkemper@inf.h-brs.de

Michael Rademacher

michael.rademacher@h-brs.de

Karl Jonas

karl.jonas@h-brs.de

  • 22. ITG Fachtagung Mobilkommunikation

May 10, 2017

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Table of Contents

Introduction and motivation Dual-radio mesh networks Setups Test procedure Results Conclusion

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Introduction and motivation - Internet in rural areas

Using a cost-efficent technology to bring connectivity to rural areas.

◮ Local distribution of connectivity is the next step. ◮ Dual-Radio WiFi Mesh Networks are (among others) one option:

  • Which mesh protocol to prefer?

[Babel, B.A.T.M.A.N. V, BMX7, OLSRv2]

  • Which dual-radio setup to prefer?

Internet

PSTN

Core Network Access Backhaul: WiFi Long-Distance Multi-Radio Mesh Access: WiFi Dual-Radio Mesh

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Dual-radio mesh networks

Wireless router Wireless client Channel A Channel B Internet Ethernet

1 2 4 3 5

Example of a wireless mesh network with two radios attached to each router.

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Setup 1

Ethernet Wireless router Wireless client Channel A Traଏc source

Setup 1 for the experiments: One radio for everything on one channel; second radio unused.

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Setup 2

Wireless router Wireless client Channel A Channel B Ethernet Traଏc source

Setup 2 for the experiments: One radio for the mesh on one channel and another radio with a different channel for the clients.

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Setup 3

Wireless router Wireless client Channel A Channel B Ethernet Traଏc source

Setup 3 for the experiments: One channel for both mesh network and clients and a second radio with another channel for the mesh network.

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Preliminary considerations for the experiments

◮ Has the system to “warm-up”? For how long? ◮ How to generate traffic? And for how long? ◮ How to get the measurement reproducible? ◮ How to prevent that different measurements affect each other?

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Length of measurements

20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 100 200 300 400 500 600 data rate (kbit/s) time (s) measurement 1 measurement 2 measurement 3 measurement 4 measurement 5 measurement 6 measurement 7 measurement 8 measurement 9 measurement 10

Development of the data rate over a period of 10 minutes. Intermediate values were taken every 10 seconds and always the overall data rate since the start is calculated. (Babel, Setup 3)

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Length of measurements

  • 100

200 300 400 500 600 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 time (s) mean deviation (%)

  • Deviation in reference to previous value

95% confidence interval

Development of the data rate over a period of 10

  • minutes. The mean percentage deviation in reference

to previous mean value is shown. (Babel, Setup 3) Percentage deviation: rel_devx10−x20 = x20 − x10 x10 ∗ 100 Confidence interval: [x ± tn−1,1−α/2 ∗ s √n] α = confidence level n = number of observations s =

  • 1

n − 1

n

  • i=1

(xi − x)2

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Reproducibility / test procedure

Wireless router Wireless client Tra

✁c source

1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 2m C1 C2 C5 C6 R4 R3 R2 C3 R1 C1 C4

Physical placement of nodes. Picture of the setup (in an underground parking lot).

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Hypothesis

  • 1. Using dual-radio routers compared to single-radio routers doubles the

achievable data rate for clients.

◮ 2 channels = 2 * bandwidth = 2 * data rate

  • 2. The mesh routing protocol influences the results, although all routers

are direct neighbors.

◮ Different overhead for each protocol

  • 3. Using both channels for the mesh (Setup 3) is worse than having a

dedicated channel for all clients and one for the mesh (Setup 2).

◮ More mesh protocol overhead ◮ The routing protocol may use the channel which is occupied by the

clients

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Results: Single channel (S1) vs dual channel (S2)

15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 B a b e l S 1 B a b e l S 2 B . A . T . M . A . N . V S 1 B . A . T . M . A . N . V S 2 B M X 7 S 1 B M X 7 S 2 O L S R v 2 S 1 O L S R v 2 S 2 data rate (kbit/s)

Box plot of the results of Setup 1 and 2. Each box plot consists of ten measurements, where each data point is the sum of the six client results.

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Dedicated access (S2) vs mixed mesh/access (S3)

26000 28000 30000 32000 34000 36000 38000 40000 B a b e l S 2 B a b e l S 3 B . A . T . M . A . N . V S 2 B . A . T . M . A . N . V S 3 B M X 7 S 2 B M X 7 S 3 O L S R v 2 S 2 O L S R v 2 S 3 data rate (kbit/s)

Box plot of the results of Setup 2 and 3. Each box plot consists of ten measurements, where each data point is the sum of the six client results.

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Conclusion

◮ Mesh protocols have specific features for multi-radio networks. ◮ Expected: Dual-radio routers = 2 * data rate of single-radio routers. ◮ Not expected: Different mesh protocols lead to similar results (in our

scenario).

◮ Not expected: Using both radios within the mesh is equally good and

should be preferred (in our scenario).

◮ The protocol overhead is negligible in small networks 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Thank you very much!

Are there any questions?

Manuel Hachtkemper

manuel.hachtkemper@inf.h-brs.de

Michael Rademacher

michael.rademacher@h-brs.de

Karl Jonas

karl.jonas@h-brs.de

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

References

[1]

  • L. Cerdà-Alabern, A. Neumann, and L. Maccari. “Experimental Evaluation of BMX6 Routing Metrics in a 802.11an Wireless-Community Mesh

Network”. In: Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 2015 3rd International Conference on. 2015, pp. 770–775. doi: 10.1109/FiCloud.2015.28. [2] Open Mesh. Network Wide Multi Link Optimization (technical documentation). https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Network-wide-multi-link-optimization. [Online; last visit 2016-11-20]. 2016. [3]

  • J. Chroboczek. Diversity Routing for the Babel Routing Protocol. Internet-Draft draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-00. IETF Secretariat,
  • 2014. url: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-00.txt.

[4] Open Mesh. B.A.T.M.A.N. V. https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/BATMAN_V. [Online; last visit 2016-11-8]. 2016. [5]

  • G. Daneels. Analysis of the BMX6 Routing Protocol (Master’s Thesis). Belgium: University of Antwerp, 2013.

[6]

  • J. Chroboczek. The Babel Routing Protocol. RFC 6126 (Experimental). Updated by RFCs 7298, 7557. Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 2011.

url: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6126.txt. [7]

  • T. Clausen et al. The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2. RFC 7181 (Proposed Standard). Updated by RFCs 7183, 7187, 7188,
  • 7466. Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 2014. url: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7181.txt.

[8] “IEEE Standard for Information Technology – Telecommunications and information exchange between systems – Local and metropolitan area networks – Specific requirements. Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications”. In: IEEE Std 802.11-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.11-2007) (2012), pp. 1–2793.

17