Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Zone Routing Protocol
Next

Share

Fisheye State Routing (FSR) - Protocol Overview

Overview of the Fisheye State Routing (FSR) for cellular networks, IDC 2012
By Yoav Francis and Nir Solomon

(Part of a performance comparison of various routing algorithms in cellular networks)

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Fisheye State Routing (FSR) - Protocol Overview

  1. 1. Fisheye State Routing Protocol Overview By: Nir Solomon Yoav Francis Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya
  2. 2. Ad-Hoc Network A wireless network between mobile nodes No infrastructure Limited communication distance Low-powered users How to route messages? Flooding/Broadcast Not scalable Using the shortest path from source to destination Requires nodes to keep topology data
  3. 3. Ad-Hoc Network (cont.) Node moves cause network topology changes Results in routes change Nodes need to update their topology information A node disconnecting to or from a neighbor needs to notify other nodes There are many upates – must make update process efficient Low overhead Fast propagation
  4. 4. Ad-Hoc Routing algorithms  Proactive:  Always monitor network topology  Advantage: Always know how to route to any node  Disadvantages: Routing table storage Periodic control traffic overhead  Example protocols: LSR, FSR  Reactive:  Look for a route only when need to send a packet  Advantages: Low routing table storage No periodic control traffic  Disadvantage: route search overhead  Example protocols: TORA, DSR
  5. 5. Link State Routing Each node holds a routing table with the link state of all nodes in the network Periodically or on link change: flood “link state” – list of neighbors (neighbor = 1 hop) Re-broadcasts link state information received from neighbors Use timestamp to distinguish new from stale updates Routing The destination is stored in the message header Each forwarding node finds the shortest path to the destination according to its routing table  On each update of the topology map – each node must calculate the shortest path to all other nodes again.
  6. 6. Link State Routing drawbacks As the number of nodes grow or mobility increases: Routing tables grow linearly Link state overhead grow linearly – the overhead packets will consume most of the bandwidth as network size increases. Not scalable
  7. 7. • Fish do have 360° (or almost) vision. • Fishes (and humans) do have a higher concentration of optic nerves close to they focal point than elsewhere in they eye. • As a result fisheye captures with high detail the points near the focal point Fisheye Vision
  8. 8. Fisheye Vision (Cont.)
  9. 9. Published in “Fisheye State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks” in 2000, by Guangyu Pei , Mario Gerla , Tsu-Wei Chen at ICDCS. Aim – Reduce routing updates overhead in large ad-hoc networks. Background
  10. 10. Fisheye State Routing (FSR) • Proactive link-state routing protocol. • Similar to link state as it maintains a full topology map at each node – Periodic exchange of Hello packet. – Periodic exchange of topology tables within the local neighbors only (instead of flooding the entire network) . • Topology tables update frequency decreases with distance to destination – Updates for a near destination are propagated more frequently then updates for a remote destination
  11. 11. Fisheye State Routing (Cont.) Every node holds:  Neighbor list  Topology Table  Next Hop Table  Distance Table For large network, in order to reduce the size of the routing update message, the FSR technique uses different exchange periods for different entries in the routing table. Relative to each node, the network is divided into different scopes.
  12. 12. Fisheye State Routing (Cont.) Central Node 1-hop neighbor 2-hops or more neighbor The link state updates of the nodes in scope k are sent every 2k-1 T to all the neighboring nodes •K is the hop distance •T is the link state updates transmission period Scope 1 Scope 2
  13. 13. Fisheye State Routing (Cont.)  Maintain accurate routing information for immediate neighbors.  Progressively less detail as distance increases.  Link state of immediate neighbors are exchanged more frequently.  The exchange frequency decreases proportionally to the distance.  As the packet gets closer to the destination, the accuracy increases.
  14. 14. Fisheye State Routing 0 5 1 2 4 3 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} 1 0 1 1 2 2 LST HOP 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} 2 1 2 0 1 2 LST HOP 0:{1} 1:{0,2,3} 2:{5,1,4} 3:{1,4} 4:{5,2,3} 5:{2,4} 2 2 1 1 0 1 LST HOP Entries in black are exchanged more frequently
  15. 15. Simulation Results
  16. 16. FSR – Conclusions  Major scalability benefit: link state overhead decreases significantly  Unsolved problems: Route table size still grows linearly with network size Out of date routes to remote destinations
  17. 17. Our Project
  18. 18. Questions? Thanks!
  • aryasomayajulabhanup

    May. 5, 2019
  • aabohadi

    Nov. 15, 2018
  • charirambabu

    Apr. 23, 2018
  • shreyanksharma007

    Mar. 20, 2018
  • furqanazam54

    Nov. 18, 2017
  • selvanayakidurai

    Oct. 26, 2017
  • abunoam

    May. 14, 2017
  • xiaolun1

    Jan. 29, 2017
  • PranavBalipadi

    Jun. 8, 2015
  • vkmmittal

    May. 11, 2015
  • anjireddysoftware

    Apr. 21, 2015
  • rohitsharmaansh

    Dec. 3, 2014
  • eng_samah

    Aug. 7, 2014
  • alekaaktau

    Feb. 26, 2014

Overview of the Fisheye State Routing (FSR) for cellular networks, IDC 2012 By Yoav Francis and Nir Solomon (Part of a performance comparison of various routing algorithms in cellular networks)

Views

Total views

9,114

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

3

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

14

×