Data Delay Analysis

In the following figures, we focuses on the analysis of the end-to-end delay exper- imented by alert messages to cover the Risk Zone. For space reasons, we describe only the results obtained in scenario B. Results on scenario A are not shown since they basically confirm the same trend.

Figure 5.8 shows the average end-to-end delay experienced by alert messages to cover a variable distance (x ) in the scenario B when a low-density configuration (200 vehicles over 8 km) is considered. The Dynamic Backbone Assisted MAC falls in

92 Chapter 5. MAC and Clustering Integration in VANETs 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Delay (s) Distance (m) End-to-end Delay, 600 Vehicles MAC 802.11 DCF

Fast Broadcast MAC Backbone-Assisted MAC Static Backbone-Assisted MAC

Figure 5.9: End-to-end Delay, 600 Vehicles, Scenario B

the range between the Static Backbone Assisted MAC and the 802.11-based flood- ing scheme. Quite surprisingly, the Fast Broadcast MAC protocol produces average delay worst than the flooding protocol. This problem is caused by the settings of the contention window. In the 802.11 DCF MAC protocol, the contention win- dow size is set to the minimum value (CWM in) for the transmissions of broadcast

messages (since no feedback is obtained by missing acks to implement binary ex- ponential backoff). Given the low vehicle density, most flooding transmissions are successful. In the Fast Broadcast protocol, the contention window is dynamically managed, resulting equal to CWM in only for forwarding nodes located at the maxi-

mum transmission distance from the sender. Hence, in a low density scenario, it may happen frequently that the (farthest) forwarding vehicle uses a contention window > CWM in, for each hop, resulting in high end-to-end delay.

Figure 5.9 shows the average end-to-end delay in a high-density scenario (600 vehicles over 8 km). In general, the effect of the increased message-load translates in higher end-to-end delay than Figure 5.8. However, the performance of the DBA- MAC scheme is close to the performance of the ideal static backbone assisted MAC. Figure 5.9 demonstrates the advantage of using a cross-layered MAC and backbone solution to support fast propagation of broadcast messages. Both 802.11 and Fast Broadcast MAC protocols show higher delays. By confirming the previous com-

Chapter 5. MAC and Clustering Integration in VANETs 93 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Percentiles (%) Delay (s) End-to-end Delay Percentiles, 200 Vehicles

MAC 802.11 DCF Fast Broadcast MAC Backbone-Assisted MAC Static Backbone-Assisted MAC

Figure 5.10: End-to-end MAC Delay Per- centiles, 200 Vehicles 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Percentiles (%) Delay (s) End-to-end Delay Percentiles, 600 Vehicles

MAC 802.11 DCF Fast Broadcast MAC Backbone-Assisted MAC Static Backbone-Assisted MAC

Figure 5.11: End-to-end MAC Delay Per- centiles, 600 Vehicles

ments, Fast Broadcast MAC has now similar performance as IEEE 802.11 DCF flooding, due to the increased vehicles’ density. In fact, a flooding incurs in more collisions, and farthest vehicles more likely exist near the transmission range border (to forward messages with CWM in value).

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show the MAC Delay Percentiles in a low density (Figure 5.10) and high density (Figure5.11) scenarios, by taking into account the end-to-end delay of messages covering a risk zone of 1 Km. In the low-density scenario (200 vehicles), in Figure 5.10, more than 85% of generated alert messages successfully covers the risk zone. The distribution of delays shows small differences among the considered schemes, and a different schemes reliability testified by the asymptotic values of the distribution, which could be interpreted as the probability of message arrival. In Figure5.11, (high-density scenario, 600 vehicles) the most relevant effect is the different slope of the curves, which demonstrates the ”resistance” of the system to message forwarding. As expected, the flooding approach produces the worst performance. Both Fast Broadcast and Dynamic Backbone-Assisted MAC protocols deliver an high percentage of messages (90%). However, backbone assisted schemes outperform the Fast Broadcast protocol in terms of delay bound (Figure 5.11).

Part III

Joint Design of MAC and Routing

solutions

Chapter 6

Motivations and State of The Art

6.1

Interactions between MAC and Routing pro-

tocols

The development of efficient routing protocols is a key issue in supporting multi-hop communication in MANETs. Because the wireless transmission range of nodes is often limited, source and destination nodes may typically not be within the direct transmission range of each other. Hence, the routing protocol must be able to discover multi-hop routes by using other intermediate nodes to forward the messages. Many routing protocols have been proposed over the last few years [CB94, KV98,

MD01,PR99], each of them aiming at provide the issues required in ad hoc routing, i.e. simplicity, rapid route convergence, distributed nature, adaptivity. Although the approaches used may be different, most of them are based on similar sets of design goals, which may be identified as follows [BR04]:

• Minimum control overhead. Control messages consume bandwidth and battery power to receive and send a message. Routing protocols should not send more than the minimum number of control messages they need for their operations. • Dynamic topology maintenance. The node mobility may cause route failures on a pre-established path. In order to preserve the connectivity, routing protocols

98 Chapter 6. Motivations and State of The Art

should handle link breaks by discovering alternate paths and minimizing the route discovery latency.

• Loop prevention. A routing loop occurs when a node along a path select a next hop to a destination that also occurred earlier in the path. The cost of packet forwarding/processing in a MANET make appear routing loops extremely wasteful of resources and negative for the system performance.

On the other hand, several recent works also discuss the impact of spatial frame contention at the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer on the end-to-end perfor- mance of multi-hop topologies [BDM02,GF03,XS02]. In [BDM02], for example, the authors analyze the interactions of the routing and MAC protocols in a MANET. The mutual interactions between MAC and routing protocols may be described as follows:

• The paths selected by the routing protocol directly affect the spatial contention among the involved nodes at the MAC layer.

• The contention at the MAC layer can cause routing protocol to respond by initiating new route queries and route table updates.

The authors of [BDM02] conclude that it is not meaningful to consider MAC and routing protocols in isolation, and suggest that a cross-layer design of MAC and routing solutions may enhance the multi-hop communication in a MANET.

In the following section, we briefly sketch the traditional problems affecting the MAC protocols on multi-hop ad hoc topologies. In Section 3, we focus on the net- work layer, by presenting the common approaches in routing design for MANETs. Protocols and guidelines defined in section 6.2 and 6.3 are used as milestones for the design of our cross-layer MAC and routing framework defined in Chapter 7.

Chapter 6. Motivations and State of The Art 99

Figure 6.1: The hidden (left) and exposed terminal (right) at MAC layer