HotOS IX Paper   
[HotOS IX Program Index]
Exploiting the Synergy between Peer-to-Peer and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Y. Charlie Hu, Saumitra M. Das, and Himabindu Pucha
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
{ychu, smdas, hpucha}@purdue.edu
Abstract:
We argue that there exists a synergy between peer-to-peer (p2p)
overlay networks for the Internet and mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs)
connecting mobile nodes communicating with each other via multi-hop
wireless links - both share the key characteristics of
self-organization and decentralization, and both need to solve the
same fundamental problem, that is, how to provide connectivity in a
decentralized, dynamic environment. We propose Dynamic P2P Source
Routing (DPSR), a new routing protocol for MANETs that exploits the
synergy between p2p and MANETs for increased scalability. By
integrating Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and a proximity-aware structured p2p overlay routing
protocol, DPSR limits the number of the source routes that each node
has to discover and rediscover to , while retaining all the
attributes of DSR for dealing with the specifics of ad hoc
networks. This is in contrast to the maximum of source routes each
node has to maintain in DSR. Thus DPSR has the potential to be
more scalable than previous routing protocols for MANETs, such as DSR
and AODV.
In addition to being a network layer multi-hop routing protocol, DPSR
simultaneously implements a distributed hash table (DHT) in MANETs; it
implements the same functionalities as CAN, Chord, Pastry, and
Tapestry, which can be exposed to the applications built on top of it
via a set of common p2p APIs.
A peer-to-peer (p2p) overlay network consists of a dynamically changing
set of nodes connected via the Internet (i.e., IP). A mobile ad hoc
network (MANET) consists of mobile nodes communicating with each other
using multi-hop wireless links. P2p overlays and MANETs share the key
characteristics of self-organization and decentralization.
These common characteristics lead to further similarities between
the two types of networks: (1) Both have a
flat and frequently changing topology, caused by node join and leave
in p2p overlays and MANETs and additionally terminal mobility of the
nodes in MANETs; and (2) Both use hop-by-hop connection establishment. Per-hop
connections in p2p are typically via TCP links with physically
unlimited range, whereas per-hop connections in MANETs are via
wireless links, limited by the radio transmission range.
The common characteristics shared by p2p overlays and MANETs also
dictate that both networks are faced with the same fundamental
challenge, that is, to provide connectivity in a
decentralized, dynamic environment. Thus, there exists a synergy between these
two types of networks in terms of the design goals and principles of
their routing protocols;
both p2p and MANET routing protocols have to deal with
dynamic network topologies due to membership changes or mobility.
We argue that a promising research direction in networking is to
exploit the synergy between p2p overlay and MANET routing protocols
to design better routing protocols for MANETs. As a supporting
example, in this paper, we apply a recent advancement in p2p overlay
networks, i.e., proximity-aware structured p2p overlay routing
protocols, to routing in MANETs, and propose a new routing protocol
that promises to be more scalable than previous MANET routing
protocols.
The primary challenge with using a p2p routing protocol in MANETs is
the fact that p2p overlays in the wired Internet rely on the IP
routing infrastructure to perform hop-by-hop routing between
neighboring nodes in the overlays, whereas such an infrastructure does
not exist in MANETs. The obvious idea of
overlaying a p2p network (protocol) on top of a multi-hop routing
protocol can be inefficient, as it is difficult to exploit the
interactions between the two protocols. Instead, our proposed new
routing protocol for MANETs, Dynamic P2P Source Routing protocol
(DPSR), seamlessly integrates functions performed by p2p
overlay routing protocols operating in a logical namespace and by
MANET routing protocols operating in a physical namespace.
Specifically, DPSR integrates Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [8] and Pastry [16], a
proximity-aware structured p2p overlay routing protocol. The key
idea of the integration is to bring the structured p2p routing
protocol to the network layer of MANETs via a one-to-one mapping
between the IP addresses of the mobile nodes and their nodeIds in the
namespace, and replacing each routing table entry which used to store
a (nodeId, IP address) pair with a (nodeId, source route) pair. With
this integration, DPSR limits the number of the source routes that
each node has to discover and rediscover to , while
retaining all the attributes of DSR for dealing with the specifics of
ad hoc networks, i.e., due to wireless transmissions. Compared to
the maximum of source routes each node has to maintain in
DSR, the bounded number of source routes managed by each node in DPSR
has the potential to make DPSR much more scalable than previous
routing protocols for MANETs, such as DSR and AODV.
Background
DPSR is based on the DSR protocol for MANETs and a structured p2p
overlay routing protocol, Pastry.
In the following, we give a brief overview of DSR and Pastry.
DSR
DSR [8] is a representative multi-hop routing protocol for
ad hoc networks. It is based on the concept of source routing in
contrast to hop-by-hop routing. It includes two mechanisms, route
discovery and route maintenance.
Route discovery is the process by which a source node discovers a
route to a destination for which it does not already have a route in
its cache. The process broadcasts a ROUTE REQUEST packet which
is flooded across the network in a controlled manner. In addition to
the address of the initiator of the request and the target of
the request, each ROUTE REQUEST packet contains a route record, which records
the sequence of hops taken by the ROUTE REQUEST packet as it propagates through
the network. ROUTE REQUEST packets use sequence numbers to prevent
duplication. The request is answered by a ROUTE REPLY packet
from the destination node. To reduce the cost of route
discovery, each node maintains a cache of source routes that have
been learned or overheard, which it uses aggressively to limit the
propagation range of ROUTE REQUESTS.
When a route is in use,
the route maintenance procedure monitors the operation of the route
and informs the sender of any routing errors. A host detects
transmission of corrupted or lost packets via the link-level
acknowledgment frame defined by IEEE 802.11, or by a passive
acknowledgment, i.e., after a host sends a packet to the next hop,
it overhears whether the next hop forwards the packet further
along the path. If the
route breaks due to a link failure, the detecting host sends a ROUTE ERROR
packet to the source which upon receiving it, removes all routes in
the host's cache that use the hop in error.
Optimizations suggested for DSR for reducing the overhead of route
discovery include: (1) overheard and forwarded routing information are
cached to reduce the frequency of route discovery invocations; (2)
cached routes are used to generate replies to ROUTE REQUESTS to limit the
propagation of ROUTE REQUESTS; and (3) ROUTE REPLY storms caused by nodes replying
from their caches are prevented by delaying each reply by a period
proportional to the number of hops to the destination. This also
increases the probability that the source receives the shortest route
first.
Optimizations suggested for DSR for improving the effectiveness of
route maintenance include: (1) every node helps to maintain shorter
routes by sending a gratuitous ROUTE REPLY if it knows of a shorter route to
the destination than the one used in an overheard packet;
(2) each node always attempts to salvage a data packet that has caused a
ROUTE ERROR; (3) ROUTE ERROR packets received by a source node are piggybacked on
its next route request to ensure increased spreading of information
about stale routes; and (4) ROUTE ERROR packets that are forwarded or
eavesdropped on are used to invalidate locally cached routes that
contain the hop in error.
Comparison studies of DSR with other proposed routing protocols for
MANETs [3,6] have shown that DSR exhibits good
performance at all mobility rates.
Pastry [16] is one of several proximity-aware
structured p2p routing protocols [4]. Although it is
chosen for the design of DPSR in this paper, other structured p2p
protocols such as CAN [15],
Chord [17], and Tapestry [18] could
potentially be used as well.
In a Pastry network, each node has a unique, uniform, randomly
assigned nodeId in a circular 128-bit identifier space. Given a
message and an associated 128-bit key, Pastry reliably routes the
message to the live node whose nodeId is numerically closest to the
key.
In a Pastry network consisting of nodes, a message can be routed
to any node in less than steps on average (b is a
configuration parameter with typical value 4), and each node stores
only entries, where each entry maps a nodeId to
the associated node's IP address. Specifically, a Pastry node's
routing table is organized into
rows with
entries each. Each of the entries at row
of the routing table refers to a node whose nodeId shares the first
digits with the present node's nodeId, but whose th digit
has one of the possible values other than the th
digit in the present node's nodeId. In addition to a routing table, each
node maintains a leaf set, consisting of nodes with numerically
closest larger nodeIds, and nodes with numerically
closest smaller nodeIds, relative to the present node's
nodeId. is an even integer parameter with typical value 16.
In each routing step, the current node forwards a message
to a node whose nodeId shares with the message key a prefix that is
at least one digit (or b bits) longer than the prefix that the key
shares with the current nodeId. If no such node is found in
the routing table, the message is forwarded to a node whose
nodeId shares a prefix with the key as long as the current
node, but is numerically closer to the key than the current
nodeId. Such a node must exist in the leaf set unless the
nodeId of the current node or its immediate neighbor is
numerically closest to the key.
An arriving node with a newly chosen nodeId X initializes its state by
contacting a nearby node A (according to the proximity metric) and
asking A to route a special message with X as the key. This message is
routed to the existing node Z whose nodeId is numerically closest to
X. X then obtains the leaf set from Z, and the th row of the
routing table from the th node encountered along the route from A
to Z.
Finally, X announces its presence to the initial members of its
leaf set and routing table, which in turn update their own leaf sets and routing tables.
Although DSR is one of the leading MANET routing protocols, ad hoc
networks constructed using DSR are still far from scalable when
compared to the ``fixed'' Internet. 1Simulations performed in ad hoc network protocol studies such
as [3,6] have been limited to networks of up to
100 nodes and a small number of network connections (source-destination pairs).
The fundamental reason for the limited scalability of such
protocols is that any ad hoc network routing protocol has to pay a
high overhead dealing with the dynamic network topology and the shared
medium access of wireless communication (e.g., for a 100 node network using DSR,
the ratio of routing overhead to data packets for moderate to high mobility
ranges from 2:1 to 10:1). Specifically, the size of
the route cache in a DSR node is proportional to the number of
distinct destination nodes to which it has to send messages, and thus
is potentially as high as , the size of the network. Note that the
memory required to store such routes is not a scalability
concern. Rather, it is the overhead required to discover and
rediscover these many routes that limits the scalability of
DSR.
In contrast, in structured p2p overlay networks such as Pastry, each
node maintains routing state, independent of the number of
different destinations that node has to send messages to. This
suggests that a promising approach to improving the scalability of DSR
is to limit the size of the routing state each node has to maintain by
leveraging efficient structured p2p routing protocols. In the rest of
the paper,
we propose DPSR as one way of integrating DSR and Pastry.
DPSR Design
Like DSR, DPSR is proposed as a network layer protocol. Message
destinations and nodes are addressed using IP addresses. DPSR
adds a level of indirection to multi-hop routing in MANETs
by assigning nodeIds from a circular name space to nodes in the
MANET. A prefix-based routing scheme similar to Pastry is then
employed to route data packets in the name space. Prefix-based
routing has been shown to provide low delay stretch and other useful
proximity properties as demonstrated by
Pastry [4,5].
DPSR assigns unique nodeIds to nodes in a MANET as is done in
Pastry.
NodeIds are generated
as the secure hashing (SHA-1) of the IP addresses of the hosts.
Since the number of nodes in MANETs is small, i.e., in the order of hundreds,
this ensures that with very high probability the nodeIds are unique.
The structures of the routing table and the leaf set stored in each
DPSR node are similar to those in Pastry. The only difference lies in
the content of each leaf set and routing table entry.
Since there is no underlying routing infrastructure in MANETs, each entry in a DPSR
leaf set or a routing table stores the route to reach the designated
nodeId, as shown in Table 1.
As in Pastry, each routing table entry for a given node is chosen such
that it is physically closer to that node than other choices for that routing
table entry. This is achieved via a similar node joining process as in
Pastry.
Table:
A DPSR routing table or leaf set entry.
Destination |
Source Route |
|
|
|
Routing in the basic DPSR design is the same as in Pastry: a
message key is first generated by hashing the message's destination IP
address, and the message is routed using Pastry's prefix-based routing
procedure.
In DPSR, since both message keys and nodeIds are hashed from IP
addresses, an exact match between a message key and the destination
node's nodeId is expected. In other words, a message will be delivered
to the destination node whose nodeId matches the message key, if that
destination node is reachable via the wireless links. The only
difference between DPSR and Pastry routing is that each hop in the
DPSR network is a multi-hop source route, whereas each hop in the
Pastry network is a multi-hop Internet route.
Node join
The DPSR node joining process is similar to that of Pastry. The only
difference is in constructing the contents of the routing table and
leaf set entries: each entry in a DPSR routing table or a leaf set
stores the source route to a DPSR node, while an entry in Pastry
simply stores the IP address of a Pastry node. In both cases, network
proximity is taken into consideration when choosing the best node for
each routing table entry.
Node failure is again handled similarly as in Pastry.
In Pastry, if a node is not reachable, it is presumed to have failed.
To replace a failed node in the leaf set, its neighbor in the nodeId
space contacts the live node with the largest index on the side of the
failed node, and asks that node for its leaf set. This set only partly
overlaps with the present node's leaf set. Among these new nodes, the
appropriate ones are then chosen and inserted into the leaf set. In
DPSR, a node could become unreachable via a source route for two
reasons: it or other node(s) along the route has either
crashed, or has moved out of the range of its adjacent nodes
along the route. In either case, a route discovery for that node
is invoked on-demand. If the route discovery still does not find a
new route to the unreachable node, that node, if present in the leaf set,
is replaced in a similar way as in Pastry.
Optimizations
The basic design of DPSR inherits all of the optimizations on route
discovery and maintenance used by the DSR protocol (see
Section 2.1). A number of additional optimizations are
unique to the DPSR routing structures and operations.
Use of indirectly received source routes
There are three ways a DPSR node can discover source routes: (i) via
explicit route discovery; (ii) via overhearing routes
in messages sent between neighboring nodes; (iii) via forwarded source
routes. In the basic operations of DPSR, a node always chooses the
shortest route explicitly discovered for each entry. As an
optimization, for every route indirectly received, i.e., via
(ii) and (iii), a node checks whether the route is a better candidate
than the current corresponding entry in the leaf set and the
routing table. If so, the new route replaces the old entry.
This optimization thus constantly discovers fresh and low proximity
routes for the leaf set and routing table entries.
In addition to the ``prefix-based view'' of the routing
table, or the ``neighbor-node view'' of the leaf set,
the two routing structures can be viewed as two caches of source
routes, similar to the route cache in DSR. This allows the use
of implicit source routes to destinations, as in the DSR
protocol. An implicit
source route is a source route embedded in a normal source route. For
example, an explicit source route
contains two implicit routes,
and
. The implicit source routes can be exploited to optimize the DPSR
routing procedure.
To send a data packet, it first searches all implicit source routes in
the routing table and the leaf set for an exact match between
the message key and the destination nodeIds. If this initial search returns a
source route, DPSR uses it directly. Otherwise, the original DPSR
lookup algorithm, same as Pastry's, is executed to return the source
route to the next DPSR hop. In addition, these implicit routes can be
used to populate newly created leaf set and routing table entries,
for example, when a new node joins.
3-D routing table and 2-D leaf set
To further extend the above idea of using leaf sets and routing
tables as route caches, leaf sets can be extended to 2-D and
routing tables extended to 3-D, i.e., each entry in a leaf set and a
routing table contains a vector of routes, where
is a configuration parameter. For each explicit and implicit
route in each directly or indirectly received route, a node
checks whether there is an exact match between the route's destination
nodeId and some entry in the leaf set. If so, the route is
inserted into the leaf set entry. In addition, the route is also
inserted into the unique entry in the routing table, i.e., the one
that matches the longest prefix with the nodeId of the route's destination.
Obviously, the optimal choice of the number of backup routes depends on the
tradeoff between the availability of routes and their freshness.
To maintain the freshness of the cached routes,
an approximate FIFO replacement policy similar to that used in the DSR cache
is used.
The above 3-D routing table and 2-D leaf set have two benefits: (i)
They effectively increase the sizes of ``route caches'' by a factor of
, increasing the probability of finding an implicit route
in routing data packets. (ii)
They potentially reduce the need for route maintenance. If the
shortest route,
based on the hop count, in a leaf set or routing table entry is broken, instead
of performing a route discovery to the destination node, the node can switch to
use the shortest route among the backups in the same entry.
Discussions
Design Alternatives to the Pastry operations
A unique characteristic of MANETs, shared medium access, suggests
several design alternatives to the original Pastry protocol
operations. In a shared medium, packet delivery can be unreliable due
to collisions in transmission. On the other hand, overhearing of
packets transmitted by neighboring nodes can be used for
routing state maintenance.
The Pastry joining algorithm requires the transmission of many
critical messages each of which when lost, would cause restarting the
entire joining process. The algorithm assumes a low probability
of packet loss and a low cost of message transmission in the network.
Both of these assumptions do not hold for wireless
ad hoc networks. Additionally, the join algorithm (directly inherited
from Pastry) in it's final stage requires the joining node to
discover routes to all members of its leaf set and routing
table, each of which may require a flooding, for a total of floodings. This suggests a potentially more efficient joining
process in which the joining node simply floods the entire network
once, and a selected subset of nodes, e.g., the potential candidates for
the leaf set and the routing table entries, send replies back to the
flooding node.
The Pastry routing table maintenance algorithm is designed to preserve
the locality of routing table entries in the presence of network
dynamics. The algorithm involves periodic communication with nodes in
a subset of routing table entries and a subsequent comparison of the
proximity of the exchanged routing table entries with the node's own.
However, in MANETs, such periodic communication violates the on-demand
nature of DSR and thus may incur high overhead. Proximity
probing is a very high overhead exercise in MANETs if the route
to the probed node needs to be discovered. The nature of the
shared medium access of MANETs provides an efficient alternative.
A node can use overhearing of routes to maintain locality of its
routing table entries. In fact, the nature of the overhearing process
guarantees that the routes overheard are from the physically nearby nodes.
Continuous updates to routing table entries using overhearing can make
DPSR resilient to degradation of routing table quality due to
mobility. The cost of this operation is just the power consumed to
operate the network access device in promiscuous mode.
In MANETs, two notions of scalability are of interest: (1) up till
what network sizes a reasonable data packet delivery ratio can be
maintained, and (2) for a fixed-size network,
how large the routing overhead is
for a fixed packet delivery ratio. The lower the routing overhead,
the more network bandwidth is available for sending data packets.
The two notions, however, are inter-related. If a network is not as
congested in delivering a fixed volume of data packets, it can be
scaled up further.
We qualitatively compare the routing overhead of DPSR with DSR. As
described in Section 2.1, using DSR, depending on the
number of distinct destinations a node sends messages to, each
node needs to maintain up to routes in a MANET of nodes. In
contrast, using DPSR, the number of routes each node needs to maintain
is limited to , independent of the number of different
destinations that node has to send messages to. The exact tradeoff
between DPSR and DSR is more complicated since both discover and
rediscover routes on-demand. But to the first order of approximation,
DPSR is expected to incur less overhead than DSR when each node
communicates with on average over other nodes (one-to-many).2 The
reduced routing overhead allows more data packets which compete for
accessing the shared medium to be delivered successfully.
Since DPSR routes packets through several overlay hops, whereas DSR
takes the direct path, if queuing delay is discounted, the routing
delay using DPSR is expected to be longer than using DSR. However,
the delay stretch, defined as the delay going through the overlay hops
divided by the delay via a single DSR source route, is expected to be
within a factor of two. With a random uniform distribution of nodeIds
and node locations in the 2-D proximity space, the lengths of
consecutive overlay hops in routing a message in DPSR increase exponentially
by a factor of , since the number of nodes matching each
additional digit decreases by a factor of . Since the last hop
dominates, and the earlier hops are directionless, i.e., they are
equally likely to move towards or away from the destination node, the
expected delay stretch is bounded by
, and thus
is small than 2 for .
Furthermore, this delay can be reduced whenever implicit routes are
found and used to deliver data packets directly to their
destination nodes.
In summary, under the first notion of scalability, if there are many
nodes that communicate with multiple other nodes, we expect DPSR to
scale up to a larger network size than DSR from lower routing overhead.
As the network size increases,
however, the scalability of both DSR and DPSR will be limited
by the lengths of the source routes, because the longer the source
routes, the more likely they will break. Under the second notion of
scalability, DPSR is expected to deliver more packets than DSR for
one-to-many communication patterns and perform comparably when a node
communicates on average with a few other nodes.
Other Related Work
PeerNet [7] is a p2p-based network layer
similar to DPSR in that both aim at improving the scalability
of routing protocols by bringing the p2p concept from the
application layer down to the network layer. However, PeerNet
focuses on dynamic networks with pockets of wireless
connectivities interconnected with wired lines, whereas DPSR focuses
on wireless ad hoc networks.
In addition to DSR, AODV [14], DSDV [13], and
TORA [12] also belong to the category of topology-based multi-hop ad hoc
routing protocols which assume no knowledge of the mobile nodes'
positions. Such position information typically requires the
assistance of global positioning systems.
In contrast, position-based protocols
forward packets based on the physical positions of nodes.
These include ``flooding-based'' such as LAR [10] and
DREAM [1], ``graph-based'' such as RGD [2], and
``geographic-based'' such as GPSR [9].
Among these, geographic forwarding approaches route packets based on
only local decisions, and thus have less overhead and are more
scalable. GLS [11] is a scalable distributed location service
that can be combined with geographic forwarding to construct large ad
hoc networks.
We thank Peter Druschel, Dave Johnson, and the anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments. This work was supported in part by an NSF
CAREER award (ACI-0238379) and a Honda Initiation Grant 2002.
- 1
-
S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V. R. Syrotiuk, and B. A. Woodward.
A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM).
In Proc. ACM MOBICOM'98.
- 2
-
P. Bose, P. Morin, I. Stojmenovic, and J. Urrutia.
Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks.
In Proc. DialM'99.
- 3
-
J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva.
A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing
protocols.
In Proc. ACM MOBICOM'98.
- 4
-
M. Castro, P. Druschel, Y. C. Hu, and A. Rowstron.
Exploiting network proximity in distributed hash tables.
In Proc. FuDiCo'02.
- 5
-
M. Castro, P. Druschel, Y. C. Hu, and A. Rowstron.
Exploiting network proximity in peer-to-peer overlay networks.
Technical report, Technical report MSR-TR-2002-82, 2002.
- 6
-
S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, and E. M. Royer.
Performance comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc
networks.
In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM'00.
- 7
-
J. Eriksson, M. Faloutsos, and S. Krishnamurthy.
Peernet: Pushing peer-to-peer down the stack.
In IPTPS'03.
- 8
-
D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz.
Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks.
Kluwer Academic, 1996.
- 9
-
B. Karp and H. Kung.
GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless terminode routing.
In Proc. ACM MOBICOM'00.
- 10
-
Y.-B. Ko and N. H. Vaidya.
Location-aided routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks.
In Proc. ACM MOBICOM'98.
- 11
-
J. Li, J. Jannotti, D. S. J. D. Couto, D. R. Karger, and R. Morris.
A Scalable Location Service for Geographic Ad Hoc Routing.
In Proc. ACM MOBICOM'00.
- 12
-
V. D. Park and M. S. Corson.
A highly adaptive distributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless
networks.
In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM'97.
- 13
-
C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat.
Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV)
for mobile computers.
In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM'94.
- 14
-
C. Perkins and E. Royer.
Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing.
In Proc. WMCSA'99.
- 15
-
S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Schenker.
A Scalable Content-Addressable Network.
In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM'01.
- 16
-
A. Rowstron and P. Druschel.
Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for
large-scale peer-to-peer systems.
In Proc. MIDDLEWARE'01.
- 17
-
I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan.
Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet
Applications.
In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM'01.
- 18
-
B. Y. Zhao, J. D. Kubiatowicz, and A. D. Joseph.
Tapestry: An Infrastructure for Fault-Resilient Wide-area Location
and Routing.
Technical Report UCB//CSD-01-1141, U. C. Berkeley, April 2001.
Exploiting the Synergy between Peer-to-Peer and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
This document was generated using the
LaTeX2HTML translator Version 2K.1beta (1.47)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
Nikos Drakos,
Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999,
Ross Moore,
Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.
The command line arguments were:
latex2html -split 0 -no_navigation -no_footnode -numbered_footnotes dpsr.tex
The translation was initiated by Y. Charlie Hu on 2003-06-19
Footnotes
- ... Internet. 1
- We note that
position-based routing protocols which rely on global position systems
can be more scalable than topology-based protocols such as DSR.
- ... (one-to-many).2
- For
example, many p2p applications exhibit such traffic patterns.
Y. Charlie Hu
2003-06-19
|