Helsinki University of Technology, 17.3.2003

Ad hoc networking – Technology and applications

Helsinki University of Technology, T-109.551, Telecommunications Business II Seminar Report

Henrik Petander, 44300N Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. Olli Savolainen, 48034C

Executive Summary

Ad hoc networks are self organizing wireless networks, in which also end nodes act as routers. Ad hoc networking allows nodes to communicate over multiple wireless hops and form self-organizing networks. Ad hoc networking improves the efficiency and range of fixed and mobile Internet access and enables totally new applications such as sensor networks.

Advances in radio technology and ad hoc routing protocols are needed for wide spread use of Ad hoc networking. New radio and link control technologies need to be designed to meet the requirements of Ad hoc networking, which differ from those set by cellular radio technologies. These technologies also need to be standardized to offer a sustainable basis for interoperating products and a wider market.

The challenges are being met by several start ups trying to provide a new wireless access architrecture to the fixed and mobile Internet access market curently dominated by operators struggling under large amounts of debt and by entrenched equipment vendors, such as Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola.

In this report we will survey the protocols used for ad hoc networking and their standardization status. We will also cover potential applications of ad hoc networking and analyze the suitability of the technology to those fields. Furthermore we will estimate the timing of the deployment of ad hoc networking.

- 2 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report.

Executive Summary...... 2 1 Introduction...... 4 2 Technology background...... 5 2.1 Routing...... 6 2.2 Radio...... 12 2.3 Security...... 16 2.4 Quality of Service...... 19 2.5 Billing and incentives...... 22 2.6 Internet connectivity...... 23 2.7 Standardization and patents...... 24 2.8 Technical problems and limitations...... 25 3 Applications...... 27 3.1 Military and emergency networks...... 29 3.2 Fixed broadband wireless...... 32 3.3 Extending cellular mobile access networks...... 35 3.4 Sensor networks...... 37 3.5 Vehicle networks...... 38 3.6 Home and personal networking...... 39 4 Technology barriers and timing...... 40 5 Conclusions...... 41 Terms and Abbreviations...... 42 References...... 43

1 2 Introduction Computer networking has been a modern way of communication and an enabler for various new applications for decades. Recently wire-based networks have got a competitor from wireless networking technologies. The wireless networks have various advantages over wired networks, and therefore have been the subject for enormous amount of research.

First of all, wireless networking means that there is no need for a physical connection to the socket in the wall, because data is transferred through air in form of radio waves. Second, wireless networking has more and more enabled user mobility. Basically, the chance to move freely anywhere, anytime, and still have a change to be connected to the network, is a natural source of interest. Third, the costs of building a wireless infrastructure are virtually nothing compared to the costs of wire-based network installation.

All that is needed for wireless communication between two computers is devices for transmitting and receiving radio signals and the transmission medium for the signals, which in this case is air. There would not be a need for established network infrastructure, whatsoever. Therefore, a network could actually be formed anywhere and anytime. Anyone could join the network while passing through, or otherwise coming to the radio transmission range of the other computers. This kind of networking is called ad hoc networking. Ad hoc networks are self organizing wireless networks, in which also end nodes act as routers. Ad hoc networking allows nodes to communicate over multiple wireless hops and form self-organizing networks.

Ad hoc networking is an attractive concept and has various possibilities for different kinds of applications. However, ad hoc networking is not quite as simple and easy as it may sound. The enabling technologies have their own limitations and some technologies and models of operation have been subject to reconsidering to suit ad hoc networks.

In this report the underlying technologies are introduced and some applications of ad hoc networks are presented. The technology background part of this document describes the existing technologies needed in ad hoc networks. It points out some issues related to the ad hoc networking model, and also advantages and disadvantages of different technologies are discussed. After the technological background is given, some applications and their possible value in the market are discussed.

3 Technology background An ad-hoc wireless network is a multi-hop network without any base stations, or infrastructure. Ad hoc networks support anytime and anywhere computing, allowing the spontaneous formation and deformation of mobile networks. A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a set of mobile host within communication range. These hosts are called nodes in ad hoc networks.

MANETs are wireless, which means that data transmission is based on radio technologies. Multi-hop networking means that data from source to destination has to travel through multiple hop routes and each node within the network participates cooperatively in forwarding data packets between other nodes. In practice, each node acts as a router.

MANETs have several characteristics that have to be identified when discussing the underlying technology of ad hoc networks. (Corson, Macker, 1999)  Topologies are dynamic. Nodes are free to move arbitrarily, which means that topology may change randomly and rapidly.  Network is bandwidth-constrained and capacity of the links may vary. Wireless links have significantly lower capacity than wired links. Also effects of multiple access, fading, noise, and interference, etc. often decrease the performance from maximum transmission rate.  Operations are energy-constrained. Most nodes in a MANET are usually running on batteries or on other exhaustible means. For these nodes, the most important system design criteria for optimization may be energy conservation.  The physical security is limited. Ad hoc networks are generally more prone to physical security threats than fixed-cable networks. Wireless links and lack of infrastructure support make ad hoc networks more vulnerable. On contrast, some of the applications of ad hoc networks are security sensitive.

The physical properties and the special characteristics of MANETs more or less indicate the required topics for technology background analysis. In the following sections routing, radio technologies, security, and other interesting issues as quality of services, Internet connectivity, incentives, and standardization are discussed.

3.1 Routing Each node in an ad hoc network participates in forming the network topology. As there are no dedicated routers, each node is on its own part responsible for routing packets between other nodes, too. Basically the routing infrastructure is yet similar to the one of Internet. There are many different routing protocols that provide information to forward packets to the next hop. In ad hoc network it would be necessary to manage topology changes, as all the nodes are required to run routing protocols. The routing protocols used in Internet are typically not applicable to ad hoc networks as such.

In general, mobility, dynamic topologies, and the constraints of power and bandwidth in ad hoc wireless networks have given the guidelines for routing protocol development. As nodes in a MANET usually have to deal with limited power resources, it is suitable to develop such protocols that need minimum amount of information exchanges, thus minimizing radio communication and also power consumption.

The Internet routing protocols are based on network broadcast, as is the case with common Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol. OSPF is a link-state protocol, which means that the routing tables are sent to everyone. These traditional link-state protocols are not applicable for dynamic networks, because a considerable amount of bandwidth is needed to maintain network state. Instead of being link-state protocols, most of the routing protocols use distance vector algorithms, which send their routing tables only to neighbors.

The routing algorithms can be further divided into proactive and reactive algorithms. Proactive ones keep route tables all the times, which creates extra overhead due to routing updates. Reactive ones find route on demand, which in turn adds some latency to route acquisition. Proactive protocols also maintain routes to each node in network, whereas reactive protocols maintain only active rows. A categorization of ad hoc routing protocols is presented in Figure 1.

AD-HOC MOBILE ROUTING PROTOCOLS

TABLE-DRIVEN / ON-DEMAND- PROACTIVE DRIVEN / REACTIVE

HYBRID

DSDV WRP DSR TORA CGSR STAR ZRP AODV RDMAR OLSR TBRPF

Figure 1. Categorization of ad hoc routing protocols (Modified from Toh, 2002)

DSDV Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector AODV Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector DSR Dynamic Source Routing TORA Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm ZRP Zone Routing Protocol LAR Location-Aided Routing OLSR Optimized Link State Routing TBRPF Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding CGSR Cluster Switch Gateway Routing WRP Wireless Routing Protocol STAR Source Tree Adaptive Routing RDMAR Relative Distance Microdiversity Routing

Some of the routing protocols in ad hoc networks are shortly presented in next paragraphs. AODV and DSR, which are the two most important ones, are introduced a bit more thoroughly.

3.1.1 DSDV Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) protocol is a proactive routing protocol. Important feature of DSDV is its use of a sequence number for each node. These sequence numbers are used for loop freedom. In DSDV each node maintains routing table with entry for each node in the network. The nodes transmit updates periodically and in cases of important link changes. DSDV uses incremental dumps and settling time to control overhead. In general, proactive protocols perform well in

- 7 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. networks where the mobility is low or moderate and the number of nodes is relatively small. (Toh, 2002)

3.1.2 AODV Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is a bettered modification of DSDV and it is one of the most important protocols for routing between nodes in an ad hoc network. The algorithm is reactive and it enables dynamic, self-starting and multi-hop routing. AODV allows mobile nodes to obtain routes to new destinations quickly and it does not require the nodes to maintain the routes to inactive nodes. AODV makes it possible to mobile nodes to react to link breakages and changes in network topology. AODV avoids also loops in routes.

One important feature inherited from DSDV is the use of a destination sequence number for each route entry. It is an increasing number maintained by each originating node. When used in control messages, other nodes use it to determine the freshness of the information contained from the originating node. Given the choice between two routes to a destination, a requesting node always selects the one with the greatest sequence number. With destination sequence numbers loops are avoided, by a somewhat easily implemented manner.

Route discovery in AODV is based on route request (RREQ) and route reply (RREP) messages. If a mobile node needs a route to another node, it creates a RREQ, which contains destination’s IP address and sequence number, its own IP address and sequence number, and initial hop count, which is zero. The node broadcasts RREQ to its neighbors. A neighbor node makes reverse route entry for the broadcaster to its routing table and if it does not have a route to the requested destination it further broadcasts RREQ to its neighbors. If it has route to the requested destination and the sequence number for route to destination is bigger than destination’s sequence number in RREQ (which is the greatest sequence number received in the past by the originator for any route towards the destination), it unicasts a RREP to previous requester. This information is unicasted all the way to the original requester and all the nodes along the way back update their routing tables with the information.

Route maintenance in AODV needs an additional route error (RERR) message. If a link between a node and its neighbor breaks, this node creates a RERR message listing all the destinations that become unreachable, because of the link break, and sends the message to its other neighbors. The neighbors delete the routes to the listed destinations if the sender was the next hop along the route and forward the message onwards.

AODV has relatively low memory requirements and reasonable network load. Also route convergence is quick because of triggered updates. AODV is designed for networks with over 500 mobile nodes. The reasonability of the size depends on the level of mobility, though. (Perkins, Belding-Royer, Das, 2003)

3.1.3 DSR The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol is a simple and efficient, highly reactive, routing protocol, which is designed specifically for use in multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks. DSR allows mobile nodes to dynamically discover a source route to any destination in the ad hoc network across multiple hops. Each data packet sent

- 8 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. contains the complete, ordered list of nodes along the route in its header. This makes routing trivially loop-free and does not require up-to-date routing information in the intermediate nodes through which the packet is forwarded. This way also the other nodes along the route can easily cache the routing information for future use.

Basic DSR route discovery goes as described here. When a node needs to send a packet to another node it places a complete list of hops to follow in the packet’s header. The source node may have this list in its route cache. If the route is not found in the cache, the node initiates the Route Discovery protocol to obtain such list. To initiate the route discovery, the source node transmits a route request as a single local broadcast packet. Each route request identifies the initiator and the target of the route discovery and also contains unique request identification. Each route request also contains a record listing the address of each intermediate node that has forwarded this particular copy of the route request. If a node that receives the route request is the target, it returns a route reply that contains the accumulated route record to the initiator. The initiator caches this route and is able to send packets to this destination. If the receiving node is not the target, it appends its address to the route record and broadcasts it further. A node discards the request if has recently seen another route request from the same initiator or the route record already contains its own address. This prevents looping.

The route maintenance in DSR is based on acknowledgements. Each node forwarding a packet along a certain route is responsible for the next hop from itself to another node. If a node does not receive an acknowledgement after forwarding a packet, it sends an acknowledgement request a certain number of times. If no acknowledgement is still received, the node generates a route error message and sends it to the sender of packet that was to be forwarded and to any other source that have tried to use this broken link since the last acknowledgement received from the unreachable node.

In DSR, route discovery and route maintenance both operate entirely on demand. DSR, unlike other protocols, does not require sending any periodic packets, such as route advertising, over the network. While having very low overhead, DSR is still able to react rather quickly to changes in the network. (Johnson, Maltz, Hu, 2003)

3.1.4 ZRP Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is a hybrid protocol combining the merits of on-demand and proactive protocols. In ZRP, a routing zone consists of a few nodes within one, two, or a couple of hops away from each other. Within this zone a table-driven-based routing protocol is used. This implies that route updates are performed for nodes within the zone. Therefore, each node has a route to all other nodes within its zone. If the destination node resides outside the source zone, an on-demand search-query routing method is used. (Toh, 2002)

3.1.5 LAR Location-Aided Routing (LAR) uses, unlike other ad hoc routing schemes, location information, via GPS, for example, to improve the performance of ad hoc networks. LAR limits the search for a new route to a smaller request zone, thus reducing signaling traffic. LAR defines two concepts: expected zone and request zone. Expected zone is based on the location of the destination and its velocity, and thus

- 9 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. requires the source to have advanced knowledge about the destination. The request zone is a rectangle including the source and the expected zone. (Toh, 2002)

3.1.6 OLSR Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) is a proactive, link-state protocol optimized for mobile ad hoc networks. Classical link-state protocols exchange routing information with the other nodes regularly, creating significant overhead. OLSR reduces the amount of overhead by introducing the concept of MultiPoint Relays (MPR). MPRs are selected nodes in the network that are responsible for forwarding broadcast messages during the flooding process. The overhead is significantly lower compared to a classical flooding mechanism, where every node retransmits each message after receiving the first copy of the message. In practice, other nodes in the network do the selection of MPRs; each node selects a set of its neighbor nodes to be multipoint relays. In OLSR, only nodes selected as MPRs create link state information. This minimizes the number of control messages flooded in the network. An MPR node can also choose to report only links between itself and its MPR selectors. This is also an optimization of classical link state protocols, as only partial link state information is distributed in the network. (Adjih et al., 2003)

Reduced overhead is important in ad hoc networks. OLSR protocol is also particularly suitable for large and dense networks as the technique of MPRs works well in this context.

3.1.7 TBRPF Topology Dissemination Based Reverse-Path forwarding (TBRPF) is a proactive routing protocol for MANETs. Each node running TBRPF computes a source tree, which contains shortest paths to all reachable nodes, based on partial topology information stored in its topology table. A modification of Dijkstra’s algorithm is used to determine the shortest paths. Each node reports only part of its source tree to neighbors and thus overhead is minimized. A combination of periodic and differential updates is used to keep all neighbors informed of the reportable part of the source trees. Neighbor discovery is done with messages that report only changes in the status of neighbors. TBRPF consists of two modules: the neighbor discovery module and the routing module. TBRPF can support networks with up to a few hundred nodes, and can be combined with hierarchical routing techniques to support much larger networks. (Ogier et al., 2003)

3.1.8 Clustering and hierarchical routing In large ad hoc networks routing tables get larger and the amount of exchanged information increases. The network overhead increases because routing tables to be exchanged are larger and also because in a large network the number of topology changes, that trigger routing information updates, increases, too. One possibility to reduce the transmission overhead is clustering. OLSR protocol introduced multipoint relays to offer a solution to similar problem, but the concept of clustering is broader.

In the general cluster-based schemes for ad hoc networks, all nodes are divided into clusters, and usually a clusterhead (CH) is elected for each cluster. Routing algorithm may now consist of routing from source to its local CH, form this CH to the CH of destination node, and finally from to the destination itself. Special clustering algorithms are needed for doing the clustering. The efficiency of such algorithm is

- 10 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. measured by the delivery rate and the average hop count from source to destination. In ad hoc networks clustering also has to adapt to user mobility by rearranging cluster in case of nodes moving from the transmission range of one CH to another one’s transmission range. Because of additional cluster management, it is not recommended to use clustering when networks are small and a flat routing scheme works well.

Clustering enables hierarchical routing, which is an important feature when MANETs get large. A multi-level hierarchy has nodes organized in a tree-like fashion with several levels of clusterheads. A three level hierarchy employs ordinary nodes, clusterheads and superclusterheads, and is suitable for networks with few thousand nodes.

3.2 Radio A packet radio network consists of a number of packet radio stations that communicate with each other. A packet radio network carries messages in packets like a wired packet network, but uses radio signals instead of wires to carry the packets between stations. Basically a station in a packet radio network includes radio transmitting and receiving equipment and a computer to perform packet routing and forwarding functions. In a multi-hop packet radio network each station participates cooperatively in forwarding traffic between other stations. Compared to wired networks, radio networks are much more cheaper to install and provide a user a chance of mobility. With multiple short hops link quality improves and stations can use less power or achieve better data rates. On the other hand, there are several differences in the access medium, as with radio signals propagation, interference, frequency band choices, and such things have to be considered more carefully. (Shepard, 1995) Also real support of mobility and power consumption are important issues, when considering radio transmission.

In theory multi hop wireless radio networks, also known as ad hoc networks provide more capacity than traditional radio networks. Figure 2 compares the theoretical scalability of multi hop wireless radio to the scalability of a point-to-multipoint radio. The capacity refers to the total capacity of the network. Multi hop wireless networks can in theory scale linearly with the amount of nodes, when multiple antennas are used in each node. This means in practice that the transmission speed available to each node remains constant. Even with single antennas the capacity grows in proportion to N , where N is the number of nodes, leaving a capacity of 1/ N to each node (Shepard 1995). With IEEE 802.11b WLAN the total capacity actually decreases according to Gupta, Gray and Kumar (2001), due to sub optimal design of the MAC layer.

Ad Hoc, in theory using multiple Antennas, BLAST (linear scaling) y t i c a p a

C Ad Hoc, in theory using single Antennas ( N )

PTM radio, no scaling

Ad Hoc, IEEE 802.11b, measured Network size Figure 2 Comparison of theoretical and real-life performance of ad hoc networks.

Nodes in a MANET can wirelessly communicate with each other with various radio technologies. Some of these radio technologies are discussed shortly in this section.

- 12 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. The properties are pointed out, but no larger comparison is made between these technologies. The role of these different radio technologies from MANET's point of view becomes clearer in the part of this paper discussing different applications of ad hoc networks.

3.2.1 IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN There are two different ways to configure an 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network: ad hoc and infrastructure. It is obvious that interest in this paper is on the ad hoc mode, but the focus here is on technical radio properties and the distinction between these two configurations is more or less left aside.

Actually, IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN is a protocol family, which offers data transmission at different speeds, costs, and power consumption levels. There are currently four (major) specifications in the family: 802.11, 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g. All four use the Ethernet protocol and CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance) for path sharing. There are also other members (802.11c, 802.11d, 802.11e, 802.11f) in this family, but these four are of greater interest here.

802.11 applies to wireless LANs and provides 1 or 2 Mbps transmission in the 2.4 GHz band. It uses either Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) or Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) for radio frequency methods.

802.11a is an extension to 802.11 that applies to wireless LANs, wireless ATM systems, and is used in access hubs. It provides up to 54 Mbps in the 5 GHz band, but most commonly communication takes place at 6 Mbps, 12 Mbps, or 24 Mbps. 802.11a uses an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) encoding scheme rather than FHSS or DSSS.

802.11b, also referred to as 802.11 High Rate or increasingly popularly WiFi, provides 11 Mbps transmission, with a fallback to 5.5, 2 and 1 Mbps. It uses only DSSS. 802.11b was 1999 ratification to the original 802.11 standard, allowing wireless functionality comparable to Ethernet. It was designed to be faster and to have lower costs than 802.11. However, it has very little immunity for either self-induced or externally generated interference. The changes also made 802.11b unusable in wide area mobile applications, but very usable in short distance communication.

802.11g is the most recently approved standard. It provides 20+ Mbps in the 2.4 GHz band. Transmission over relatively short distances can be up to 54 Mbps. Like 802.11b, and unlike 802.11a, 802.11g operates in the 2.4 GHz band. So, 802.11b and 802.11g are compatible.

So far, from ad hoc networks point of view 802.11b has been the protocol in widest usage. In short words, its key properties are: It provides relatively high-speed wireless transmission for short-distances. It is basically intended that 802.11b would be used indoors and that users are assumed to relatively immobile. Compared to the other available radio technologies, also others than members of 802.11 family, 802.11b is most often chosen alternative, because of its high transmission rate, rather low costs, and importantly, its wide usage base. Still, 802.11-protocol family does not provide optimal technology to ad hoc networking. As an experimental study of scaling laws in

- 13 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. 802.11 based ad hoc networks (Gupta, Gray, Kumar, 2001) indicates, the throughput per node declines surprisingly fast when the number of nodes increases. By saying surprisingly fast, it is meant that theoretically it would be possible to attain better scalability, if hardware and protocols were further improved. Another problem with 802.11b, in addition to scalability, is its assumption of relative user immobility. In other words, if the mobility of nodes in the network is high, 802.11b, or any of other 802.11-family protocols, has problems in form of handover technology.

3.2.2 Bluetooth Bluetooth is a radio technology specifically designed to have very low power consumption and to be very cheap. It is therefore suitable for communication between portable devices within short distances. Link speed in Bluetooth is less than 1 Mbps and range is less than 10 meters. Bluetooth uses the 2.4 GHz ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) band and has frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) of 1,600 hops/second. Bluetooth also defines its own protocol stack and thus does not use OSI protocol model.

Bluetooth devices form so-called piconets, where there can be 8 devices and 3 voice channels per piconet. A piconet contains a master and several slave devices. The master controls all channel access, so slaves can only talk to the master and not to other slaves directly. A piconet can have number of active members (up to 8), and the other devices become parked members. Parked slaves can remain synchronized to the master, but they are not active on a channel. Each piconet has its own hopping channel.

Scatternet is a set of two or more interconnected piconets. A master in one piconet can be a slave in another piconet. To switch between piconets, time multiplexing is used.

In practice, Bluetooth’s applicability in ad hoc networking is very limited. It has concrete weaknesses compared to 802.11b, for example. The radio transmission range is rather small and also transmission rate is low. Maybe the most important issue is, although, the inefficiency of handovers. The handover is very slow, which limits actual mobility dramatically. Bluetooth’s main application is in Personal Area Networks (PANs), where it is suitable because of its very low power consumption and low costs.

3.2.3 HiperLAN/2 HiperLAN/2 is a radio technology mainly for wireless local area networking. It is a standard developed by ETSI. The transmission rate with HiperLAN/2 is up to 54 Mbps in the 5 GHz frequency band. Similarly to 802.11a, HiperLAN/2 uses Orthogonal Frequency Digital Multiplexing (OFDM) as a modularization method. HiperLAN/2 has signaling functions on the control plane of its protocol stack. This enables connection-oriented properties for transmission and also support for QoS negotiation. (Jonsson, 1999)

HiperLAN/2 suits rather well for ad hoc networking. Properties that make it applicable are high-speed transmission, mobility support in form of flexible and efficient handover capability, and power saving mechanism. In addition to these, also QoS support with connection-oriented links and security through authentication and encryption support are favorable in ad hoc networking. Its main problem is high costs.

- 14 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. 3.2.4 UWB Ultra Wideband (UWB) is a technology for wireless communication, precision location, and portable radars. An UWB device works by emitting a series of short, low-powered electrical pulses across the entire radio spectrum at once. UWB emits its pulses at a pre-determined rate, which can only be picked up by receiver tuned in to that exact pulse sequence. So, unless the receiver knows exactly what to listen, it won’t hear UWB transmission. This way UWB does not jam other wireless devices, mobile phones, or radios. Transmission rate is 60 Mbps, and UWB is also cheap and low power consuming technology. Its one application is, for example, communication between multimedia applications at home. (Economist: Tech. Quarterly, 2002)

3.2.5 QDMA Quadarature Division Multiple Access (QDMA) is radio technology optimized for wide area mobile applications. QDMA radio, for example, adapts well to rapidly varying signal strength generated in mobile environment. It also has increased error correction capability compared to 802.11b. Transmission speed with QDMA is 6 Mbps and range up to almost 5 kilometers.

3.3 Security On one hand, the security-sensitive applications of ad hoc networks require high degree of security and on the other hand, ad hoc networks are vulnerable to security attacks.

Ad hoc wireless networks do not have any predefined infrastructure and all network services are generated on the fly. It is obvious that lack of support of underlying infrastructure and possibility of attacks on wireless links make security an issue in ad hoc networks. It is challenging to achieve security within ad hoc networks basically due to following reasons: dynamic topologies and membership, vulnerable wireless links, and roaming in dangerous environment. (Vinayakray-Jani, 2002)

Topology of an ad hoc network is very dynamic as mobility and membership of nodes are random and rapid. For example, nodes in ad hoc networks may, unlike in Mobile IP architecture, dynamically become affiliated with administrative domains. This implies that there is a need for secure solutions to be more dynamic, as well. The point is that traditional security schemes with support of infrastructure do not apply in ah doc networks as such.

Passive and active link attacks like eavesdropping, spoofing, denial of service, masquerading, and impersonation, are possible on insecure wireless link. Eavesdropping might give an adversary access to secret information and this way violates confidentiality. Active attacks might allow the adversary to delete messages, to inject erroneous messages, to modify messages, and to impersonate a node, thus violating availability, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation.

Roaming in different environments, where setting up an ad hoc network and participating an existing one is easy, brings difficulties, because any malicious or misbehaving node can create a hostile attack or deprive all other nodes from providing any service. In ad hoc networks not only attacks from outside the network are possible, but also attacks from compromised nodes within the network form a serious threat. If a centralized entity was introduced to and ad hoc network and if this entity was compromised, the entire network would be subverted.

3.3.1 Link-level security The wireless communication between nodes is generally insecure. As data is transmitted by radio impulses through air, it is easy to eavesdrop. Practically anyone within the range of the radio signals can pick up the data transmitted. Out of radio technologies 802.11b Wireless LAN, the most common radio technology in ad hoc networks, has well-known security risks. Main risks are: insertion attacks, interception and monitoring wireless traffic, misconfiguration, jamming, and client-to-client attacks. Insertion attacks are based on placing unauthorized devices on the wireless network without going through a security process and review. Interception and monitoring are popular on wireless networks, as well as on broadcast wired networks like Ethernet. Misconfiguration means that there is basically a security configuration available, but it is configured properly. Jamming is a common denial of service attack, which is relatively easy to implement in a broadcast network. Client-to-client attacks especially are more common wireless ad hoc networks than in infrastructure networks, because clients can communicate directly to each other and thus by-pass a

- 16 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. base station that might provide security support. Therefore, nodes in ad hoc networks have to protect themselves from all the other nodes.

There are schemes to provide solutions to security issues in wireless communication, but most of them are based on architecture design and infrastructure support. In ad hoc networking these are not really an option. Link-level security can basically be provided only by encryption and authentication mechanisms.

3.3.2 Routing security As each node in an ad hoc network acts as a relay, the routing protocols are more vulnerable to attacks than routing protocols in Internet, for example. There are two sources of threats to routing protocols. The first one comes from external attackers. Attackers can disturb the network by distorting routing information, injecting erroneous routing information, or replaying old routing information. They can also create excessive traffic load to network by causing retransmission and inefficient routing. The second threat comes from compromised nodes, which might advertise incorrect routing information. The difference between outsiders and compromised insiders is not in the threats themselves, because both can basically create similar kinds of malicious attacks. The difference is that compromised insiders can operate in spite of possible securing mechanisms, because they have valid private keys. Therefore, detecting false information is difficult because compromised nodes can also generate valid signatures using their private keys.

Proposed routing protocols for ad hoc networks can dynamically adapt to changes in topology, but they provide only partial or no solution at all to security issues in ad hoc networks. False routing information can basically be detected and its effect minimized with existing features or routing protocols and route redundancy. As long as there are sufficiently many correct nodes, redundancy with multiple routes can be used in going around the compromised nodes. Nodes could switch to an alternative route when the primary route appears to be failed. One possibility to implement redundancy is diversity coding (Zhou, Haas, 1999). It takes advantage of multiple paths without message transmission. The basic idea is to transmit redundant information through additional routes for error detection and correction.

3.3.3 Key management Using cryptographic schemes, such as digital signatures, to protect routing information and data traffic, usually requires a key management service. A common way for doing this is adopting a public key infrastructure, which in turn requires a trusted entity, Certification Authority (CA), to the network for key management. Establishing a key management service with a single CA is problematic in ad hoc networks. If this CA is unavailable, nodes cannot get the current public keys of the other nodes, or establish a secure connection. Furthermore, if the CA is compromised and leaks its private key to an adversary, the adversary can then sign any erroneous certificate using this private key to impersonate any node or to revoke any certificate.

Replication of the CA service, or services in common, is a way to around the problems described above. But a naïve replication can make the service even more vulnerable. Any compromised single replica possessing the service private key, could lead to collapse of the entire system. Better scheme would be distributing the trust to a set of nodes by letting them share the key management responsibility.

Distribution of trust in key management service can be accomplished using threshold cryptography (Zhou, Haas, 1999). An (n, t+1) threshold cryptography allows n parties to share the ability to perform cryptographic operations, so that any t+1 parties can perform this operation jointly. For example in case of creating digital signature, t+1 parties create partial signatures and a combiner constructs a complete signature out of these partial ones. If this signature does not match the service public key, and is thus invalid, a reason for this may be an invalid partial signature made by a compromised party within the t+1 parties. In case of invalid signature, the combiner can request a new one from another group of t+1 trusted parties.

3.4 Quality of Service Quality of Services (QoS) generally means the guarantee by the network to satisfy a set of pre-determined service performance constraints for the user in terms of the end- to-end delay statistics, available bandwidth, probability of packet loss, and so on. The concept of QoS has advanced in wire-based networks, although, it is not entirely problem-free yet. In MANETs, there are also additional constraints to QoS coming from the bandwidth constraints, dynamic topology changes, and limited storing and processing capabilities of mobile nodes acting as routers. The first two constraints are obvious and the variability of bandwidth and unreliable links affect the capabilities to provide QoS in a straightforward manner. The limited processing and storing capabilities make providing QoS difficult, because finding the path from source to destination with requested properties and dynamically finding a new one with similar properties in case of topology changes, require the routers to have capacity to store a large amount information about the state of the network and significant resources to compute routes filling various combinations of QoS parameters.

3.4.1 QoS Models There are two major QoS models defined for Internet environment: IntServ/RSVP using end-to-end reservation-based engineering, and DiffServ using traffic classes to provide prioritization of data packets on each router. These models are not applicable to ad hoc networks as such. IntServ/RSVP model is not suitable for MANETs due to the resource limitations. Each node would have to maintain the information of the state of network and that causes a huge storage and processing overhead. The RSVP reservation and maintenance process is also network consuming and RSVP, being an out-of-band signaling protocol would eat the resources of data traffic. Classification and scheduling required by a complete QoS model mechanism would also require a lot of network resources.

Differentiated Services DiffServ, in turn, is lighter than IntServ, because the interior routers have to handle parameters for set of flows instead of individual flows. The DiffServ definition of core, ingress, and egress routers is problematic in ad hoc networks, because of the dynamic topology. Also the concept of Service Level Agreement (SLA) is not applicable in ad hoc networks, because basically paying for certain set of QoS parameters would need an entity assuring the parameters. These more or less central entities are always problematic in totally ad hoc networks.

3.4.1.1 FQMM Xiao et al. have presented a Flexible QoS Model for MANETs (FQMM) in 2000. (Zeinalipour-Yatzi, 2001) The idea is to combine the per-flow state property of IntServ and the service differentiation of DiffServ. Generally, this model proposes that highest priority is assigned per flow provisioning and other priority classes are given per-class provisioning. It is based on the assumption that not all packets are seeking for highest priority, because otherwise it would be similar to IntServ. In practice, FQMM defines three types of nodes, exactly as DiffServ: ingress, core, and egress. The difference is that the type of a node has nothing to do with its physical location in the network. A node is characterized as ingress if it is transmitting data, core if it is forwarding data and egress if it is receiving data.

- 19 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. 3.4.2 QoS signaling Signaling in QoS networks is used to reserve and release resources. It can be divided into out-of-band signaling and in-band signaling. In out-of-band signaling, such as RSVP, explicit control packets are used and given priority over data packets. In in- band signaling the control information is encapsulated into the data packets. In practice, in-band signaling is much more lightweight from networks point of view. Especially in MANETs, bandwidth and power constraints make in-band signaling favorable. MANETs also cannot tolerate complex signaling protocols.

3.4.2.1 INSIGNIA INSIGNIA is the first signaling protocol designed especially for MANETs in 1998 by Ahn et al. (Zeinalipour-Yatzi, 2001) It encapsulates control signals in the IP option of every IP data packet. INSIGNIA also maintains flow state information for the real- time flows on end-to-end basis, informing the source nodes for the status of their flow. INSIGNIA is an effective signaling protocol for ad hoc networks, but it also has drawbacks. The flow state information should be kept in the mobile hosts, which can lead to a scalability problem as the number of flow states increases. INSIGNIA also enables only two classes of services: real time (RT) and best effort (BE).

Having a signaling protocol is just a small part of really implementing quality of services scheme. Also a routing protocol, which tracks the changes in topology and updates routing tables in each node, is needed. Admission control module allocating bandwidth resources, packet forwarding module, packet scheduling module and medium access module would furthermore be needed. QoS routing, out of these, is discussed in more detail below.

3.4.3 QoS routing QoS Routing in MANETs is an essential component in realizing a complete QoS MANET Architecture. The routing procedure can inform a source node of the bandwidth and QoS availability to destination node in the network. Two basic matters have to be discussed: finding and obtaining a route with certain QoS parameters, and detecting a broken route and finding another. Both finding a route and rerouting are natural issues in general routing and routing protocols designed for MANETs have taken the constraints of ad hoc networking into account when considering these basics. What QoS adds to this is an extension to routing information enabling discussing these parameters, and also some kind of guarantee to preserve the level of quality also in case of changes in topology.

Requirements of enabling QoS in routing information are discussed a little bit later along with an example of QoS version of AODV routing protocol. The case of detecting broken routes and then either repairing the broken route or rerouting the flow on an alternate route with the desired QoS is shortly discussed here. As said before finding a route after dynamic changes in topology should be a trivial task for routing protocols in ad hoc networks. Some agreed upon QoS parameters, although, give stringent requirements for delay caused by finding new routes, and also reducing the likelihood of violating any QoS agreements needs extra attention.

In practice, redundant routes of various kinds are used for avoiding QoS violations. First, detecting route unavailability is generally handled with a kind of end-to-end acknowledgement mechanism from destination to source. If the source does not

- 20 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. receive these “refresher packets” in a given time window, the established QoS route is declared unavailable and the associated resources are released. In case of using route redundancy to avoiding possibly time consuming process of repairing routes or finding alternate ones, there are basically three levels of redundancy to be considered. At the highest level, multiple alternate routes with the same QoS guarantee are established for the flow and used simultaneously. At the next lower level, the routes and associated resources are reserved and rank ordered, but not used unless the primary route fails. At the lowest level of redundancy, the alternate routes are only identified, but no resources are reserved. When the primary path fails, the next alternative has to be checked, whether the resources are still available. It is obvious, that at the higher levels, more network resources are consumed and in the lower level the redundancy is decreased. (Mishra, Chakrabarti, 2001)

Perkins et al proposed a QoS version of Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol in 2000. It is based on extensions in routing table structure and in route request (RREQ) and route response (RREP) messages. The routing table information for each entry is extended with four fields: maximum delay, minimum available bandwidth, list of sources requesting delay guarantees, and list of sources requesting bandwidth guarantees. In AODV route discovery, a node, which receives a RREQ with quality of service extension, must be able to meet the service requirement to act as nodes do in AODV route discovery: rebroadcast the RREQ or unicast a RREP to the requester, if it has a suitable route. If the node does not meet the requirements, the RREQ should be discarded. After route establishment, if a node detects that requested QoS parameters could no longer be maintained, an ICMP QOS_LOST message is sent to source that originally requested QoS. (ICMP messaging is part of IP protocol family and is not further discussed here.) (Mishra, Chakrabarti, 2001)

3.5 Billing and incentives Because ad hoc networks do not have an established infrastructure, there is no entity to collect payment for infrastructure services. However, as all the nodes in a MANET work as routers, there may arise a question: why should the traffic between other nodes be forwarded? Of what use it is for a node to forward packets that do not have anything to do with it? In fact, forwarding data between other nodes has two disincentives for an autonomous node: energy expenditure and possible delays for its own data. Not forwarding the data would, in turn, result in impossibility of forming ad hoc networks.

There may be need for incentives in ad hoc networking, depending on their application, though. If, for example, each node in the network is owned by one organization, it is obvious that it is of everybody’s interest to actually do the forwarding. If there are selfish nodes, which do not want to forward data from nodes owned by another company, for example, or if there are compromised nodes, there is no clear incentive to participate. An incentive system would give benefit to the nodes that route packets for others. This incentive should also be fair, stable, independent of traffic patterns, and obtainable only through routing. It might also be beneficial to punish nodes that misbehave.

One possible solution for handling incentives in ad hoc networks is called Ad hoc Participation Economy (APE). In APE nodes receive virtual currency for routing. Money received could be used to paying other nodes to route your packet. In long term, the ability to send packets depends on having routed for others. APE is based on routing information with prices charged by intermediate nodes. Inter-node payments are handled by sending special payment packets. There are also so called Banker nodes that serve as accountants and dispute resolution authority of a group of participating nodes. Regular nodes have periodically their accounting records approved by banker nodes. (Fratkin, Liu, Vijayaraghavan, 2002)

Ad hoc networks can be formed for many different reasons, and there are very different views and needs for actual billing or incentive considerations. As incentives and billing in ad hoc networks, in general, is a rather difficult subject, it would perhaps be more fruitful to consider possible money flows in case of each application of ad hoc networks separately. Of course, it is still necessary to consider general schemes for incentives, like APE, to provide the ways of implementing these things within different applications.

3.6 Internet connectivity If a node in ad hoc network has connectivity to the global Internet, it can also offer connectivity to the other nodes. There are several ways to organize this from the network infrastructure point of view. An Internet gateway can be considered advertising itself as a default router. This will work if the other nodes in the ad hoc network can adapt to the thought that they are connected to their default router by a multi-hop path through other nodes. This idea contrasts with the traditional model of a default router. (Perkins, 2001)

Another idea is to consider the entire ad hoc as a single hop from the point of view of Internet routing. (Belding-Royer, 2001) This view is analogous to the way BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) characterizes an entire administrative system (AS) as a single hop in its route advertisements. However, given that multi-hop wireless connectivity incurs significant overhead, it is more important to minimize unnecessary hops in an ad hoc network than in high-speed wired AS.

One solution to finding the gateway is based on Ipv6 anycast. All gateways could have an assigned anycast for MANET gateway in their interface. Nodes could try to find a route to the anycast address with normal route discovery.

Another problem is related to addressing. In addition to gateway, nodes need a topologically correct address. (Topologically correct from Internet infrastructures point of view, of course.) Address also has to be globally unique, when connecting to Internet. One possible solution to this is Mobile IP. So, after a gateway is found, one way or another, the next step would be to make the default router a foreign agent for mobile IP. Then every node in the ad hoc network can appear to be accessible as if it were still located on its home network. Finding foreign agents would be based on agent advertisements and route requests to an assigned multicast address for “all mobility agents”.

From an operator’s point of view, access to Internet could be provided through default gateway settings. An operator could offer devices where a company-owned Internet gateway is set as the default gateway. Furthermore, these settings could be hard-coded so that it would not be possible to modify them. This way an operator would provide Internet access, but also make sure that it would be the only way for subscriber to access Internet.

Connecting to Internet is a difficult question and answers to that have been few. No single agreed upon model has come up. However, the problems related to the Internet connectivity can be defined. As a summary, they are gateway discovery and addressing problems.

3.7 Standardization and patents Standardization in the ad hoc networking field is done simultaneously on separate fronts, because there are many different technical fields concerned with ad hoc networking. Radio technologies and routing can be considered the most important areas of standardization in ad hoc networking. Different radio technologies have been standardized and are standardized all time. At the same time routing protocols specifically for MANETs are introduced and also standardized.

Generally all the radio technologies introduced earlier in this paper are standards as such. IEEE is the standardization organization behind the 802.11 protocol family, whereas HiperLAN/2, for example, is standardized by ETSI. The situation with routing protocols at the moment is, that IETF MANET Working Group has most of the routing protocols as drafts and DSR, OLSR, and TBRPF are going to be published as RFCs. AODV has recently been published as experimental RFC.

Of areas presented in previous sections, security and Quality of Service solutions are still far from standardization at IETF.

All in all, the amount of different standards for similar tasks is large, and is likely to be large also with future development. This may lead to incompatibilities in the future or at least be confusing people and companies working in ad hoc networking field.

3.8 Technical problems and limitations Ad hoc networking comes with a number of limitations, as discussed in previous sections. A limitation here can be considered as a boundary of some kind, that the applications designed for ad hoc networks have to take into account. Technical problems, on the other hand, can be seen as issues that require solving as soon as possible, because they are hindering development or deployment of the technology. Furthermore, if an application is designed without taking some limitations into account, the limitations may become technical problems from the applications point of view. Most of the problems and limitations were discussed in the sections giving the technology background for ad hoc networking. For example, problems related to security were, to some extent, discussed in the Security section. Therefore, this section is intended to be wrapping the most important issues together.

MANETs are wireless networks. This affects security of ad hoc networks significantly, because wireless links are easy to eavesdrop. The poorer performance of wireless transmission technologies, compared to wired transmission, also has an effect on routing and QoS issues. Bandwidth constraints of wireless transmission require the routing protocols to minimize the network overhead in route discovery and maintenance. Also QoS parameters themselves have limited boundaries due to capacity of wireless links. Furthermore, QoS signaling has to adapt to these bandwidth constraints. Also concrete limitations for different radio technologies and for their applicability in MANETs exist. It is problematic to develop a radio technology that would have low power consumption, high transfer rate, relatively large range, low costs, good scalability, and flexible support for rapid user mobility in the same package. Also a wide range of competing standards may be confusing and thus slow the development of ad hoc networking down.

Dynamic topology adds a new twist into routing, because routing protocols have to adapt to changes in topology caused by link losses and user mobility. Topology issues and more specifically the lack of an established infrastructure makes also maintaining security and guaranteeing QoS a lot harder. These both have traditionally been based on centralized authorities or entities, or dedicated router configurations. In ad hoc networks central entities are problematic because of the dynamic nature of the network. Compromised nodes may get involved with tasks of central entities.

Both routing and radio technologies are limited with energy-constrained. Routing protocols have to minimize the number of routing information updates, which consume energy in form of radio transmission overhead. Also radio technologies have to have limited power consumption to be applicable in MANETs. The power issue has also an effect on participation incentives. The threshold for forwarding data between other nodes gets higher, because radio traffic consumes own power “in vain”.

Scalability is one issue that was not very broadly discussed in previous sections. The scalability from routing perspective can be improved with clustering and hierarchical routing. Still, scalability of current routing protocols as such is fairly poor. Also scalability of IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN protocol was shortly discussed and the conclusion with it is that the scalability could, at least theoretically, be much better. Scalability is also problematic with security support and QoS architecture. Clustering on some level might be helpful with these issues, too.

At present, different organizations, consortiums and workgroups consider all the issues presented in the previous sections. This means that technology related to MANETs does not stand still, but is all time evolving. Scalability and Internet connectivity in terms of technology and business are perhaps the most important subjects of future work.

4 Applications

Ad hoc networking protocols allow building of self-configuring multi hop wireless networks. The concept in itself is generic and can be used in several application areas. Ad hoc networking is a critical enabling technology to some of the applications, such as sensor networks, where as others, e.g., fixed wireless broadband access networks can operate more efficiently using ad hoc networking protocols.

In general the use of ad hoc also known as mesh networking or multi hop wireless networking increases the spectral efficiency of communications, thus increasing the communications capacity of the network and allowing higher speeds for an individual user. At the same time use of multiple wireless hops decreases the power consumption required for sending data when compared to sending the data directly between communication end points, i.e., a mobile terminal and a wireless access point. The use of ad hoc protocols allows the networks to be self- configurable, decreasing the amount of configuration needed to set up a network. These theoretical characteristics make ad hoc networking a disruptive technology. However, in practice these advantages cannot be fully exploited due to limitations in radio technologies and routing protocols, but offer still notable benefits in certain application areas.

Also the requirements on networking differ depending on the application area. In mobile networking the computers, ad hoc network nodes, have limited computational and storage capabilities, and battery life is also limited. Spectral efficiency and communications overhead should be minimized for scalable and efficient operation. With fixed access, battery life is not an issue, but spectral efficiency and minimal communications overhead are critical for large scale deployment. With vehicle networks the protocols need to be able to deal with very fast moving mobile nodes. The most challenging applications are in the military, where in addition to the above-mentioned challenges the adversary will try to disrupt and eavesdrop communications.

In this section we will investigate promising application areas and the requirements these applications set on the networking technologies. The application areas are overlapping, but have clearly separate markets. For example fixed broadband access technologies and mobile data services overlap to some degree, especially for portable access to the Internet. Still the two applications have at least for now separate markets, e.g., home and corporate Internet access for desktop computers using fiber, DSL and cable modems and on the other hand GPRS and the emerging 3G WAN and IEEE 802.11 LAN mobile data services. As speed for mobile data access increases, these two markets may merge to some degree at least for the corporate segment, in which the cost is not as big an issue, as in the residential segment.

Mobile data services can be seen to include also vehicular networks where computers in vehicles communicate with other vehicles and also with computers located in the Internet. However, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication distinguishes this application from normal mobile Internet access.

- 27 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. e z i Fixed broadband S Mobile data access, including

k r vehicle networks o w t e

N Sensor networks

Home and personal networks

Node mobility Figure 3 Applications for ad hoc networking.

Figure 3 classifies potential applications of ad hoc networking based on the mobility of the nodes in the network and the size of the network. The technological challenges become more demanding as these parameters increase.

In this section we will describe the most promising application areas for ad hoc networking briefly and take a look at the existing products and services. We will focus more on the more generic areas of fixed and mobile wireless access services and cover other more specific areas only briefly. Furthermore, we will analyze how well ad hoc networking is suited to the area currently, what are the biggest challenges or limitations to applying it. We will also try to grasp the prospects for applying ad hoc networking to the application area in the near future.

4.1 Military and emergency networks

Military units need to be able to communicate while moving about freely, which makes use of wired communication media impractical. The communication systems need to be robust to be survivable in battlefield conditions. Moreover, the military users cannot rely on the existence of an infrastructure network, since all locations do not have one and they are likely to be damaged or destroyed in the course of battle.

The use of multi hop wireless networks provides robust, survivable communications in a highly dynamic battlefield environment. Most of the research on ad hoc networks was initially funded by US department of defense (DoD). In a military setting ad hoc nodes may be highly mobile, the security of the networking is critical, and the ad hoc networks can cover tens of thousands of nodes, which need to be able to execute communications of varying priority. The computational, storage and battery capabilities of the nodes also differ from personal communications devices to vehicle-mounted nodes. These requirements make design of the protocols and network architectures very challenging for military scenarios. However, these challenges have lead to the design of robust protocols, which can be applied also to commercial applications.

4.1.1 Requirements

Ad hoc networks have additional characteristics, which make them useful for military and emergency use: They can be deployed rapidly without extensive pre-configuration and provide connectivity beyond line-of-sight for higher radio frequencies (>100MHz) (Perkins 2001).

The networking protocols need to be able to cope with nodes moving at speeds varying from walking speed to several hundreds of kilometers per hour to work in a battlefield environment. Fast moving nodes use long range radios, whereas slow moving nodes can use short range technologies for higher throughput and smaller electro magnetic emissions. The network layer binds these together allowing end-to-end communications between nodes using different radio technologies. Ad hoc routing protocols are used for maintaining routes between the nodes. To limit the amount of routing protocol signaling clustering can be used to localize the effects of node mobility as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. A clustered military mobile ad hoc network.

Military and emergency use sets strict requirements on the security of the network. Nodes may be compromised and the enemy may try to disrupt and eavesdrop communications and send false information. To increase the robustness of the security architecture, public key infrastructure based mechanisms can be deployed in a distributed manner. In a military setting trust relationships already exist in the command hierarchy, which can be used for creation of the certificate hierarchy.

Use of public key certificates allows building of more flexible trust relationships without extensive pre-configuration and also the blacklisting of compromised nodes. Distributing trust with threshold cryptography can also be used for mitigating the effects of node compromise or destruction of key management servers, as it can be assumed that only few nodes higher in the command and trust hierarchy will be compromised simultaneously (Zhou 1999).

Quality-of-service is also important as messages have different priorities and important messages should be delivered even in the event of highly congested links. Emergency and law enforcement have also similar requirements for security and quality- of-service. The solutions developed for military use can be retrofitted for use in other government network

4.1.2 Current deployment

Currently there are two deployed MANETs in the U.S military (Perkins 2001): U.S. Army's Tactical Internet, TF XXI AWE, is a large-scale MANET, comprising thousands of nodes. The nodes are both vehicular and man-packed radios and they form a multihop packet radio network. The network runs Internet protocols, such as the Open Shortest Path First, OSPF, protocol modified for military requirements over a narrow band direct-sequence spread-spectrum physical layer.

- 30 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. U.S. Marine Corps have built a WLAN based MANET of a smaller scale, the ELB ATCD, which uses aerial relays for forming a network backbone. Land and sea based units connect to the backbone using Lucent Wavelan cards modified for a longer range. The aerial backbone uses a direct-sequence spread-spectrum physical layer technology, VRC-99A.

Both networks have limited throughput and are based on non-IETF MANET protocols and based on the publicly available information do not support quality of service services. The security characteristics of the systems are not publicly available. However, the view of the authors is that the security solutions are likely to be based on shared secret keys protecting the link layer, especially for ELB ATCD based partially on Lucent's commercial IEEE 802.11 WLAN.

4.1.3 Future directions The currently deployed MANET architectures provide either low bandwidth for large scale networks or relatively fast connections for smaller networks. For multimedia applications the military needs a MANET providing both high speed and scalability.

The aim of the U.S department of defense, DoD, is to use commercial products running IETF MANET protocols as building blocks for building the next generation tactical internet. In the pursuit of this goal DoD funds several research projects through DARPA and participates in the standardization process of the MANET IETF working group.

4.2 Fixed broadband wireless Fixed broadband wireless networking can be used for providing Internet access for residential and corporate customers. Fixed wireless broadband solutions have some inherent strengths when compared to wired access technologies (Insight 2002): oLow deployment costs; oRapid deployment intervals; oEasily re-deployable network infrastructure; oEasily deployable in harsh environments; oLow maintenance and troubleshooting expenses; oHigh reliability; oDemand-based deployment (pay as you grow); oOwnership and control over the network; and oExcellent back-up or temporary network solution.

Fixed wireless networks can be divided into three broad categories. Traditional deployments typically use point-to-point or point-to-multipoint topologies. Multipoint-to- multipoint network topologies also known as mesh networks have some advantages over the older technologies and are gaining popularity.

Point-to-point (PTP) networks have dedicated wireless connections between two fixed locations, with one end providing access to the wired network. The two locations must be within a clear line-of-sight and range of transceiver power. PTP networks are quick to install, provide reliable service and are effective for high-bandwidth, performance-driven applications. Unfortunately, PTP networks have limited scalability by design. The need for fail-safe redundancy in PTP networks often requires expensive duplication of access systems.

Point-to-multipoint (PTM) networks rely on a single transceiver or base station connected to the wired network that services multiple customers simultaneously. The base stations can form a cellular network for increasing the coverage and capacity. PTM networks scale better than PTP networks, since a single base station can serve multiple customers. With higher frequencies (>100 MHz) PTM networks require clear line-of-sight and have limited range to the transceiver. The capacity available to a single customer depends on the amount of customers served by a base station.

Multipoint-to-multipoint (MTM) topologies, often called mesh networks or ad hoc networks, provide multiple redundant paths through the network. As with other network topologies, access points provide connectivity to the wired network. But in mesh architectures, each customer's radio acts as a router or repeater of wireless signal. The routers form a multi hop wireless network.

A wireless user need not be within direct range of an access point to connect to the wired network. The user just needs to be within the range of another connected unit, which then forward the other nodes packets as shown in Figure 5. Thus, additional users increase the effective coverage area of an access point, making the entire network more robust.

Internet access router

Mesh node Mesh node

LAN LAN Mesh node

Mesh node

Figure 5. Ad hoc fixed wireless access network

A wireless access network that utilizes multi hop wireless networking, a so called mesh topology, has several advantages, as described below (Shorecliff Communications 2002):

o A multi hop wireless network requires less power than single hop network topologies. The radio transmission between two nodes at a range of R increases in proportion to the square of R. Thus, use of multiple hops between the end points decreases the power usage significantly; o Shorter transmission ranges improve signal strength and increases data rates; o Packets can be routed around obstacles blocking line-of-sight; o Traffic can be routed around congestions using load balancing techniques; o Ad hoc routing protocols can adjust to network changes and failures; o It requires less centralized infrastructure than other topologies; o Multi hop wireless networking increases the effectiveness of frequency use, while minimizing interference. The spectral efficiency of a multi hop network allows a larger number of subscribers per area without compromising the bandwidth available to a customer.

However, the use of ad hoc networks for fixed broadband access presents some challenges: o Multiple wireless hops increase the end-to-end latency, which is a limiting factor in real-time interactive services, e.g., voice. The latency depends much on the specifics of the radio technology used, though. For non-interactive data services this is not an issue. o Integration with back-end systems for billing and authentication requires new protocols, as customers are not connected directly to ISP equipment.

- 33 - Helsinki University of Technology, 3.4.2018 T-109.551 Telecommunications Business Seminar II seminar report. 4.2.1 Existing products and services

Nokia RoofTop Wireless Router Nokia has the RoofTop® Wireless Routing product, which is a wireless access router. The routers form a multihop wireless network using ad hoc routing protocols, which allows the network to deliver packets around line-of-sight obstructions, such as trees tall building, etc. The routers act as wireless LAN access points for users within their range.

The router models R240 and R240A use a modified MAC layer on top of a proprietary MAC protocol on the unlicensed 2.4 Ghz radio band. The router provides a 12Mbps aggregate speed per cell and a speed of 1 - 2Mbps to a single customer. The routers use an ad hoc routing protocol for providing connectivity to the network mesh. Other features of the router include authentication and access control, confidentiality of the traffic and centralized management of the routers.

Nokia claims to have over 60 customers for its product, mainly U.S. ISPs.

Radiant Networks Meshworks The U.K. based Radiant Networks product Meshworks® is another fixed wireless broadband product based on ad hoc networking. However, unlike Nokia's product Meshworks uses licensed radio bands to achieve higher data rates, ranging up to 25 Mbps duplex or 50 Mbps one-way.

Radiant Networks uses the spectral efficiency of their solution as a central selling point to ISPs. They analyze the efficiency of their multihop wireless system and compare it to a PTM wireless broadband system and show that their product is several orders of magnitude more efficient. The radio part of the system can tune the transmission power level on 1db intervals allowing the system to balance link quality with interference to achieve small cell sizes and therefore better frequency reuse. The theoretical models on the scalability of multi hop wireless networks developed by Gupta and Kumar and Shepard support the analysis. However, with practical radio systems it is not possible to achieve the linear scaling presented in Gupta’s and Kumar's paper Gupta, at least without use of multiple antennas.

The high spectral efficiency allows a larger amount of subscribers per area per frequency band. Meshworks supports a subscriber density of 600 -1000 users per square kilometer with a sustainable duplex data rate of 5Mbps per second to 30% of the users simultaneously. The spectral efficiency of Meshworks is 9Mbps / MHz / km^2.

Meshworks is based on ATM and uses point-to-point links between the router nodes. The maximum length of a link is 2.8 km. The Meshworks network connects to the wired infrastructure through Trunk Connection points, i.e., nodes with both wired and wireless interfaces. As the amount of customers increases more trunk connection points are needed. The actual routing nodes need to be within the range of other nodes and for this purpose the ISP needs to set up seed nodes to fill in the connectivity gaps between customers nodes.

Radiant Networks is doing trials with British Telecom Wholesales unit in U.K. and Star 21 Networks A.G. in Frankfurt, Germany to connect customers outside Star 21's ADSL coverage area or requiring more bandwidth than ADSL provides. Other customers include Jazztel (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), Nsight (USA) and Tradewinds (USA).

4.3 Extending cellular mobile access networks

Mobile ad hoc networking can be used for extending the coverage of a cellular mobile network. This allows mobile users to access the network even when they are outside the range of any base station. The use of multiple hops between a mobile node and a base station improves the signal quality, which either increases the data rate or decreases the required transmission power.

The cellular network in question can be, e.g., a CDMA or an IEEE 802.11 WLAN network. For example a user surfing the web in an Internet cafe with his laptop computer and a WLAN card could also provide access to other users outside the range of the cafeteria's WLAN access point.

The products and protocols developed for fixed broadband wireless access could possibly also be employed for mobile or at least portable Internet access. However, mobile use leads to a frequently changing network topology. Changes in the network topology pose challenges to any routing protocol used in the network. The amount of routing protocol related signaling makes large-scale flat mobile ad hoc networks impractical. To overcome this limitation, a clustered or hierarchical approach presented in section 3.1.8 is needed. The fixed wireless network would then form the backbone network to which mobile nodes could attach through a small number of hops via other mobile nodes as shown in Figure 6.

4.3.1 Existing products and services

Mesh networks - Mesh Enabled Architecture Mesh Networks, a company based in Maitland, Florida has transferred ad hoc networking technology originally developed for the U.S. Military to commercial products. The Mesh Enabled Architecture®, MEA, provides mobile broadband Internet access to users and also geo-location services.

MEA uses Mesh Networks proprietary QDMA modulation technology on top of the unlicensed 2.4GHz radio band. MEA consists of access points connected to the wired infra and wireless nodes providing multi hop routing services to mobile nodes. The main selling points of MEA are easy deployment and scalability as new users also increase the capacity and the coverage of the network.

The end user equipment required to access the MEA is a PCMCIA card, which contains the whole protocol stack required for using the MEA. The QDMA radio technology (according to Mesh Networks) is better suited to mobile WAN use than 802.11b and has some common characteristics with cellular radio technologies, such as multi-tap rake receiver and a real-time equalization algorithm to compensate for rapidly varying signal strength generated in a mobile environment. The end users mobile nodes connect to the Internet through fixed wireless routers and intelligent access points, which have both wired and wireless interfaces. The mobile nodes also forward packets for other nodes as shown in Figure 6.

The ad hoc routing protocol run in the network is invisible to the mobile nodes as it is run below the TCP/IP protocol stack. This allows the use of unmodified TCP/IP stacks in the mobile nodes and makes the use of an ad hoc network for Internet access straightforward, when compared to MANET protocols operating on the IP layer.

The use of QDMA radio technology makes the Mesh Networks product expensive and they offer an 802.11b-based system MeshLAN for 802.11b as a lower cost alternative for non-mobile Internet access. The MeshLAN uses a modified version of the IEEE 802.11b, to make it work better in multi hop wireless networks.

Mesh Networks also offers an ASIC chip for adding MeshNetworks Multi-Hop routing technology, high-speed data rates, Quality of Service (QoS) management, and precision geo-location to mobile computing, telematics and entertainment platforms. The chip is radio-technology agnostic and can be used with IEEE 802.11b, QDMA and UWB radio technologies.

Customers of Mesh Networks include Viasys Corporation, which deploys Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for Departments of Transportation and unnamed major corporations in the car, consumer electronics, defense and public mobile data service industries. Mesh Networks also has an FCC experimental license to build a 4000-node nation-wide test network in the US.

Figure 6. Mesh Enabled Architecture. Groups can form ad hoc peer-to-peer networks anytime, anywhere. No network infrastructure is needed. MeshNetworks users can hop through each other to become part of the group. Peer-to-peer networking is supported for both fixed and mobile subscribers

4.4 Sensor networks

Distributed self-configuring sensor networks are an emerging area of computing, that shows great promise. Distributing sensors provides more accurate and reliable information of measured phenomena. Typically sensors are small low power units with minimal computing capabilities equipped with a short range wireless radio. The sensors are able to do some processing on the data they collect and send it to an observer node, which can then create “the large picture”, based on the preprocessed data. ad hoc networking is a key enabler for sensor networks allowing the sensors to self- organize into a network and deal with device failures and even with mobility of the sensors. Once organized into a network they can deliver the measurement information to an observer, as shown in Figure 7. Using multiple short wireless hops decreases the battery drain significantly when compared to each sensor sending the information directly to a centralized collector node. The ad hoc routing algorithms used in sensor network aim to minimize the power consumption to maximize the battery life of the sensor network.

Sensor networks can be used for a wide range of application, although the primary focus has so far been on military applications, as most research on the area has been funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Especially the “smart dust” idea has received lots of attention in DoD funded research. The “smart dust” term refers to a large amount of very small sensors delivered by e.g. airplane to a battlefield location to survey the area. The sensors could then measure and partially process phenomena such as noise, existence of biological or chemical agents, pressure, vibration, etc., Pister (2001). Sensor networks can be also applied to civilian purposes, e.g. traffic measurements.

Preprocessed information Sensor Sensor

Server

Sensor Network Sensor Sensor

Sensor

Figure 7. Sensor Network.

4.5 Vehicle networks Automobile networks allow vehicles to get weather and hazard alerts, provide access to online navigation data and allow online gathering and analysis of maintenance data. Currently automobile networks use cellular or satellite based mobile data services, such as GPRS for connecting the automobile to the Internet.

Automobile networks could employ ad hoc networking for vehicle-to-vehicle communications and Internet access. The vehicles would form an ad hoc network, which would be connected to the Internet through roadside access points. Ad hoc networking would shorten the transmission distances and increase data rates. Use of ad hoc networking could also be more cost efficient than using cellular access technology. However, short range radio technologies and MANET routing protocols need adjusting to work with fast moving vehicles. Current and near future automotive networks are based on cellular technology and the development of MANET protocols and radio technologies for automotive networks is still mostly confined to research labs.

4.6 Home and personal networking

Mobile ad hoc networks are a generic technology, which can be applied to a wide range of communications scenarios. Personal area networking, home networking and ad hoc collaboration could all benefit from multi hop wireless networking. Use of self- configuring networks together with service location mechanisms offers clear benefits to ad hoc collaboration often needed in meetings and conferences. Self-configuring short range wireless networks enable ubiquitous networking of home electronics and appliances. The networks can be either multi hop or single hop wireless networks and can be implemented using Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 WLAN or similar technologies.

5 Technology barriers and timing

There exist a number of technology barriers, which slow the adoption of ad hoc networking. The requirements on the networking increase with the size of the network and the frequency of topology changes. Small static networks, such as home networks, pose no problems to the ad hoc routing and radio technologies of today. However, when the network size, and frequency of node mobility grow the overhead created by routing protocol consumes a growing part of the network capacity. With currently deployed radio technologies, especially IEEE802.11b the situation is even worse as shown in Figure 2. Although alternative radio technologies, such as HiperLAN 2 offer far better performance, they have not been widely deployed.

The limitations of radio technologies and routing protocols are likely to slow down the adoption of ad hoc networking in fields where its other advantages are not essential. Figure 3 illustrates network size and node mobility for different applications and it also helps in estimating the timing of the applications. The applications in the lower left corner can apply ad hoc networking first and the ones in the upper right corner last. This development is estimated in Figure 8.

Now 2004 2006 2010 ?

Sensor networks, Home networks Mobile access, Personal comm., Vehicle comm. Fixed wireless access, Portable access Military & emergency

Figure 8. Timing of ad hoc applications.

6 Conclusions

Ad hoc networking allows nodes to communicate over multiple wireless hops and form self-organizing networks. These two features make it an important technology, which may have a large effect on wireless communications in the near future. Ad hoc networking improves the efficiency and range of fixed and mobile Internet access and enables totally new applications such as sensor networks. Use of ad hoc networking will also make wireless networking more flexible, as users do not need to be within the direct reach of wireless access points to access the Internet.

More efficient use of radio spectrum through ad hoc networking will allow users to enjoy faster connection speeds at lower rates. Operators will be able to provide larger coverage and faster data rates at lower prices by extending their networks with user terminals acting as wireless routers.

Advances in radio technology and ad hoc routing protocols are needed for wide spread use of Ad hoc networking. New radio and link control technologies need to be designed to meet the requirements of Ad hoc networking, which differ from those set by cellular radio technologies. These technologies also need to be standardized to offer a sustainable basis for interoperating products and a wider market.

The challenges are being met by several start ups trying to provide a new wireless access architrecture to the fixed and mobile Internet access market curently dominated by operators struggling under large amounts of debt and by entrenched equipment vendors, such as Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola. Only the near term future will show us, whether Ad hoc networking is ready for more than connecting near by devices for Ad hoc communications.

Terms and Abbreviations

3G Next generation of cellular radio technology. Bluetooth A wireless technology designed for personal area networking. CDMA Code Division Multiple Access, a cellular radio technology. DSL Digital Subscriber Line, a broadband access technology. GPRS General Packet Radio Service, an extension to GSM cellular networks for packet data services. HiperLAN/2 A wireless LAN technology standardized by ETSI. IEEE 802.11 A wireless local area networking standard. IETF Internet Engineering Taskforce, the standardization body for Internet protocols. LAN Local area network. MANET Mobile Ad Hoc Network. QoS Quality of Service. RFC Request for Comments, an Internet standard. WLAN Wireless LAN.

References

Adjih, C. et al. (2003) ”Optimized Link State Routing Protocol” Internet Draft, March 3, 2003, .

Corson, S. & Macker, J. (1999) “Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations” RFC 2501, January, 1999, .

“Cutting the ties that bind” (2002) Technology Quarterly [Internet], September 19,. 2002, .

Fratkin, E. Liu, Y. & Vijayaraghavan, V. (2002) ”Participation Incentives for Ad hoc Networks” Project report. University of California.

Gupta, P. Gray, R. & Kumar, P. R. (2001) “An Experimental Scaling Law for Ad Hoc Networks” University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Gupta, P. & Kumar, P. R. (2001) "Towards an information theory of large networks: An achievable rate region", in IEEE Int. Symp. Info. Theory, Washington DC, June 2001.

The Insight Research Corporation, ”Fixed broadband wireless,” Resarch report, 2001.

Johnson, D. B. Maltz, D. A. & Hu, Y.-C. (2003) ”The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR)” Internet draft, February 24, 2003,

Jonsson M. (1999) “HiperLAN/2 – The Broadband Radio Transmission Technology Operating in the 5 GHz Frequency Band” Version 1.0, HiperLAN/2 Global Forum, 1999.

Mesh Networks (2001) MEA product sheet, 2001, .

Mishra, A. & Chakrabarti, S. (2001) “QoS Issues in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks” IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2001. pp.142-148

Nokia (2001), Nokia RoofTop Wireless Routing, whitepaper 2001.

Ogier, R. et al. (2003) ”Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF)” Internet Draft, March 3, 2003, .

Perkins, C. E. (2001) “Ad Hoc Networking” Boston, US. Addison-Wesley.

Perkins, C. E. Belding-Royer, E. M. & Das S. (2003) “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing” Internet draft, February 17, 2003, .

Pister, K. (2001) "On the Limits and Applications of MEMS Sensor Networks", Defense Science Study Group report, Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA., 2001,

Radiant Networks Meshworks product sheet,

Shepard, T. J. (1995) “Decentralized Channel Management in Scalable Multihop Spread-Spectrum Packet Radio Networks” Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Sun, Y. Belding-Royer, E. M. & Perkins, Charles E. (2002) “Internet Connectivity for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks” International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, Special Issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. April 2002.

Toh, C.-K. (2002) “Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems” pp. 27-77. New Jersey, US. Prentice Hall.

Wery, R. & Kar, S. & Woodrum, J., ”When wifi meets mesh”, Shorecliff communiucations, 2002

Vinayakray-Jani, P. (2002) “Security Within Ad hoc Networks” PAMPAS’02 Workshop on Requirements for Mobile Privacy & Security. Sept. 16-17 2002. University of London.

Zeinalipour-Yazti, D. (2001) “A Glance at Quality of Services in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks” Seminar report. University of California.

Zhou, L. & Haas, Z. J., "Securing Ad Hoc Networks" published in IEEE Network journal, volume 13, pp. 24-30, 1999.

- 44 -