An Even Better Approach – Improving the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol Through Formal Modelling and Analysis

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10811)

Abstract

This paper considers a network routing protocol known as Better Approach to Mobile Adhoc Networks (B.A.T.M.A.N.). The protocol has two aims: first, discovery of all bidirectional links, and second, identification of the best-next-hop to the other nodes. A key mechanism of the protocol is to flood the network at regular intervals with so-called originator messages.

In previous work we formalised the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol in Uppaal and found several ambiguities and inconsistencies [2]. More importantly, explicit choices in the RFC had, unfortunately, a negative impact on route discovery. This previous work compared a literal model based of the RFC with an incremental improvement. This paper goes one step further and proposes an alternative that departs from the RFC. We compare the performance using simulations in Uppaal, for static as well as dynamic topologies. The analysis shows that the proposed alternative reduces the number of suboptimal routes significantly, and recovers better from routing errors that are introduced by mobility.

References

  1. 1.
    Bulychev, P., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Mikučionis, M., Poulsen, D.B., Legay, A., Wang, Z.: UPPAAL-SMC: statistical model checking for priced timed automata. In: Proceedings 10th Workshop on Quantitative Aspects of Programming Languages and Systems, EPTCS (2012).  https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.85.1
  2. 2.
    Chaudhary, K., Fehnker, A., Mehta, V.: Modelling, verification, and comparative performance analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol. In: Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems (MARS 2017). EPTCS (2017).  https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.244.3
  3. 3.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P.: Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR). Network Working Group. http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3626
  4. 4.
    Fehnker, A., van Glabbeek, R., Höfner, P., McIver, A., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: Automated analysis of AODV using UPPAAL. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fehnker, A., Höfner, P., Kamali, M., Mehta, V.: Topology-based mobility models for wireless networks. In: Joshi, K., Siegle, M., Stoelinga, M., D’Argenio, P.R. (eds.) QEST 2013. LNCS, vol. 8054, pp. 389–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40196-1_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furlan, D.: Analysis of the overhead of B.A.T.M.A.N. routing protocol in regular torus topologies. Technical report, University of Trento, Italy (2011). https://downloads.open-mesh.org/batman/papers/OGMoverhead.pdf
  7. 7.
    Furlan, D.: Improving BATMAN routing stability and performance. Master’s thesis, University of Trento (2011). https://downloads.open-mesh.org/batman/papers/Improving BATMAN Routing Stability and Performance.pdf
  8. 8.
    Hardes, T.: Performance analysis and simulation of a Freifunk Mesh network in Paderborn using B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn (2015). http://thardes.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/thesis.pdf
  9. 9.
    Huhtonen, A.: Comparing AODV and OLSR routing protocols (2004). http://www.tml.tkk.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/Huhtonen.pdf
  10. 10.
    Kamali, M., Höfner, P., Kamali, M., Petre, L.: Formal analysis of proactive, distributed routing. In: Calinescu, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SEFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9276, pp. 175–189. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22969-0_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulla, E., Hiyama, M., Ikeda, M., Barolli, L.: Performance comparison of OLSR and BATMAN routing protocols by a MANET testbed in stairs environment. Comput. Math. Appl. 63(2), 339–349 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marinis Artelaris, S.: Performance evaluation of routing protocols for wireless mesh networks (2016). http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:903013/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  13. 13.
    Neumann, A., Aichele, C., Lindner, M., Wunderlich, S.: Better approach to mobile ad-hoc networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.). IETF Draft (2008). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wunderlich-openmesh-manet-routing-00
  14. 14.
    Wang, J.C.P., Hagelstein, B., Abolhasan, M.: Experimental evaluation of IEEE 802.11s path selection protocols in a mesh testbed. In: 2010 4th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPCS.2010.5709664
  15. 15.
    Wibling, O., Parrow, J., Pears, A.: Automatized verification of ad hoc routing protocols. In: de Frutos-Escrig, D., Núñez, M. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3235, pp. 343–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30232-2_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Formal Methods and Tools GroupUniversity TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Computing, Information, and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of the South PacificSuvaFiji

Personalised recommendations