Fault Detection in Autonomic Networks Using the Concept of Promised Cooperation

  • Remi Badonnel
  • Mark Burgess
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4785)


Fault detection is a crucial issue in autonomic networks for identifying unreliable nodes and reducing their impact on the network availability and performance. We propose in this paper to improve this situation based on the concept of promised cooperation. We exploit the promise theory framework to model voluntary cooperation among network nodes and make them capable of expressing the trust in their measurements during the detection process. We integrate this scheme into several distributed detection methods in the context of ad-hoc networks implementing the OLSR routing protocol. We quantify how the fault detection performances can be increased using this approach based on an extensive set of experimentations performed under the ns-2 network simulator.


Fault Detection Autonomic Networks Promise Theory 


  1. 1.
    Ns-2 network simulator.
  2. 2.
    OLSR Extension for Ns-2. Navy Research Laboratory OLSR Project,
  3. 3.
    Badonnel, R., State, R., Festor, O.: Fault Monitoring in Ad-Hoc Networks Based on Information Theory. In: Boavida, F., Plagemann, T., Stiller, B., Westphal, C., Monteiro, E. (eds.) NETWORKING 2006. LNCS, vol. 3976, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badonnel, R., State, R., Festor, O.: Self-configurable Fault Monitoring in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. Elsevier Journal of Ad-Hoc Networks (to be published, 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Begnum, K., Burgess, M.: Principle Components and Importance Ranking of Distributed Anomalies. Machine Learning Journal 58(2), 217–230 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergstra, J., Burgess, M.: Local and Global Trust Based on the Concept of Promises. Technical report, Oslo University College, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Boudec, J.-Y., Vojnovic, M.: Perfect Simulation and Stationarity of a Class of Mobility Models. In: INFOCOM 2005. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, Miami, FL, USA (March 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, A., Kar, G., Keller, A.: An Active Approach to Characterizing Dynamic Dependencies for Problem Determination in a Distributed Application Environment. In: IM 2001. Proc. of the 7th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, Seattle, WA, USA (May 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burgess, M.: A site configuration engine. USENIX Computing systems 8(3) (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burgess, M., Fagernes, S.: Promise theory - A Model of Autonomous Objects for Pervasive Computing and Swarms. In: ICNS 2006. Proc. of the International Conference on Networking and Services, Silicon Valley, USA (June 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehtihet, E., Strassner, J., Agoulmine, N., Foghlu, M.O.: Ontology-Based Knowledge Representation for Self-governing Systems. In: State, R., van der Meer, S., O’Sullivan, D., Pfeifer, T. (eds.) DSOM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4269, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakobson, G., Weissman, M.D.: Real-time Network Management: Extending Event Correlation with Temporal Constraints. In: IM 1995. Proc. of the 4th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, Santa Barbara, CA, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buttyan, L., Hubaux, J.-P.: Security and Cooperation in Wireless Networks. Cambridge Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, L., Thottan, M., Yao, B., Paul, S.: Distributed Network Monitoring with Bounded Link Utilization in IP Networks. In: INFOCOM 2003. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, San Francisco, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duque, O.G., Pavlou, G., Howarth, M.: Detection of Packet Forwarding Misbehavior in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. In: WWIC 2007. Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Wired/Wireless Internet Communications, Coimbra, Portugal (May 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramachandran, K., Belding-Royer, E., Almeroth, K.: DAMON: A Distributed Architecture for Monitoring Multi-hop Mobile Networks. In: SECON 2004. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, Santa Clara, CA, USA (October 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murch, R.: Autonomic Computing. IBM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoon, J., Liu, M., Noble, B.: Random Waypoint Considered Harmful. In: INFOCOM 2003. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 1312–1321 (April 2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Younis, M., Munshi, P., Al-Shaer, E.: Architecture for Efficient Monitoring and Management of Sensor Networks, E2EMON Workshop. In: Marshall, A., Agoulmine, N. (eds.) MMNS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2839, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhuang, S.Q., Geels, D., Stoica, I., Katz, R.H.: On Failure Detection Algorithms in Overlay Networks. In: INFOCOM 2005. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, Miami, FL, USA (March 2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zweig, M.H., Campbell, G.: Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) Plots. Clinical Chemistry 29(4), 561–577 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remi Badonnel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Burgess
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Oslo University College, Pb 4 St. Olavs Plass, 0130 OsloNorway
  2. 2.LORIA - INRIA, Nancy University, BP 239, 54506 VandœuvreFrance

Personalised recommendations