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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The RFC abbreviates the protocol as B.A.T.M.A.N., including the dots.
- 2.
The RFC states that the OGM should be dropped if the TTL after decrementing becomes 1.
References
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
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
Clausen, T., Jacquet, P.: Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR). Network Working Group. http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3626
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
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
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
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
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
Huhtonen, A.: Comparing AODV and OLSR routing protocols (2004). http://www.tml.tkk.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/Huhtonen.pdf
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
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)
Marinis Artelaris, S.: Performance evaluation of routing protocols for wireless mesh networks (2016). http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:903013/FULLTEXT01.pdf
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fehnker, A., Chaudhary, K., Mehta, V. (2018). An Even Better Approach – Improving the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol Through Formal Modelling and Analysis. In: Dutle, A., Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A. (eds) NASA Formal Methods. NFM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10811. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77935-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77935-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77934-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77935-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)