Get help now

Efficient Resource Allocation for Adhoc Networks

  • Pages 15
  • Words 3610
  • Views 357
  • dovnload



  • Pages 15
  • Words 3610
  • Views 357
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online


    The success of wireless and mobile communications in the 21st century has resulted in a large variety of wireless technologies such as second and third-generation cellular, satellite, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. The heterogeneous wireless networks combine various wireless networks and provide universal wireless access. The leading wireless companies in some countries have operated networks with multiple wireless technologies, such as T-Mobile in the United States, British Telecom in the United Kingdom, Orange Telecom in France, NTT DoCoMo in Japan, and Chunghwa Telecom in Taiwan.

    The number of such Companies would increase because the standards for operators to provide seamless services in networks with multiple wireless technologies have been proposed by the Third-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) . In addition, users in the heterogeneous wireless networks are usually covered by more than one cell to avoid connection drop and service disruption. More mobile terminals in the wireless networks are likely to own multiple wireless technologies.

    Therefore, the heterogeneous wireless networks provide the mobile hosts with many choices for the cells and wireless technologies to access the Internet


    In this project we are dealing with resource allocations in heterogeneous multicast networks using a bandwidth-efficient multicast mechanism. Our mechanism enables more mobile hosts to cluster together and leads to the use of fewer cells to save the scarce wireless bandwidth. Besides, the paths in the multicast tree connecting to the selected cells share more common links to save the wire line bandwidth.

    Our mechanism supports the dynamic group membership and offers mobility of group members. We formulate the selection of the cell and the wireless technology for each mobile host in the heterogeneous wireless networks as an optimization problem. We use Integer Linear Programming to model the problem and show that the problem is NP-hard.


    In this project we are dealing with resource allocations in heterogeneous multicast networks using a bandwidth-efficient multicast mechanism. Our mechanism enables more mobile hosts to cluster together and leads to the use of fewer cells to save the scarce wireless bandwidth.

    Besides, the paths in the multicast tree connecting to the selected cells share more common links to save the wire line bandwidth. Our mechanism supports the dynamic group membership and offers mobility of group members. We formulate the selection of the cell and the wireless technology for each mobile host in the heterogeneous wireless networks as an optimization problem. We use Integer Linear Programming to model the problem and show that the problem is NP-hard. To solve the problem, we propose a distributed algorithm based on Lagrangean relaxation and a network protocol based on the algorithm.

    The simulation results show that our mechanism can effectively save the wireless and wire line bandwidth as compared to the traditional IP multicast. This can be achieved through selecting the cell and the wireless technology for each mobile host to join the multicast group. As a result bandwidth cost of an internet protocol multicast tree will be reduced.


    In this module we provide number of nodes we required in the network. Once our requirement is provided group of nodes get arranged in each cell randomly. Each cell accesses the nodes according to its capability. Resource allocation: The resource allocation will find the nearest tower to the mobile. Then we will find the nearest tower to that. The main advantage of finding this is to use the available bandwidth. And by this way we will connect the mobile to the nearest tower.

    And by this way we will maintain good band width usage. Source and Destination: In this module we are going to choose the source and destination nodes. Once the source node is entered, its position and the cell which contains the node is stored. Similarly the position of destination node is found in order to find the shortest path. Lagrangean path: In this module we divide the problem into two sub problems. With the help of first sub problem we find the method of accessing the nearest cell. With the help of second sub problem the consumption of bandwidth is found. Finally the Lagrangean iteration process provides the shortest path to access the mobile.


    Mobile Multicast Protocol: Mobile IP supports (unicast) IP routing for mobile hosts in an IP internetwork. The c m t version of Mobile IP proposes two approaches to support mobile multicast which are remote subscription and bi-directional tunneling . In remote subscription, each MH (Mobile Host) always re-subscribes to its desired multicast group when it enters a foreign network. Therefore its multicast router (MR) must be added to the multicast distribution tree.

    The updzte frequency of the multicast distribution tree will depend on how offen the mobile handoff occurs. The main advantage of this approach is that the multicast datagrams are always delivered on the shortest paths. However, the overhead is the cost of reconst~uctingt he delivery tree while a handoff occurs. In bi-duectional tunneling, the mobile host receives multicasl datagrams by way of its home agent (HA) using the unicast Mobile IP tunnels. This approach hides host mobility Bom all other members of the multicasi group.

    In addition, the multicast distribution tree will not be updated for the sake of member location change. The main drawback of this approach is the routing path for multicast delivery can be far from optimal. Besides, the HA must replicate and deliver tunneled multicast datagrams to all its away MHs, regardless of at which foreip networks they resides. Therefore, the network resource will be wasted. The scheme is complicated by a phenomenon called runnel convergence problem resulting from the fact that multiple Mobile IP tunnels (from different HAS) can terminate at a particular FA (Foreign Agent).

    where multiple HAS all happen to have mobile hosts that are members of the Same multicast group at the Same foreign network, managed by the foreign agent FA. Therefore more than one copy of every multicast package would be forwarded to the FA by every HA . Range-Based Mobile Mu//icas/ @? EMOM): RBMoM [6] intends to trade off between the shortest delivery path and the frequency of the multicast tree reconliguration. Multicast datagrams are delivered on the near-shortest paths without paying the high cost of reconstructing the multicast tree (the main drawback of remote ubscription).

    Like the home agent in Mobile IP, RBMoM has a router, called mulficasf home agent m)t,ha t is responsible for tunneling multicast datagrams to the foreign agent to which the mobile host (MH) is currently attached. Therefore, each MHA must always be one of the multicast group members (this is like bi-directional tunneling in which every home agent must join the multicast group). Every MH can only have one MHA. The home agent (HA) of a MH is never changed. However, the MHA of a MH is changeable according to the MH location. The initial MHA of a mobile host is set to be its HA.

    RBMoM addresses a concept of “range” for each MHA. The range of a MHA means the service mge to its MHs. That is, a MHA can only serve the mobile hosts which are roaming around the foreign networks which are within its service range, or the network to which the MHA is attached. If a mobile host is out of its MHA service range, then the MHA handof will occur. That is, another MHA will take over the multicast service to the mobile host. From the point of view of the range concept, we will find both bi-directional tunneling and remote subscription are the extremes of BMoM. Let R be the senice range of a multicast home agent.

    Thus, If we let R = m, then RBMoM is the Same as bi-direct i 0 ~ 1tu nneling. In this case, the MHA is always the home agent and is never changed. If we let R = 0, then RBMoM is the same as remote subscription. That is, when a MH entm a foreign network (i. e. , handom, its MHA must be changed because of out ofthe senice range. RBMoM is a generalization of the above cases and a unifying mobile multicast approach. According to the value of R, a MHA can determine whether the datagams should be tunneled to each of them. Observe that the service range reshicts the “al length of the iunne1 between a mobile host and its MHA.

    Range-Based Mobile Mul/icas/ Forwarding Mechanism All routers in figure 4 are assumed running RBMoM. If Router RT, has been elected to be MHA for Campus Network, then it could service RT2 and RT, with range = 1. For simplicity, we assume mobile hosts MH, … MH5 join the same multicast group and there is only one source. The base stations in SubnetA and SubnetB join this multicast group via the IGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol). Similarly, using IGMP the routers and base stations in the Campus Network would join tlus multicast group.

    We assume RT, and RT3 are served by the RT, (i. e. , RT, is the MHA of RT2 and RT3). Note that RT2 and RT, can be served by the other MHAs if they are also in these MHAs’ service range. But each multicast router must elect only one MHA. That is, each mnter can have only one MHA even though there is more than one in its neighborhood. To illustrate the delivery of a multicast datagram, sup pose that Multicast Source (attached to the Intemet) sends a multicast datagram to the “multicast group X”.

    This datagram will he through the Internet get to the MHA (Router RT,) by using some multicast routing protocol (e. g. , CBT, DVMRP or PIM, etc. ), and then RT, forwards the datagram to the members of multicast p u p X located at SuhnetA and SubnetB. This is accomplished by sending a single copy of the datagram onto Campus Network as a data-lmk layer multicast. Upon receiving the multicast datagram from RT,, RT2 and RT, will then multicast the datagram on their connected networks (SuhnetA and SuhnetB, respectively). Note that, if MH2 moves from the area of BS, to the area of BS,, it still can receive the multicast datagrams since it is within the service range of the same MHA (RT,).

    There will be the similar result when it migrates to the area of BSI, because the BS, is still still served by RT,. Thus, there is almost no datagram lost hecause of mobile host handoff only if the mobility is within the service range of the MHA (i. e. , the host mobility is hidden within the service range of the MHA). Mul/icas/ Home Agent Eleclion The multicast home agent (MHA) election is performed per handoff by a mobile host using a combination of distance tiebreakem (i. e. , the closest node to the multicast source should be the MHA) and loading tiebreakers in the case of equal distances.

    Random tiebreakers will be used when both distance and loading are equal 161. For simplicity, we can let all mobile hosts staying in a subnet have the same MHA, and this MHA must be a multicast router. Then the tunnel convergence problem can be solved. Given a service range R, RBMoM, thus, elects the MHA among the group of multicast routers which have the hop distance less than or equal to R to the subnet. Those mobile hosts roaming at a common LAN have the same MHA. Service range = 1 is the network topology. Every node in this figure represents a LAN (or subnet). We assume that each LAN has a multicast router (MR).

    The MR in a “squared” LAN (e. g. , LAN 2, 5 and 9, etc. ) means the qualified router to be able to act as a MHA. Once a qualified router is elected as a MHA, it must be on the multicast Tree If the MR at LAN 2, denoted MR,, acts as the MHA of LAN 1,3 and 7, it must be on the multicast tree to receive the multicast datagrams from the some and then to tunnel these received multicast datagrams to MR,, MR, and MR,. These MRs then further broadcast the datagrams to their local mobile participants. There are two possible candidates within the service range to be its MHA (i. e. , MR,, and MR,,).

    We choose one which savice less MRs to be the MHA (loading tiebreakers). If the loading is equal, we can use the random tiebreakers to choose one. If we increase the service range, obviously the number of MHAs is decreased. How can we get the qualified MRs in the example mentioned above to be the candidates of MHAs for a given service range and a network topology? We need to develop an algorithm to elect a set of MRs such that every LAN can decide its MHA from this set with the constraint of the service range (i. e. , the MHA must be within the service range). Here we assume there is only one MR in each LAN.

    The size of the set which is obtained from the algorithm must be as small as possible to reduce the multicast traffic delivmd on the tree. Additionally, the delivery paths must be as short as possible. We will use a distributed greedy algorithm to solve this problem to get an acceptable and quick answer rather than an optimal one. We model a network topology to be a graph in which each node represents a LAN and an edge between two nodes meam that both LANs are adjacent. It is specially notable that the term “neighbors” used in OUT algorithm is the set of nodes within the scope of the radius of the service range (called the locdlry).

    There is a variable which is used to record whether this node is a member of the set of the candidate MHAs. Its initial value is assigned null. During the run time, the value of the status can be null, holding non-member and member. When the algorithm ends, the siaius must be either “member” or “non-member”. The MRs at the “member” nodes (LANs) are the possible MHA candidates. Each LAN can randomly choose one to be the MHA, but must meet the constraint of the service range. Once the MHA is decided, it cannot be changed during the multicast session.

    At the start each node broadcasts its degree (i. e. , the number of adjacent nodes) to the neighbors of its locality. The TTL (Time-To-Live) field in the IP header can be used to limit the scope of this broadcast message. For a node, excluding the non-member nodes and holding nodes in its locality, if slatus = null and it has the highest degree in its locality, it must becomes the member node. Thus, sfafus = member and it broadcasts the MEMBER message to the neighbors. Lowest-ID tiebreakers are used bere. When receiving the MEMBER message, a node whose status is not ready (i. e., neither “member” nor “nonmember”) sets its stam to be “non-member” and broadcasts a NON-MEMBER message to the neighbors.

    If a node’s status is not ready and there exits a nonmember adjacent node, its sfaim is set to be “holding” (temporary status) and it sends “HOLDING” message to the neighbors. For a node, status = holding and all other nodes’ statuses in its locality are either non-member or holding. The status can be changed to member if it has the highest degree among all holding nodes in its locality. Lowest- W tiebreakers are also used here. Like the above rules, status update needs to inform all nodes in its locality.



    The existing system of this project consumes more band width for the Internet Protocol multicast tree. It does not support the dynamic group of members and mobility of group members. Most previous works for mobile multicast in the heterogeneous wireless networks focus on the efficient mechanisms to provide seamless handover between different networks and the related security issues only. Apart from that there are no existing system deals the problem 3.


    The aim of the proposed system is to reduce the bandwidth cost of an internet protocol multicast tree. This can be achieved through adaptively selecting the cell and the wireless technology for each mobile host to join the multicast group. This can be done through finding the shortest path. That the bandwidth consumption in the shortest path tree can be reduced in the heterogeneous wireless networks because the routing of the shortest path tree here is more flexible. The shortest path tree in the heterogeneous wireless networks consists of two parts.

    The first one is composed of the cell and the wireless technology chosen by each mobile host. The second one is comprised of the wired links that connect the root of the tree and the chosen cells. Therefore, we can change the routing of the shortest path tree by selecting different cells and wireless technologies for the mobile hosts to reduce the bandwidth consumption. the selection of the cell and the wireless technology for each mobile host as an optimization problem, which is denoted as the Cell and Technology Selection Problem (CTSP) in the heterogeneous wireless networks for multicast communications.

    The problem is to select the cell and the wireless technology for each group member to minimize the total bandwidth cost of the shortest path tree. We design a mechanism.


    The feasibility of the project is analyzed in this phase and business proposal is put forth with a very general plan for the project and some cost estimates. During system analysis the feasibility study of the proposed system is to be carried out. This is to ensure that the proposed system is not a burden to the company. For feasibility analysis, some understanding of the major requirements for the system is essential.

    This study is carried out to check the economic impact that the system will have on the organization. The amount of fund that the company can pour into the research and development of the system is limited. The expenditures must be justified. Thus the developed system as well within the budget and this was achieved because most of the technologies used are freely available. Only the customized products had to be purchased.

    This study is carried out to check the technical feasibility, that is, the technical requirements of the system. Any system developed must not have a high demand on the available technical resources. This will lead to high demands on the available technical resources. This will lead to high demands being placed on the client. The developed system must have a modest requirement, as only minimal or null changes are required for implementing this system.

    The aspect of study is to check the level of acceptance of the system by the user. This includes the process of training the user to use the system efficiently. The user must not feel threatened by the system, instead must accept it as a necessity. The level of acceptance by the users solely depends on the methods that are employed to educate the user about the system and to make him familiar with it. His level of confidence must be raised so that he is also able to make some constructive criticism, which is welcomed, as he is the final user of the system.


    When we defining and constructing credit card validation systems will uncover many requirements that may be difficult at outset. Instead knowledge of the system and requirements will grow as work progress the whole software engineering process is designed to uncover details and incompatibilities in the requirements that may not be obvious to customer and bankers at outset. Several cases or increments of software development additional increases will be build and delivered in successive increment system normally involves as are deliver successive new versions, the development of first version from

    sketch called green field development is special case of incremental development the development of first increment is an important activity series we establish the architectural base that must last for the entire system’s life time. WATERFALL LIFECYCLE MODEL: Waterfall model states that the phases (analysis, design, and coding, testing, support) are systematized in a linear order and each phase should accomplished entirely earlier of the next phase begins.

    In this way the step by step phase initially analysing phase is completed and that output takes place at the end of analyze phase after that output will be given as input for the design phase, depending on the inputs it generates all design steps ,like ways all phases processed and produced all successful outputs, And will to find out whether the project is pursuing on the exact path or not. If not the project may be discard or any other action takes place to continue. The model is the most commonly used and also known as linear sequential lifecycle model.

    Common Type System The CLR uses something called the Common Type System (CTS) to strictly enforce type-safety. This ensures that all classes are compatible with each other, by describing types in a common way. CTS define how types work within the runtime, which enables types in one language to interoperate with types in another language, including cross-language exception handling. As well as ensuring that types are only used in appropriate ways, the runtime also ensures that code doesn’t attempt to access memory that hasn’t been allocated to it. Common Language Specification

    The CLR provides built-in support for language interoperability. To ensure that you can develop managed code that can be fully used by developers using any programming language, a set of language features and rules for using them called the Common Language Specification (CLS) has been defined. Components that follow these rules and expose only CLS features are considered CLS-compliant.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Efficient Resource Allocation for Adhoc Networks. (2016, Sep 05). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy