Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol

This paper considers on a network routing protocol known as Better Approach to Mobile Ad hoc Networks (B.A.T.M.A.N.). The protocol serves two aims: first, to discover all bidirectional links, and second, to identify the best-next-hop for every other node in the network. A key element is that each no...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kaylash Chaudhary, Ansgar Fehnker, Vinay Mehta
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Publishing Association 2017-03-01
Series:Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
Online Access:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06570v1
id doaj-ee40fca9100f4ce39bdde2c1ba78997d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ee40fca9100f4ce39bdde2c1ba78997d2020-11-25T01:13:35ZengOpen Publishing AssociationElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science2075-21802017-03-01244Proc. MARS 2017536510.4204/EPTCS.244.3:9Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. ProtocolKaylash Chaudhary0Ansgar Fehnker1Vinay Mehta2 University of the South Pacific University of Twente University of the South Pacific This paper considers on a network routing protocol known as Better Approach to Mobile Ad hoc Networks (B.A.T.M.A.N.). The protocol serves two aims: first, to discover all bidirectional links, and second, to identify the best-next-hop for every other node in the network. A key element is that each node will flood the network at regular intervals with so-called originator messages. This paper describes in detail a formalisation of the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol. This exercise revealed several ambiguities and inconsistencies in the RFC. We developed two models. The first implements, if possible, a literal reading of the RFC, while the second model tries to be closer to the underlying concepts. The alternative model is in some places less restrictive, and rebroadcasts more often when it helps route discovery, and will on the other hand drop more messages that might interfere with the process. We verify for a basic untimed model that both interpretations ensure loop-freedom, bidirectional link discovery, and route-discovery. We use simulation of a timed model to compare the performance and found that both models are comparable when it comes to the time and number of messages needed for discovering routes. However, the alternative model identifies a significantly lower number of suboptimal routes, and thus improves on the literal interpretation of the RFC.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06570v1
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kaylash Chaudhary
Ansgar Fehnker
Vinay Mehta
spellingShingle Kaylash Chaudhary
Ansgar Fehnker
Vinay Mehta
Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
author_facet Kaylash Chaudhary
Ansgar Fehnker
Vinay Mehta
author_sort Kaylash Chaudhary
title Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
title_short Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
title_full Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
title_fullStr Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
title_full_unstemmed Modelling, Verification, and Comparative Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Protocol
title_sort modelling, verification, and comparative performance analysis of the b.a.t.m.a.n. protocol
publisher Open Publishing Association
series Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
issn 2075-2180
publishDate 2017-03-01
description This paper considers on a network routing protocol known as Better Approach to Mobile Ad hoc Networks (B.A.T.M.A.N.). The protocol serves two aims: first, to discover all bidirectional links, and second, to identify the best-next-hop for every other node in the network. A key element is that each node will flood the network at regular intervals with so-called originator messages. This paper describes in detail a formalisation of the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol. This exercise revealed several ambiguities and inconsistencies in the RFC. We developed two models. The first implements, if possible, a literal reading of the RFC, while the second model tries to be closer to the underlying concepts. The alternative model is in some places less restrictive, and rebroadcasts more often when it helps route discovery, and will on the other hand drop more messages that might interfere with the process. We verify for a basic untimed model that both interpretations ensure loop-freedom, bidirectional link discovery, and route-discovery. We use simulation of a timed model to compare the performance and found that both models are comparable when it comes to the time and number of messages needed for discovering routes. However, the alternative model identifies a significantly lower number of suboptimal routes, and thus improves on the literal interpretation of the RFC.
url http://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06570v1
work_keys_str_mv AT kaylashchaudhary modellingverificationandcomparativeperformanceanalysisofthebatmanprotocol
AT ansgarfehnker modellingverificationandcomparativeperformanceanalysisofthebatmanprotocol
AT vinaymehta modellingverificationandcomparativeperformanceanalysisofthebatmanprotocol
_version_ 1725161389633306624