Global network concept

Pros:

• Disruption due to lack of coverage, re-associate with new APs along the routes.
• Message delivery deadline. Discard bundles to free resources.

Cons:

• Replication of data in all reachable nodes
  • Not desirable to replicate data form all Vehicle in all APs and backend nodes.
  • desirable: C-to C (if disruption) - to AP - to Platform
  • How Custody help? New forwarding stategies in place of Epidemic and Prophet () (successful delivery statistics)

• Data delivery mechanism: http://www.intechopen.com/books/mobile-ad-hoc-networks-protocol-design/data-delivery-in-delay-tolerant-networks-a-survey
  • Epidemic routing
    • Vahdat & Becker 2000, Davis 2001: adaptive dropping polices
    • Harras 2005: controlled flooding, message TTL, healing network when message is delivered
  • Derect contact scheme: source save messages until direct contact with destination possible
    • Infostation Frenkiel 2000, Zebranet 2002,
    • Kapadia 2009, number of replicas based on data popularity (vehicle network)
  • One-hop-relay
    • Shah 2003, Datamule
    • Daknet Pentland 2004
    • Bin Tariq 2006 Data ferries
  • Routing based on knowledge oracles: DTN modelled as directed multigraph with time-varying edge costs based on propagation delay and edge capacity.
  • Location based scheme: nodes are aware of their location, which is used for opportunistic forwarding.
    • perimeter forwarding (Karp & Kung 2000)
    • LeBrun 2005: motion vector
    • MObyspace (Leguay 2006)
  • Gradient based
    • Prophet 2003
  • controlled replication scheme
  • Network Coding scheme

Sensor Data:

• Cars collect data and replicate to all other cars in bundles. Each car then transfer bundles to APs. The APs must have the same EID to be the destination of data?

Traffic Data:

• APs contain local information. Need a mechanism to send local information from platform to APs.

AP to Platform communication does not need DTN. If AP terminates DTN, it must process DTN bundles then send data to platform. A lot processing at APs is not advantageous due to limited processing / storage capability, and makes deployment and maintenance more complicated.

Pros:

• Datennamen
• Inherent cache mechanism
• Small Request / Interest packets are flooded in APs network.
• Many-to-one communication: name/topic/{pid1,pid2} can be send to one consumer which requests for name/topic/
• No processing at AP, only forwarding.

Cons:

• tbd

Sensor Data