PYLON:
An Architectural Framework for Ad-hoc QoS Interconnectivity with Access Domains

	Yasser L. Morgan and Thomas Kunz
	Carleton University
	http://kunz-pc.sce.carleton.ca/
	tkunz@sce.carleton.ca

Scope

	High level model.
	Interaction between two domains.
	Different QoS Models work on either sides.

Common Fixed Structure QoS Models

QoS in Ad-hoc Wireless Networks

Problem & Motivation

	QoS models for different domains (fixed vs. ad-hoc) will not converge in foreseeable future.
	A model is needed to define interoperability between the two sides (ad-hoc and fixed domains).
	QoS requirements are likely to be more demanding for extranet traffic.

Motivation

	Ad-hoc networks can form access part of end-to-end connections:
		Bluetooth Access Points in conference rooms
		Dial-up connection via cellphone for a group of remote explorers
		Neighbourhood networks based on IEEE 802.11 with ADSL access
	Problem: what QoS support for end-to-end connections where part of connection is ad-hoc network?

Scope of PYLON QoS Models

PYLON in a Nutshell-1

PYLON in a Nutshell-2

Basic Definitions

	View of ad-hoc as a Parasite network.
	(AN) Authentic Node.
	(GW) Gateway Nodes.
	Dominant DSCP set.
	Native DSCP set.
	Domains
		Un-Friendly Access Domain.
		Friendly Access Domain.
			Public (Basic) Domain.
			Private Friendly Domain.

Design Rational

	Parasite nature of ad-hoc domain.
		Requires basic components like SLA, TCA, & Service Provisioning Policies.
		Importing basic components.
	Use of aggregate RSVP to perform domain reservations.
	Importing QoS policies.
	Authentication Issues.

Highlights on the Mechanism

Typical Scenario

	A. Domain Discovery
		1- PoA
			Recognizes the existence of an AP, and access domain.
			Verifies whether access domain requires authentication (basic vs. private domain).
			Broadcasts message to all ad-hoc nodes.
		2- Ad-hoc Node
			Receives the gateway announcement. Registers the PoA as a possible gateway with expiry time and metric.
	B. QoS Negotiation
		3- Ad-hoc Node
			Selects best PoA to use as a gateway for its extranet traffic, could be biased towards most recent PoA, or to rely more on the cost / hop count.
			If application decides to use IntServ, and full E2E reservation, it can send the E2E to the selected PoA. In this case reserving resources all the way to the other end is the responsibility of the MANET ad-hoc node.
			Otherwise, it needs to submit the packets to the network. Packets will reach the PoA.
		4- PoA
			If PoA “knows” what to do with packet, forward the packets, else
			broadcast (or send to a specific node) a solicit aRSVP request.
		5- AN
			Conducts aRSVP negotiation with AP on behalf of the network for the new DSCP.
			Acknowledges PoA with the newly established connection with AP.
		6- PoA
			Receives acknowledgement from AN, and starts packet marking, and forwarding to AP.

Conclusions

	Defined QoS interaction model between wireless ad-hoc and fixed domain.
	Model raised many concerns regarding interaction.
	Model solved some of the concerns and listed 13 points that need further investigation.

Future Work: Working out Details of …