INTERWORKING ISSUES IN INTEGRATION OF WLANS, PAN, LAN AND GSM IN HMANETS

KEY TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS

AP Access Points

AMASS Architecture for Mobile Ad-hoc Systems and Services

AODV Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector Routing

BS Base Station

BNEP Bluetooth Network Encapsulation Protocol

CDMA Code-Division Multiple Access

CGSR Cluster-head Gateway Switch Routing

CSMA/CA Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance

CTS Clear to Send

DBTMA Dual Tone Multiple Access

DSDV Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing

DSR Dynamic Source Routing

GEO-TORA Geographical Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm

GPRS General Packet Radio Service

GPS Global Positioning System

GRDL Grid Resource Description Language

GSM Global System for Mobile Communication

HF High Frequency

HMANET Heterogeneous Mobile Ad Hoc Network

HOLSR Hierarchical Optimized Link State Routing

IP Internet Protocol

LBR Location Based Routing

LLC Logical Link Control

MAC Medium Access Control

MACA Multi Hop Collision Avoidance

MACAW Medium Access Protocol for Wireless LAN

MAN Metropolitan Area Network

MANET Mobile Ad Hoc Network

MPR Multipoint Relays

NAT Network Address Translation

NFS Network File System

OLSR Optimized Link State Routing

OSI Open Systems Interconnection

PDA Personal Digital Assistant

QoS Quality of Service

RREP Route Reply

RREQ Route Request

RERR Route Error

SCTP Stream Control Transmission Protocol

SDR Software-Defined Radio

TBRPF Topology Broadcast Based on Reverse Path Forwarding

TC Topology Control

TCP Transmission Control Protocol

TDMA Time Division Multiple Access

TORA Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm

VHF Very High Frequency

WAN Wide Area Network

WLAN Wireless Local Area Networks

WPAN Wireless Personal Area Network

WSDL Web Services Description Language

WSN Wireless Sensor Network

ZRP Zone Routing Protocol

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The literature available on heterogeneous MANETs has suggested different combination of access technologies but no comprehensive solution comprising of maximum access technologies has been suggested yet. Some of the suggested techniques will be discussed in succeeding paragraphs.

Service Architecture for Heterogeneous IP Networks

It was presented by Joe C. Chan and Doan B. [14]. This proposal is presented to resolve two main issues i.e. universal connectivity and MANET location management in heterogeneous networks. The new architecture suggested for Mobile Ad-hoc Systems and Services (AMASS) introduces a new abstraction layer called Mobile P2P overlay in order to cater for the problems such as transparency, dynamic routing, unique addressing, association, and application independence. Mobile users can associate local resources from neighboring devices, build wireless on-demand systems which is independent of location, hardware devices, networking technology and infrastructure availability. Five key design considerations considered were Mobile Peer-to-Peer Overlay, Internet Interworking, Intelligent Overlay Routing, Infrastructure-free Positioning and Application Layer Mobility. Three enhanced mobility models offered in this approach are Personal Mobility (using different IP devices while keeping the same address), Session Mobility (keeping the same session while changing IP devices) and Service Mobility (keeping personal services while moving between networks).

The architecture is built on a peer-to-peer communication model to integrate MANETs seamlessly into heterogeneous IP networks. Mobile Peer-to-Peer System(P2P) is a distributed Middleware addresses the demand of direct communication needs by creating spontaneous community. Whenever the Mobile P2P system has global connectivity, it works with its peer system and other applications systems by generic P2P signaling. It consists of Ad-hoc Network layer and Mobile P2P Overlay. The former layer includes wireless hardware and MANET routing software offering homogeneous connectivity among nodes with same wireless interfaces. These nodes act as a router forwarding traffic toward its destination. The later layer includes the following core services: (i) Membership Services offers single sign-on, naming, profile and identity features; (ii) Discovery Services for peer/resource discovery and caching; (iii) Communication Services for Internet interworking, intelligent routing, session control, presence and service delivery; (iv) Location Services for infrastructure-free positioning, and user mobility management functions; (v) Adaptation Services for application and network services adaptation.

Members of the Mobile P2P system should first sign-in a “common group” with their exclusive name and password. Some stationary nodes may also join to offer its resources such as Internet connection, printer, video conferencing. Whenever these client devices are within range of each other, they would work together as a team leading to a wireless adhoc service community where local resources could be shared by individual at its will. These members will then be available by intimating their capabilities and location information to the central location server. Information regarding physical location is also essential to offer spatial locality relationships and enable mobile content customization.

The results which were achieved through this process can be summarized as first, it maximizes the synergies of MANETs and P2P for building wireless on-demand systems and services. MANETs provide dynamic physical connectivity while P2P offers dynamic associations of entities (users, devices, and services) for direct resources sharing. Second, its Mobile P2P overlay unites mobility, user-centric connectivity, and services for universal communications. This allow dynamic service adaptations pertinent to user location, application requirements, and network environments. Third, it presents a flexible network structure stimulating fixed and wireless networks convergence. The result is an “Integrated Mobile Internet” which makes our future environment lot better.

Transparent Heterogeneous Mobile Ad hoc Networks

The idea was suggested by Patrick Stuedi and Gustavo Alonso[3]. The paper discussed that performance issues in a personal area network (PAN) or wireless sensor network (WSN) may have less priority than an office network. In contrast, battery life and low cost is vital to PANs and W