The authors propose a taxonomy and universal evaluation framework to assess opportunistic routing algorithms. They classify existing routing solutions and identify common performance metrics like delivery probability, cost, and delay. An evaluation of Epidemic, PROPHET, and BubbleRap routing under different mobility models shows that Epidemic and PROPHET have higher delivery rates but also greater costs and delays than BubbleRap. The proposed taxonomy and evaluation framework aim to provide a fair and standardized way to compare opportunistic routing algorithms.

1. Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing
Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, and Susana Sargento
waldir.junior@ulusofona.pt
Oct 24th, 2011
IEEE Latincom 2011, Belém-PA/Brasil

2. Agenda
• Introduction
• Carried Analysis
• Our Work
• Evaluation and Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
2

3. Introduction
• Powerful devices
• Spontaneous networks
• Opportunistic contacts
- Intermittent connectivity
3

4. Motivation
• Many routing solutions
- Epidemic, encounter history, social aspects ...
• Different classifications
- Identify different families
- Application requirements to algorithm mapping
• Different performance metrics and experimental
setups
4

5. Goal
• Clear classification of solutions
• Fair way to assess routing performance
- Importance of a homogeneous evaluation
- Parameter setups and performance
metrics can favour some proposals
5

6. Close Look at
Different Proposals
6

7. Performance Metric
Identification
7

8. Existing Classifications
8

9. Proposed Taxonomy
• Identify common aspects of solutions
- Routing strategy and metrics
9

10. Universal Evaluation
Framework
• Performance metrics
- Delivery probability, cost, and delay
• Experimental setup
- Network density (area, # of nodes, ...)
- Traffic (sources/destinations, load, ...)
10

11. Scenario
• Heterogenous mobility
- Human (Working Day Movement)
- Veicular (Bus Movement)
- Random (Shortest Path Map-Based Mov.)
• Nodes belonging to different
home/office/entertainment location
• Epidemic, PROPHET, and BubbleRap
11

12. Results
• Epidemic vs. PROPHET
- Better performance
- ~2.1x for Epidemic
- ~2.6x for PROPHET
- From 22% to ~46%
12

13. Results
• Epidemic vs. PROPHET
- More forwardings
- Over 44x for Epidemic
- Over 34x for PROPHET
- From 12% to 47%
13

14. Results
• Epidemic vs. PROPHET
- Greater delay
- ~5.5x for Epidemic
- ~9.5x for PROPHET
- From ~27% to ~37%
14

15. Results
• PROPHET vs. BubbleRap
- Better performance
- 55% for PROPHET
- 33% for BubbleRap
- Over 17 perc. points
15

16. Results
• PROPHET vs. BubbleRap
- Cost from ~40% to ~70%
16

17. Conclusions and
Future Work
• For fair assessment
- Imperative to consider similar conditions
- Same performance metrics
• Both taxonomy and UEF should be
updated to comply with future new trends
17

18. Acknowledgements
• To FCT for financial support via PhD grant
(SFRH/BD/62761/2009) and UCR project
(PTDC/EEA-TEL/103637/2008)
18

19. Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing
Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, and Susana Sargento
waldir.junior@ulusofona.pt
Oct 24th, 2011
IEEE Latincom 2011, Belém-PA/Brasil