Transcript MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for

1
MANET and TETRA, competing or
supplementing technologies for
rescue operations?
PhD Trial Lecture
Erlend Larsen
January 28th 2011
Erlend
Larsen, PhD
Trial Lecture
2011
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies
for rescue
operations?”
2
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Rescue operations
MANET
TETRA
Evaluation
Conclusions
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
3
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies for rescue operations?
RESCUE OPERATIONS
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
4
Rescue operations
• Rescue
– Operations that usually involve the saving of life, or prevention of
injury.
• Performed by trained personnel in Rescue Squads
– Independent or part of larger organizations like
a fire, police, military, first aid squad, or ambulance services.
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
5
Types of rescue operations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Car accidents
Search and rescue
Air plane crash
Forest fires
Hurricanes
Earthquakes/
Tsunamis
• ?
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
6
Scenario aspects communication
• Where
– Within existing infrastructure coverage?
– Reachable by vehicles? (Boats, trucks, helicopter, etc.)
– Moving or expanding disaster area? (Oil leakage, forest fire, search
operation)
• When
– Preparation
– Duration
• Extent
– Magnitude of the disaster
– Needed equipment
– Destroyed infrastructure
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
7
Communication services in
rescue operations
• Voice communication
One-to-one and
group communication
• Data communication
–
–
–
–
–
–
Short text and status messages
Sensor information
Database access
Still pictures
Streaming video
Real-time video
Increasing
capacity
demand
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
8
Radio communication
challenges
• Voice communication
– Delay and jitter, and to some extent loss (QoS)
• Data communication
– Capacity
• Reliability
• Fairness and priority
• Partitioning
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
9
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies for rescue operations?
MANET
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
10
MANET
• Mobile Ad hoc NETworks
• Layer 3 (Networking) concept
• No single standardization body defines MANET:
– IEEE 802.11 is a common PHY/MAC protocol
– IETF MANET WG standardizes some routing protocols
• Active research field
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
11
MANET - Details
• IP-based
Decentralized
networking
• Multi-hop communication without requirement for
infrastructure
• Autonomous mobile platforms with routing
functionality (nodes) move freely and arbitrarily
• Autoconfigurating and selfhealing network
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
12
MANET schematics
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
13
MANET – connected to
infrastructure
• MANETs can be connected to external networks
• Connecting networks:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Satellite
ADSL
Mesh
Ethernet
GSM
TETRA
…
• QoS-mapping can be a challenge
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
14
MANET – connected to
infrastructure
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
15
MANET – Addressing
communication challenges
• Strengths:
– Capacity for data communication
– Partitioning
• Weaknesses:
– Voice communication
– Reliability
– Fairness and priority
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
16
MANET conclusion
• Originates from computer networking
• Intelligence in the nodes (routing)
• Advantages:
–
–
–
–
–
Independent of infrastructure
Low cost
Rapid deployment
Flexible
High capacity
• Disadvantages:
– Immature
– Multi-hop wireless communication poses QoS challenges
– Dependent on infrastructure to reach HQ
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
17
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies for rescue operations?
TETRA
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
18
TETRA – TErrestrial Trunked
RAdio
• ETSI Standard for Private Mobile Radio, 1995• In widespread use for emergency and crisis
communication
– E.g., the new Norwegian Public Safety Radio Network
• Compared to other mobile communication technologies:
–
–
–
–
Faster call-setup
Higher spectral efficiency
Lower transmission frequency = wider coverage
Flexibility of the working modes
• One-to-one
• One-to-many
• Many-to-many
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
19
Schematics of TETRA
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
20
TETRA - Details
• Fully digital communication system
• Supported services
– Voice
– Circuit switched data
– Packet switched data
• TDMA based medium access
• Switched infrastructure
– (Proposal for TETRA-over-IP exists)
• Security
– Authentication
– Air Interface Encryption
– End-to-End Encryption
TETRA base station for public safety services
in The Netherlands
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
21
TETRA
• 2 modes of operation
– Trunked Mode of Operation (TMO)
– Direct Mode of Operation (DMO)
• TMO
–
–
–
–
–
Infrastructure-based
Single wireless hop from terminal to base station
Access to external networks, e.g, PSTN, ISDN, GSM
Cell radius around 5 km
Maximum data rate: 28.8 Kbps
• DMO
– Communication without reliance on infrastructure
– Terminals share the channel using TDMA
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
22
TETRA-DMO
• 4 operational modes:
– Back-to-back – Direct communication
– DM Repeater – Equipment to enlarge the DMO coverage
– DM Gateway – Equipment to allow DMO equipment
communication with the trunked system
– DM Dual Watch – Equipment can operate in DMO or TMO and
receive incoming calls on the other mode
• The maximum data capacity in DMO is 7.2 Kbps
• The maximum simultaneous calls is 2 (with
Frequency Enhancing Mechanisms)
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
23
TETRA revision 2
• High speed data 30 – 400+ kbps:
– TETRA Enhanced Data Service – TEDS
• Compatible with TETRA 1
– TETRA Advanced Packet Service – TAPS
• GPRS based overlay network
• Increased capacity reduces the cell range
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
24
2
km )
TAPS in Belgium (30,000
– number of base stations
Coding
User Data Rate
(per carrier)
User Data Rate
(per slot)
Cell Radius
Cell Area
TETRA 1
28.8
7.2
5 km
78 km
2
MSC-5B
179.2
22.4
1.69 km
7.42 km
2
MSC-6A
236.8
29.6
1.44 km
5.39 km
2
MSC-7B
358.4
44.8
0.98 km
2.5 km
MSC-8A
435.2
54.4
0.73 km
1.38 km
2
MSC-9A
473.6
59.2
0.56 km
0.81 km
2
2
Number of
BS
380
4043
5565
12000
21739
37037
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
25
TETRA – Addressing
communication challenges
• Strengths:
– Voice communication
– Reliability
– Fairness and priority
• Weaknesses:
– Data communication
– Partitioning
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
26
TETRA conclusion
• Originates from telecom networks
• Intelligence in the network
• Advantages:
– Mature
– TDMA offers predictable service guarantee
• Disadvantages:
–
–
–
–
High cost
Requires planning of base stations
Dependent on infrastructure
Low data capacity
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
27
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies for rescue operations?
EVALUATION
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
28
Competing technologies?
- Do MANET and TETRA provide similar service?
• Yes:
– TETRA is a stand-alone emergency network, and:
– There exist proposals for using MANET connected to external
networks as a stand-alone emergency network.
• No:
– The differences between MANET and TETRA with regards to
maturity and QoS make it hard to view MANET as a stand-alone
emergency network.
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
29
Supplementing technologies?
- Does employing both TETRA and MANET improve the service?
• Yes:
– TETRA has coverage (partitioning) problems in areas without
infrastructure
– The data capacity in TETRA is very low, and MANET could
alleviate the need for using this capacity locally.
– TETRA provides a reliable infrastructure for MANET.
– Future scenario(?): TETRA 2 with fewer BS extended with MANET
• No:
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
30
MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing
technologies for rescue operations?
CONCLUSIONS
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
31
Conclusions
• Communications systems for rescue operations must
– Support voice and increasingly data communication
• MANET and TETRA may be considered competing
technologies:
– MANET: Immature, but proposals exist
• MANET and TETRA are supplementing technologies:
– Dependence on infrastructure
– Data capacity
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
32
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Luca Adamo, Romano Fantacci, Matteo Rosi, Daniele Tarchi, Federico Frosali, “Analysis and
design of a TETRA-DMO and IEEE 802.11 integrated network,” IWCMC '10 Proceedings of the 6th
International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference
Eli Winjum, Paal Spilling, Øivind Kure, ”Ad Hoc Networks Used in Emergency Networks: The Trust
Metric Routing Approach,” Technical Report FFI, 2005
TETRA Association, http://www.tetramou.com
Dirk Kuypers, Marc Schinnenburg, “Traffic Performance Evaluation of Data Links in TETRA and
TETRAPOL,” Proceedings of European Wireless, 2005
A. K. Salkintzis, "Evolving public safety communication systems by integrating WLAN and TETRA
networks," Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.44, no.1, pp. 38-46, Jan. 2006
J. P. Macker and M. S. Corson, ”Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the IETF,” Mobile Computing and
Communications Review, vol.2, no.1, pp. 9-14, 1998
M. de Graaf et al., “Easy Wireless: broadband ad-hoc networking for emergency service,” The
Sixth Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking WorkShop, Corfu, Greece, June 12-15, 2007
D. S. Sharp, “Adapting Ad Hoc Network Concepts to Land Mobile Radio Systems,” Master Thesis,
Simon Fraser University, 2002
Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, http://wikipedia.org
Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org
R. Pinter, ”Introduction to TETRA Over IP (TOIP),” Simoco Digital Systems, 2008
Jo Dewaele, “User Requirements,” Presentation, TETRA TEDS Colloquium, ETSI, 2002
Erlend Larsen, “MANET and TETRA, competing or supplementing technologies for rescue operations?”
33
Thank You!