1:
2: \section{TARMAC: Basic Scheme}\label{bus}
3:
4: \rednote{Good start. Recommend:
5: -comparative analysis to the existing schemes
6: -identification of the tradeoffs present in the design (size of
7: packet, time-period, etc..). Present the discussion of the drawbacks
8: in a way that leads into the next section (the improvements), such
9: that the next section can start with something like: ``The basic scheme
10: has two major drawbacks, inability to adapt to the level of traffic
11: and excessively high overhead. In this section, we address these
12: drawbacks by...''}
13:
14: \rednote{To make description easier and more accurate, maybe we should
15: use packet for data, and frame for the buses}
16:
17: In this section, we present the basic TARMAC scheme. We also discuss
18: tradeoffs and expected behavior of this base model. The drawbacks of
19: the model in terms of energy efficiency and increased contention pave the way for the suggested improvements in the next Section.
20:
21: \subsection{Basic TARMAC Scheme}
22:
23: TARMAC is a MAC layer protocol that takes in to consideration the
24: makes traffic resistant to analysis by using uniform (but possibly
25: time-shifted) transmission schedules at all nodes. TARMAC emulates the
26: communication network alternative of a city bus system. TARMAC uses
27: encrypted frames that are sent at pre-scheduled times (it can
28: inter operate with different link/MAC layers), irrespective of the
29: presence of data packets. Different outgoing data packets, possibly
30: targeted to different destinations and next hops, are placed in the
31: same TARMAC frame; any empty slots are left empty. Note that empty
32: slots are hidden by the encryption and the occupancy of each frame is
33: not visible to the attacker. Each receiver of the frame can examine
34: it and decide which packets are its responsibility to forward:
35: virtually any routing protocol can be used to establish routing
36: responsibilities.
37:
38: TARMAC frames resemble public buses in that they have a fixed number
39: of slots and leave at pre-scheduled times, with passengers
40: (data-packets) taking up seats in the bus. In typical public
41: transportation systems, provisioning is not uniform: for example,
42: stops at remote routes have much lower bus activity and perhaps
43: smaller buses than a central hub where many routes converge. Thus,
44: extracting the structure of the public transportation network by
45: simply observing the level of activity at a stop becomes possible.
46:
47: To protect against such analysis TARMAC requires that all nodes follow
48: the same schedule (later, we consider the possibility of a
49: time-shift). {\em The basic TARMAC scheme we discuss in this section
50: is one where all the nodes transmit with a fixed period and fixed size
51: packets}; later we explore relaxing this model. Having the
52: transmission times and sizes be uncorrelated to the data transport
53: being carried through TARMAC makes it impossible to detect the
54: presence of, for example, event based data. Furthermore, the
55: broadcast nature of the wireless medium hides information about the
56: receiver of the packet; thus, a TARMAC frame is like a number of
57: concurrent buses that leave to each of the one-hop neighbors.
58:
59: In contrast to these advantages of TARMAC, conventional MAC transmit
60: data only when there is data to transmit, providing valuable
61: information to attackers. Further, a data packet can be followed as
62: it is retransmitted by intermediate hops to extract the full
63: connection and the eventual destination.
64:
65: \subsection{Basic Parameters and Provisioning}
66:
67: In the basic model with periodic equal size frame, the relevant
68: parameters are the transmission period $\tau$ and the size of the
69: frame in slots $s$. The capacity, measured in slots per node per
70: second, for the basic TARMAC can theoretically be expressed as
71: $\frac{s}{\tau}$. Within the physical limitations of the channel,
72: increasing either $s$ or reducing $\tau$ leads to increasing capacity
73: by either sending larger packets or sending packets more often
74: respectively. However, sending smaller frames more frequently fosters
75: shorter delays, but increases frame overhead. In addition, larger
76: size frames are more vulnerable to collisions and transmission losses.
77:
78: A tension between the capacity of the network and the energy
79: efficiency of TARMAC arises. At one extreme, all nodes may be made to
80: appear like a remote station, leading to energy efficiency but loss of
81: capacity since the bottleneck nodes now do not have sufficient
82: capacity to carry the offered load. On the other extreme, the network
83: may be provisioned so that all nodes are transmitting at a sufficient
84: rate to enable the bottleneck nodes to continue to forward the
85: traffic. This leads to excessive overhead in remote or idle areas.
86: These and other drawbacks are discussed in the next subsection.
87:
88: \subsection{Drawbacks of Basic TARMAC}
89:
90: To be able to carry the required traffic, the basic TARMAC must be
91: provisioned sufficiently such that $\frac{s}{\tau}$ is greater or
92: equal the required traffic at bottleneck nodes. However, provisioning
93: for the worst case has the following drawbacks:
94: \begin{itemize}
95: \item {\em Over or under-provisioning:} it is difficult to predict
96: what the maximum bottleneck capacity is for some networks. The
97: maximum reporting rate may be difficult to predict or the deployment
98: may be ad hoc making a-priori analysis of bottleneck nodes difficult.
99: As a result, the choice of $s$ and $\tau$ may lead to insufficient
100: capacity to carry the reported data and leading to increased delay and
101: loss of data as buffer sizes grow. Alternatively, it may lead to more
102: aggressive sending and loss of efficiency as most slots remain idle.
103:
104: \item {\em Possible High Energy Cost:} By provisioning to the rate of
105: the expected bottleneck, most of the nodes will be transmitting at a
106: rate higher than that needed to carry their traffic. We note here
107: that as long as an average occupancy of more than one slot per frame
108: the total number of transmissions will be reduced. However, the size
109: of each frame will be likely be bigger than the size of the individual
110: data packets due to over-provisioning; some savings in framing and
111: protocol overhead may result from combining multiple packets into a
112: single transmission.
113:
114:
115: \item {\em Low maximum throughput:} As the node capacity is increased
116: by reducing the period or increasing the size, all nodes start sending
117: more aggressively and the contention level increases. This includes
118: nodes that do not have high occupancy, limiting the maximum throughput
119: that can be achieved by nodes that do have data to send.
120:
121: \item {\em Increased delay:} Since each node is not forwarding the
122: packets as soon as it gets it, there may be a larger packet delivery
123: latency as packets wait for the next frame transmission at every
124: intermediate hop.
125: \end{itemize}
126:
127: \noindent
128: In the next section, we identify a number of improvements to the base
129: TARMAC that address some of these drawbacks.
130:
131:
132:
133:
134:
135:
136:
137:
138:
139:
140:
141:
142:
143:
144:
145:
146:
147:
148:
149:
150:
151:
152:
153:
154:
155:
156:
157:
158:
159:
160:
161:
162:
163:
164:
165:
166:
167:
168:
169:
170:
171:
172:
173:
174:
175:
176:
177:
178:
179:
180:
181:
182:
183:
184:
185:
186:
187:
188:
189:
190:
191:
192:
193:
194:
195:
196:
197:
198:
199:
200:
201:
202:
203:
204:
205:
206:
207:
208:
209:
210:
211:
212:
213:
214:
215:
216:
217:
218:
219:
220:
221:
222:
223:
224:
225:
226:
227:
228:
229:
230:
231:
232:
233:
234:
235: