Neighbor based channel hopping coordination: Practical against jammer?

Abstract

As compared to its wired counterpart, wireless network is relatively new and is exposed to some additional threats specific to the underlying medium. Among these threats the jamming attack which can take place easily due to the open nature of wireless medium. A device or person can continuously emit radio signals to disturb a valid conversation. If it lasts for sometime continuously, it can result in total collapse of a network using single channel. In order to evade a jammer in an ad hoc network, we propose a proactive channel hopping scheme based neighbor correspondence. Rather than detect and react we rely on prevention is better than cure. Each node communicates with its neighbors on different channels, coordinated between them dynamically. Furthermore, the control and data channels of each node are separated. This way redundancy at the node-level is provided so that even if nodes on the jammed channel can not be approached but they still are able to contact others by visiting their control channels; avoiding the node on the jammed channel from starvation. Hence, even if the network is exposed to the jammer, a complete failure is prevented. The simulation results show that our scheme is efficient and is able to reduce the jammer's impact significantly, as compared to the scheme presented in [8].

An adaptive interference‐aware and traffic‐aware channel assignment strategy for backhaul networks

“…Interference, whether internal or external, causes bit errors on the link and ultimately leads to packet discards/drops. For successful packet transmission on Wi‐Fi based networks, a common acceptable range of interference is approximately 20 to 30% . When these link drops cross this range, precautionary measurements need to be taken.…”

“…The unsuccessful communication between a pair of MRs may have many reasons; at the data link layer of OSI model, the major causes are queue drops and link drops due to interference with a channel. Link drops may have some other reasons, eg, lossy channel, but that is out of the scope of this research and hereafter the term “link drops” will only be used for the drops that are due to interference. The link drop is inversely proportional to link capacity, so the hypothesis of this research is that packets not received by any MR are due to link error.…”

Channel Allocation in Multi-radio Multi-channel Wireless Mesh Networks: A Categorized Survey

“…Backbone routers using multiple channels over single radio require frequent context switching and proper synchronization either for imposed throughput or security, which can be tricky and may result in delayed job, in order of 40-90 microseconds, and possible modification of 802.11 MAC [4,5,6]. Some authors [7] have implemented a TDMA style MAC protocol on 802.11 hardware and claim that average channel switching delay is 4-5 msec.…”

“…The channel assignment mechanism should not disturb routing layer services and protocols [9]. However, both channel assignment and routing are dependent on each other and may work together for increasing throughput and minimizing interference [5,10].…”