Dynamic Message Prioritization in Tactical Wireless MANET

Gregory L. Mayhew Adjunct Professor of Systems Engineering Department of Systems Engineering Missouri University of Science and Technology 600 West 14th Street, 223 Engr Mgmt Rolla, MO 65409 573-341-7211; gregory.l.mayhew@boeing.com

AbstractNormal design practice is to decouple the design of applications using a network from the design of the network itself. Designers optimize network performance by only focusing on network transport layer mechanisms for robustness (connectivity), efficiency (throughput), & speed of service (latency). Applications offer loads to the network and rely on the QoS function in the network to prioritize the traffic flows. By contrast, network centric operations focus on application layer features like situation awareness and synchronization to enhance force effectiveness. Therefore, in contrast to enterprise networks in which QoS processes messages based on fixed priorities by data type, in mission orientated MANET, QoS must be a cooperative function between application and network resource management that uses dynamic priority allocation derived from task priorities established by commanders within echelon hierarchies1,2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. INTRODUCTION ARMY BANDWIDTH NEEDS ARCHITECTURE LAYERS INTERNET QOS SPECTRUM FOR MOBILE NETWORKS MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS ARCHITECTURE COMPARISONS BRIGADE FORCE STRUCTURE MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS TRAFFIC ATTRIBUTES MISSION QOS ARCHITECTURE CONCLUSIONS

However, for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET), the wireless datalink capacity is very limited, link reliability is less due to wireless infrastructure, and network topologies are not deterministic. Therefore, to maintain quality of service from the users perspective, the application layer software design must be cognizant of network constraints and quality of service (QoS) must be achieved by considering mechanisms at both the application and transport layers. QoS approaches based solely on the data type (voice, music, video, etc.) without considering user task priorities will be inadequate in tactical operation when MANET radio provides the network centric infrastructure. Wireless, mobile, ad-hoc communication networks operate in an environment that is distinctly different from static landline commercial communication systems for which most recent network routing innovations have been developed. Commercial landline networks can guarantee performance levels over the long term by over-provisioning infrastructure resources, whereas wireless mobile ad-hoc networks face many infrastructure challenges that impact QoS performance. These challenges include constraints on the assets currently available, RF spectrum allocation limits, highly variable link quality due to weather and terrain, and rapid changes in topology and data routing due to mobility. In a dynamic wireless environment, QoS is the capability to prioritize information, applications, services, and network resources within constraints in order to meet users needs consistent with overall task priorities. Traditional networks generally seek to optimize overall performance by focusing on transport layer mechanism for robustness (connectivity), efficiency (throughput), and speed of service (latency) on a message basis. Under some conditions, satisfying the users overall task priority is paramount, even if this results in suboptimal topologies or overall network performance. In MANET, user tasks at application layer contain important indicators for establishing priorities at the transport layer. QoS must be a cooperative function between application and network resource management that uses dynamic priorities derived from task priorities rather than data types.

1. INTRODUCTION
Normal design practice is to decouple the design of applications using a network from the design of the network itself. This approach led to the seven layer Open System Interconnect model (OSI) and the four layer TCP/IP internet model. This architecture approach is feasible when the underlying network resources are essentially unconstrained.
1 2

978-1-4244-3888-4/10/$25.00 2010 IEEE. IEEEAC paper #1119, Version 5, Updated 2009:12:15

2. ARMY BANDWIDTH NEEDS

The present Army is organized around highly mechanized battalions of heavy equipment tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery. Communication resources are mostly static based on assignment of frequency channels. The total utilization of these resources depends on the users on that frequency channel. If the users are generating frequent data or engaged in constant voice communication, then usage of the frequency channels and supporting radios is quite high. However, if the traffic load is not constant, then the channel is not utilized efficiently because unused time and frequency assets cannot be made available to other users. These networks are organized along functional lines, with different participant using different systems. Table 1 gives typical networks for First Striker Brigade. At this echelon, eight networks facilitate the functions of battle command, sensing, database updates, intelligence, maneuver, administration, logistics, and fire support. The networks use a variety of datalinks such as single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINGARS), high frequency (HF), enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS), and near term data radio (NTDR). These radios are generally dedicated to either data or voice nets [20]. Table I Brigade Communication System Architecture Purpose Type Communication Users Command HF, voice 17 Sensing SINGARS, data 10 Databases NTDR, data 34 Intelligence SINGARS, voice 31 Maneuver EPLRS, data 71 Administration SINGARS, voice 33 Logistics SINGARS, voice 20 Fire support SINGARS, voice 10 Maneuver functions have the largest networks with about seventy users sharing position reports. On the other hand, command networks have fewer participants, reflecting role and importance. However, this architecture only supports a small fraction of a rapid deployment, multi-mission brigade with 3,200 soldiers and 800 vehicles. The Army is transitioning to networked communications in which all users are interconnected as part of an information grid. The network must support voice, video, and data transmissions. The network centric approach is focused on getting right information to the right user at the right time. Operational effectiveness can be increased when sensors, command, lethality, and logistic functions are synchronized through a common picture of the battlespace. The US Armys transition to knowledge-based and network centric fighting force has resulted in an exponential increase in demand for communication exchanges, as shown in 2

Figure 1 [20]. Based on these projected requirements, the capacity of the existing communication architecture will continue to fall short of the required capability. Clearly, demand reduction can mitigate this discrepancy between projected requirements and availability of network capacity. However, demand reduction cannot jeopardize information dominance that is crucial to Seeing First, Acting First, and Finishing Decisively. In addition to overall data capacity, mobility, interoperability, information integrity, and security are key quality attributes for this future communication architecture. Quality of Service is the architecture and methodologies for prioritizing message distribution in order to meet these overall communication network metrics. To achieve a network centric fighting force, the Army has made major investments which combine Mobile Ad Hoc and Internet technologies. First, this paper examines the typical approach for quality of service in MANET. This approach injects Internet methods which assumes common, ubiquitous priority scheme for all participants. This Internet derived architecture assigns priorities based on delivery attributes of the data type, such as latency and jitter for voice packets. In contrast, this paper advocates that the priority schemes for MANET in tactical operations must be based on the task importance that the data is inherently supporting, rather than simply attributes of the data itself.

Figure 1: Bandwidth Needs of a Brigade Combat Team

3. ARCHITECTURE LAYERS
The Open System Interconnect (OSI) model for networks, unlike proprietary communication systems, decomposes network attributes into layers as shown in Figure 2. This enables products to be developed independently with public specifications that feature interoperability. Furthermore, improvements at any particular level can be integrated easily into existing networks. Users communicate over standard interfaces using standard protocols without concern for any layers specific implementation. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) / Internet Protocol (IP) is a suite of standards that specify how computers communicate and a set of conventions for routing traffic over networks. TCP/IP presumes a high-rate data-link and guaranteed physical layer that cannot be presumed in MANET. In the physical layer, the objective is to transport bits from source to destination over a link. Link resources include time, power, and spectrum. The QoS parameters include bit error rates, latency, and throughput. Spreading codes and forward error correction codes improve link reliability at the cost of overhead. Spectrum reuse algorithms can help to optimize value of a very constrained resource. Higher order modulation schemes such as 16 Phase Shift Keying increase link capacity at the expense of receiver complexity, power, weight, and cost. In a tactical MANET, link capacity can be severely constrained when radios must operate in antijamming (AJ) and low probability of intercept (LPI) modes.

In the data link layer, the objective is to allocate link resources among multiple users according to priority. Link layer resources include basic link capacity and queue capacity. QoS parameters for packets include throughput, error rates, delay, and delay variations (jitter). Allocation mechanisms are priority, reservation, or contention based. Traffic shaping and rate limiting is also used. In the network layer, the objective is to deliver individual packets between hosts that may reside on different subnets using different physical / link layers but share a common addressing architecture. Statistical multiplexing on shared mediums lowers costs and increases performance when activity is low but does not guarantee packet delivery as activity increasingly consumes the constrained resources. Network layer techniques for packet management include classification, marking, metering, and traffic shaping. Complementary approaches for the network layer are Integrated Services (IntServ) and Differentiated Services (DiffServ). IntServ requires a deterministic topology so that link capacity is allocated to guarantee per hop behavior. IntServ guarantees service but does not scale well due to overhead. DiffServ puts a class of service indicator in the packet header to request per hop behavior [3 to 7]. DiffServ service is statistical (not guaranteed) but scales well due to less overhead. In either case, both IntServ and DiffServ are data model views of traffic that presume an entity above properly marks all traffic. The QoS parameters for packets include loss rate, latency (delays), latency variation (jitter). In the transport layer, the objective is to provide reliable delivery of multi-packet messages over an internet layer that is not reliable on a per packet basis. TCP uses packet error and loss detection to determine when to retransmit packets and when to adjust transmission rates on the links. QoS mechanisms include congestion avoidance, detection, and control. Standard TCP assumes packet loss implies network congestion so lowers transmission rates whereas packet loss could also be due to jamming (hence bit error rates) or terrain blockage. Ad-hoc Transmission Control Protocol (ATCP) adapts TCP to MANET but leads to message delay [9, 10]. ATCP uses explicit congestion notification (ECN), Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) messages, TCP acknowledgements, and time outs to determine the cause of packet loss and causes TCP to react accordingly. The application layer is responsible for the load offered to the network. In a battlefield situation, these applications include battle planning, network management, fire control, and logistics. Tactical traffic flows are consistent with the hierarchical military echelon structure. Traffic generally consumes most of available network resources. Thus the assumptions of low traffic loads and randomly diffuse user traffic that are the basis of QoS in enterprise networks are not valid in tactical MANET. Rather, the priority structure in any mission orientated QoS architecture must reflect the hierarchical attributes of the network users as well as the dynamics of battlefield conditions. 3

Figure 2: OSI and TCP/IP Network Models

4. INTERNET QOS
Perspectives on Quality of Service (QoS) have a tendency to be one of two extremes. In network centric operations, QoS is viewed as long-term network reachability, reliability, and availability. To consumers on the Internet, QoS is viewed as short-term network behavior during connectivity so QoS becomes a question of transmission speed, timeliness of packet delivery, amount of jitter in packet streams, and the probability of packet loss. Between these two extremes are engineering issues about graceful transition and degradation. The layered architecture of communication systems enables the overall approach to be decomposed into manageable techniques and protocols which are developed and upgraded independently in operational networks. This decomposition of protocols is shown in Figure 3. The Physical Layer One and Data Link Layer Two are generally provided by an Ethernet service using fiber optics. The Ethernet is a packet switched local area technology invented by Xerox PARC in the 1970s which became IEEE standard 802.3. Ethernet is a 10 Mbps broadcast bus technology with best-effort delivery semantics and distributed access control. Ethernet hardware does not provide information to the sender about whether

the packet was delivered. Ethernet also uses Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD). Each transmission has a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of 1500 bytes. In a non RF environment, these layers have high reliability and availability that is an underlying design assumption for the protocols at the Network Layer Three and Transport Layer Four [22, 23, 24]. Network Layer Three is transmitted as IP datagrams. IPv4 datagram prefixes 20 bytes of control information to an MTU packet. This control information includes source and destination addresses. IP is an unreliable, connectionless datagram delivery service. IP does not guarantee that each datagram successfully gets to its destination. IP provides a best effort service. If congestion exists, then IP discards the packet and may send an ICMP message back to the source. IP also does not maintain state information about successive datagrams. Every datagram is handled independently, so they can arrive out of order. IP routing is on a hop-by-hop basis. Hosts and routers base intermediate routing decisions on connection tables. Destination address does not change, but link (encapsulation) addresses can change on each hop.

Figure 3: Internet Suite of Protocols by Communication Architecture Layer

The IP header includes a type-of-service field which is not supported by most TCP/IP implementations today. The four TOS bits are maximize delay, maximize throughput, maximize reliability, and minimize cost. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an experimental protocol to signal congestion. Dropping packets essentially wastes resources used to get the packet to any intermediate router. So routers seeing imminent congestion can set a flag bit so that the destination notifies the source to start slowing transmissions. The IP layer has four weaknesses that TCP tries to mitigate. First, routers have an unpredictable temporal response to transient congestion. Second, no priority mechanisms exist for different traffic classes. Third, no methods exist for endto-end service quality. Fourth, limited mechanisms exist for auditing usage of network resources. Even though TCP and UDP use the same IP in the network layer, TCP provides a totally different service to application layer than UDP. UDP is a connectionless, unreliable, one packet service whereas TCP is a connection, reliable, packet stream service. UDP essentially uses IP layer as is while TCP attempts to mitigate the issues with the IP layer. UDP header is eight bytes while a TCP header is 20 bytes. Both UDP and TCP partition application messages at the source and reassembles messages at the destination. UDP partitions messages up to 64K bytes into IP datagrams while TCP partitions much larger messages into variable length

segments. In addition, TCP acknowledges data received by another end, maintains a timer for automatic retransmission if segments arent acknowledged, assembles packets into the proper order at the destination, discards duplicate packets, provides end-to-end flow control, and verifies a mandatory end-to-end checksum for message reliability. UDP is more appropriate for short messages which are confined to a LAN. TCP is more appropriate for long messages traversing WANs. The packet loss rates and variability in round-trip times are normally higher on WAN than LAN, increasing importance of timeout algorithms, good retransmission, and end-to-end reliability for network clients. Goal in QoS-enabled environment is to provide predictable service delivery to certain types of traffic regardless of other types of traffic flowing through the network at any given time. When QoS perspective is on data characteristics as a proxy for types of traffic, an alternative expression of the QoS goal is allow traditional bursty traffic to share the same infrastructure as traffic with more rigorous latency, jitter, or packet loss requirements. Latency is the total end-to-end delay for a packet. Jitter is the fluctuating component in packet arrivals in a data stream. Packet loss in IP networks is packet discarding due to congestion and queue overflow. The general tolerance of particular data types to various per hop behaviors are given in Table II [8]. Specific numerical tolerances for some data types are given in Table III.

Aggregate Service Class Elastic

Preferred Elastic

Inelastic / Real Time

Network Control

Table II GIG Service Class and Expected QoS Per-hop Attributes Granular Tolerance to Tolerance Service Class Example Packet Loss to Latency Default Email, Web Browsing, High High Document Transfer Scavenger Applications without Very High Very High forwarding assurance Operations & SNMP Low Medium Maintenance Audit Records File Transfer Imagry Low Medium (High Throughput) Interactive Instant Message (IM) Low Low Transactions User Authentication Streaming Video Streaming Low Medium Audio Streaming Video Video Conference Low None Voice VOIP Medium Very Low Short Message Sensor to Shooter Low Medium Circuit Emulation UAV Control Low Low Signaling SIP setup Low Low Inter-Net Control Net Configuration None Low Network Control Routing None Low

Tolerance to Jitter High Very High High High High Medium Low None High Medium High High High

Table III Nominal QoS Per-hop Values Service Maximum Maximum Maximum Type Latency Jitter Loss Rate Voice 200 msec 50 msec 2% Push Talk 5 sec 50 msec 2% RT Video 200 msec 50 msec 4% Teleops 75 msec NA 0.1 % UDP 5 sec NA 1% TCP 2 sec NA zero batch 1 minute NA zero In wireline IP networks congestion is the exception. In todays backbone networks, bit error rates are less than 1012 , latency for coast-to-coast flows is less than 120 msec, and packet loss rates are 10-5. Realtime voice and video are very sensitive to latency and jitter. These services were historically carried on separate circuits. Per-hop QoS focuses on data characteristics of packets. As shown in Figure 4, the span of control and reaction times for per-hop QoS is quite short. The observed end-to-end QoS is built from the concatenation of per-hop QoS characteristics of individual hops along any given route. End-to-end QoS uses three network models Integrated Services (IntServ), Differentiated Services (DiffServ), and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). IntServ has per flow QoS guarantees by incorporating complex classify, queue, and schedule mechanisms over stable end-to-end paths. IntServ design is for real-time streaming & interactive applications which have uniform rate traffic flows. IntServ meets QoS by explicit a-priori scheduling of packet hops for a unidirectional flow. This approach is not feasible in MANET because paths can change frequently and traffic flows can be variable.

DiffServ is minimalist counterpoint to IntServ. DiffServ accommodates variable topologies and variable rate traffic flows. DiffServ classifies data into seven major flow categories. Categories have there own per hop behaviors. The relative priorities usually are Expedited Forwarding is highest, Assured Forwarding (four flows) is intermediate, and Best Effort is lowest. Weighting schemes such as weighed fair queuing adjust the priority by category. Within a flow type, data types are discerned further by Differentiated Service Code Points (DSCPs). The Global Information Grid assignment of flow types to DSCP code points is shown in Table IV. These assignments are by flow types regardless of the tactical purpose that the data supports. These assignments are also static rather than dynamic during a tactical engagement. Furthermore, these assignments universal meaning that all network participants are assigned the same priority structure. Table IV Proposed GIG DiffServ Architecture Flow Type DSCP (10) Behavior Routing & 56, 48 Network net mgmt Control Continuous 47, 45, 43, Expedited Voice 41, 40 Forwarding (EF) Continuous 34, 36, 38, Assured Video 32 Forwarding 4 Streaming 26, 28, 30 Assured Mulimedia Forwarding 3 Block transfer 18, 20, 22 Assured & transactions Forwarding 2 Batch (long) 10, 12, 14 Assured transfers Forwarding 1 Other 0, 8, 16, 24 Best Effort (7)

QoS Span of Mechanism Control

Queuing Structures Node
EF Qs Tail-Drop

Ranges for QoS Reaction Time

Longer AF/BE Queues Random Early Drop

MI QoS Routing ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification]

Multiple Nodes End-toEnd (Per Flow)

Alternate Routing based on desired QoS

Round Trip Time + Congested Queuing Time

QoS Monitor & End-toControl [ECN End Not Available] (Per Class) IP Reroute Network

Aggregated RTT Measurements + Congested Queuing Time

~10-6 Secs

~10-3 Secs

~10-2 Secs

~10-1 Secs

ed Q ht vg. rip tQ or rop ng p d T eig g A h W in S l-D Lo l-Dro oun me v D i i R Ti Ta Ta Mo RE

Table Updates ~1 10s of Secs d Secs ~1 Min. e t g te ga rip n i e t a T u d es gr tri Ro e Up Ag und es Re bl Ro Tim a T

Retries + Routing

Figure 4: Span of Control for Per-hop QoS Mechanisms

5. SPECTRUM FOR MOBILE NETWORKS

A nave approach to solving the Armys communication needs is to suggest that the Army use higher frequency bands than the current HF and lower UHF based systems. Higher frequencies and wider spectrum allocations facilitate higher capacities. But, most frequency bands are crowded and moving current occupants is a major effort. The Federal Communication Commission required a decade to clear spectrum in order to terminate analog TV in the VHF bands and commence high definition digital TV in the UHF bands. Spectrum is a finite resource and only a portion of the RF spectrum is suitable for mobile communications. The UHF spectrum is technically ideal for mobile communications. The UHF band is high enough to mitigate problems in the UHF band while low enough to mitigate problems in the SHF band. However, the UHF band is extremely crowded and obtaining spectrum is difficult. In VHF radio wave propagation, ground plan effects are an important factor. Interference between the direct beam and the ground reflected beam often lead to an effective fourth power law interference. Man made noise is the VHF band can be 18 dB above background galactic thermal noise. In business and residential areas, man made noise is due to automotive ignition, power lines, industrial equipment, and consumer products. Man made noise power statistics are non-stationary in time and location [21]. Man made noise diminishes to low galactic levels by the middle UHF band.

In SHF radio wave propagation, absorption due to foliage and other objects limits range. The SHF band requires more sophisticated and expensive antennas relative to UHF. The SHF band supports much higher data rates, so this band supports microwave and satellite applications. This band is strictly direct line-of-sight propagation. The UHF band supports data communications at sufficient rates to be useful in many mobile applications. The UHF band also propagates well in a variety of terrains, even in foliage. Antennas and electronics are very inexpensive. Thus, the properties of the UHF band have had a significant influence on architecture of mobile communication systems. Due to other users in the UHF band, the US Army will only have 55 MHz of available spectrum [20]. This spectrum is absolutely non-contiguous because of existing systems and users, both commercial and other military services. The placement of these other users limits channel bandwidths to at most 3 MHz. Hence for a brigade combat team of 3200 soldiers, 55 MHz represents 44 channels at 1.25 MHz per channel (Internet T1 rate) or 18 channels at 3 MHz per channel. These factors drive the subnet architecture of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), the Armys MANET program mentioned later. In conclusion, tactical MANET is bandwidth (e.g., data rate) constrained, so the underlying presumption of surplus capacity by Internet Protocols is not satisfied. The subsequent sections of this paper advocate that Dynamic Message Prioritization is a better means to implement QOS in a tactical MANET.

Figure 5: Spectrum Characteristics Contribute to Mobile Communication Architectures 7

6. MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS

Both military and commercial users desire to exchange multimedia data among distributed users. But these two communities approach mobility in a much different manner. Commercial architectures allow user mobility, but connected after initial entry to either a fixed (cell tower) or predicable (satellite) infrastructure for routing. The military supports mobile users, but must rely on the infrastructure itself being deployable. The communication architecture must also be reconfigurable as operational environments change. Rapid deployment of independent mobile users can provide survivable, efficient, and dynamic network centric resources for emergencies, rescue, disaster relief, and military. Such scenarios cannot rely on centralized, organized connectivity. Because nodes are mobile, the network topology can change rapidly and unpredictably over time. As a decentralized architecture, all network activity is performed by the nodes. In ad hoc networks, a message from a source node to a destination node may not have a permanent direct line of sight due to mobility or obstacles. Each network node must facilitate reachability by storing and forwarding each others data packets. These extra hops for actual message routing and overhead consume capacity. MANET must discover network participants and relatively low cost routes. Mobile ad-hoc networks are different due to their large degree of freedom and self-organizing capabilities. Mobile ad-hoc networks are an innovative step in the evolution of wireless networks. Ad-hoc networks inherit the traditional challenges of wireless communications such as bandwidth optimization, power control, and transmission quality. In addition, the multi-hop, mobile infrastructure has new challenges such as network configuration, topology, device discovery, addressing, and routing.

In MANET, physical layer 1 is the signals in space. These signals are affected by propagation, foliage, weather, terrain, multipath, and electronic warfare. As energy per bit to noise ratio decreases, bit errors leading to packet errors become more probable. Thus, the TCP/IP baseline of robustness at this layer is an invalid assumption in MANET. Data link layer 2 performs important functions such as error control, framing, addressing, and medium access control. In MANET, these functions are partitioned into two sublayers as shown in Figure 6 [30, 31, 32, 33]. Medium Access Control (Mobile Data Link) handles addressing, framing, and medium access. Logical Link Control (Mobile Internet) handles error control and flow control. Traditionally, networks are organized as a series of layers, each one built on the one below it. Although this simplifies network design, the behavior of a protocol can be affected by the protocol above or below it in the stack. Preliminary indications are that, because of the differences in layers one and two between mobile ad-hoc networks and wired IP networks, performance in mobile ad-hoc networks can be significantly impacted by inter-layer interactions [25, 26]. In particular, awareness of routing over two hop neighbors rather than just nearest neighbors can significantly smooth traffic flows in an ad hoc networks. Also, incompatibilities between control timers in MAC and TCP layers can cause unfairness when CSMA and FAMA are in the MAC layer. Armys MANET development is the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), a full-duplex software defined radio. JTRS has two major waveforms for both voice and data: Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) & Wideband Network Waveform (WNW) [27, 28, 29]. These units provide flexible links between radios. End-to-end flow monitoring on encrypted and unencrypted paths, network management, and other network utilities are in development.

Mobile Intranet Layer

Layer 2

(MALSR, SEFA, HSLS, MPR)

Multi-level Abstracted Link State Routing (MALSR) Mobile Intranet based on multiple mechanisms & protocols: Simple Efficient Flooding Algorithm (SEFA from BBN) Uses multi-hop channelized broadcasts to flood Link State Updates (LSU) resulting in efficient bandwidth utilization. Hazy Sighted Link State protocol (HSLS) Frequency and Area of flooding is optimized. Multi-Point Relays (MPR) Nodes chosen to relay the flooding LSUs. Orthogonal Domain Multiple Access (ODMA) Combined TDM/FDM uses spectrum efficiently in varying topologies. Unified Slot Allocation Protocol (USAP) Controls ODMA time-slot allocation Spatial reuse of slots to increase total network capacity Dynamic ALOHA contention slots for low latency & hi priority traffic

Mobile Data Link Layer (ODMA, USAP)

Layer 1

Signal in Space (OFDM, BEAM, AJ, LPI)

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), Bandwidth Efficient Advanced Modulation (BEAM), Anti-Jam (AJ), Low Probability of Intercept (LPI)

Figure 6: MANET Protocols in Layers 1 and 2 8

7. ARCHITECTURE COMPARISONS
Todays wireless infrastructure depends on hub-and-spoke networks that have few, sophisticated, very expensive central hubs and many, simpler, very inexpensive handsets. On the other hand, mobile ad-hoc networks have common devices with medium sophistication that autonomously self organized into networks. Ad hoc networks are an evolution of traditional wireless networks. Ad-hoc networks inherit the standard challenges of wireless and mobile communications such as bandwidth utilization, power control, and link quality. Furthermore, the multi-hop links and lack of fixed infrastructure increase complexity in network configuration, device discovery, topology, addressing, and self-routing. MANET networks can be categorized based on the specific usage and situation supported. These include networks for enterprise, home, tactical, sensor, pervasive, individual computing, and robotics. These situations each have further but distinctive impacts on MANET technologies. So techniques developed for one situation may not perform adequately in another situation. In the tactical environment, MANET should be cognizant of 1) organizational hierarchy, 2) prioritized task basis for traffic from network subscribers, and 3) user mobility [1].

In the enterprise environment, multiple diverse users make general use of a high rate fixed infrastructure to perform multiple, often uncoordinated tasks. Statistical multiplexing rather than reservation schemes help maximize access and utilization of this shared resource. Priority assignments executed by the transport layer are essentially static. QoS is often a reactive arbitration when user demand temporarily exceeds network demand. On the other hand, in a battlefield, priority assignments can by extremely dynamic based on new commanders orders, battlefield events, and changing infrastructure. Also, QoS should incorporate the knowledge available during planning stages to proactively manage QoS in the constrained MANET infrastructure as well as perform reactive arbitration when user demand temporarily exceeds network demand. Tactical QoS must incorporate a mission level understanding towards deciding how priorities are set initially and evolve over time. Historically, MANETs have been used for tactical situations to improve survivability and overcome line-of-sight wireless limitations. Dynamic military operations cant rely on fixed vulnerable communication infrastructures on the battlefield. Key differences between commercial telecom networks and military MANET are summarized in Table V.

Feature Role of QoS Topology Mobility Link Capacity Latency Packet Loss Rate Congestio n Detection Congestio n Avoidance Network Planning Network Monitorin g

Table V Comparison of Subscriber and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Subscriber (Enterprise) Network MANET Probabilistic but nearly guaranteed performance for Enhance force effectiveness as defined by converged services (voice, video) commander intent using available resources Fixed or slowly varying topology Rapidly varying wireless topology Organization: LAN, WAN, backbone Dynamic routing and rerouting Stable routing, reliable connectivity Nodes or subnets may be disconnected Mobility limited to host attachment to network Both hosts and network nodes are mobile High capacity: 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps Low capacity: < T1 shared by many users Fixed or slowly varying Dynamic, rapidly varying Capacity bottleneck is typically access WAN Capacity bottlenecks can occur anywhere in net Low latency: typical end-to-end < 100 msec High latency: typical end-to-end > 100 msec Relatively stable with minimum congestion Dynamic, even with no congestion Dominated be queuing delays Dominated by framing and hop count Very low: typical end-to-end << 10-3 High: typical end-to-end > 10-2 Dominated by queue overflow Often dominated by RF loss Packet loss implies congestion on path Packet loss due to many factors Notified via Explicit Congestion Notification Hard to distinguish congestion from other factors Transport Layer using TCP reduces flow rates Early Random Detection drops packet as queue fills Traffic flow control (shaping, policing) Long term planning (years) based on trends Minor short term adjustments Capacity is commodity that is readily increased All nodes and links are visible and monitored Congestion bottlenecks easily identified Minimum constraints on monitoring overhead TCP cannot distinguish between congestion and link loss. ERD is not effective No clear authority for flow control Rapid planning (hours, days) Major real time adjustments likely Capacity is RF spectrum constrained Secure network invisible to non-secure side Difficult to identify specific bottlenecks Major constraints on monitoring overhead

8. BRIGADE FORCE STRUCTURE

A rapid deployment, multi-mission brigade has about 3,200 soldiers, 800 vehicles, and 1,000 radios. Brigade is modular organization tailorable based on Mission, Enemy, Terrain and Weather, Troops, Time, and Civilian (METT-TC). A brigade has six major mission categories that are executed using warfighting functionalities as defined in Army field manuals and summarized in Table VI [11 to 16]. The mobile network enables focused combat power, improved enemy detection, and shortened planning cycles. The relationships of data flows to the mission and the force structure are important in establishing message priorities. The QoS approach should assign a consistent priority to all messages that are associated with a given task assigned to a particular unit within the brigade hierarchy. Table VI Warfighting Functionalities Command & Tasks and processes that support Control commander exercising authority Adjust plans to future operations while focusing on current operations Rapid synchronization and adaptation across echelons of command Force Processes that move forces to achieve a Projection position of advantage relative to enemy Maneuver, & Includes tasks associated with forces in Maneuver combination with artillery fires , Enhancement mobility, and counter mobility Intelligence Processes that facilitate understanding of enemy, terrain, and weather Surveillance and reconnaissance Fire Control Collective and coordinated use of artillery fires and information Targeting processes for artillery fires Integrating and synchronizing artillery fires across other warfighting functions Protection Processes that preserve the forces so the commander can apply combat power Includes protecting personnel, physical assets, and information Sustainment Sustain forces throughout range of operations to ensure action, extended reach, and prolonged endurance Support for humans, logistics, health services, and other services
HQ BIC

HQ

RECON

Armor MCS

INF IN

Mortar

HQ

RECON

Armor MCS

INF IN

Mortar

HQ

RECON

Armor MCS

INF IN

Mortar

AVN SVC

HQ

Artillery

HHB

Artillery NLOS Battery NLOS Battery Battery Medical

Support

HQ

Sustainment

Maintenance

Figure 7: Brigade Force Structure Headquarters develops plans and operational orders to synchronize the warfighting functionalities to achieve the mission. The intelligence company assesses information that enhances a commanders understanding of operational environment, the threat, and deployed forces capabilities. The intelligence company also manages entire MANET assets to establish voice, data, and video communications. The artillery battalion provides fire support of tactical maneuvers including destructive, suppressive, protective and special purpose fires. The aviation squadron conducts integrated air-ground operations and reconnoiters threats. As the main fighting force, each armored battalion has its own headquarters and could have a multi-disciplinary force consisting of armor, infantry, aviation, and mortars. The support battalion does all replentishment, performs field maintenance, and provides emergency resuscitative surgery, and level two medical aids.

9. MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Military decision making process (MDMP) is foundation on which planning in a time constrained environment is based. The MDMP relies on doctrine and established symbols that facilitate a rapid and consistent assessment of the situation. As shown in Table VII, MDMP process starts with mission assignment, examines the battlefield conditions, assesses contingencies, reaches logical decisions, and issues orders. Estimates are revised when important new information is received or during major situation changes. MDMP continues at all echelons during operations. Decision making is knowing if to decide, then when and what to decide. It includes understanding the consequences of decisions. Decisions are means by which the commander translates his vision of the end state into action. 10

A rapid deployment, multi-mission brigade can contain six battalions and thirty six companies as shown in Figure 7. The eight major elements are headquarters (HQ), an intelligence company, a surveillance squadron, three force battalions, an artillery battalion, and a support battalion.

Table VII Military Decision Making Process 1) Receipt of Mission 2) Mission Analysis 3) Course of Action Development 4) Course of Action Analysis 5) Course of Action Comparison 6) Course of Action Approval 7) Orders Production Step 2 Mission Analysis is crucial to the MDMP. Mission analysis enables the commander to visualize the battlefield, to clearly define the tactical problem, and to determine potential feasible solutions. Ultimately, QoS in a tactical MANET must facilitate the implementation of a chosen feasible solution, by controlling real time access of mission applications to the shared network transport layer, in order to maximize force effectiveness per commanders intent. Several mission analysis steps have direct impact on data prioritization and routing in a tactical MANET. Table VIII Mission Analysis Analyze higher HQs order Conduct Initial IPB Determine essential tasks Review available assets Determine constraints Critical facts and assumptions Conduct risk assessment Determine CCIR Issue reconnaissance annex Plan use of available time Write restate mission Conduct mission analysis briefing Approve restated mission Develop commanders intent Commanders guidance Warning Orders Review facts & assumptions

decisions, and to validate course of action. The CCIR help the commander filter information available to him by defining what is important to mission accomplishment. The CCIR also focus his subordinates, assist in the allocation of resources, and assist staff in making recommendations. CCIR are generally limited to ten items to enhance comprehension. CCIR are time sensitive items that affect decision points and hence affect mission success. CCIR include priority intelligence on enemy, essential elements of units operation that if compromised would lead to mission failure, and current capabilities of the commanders units. Commanders intent is a clear, concise statement of what forces must do to succeed with respect to the enemy, terrain, and desired end state. It links the mission and the concept of operations by stating the key tasks that are the basis for subordinates to exercise initiative when unanticipated oppor-tunities arise or when the original concept of operations no longer applies. Intent is normally expressed in four or five sentences and is mandatory for all orders. The mission and commanders intent must be understood two echelons down. After approving mission analysis briefing, the commander provides the staff with enough additional guidance and preliminary decisions to focus staff activities in the detailed planning of the mission tasks. The commanders guidance must focus on the essential tasks supporting mission accomplishment. This guidance emphasizes in broad terms when, where, and how he intends to mass his combat power to accomplish the mission. Commanders guidance should include priorities for all combat and support elements. Details of the mission plans are formulated using Automated Battle Command System (ABCS). The ABCS consists of 11 battlefield automated systems (BAS) which provide the capabilities for warfighters mission needs. Each BAS aids in planning, coordinating, and executing operations by horizontally integrating the command and control network. Each BAS within the ABCS support soldiers that have specialized battlefield functional area. The 11 BAS are grouped into five logical battlefield functional areas Maneuver, Fire Support, Air Defense, Intelligence / Electronic Warfare, and Sustainment. ABCS differs from each separate BAS by incorporating a Service Orientated Architecture (SOA) and information servers. These features enable horizontal information exchange and increased interoperability. Thus ABCS provides a network centric data sharing and management capability in order to increase force effectiveness. [34] These battle command applications use mix of data flow types short messages, block (file) transfer, voice, imagery, and streaming video.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17)

The Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) is a systematic, continuous process of analyzing the threat and the effects of the environment on the unit. IPB identifies the facts and assumptions that determine the likely courses of action by the enemy. The IPB identifies the intelligence collection needed to support developing the units course of action. Staff officers assist in developing the situation template within their own areas of expertise. The Commanders Critical Information Requirements (CCIR) identify information needed by the commander to support his battlefield visualization, to make critical 11

10. TRAFFIC ATTRIBUTES

Sensing functions are important to detecting battlespace objects. These objects are synthesized into a common situational awareness using various levels of fusion. Level 1 fusion reconciles geographic circles of precision on tracks whereas Level 4 fusion extracts intelligence. As shown in Figure 8, sensing in various forms is expected to consume 80 percent of available bandwidth [20]. Judicious traffic management (admission control, flow control, etc.) will be necessary to prevent sensing data from choking the network. Other types of functions consume far less bandwidth but are critical to the success of the mission. These other functions are planning, issuing orders, maneuver control, and voice.

Figure 9: Traffic Data Flow During Battle First, a task may require a variety of flow types, such as data, voice, and imagery. All flow types supporting a high priority tasks should have higher priority than flow types from a lower priority task. However, in per-hop QoS using DSCPs, higher priority messages of the same flow type get intermingled with lower priority messages of the same flow type and then transferred on a first come first serve basis. Second, per-hop QoS admission control schemes generally make access decisions on a per message basis. A task flow may have many messages that are exchanged as part of task. All of these message should be assigned the same priority and granted admission based on this priority. Different flow types within a task might be subject to different priorities if admitted or assigned on a per-hop QoS basis. As discussed earlier, units within Brigade Combat Team are tasks organized. Consequently, a majority of the traffic load travels within the basic echelons, such as platoons, behaving like a local area network (LAN). Only ten percent of traffic traverses echelons, behaving like a wide area network as shown in Figure 10. Recon, Artillery, and Support also send about 10% up to Brigade, but only have about 1/3 of the traffic load. Two further points about QoS. First, each echelon is serviced by its own subnet in a tactical MANET because of limitations on total number of users. Each subnet can have its own priority template based on its tasking. As an example, a subnet for maintenance unit in brigade rear can have a priority template that is different from the priority template in subnet for a company that is engaging the enemy. Using per-hop QoS in TCP/IP in tactical MANET is a mismatch because this Internet scheme is egalitarian, giving all users the same priority scheme. Second, as discussed about DSCPs, a UDP scheme works better on short messages in LAN while TCP/IP scheme works better on longer message in WANs. Most local

Figure 8: Traffic Data Flow Composition The per-hop QoS approaches have a tendency to assign resources based on volume of traffic to keep queues clear. However, without some weighting scheme, mission critical messages could be starved of network access. End-to-end QoS that is task orientated would assure that these critical messages are given highest priority and that sensing then consumes residual bandwidth on a lower priority basis. This phenomenon of starving low rate, high priority users at the expense of high rate, low priority users has appeared in selected commercial Internet lines [38]. TCP increases your transmission rate until congestion causes dropped packets. Then TCP repeatedly halves the transmission rate until the congestion is gone. If providers see persistent congestion, then most providers have responded by increasing capacity. However, IP networks with fixed capacity exhibit this same starving phenomenon as constrained MANET with TCP/IP. The traffic load is bursty in nature as shown in Figure 9. Activities such as planning, maneuver, and engagement all trigger interactions which are reflected in the traffic load. Note that in Figure 9, while the load level changes, the mix is not expected to change. Two important points about QoS based on task missions in bandwidth constricted MANETs.

12

xx
DIV UA

0.1% 95%

BGD

55% 87% 5% 1.5%

HQ

HQ

BIC

5.8%

95%
HQ

20%
RECON

67% 19%

33%

MCS 5% Armor MCS

INF IN

25%

Mortar

5%

38%
RECON

38%
INF IN

0%
Mortar

MCS Armor MCS

1.5%
HQ
RECON

MCS Armor MCS

INF IN

Mortar

1.5%
HQ

AVN SVC

1.4%
Artillery

HHB

Artillery Battery IN

1.3%
Support
HQ Sustainment Maintenance Medical

Figure 10: Tactical Network Traffic Patterns

Operation Phase Planning Command and Control Warfighting Functions Plus Training Staging / Mobiliztion Command and Control 25% 30% Sustainment Intelligence 25% 20% Training 20% Sustainment 15% Maneuver: 5% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Maeuver 10% Intelligence 15% Training 15% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Sustainment 20% Intelligence 20% Training 10% Fires: 5% Protection: 5% Protection 10% Sustainment 10% Training: 5% Protection 15% Fires: 5% Training: 5% 20% Maneuver 10% Intelligence 15% Maneuver 20% Intelligence 15% Intelligence 15% Protection 15% Fires 10% Training: 5% Sustainment 15% 20% Fires Maneuver 30% 25% 20% Movement Command and Control 20% Operations Command and Control Consolidate Command and Control 15% Sustainment Redeploy Command and Control 20% Maneuver Priority High

Low

Figure 11: Representative Battle Command Application Priority by Phase of Battle

13

traffic in a subnet could be handled UDP in a tactical MANET. Most traffic on the Internet is across WANs, so the TCP/IP scheme is more appropriate in that environment. As shown in Figure 11, the mission task priorities change based on battle phases. Intelligence has high priority during early planning stages, maneuver has high priority during the initial engagement, fires control (lethality) has high priority during the actual engagement, and sustainment as priority during recovery post engagement. Commanders orders and medical evacuation requests are very short messages that will always have the highest priority. Tactical QoS needs to be dynamic rather than static like in Internet QoS. Flow monitoring between source and destination pairs has been used to provide some end-to-end QoS. These techniques are measurement based admission control (MBAC). Directed Throughput Graphs (DTG) have been developed by Telecordia for the JTRS program [35]. QED has been developed by General Dynamics for the WIN-T program [36]. These methods use short timing messages between source and destination. The end-to-end delivery times are extrapolated to predict trends and slow admission at the source as delivery times increase due to congestion. These schemes try to use limited bandwidth resources more efficiently by admitting low precedence flows between uncongested users ahead of high precedence flow between congested users. These approaches are only effective for sustained flow, such as streaming multimedia and batch file transfer. Control theory requires that the response time of a control loop be about ten times faster than the main information path. In a tactical MANET environment with bursty traffic, this control loop performance requirement is typically not satisfied. Flows in tactical MANET generally change faster than the control loop can respond. Thus, the attributes of the traffic, the nature of the network flows, the subnet structure linkage to the echelons, and the dynamic conditions of the battlefield all point to an end-toend QoS scheme being more relevant in a tactical than the standard per-hop QoS scheme of TCP/IP in the Internet.

a fixed, allocation assignment of the necessary resources until this high priority activity is complete. However, since most interactions are bursty, this wastes significant amounts of highly constrained network resources. The QoS alternative is to adjust priority of all message interactions associated with this task so these messages transmit with minimal latency and any network resource not consumed by the planning tasks is available on a non-contention basis. As another example, consider various mission video types detection reports, ISR analysis, battle damage images, weather updates, weapons monitoring, and medical files. Video should not be assigned the same DiffServ code point just because it is an MPEG (moving pictures experts group) file. Rather the task nature of the video is relevant. Target information should have highest real time priority whereas a CAT scan file should be flow controlled in off hours. From a mission perspective rather than a data model perspective, factors that affect message priority include: Current task organization (e.g., 2CAB versus its Recon Troop) Mission Operational: conduct attack, support operations, combat replenishment, etc. Engineering: mission thread, task orders, network integration, etc. Role of echelon in the operation main effort, supporting effort, reserve Role / position of the message requestor or receiver Flow type voice, video, transaction, teleops, file transfer, chat Message type medical evacuation request, call for fire, network management (polls, ICMP, SNMP, discovery request), Information Assurance traffic (signatures, policy updates) Operating mode training, combat, en route mission planning, rehearsal Application intelligence, command and control, sustainment, network fires Value of BSO immediate threat, high value target, friendly force, first report or subsequent detection Platform operational / threat condition under threat, out of ammunition, QoS policies in effect Perceived quality of performance teleop, imagery transfer Network assets available spectrum capacity, node availability QoS must be a cooperative function between the application layer and the transport layer. Applications cannot just dump traffic on the network and expect QoS function to reactively accommodate all requests. Given the constrained network resources, QoS function must be proactive using admission control to dynamically meter network access. Applications 14

11. MISSION QOS ARCHITECTURE

Key attributes of a QoS architecture for mission orientated MANET are (1) QoS is a cooperative function between the application layer and the transport layer, (2) priorities must be derived from task assignments rather than data types, (3) priority level must by dynamic rather than static for the same information based on current conditions, (4) signal officers must have QoS templates that enable rapid but rational shifting of priority assignments in order to avoid inducing oscillatory or thrashing behavior into the network. As an example, suppose a commander wants to set up a half hour collaborative planning session. One approach is to do

are given nominal rates that are available to them and must adjust their processing. For example, the user can make a more logical decision about sending a high resolution piece of an image or the entire image at low resolution. Which applications get which priorities during which time periods depends on task priority assignments by the unit commander. Commanders intent manifests itself through the detailed mission planning process and through allocation of brigade assets to specific tasks as in Figure 12. Understanding how assets are organized by tasks to fulfill missions is vital to correctly assigning real time priorities to task messages rather than a data flow type basis. In a mission model view of QoS, priority assignments must account for expected events, tasks, units assigned to tasks, role of echelon, role of message generator or recipient, data type (voice, video, etc.), message type (medical evacuation, call for fire, network mgmt), threat conditions, operational mode (combat, rehearsal, etc.), application (command, intel, fire control, etc.), network assets available, network mode (LPI, etc.), and spatial / temporal conditions. A mission model viewpoint can prevent priority inversion that often occurs is highly loaded networks [2]. If the link only has space for short messages, then DiffServ data model approach fis short low priority messages into available capacity. On the other hand, a mission model viewpoint will flow control large, high priority file such an ISR analysis or battle damage report, into the available capacity. QoS architecture in a tactical MANET cannot use static DiffServ code points. For example, the first sighting of a battlespace object is highest priority but subsequent sighting reports are just redundant traffic on the network. Logistics

status and resupply requests are low priority, routine traffic unless the unit is actively engaging the enemy. Situation information which is vital to a platoon on the front can be delayed and summarized for the commander. Rather, the priority templates should adjust based on eminent battlefield conditions and then remain static (15 minutes to hours) as long as those battlefield conditions persist. In circuit switched tactical networks carrying only voice during World War II, admission control policies used the Multi Level Precedence and Preemption (MLPP) Flash Override, Flash, Priority, Routine [37]. Extending this over multiple data flows with DSCPs has proved problematic, leading to elaborate queuing structures that most tactical radios do not support. Appling MLPP architecture to tasks and their associated data flows is more intuitive. Mission planning and MDMP contain vital information for QoS mechanisms in a tactical MANET. Mission analysis inherently has significant insight for information flows that support key mission tasks as in Figure 12. Thus, QoS must start from the mission layer. The battle phases and the current mission tasks will determine proactive constraints on application loads, priorities for message groups, and hierarchical traffic flows. These priority assignments can be captured in QoS templates for both the basic plan and all contingency plans. Thus, commanders and signal officers could rapidly adjust to events in battlefield. Just as artillery assets are currently allocated in planning process based on task priority and continuously reallocated as tasks are completed or evolve, critical network resources must be allocated in the planning process based on task priority and continuously reallocated as tasks are completed or evolve.

Planning Support functions GUI Display Functions for Critical Information engagement: aspirations per interaction / message & Computation Resources Mission Execution & Networked Resources Aggregated demands: quality and volume of communications and computation during stages of engagement Choice and arrangement of assets and their assigned roles during engagement Signals Officer feedback and control

Planning for Multiple Concurrent Missions

Planning / Managing Networked Communications

& Computational Services Embedded Real Time Network Operations

Optimization of available assets to maximize quality and volume to sustain both global connectivity and mission

Scheduling / marking

Feedback path indicating feasibility, and risk of not making outcomes critical to mission

Operating System & Computation Services

Datalink Transport Signals in Space

Figure 12: Network Planning and Allocation Processes

15

12. CONCLUSIONS
Summary of rationale for task orientated QoS is: Layered architecture simplifies design IP networks presume robust OSI layers 1 & 2 IP networks have per-hop QoS on data flows IP networks have egalitarian priorities IP networks have static priority schemes Mobile ad-hoc networks provide infrastructure capabilities for tactical mission operations Tactical MANET architecture based on subnets due to sizes of operational tactical units MANET networks have adopted Internet protocols OSI Layers 1 & 2 are very different in MANET Tactical MANET networks are capacity constricted Mission plan defines tasks and task priorities Units are organized to execute specific task Task priorities are dynamic by battle phases MANET subnets are linked to unit task roles Information for a task can use all data flow types Tactical MANET need task based priorities Tactical MANET need dynamic priorities Tactical MANET can have local subnet priorities Task based priorities are consistent with end-toend QoS rather than per-hop QoS Lower layers behaviors affect overall performance Understanding protocol interactions should increase performance in MANET Network Centric Operations in military tactical environment is a transformational technology that emphasizes increased combat power through improved detection capabilities, greater information sharing, and faster execution. Military forces are incorporating information technologies, more organic reconnaissance capability, and command & control applications that will enable deployed units to operate at an ever increasing level of synchronization. Communication network assets are critical to this information processing. While fixed commercial landline networks can guarantee performance levels over the long term by over-provisioning infrastructure resources, the military tactical environment is constrained by the assets available at deployment time. In particular, tactical military networks have severe RF spectrum constraints and highly variable link quality due to mobility, weather, terrain, and electronic countermeasures. Wireless technologies have increased the QoS challenge by introducing a more dynamic and unprecedented operating environment with respect to network topology, capacity, latency, loss, and congestion. The TCP assumption that packet loss is due to network congestion does not hold in a wireless environment where link fading is often the dominant cause of packet loss. IP networks also tend to be egalitarian. The QoS per hop mechanisms are based on the performance characteristics 16

required to support a specific flow type, such as voice. The relative importance of similar flows with respect to each other is not a consideration. As an example, all voice call packet flows may map into a single DSCP, which gives the same QoS importance regardless of relative importance of the call. Therefore, an internet QoS approach with static differentiation of a limited set of data types is insufficient for a mission orientated MANET. The tactical MANET is a key resource to serve particular mission goals established by the commander. Hence the relationships of data flows to the mission and the force structure are important in establishing the initial data priorities and how these data priorities evolve based on evolving conditions. A mission model view that accounts for dynamic priority to groups of messages is more logical QoS architecture in a tactical MANET than using a data model view with fixed priority as in an enterprise network. QoS in a tactical MANET must have cooperation between the application and transport layers. By using the priority information inherent in MDMP, QoS becomes a proactive mechanism for preventing network congestion. Signal officers need planning tools that estimate network performance, need validation that planned priorities are implemented by network mechanisms, and need monitoring tools that summarize real-time performance, and need methods for real time QoS priority adjustments. In tactical MANET, the most important metric is how well network assets served the mission priorities.

REFERENCES
[1] C. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, Chapter 2, A DoD Perspective on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks by Freebersyse and Leiner, Addison Wesley, 2001. [2] Reeve, Davis, and Waldo, Constructing Predictable Applications for Military Ad-hoc Wireless Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2006. [3] Cansever, Michelson, & Levesque, Quality of Service Support in Mobile Ad-hoc IP Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 1999. [4] Mirhakkak, Schult, and Thomson, A New Approach for Providing Quality of Service in a Dynamic Network Environment, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2000, pp. 1020-1025. [5] Guenkova-Luy and Kassler, End-to-End Quality of Service Coordination for Multimedia Applications in Heterogeneous, Mobile Networks, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, June 2004. [6] Sucec, Chang, Samtani, Muzello, and Palumbo, A Resource Friendly Approach for Estimating Available

Bandwidth in Secure Mobile Wireless IP Networks, Proceedings of IEEE Intern. Conf. on Comm., June 2004. [7] Guenkova-Luy, Kassler, and Mandato, End-to-End Quality of Service Coordination for Mobile Multimedia Applications, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 2004, pp. 889-903. [8] Global Information Grid (GIG) Concept Reference Document, Department of Defense. [9] Liu and Singh, ATCP: TCP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Comm, Vol. 19, No. 7, July 2001, pp. 1300-1315. [10] Qureshi, Cham, and Bell, Explicit Congestion Control for Efficient Reliable Transport in IP-based Tactical Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2005, pp. 1011-1018. [11] U.S. Army FM 6-02 C4 Operations. [12] U.S. Army FM 6-02.43 Signal Leader Guide. [13] U.S. Army FM 6-02 Signal Theatre Operations. [14] U.S. Army FM LandWarNet Operations. [15] U.S. Army FM 6-02.70 Army Electronic Spectrum Management Operations. [16] U.S. Army FMl 6-02.71 Network Operations. [17] Ramming, Toward New and Better Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2006, Session 12O1. [18] Marshall, Adaptation and Integration across the Layers of Self Organizing Wireless Networks to Achieve Performance and Scalability, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2006, Session 12P1. [19] Macker, Chao, Abramson, and Downard, Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM, October 2006, Session 12P1. [20] Eric Larson et al, Future Army Bandwidth Needs and Capabilities, Rand Corporation Report 09652, 2004, http://www.rand.org/ard. [21] NTIA Report 02-390, Man Made Noise Power Measurements at VHF and UHF Frequencies, US Department of Commerce, December 2001. [22] R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1, Adison Wesley, 1994. 17

[23] D. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1, Prentice Hall, 1995. [24] Grenvill Armitage, Quality of Service in IP Networks, MacMillan Technical Publishing, 2000. [25] Barrett, Drozda, Marather, and Marathe, Characterizing the Interaction Between Routing and MAC Protocols in Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of the Third ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc 02), pp. 92-103, 2002. [26] Gerla, Tang, and Bagrodia, TCP Performance in Wireless Multi-Hop Networks, Proceeding of IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA), pp. 41-50, 1999. [27] Adam Baddeley, Going Forward with JTRS, Military Information Technology, October 2, 2005. [28] Waveform Design Specification for Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW), ITT Document Control No. 1590343, Contract DAAB-7-03-9-K601, May 2005. [29] Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW) for Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), Specification No AJ01120, Contract No. DAAB07-02-C-403, October 2004. [30] Basagni, Conti, Giordano, and Stojmenovic, Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, Wiley Interscience, 2004. [31] Murphy and Manojo, Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Prentice Hall, 2004. [32] G. Aggelou, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, McGraw Hill, 2005. [33] Wu and Tseng, Wireless Ad Hoc Networking, Auerbach Publications, 2007. [34] Lessons Learned from Developing the ABCS 6.4 Solution, Defense Acquisition Review, pp 194-215. [35] Northrup Grumann Network Management report. [36] McCann, Elmasry, Russell, and Welsh, A Measurement Approach for Multilevel Admission of Heterogeneous Traffic in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks, Proceedings of MILCOM 1997. [37] W. Barns, Precedence and Priority Access Implementation for Department of Defense Data Networks, Technical Report NN, Defense Information Agency , 1991. [38] B. Briscoe, A Fairer, Faster Internet Protocol, IEEE Spectrum, December 2008.