A Statistical Analysis Based Probabilistic Routing for Resource-Constrained Delay Tolerant Networks

The nonexistence of end-to-end path between the sender and the receiver poses great challenges to the successful message transmission in delay tolerant networks. Probabilistic routing provides an efficient scheme to route messages, but most existing probabilistic routing protocols do not consider whether a message has enough time-to-live to reach its destination. In this paper, we propose an improved probabilistic routing algorithm that fully takes into account message's time-to-live when predicting the delivery probability. Based on statistical analysis, we compute and update the expected intermeeting times between nodes. And then the probability for a message to be delivered within its time-to-live is computed based on the assumed exponential distribution. We further propose an optimal message schedule policy, by modeling the buffer management problem as 0-1 knapsack, of which the maximum delivery probability sum can be achieved by resorting to the back track technique. Extensive simulations are conducted and the results show that the proposed algorithm can greatly enhance routing performance in terms of message delivery probability, overhead ratio, and average hop count.


Introduction
As a new emerging store and forward networking architecture, delay tolerant networks (DTNs) have been widely studied and applied.In recent years, DTNs have achieved great successes in some challenging networks deployed in extreme environment, such as interplanetary Internet, habitat monitoring networks, underwater sensor networks [1,2], vehicular ad hoc networks [3], pocket switched networks [4,5], and mobile social networks [6,7].However, different from the traditional Internet, DTNs are characterized by frequent topology partitions [8], sparse node density, limited network resources (e.g., storage, bandwidth, etc.), extremely high endto-end latency, asymmetric data rate, high bit error rate, heterogeneous interconnection, and so forth.So in DTNs, there may never be a complete end-to-end path between the sender and the receiver.Consequently, the successful message transmission in DTNs faces great challenges.
In order to cope with the intermittent connectivity problem, DTN architecture [9,10] introduces a bundle layer between the application layer and the transport layer to implement store-carry-and-forward routing strategy.Furthermore, with the help of the bundle layer, DTN architecture is able to shield heterogeneous networks and communicate across the multiple regions that have different types of network architectures and protocols.So based on the bundle layer, DTNs can relay messages hop by hop until encountering the destination nodes.But due to the extremely limited network resource and bandwidth, current node should make a clever next hop routing selection to control the number of message copies.
So far, a large number of probabilistic routing strategies have been proposed to optimize the next hop routing selection in the absence of global topology knowledge.Most of them (e.g., Prophet [11]) make attempts to predict the encounter probabilities between nodes and then make routing decisions based on the computed probability values.There is no denying that these routing strategies can improve message delivery ratio in opportunistic routing.We also should notice that the time-to-live (TTL) of message is gradually depleted as time progresses.Most traditional probabilistic routing protocols always try to replicate message to the node with a higher delivery probability, without taking into consideration message's TTL.However, although 2 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks a selected intermediate node has a higher probability to encounter destination node, the message delivery will still fail if the message's TTL is exhausted before meeting the destination node.In this case, considering the limited buffer resource, the message copy should not be delivered to the intermediate node.From the above case, we can see that a higher encounter probability can only indicate that the two nodes are more likely to encounter each other.But the two nodes may still need a period of time to encounter each other.If message's TTL is exhausted during this period of time, the message delivery will still fail.From this point of view, the node is not a good choice although it has a higher probability to encounter the destination.Consequently, an efficient probabilistic routing algorithm that fully takes into account message's TTL is expected to be employed in DTNs.
In this paper, from a new perspective, we propose a statistical analysis based probabilistic routing (SAPR) algorithm, which predicts the probability that a message can be successfully delivered to its destination based on its remaining time-to-live.Firstly, for each pair of nodes, we use statistical analysis methods to compute the mathematical expectation of the intermeeting times (IMTs) between them.Secondly, in the case of fully taking into account message's remaining time-to-live, we predict the possibility that a message can be successfully delivered.Finally, we make probabilistic routing selections according to the computed probabilities.In other words, we replicate message to the intermediate node that can make message get a higher delivery probability.In addition, we also introduce buffer management policy in the proposed routing algorithm.The message management is modeled as a 0-1 knapsack problem when node's buffer overflows.By solving the knapsack problem, we can make sure that each node always keeps the messages that can maximize the delivery probability sum.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.In Section 2, we make the routing assumptions and explain the mathematical notations used in this paper.Section 3 gives the detailed descriptions of the proposed algorithm.The performance evaluations and comparisons are presented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses some related works.Finally in Section 6, we summarize this paper.

Assumptions and Preliminary
In order to analyze and implement the proposed probabilistic routing algorithm, we make the following assumptions.
(i) The intermeeting time (IMT) between nodes is exponentially distributed or has at least an exponential tail.
(ii) Nodes move independently and their mobility is heterogeneous.In other words, different node pairs have different exponential distribution parameter .
Regarding the first assumption, it has been shown that many simple synthetic mobility models (e.g., Random Walk, Random Waypoint, and Random Direction [12,13]) have such a property.Furthermore, it is a known result in the theory of random walks on graphs that hitting times on subsets of vertices usually have an exponential tail [14].And [15] has derived the fact that the expected intermeeting time in Random Walk model also follows an exponential distribution.Besides, the Exponential Correlated Random Mobility model can also be used to support the first assumption.So the assumption that most nodes exhibit random mobility is reasonable in the opportunistic networks.However, in addition to exponential distribution, some recent researches have suggested that intermeeting time also follows power law distribution in some human mobility traces.But recently, by using a diverse set of measured human mobility traces, Karagiannis et al. [16] have argued that the intermeeting time still exhibits an exponential tail.They find as an invariant property that there is a characteristic time, order of half a day, beyond which intermeeting time follows an exponential distribution.Within the characteristic time, intermeeting time follows a power law distribution.This is to say, in many human traces, although intermeeting time follows a power law distribution within a period of time, it still exhibits an exponential tail.Taking the Content datasets of Cambridge haggle for example, Cambridge spends about two months (far greater than half a day) to collect the trace data.In this case, according to the above conclusion of Thomas, the time period in which intermeeting time follows exponential distribution is much longer than the time period following power law distribution.Thus the entire cumulative distribution can be approximately seen as a certain exponential distribution.In addition, in the MIT trace using Bluetooth devices, up to 60% of intermeeting times observed are above one day (greater than half a day), and these large intermeeting times can also be found in the traces collected by UCSD and Dartmouth.So in some sense, the distributions of intermeeting times in these traces can also be seen as exponential.In this paper, our routing is not specifically designed for human mobility model, but in some extent of generality.So we tend to assume the exponential distribution taking into account the above factors.And the results in our simulations also show the reasonableness of the assumption.Regarding the second assumption, it is clear that nodes follow different moving trajectories and different node pairs usually have different encounter rates in the real world.Some nodes may encounter each other frequently, but other nodes may never meet each other.
The mathematical notations used in this paper are listed and explained in Notations section.

Statistical Analysis Based Probabilistic Routing (SAPR)
Before presenting our SAPR algorithm, we first introduce some analysis works and routing models based on the above assumptions.

Estimating Exponential Distribution
Parameter.Here we assume that intermeeting time  follows the exponential distribution with parameter , that is, With the second assumption, we know that different node pairs have different parameter .For the sake of simplicity, we temporarily use  to uniformly represent these exponential distribution parameters in this section.Then we have the probability density function  exp (): In order to find the functional relationship between () and , we compute the mathematical expectation of the intermeeting times based on the exponential distribution: Now, we can get (4) to estimate the parameter  for each node pair: Assuming current node is node , then node  can use (7) to compute the final value of ( , ): Note that we use random sampling in this paper.For a node pair, it is easy to compute the interval between two encounters.By repeating this operation in a random way, we can finally get the sample data.The value of  (i.e., the size of sample data) is not an invariant variable, which can be flexibly set to an appropriate value according to the specific scenario.For the scenario with limited resources and computing capacity, we can appropriately reduce the value of .For the scenario with sufficient resources and better computing capacity, we can increase the value so as to make the algorithm more accurate.In this paper, we set the value of  to the number of nodes in the networks.When a node encounters a new node that recently joined the networks, it needs to add the node to the above matrixes.Due to the lack of enough sample data about the new node, we first use continuous sampling to quickly get  sample data.After that, we continue to collect data by using random sampling.Note that we have to use the sample data we have collected to calculate the mathematical expectation before getting enough sample data.In order to accurately estimate the current expectation of intermeeting times, we always use the latest sample data in this paper.That is to say, we are constantly replacing the oldest sample data with the latest one after having got  sample data.

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
In order to more accurately compute the () for a node pair, we also build an update process to update () when the two nodes have not encountered each other for a long period of time.
Theorem 1.For the intermeeting times between any two nodes, assuming their expectation is () and their variance is (), then one can predict the probability that | − ()| <  when setting  to a meaningful value; that is, Proof.Firstly, we assume the probability density function of  is ().Then we can get For the variable , we have Then with ( 9), we get Finally, we can get To some extent, Theorem 1 shows the central tendency of the intermeeting times.That is to say, we can get the interval that most intermeeting times are clustered together in.

Corollary 2. For the intermeeting times between any two nodes, at least 𝜌 of them are clustered together in the interval
Proof.If we set then we can get the meaningful value of : With ( 8), we can finally get (13).Then setting  to an appropriate value, we can get the interval that most intermeeting times appear in.
If two nodes have not encountered each other for a long period of time, they should update () so as to more accurately estimate the parameter .Now the issue is how and when to update ().According to Corollary 2, if we set  to a value close to 1.0, we can find the interval that most intermeeting times are distributed in.For simplicity, let  denote the time that has elapsed since the last encounter.If  is in the interval (() − √()/(1 − ), () + √()/(1 − )), then we consider it a common case and it is not necessary to update () in this case.And if  is in the interval (0, ()−√()/(1 − )], we still do not update ().This is because this case will not increase the value of ().But if  is in the range [()+√()/(1 − ), +∞), we consider it an abnormal case and it will increase the value of ().Therefore in this case, we need to update ().For this purpose, we define the update cycle as √()/(1 − ); that is, () is updated once every √()/(1 − ) time units when  > ().With (11), we have Then, from a statistical point of view, we further assume Now, we can have Here, we use its upper bound; that is, Finally we use (20) to update () in the th update cycle when  > (): ] , Now, we only need to get the variance () for updating the ().With the above matrixes  imt and  count , we can easily compute the () for current node  and node  by using Proof.The probability that a message can be successfully delivered by a node is equal to the probability that the next intermeeting time between the node and the destination is not greater than the sum of message's remaining TTL and the time that has elapsed; that is,

Next Hop Selection
Strategy.Now we focus on the next hop selection strategy.When communication opportunity arises, the message should be delivered to the relay node with a higher delivery probability.The detailed process is shown in Algorithm 1.

Buffer Management Policy.
In DTNs, the buffer resources of nodes are usually limited.So when node's buffer overflows, the resource allocation problem arises.In this case, current node needs to determine whether to receive the incoming message and which message to drop.To this end, we first need to define the optimal objective and then make the optimal decisions based on the objective.In this paper, our objective is to use the limited buffer to maximize the sum of the delivery probabilities of messages that can be stored by current node.We formalize the optimal buffer management as a 0-1 knapsack problem and further solve it by using the back track technique.Proof.If we view the buffer size of a node, the messages' delivery probabilities, and the sizes of messages as the maximum weight of a knapsack, the values of goods, and the weights of goods, then the objective of selecting and storing the messages that can maximize the sum of delivery probabilities can be viewed as filling the knapsack with the goods that can get the maximum value.Consequently, buffer management can be modeled as a 0-1 knapsack problem, and then we can further use the technique of solving the knapsack problem to solve the optimal buffer management problem.
Definition 5.The formalization of the optimal buffer management is as follows, where   is used to mark whether to store the message   : The above formalization can make sure that each node always keeps the messages that can maximize the delivery probability sum.Now the issue is how to solve the optimal problem.
The common way to solve knapsack problem is dynamic programming algorithm.But considering the huge cost of dynamic programming in this problem, we use the back track technique to solve the knapsack problem in this paper.The detailed process is shown in Algorithm 2, which also needs to call Algorithms 3 and 4. Algorithm 4 is to compute the upper bound of the optimal value of right subtree in the search process, which is called by Algorithm 3 to determine whether to continue searching right subtree.That is to say, we cut off the subtree if its upper bound is less than the current best value.Algorithm 3 is the back track algorithm, which searches the entire solution space tree and records the current optimal solution.In Algorithm 2, line 1 first sorts messages in a descending order according to the unit value computed by (25).Lines 2-9 are to initialize the global variables that will be sued in Algorithms 3-4.Note that these global variables can also be modified by Algorithms 3-4.Finally, lines 11-13 delete or reject those messages that are not included in the optimal solution computed by Algorithm 3. In order to determine which message to drop and which message to receive, the  in Algorithm 2 should contain both the stored messages and the incoming messages:

Simulation
In this section, we use the ONE [17] simulator to conduct extensive simulations for evaluating the performance of SAPR under various settings.The simulation settings, evaluation metrics, and results are described as follows.

Simulation Settings.
To well evaluate the routing performance of SAPR based on our assumptions, we first conduct simulations based on the synthetic traces generated by Random Walk model.This is because Random Walk is a typical movement model, in which the intermeeting times between nodes follow exponential distributions.So it is very helpful to evaluate our proposed routing algorithm.The detailed simulation settings are shown in Table 1.We introduce Epidemic, Prophet, and Source Spray and Wait into the simulations and comparisons.The reason is that Epidemic is typical multicopy routing based on flooding, which can be used to verify the performance improvements of SAPR.Prophet is typical probabilistic routing based on the encounter probabilities between nodes, which differs from SAPR and can be used to evaluate SAPR from the perspective of probabilistic routing.Source Spray and Wait is typical opportunistic routing that strictly limits the number of message copies, which can be used to evaluate the overhead ratio of SAPR.In addition, we also introduce the drop-front buffer management policy when implementing the above three algorithms in order to evaluate our proposed buffer management policy.
Taking into consideration the shortcomings of Random Walk, we also conduct simulations based on the synthetic traces generated by Helsinki City model.Helsinki City model is a more realistic mobility scenario, which is based on International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks real map data and adds realism, so it is very helpful to evaluate routing protocols.Moreover, we can modify the model parameters as needed, so that it can reproduce various empirical mobility properties, which is beneficial to the routing performance evaluations.This is also why we use the Helsinki City model instead of the real traces.
We use 126 nodes in the Helsinki City whose area is 4500 × 3400 m 2 .These nodes are divided into 6 groups.Group 1 and Group 3 are pedestrian groups (each group contains 40 nodes); Group 2 consists of 40 car nodes.Group 4, Group 5, and Group 6 are tram groups and they, respectively, consist of two nodes.Pedestrians move with speeds of 0.5-1.5 m/s, cars move with speeds of 2.7-13.9m/s, and trams move with speeds of 7-10 m/s.Two  scenario, we add First Contact to the simulations to evaluate the overhead ratio of SAPR.These routing algorithms also implement the drop-front buffer management policy.

Evaluation Metrics.
In this paper, the simulations are grouped into the three categories: varying buffer size, varying message's time-to-live, and varying message generation interval.Under the same guideline, we evaluate all routing algorithms based on the following metrics.
(1) Delivery ratio: this metric is to measure the delivery capability of each algorithm.(2) Overhead ratio: it reflects the efficiency of message transmission and it is desirable to achieve a low overhead ratio.(3) Average latency: the lower average latency means better routing performance.(4) Average hop count: it is another routing goal to reduce transmission cost, such as bandwidth and energy.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks (5) Dropped messages: it is desirable to achieve a fewer number of dropped messages so as to improve the utilization efficiency of storage.

Performance Evaluations in Random Walk Model.
Figure 1 shows the different routing performance by varying buffer size from 5 MB to 50 MB.Figure 2 shows the different simulation results by varying message's TTL from 2 hours to 5 hours.Figure 3 shows the performance comparisons by varying message's generation interval from 10 s to 50 s.
Regarding Figure 1, we can see that SAPR gets the highest delivery ratio, the lowest overhead ratio, and the fewest average hop count compared to Epidemic and Prophet.This can show the accuracy and efficiency of the routing selections of SAPR.Besides, it can also verify the improvements of SAPR on predicting message's delivery probability.By limiting the number of message copies, Source S and W gets a slightly higher delivery ratio than that of SAPR when buffer is insufficient (i.e., less than 10 MB).However, our SAPR gets the highest message delivery ratio when buffer size is greater than 10 MB.For the same reason, Source S and W also gets the lowest overhead ratio and the fewest hop count.But SAPR's performance on network overhead and average hop count is very close to Source S and W.
From Figure 2, we can find that SAPR still outperforms Epidemic and Prophet in terms of overhead ratio and average hop count.And SAPR still gets the highest delivery ratio when message's TTL is greater than 3 hours.This shows that SAPR is adapted to the scenario with a longer message TTL.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks  Compared to Epidemic and Prophet, SAPR achieves advantages in message delivery ratio, overhead ratio, and average hop count.Moreover, the overhead ratio and average hop count of SAPR are also close to those of S and W, but SAPR gets a higher message delivery ratio.
Finally from Figures 1-3, we can see that SAPR gets a very low overhead ratio and greatly controls average hop count.In addition, SAPR also achieves a satisfying message delivery ratio.Unfortunately, SAPR does not get advantages in message's delivery latency in this scenario.

Performance Evaluations in Helsinki City Model.
Figure 4 shows the different routing performance by varying buffer size from 4 MB to 20 MB. Figure 5 shows the different simulation results by varying message's TTL from 2 hours to 5 hours.Figure 6 shows the performance comparisons by varying message's generation interval from 30 s to 90 s.
Regarding Figure 4, we can see that SAPR can achieve the highest message delivery ratio, the lowest overhead ratio, the shortest average latency, and the fewest average hop count.It can show once again the accuracy and efficiency of SAPR's selections.
In Figure 5, SAPR can outperform the other three routing protocols in terms of delivery latency and average hop count.When message's TTL is greater than 3 hours, SAPR achieves the highest message delivery ratio.Moreover, SAPR still gets advantages in network overhead ratio compared to Epidemic and Prophet.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Figure 6 shows that SAPR still achieves some advantages in message delivery ratio, network overhead ratio, delivery latency, and average hop count compared to the other three algorithms.
Finally, from Figures 4-6, we can draw the conclusion that SAPR can enhance routing performance in terms of message delivery ratio, network overhead ratio, average delivery latency, and average hop count compared to Epidemic, Prophet, and First Contact.From Figure 7 we can see that the number of dropped messages of Epidemic is the largest.This is because Epidemic uses flooding strategy to distribute message to every encountered node.In this case, it will spread a large number of message copies to the whole network.When storage resource is not sufficient, these message copies will be frequently dropped by nodes.In this case, it is hard to spread message to farther regions, which is not conducive to a better distribution of messages.On the contrary, the other algorithms all control message redundancy by different schemes, thus dropping fewer messages.In this case, Epidemic is more sensitive to the amount of network resources compared to other algorithms, and its better performance greatly relied on more cache resources.This can explain the reason why the performance of Epidemic is not better than that of other algorithms.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks The number of dropped messages of Prophet is fewer than that of Epidemic; thus Prophet can get better performance.Compared to Epidemic and Prophet, SAPR drops fewer messages, and its number of dropped messages is slightly higher than that of Source Spray and Wait.This can indicate that SAPR can greatly control message redundancy, thus improving the utilization efficiency of storage resource.From this point of view, it can explain the better routing performance of SAPR.

Related Works
Prophet is a typical probabilistic routing protocol which makes routing selections based on the encounter probabilities between nodes.For example, current node will deliver message to an intermediate node if the node is more likely to meet the final destination.In addition to using the transitivity property to update the encounter probability, Prophet also proposes an aging function for the outdated information as time progresses.
For message dropping problem, many traditional policies (e.g., drop-tail, drop-front, random drop, etc.) have been proposed, which can play a role in opportunistic routing.In [18], Zhang et al. analyze the buffer constrained Epidemic routing and make the conclusion that drop-front can outperform drop-tail in DTN context.In [19], a node first deletes the message that has the largest number of copies in order to mitigate the impact on routing performance.Based on a specific community detection algorithm, [20] proposes an efficient buffer management policy for social delay tolerant International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks  In [21], Li et al. propose an optimal routing strategy by exploiting the heterogeneous features of nodes to enhance the routing performance.It takes into consideration nodes' heterogeneous contact rates and delivery costs when selecting intermediate nodes to minimize the delivery cost.For mobile sensor networks, [22] provides a reliable routing scheme with an enhanced delaying technique, which estimates connectivity based on the ratio of past and present connections.When the connectivity is unreliable, nodes will delay message transmission.
With a home-aware model, CAOR [23] turns mobile social networks into a network that only includes community homes.Then, in the network of community homes, it computes the minimum expected delivery delay by a reverse Dijkstra algorithm.In [24], by introducing a metric to accurately detect the quality of friendship, each node defines its friendship community as the set of nodes having close friendship with itself either directly or indirectly.Then temporally differentiated friendships are used to make the forwarding decisions of messages.

Conclusion
In this paper, we try to improve the probabilistic routing performance by taking into account the message's remaining TTL so as to avoid the shortcomings of routing messages directly based on the encounter probabilities between nodes.Our motivation is that the higher encounter probability can only indicate that the two nodes can meet each other frequently.But they may still need a period of time to encounter each other again.However, the message transmission will still fail if the message's TTL is exhausted during this period of time.In this case, an effective scheme that fully takes into account the message's remaining TTL when computing message's delivery probability can get a better performance in probabilistic routing.To this end, by using statistical analysis methods, we propose an efficient scheme to compute and update the expectation of the intermeeting times between nodes.And then, based on exponential distribution, we predict the probability that a message can be successfully delivered before its TTL is exhausted.
In addition, we also improve buffer management policy by modeling message dropping problem as a 0-1 knapsack problem.Then, solving the problem by the back track technique, each node always keeps the messages that can maximize the delivery probability sum.Extensive simulations are conducted based on Random Walk model and Helsinki City model.The results show that the proposed SAPR can greatly enhance the routing performance in DTN context.Remaining time-to-live of   :

Notations
The time that has elapsed since the last encounter with destination node    : The predicted delivery probability of   size (  ): The size of     : D r o pm e s s a g e  if   = 0 : The probability threshold we set.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus buffer size when setting TTL and message interval to 3 hours and 40 seconds in Random Walk.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus TTL when setting buffer size and message interval to 50 MB and 40 seconds in Random Walk.

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus message interval when setting buffer size and TTL to 50 MB and 3 hours in Random Walk.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus buffer size when setting TTL and message interval to 3 hours and 40 seconds in Helsinki model.

Figure 3
Figure3shows similar simulation results to Figure1.Compared to Epidemic and Prophet, SAPR achieves advantages in message delivery ratio, overhead ratio, and average hop count.Moreover, the overhead ratio and average hop count of SAPR are also close to those of S and W, but SAPR gets a higher message delivery ratio.Finally from Figures1-3, we can see that SAPR gets a very low overhead ratio and greatly controls average hop count.In addition, SAPR also achieves a satisfying message delivery ratio.Unfortunately, SAPR does not get advantages in message's delivery latency in this scenario.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus TTL when setting buffer size and message interval to 20 MB and 40 seconds in Helsinki model.

4. 3 . 3 .
Performance Evaluations of Dropped Messages.Figures 7(a)-7(c) compare the performance of dropped messages in Random Walk model by changing buffer size, TTL, and message interval.Figures 7(d)-7(f) show the evaluation results of dropped messages under different settings.

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: Delivery ratio, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count versus message interval when setting buffer size and TTL to 20 MB and 3 hours in Helsinki model.
Buffer size: 50 MB; message interval: 40 s in RW Buffer size: 20 MB; message interval: 40 s in Helsinki Buffer size: 20 MB; TTL: 3 h in Helsinki

Figure 7 :
Figure 7: Dropped message versus buffer size, TTL, and message interval in Random Walk model and Helsinki model.

𝑋:
Intermeeting time between nodes : Exponential distribution parameter (): Mathematical expectation of    (  ): The th sample of the intermeeting time between current node and     (  ): The count that the th sample appears (): Mathematicalvarianceof   : M essage    : imt and  count , where   (  ) denotes the th sample of the intermeeting times between current node and node   and correspondingly   (  ) denotes the count that the th sample appears.As shown in(5), for each of the other  − 1 nodes,  imt records the current  samples by random sampling.Then based on these samples, we can use statistical analysis methods to compute ( , ) for nodes  and : For each   in   do (2)   ← the remaining TTL of   (3) dest ←   .(4) update (   ,dest ) (5)  Algorithm 1: Next hop routing selection on node   .

Table 1 :
Simulation settings in Random Walk.

Table 2 :
Simulation settings in Helsinki City.