Formal Analysis of Proactive, Distributed Routing

  • Mojgan Kamali
  • Peter Höfner
  • Maryam Kamali
  • Luigia Petre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9276)


As (network) software is such an omnipresent component of contemporary mission-critical systems, formal analysis is required to provide the necessary certification or at least formal assurances for these systems. In this paper we focus on modelling and analysing the Optimised Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol, a distributed, proactive routing protocol. It is recognised as one of the standard ad-hoc routing protocols for Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs). WMNs are instrumental in critical systems, such as emergency response networks and smart electrical grids. We use the model checker Uppaal for analysing safety properties of OLSR as well as to point out a case of OLSR malfunctioning.


Model Check Wireless Mesh Network Topology Control Optimise Link State Routing Computation Tree Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research belongs to the Academy of Finland FResCo project (grant number 263925, FResCo: High-quality Measurement Infrastructure for Future Resilient Control Systems). NICTA is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.


  1. 1.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on Uppaal. In: Bernardo, M., Corradini, F. (eds.) SFM-RT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3185, pp. 200–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiyangwa, S., Kwiatkowska, M.: A timing analysis of AODV. In: Steffen, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) FMOODS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3535, pp. 306–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sifakis, J.: Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. Commun. ACM 52(11), 74–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P.: Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR). RFC 3626 (Experimental) (2003).
  5. 5.
    David, A., Håkansson, J., Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P.: Model checking timed automata with priorities using DBM subtraction. In: Asarin, E., Bouyer, P. (eds.) FORMATS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4202, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and Modal Logic. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (vol. B): Formal Models and Semantics. MIT, Cambridge (1995). pp. 995–1072 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fehnker, A., van Glabbeek, R., Höfner, P., McIver, A., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: Modelling and analysis of AODV in UPPAAL. In: 1st International Workshop on Rigorous Protocol Engineering, Vancouver, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fehnker, A., van Glabbeek, R., Höfner, P., McIver, A., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: Automated analysis of AODV using UPPAAL. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Glabbeek, R., Höfner, P., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: Sequence numbers do not guarantee loop freedom —AODV can yield routing loops—. In: Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWiM 2013), pp. 91–100. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Höfner, P., McIver, A.: Statistical model checking of wireless mesh routing protocols. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 322–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker spin. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacquet, P., Mühlethaler, P., Clausen, T., Laouiti, A., Qayyum, A., Viennot, L.: Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks. In: Multi Topic Conference, 2001, IEEE INMIC 2001, pp. 62–68. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamali, M., Kamali, M., Petre, L.: Formally analyzing proactive, distributed routing. Technical report. 1125, TUCS - Turku Centre for Computer Science (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamali, M., Laibinis, L., Petre, L., Sere, K.: Formal development of wireless sensor-actor networks. Sci. Comput. Program. 80, Part A(0) 80, 25–49 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal in a nutshell. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 1(1), 134–152 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larsen, K.G., Larsson, F., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Compact data structures and state-space reduction for model-checking real-time systems. Real-Time Syst. 25(2–3), 255–275 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Model-checking for real-time systems. In: FCT, pp. 62–88 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miskovic, S., Knightly, E.W.: Routing primitives for wireless mesh networks: design, analysis and experiments. In: Conference on Information Communications (INFOCOM 2010), pp. 2793–2801. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., Das, S.: Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. RFC 3561 (Experimental) (2003).
  20. 20.
    Steele, M.F., Andel, T.R.: Modeling the optimized link-state routing protocol for verification. In: SpringSim (TMS-DEVS), pp. 35:1–35:8. Society for Computer Simulation International (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mojgan Kamali
    • 1
  • Peter Höfner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maryam Kamali
    • 4
  • Luigia Petre
    • 1
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland
  2. 2.NICTASydneyAustralia
  3. 3.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations