arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Rob van Glabbeek.
We show that the proof nets introduced in [Hughes & van Glabbeek 2003, 2005] for MALL (Multiplicative Additive Linear Logic, without units) identify cut-free proofs modulo rule commutation: two cut-free proofs translate to the same proof net if and only if one can be obtained from the other by a succession of rule commutations. This result holds with and without the mix rule, and we extend it with cut.
This paper proposes a timed process algebra for wireless networks, an extension of the Algebra for Wireless Networks. It combines treatments of local broadcast, conditional unicast and data structures, which are essential features for the modelling of network protocols. In this framework we model and analyse the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector routing protocol, and show that, contrary to claims in the literature, it fails to be loop free. We also present boundary conditions for a fix ensuring that the resulting protocol is indeed loop free.
This paper presents a formal specification of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol using AWN (Algebra for Wireless Networks), a recent process algebra which has been tailored for the modelling of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and Wireless Mesh Network protocols. Our formalisation models the exact details of the core functionality of AODV, such as route discovery, route maintenance and error handling. We demonstrate how AWN can be used to reason about critical protocol properties by providing detailed proofs of loop freedom and route correctness.
In this paper we present a rigorous analysis of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol using a formal specification in AWN (Algebra for Wireless Networks), a process algebra which has been specifically tailored for the modelling of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and Wireless Mesh Network protocols. Our formalisation models the exact details of the core functionality of AODV, such as route discovery, route maintenance and error handling. We demonstrate how AWN can be used to reason about critical protocol correctness properties by providing a detailed proof of loop freedom. In contrast to evaluations using simulation or other formal methods such as model checking, our proof is generic and holds for any possible network scenario in terms of network topology, node mobility, traffic pattern, etc. A key contribution of this paper is the demonstration of how the reasoning and proofs can relatively easily be adapted to protocol variants.
In the area of mobile ad-hoc networks and wireless mesh networks, sequence numbers are often used in routing protocols to avoid routing loops. It is commonly stated in protocol specifications that sequence numbers are sufficient to guarantee loop freedom if they are monotonically increased over time. A classical example for the use of sequence numbers is the popular Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol. The loop freedom of AODV is not only a common belief, it has been claimed in the abstract of its RFC and at least two proofs have been proposed. AODV-based protocols such as AODVv2 (DYMO) and HWMP also claim loop freedom due to the same use of sequence numbers. In this paper we show that AODV is not a priori loop free; by this we counter the proposed proofs in the literature. In fact, loop freedom hinges on non-evident assumptions to be made when resolving ambiguities occurring in the RFC. Thus, monotonically increasing sequence numbers, by themselves, do not guarantee loop freedom.
This paper describes work in progress towards an automated formal and rigorous analysis of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol, a popular protocol used in ad hoc wireless networks. We give a brief overview of a model of AODV implemented in the UPPAAL model checker, and describe experiments carried out to explore AODV's behaviour in two network topologies. We were able to locate automatically and confirm some known problematic and undesirable behaviours. We believe this use of model checking as a diagnostic tool complements other formal methods based protocol modelling and verification techniques, such as process algebras. Model checking is in particular useful for the discovery of protocol limitations and in the development of improved variations.
This paper describes an automated, formal and rigorous analysis of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol, a popular protocol used in wireless mesh networks. We give a brief overview of a model of AODV implemented in the UPPAAL model checker. It is derived from a process-algebraic model which reflects precisely the intention of AODV and accurately captures the protocol specification. Furthermore, we describe experiments carried out to explore AODV's behaviour in all network topologies up to 5 nodes. We were able to automatically locate problematic and undesirable behaviours. This is in particular useful to discover protocol limitations and to develop improved variants. This use of model checking as a diagnostic tool complements other formal-methods-based protocol modelling and verification techniques, such as process algebra.
We propose a process algebra for wireless mesh networks that combines novel treatments of local broadcast, conditional unicast and data structures. In this framework, we model the Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol and (dis)prove crucial properties such as loop freedom and packet delivery.
This volume contains the proceedings of MARS 2015, the first workshop on Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems, held on November 23, 2015 in Suva, Fiji, as an affiliated workshop of LPAR 2015, the 20th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. The workshop emphasises modelling over verification. It aims at discussing the lessons learned from making formal methods for the verification and analysis of realistic systems. Examples are: (1) Which formalism is chosen, and why? (2) Which abstractions have to be made and why? (3) How are important characteristics of the system modelled? (4) Were there any complications while modelling the system? (5) Which measures were taken to guarantee the accuracy of the model? We invited papers that present full models of real systems, which may lay the basis for future comparison and analysis. An aim of the workshop is to present different modelling approaches and discuss pros and cons for each of them. Alternative formal descriptions of the systems presented at this workshop are encouraged, which should foster the development of improved specification formalisms.
A general method is established to derive a ground-complete axiomatization for a weak semantics from such an axiomatization for its concrete counterpart, in the context of the process algebra BCCS. This transformation moreover preserves omega-completeness. It is applicable to semantics at least as coarse as impossible futures semantics. As an application, ground- and omega-complete axiomatizations are derived for weak failures, completed trace and trace semantics. We then present a finite, sound, ground-complete axiomatization for the concrete impossible futures preorder, which implies a finite, sound, ground-complete axiomatization for the weak impossible futures preorder. In contrast, we prove that no finite, sound axiomatization for BCCS modulo concrete and weak impossible futures equivalence is ground-complete. If the alphabet of actions is infinite, then the aforementioned ground-complete axiomatizations are shown to be omega-complete. If the alphabet is finite, we prove that the inequational theories of BCCS modulo the concrete and weak impossible futures preorder lack such a finite basis.
In 1987 Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog provided an operational Petri net semantics for a subset of CCSP, the union of Milner's CCS and Hoare's CSP. It assigns to each process term in the subset a labelled, safe place/transition net. To demonstrate the correctness of the approach, Olderog established agreement (1) with the standard interleaving semantics of CCSP up to strong bisimulation equivalence, and (2) with standard denotational interpretations of CCSP operators in terms of Petri nets up to a suitable semantic equivalence that fully respects the causal structure of nets. For the latter he employed a linear-time semantic equivalence, namely having the same causal nets. This paper strengthens (2), employing a novel branching-time version of this semantics---structure preserving bisimilarity---that moreover preserves inevitability. I establish that it is a congruence for the operators of CCSP.
Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with quality criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.
In the process algebra community it is sometimes suggested that, on some level of abstraction, any distributed system can be modelled in standard process-algebraic specification formalisms like CCS. This sentiment is strengthened by results testifying that CCS, like many similar formalisms, is Turing powerful and provides a mechanism for interaction. This paper counters that sentiment by presenting a simple fair scheduler---one that in suitable variations occurs in many distributed systems---of which no implementation can be expressed in CCS, unless CCS is enriched with a fairness assumption. Since Dekker's and Peterson's mutual exclusion protocols implement fair schedulers, it follows that these protocols cannot be rendered correctly in CCS without imposing a fairness assumption. Peterson expressed this algorithm correctly in pseudocode without resorting to a fairness assumption, so it furthermore follows that CCS lacks the expressive power to accurately capture such pseudocode.
To prove liveness properties of concurrent systems, it is often necessary to postulate progress, fairness and justness properties. This paper investigates how the necessary progress, fairness and justness assumptions can be added to or incorporated in a standard process-algebraic specification formalism. We propose a formalisation that can be applied to a wide range of process algebras. The presented formalism is used to reason about route discovery and packet delivery in the setting of wireless networks.
We propose AWN (Algebra for Wireless Networks), a process algebra tailored to the modelling of Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) and Wireless Mesh Network (WMN) protocols. It combines novel treatments of local broadcast, conditional unicast and data structures. In this framework we present a rigorous analysis of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol, a popular routing protocol designed for MANETs and WMNs, and one of the four protocols currently standardised by the IETF MANET working group. We give a complete and unambiguous specification of this protocol, thereby formalising the RFC of AODV, the de facto standard specification, given in English prose. In doing so, we had to make non-evident assumptions to resolve ambiguities occurring in that specification. Our formalisation models the exact details of the core functionality of AODV, such as route maintenance and error handling, and only omits timing aspects. The process algebra allows us to formalise and (dis)prove crucial properties of mesh network routing protocols such as loop freedom and packet delivery. We are the first to provide a detailed proof of loop freedom of AODV. In contrast to evaluations using simulation or model checking, our proof is generic and holds for any possible network scenario in terms of network topology, node mobility, etc. Due to ambiguities and contradictions the RFC specification allows several interpretations; we show for more than 5000 of them whether they are loop free or not, thereby demonstrating how the reasoning and proofs can relatively easily be adapted to protocol variants. Using our formal and unambiguous specification, we find shortcomings of AODV that affect performance, e.g. the establishment of non-optimal routes, and some routes not being found at all. We formalise improvements in the same process algebra; carrying over the proofs is again easy.
This paper proposes a definition of what it means for one system description language to encode another one, thereby enabling an ordering of system description languages with respect to expressive power. I compare the proposed definition with other definitions of encoding and expressiveness found in the literature, and illustrate it on a case study: comparing the expressive power of CCS and CSP.
We formalise a general concept of distributed systems as sequential components interacting asynchronously. We define a corresponding class of Petri nets, called LSGA nets, and precisely characterise those system specifications which can be implemented as LSGA nets up to branching ST-bisimilarity with explicit divergence.
We introduce a notion of real-valued reward testing for probabilistic processes by extending the traditional nonnegative-reward testing with negative rewards. In this richer testing framework, the may and must preorders turn out to be inverses. We show that for convergent processes with finitely many states and transitions, but not in the presence of divergence, the real-reward must-testing preorder coincides with the nonnegative-reward must-testing preorder. To prove this coincidence we characterise the usual resolution-based testing in terms of the weak transitions of processes, without having to involve policies, adversaries, schedulers, resolutions, or similar structures that are external to the process under investigation. This requires establishing the continuity of our function for calculating testing outcomes.