Routing Protocols
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 98

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks. Agenda. General Properties Architectures and Requirements Routing Protocols Classification 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: . LEACH PEGASIS TEEN APTEEN SPIN . DD MCF TTDD RW RR. Acknowledgements. E. Magistretti (U. Bologna Italy)

Download Presentation

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Routing ProtocolsforSensor Networks


Agenda

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

  • E. Magistretti (U. Bologna Italy)

  • J. Kulik (MIT; BBN Co.)

  • R. R. Choudhury, P. Kyasanur & N. Vaidya (UIUC)

  • P. Desai (UFL)

  • D. Braginsky and D. Estrin (UCLA)

  • S. Hazarika, W. Chen, Y. Gong & X. Liu (UMASS)

  • T. Kwon & Mjnam (SNU Korea)

  • R. Peterson & D. Rus (Dartmouth C.)

  • H.C. Chung, K. Ghoshal & J. Krishna (TAMU)

  • C. Tavoularis (Cornell )

  • G. Dong (Virginia U.)


Routing protocols for sensor networks

WSN

Dartmouth College


Concepts

Concepts


Application military

Application:Military

From UMASS


Environmental

Environmental

From UMASS


Future health

Circulatory Net

Future Health


Agenda1

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


General properties 1

General Properties (1)

  • Mainly for Information Collection

  • Single Owner

  • Up to Hundreds of Thousands of Nodes

  • Disposable Nodes

  • Cheap Nodes

  • Security Concerns


General properties 2

General Properties (2)

  • Bounded Directed Stream (from/to Sink)

  • Somewhat Limited Computation Capability

  • Limited Communication Capability

  • Limited Power Resources

  • Node may not have Unique ID

  • Common case - Stationary Nodes


Agenda2

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


General architecture 1

General Architecture (1)

Sensor Network Node Main Components

  • Sensor Unit

  • ADC – Analog Digital Converter

  • CPU – Central Processing Unit

  • Power Unit

  • Communication Unit


General architecture 2

General Architecture (2)


General requirements 1

General Requirements (1)

  • Varying Network Size

  • Inexpensive Nodes Equipment

  • Long Lifetime (Power) Þ Load-Balancing

  • Self-Organization

  • Re-tasking and Querying Capability


General requirements 2

General Requirements (2)

  • Sensible Data Aggregation

  • Consolidation of Redundant Data

  • Application Awareness

    Þ Tradeoff Communication for Computation

  • Possible Mobility


Agenda3

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


Protocol classification 1

Protocol Classification (1)

  • Proactive – First Compute all Routes;Then Route

  • Reactive – Compute Routes On-Demand

  • Hybrid – First Compute all Routes;Then Improve While Routing


Protocol classification 2

Protocol Classification (2)

  • Direct – Node and Sink Communicate Directly(Fast Drainage; Small Scale)

  • Flat (Equal) – Random Indirect Route(Fast Drainage Around Sink; Medium Scale)

  • Clustering (Hierarchical) – Route Thru Distinguished Nodes


Protocol classification 3

Protocol Classification (3)

  • Location Aware – Nodes knows where they are

  • Location-Less – Nodes location is unimportant

  • Mobility Aware – Nodes may move – Sources; Sinks; All


Protocol classification 4

Protocol Classification (4)

  • Unicast – One-to-One Message Passing

  • Multicast (actually Local Broadcast) – Node-to-Neighbors Message Passing

  • Broadcast – Full-Mesh – Source to Everyone


Protocol classification 5

Protocol Classification (5)

Query Models:

  • Historical Queries: Analysis of historical data“What was the watermark 2h ago in the southeast?”

  • One-time Queries:Snapshot view“What is the watermark in the southeast?”

  • Persistent Queries:Monitoring over time“Report the watermark in the southeast for the next 4h”


Protocol classification 6

Protocol Classification (6)


Agenda4

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


1 leach discussed

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH – Discussed …

  • Self-Organizing – Adaptive Clustering

  • Cluster-Heads elect themselves – Now – “Random Round-Robin”Future – Power-Based Probability

  • Nodes die in random

  • Stationary Sink

  • Localized Coordination

  • Data Fusion

Protocol Highlights


1 leach 2

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH (2)

  • “Hot Spot” Problem(Nodes on a path from an event-congested area to the sink may drain)

  • Inadequate for Time-Critical Applications

  • Stationary Sink – Maybe Unpractical

  • Basic Algorithm assumes any node can communicate with sink – limited scale

Main Drawbacks


1 leach 3

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH (3)

  • Works in Rounds, each with Set-Up (Short) and Steady-State (Long)

  • Set-Up Phase - subdivided:

    • Advertisement (I am a Cluster-Head)

    • Cluster Set-Up (I am in your Cluster)

    • Schedule Creation (This is your slot)

  • Steady-State Phase:

    • Data Transmission using TDMA

Main Procedures


1 leach 4

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH (4)

  • Everyone uses the same channel

  • Different clusters use different CDMA codes

  • Code chosen in random

  • Cluster-Head communicate with Sink

  • Can be extended to Hierarchical Clustering

Main Procedures


1 leach 5

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH (5)

Illustrations


1 leach 6

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

1 - LEACH (6)

Illustrations


2 pegasis 1

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (1)

  • Token-Passing Chain-Based

  • Considered Near-Optimal (in a sense)

  • Nodes die in random

  • Stationary Nodes and Sink

  • Every node have a global network map

  • Data Fusion

  • Greedy chain construction

Protocol Highlights


2 pegasis 2

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (2)

  • Stationary Nodes

  • Global Information

    Limited Scale:

  • Information travels many nodes

  • Assumes any node can communicate with sink

Main Drawbacks


2 pegasis 3

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (3)

  • Greedy Algorithm Construct Chain –Start at a node far from sink and gather everyone neighbor by neighbor

  • Node i (mod N) is the leader in round i

  • Nodes passes token thru the chain to leader from both sides

  • Each node fuse its data with the rest

  • Leader transmit to sink

Main Procedures


2 pegasis 4

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (4)

Illustrations


2 pegasis 5

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (5)

Rounds Until Death

Illustrations


3 teen 1

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (1)

  • LEACH based Clustering

  • Smart data transmission (Saves Power)

  • Nodes dynamic reconfiguration ability

  • Suits for Time-Critical applications

Protocol Highlights


3 teen 2

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (2)

  • “Hot Spot” Problem

  • Cluster-Heads need to listen constantly

  • Wasted time-slots

  • Can’t distinguish dead nodes

  • Other LEACH problems…

Main Drawbacks


3 teen 3

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (3)

  • LEACH Proactive Clustering

  • Node transmit in timeslot only if both:

    • Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT)

    • Value differs from last transmitted value (SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST)

  • After transmission SV is reset

Main Procedures


3 teen 4

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (4)

Illustrations


4 apteen 1

Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (1)

  • Improved (Adaptive - Hybrid) TEEN

  • All TEEN Features

  • More flexible logic and timeslots

  • Multi-type Queries:

    • Historical (What was the temp. then?)

    • One-time (What’s the temp. now?)

    • Persistent (Tell me the temp for 2 hours)

  • Can distinguish dead nodes

Protocol Highlights


4 apteen 2

Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (2)

  • LEACH problems…

  • Complex logic

Main Drawbacks


4 apteen 3

Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (3)

  • LEACH Proactive Clustering

  • Node transmit in timeslot only if both:

    • Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT)

    • Value differs from last transmitted value (SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST)

      Or If did not transmit for a max time (TC )

      Or if queried by some sink

  • After transmission SV is reset

Main Procedures


4 apteen 4

Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (4)

Power Consumption:

  • As could be expected – APTEEN is better the LEACHbut not as good as TEEN

Illustrations


5 spin 1

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (1)

  • Network-wide Broadcast Limited by Negotiation and using Local Communication

  • Flooding problems solved:

    • Implosion – same data from many neighbors

    • Detection of overlapping regions

    • Excessive resources consumption (Blindness)

  • Needs only Localized Information

  • Data Fusion

  • Two main protocols SPIN-PP & SPIN-BC

Protocol Highlights


5 spin 2

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (2)

  • Broadcast - Limited Scale – every node handles O(n) messages

  • Data is updated throughout network – unnecessary in many cases

  • Network lifetime - not clear

  • High degree nodes = High power needs

Main Drawbacks


5 spin 3

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (3)

SPIN-PP (Point-to-Point Communication)

  • Data is described by meta-data ADV msg.

  • Node has data Þsends ADV to neighbors

  • If neighbor do not have data Þ sends REQ

  • Node responds by sending the DATA

  • This process continues around the network

  • Nodes may aggregate their data to ADV

  • In a Lossy Network ADV may be repeated periodically and REQ if not answered

Main Procedures


5 spin 4

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (4)

SPIN-BC (Local Broadcast Communication)

  • ADV and DATA sending like PP (but in B.C.)

  • Since only one REQ answer is needed, any node waits a random interval and B.C. REQ only if none was received yet.

  • The rest – like SPIN-PP

Main Procedures


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

ADV

Illustrations

SPIN-PP

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

REQ

Illustrations

SPIN-PP

Neighbor requests for data and it is sent


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

DATA

Illustrations

SPIN-PP

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

ADV

Illustrations

SPIN-PP

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

Already has data

(or dead)

Illustrations

REQ

SPIN-PP

Receiving neighbors requests for data.


Routing protocols for sensor networks

Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)

Node with data

Illustrations

DATA

SPIN-PP

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors


6 dd 1

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (1)

  • Hybrid Data Centric Routing – Looking for Named Data

  • Query–Response Model

  • Performs Better than Flooding

  • Robust and Fault Tolerant (bypass faults)

  • Localized Interactions

  • Data Fusion - Application Specific Filters

Protocol Highlights


6 dd 2

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (2)

  • “Hot Spot” Problem near sink

  • Periodic Broadcasts of “Interest” Reduces Network Lifetime

  • Trade-off: Energy Efficiency vs.Robustness and Scalability

  • Complex Data Aggregation - may Lead to Expensive Node

Main Drawbacks


6 dd 3

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (3)

  • A Query (Interest) is Broadcasted by a node (sink)

  • Query Reaches Relevant Sensor Sources

  • This Sets-Up Exploratory Gradients

  • Once Data is Available in a Source it is Sent Back via Reinforced Path

  • Failing Links / Nodes are being Gradually Bypassed

Main Procedures


6 dd 4

Directed Diffusion

CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10

LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50

LATITUDE_KEY GE 100

LATITUDE_KEY LE 120

SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT

INTENSITY GE 0.6

CONFIDENCE GE 0.7

INTERVAL IS 10

EXPIRE_TIME IS 100

Source

Sink

Interest = Interrogation

Gradient = Who is interested

6 - DD (4)

Illustrations


6 dd 41

Directed Diffusion

FilterAttrVec

CLASS_KEY EQ DATA_CLASS

SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT

INTENSITY GE 0.7

Source

3. addFilter (FilAttrVec, FilterCallback)

1. subscribe (InterestAttrVec, Callback)

2. subscribe (AttrVec, ApplCallback)

InterestAttrVec

CLASS_KEY EQ INTEREST_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35

LATITUDE_KEY IS 110

SENSOR IS MOVEMENT

Sink

Interest = Interrogation

Gradient = Who is interested

6 - DD (4)

Illustrations


6 dd 42

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (4)

Interests Setting up gradients

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Interest = Interrogation

Gradient = Who is interested


6 dd 43

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (4)

Sending data …

Source

Illustrations

4. h = publish (SensedAttrVec)

5. send (h, SensedAttrVec)

Sink

SensedAttrVec

CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35

LATITUDE_KEY IS 110

SENSOR IS MOVEMENT

INTENSITY IS 0.8

CONFIDENCE IS 0.7

Low rate event


6 dd 44

Directed Diffusion

m1a

6. FilterCallback.recv (Message m1)

m1b

m2

m2

CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35

LATITUDE_KEY IS 110

SENSOR IS MOVEMENT

INTENSITY IS 0.8

CONFIDENCE IS 0.8

m2

7. sendMessage (Message new)

6 - DD (4)

Source

Illustrations

Low rate event


6 dd 45

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (4)

Source

8. ApplCallback.recv (NRAttrVec)

Illustrations

Sink

Low rate event


6 dd 46

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (4)

… and Reinforcing the best path

CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10

LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50

LATITUDE_KEY GE 100

LATITUDE_KEY LE 120

SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT

INTENSITY GE 0.6

CONFIDENCE GE 0.7

INTERVAL IS 1

EXPIRE_TIME IS 90

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Low rate event

Reinforcement = Increased interest


6 dd 5

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (5)

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Recovering

from node failure

Low rate event

Reinforcement

High rate event


6 dd 51

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (5)

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Stable path

Low rate event

High rate event


6 dd 6

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (6)

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Recovering

from link failure

Low rate event

Reinforcement

High rate event


6 dd 61

Directed Diffusion

6 - DD (6)

Source

Illustrations

Sink

Stable path

Low rate event

Reinforcement

High rate event

Use: “Interests set up gradients drawing down data”


7 mcf 1

Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (1)

  • Cost-Field min Cost from Node to Sink on Optimal Path

  • Slop-Down the Cost-Fields to Get to Sink

  • Minimize Multiple Transmissions using Back-Off Algorithm Based on Node Cost

  • Localized Communication

Protocol Highlights


7 mcf 2

Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (2)

  • High Time Complexity (due to back-off)

  • Many Sinks – Large Cost Tables

  • Cost Field Set-Up Time O(N)

  • No Load-Balancing

Main Drawbacks


7 mcf 3

Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (3)

  • Broadcast ADV msg. and get Answers from all Sinks ÞCreate Cost-Fields

  • Calculate Back-Off Timer Proportional to Cost per each Sink

  • Needed Information Sent thru Slop

  • If no ACK until Timer Expires – Resend ADV

Main Procedures


7 mcf 4

Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (4)

Illustrations

Cost

A

B

C

Timeline


7 mcf 5

Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (5)

A=150

110

Illustrations

B = 120

S = 200

C = 90

130

50

100

60

90

Sink = 0


8 ttdd 1

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (1)

  • Grid Structure Clustering

  • Stationary Location-Aware Nodes

  • Mission Aware – Infrequent Changes

  • Greedy Geographical Forwarding – Building Grid

  • Localized Communication

Protocol Highlights


8 ttdd 2

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (2)

  • No Mobile Sensors

  • Requires Location Information

  • Grid Nodes may Drain

Main Drawbacks


8 ttdd 3

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (3)

  • Grid Build using Greedy Algorithm and Location Awerness

  • Node Floods Messages to Dissemination Nodes

  • Dissemination Nodes Forward to Sink

  • If a Node Fails – Grid is Fixed

Main Procedures


Ttdd basics

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

Source

Sink

8 - TTDD (4)

TTDD Basics

Dissemination Node

Illustrations

Data Announcement

Data

Query

Immediate

Dissemination

Node


Ttdd mobile sinks

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

Source

Sink

Trajectory

Forwarding

8 - TTDD (5)

TTDD Mobile Sinks

Dissemination Node

Trajectory

Forwarding

Illustrations

Data Announcement

Immediate

Dissemination

Node

Data

Immediate

Dissemination

Node


Ttdd multiple mobile sinks

Two-Tier Data Dissemination

Source

TTDD Multiple Mobile Sinks

8 - TTDD (6)

Dissemination Node

Trajectory

Forwarding

Illustrations

Data Announcement

Immediate

Dissemination

Node

Data


9 rw 1

Random Walks

9 - RW (1)

  • Finding a Random Walk over a Grid

  • Multi-path Routing

  • Load Balancing

  • Large Scale Networks

  • Nodes Assumed to be Mostly Stationary

  • No Location Information Needed

  • Little State Information

  • Localized Communication

Different Routes

at Different Times

Protocol Highlights


9 rw 2

Random Walks

9 - RW (2)

  • Topology may not be Practical(Nodes are Assumed to be Located at Cubic Grid Junctions)

Main Drawbacks


9 rw 3 rsg

Random Walks

9 - RW (3) - RSG

Regular Static Graphs

  • Find coordinates differences (Dx, Dy) using Distributed Bellman Ford (local comm.)

  • For every node compute probability of moving on X and Y (By the diagonal to the destination)

  • On each node move to a adjacent one on X or Y using that probability. Adjust near end.

    All Paths together draws a straight “Banana”

Main Procedures


9 rw 4 isg

Random Walks

9 - RW (4) - ISG

Irregular Static Graphs (Some dead nodes)

  • Same as RSG but…

  • If one adjacent node is missing – go to the other (with p=1).

  • If both are missing – go to a neighbor whose B-F distance to the destination is strictly smaller than the current node(This will create a detour).

  • (Could optimize by not getting to that node…).

Main Procedures


9 rw 5 dg

Random Walks

9 - RW (5) - DG

Dynamic Graphs (Nodes may sleep and wake)

  • Same as ISG but…

  • When a node changes state: the one-hop neighbors change B-F labels and possibly trigger further label (distances) changes

  • Concerns:

    • Delays in propagating updates

    • Sensitivity to inaccuracies in labels

Main Procedures


9 rw 6 rsg

Random Walks

9 - RW (6) - RSG

Illustrations


9 rw 7 rsg vs isg

Random Walks

9 - RW (7) – RSG vs. ISG

Illustrations

ISG

ISG


9 rw 8 rsg vs isg

Random Walks

9 - RW (8) – RSG vs. ISG

A Random walk by flipping a fair coin

Illustrations

RSG (DG Similar)

ISG

Load Distribution -Narrow


9 rw 9 rsg vs isg

Random Walks

9 - RW (9) – RSG vs. ISG

A Random walk by RSG/ISG algorithms

Illustrations

RSG (DG Similar)

ISG

Load Distribution - Flat


10 rr 1

Rumor Routing

10 - RR (1)

  • Observation: for many application any arbitrary path will do – No Need for a Shortest Path

  • Nodes are Densely Distributed

  • Bidirectional Links

  • Localized Communication

  • Stationary Nodes

  • Meet Trails of Queries and Events

Protocol Highlights


10 rr 2

Rumor Routing

10 - RR (2)

  • Attractive only when the ratio between events and queries is inside a threshold where it is not attractive to flood neither.

  • Optimal parameters depend heavily on topology (but can be adaptively tuned)

  • Does not guarantee delivery

Main Drawbacks


10 rr 3

Rumor Routing

10 - RR (3)

  • Movement on the net is done by several agents, trying (randomly) to walk straight.

  • Every node maintains lists of neighbors and events (how to get to the reporting node).

  • An agent coming from and event is updating nodes it visits.

  • An agent coming from a query is searching for ways to the reporting nodes.

  • High probability the lines will intersect.

Main Procedures


10 rr 4

Rumor Routing

10 - RR (4)

Illustrations

Event 1

Knows Event 1

Agent

Event 2

Knows Event 2

Knows Both Event


10 rr 5

Rumor Routing

10 - RR (5)

Very

Theoretical

Execution

Event

Source

Illustrations

Query

Source


Agenda5

Agenda

  • General Properties

  • Architectures and Requirements

  • Routing Protocols Classification

  • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols:

Done!!!

  • LEACH

  • PEGASIS

  • TEEN

  • APTEEN

  • SPIN

  • DD

  • MCF

  • TTDD

  • RW

  • RR


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • WSN will spread to many applications

  • Properties and Requirements are bothUnique and Diversified

  • Routing Protocol choice is and probably will continue to beApplication Driven

  • More Analysis, Simulations and newIdeas are needed for every category


References 1

References (1)

  • Q. Jiang, D. Manivannan, Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks, IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC'04), 2004.

  • R. Jurdak, C. V. Lopes, P. Baldiy, A Framework for Modeling Sensor Networks, 19th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'04), 2004.

  • W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks, IEEE Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System Sciences, 2000.

  • S. Lindsey, C. S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems, IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2002.


References 2

References (2)

  • A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, TEEN: A Protocol for Enhanced Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (with IPDPS'01), 2001.

  • A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, APTEEN: a hybrid protocol for efficient routing and comprehensive information retrieval in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'02), 2002.

  • J. Kulik, W. Heinzelman, and H. Balakrishnan, Negotiation-Based Protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks, Vol. 8, pp. 169-185, 2002.

  • C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, J. S. Heidemann, and F. Silva, Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 2-16, 2003.


References 3

References (3)

  • F. Ye, A. Chen, S. Lu, L. Zhang, A Scalable Solution to Minimum Cost Forwarding in Large Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN'01), 2001.

  • F. Ye, H. Luo, J. Cheng, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, A Two-Tier Data Dissemination Model for Large-scale Wireless Sensor Networks, ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM'02), 2002.

  • S. D. Servetto, G. Barrenechea, Constrained Random Walks on Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms for Large Scale Wireless Sensor Networks, In the Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA'02), 2002.

  • D. Braginsky, D. Estrin, Rumor Routing Algorithm For Sensor Networks, In the Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA'02), 2002.


Sense your net work du de

SenseYourNetworkDude

KarlFriedrich Hieronymus Baron of Munchausen (1720-1797)


  • Login