Routing protocols for sensor networks
Download
1 / 30

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 159 Views
  • Uploaded on

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks. Negotiation-based protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks by Joanna Kulik, Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman, and Hari Balakrishnan. Presented by Siva Desaraju Computer Science WMU. SPIN. LEACH. Outline. Introduction

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks' - gordon


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 Protocols for Sensor Networks

Negotiation-based protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks

by

Joanna Kulik, Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman, and Hari Balakrishnan

Presented by

Siva Desaraju

Computer Science

WMU


  • LEACH


Outline
Outline

  • Introduction

    • Conventional Protocols

      • Flooding, Gossiping, Ideal

    • Deficiencies

  • SPIN

    • Features

    • Protocols

      • SPIN-PP, SPIN-EC, SPIN-BC, SPIN-RL

    • Examples

    • Results

  • LEACH


Introduction
Introduction

Sensor Network Challenges

  • Energy-limited nodes

    • Sense/Transmit/Route data

  • Computation

    • Network protocols

  • Communication

    • Bandwidth-limited

Goal: Minimize energy dissipation


Conventional protocols

B

D

G

C

A

E

F

Conventional Protocols

  • Classic Flooding (Send to all neighbors)


Deficiencies

(a)

(a)

A

  • Implosion

  • Data Overlap

B

A

C

B

(a)

(a)

D

C

r

q

s

(r,s)

(q,r)

Deficiencies

  • Resource blindness


Gossiping

A

B

D

C

  • Forward data to a random neighbor

  • Avoids implosion

  • Disseminates information at a slower rate

  • Fastest rate = 1 node/round


B

D

G

C

A

E

F

What is the ideal protocol?

  • “Ideal”

    • Shortest path routes

    • Avoids overlap

    • Minimum energy

    • Need global topology information


Spin sensor protocols for information via negotiation
SPIN: Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation

  • Basic Idea

    • Negotiation (meta-data)

    • Resource-adaptation (resource manager)

  • Features

    • Application-level Control

    • Meta-data

    • Messages

    • Resource Management


Application level control
Application Level Control

  • Design motivated by Application Level Framing (ALF)

    • network protocols must choose transmission units that are meaningful to application

    • i.e. packetization is best done in terms of application data units

  • Next step: routing decisions are also best made in application-controlled and application-specific ways

    • using knowledge of not just network topology but also application data layout and the state of resources at each node


Meta data
Meta-Data

Data about data

Eg: Geographically disjoint sensors, may use their unique ID, say all data by sensor x

Target tracking – signal energy + geographical location

  • Sensors use meta-data to describe the sensor data briefly

  • Consider data X and data Y

    • If x is the meta-data descriptor for data X

      sizeOf (x) < sizeOf (X)

    • If x<>y

      sensor-data-of (x) <> sensor-data-of (y),

      i.e X<>Y

    • If X<>Y

      meta-data-of (X) <> meta-data-of (Y)

    • Meta-data format is application specific


Spin messages
SPIN Messages

  • ADV – advertise data

  • REQ – request specific data

  • DATA – requested data

ADV

A

B

REQ

A

B

DATA

A

B


Resource Management

  • Sensors poll their system resources to find available energy

  • They can also calculate cost of performing computations


SPIN Family of Protocols

  • Point-to-Point Networks

    • SPIN - PP

    • SPIN - EC

  • Broadcast Networks

    • SPIN - BC

    • SPIN - RL


SPIN on Point-to-Point Networks

  • Linear cost with number of neighbors

  • SPIN-PP

    • 3-stage handshake protocol

    • Advantages

      • Simple

      • Minimal start-up cost

  • SPIN-EC

    • SPIN-PP + low-energy threshold

    • Modifies behavior based on current energy resources


Spin pp example

REQ

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

REQ

ADV

REQ

ADV

ADV

ADV

DATA

REQ

ADV

DATA

ADV

ADV

REQ

REQ

SPIN-PP:Example

A

B

I already have the data, I don’t need it / I’m tired, I will sleep…zzz


Test Network

25 Nodes

59 Edges

Average degree = 4.7 neighbors

500 bytes

16 bytes

Network diameter = 8 hops

Antenna reach = 10 meters

Data

Meta-Data


Point-to-Point Network Simulations

  • Enhanced ns simulator

  • Lossless links

  • Unlimited energy

    • Data distributed

    • Energy dissipated

  • Limited energy

    • Data distributed

    • Effect of resource-adaptation


Unlimited Energy Simulations

  • Flooding converges first

    • No queuing delays

  • SPIN-PP

    • Reduces Energy by 70%

    • No redundant data messages

-- SPIN-PP

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping


Limited Energy Simulations

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping

  • SPIN-EC distributes 20% additional data


Data Distributed per unit energy

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping

  • SPIN-EC distributes

    • 10% more data per unit energy than SPIN-PP

    • 60% more data per unit energy than flooding


SPIN on Broadcast Networks

  • One transmission reaches all neighbors

  • SPIN-BC

    • Same 3-stage handshake protocol as SPIN-BC

    • Uses only broadcast communication

      • Same transmission cost as unicast

      • Coordination among nodes

      • Broadcast message suppression

        sensor-data-of (x) = sensor-data-of (y)

  • SPIN-RL

    • SPIN-BC + Reliability

    • Periodically re-broadcast ADVs and REQs


E

E

E

ADV

DATA

D

D

D

C

ADV

REQ

SPIN-BC: Example

E

B

A

D

C

Nodes with data

Nodes without data

Nodes waiting

to transmit REQ


Broadcast Network Simulations

  • Extended CMU monarch extensions to ns

  • 802.11 MAC protocol

  • No packet losses

    • Data distributed

    • Energy dissipated

  • Packet losses

    • Due to

      • Transmission errors

      • Collisions

    • Measure

      • Effect of reliability enhancement


Simulations with no packet loss

-- SPIN-BC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

  • SPIN-BC

    • Converges quicker than flooding

    • Reduces energy by 50% compared with flooding

    • Meta-data negotiations successful in broadcast


Simulations with packet loss

-- SPIN-BC

-- SPIN-RL

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

  • Ideal run on lossless networks

  • SPIN-RL

    • Expends more energy

    • Reliability protocol effective


Data Distributed per unit energy

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

  • SPIN-RL acquires 100% more data per unit energy than flooding


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • Advantages

    • Seems better than flooding (solves data implosion and overlap)

    • Resource-adaptive enhancements

    • Outperforms gossiping

  • Disadvantages

    • Implosion problem still exists in REQ stage

    • The paper does not consider collisions in the REQ stage


References
References

  • Negotiation based protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks, Joanna Kulik, Wendi Heinzelman, and Hari Balakrishnan

  • http://www-mtl.mit.edu/~wendi/slides/mobicom99/index.html

  • Architectural Consideration for a New Generation of Protocols, Clark, D and Tennenhouse, D.



ad