routing protocols for sensor networks
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
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

slide2

SPIN

  • 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
slide7

Gossiping

A

B

D

C

  • Forward data to a random neighbor
  • Avoids implosion
  • Disseminates information at a slower rate
  • Fastest rate = 1 node/round
slide8

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

slide13

Resource Management

  • Sensors poll their system resources to find available energy
  • They can also calculate cost of performing computations
slide14

SPIN Family of Protocols

  • Point-to-Point Networks
    • SPIN - PP
    • SPIN - EC
  • Broadcast Networks
    • SPIN - BC
    • SPIN - RL
slide15

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

slide17

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

slide18

Point-to-Point Network Simulations

  • Enhanced ns simulator
  • Lossless links
  • Unlimited energy
    • Data distributed
    • Energy dissipated
  • Limited energy
    • Data distributed
    • Effect of resource-adaptation
slide19

Unlimited Energy Simulations

  • Flooding converges first
    • No queuing delays
  • SPIN-PP
    • Reduces Energy by 70%
    • No redundant data messages

-- SPIN-PP

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping

slide20

Limited Energy Simulations

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping

  • SPIN-EC distributes 20% additional data
slide21

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
slide22

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
slide23

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

slide24

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
slide25

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
slide26

Simulations with packet loss

-- SPIN-BC

-- SPIN-RL

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

  • Ideal run on lossless networks
  • SPIN-RL
    • Expends more energy
    • Reliability protocol effective
slide27

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