An information model for geographic greedy forwarding in wireless ad hoc sensor networks
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks. Junchao Ma, Wei Lou Dept. of Computing The HK Polytechnic University. Zhen Jiang Comp. Sci. Dept. West Chester University. Jie Wu Dept. of Computer Sci. & Eng. Florida Atlantic University & NSF.

Download Presentation

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc 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


An information model for geographic greedy forwarding in wireless ad hoc sensor networks

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks

Junchao Ma, Wei Lou

Dept. of Computing

The HK Polytechnic University

Zhen Jiang

Comp. Sci. Dept.

West Chester University

Jie Wu

Dept. of Computer Sci. & Eng.

Florida Atlantic University & NSF

INFOCOM'08


Outline

Outline

  • Introduction

  • Our Approaches

  • Experimental Results

  • Conclusion

  • Future Work

INFOCOM'08


An information model for geographic greedy forwarding in wireless ad hoc sensor networks

Goal

  • An efficient path in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks (WASNs)

    • Fewer hops and detours

    • Faster data delivery

    • More energy conserved

destination

source

INFOCOM'08


Problem

Problem

  • Local minimum phenomenon (void)

    • Sparse deployment

    • Physical obstacles

    • Node failures

    • Communication jamming

    • Power exhaustion

    • Animus interference

block

void

stuck node

destination

source

INFOCOM'08


An information model for geographic greedy forwarding in wireless ad hoc sensor networks

Idea

  • Information helps routing to

    • Predict the ‘void’ ahead

    • Make a slightturn early to sufficiently avoid being blocked

      • Non-detour routing, i.e., greedy forwarding without perimeter routing

    • Make a turn only if necessary

      • To keep the optimality of a straight forwarding

INFOCOM'08


Challenge 1

Challenge 1

  • Identification of the affected area of a void

    • Relative to the positions of the source and the destination

destination

destination

source

destination

source

source

destination

affected area

affected area

Case 1

Case 2

INFOCOM'08


Challenge 2

Challenge 2

  • Mutual impact of void areas

    • Global optimization achieved by neighborhood optimizations

      • No routing table, flooding, or broadcasting

      • Routing decision at each intermediate node

      • Neighbor information collection and distribution

destination

area of mutual impact

source

INFOCOM'08


Challenge 3

Challenge 3

  • Unstructured WASNs

    • Hard to ensure whether the forwarding still achievable ahead

destination

?

source

INFOCOM'08


Illustration

Illustration

What kind of information and how to conduct a forecast?

No global information

New York (destination)

Information exchanged with next light

traffic prediction

West Chester (source)

light control related to travel destination

INFOCOM'08


Related work

Related Work

  • “Dead end” model

    • No optimization

  • Boundary model

    • No global optimization

  • Hull algorithm, or turning angle model

    • No consideration of the relative positions

INFOCOM'08


Our approaches

Our Approaches

  • Tradeoff between routing adaptivity and structure regularity

  • Safety information for such a forwarding

  • Information based forwarding (SLGF routing)

INFOCOM'08


Tradeoff

Tradeoff

  • A forwarding with infrastructure in WASNs

    • LAR2:

      • Forwarding to a neighbor that is closer to the destination

    • We adopt LAR1

      • Forwarding limited in the so-called request zone

destination

destination

forwarding candidate

LAR 1

LAR 2

request zone

current node

current node

INFOCOM'08


Safety information

Safety Information

  • Inspired by the safety model in 2-D mesh networks

  • An unsafe area contains nodes that definitely causing routing detour.

  • Constructed by a labeling process via information exchanges among neighbors.

INFOCOM'08


Details of the labeling process

Details of the Labeling Process

  • Unsafe node

    • A node without any neighbor in the request zone

    • A node without any safe neighbor in the request zone

  • Unsafe area

    • Connected unsafe nodes

    • Estimated as a rectangle at an unsafe node.

  • 4 Different types of unsafe status

    • Due to 4 different types of request zones

INFOCOM'08


An example of type i safety information

An Example of Type-I Safety Information

INFOCOM'08


Slgf routing

SLGF Routing

  • Four phases conducted in the order

    • Enforced forwarding

    • Safe forwarding

    • Perimeter routing (for making a slight turn)

    • Retreating (in the opposite direction)

INFOCOM'08


Simulation

Simulation

  • To verify whether

    LAR1(-) + Safety Info. (-) + Info. based routing (+) is better than boundary info. based routing.

  • Forwarding routings

    • GF (LAR2 + boundary information)

    • LGF (LAR1)

    • SLGF (LAR1 + safety information)

INFOCOM'08


An information model for geographic greedy forwarding in wireless ad hoc sensor networks

INFOCOM'08


Result summary

Result Summary

  • Cost

    safety information < boundary information

  • Routing success

    GF = LGF = SLGF

  • Routing path

    LGF < GF << SLGF

INFOCOM'08


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Unicast routing but neighborcast information construction

  • Tradeoff between routing adaptivity and information model cost

  • Mutual impact of void areas

  • Better forwarding routing to achieve more straight paths

INFOCOM'08


Future work

Future Work

  • New balance point of the tradeoff between routing adaptivity and information model cost

  • More accurate information

  • Better forwarding routing to achieve more straight path

INFOCOM'08


Questions

Questions?

Thank you!

INFOCOM'08


  • Login