1 / 30

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. SPIN. LEACH. Outline. Introduction

nlindley
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. SPIN • LEACH

  3. Outline • Introduction • Conventional Protocols • Flooding, Gossiping, Ideal • Deficiencies • SPIN • Features • Protocols • SPIN-PP, SPIN-EC, SPIN-BC, SPIN-RL • Examples • Results • LEACH

  4. Introduction Sensor Network Challenges • Energy-limited nodes • Sense/Transmit/Route data • Computation • Network protocols • Communication • Bandwidth-limited Goal: Minimize energy dissipation

  5. B D G C A E F Conventional Protocols • Classic Flooding (Send to all neighbors)

  6. (a) (a) A • Implosion • Data Overlap B A C B (a) (a) D C r q s (r,s) (q,r) Deficiencies • Resource blindness

  7. Gossiping A B D C • Forward data to a random neighbor • Avoids implosion • Disseminates information at a slower rate • Fastest rate = 1 node/round

  8. B D G C A E F What is the ideal protocol? • “Ideal” • Shortest path routes • Avoids overlap • Minimum energy • Need global topology information

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. SPIN Messages • ADV – advertise data • REQ – request specific data • DATA – requested data ADV A B REQ A B DATA A B

  13. Resource Management • Sensors poll their system resources to find available energy • They can also calculate cost of performing computations

  14. SPIN Family of Protocols • Point-to-Point Networks • SPIN - PP • SPIN - EC • Broadcast Networks • SPIN - BC • SPIN - RL

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Point-to-Point Network Simulations • Enhanced ns simulator • Lossless links • Unlimited energy • Data distributed • Energy dissipated • Limited energy • Data distributed • Effect of resource-adaptation

  19. Unlimited Energy Simulations • Flooding converges first • No queuing delays • SPIN-PP • Reduces Energy by 70% • No redundant data messages -- SPIN-PP -- Ideal -- Flooding -- Gossiping

  20. Limited Energy Simulations -- SPIN-PP -- SPIN-EC -- Ideal -- Flooding -- Gossiping • SPIN-EC distributes 20% additional data

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. Simulations with packet loss -- SPIN-BC -- SPIN-RL -- Ideal -- Flooding • Ideal run on lossless networks • SPIN-RL • Expends more energy • Reliability protocol effective

  27. Data Distributed per unit energy -- SPIN-PP -- SPIN-EC -- Ideal -- Flooding • SPIN-RL acquires 100% more data per unit energy than flooding

  28. 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

  29. 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.

  30. Questions/Comments? Thanks

More Related