Routing protocols for sensor networks l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 30

Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

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

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

  • SPIN

  • LEACH


Outline l.jpg

Outline

  • Introduction

    • Conventional Protocols

      • Flooding, Gossiping, Ideal

    • Deficiencies

  • SPIN

    • Features

    • Protocols

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

    • Examples

    • Results

  • LEACH


Introduction l.jpg

Introduction

Sensor Network Challenges

  • Energy-limited nodes

    • Sense/Transmit/Route data

  • Computation

    • Network protocols

  • Communication

    • Bandwidth-limited

Goal: Minimize energy dissipation


Conventional protocols l.jpg

B

D

G

C

A

E

F

Conventional Protocols

  • Classic Flooding (Send to all neighbors)


Deficiencies l.jpg

(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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

SPIN Messages

  • ADV – advertise data

  • REQ – request specific data

  • DATA – requested data

ADV

A

B

REQ

A

B

DATA

A

B


Slide13 l.jpg

Resource Management

  • Sensors poll their system resources to find available energy

  • They can also calculate cost of performing computations


Slide14 l.jpg

SPIN Family of Protocols

  • Point-to-Point Networks

    • SPIN - PP

    • SPIN - EC

  • Broadcast Networks

    • SPIN - BC

    • SPIN - RL


Slide15 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Limited Energy Simulations

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

-- Gossiping

  • SPIN-EC distributes 20% additional data


Slide21 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Simulations with packet loss

-- SPIN-BC

-- SPIN-RL

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

  • Ideal run on lossless networks

  • SPIN-RL

    • Expends more energy

    • Reliability protocol effective


Slide27 l.jpg

Data Distributed per unit energy

-- SPIN-PP

-- SPIN-EC

-- Ideal

-- Flooding

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


Conclusions l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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.


Questions comments l.jpg

Questions/Comments?

Thanks


  • Login