A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4446e3-ZjIzY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks

Description:

A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks By Kemal Akkaya & Mohamed Younis Presented by Aggelos Vlavianos Jorge Mena Department of Computer Science ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:395
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 64
Provided by: csUnmEdu9
Learn more at: http://www.cs.unm.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks


1
A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor
Networks
  • By Kemal Akkaya Mohamed Younis
  • Presented by
  • Aggelos Vlavianos
  • Jorge Mena
  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering
  • 02/08/05

2
Table of Contents
  • Goals
  • Introduction
  • System Architecture Designing
  • Protocols for Sensor Networks
  • Summary

3
Goals
  • A survey of recent routing protocols for sensor
    networks
  • Classification of these protocols

4
Introduction
  • Sensors are micro-electro-mechanical systems
    (MEMS)
  • Low power devices
  • Data processing capable
  • Communication capabilities

5
Introduction - Usage
  • Gather data locally (Temperature, Humidity,
    Motion Detection, etc.)
  • Send them to a command center (sink)
  • Applications
  • Surveillance
  • Security
  • Disaster Management
  • Environmental Studies

6
Introduction - Constraints
  • Limitations
  • Energy Constrains
  • Bandwidth
  • All layers must be energy aware
  • Need for energy efficient and reliable network
    routing
  • Maximize the lifetime of the network

7
Introduction - Routing
  • No global addressing
  • Redundant data traffic
  • Multiple-source single-destination network
  • Careful resource management
  • Transmission power
  • On-board energy
  • Processing capacity
  • Storage

8
System Architecture Designing
  • Network Dynamics
  • Mobile or Stationary nodes
  • Static Events (Temperature)
  • Dynamic Events ( Target Detection)
  • Node Deployment
  • Deterministic Placed manually
  • Self-organizing Scattered randomly

9
System Architecture Designing
  • Energy Considerations
  • Direct vs Multi-hop communication
  • Direct Preferred Sensors close to sink
  • Multi-hop unavoidable in randomly scattered
    networks
  • Data Delivery Models
  • Continuous
  • Event-driven
  • Query-driven
  • Hybrid

10
System Architecture Designing
  • Node Capabilities
  • Homogenous
  • Heterogeneous
  • Nodes dedicated to a particular task (relaying,
    sensing, aggregation)
  • Data Aggregation/Fusion
  • Aggregation Combination of data by eliminating
    redundancy
  • Data Fusion is Aggregation through signal
    processing techniques
  • Aggregation achieves energy savings

11
Introduction - Taxonomy
  • Classification of Routing Protocols
  • Data Centric
  • Hierarchical
  • Location-based
  • Network Flow QoS Aware

12
Data-centric Protocols
  • Sink sends queries to certain regions and waits
    data from sensors located in that region
  • Attribute-based naming is necessary to specify
    properties of data

13
Data-centric Protocols
  • Flooding
  • Gossiping
  • Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation
    (SPIN)
  • Directed Diffusion
  • Energy-aware Routing
  • Rumor Routing
  • Gradient-Based Routing (GBR)
  • Constrained Anisotropic Diffusion Routing (CADR)
  • COUGAR
  • ACtive QUery forwarding In sensoR nEtworks
    (ACQUIRE)

14
Data-centric Protocols
  • Flooding
  • Sensor broadcasts every packet it receives
  • Relay of packet till the destination or maximum
    number of hops
  • No topology maintenance or routing
  • Gossiping
  • Enhanced version of flooding
  • Sends received packet to a randomly selected
    neighbor

15
Data-centric Protocols Flooding, Gossiping
Problems
  • Problems of Implosion, Overlap, Resource
    Blindness

16
Data-centric Protocols
  • Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation
    (SPIN)

17
Data-centric Protocols - SPIN
  • Topological changes are localized - Each node
    needs to know only its neighbors
  • SPIN halves the redundant data in comparison to
    flooding
  • Cannot guarantee data delivery
  • SPIN NOT good for applications that need reliable
    data delivery

18
Data-centric Protocols
  • Directed Diffusion
  • Uses a naming scheme for the data to save energy
  • Attribute-value pairs for data and queries
    on-demand (Interests)
  • Interests are broadcasted by the sink (query) to
    its neighbors (caching), which can do in-network
    aggregation
  • Gradients reply links to an interest (path
    establishment)

19
Data-centric Protocols Direct Diffusion
  • Energy saving and delay done with caching
  • No need for global addressing (neighbor-to-neighbo
    r mechanism)
  • Cannot be used for continuous data delivery or
    event-driven applications

20
Data-centric Protocols
  • Energy-aware Routing
  • Occasional use of a set of sub-optimal paths
  • Multiple paths used with certain probability
  • Increase of the total lifetime of the network
  • Hinders the ability for recovering from node
    failure
  • Requires address mechanism ?Complicate setup

21
Data-centric Protocols
  • Rumor Routing
  • Variation of Directed Diffusion
  • Flood the events instead of the queries
  • Creation of an event ? generation of a long live
    packet travel through the network (agent)
  • Nodes save the event in a local table
  • When a node receives query ? checks its table and
    returns source destination path

22
Data-centric Protocols Rumor Routing
  • Advantages
  • Can handle node failure
  • Significant energy savings
  • Disadvantages
  • Works well only with small number of events
  • Overhead through adjusting parameters, like the
    time to live of the agent

23
Data-centric Protocols
  • Gradient-Based Routing (GBR)
  • Slightly changed version of Directed Diffusion
  • Keep the number of hops to the sink when an
    interest is created (height of the node)
  • Nodes height neighbors height gradient of
    the link
  • Node forward packet to the link with largest
    gradient

24
Data-centric Protocols -GBR
  • Traffic Spreading and Data Aggregation ? Balance
    uniformly the network traffic
  • Stochastic scheme
  • Energy-based scheme
  • Stream-based scheme
  • Outperforms Directed Diffusion in terms of total
    communication energy

25
Data-centric Protocols
  • Constrained Anisotropic Diffusion Routing (CADR)
  • General form of Directed Diffusion
  • Query Sensors
  • Route data in the network
  • Activates sensors close to the event and
    dynamically adjusts routes
  • Routing based on a local information/cost
    gradient
  • More energy efficient than Directed Diffusion

26
Data-centric Protocols
  • COUGAR
  • Views the network as a huge distributed database
  • Declarative queries to abstract query processing
    from network layer functions
  • Introduces a new query layer
  • Leader node performs data aggregation and
    transmits to the sink

27
Data-centric Protocols - COUGAR
  • Disadvantages
  • Additional query layer brings overhead in terms
    of energy consumption and storage
  • In network data computation requires
    synchronization (i.e. wait for all data before
    sending data)
  • Dynamically maintenance of leader nodes to
    prevent failure

28
Data-centric Protocols
  • ACtive QUery forwarding In sensoR nEtworks
    (ACQUIRE)
  • Views network as a distributed database
  • Node receiving a query from the sink tries to
    respond partially and then forwards packet to a
    neighbor
  • Use of pre-cached information
  • After the query is answered, result is returned
    to the sink by using the reverse path or the
    shortest path
  • If cache information is not up to date ? node
    gathers information from neighbors within look
    ahead of d hops

29
Data-centric Protocols ACQUIRE
  • Motivation Deal with one shot complex queries
  • Efficient routing by adjusting parameter d
  • If d equals network size ? behaves similar to
    flooding
  • If d too small the query has to travel more hops

30
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Maintain energy consumption of sensor nodes
  • By multi-hop communication within a particular
    cluster
  • By data aggregation and fusion ? decrease the
    number of the total transmitted packets

31
Hierarchical Protocols
  • LEACH Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
  • Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information
    Systems (PEGASIS)
  • Hierarchical PEGASIS
  • Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor
    Network protocol (TEEN)
  • Adaptive Threshold TEEN (APTEEN)
  • Energy-aware routing for cluster-based sensor
    networks
  • Self-organizing protocol

32
Hierarchical Protocols
  • LEACH Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
  • One of the first hierarchical routing protocols
  • Forms clusters of the sensor nodes based on
    received signal strength
  • Local cluster heads route the information of the
    cluster to the sink
  • Cluster heads change randomly over time ? balance
    energy dissipation
  • Data processing aggregation done by cluster
    head

33
Hierarchical Protocols - LEACH
  • Advantages
  • Completely distributed
  • No global knowledge of the network
  • Increases the lifetime of the network
  • Disadvantages
  • Uses single-hop routing within cluster ?not
    applicable to networks in large regions
  • Dynamic clustering brings extra overhead
    (advertisements, etc)

34
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information
    Systems (PEGASIS)
  • Improvement of LEACH
  • Forms chains from sensors rather than clusters
  • Data aggregation in the chain ? one node sends
    the data to the base station
  • Outperforms LEACH
  • Excessive delay for distant nodes in the chain

35
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Hierarchical PEGASIS
  • Extension of PEGASIS
  • Decrease the delay for the packets during
    transmission to the base station
  • Solution to the delay data gathering problem
  • Simultaneous transmissions of data messages
  • Avoid collisions and possible signal interference
  • Signal Coding (e.g. CDMA)
  • Spatially separated nodes can transmit at the
    same time

36
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor
    Network protocol (TEEN)
  • Good for time-critical applications
  • Hierarchical along with a data-centric approach
  • Hierarchical grouping Close nodes form clusters
    and this process goes on the second level until
    sink is reached
  • Cluster headers broadcast
  • Hard Threshold
  • Soft Threshold
  • Not good for applications that need periodic
    reports

37
Hierarchical Protocols
38
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Adaptive Threshold TEEN (APTEEN)
  • Captures both periodic data collection and
    reacting to time-critical events
  • APTEEN supports queries
  • Historical -Analyze past data values
  • One-Time Take a snapshot of the current network
    view
  • Persistent monitor an event for a period of time

39
Hierarchical Protocols TEEN APTEEN
  • Advantages
  • Outperform LEACH in terms of energy dissipation
    and total lifetime of the network
  • Disadvantages
  • Overhead and complexity of
  • Forming multiple level clusters
  • Implementing threshold-based functions
  • Dealing with attribute-based naming of queries

40
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Energy-aware routing for cluster-based sensor
    networks
  • Assumptions
  • Sensors are grouped into clusters prior to
    network operation
  • Cluster Heads (Gateways) less energy constrained
  • Cluster Heads know the location of the sensors ?
    Known Multi-Hop routing to collect data
  • Communication node (sink) communicates only with
    gateways

41
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Stages of a Sensor inside a cluster
  • Sensing only
  • Relaying only
  • Sensing-Relaying
  • Inactive

42
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Least Cost path used between nodes and gateway
  • Cost function
  • Energy Consumption
  • Delay Optimization
  • Performance Metrics
  • TDMA based MAC is used for nodes to send data to
    the gateways
  • Protocol performs well for
  • Energy-based metrics (e.g. network lifetime)
  • Cotemporary metrics (e.g. throughput)

43
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Self-organizing protocol
  • Architecture supports heterogeneous sensors
  • Nodes act as routers ? backbone of communication
  • Stationary
  • Sensing nodes forward data to the routers
  • Stationary
  • Mobile
  • Sensors are a part of the network if they are
    reachable by a router

44
Hierarchical Protocols
  • The architecture requires addressing
  • Sensor identified by the router is connected to
  • Algorithm for Self-Organizing Creation of
    routing table
  • Discovery phase
  • Organization phase
  • Maintenance phase
  • Self-reorganization phase
  • Utilizes router nodes to keep all sensors
    connected by forming a dominating set

45
Hierarchical Protocols
  • Advantages
  • Useful for applications which need communication
    of a specific node (e.g. parking-lot networks)
  • Small cost of maintaining routing tables
  • Keeping routing hierarchy strictly balanced
  • Energy Savings Utilization of a limited subset
    of nodes
  • Disadvantages
  • Organization phase not on demand
  • Many cuts in the network increase the probability
    of applying reorganization phase

46
Location-based Protocols
  • Distance between two nodes is calculated using
    location information
  • Energy consumption can be estimated
  • Efficient energy utilization
  • Protocols designed for Ad hoc networks with
    mobility in mind
  • Applicable to Sensor Networks as well
  • Only energy-aware protocols are considered

47
Location-based Protocols
  • MECN SMECN
  • Minimum Energy Communication Network
  • GAF
  • Geographic Adaptive Fidelity
  • GEAR
  • Geographic and Energy Aware Routing

48
MECN SMECN
  • Utilizes low power GPS
  • Best applicable to non-mobile sensor networks
  • Identifies a relay region
  • Find a sub-network
  • to relay traffic
  • Self-reconfiguring
  • Dynamically adaptive

49
SMECN
  • Assumption broadcasting allowed
  • Obstacles considered
  • Smaller network (number of edges)
  • Less hops per transmission
  • More energy efficient than MECN
  • Less maintenance cost of links
  • More overhead introduced

50
GAF
  • Forms a virtual grid for covered area
  • Nodes use GPS to associate itself to the grid
  • Nodes are allowed
  • to be turned off if are
  • equivalent.
  • Handle mobility

51
GAF
  • Three States
  • Discovery
  • Active
  • Sleep
  • Representative Node is always active
  • No aggregation or fusion performed
  • As good as a normal Ad hoc in terms of latency
    and packet loss (saving energy)

52
GEAR
  • Uses heuristics to route packets
  • Energy aware neighbor
  • Geographic informed neighbor
  • Same as Direct Diffusion but restricts interest
    by region
  • Estimated Cost
  • Residual energy and distance to destination
  • Learned Cost
  • Accounts for routing around holes

53
Network Flow QoS-aware Protocols
  • Network Flow Maximize traffic flow between two
    nodes, respecting the capacities of the links
  • QoS-aware protocols consider end-to-end delay
    requirements while setting up paths

54
Network Flow QoS-aware Protocols
  • Maximum Lifetime Energy Routing
  • Maximum Lifetime Data Gathering
  • Minimum Cost Forwarding
  • Sequential Assignment Routing
  • Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol
  • SPEED

55
Maximum Lifetime Energy Routing
  • Maximizes network lifetime by defining link cost
    as a function of
  • Remaining energy
  • Required transmission energy
  • Tries to find traffic distribution (Network flow
    problem)
  • The least cost path is one with the highest
    residual energy among paths

56
Maximum Lifetime Data Gathering
  • Maximizes the Data-gathering schedule
  • Maximum Lifetime Data Aggregation
  • Data aggregation plus setting up maximum lifetime
    of routes
  • Maximum Lifetime Data Routing
  • When data aggregation is not possible
  • Computational Expensive (scalability)
  • Clustering MLDA

57
Minimum Cost Forwarding
  • Aims at finding the minimum cost path in a large
    network, simple and scalable
  • Cost function captures delay, throughput, and
    energy metrics from node to sink
  • Back-off based algorithm
  • Finds optimal cost of all nodes to the sink by
    using only one message per node
  • Does not require addressing or forwarding paths

58
Sequential Assignment Routing
  • Table-driven, multi-path protocol
  • Creates trees rooted at immediate neighbors of
    the sink (multiple paths)
  • QoS metrics, energy resource, priority level of
    each packet
  • Failure recoverable (done locally)
  • High overhead to maintain tables and states at
    each sensor

59
Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol
  • Finds least cost and energy efficient paths that
    meet the end-to-end delay during connection
  • Energy reserve, transmission energy, error rate
  • Class-based queuing model used to support
    best-effort and real-time traffic

60
Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol
61
SPEED
  • Each node maintains info about its neighbors and
    uses geographic forwarding to find the paths
  • Tries to ensure a certain speed for each packet
    in the network
  • Congestion avoidance

62
Summary
63
Questions
About PowerShow.com