Router protocol on wireless

sensor network

Yuping SUN 155169552@1

63.com

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Department of Computer Science, Sun Yat-Sen University

51 1
Outline
 WSN Introduction
 The definition of WSN
 The nodes of WSN
 The difference between WSN and Ad hoc
 WSN Routing Protocol
 Conclusion
 Reference

51 2
The definition of WSN
 Definition[1]:
 consist of large amount of sensor nodes
 Multi-hop, self-organize
 wireless communication
 cooperative sensing, collection, process
 Send to observe.

51 3
[1] 李建中 , 李金宝 , 石胜飞 . 传感器网络及其数据管理的概念、问题与进展 . 软件学报 , 2003 (10) : 1717-
1725
the nodes of WSN

51 4
 The difference between WSN and
Ad hoc (1/2)[1]

 The number of nodes

 Sensor nodes are densely
deployed
 Sensor nodes are prone to failures
 The topology of a sensor network
changes very frequently

51 5
[1]Ian F. Akyildiz, Weilian Su, Yogesh Sankarasubramaniam, and Erdal Cayirci Georgia Institute of Technology” A Survey on
Sensor Networks” IEEE Communications Magazine • August 2002
The difference between WSN and
Ad hoc (2/2)[1]

 WSN broadcast but ad hoc point-to

point
 Sensor node are limited in power
computation capacities and
memory
 Sensor nodes may not have global
identification
51 6
Outline
 WSN Introduction
 The definition of WSN
 The nodes of WSN
 The difference between WSN and Ad hoc
 WSN Routing Protocol
 Conclusion
 Reference

51 7
 Routing protocol survey
 Traditional technique
 Flooding
 Gossiping

 Current routing technique

 Flat-routing
 Hierarchical-routing
 Location-based routing

51 8
[1]Ian F. Akyildiz, Weilian Su, Yogesh Sankarasubramaniam, and Erdal Cayirci Georgia Institute of Technology” A Survey on Sensor
Networks” IEEE Communications Magazine • August 2002
Flooding(1/2)
 A classical mechanisms to relay data in
sensor networks without the need for
any routing algorithms and topology
maintenance.

 drawbacks:
• Implosion
• Overlap
• Resource blindness
51 9
Flooding(2/2)

51 10
Gossiping
 A slightly enhanced version of flooding
where the receiving node sends the
packet to a randomly selected neighbor
which picks another neighbor to forward
the packet to and so on.
 Advantage: avoid the implosion
 Drawback: Transmission delay

51 11
 Router protocol survey
 Traditional routing technique
 Flooding
 Gossiping

 Current routing technique[1]

 Flat-routing
 Hierarchical-routing
 Location-based routing

51 12
[1]JAMAL N. AL-KARAKI, AHMED E. KAMAL,” ROUTING TECHNIQUES IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS: A SURVEY”,
IEEE Wireless Communications • December 2004
Flat-routing
 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Infor
mation via Negotiation)
 DD (Directed diffusion)
 Rumor routing

51 13
 SPIN(1/3)[1]

 A family of adaptive protocols called

Sensor Protocols for Information via
Negotiation
 assign a high-level name to completely
describe their collected data (called meta-
data)
 Use thee types of messages ADV
(advertisement), REQ (request) and
DATA
51 14
[1]W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, “Adaptive Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wire
less Sensor Networks,” Proc. 5thACM/IEEE Mobicom, Seattle, WA, Aug. 1999. pp. 174–85.
SPIN(2/3)

51 15
SPIN(3/3)
 Topological changes are localized
 provides more energy savings than fl
ooding, and metadata negotiation alm
ost halves the redundant data.
 Drawback: SPIN’s data advertisement
mechanism cannot guarantee delivery
of data.

51 16
Flat-routing
 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Informatio
n via Negotiation)
 DD (Directed diffusion)
 Rumor routing

51 17
 DD(1/3)[1]
 Propagate interest
 Set up gradients
 Send data and path reinforcement

51 18
[1]C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “Directed Diffusion: a Scalable and Robust Communication P
aradigm for Sensor Networks,” Proc. ACM Mobi- Com 2000, Boston, MA, 2000, pp.56–67.
DD(2/3)

51 19
DD(3/3)
 Directed diffusion differs from SPIN in two
aspects.
 Query method
 Communication method
 directed diffusion may not be applied
to applications (e.g., environmental
monitoring)
 Matching data to queries might
require some extra overhead

51 20
Flat-routing
 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Informatio
n via Negotiation)
 DD (Directed diffusion)
 Rumor routing

51 21
 Rumor routing[1]
 A variation of directed diffusion
 Use an events table and a agent
 The number of events is small and
the number of queries is large

51 22
[1]D. Braginsky and D. Estrin, “Rumor Routing Algorithm for Sensor Networks,” Proc. 1st Wksp. Sens
or Networks and Apps., Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2002.
Rumor routing

51 23
Router protocol survey
 Traditional routing technique
 Flooding
 Gossiping

 Current routing technique

 Flat-routing
 Hierarchical-routing
 Location-based routing

51 24
Hierarchical-routing
 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy)
 PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering
in Sensor Information Systems)
 TEEN(APTEEN) (Threshold-Sensitive
Energy Efficient Protocols)

51 25
 LEACH(1/3)[1]
 LEACH is a cluster-based protocol
 Setup phase
 Steady state phase

zelman, A. Chandrakasan and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-Efficient Communication

for Wireless Microsensor Networks,” Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int’l. Conf. Sys. Sci., Jan.
51 26
LEACH(2/3)

51 27
LEACH(3/3)[1]
 Drawbacks
 It is not applicable to networks deployed in large
regions
 The idea of dynamic clustering brings extra
overhead
 The protocol assumes that all nodes begin with
the same amount of energy capacity in each
election round, assuming that being a CH
consumes approximately the same amount of
energy fore ach node

51 28
 Comparison between SPIN LEACH
and directed diffusion[1]

[1]W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-Efficient Communicati

on Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks,” Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int’l. Conf. Sys. Sci., Ja
n. 2000. 51 29
Hierarchical-routing
 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy)
 PEGASIS (Power-Efficient
Gathering in Sensor Information
Systems)
 TEEN(APTEEN) (Threshold-Sensitive
Energy Efficient Protocols)

51 30
 PEGASIS(1/2)[1]
 An enhancement over the LEACH
protocol is a near optimal chain-based
protocol
 increase the lifetime of each node by
using collaborative techniques.
 allow only local coordination between
nodes and the bandwidth consumed in
communication is reduced
[1]S. Lindsey and C. Raghavendra, “PEGASIS: Power-Efficient Gathering in Se
nsor Information Systems,” IEEE Aerospace Conf. Proc., 2002, vol. 3, 9–16, pp.
1125–30. 51 31
PEGASIS(2/2)
 Drawbacks:
 assumes that each sensor node is able to
communicate with the BS directly
 assumes that all sensor nodes have the
same level of energy and are likely to die at
the same time
 the single leader can become a bottleneck.
 excessive data delay

51 32
Comparison between PEGASIS and
SPIN
 PEGASIS saving energy in several
stages
 In the local gathering , the distance that
node transmit
 The amount of data for CH head to
receive
 Only one node transmits to BS

51 33
51 34
Hierarchical-routing
 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy)
 PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering
in Sensor Information Systems)
 TEEN (Threshold-Sensitive Energy
Efficient Protocols)

51 35
 TEEN[1]
 TEEN’S CH sensor sends its members a
hard threshold and a soft threshold.
 TEEN’S suitability for time-critical
sensing applications
 TEEN is also quite efficient in terms of
energy consumption and response time
 TEEN also allows the user to control the
energy consumption and accuracy to
suit the application.

51 36
[1]A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agarwal, “TEEN: a Routing Protocol for Enhanced Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks,” 1st Int’l. Wks
p. on Parallel and Distrib. Comp. Issues in WirelessNetworks and Mobile Comp., April 2001.
Comparison of between TEEN and
LEACH
 average energy dissipation(100nodes
and 100*100units)

51 37
Hierarchical vs. flat topologies
routing.[1]

[1]JAMAL N. AL-KARAKI, AHMED E. KAMAL,” ROUTING TECHNIQUES IN

WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS: A SURVEY”, IEEE Wireless Communications • December 2004

51 38
Router protocol survey
 Traditional routing technique
 Flooding
 Gossiping

 Current routing technique

 Flat-routing
 Hierarchical-routing
 Location-based routing

51 39
Location-based routing
 GEAR (Geographic and Energy
Aware Routing)
 GEM

51 40
 GEAR(1/3)[1]
 The key idea is to restrict the number
of interests in directed diffusion by
only considering a certain region
rather than sending the interests to
the whole network.
 keeps an estimated cost and a
learning cost

51 41
[1]Y. Yu, D. Estrin, and R. Govindan, “Geographical and Energy-Aware Routing:A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol
for Wireless Sensor Networks,” UCLA Comp. Sci. Dept. tech. rep., UCLA-CSD TR-010023, May 2001.
GEAR(2/3)

51 42
GEAR(3/3)

51 43
Comparison between GPSR and
GEAR
 GPSR ： designed for general mobile a
d hoc networks
 Two parameter
 Uniform Traffic
 Non-uniform Traffic
 For uneven traffic distribution, GEAR d
elivers 70–80 percent more packets th
an GPSR. For uniform traffic pairs GEA
R delivers 25–35 percent more packets
than GPSR.
51 44
GEM(1/2)
 Three type of storage data
 Local storage
 External storage
 Data-centric storage
 Setup phase
 Set up a tree
 Feedback the number of tree
 Assign the virtual degree

51 45
GEM(2/2)
 The main application of relative steady
topology sensor network

51 46
 Conclusion
 based on the network structure divide
three categories: flat, hierarchical,
and location-based routing protocols.
 The advantages and disadvantages of
each routing technique
 In general hierarchical routing are
outperform than flat routing

51 47
 reference
 I. Akyildiz et al., “A Survey on Sensor Networks,” IEEE C
ommun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 8, Aug. 2002, pp. 102–14.
 W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan and H. Balakrishnan,“E
nergy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Micr
osensor Networks,” Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int’l. Conf. Sys. Sc
i., Jan. 2000.
 F. Ye et al., “A Two-Tier Data Dissemination Model for L
arge-Scale Wireless S. Hedetniemi and A. Liestman, “A S
urvey of Gossiping and broadcasting in Communication
Networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 18, no. 4, 1988, pp. 319–
49.

51 48
reference
 C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “Direc
ted Diffusion: a Scalable and Robust Communication P
aradigm for Sensor Networks,” Proc. ACM Mobi- Com
2000, Boston, MA, 2000, pp. 56–67.
 D. Braginsky and D. Estrin, “Rumor Routing Algorith
m for Sensor Networks,” Proc. 1st Wksp. Sensor Netw
orks and Apps., Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2002.
 C. Schurgers and M.B. Srivastava, “Energy Efficient R
outing in Wireless Sensor Networks,” MILCOM Proc. C
ommun. for Network-Centric Ops.: Creating the Info.
Force, McLean, VA, 2001.
 M. Chu, H. Haussecker, and F. Zhao, “Scalable Inform
ation Driven Sensor Querying and Routing for Ad Hoc
Heterogeneous Sensor Networks,” Int’l. J. High Perf.
Comp. Apps., vol. 16, no. 3, Aug. 2002.

51 49
reference
 Q. Li, J. Aslam and D. Rus, “Hierarchical Power-Aware Ro
uting in Sensor Networks,” Proc. DIMACS Wksp. Pervasiv
e Net., May, 2001.
 Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “Geographyinformed
Energy Conservation for Ad-hoc Routing,” Proc. 7th Ann
ual ACM/IEEE Int’l. Conf. Mobile Comp. and Net., 2001,
pp. 70–84.
 S. Lindsey and C. Raghavendra, “PEGASIS: Power-Efficie
nt Gathering in Sensor Information Systems,” IEEE Aero
space Conf. Proc., 2002, vol. 3, 9–16, pp. 1125–30.
 A. Manjeshwar50 and D. P. Agarwal, “TEEN: a Routing P
rotocol for Enhanced Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Netwo
rks,” 1st Int’l. Wksp. on Parallel and Distrib. Comp. Issu
es in Wireless Networks and Mobile Comp., April 2001.

51 50
Thank You!

51 51