We compared overhead in terms of energy consumption.
To compare the protocols, we analyzed them using the communication model given in [HCB00].
E trans = E tx * k + E cx * k * d 2
E recp = E rx * k
MAC size = 64 bits Sensor-BS distance = 0.75 m Inter-sensor distance = 0.1 m Number of Nodes = 100-1500 E cx = 100pJ/bit/m 2 E trans = E recp = 50 nJ/bit Signal Strength = 16 bits Key = 128 bits Nonce = Counter = 128 bits Node ID = 8 bits
Security Overhead Comparison of Secure (without extension) and Non-secure Cluster Formation Protocols (CH = 5%)
Extension Overhead Comparison for Secure Cluster Formation Protocols with their extensions (CH = 5%)
[JW99] Ari Juels and Martin Wattenberg . “A fuzzy commitment scheme” . 1999.
[Dau92] J. Daugman, “High Confidence personal identification by rapid video analysis of iris texture” , IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, pp 50-60, 1992.
[LGW01] L. Schwiebert, S. K. S. Gupta, J. Weinmann et al., “Research Challenges in Wireless Networks of Biomedical Sensors” , The Seventh Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp 151-165, Rome Italy, July 2001 .
[HCB00] W. Rabiner Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks”, Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '00), January 2000.