On calculating power aware connected dominating setsfor efficient routing in ad hoc wireless networksDocument Transcript
JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 2002 1On Calculating Power-Aware Connected Dominating Setsfor Efﬁcient Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless NetworksJie Wu, Fei Dai, Ming Gao, and Ivan StojmenovicAbstract: Efﬁcient routing among a set of mobile hosts (also callednodes) is one of the most important functions in ad hoc wireless net-works. Routing based on a connected dominating set is a promis-ing approach, where the searching space for a route is reduced tonodes in the set. A set is dominating if all the nodes in the systemare either in the set or neighbors of nodes in the set. Wu and Li proposed a simple and efﬁcient distributed algorithm for calculat-ing connected dominating set in ad hoc wireless networks, whereconnections of nodes are determined by geographical distances ofnodes. In general, nodes in the connected dominating set consumemore energy in order to handle various bypass trafﬁcs than nodesoutside the set. To prolong the life span of each node, and hence,the network by balancing the energy consumption in the network,nodes should be alternated in being chosen to form a connecteddominating set. In this paper, we propose a method of calculat-ing power-aware connected dominating set. Our simulation resultsshow that the proposed approach outperforms several existing ap-proaches in terms of life span of the network.Index Terms: Ad hoc wireless networks, dominating sets, energylevels, mobile computing, routing, simulation.I. INTRODUCTIONAn ad hoc wireless network is a special type of wireless net-works in which a collection of mobile hosts with wireless net-work interfaces may form a temporary network, without the aidof any established infrastructure or centralized administration. Iftwo hosts, located closely together within wireless transmissionrange of each other, are involved in the ad hoc wireless network,no real routing protocol or decision is necessary. However, iftwo hosts that want to communicate are outside their wirelesstransmission ranges, they could communicate only if other hostsbetween them in the ad hoc wireless network are willing to for-ward packets for them.We can use a simple graph ´Î µto represent an ad hocwireless network, where Î represents a set of wireless mobilehosts and represents a set of edges. An edge between hostpairs Ú Ù indicates that both hosts Ú and Ù are within theirwireless transmission ranges. To simplify our discussion, weManuscript received October 1, 2001.Jie Wu, Fei Dai, Ming Gao are with Department of Computer Science andEngineering, Florida, Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA.Ivan Stojmenovic is with SITE University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, K1N6N5, Canada.This work was supported in part by NSF grant CCR 9900646, NSF grant ANI0073736, NSERC, and REDII. A preliminary version of this paper appeared inthe Proceedings of 2001 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP2001).1229-2370/02/$10.00 c2002 KICSassume all mobile hosts are homogeneous, i.e., their wirelesstransmission ranges are the same. In other word, if there is anedge Ú Ù in , it indicates that Ù is within Ú’s range andÚ is within Ù’s range. Thus the corresponding graph will be anundirected graph.Routing in ad hoc wireless networks poses special challenges.Traditional routing protocols in wired networks, that generallyuse either link state ,  or distance vector , , are nolonger suitable for ad hoc wireless networks. In an environmentwith mobile hosts as routers, convergence to new, stable routesafter dynamic changes in network topology may be slow andthis process could be expensive due to low bandwidth. Routinginformation has to be localized to adapt quickly to changes suchas host movements.Dominating-set-based routing  is based on the concept ofdominating set in graph theory . A subset of the vertices ofa graph is a dominating set if every vertex not in the subset isadjacent to at least one vertex in the subset. The main idea ofthis approach is to reduce the routing and searching process to asubgraph induced from the dominating set. Moreover, the domi-nating set should be connected for the ease of the routing processwithin the induced graph consisting of dominating nodes only.Vertices in a dominating set are called gateway hosts while ver-tices that are outside a dominating set are called non-gatewayhosts. The main advantage of connected dominating-set-basedrouting is that it simpliﬁes the routing process to that in a smallersubnetwork generated from the connected dominating set. Thismeans that only gateway hosts need to keep routing informa-tion. As long as changes in network topology do not affectthis subnetwork there is no need to re-calculate routing tables.Small connected dominating set also corresponds to a small for-ward node set in broadcasting  which minimize overall en-ergy consumption per broadcast. In Fig. 1, Ú and Û are gatewayhosts which are connected, Ù, Ü, and Ý are non-gateway hosts.Each cycle in the ﬁgure corresponds to the wireless transmissionrange of a host. Backbone-based routing  and spine-basedrouting  use a similar approach, where a backbone (spine)consists of hosts similar to gateway hosts. Cluster-based routing is another approach based on the notion of cluster. Hostswithin vicinity (i.e., they are physically close to each other) forma cluster.Clearly, the efﬁciency of this approach depends largely on theprocess of ﬁnding a connected dominating set and the size of thecorresponding subnetwork. Unfortunately, ﬁnding a minimumconnected dominating set is NP-complete for most graphs. Wuand Li  proposed a simple distributed marking process thatcan quickly determine a connected dominating set in a given
2 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 2002gateway hostuynon-gateway hostv w xFig. 1. A sample ad hoc wireless network.connected graph, which represents an ad hoc wireless network.Basically, a node is marked gateway if two of its neighbors arenot directly connected. Nodes that are marked gateway form aconnected dominating set. It is shown that Wu and Li’s approachoutperforms several classical approaches in terms of ﬁnding asmall dominating set and doing so quickly.In ad hoc wireless networks, the limitation of power of eachhost poses a unique challenge for power-aware design –.There has been an increasing focus on low cost and reducednode power consumption in ad hoc wireless networks. Even instandard networks such as IEEE 802.11, requirements are in-cluded to sacriﬁce performance in favor of reduced power con-sumption ½ . In our approach, for certain cases we select non-shortest paths rather than shortest ones with low-energy nodes.In general, in order to prolong the life span of each node, andhence, the network, power consumption should be minimizedas well as balanced among nodes. Unfortunately, nodes in thedominating set in general consume more energy in handling var-ious bypass trafﬁc than nodes outside the set. Therefore, a staticselection of dominating nodes will result in a shorter life spanfor certain nodes, which in turn results in a shorter life span ofthe whole network. In this paper, we propose a method of cal-culating power-aware connected dominating set based on a dy-namic selection process. Speciﬁcally, in the selection process ofa gateway node, we give preference to a node with a higher en-ergy level. Our simulation results show that the proposed selec-tion process outperforms several existing ones in terms of longerlife span of the network.This paper is organized as follows: Section II summarizesrelated work in the ﬁeld. Section III overviews the dominating-set-based routing and Wu and Li’s decentralized formation of aconnected dominating set. Section IV proposes two extensionsto Wu and Li’s approach: one is based on node degree and theother is based on energy level. An example is also included toillustrate different methods. Performance evaluation is done inSection V. Finally, in Section VI we conclude the paper.II. RELATED WORKToh  gave an excellent discussion on general issues re-lated to power-aware (power-efﬁcient) routing. It is argued thatpower conservation schemes should be applied to different net-work layers: physical layer ,data link layer, and network layer(where routing functions are located). At the network layer,power-efﬁcient route can be selected based on either minimumtotal transmission power routing (MTPR) or minimum batterycost routing (MBCR) . MTPR minimizes the total powerneeded to route packets on the network while MBCR maxi-mizes the lifetime of all nodes. To achieve MTPR, Dijkstra’sshortest path algorithm can be modiﬁed to obtain the minimumtotal power route . MBCR and its variation  focusesdirectly on the lifetime of each host. Conditional max-min bat-tery capacity routing (CMMBCR)  makes a better use ofboth MTPR and MBCR. Wieselthir et al.,  discussed power-aware multicasting and broadcasting. A topology control usingtransmit power adjustment is proposed in , where the net-work generated with a “power-aware” topology can reduce theend-to-end packet delay and increase the robustness to node fail-ure. Other surveys on power-aware routing can be found in and .One simple way to prolong the lifetime of each host is toevenly distribute packet-relaying loads to each node to preventnodes from being overused. This approach is used in LEACH, where a probabilistic approach to randomly select clus-ter heads in data gathering in sensor networks is used. Clusterheads in LEACH are not connected. Lin and Gerla  provideda general discussion on various clustering algorithms. A classi-cal approach is the following: First, a distributed head selectionprocess is applied. A node Ú is a head if it has the largest(or maximum node degree) in its 1-hop neighborhood includingÚ. A head and its neighbors form a cluster and these nodes arecovered. The above process continues on all uncovered nodes.Once the head selection process completes, some non-cluster-head nodes called repeaters are selected that have two or moreneighbors belong to different clusters. Repeaters nodes are usedto connect clusters. Head nodes form a unconnected dominatingset (in fact no heads are connected). Head nodes and repeatersnodes form a connected dominating set.Other metrics can be used together with the energy metric forcertain routing applications. For example, power and cost arecombined into a single metric in order to choose power efﬁcientpaths among cost optimal ones. Various combinations are stud-ied by Stojmenovic and Lin  and Chang and Tassiulas .To our knowledge, no work has been done on selecting a domi-nating set using energy metrics.Recently, a modiﬁed marking process was proposed by agroup at MIT . A node is marked gateway if two of itsneighbors fail both of the following two conditions: (a) directlyconnected and (b) connected by one or two gateways. Com-pared with the marking process by Wu and Li, an additionalcondition (b) is added. This modiﬁed marking process will gen-erate a smaller set of gateway nodes if nodes do not apply themarking process at the same time. If all nodes apply the markingprocess at the same time (initially all nodes are non-gateways),condition (b) cannot be used and this approach is reduced to themarking process discussed in this paper. In addition, the modi-ﬁed marking process costs more: Ç´¡ µwith one-hop interme-diate gateway (and Ç´¡ µwith two-hop intermediate gateways)at each node vs. Ç´¡¾µof Wu and Li’s marking process, where
WU et al.: ON CALCULATING POWER-AWARE CONNECTED DOMINATING.... 39 (1,2,3,11)4 (5,6)7 (6)97712131011(a)gateway domain member list gateway routing tabledestination member list next hop distance(c)(b)2111107859463Fig. 2. A routing example.¡is the maximum number of neighbors for a node. In addition,each node in the modiﬁed marking process needs to know 3-hop neighborhood information while each node in the markingprocess only require 2-hop neighborhood information.III. PRELIMINARIESIn this section, we review Wu and Li’s dominating-set-basedrouting and a marking process that determines a connected dom-inating set from a given connected graph.A. Dominating-Set-Based-RoutingAssume that a connected dominated set has been determinedfor a given ad hoc wireless network. The routing process in adominating-set-based routing is divided into three steps:1. If the source is not a gateway host, it forwards the packetsto a source gateway, which is one of the adjacent gatewayhosts.2. This source gateway acts as a new source to route thepackets in the induced graph generated from the con-nected dominating set.3. Eventually, the packets reach a destination gateway,which is either the destination host itself or a gatewayof the destination host. In the latter case, the destinationgateway forwards the packets directly to the destinationhost.Each gateway host keeps following information: gateway do-main membership list and gateway routing table. Gateway do-main membership list is a list of non-gateway hosts which areadjacent to gateway hosts. Gateway routing table includes oneentry for each gateway host, together with its domain member-ship list. For example, given an ad hoc wireless network asshown in Fig. 2 (a), the corresponding routing information itemsat host 8 are shown as in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 (b) shows that host 8 hasthree members 3, 10, and 11 in its gateway domain membershiplist. Fig. 2 (c) shows the gateway routing table at host 8, whichconsists of a set of entries for each gateway together with itsmembership list. Other columns of this table, including distanceand routing information, are not shown. The way that routingtables are constructed and updated in the subnetwork generatedfrom the connected dominating set can follow either the link-state approach or the distance-vector approach. The dominatingset can also be used in a reactive approach  where no routingtables are maintained and a route is obtained on demand througha search process within the dominating nodes only.B. Formation of Connected Dominating SetWu and Li  proposed a simple decentralized algorithm forthe formation of connected dominating set in a given ad hocwireless network. This algorithm is based on a marking processthat marks every vertex in a given connected and simple graph´Î µ. Ñ´Úµ is a marker for vertex Ú ¾ Î , which iseither Ì (marked) or (unmarked). We assume that all verticesare unmarked initially. Æ´Úµ Ù Ú Ù ¾ represents theopen neighbor set of vertex Ú, i.e., Ú ¾ Æ´Úµ. The markingprocess consists of the following three steps:1. Initially assign marker to every Ú in Î .2. Every Ú exchanges its open neighbor set Æ´Úµ with all itsneighbors.3. Every Ú assigns its marker Ñ´Úµ to Ì if there exist twounconnected neighbors.In the example of Fig. 1, Æ´Ùµ Ú Ý , Æ´Úµ Ù Û Ý ,Æ´Ûµ Ú Ü , Æ´Ýµ Ù Ú , and Æ´Üµ Û . After Step2 of the marking process, vertex Ù has Æ´Úµ and Æ´Ýµ, Ú hasÆ´Ùµ, Æ´Ûµ, and Æ´Ýµ, Û has Æ´Úµ and Æ´Üµ, Ý has Æ´Ùµand Æ´Úµ, and Ü has Æ´Ûµ. Based on Step 3, only vertices Úand Û are marked Ì.Assume that Î¼is the set of vertices that are marked T in Î ,i.e., Î¼Ú Ú ¾ Î Ñ´Úµ Ì . The induced graph¼is thesubgraph of induced by Î¼, i.e.,¼Î¼. The follow-ing results  show several desirable properties of the inducedgraph.Property 1: Given a graph ´Î µ that is connected butnot completely connected, the vertex subset Î¼, derived from themarking process, forms a dominating set of .Property 2: The induced graph¼Î¼is a connectedgraph.Property 3: The shortest path between any two vertices doesnot include any non-gateway vertex as an intermediate vertex.Since the problem of determining a minimum connecteddominating set of a given connected graph is NP-complete, theconnected dominating set derived from the marking process isnormally non-minimum. Wu and Li  also proposed two rulesbased on node ID to reduce the size of a connected dominatingset generated from the marking process. First of all, a distinctID, ´Úµ, is assigned to each vertex Ú in . Æ Ú Æ´Úµ Úis the closed neighbor set of Ú, as oppose to the open one Æ´Úµ.Rule 1: Consider two vertices Ú and Ù in¼. If Æ Ú Æ Ùin and ´Úµ ´Ùµ, the marker of Ú is changed to F if vertexÚ is marked; that is,¼is changed to¼ Ú .
4 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 2002u v wv u v u(a) (b) (c)Fig. 3. Two examples for rule 1 and one for rule 2.The above rule states that when the closed neighbor set of Úis covered by that of Ù, vertex Ú can be removed from¼if theID of Ú is smaller than that of Ù. Note that if Ú is marked and itsclosed neighbor set is covered by that of Ù, it implies that vertexÙ is also marked. When Ú and Ù have the same closed neighborset, the vertex with a smaller ID will be removed. It is easy toprove that¼ Ú is still a connected dominating set of .The condition Æ Ú Æ Ù implies that Ú and Ù are connectedin¼. Note that Properties 1, 2, and 3 are still preserved afterthe application of Rule 1.In Fig. 3 (a), since Æ Ú Æ Ù , vertex Ú is removed from¼if ´Úµ ´Ùµand vertex Ù is the only dominating node inthe graph. In Fig. 3 (b), since Æ Ú Æ Ù , either Ú or Ù canbe removed from¼. To ensure one and only one is removed,we pick the one with a smaller ID. We call the above process theselective removal based on node ID.Rule 2: Assume that Ù and Û are two marked neighborsof marked vertex Ú in¼. If Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ inand ´Úµ Ñ Ò ´Úµ ´Ùµ ´Ûµ , then the marker of Úis changed to .The above rule indicates that when the open neighbor set of Úis covered by the open neighbor sets of two of its marked neigh-bors, Ù and Û, if Ú has the minimum ID of the three, it can beremoved from¼(see the example in Fig. 3 (c)). The condi-tion Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ in Rule 2 implies that Ù and Û areconnected. The subtle difference between Rule 1 and Rule 2is the use of open and close neighbor sets. Again, it is easy toprove that¼ Ú is still a connected dominating set. BothÙ and Û are marked, because the facts that Ú is marked andÆ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ in imply that if Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ,Ù has two unconnected neighbors Û and Ü ¾ ´Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµµand shall be marked. Similarly, if Æ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ, Û shall alsobe marked. Therefore, to apply Rule 2, no additional step needsto be added in the marking process. Note that Properties 1 and 2are still preserved after the application of Rule 2, but not Prop-erty 3. That is, the hop count between two nodes may increaseafter Rule 2. In , it has been shown that the marking process,together with Rules 1 and 2, outperforms several classical ap-proaches in terms of ﬁnding a small dominating set and doingso quickly.All the above examples represent just global snapshot of thedynamic topology for a given ad hoc wireless network. Becausethe topology of the network changes over time, the connecteddominating set also needs to be updated from time to time. Wuand Dai  show the desirable locality feature of the markingprocess. More speciﬁcally, it is shown that only the neighborsof changing hosts need to update their gateway/non-gatewaysta-tus. Note that a simple way of maintaining the dominating setstructure is also crucial in reducing overall energy consumptionin the network. Feeney  shows that energy required to startup communication is relatively signiﬁcant. Protocols using anykind of periodic hello messages, frequently used in ad hoc net-work literature, are extremely energy inefﬁcient. Other featuresrelated to the marking process can be found in .IV. EXTENDED RULESIn this paper, we consider several extended rules for selectiveremoval. One is based on node degree and the other one is basedon energy level associated with each node. The main goals ofthese two extensions are different: the node-degree-based ap-proach aims at reducing the size of the connected dominatingset while the energy-level-based approach tries to prolong theaverage life span of each node. The additional cost associatedwith extended rules is insigniﬁcant both in terms of communi-cation and computation. Additional information that needs to becollected from neighbors are energy levels which can be piggy-backed with the neighborhood information. In terms of compu-tation, a few more cases need to be considered for each node todetermine its status, but they will not increase the overall com-plexity. In the subsequent discussion, we use term node, host,and vertex interchangeably.A. Node-Degree-Based RulesIn the following, we propose two rules based on node degree(ND) to reduce the size of a connected dominating set generatedfrom the marking process. First of all, a distinct ID, ´Úµ, isassigned to each vertex Ú in . In addition, Ò ´Ùµrepresents thenode degree of Ù in , i.e., the cardinality of Ù’s open neighborset Æ´Ùµ.Rule 1a: Consider two marked vertices Ú and Ù in¼. Themarker of Ú is changed to F if one of the following conditionsholds:1. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ.2. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and ´Úµ ´Ùµ when Ò ´ÚµÒ ´Ùµ.The above rule indicates that when the closed neighbor set ofÚ is covered by that of Ù, node Ú can be removed from¼if theND of Ú is smaller than that of Ù. Node ID’s are used to break atie when the node degrees of two nodes are the same. Note thatÒ ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ implies that Æ Ù Æ Ú , and if Ú is markedand its closed neighbor set is covered by that of Ù, it implies thatnode Ù is also marked. It is easy to prove that¼ Ú is stilla connected dominating set of . The condition Æ Ú Æ Ùimplies Ú and Ù are connected in¼.Rule 2a: Assume that Ù and Û are two marked neighbors ofmarked vertex Ú in¼. The marker of Ú is changed to if oneof the following conditions holds:1. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, but Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in .2. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ and Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ, butÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ, or
WU et al.: ON CALCULATING POWER-AWARE CONNECTED DOMINATING.... 5(b) Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ and ´Úµ ´Ùµ.3. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ and Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ûµ,(b) Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ Ò ´Ûµ and ´Úµ ´Ùµ, or(c) Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ Ò ´Ûµ and ´Úµ Ñ Ò ´Úµ´Ùµ ´Ûµ .The above rule indicates that when the open neighbor set of Úis covered by the open neighbor sets of two of its marked neigh-bors, Ù and Û (or simply Ú is covered by Ù and Û); in case (1),if neither Ù nor Û is covered by the other two among Ù, Ú, andÛ, node Ú can be removed from¼; in case (2), if nodes Ú, Ù arecovered by Ù and Û, Ú and Û, respectively but Û is not coveredby Ù and Ú, node Ú can be removed from¼if the ND of Ú issmaller than that of Ù or the ID of Ú is smaller than that of Ùwhen their ND’s are the same; in case (3), when each of Ù, Úand Û is covered by the other two among Ù, Ú and Û, node Ú canbe removed from¼if one of the following conditions holds:Ú has the minimum ND among Ù, Ú and Û, the ND of Ú is thesame as the ND of Ù but it is smaller than that of Û and the IDof Ú is smaller than that of Ù, or the ND’s of Ù, Ú, and Û arethe same and Ú has the minimum ID among Ù, Ú, and Û. Thecondition Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ in Rule 2a implies that Ù andÛ are connected. Again, it is easy to prove that¼ Ú is stilla connected dominating set. Both Ù and Û are marked, becausethe fact that Ú is marked and Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ in doesnot imply that Ù and Û are marked. Therefore, if one of Ù and Ûis not marked, Ú cannot be unmarked (change the marker to ).B. Energy-Level-Based RulesIn the following, we propose two rules based on energy level(EL) to prolong the average life span of a host, and at the sametime, to reduce the size of a connected dominating set generatedfrom the marking process.We ﬁrst assign a distinct ID, ´Úµ, and an initial EL, Ð´Úµ,to each vertex Ú in¼. In a dynamic system such as an ad hocwireless network, network topology changes over time. There-fore, the connected dominating set also needs to change. Wu andLi  showed that the connected dominating set only needs tobe updated in a localized manner, i.e., only neighbors of chang-ing hosts need to update their gateway/non-gateway status. Anupdate interval is the time between two consecutive updates inthe network. Assume that¼and are energy consumption ina given interval for a gateway host and a non-gateway host, re-spectively. That is, each time after applying both Rule 1b andRule 2b (discussed below), EL of each gateway host will bedecreased by¼and EL of each non-gateway host will be de-creased by . When the energy level of Ù, Ð´Ùµ, reaches zero, itis assumed that host Ù ceases to function. In general,¼and¼and are variables dependent on the length of update intervaland bypass trafﬁc. Given an initial energy level of each host andvalues for¼and , the energy level associated with each hosthas multiple discrete levels.Rule 1b: Consider two marked vertices Ú and Ù in¼. Themarker of Ú is changed to F if one of the following conditionsholds:1. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ.2. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and ´Úµ ´Ùµ when Ð´ÚµÐ´Ùµ.The above rule indicates that when the closed neighbor set ofÚ is covered by that of Ù, vertex Ú can be removed from¼if theEL of Ú is smaller than that of Ù. ID is used to break a tie whenÐ´Úµ Ð´Ùµ.In Fig. 3 (a), since Æ Ú Æ Ù , node Ú is removed from¼if Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ and node Ù is the only dominating node in thegraph. In Fig. 3 (b), since Æ Ú Æ Ù , either Ú or Ù can beremoved. To ensure that one and only one is removed, we pickthat with a smaller EL.Rule 2b: Assume that Ù and Û are two marked neighbors ofmarked vertex Ú in¼. The marker of Ú is changed to F if oneof the following conditions holds:1. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, but Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in .2. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ and Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ, butÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ, or(b) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµand ´Úµ ´Ùµ.3. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµand Ð´Úµ Ð´Ûµ,(b) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ Ð´Ûµ and ´Úµ ´Ùµ, or(c) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ Ð´Ûµ and ´Úµ Ñ Ò ´Úµ´Ùµ ´Ûµ .The above rule indicates that when Ú is covered by Ù and Û; incase (1), if neither Ù nor Û is covered by the other two among Ù,Ú, and Û, node Ú can be removed from¼; in case (2), if nodesÚ, Ù are covered by Ù and Ú, Ú and Û, respectively, but Û is notcovered by Ù and Ú, node Ú can be removed from¼if the EL ofÚ is smaller than that of Ù or the ID of Ú is smaller than that ofÙ when their ND’s are the same; in case (3), when each of Ù, Úand Û is covered by the other two among Ù, Ú and Û, node Ú canbe removed from¼if one of the following conditions holds: Úhas the minimum EL among Ù, Ú, and Û, the EL of Ú is the sameas the EL of Ù but it is smaller than that of Û and the ID of Ú issmaller than that of Ù, or the EL’s of Ù, Ú, and Û are the sameand Ú has the minimum ID among Ù, Ú, and Û.In the following, we propose another two rules based on ELto prolong the life span of each node to reduce the size of aconnected dominating set. Unlike Rule 1b and Rule 2b whereID is used when there is a tie in EL, in Rule ½ ¼and ¾ ¼, ND isused when there is a tie in EL and ID is used only when there isa tie in ND.Rule 1b¼: Consider two vertices Ú and Ù in¼. The markerof Ú is changed to F if one of the following conditions holds:1. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ.2. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ when Ð´ÚµÐ´Ùµ.3. Æ Ú Æ Ù in and ´Úµ ´Ùµwhen Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµand Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ.
6 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 2002The above rule indicates that when the closed neighbor set ofÚ is covered by that of Ù, node Ú can be removed from¼if theEL of Ú is smaller than that of Ù. When there is a tie in EL, Úcan be removed if the ND of Ú is smaller than the one of Ù, andwhen there is a tie ND, Ú can be removed if the ID of Ú is smallerthan that of Ù.Rule 2b¼: Assume that Ù and Û are two marked neighbors ofmarked vertex Ú in¼. The marker of Ú is changed to F if oneof the following conditions holds:1. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, but Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in .2. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ and Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ, butÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ, or(b) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ; and Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ, or, ´Úµ´Ùµ when Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ.3. Æ´Úµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Ûµ, Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ Æ´Ûµ andÆ´Ûµ Æ´Ùµ Æ´Úµ in ; and one of the followingconditions holds:(a) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµand Ð´Úµ Ð´Ûµ,(b) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ Ð´Ûµ; and Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ, or,´Úµ ´Ùµwhen Ò ´Úµ Ò ´Ùµ, or(c) Ð´Úµ Ð´Ùµ Ð´Ûµ and Ú satisﬁes Step 3 ofRule 2a.The above rule indicates that when Ú is covered by Ù and Û;in case (1), if neither Ù nor Û is covered by the other two amongÙ, Ú, and Û, node Ú can be removed from¼; in case (2), ifnodes Ú, Ù are covered by Ù and Ú, Ú and Û, respectively, but Ûis not covered by Ù and Ú, node Ú can be removed if the EL ofÚ is smaller than that of Ù, or the EL of Ú is the same as that ofÙ. In the latter case, either the ND of Ú is smaller than that ofÙ or the ID of Ú is smaller than that of Ù when their ND’s arethe same; in case (3), when each of Ù, Ú, and Û is covered bythe other two among Ù, Ú, and Û, node Ú can be removed if oneof the following conditions holds: the EL of Ú has the minimumEL among Ù, Ú, and Û, the EL of Ú is the same as the EL of Ùbut it is smaller than that of Û and the ND of Ú is smaller thanthat of Ù or the ID of Ú is smaller than that of Ù when the ND ofÚ is the same as that of Ù, or the EL of Ù, Ú, and Û are the samewhen it satisﬁes Step 3 of Rule 2a.C. An ExampleFigs. 4, 5, and 6 show an example of using the proposed mark-ing process and its extensions to identify a set of connected dom-inating nodes. Each node keeps a list of its neighbors and sendsthis list to all its neighbors. By doing so each node has distance-2 neighborhood information.In Fig. 4 (a), node 1 will not mark itself as a gateway nodebecause its only neighbors 2 and 4 are connected. Node 4 willmark itself as a gateway node because there is no connectionbetween neighbors 3 and 9 (3 and 11). Fig. 4 (b) shows thegateway nodes (nodes with cycles) derived by the marking pro-cess without applying any rules.After applying Rule 1, node 21 will be unmarked to the non-gateway status as shown in Fig. 5 (c). The closed neighbor set1567892310121311 181925264141516172021 222324271567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427(a) Example graph (b) Marked gateways without applying rules.Fig. 4. An example of marking process.1567892310121311 181925264141516172021 222324271567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427(c) Marked gateways by applying Rule 1 (d) Marked gateways by applying Rule 21567892310121311 181925264141516172021 222324271567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427(e) Marked gateways by applying Rule 1a (f) Marked gateways by applying Rule 2aFig. 5. Examples for rules 1, 2, 1a, and 2a.of node 21 is Æ ¾½ ¾½ ¾¾ ¾¿ ¾ , and the closed neighborset of node 22 is Æ ¾¾ ¾¼ ¾½ ¾¾ ¾¿ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ . Ap-parently, Æ ¾½ Æ ¾¾ . Also the ID of node 21 is less thanthe ID of node 22, thus node 21 can unmark itself by applyingRule 1. Also, Æ´¾µ Æ´ µ Æ´ µ. Node 2 has the minimumID among nodes 2, 4, and 9. Thus node 2 can unmark itself byapplying Rule 2 (see Fig. 5 (d)).Apparently Æ ¾½ Æ ¾¾ and Æ ¾ Æ ¾ . In addi-tion, node 21 has the minimum ND among nodes 21, 22 and 27,thus both nodes 21 and 27 can unmark themselves by applyingRule 1a (see Fig. 5 (e)). Also, Æ´ µ Æ´¾µ Æ´ µ, Æ´¾µÆ´ µ Æ´ µ, but Æ´ µ Æ´¾µ Æ´ µ. For node 13, Æ´½¿µÆ´½½µ Æ´½ µ, Æ´½ µ Æ´½½µ Æ´½¿µ, but Æ´½½µÆ´½¿µ Æ´½ µ. For node 18, Æ´½ µ Æ´½½µ Æ´¾¼µ,Æ´½½µ Æ´½ µ Æ´¾¼µ, and Æ´¾¼µ Æ´½½µ Æ´½ µ. Thusnodes 9, 13, and 18 can unmark themselves by applying Rule 2a(see Fig. 5 (f)).After applying Rule 1b, node 21 will be unmarked to thenon-gateway status as shown in Fig. 6 (g), where the num-ber inside each node corresponds to the energy level of thatnode. The energy level assigned to each node is a random
WU et al.: ON CALCULATING POWER-AWARE CONNECTED DOMINATING.... 71567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427899999 989 9 998899868688899981567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427899999 989 9 99889986868889998(g) Marked gateways by applying Rule 1b (h) Marked gateways by applying Rule 2b1567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427899999 989 9 998899868688889991567892310121311 181925264141516172021 22232427899999 9899 99889986868889998(i) Marked gateways by applying Rule 1b’ (j) Marked gateways by applying Rule 2b’Fig. 6. Examples for rules 1b, 2b, 1b¼, and 2b¼.number in this ﬁgure. The closed neighbor set of node 21is Æ ¾½ ¾½ ¾¾ ¾¿ ¾ , and the closed neighbor set ofnode 22 is Æ ¾¾ ¾¼ ¾½ ¾¾ ¾¿ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ . Appar-ently, Æ ¾½ Æ ¾¾ , also the EL of node 21 is less thanthe EL of node 22, thus node 21 can unmark itself by apply-ing Rule 1b. Also, Æ´¾µ Æ´ µ Æ´ µ. The EL of node 2is as same as the EL of node 9 and the ID of node 2 is smallerthan that of node 9. For node 13, Æ´½¿µ Æ´½½µ Æ´½ µ,Æ´½ µ Æ´½½µ Æ´½¿µ, but Æ´½½µ Æ´½¿µ Æ´½ µ andthe EL of node 13 is as same as that of node 15 and nodeID of node 13 is smaller than that of node 15. For node 18,Æ´½ µ Æ´½½µ Æ´¾¼µ, and Æ´¾¼µ Æ´½½µ Æ´½ µ, andnode has the minimum EL among nodes 11, 18 and 20. Thusnodes 2, 13 and 18 can unmark themselves by applying Rule 2b.Following the similar argument, after applying Rule 1b¼, bothnodes 21 and 27 will be unmarked to the non-gateway status asshown in Fig. 6 (i); after applying Rule 2b¼, nodes 9, 13 and 18will be unmarked to the non-gateway status as shown in Fig. 6(j).V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONIn this section, we compare different approaches for deter-mining a connected dominating set in an ad hoc wireless net-work with and without applying two rules and their variations.Speciﬁcally, we measure the size of the connected dominatingset generated from the marking process and compare it withthe size of the connected dominating set after applying differ-ent rules, which include the rules based on ID, the rules basedon ND, and the rules based on EL. In addition, the average lifespans of the network under different rules are also simulated.To perform a fair comparison with other methods, an energy-aware cluster-based approach is adopted: cluster heads are de-cided based on their energy levels. Node id is used to break a tiein energy levels. There are two extreme ways to select repeatersto connect adjacent cluster heads: the “normal” one includes allrepeaters that meet the condition (i.e., nodes with two or moreneighbors in different clusters) and the ‘optimized’ one uses avariation of Kruskal’s algorithm (for constructing a minimumspanning tree) that sequentially merges two fragments (initiallyeach cluster is a fragment). The “normal” is labeled as CLA and“optimized” on is called CLT. Again,¼( ) is amount of energyconsumed at each update interval for a repeater and a clusterhead (non-cluster-head and non-repeater node). To unify thenotation, repeaters and cluster heads are called gateways. Othernodes are called non-gateways.The simulation is conducted in a 100 ¢ 100 2-D free-spaceby randomly allocating a given number of hosts ranging from20 to 100. The radius of transmitter range is assumed to be 25,and the energy level of each host is initialized to ½¼¼¼. Thenumber represents the percentage of moving host. In our sim-ulation is ½¼± for networks with low mobility and ¼± fornetworks with high mobility. In each update interval, ± of thetotal hosts are randomly picked as moving hosts. Each movinghost moves Ð units towards a random selected destination, whereÐ is a random number in [1...25]. If the destination is too close toits original position (i.e., the distance between them is smallerthan Ð), another random destination is selected and this processcontinues until the host moves Ð units. In this paper, like manyexisting approaches, we do not deal with the issue on how mes-sages use a shared channel to avoid contention and collision. Itis assumed that this issue is taken care of at the MAC layer.The simulation is conducted using the following procedure:1. An undirected graph is randomly generated with each hostassigned a uniform energy level.2. Start a new update interval by applying the marking pro-cess to generate gateway hosts, then applying four sets ofrules: rules based on ID, rules based on ND (1a and 2a),and rules based on EL (1b, 2b, 1b¼and 2b¼). Similarly, ap-ply CLT and CLA for the cluster-based approach. Recordthe number of gateway hosts generated in the current in-terval.3. The energy level of each host is reduced by¼and de-pending on its status (gateway/non-gateway). If the en-ergy level of one host becomes zero, the simulation stopsand records the number of update intervals. Otherwise,each host roams around the given 2-D space based on thegiven model and a new graph is generated, and then, go tostep (2).In , an energy cost model is given for transmitting andreceiving operations. Speciﬁcally, receiving cost includes elec-tronics part while transmitting cost includes electronics part andampliﬁer part. Therefore, a transmitting operation costs morethan a receiving operation. In dominating-set-based routing,gateway nodes perform both transmitting and receiving oper-ations while non-gateway nodes perform receiving operationsonly (except when they are the source of a routing process).Clearly,¼. The actual ratio of¼depends on manyfactors such as network topology and trafﬁc patterns.¼andcan be modeled more precisely using the ﬁrst order radio model and the energy loss model due to channel transmission .
8 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 200202040608010020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100SizeofdominatingsetNumber of hosts10% movement, d’=14, d=7NRIDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(a)02040608010020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100SizeofdominatingsetNumber of hosts50% movement, d=1, a=0.25NRIDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(b)Fig. 7. The numbers of gateway nodes under different rules: (a) when(a) ½¼±,¼½ , ; (b) ¼±, ½, « ¼ ¾ .Nodes status can also be classiﬁed as active and sleep modeand radio (associated with each node) can be in transit, receive,standby or off mode. In this case, a more reﬁned power con-sumption model can be applied .To simplify our simulation, we assume that update intervalsare homogeneous, i.e., once deﬁned¼and remain the samefor all intervals. The ratio between¼and can be a constantor a variable. For constant ratio, we use two models to sim-ulate two different networks with relatively “idle” and “busy”gateway hosts, respectively. For variable ratio, we use a novelmodel to simulate the routing and packet relaying behavior ofgateway hosts. In all three models,¼is selected in such a waythat¼.¼· ÖÓÙØ Ò · Ö Ð ÝÒ´ ·½µ Ö Ú · Ñ Ò´ ·Æ¼µ Ö Ú ·´Ð ½µ ¼ Ò´ ·½µ Ö Ú´½·« ·¬ ¼ µ(4)1.¼½ and , i.e.,¼is twice of .2.¼¾¼and ½, i.e.,¼is twenty times of .3.¼½·« ·¬ ¼ and ½, where « is the costrelated to routing information gathering and updating and¬ ¼ is the cost associated with packet relay.Model 3 is probably more realistic since the bypass trafﬁc de-pends on the total number of hosts ( ) which is distributed togateway hosts (¼). Also, routing information gathering andupdating depends on the size of the network ( ). The de-tailed derivation process is the following: We denote the energycost for each receive operation as Ö Ú and send operation as× Ò Ö Ú, ½. Suppose the communication ﬂow isevenly distributed; that is, during each updating interval, eachhost is the source and destination of Ò packets. Totally Òpackets are transferred by the network. Non-gateway hosts onlysend (receive) a packet that they are the source (destination).Therefore, their energy consumption during each interval is:Ò´ × Ò · Ö Úµ Ò´ ·½µ Ö Ú (1)Gateway hosts consume more energy because they have two ex-tra tasks: (a) routing information gathering and updating and (b)packet relay. Suppose a path needs updating for every Ñ pack-ets, and each updating process includes a ﬂooding among allgateway hosts, the corresponding energy consumption for eachgateway host is:ÖÓÙØ ÒÒÑ´ × Ò ·Æ¼Ö Úµ ÑÒ´ ·Æ¼µ Ö Ú (2)where Æ¼is the average node degree in¼. Suppose the task ofrelaying packets is evenly distributed among all gateway hosts,the corresponding energy consumption for each gateway host is:Ö Ð Ý´Ð ½µ¡Ò¼ ´ × Ò · Ö Úµ ´Ð ½µ ¼ Ò´ ·½µ Ö Ú(3)where Ð is the average length (in hops) of each path. From equa-tions (1), (2), and (3), the energy consumption of gateway hostsduring each interval is at the bottom of this page:where « ·Æ¼Ñ´ ·½µis the routing overhead coefﬁcient and¬ ´Ð ½µ is average number of relays for each packet. In oursimulation, « is 0.02 or 0.05 for networks with low mobility and0.1 or 0.25 for networks with high mobility; that is, the routingoverhead is proportional to the frequency of topology changes.The value of ¬ is computed based on the average length of theshortest paths with gateway hosts as the intermediate hosts, and
WU et al.: ON CALCULATING POWER-AWARE CONNECTED DOMINATING.... 970758085909520 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d’=14, d=7IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT50556065707580859020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d’=20, d=1IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(a) (b)5010015020025030035020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d=1, a=0.05IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT2040608010012014016018020022020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 50% movement, d=1, a=0.25IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(c) (d)5010015020025030035040045050020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d=1, a=0.02IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT05010015020025030020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts1% hosts depleted, 50% movement, d=1, a=0.1IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(e) (f)Fig. 8. Average number of intervals before 1% of nodes is depleted when (a) ½¼±,¼½ , ; (b) ½¼±,¼¾¼, ½; (c) ½¼±,½, « ¼ ¼ ; (d) ¼±, ½, « ¼ ¾ ; (e) ½¼±, ½, « ¼ ¼¾; and (f) ¼±, ½, « ¼ ½.is proportional to the network diameter. Note that when a gate-way host relays a control or data packet, its non-gateways neigh-bors also “hear” the packet and consume energy in receiving thepacket. However, by assuming that non-gateway hosts can entera reduced energy consumption mode when data is being trans-mitted if they are not the destination of the packet , we canomit this part of energy consumption. The energy consumptionin maintaining a connected dominating set is uniform across thenetwork (for both gateways and non-gateways), and we assumethat it is included in and the component of¼.
10 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 200270758085909510020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d’=14, d=7IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT506070809010011020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d’=20, d=1IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(a) (b)5010015020025030035040020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d=1, a=0.05IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT2040608010012014016018020022024020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 50% movement, d=1, a=0.25IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(c) (d)5010015020025030035040045050020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 10% movement, d=1, a=0.02IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT5010015020025030035020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100NumberofintervalsNumber of hosts10% hosts depleted, 50% movement, d=1, a=0.1IDNDEL1EL2CLACLT(e) (f)Fig. 9. Average number of intervals before 10% of nodes is depleted when (a) ½¼±,¼½ , ; (b) ½¼±,¼¾¼, ½; (c) ½¼±,½, « ¼ ¼ ; (d) ¼±, ½, « ¼ ¾ ; (e) ½¼±, ½, « ¼ ¼¾; and (f) ¼±, ½, « ¼ ½.Two termination conditions are used: the simulation termi-nates (a) when 1% of nodes are depleted (i.e., the ﬁrst nodewhen the number of nodes is no more than 100) and (b) when10% of nodes are depleted. Two sets of simulation studies havebeen conducted. In the ﬁrst one, we record the average num-ber of gateway hosts. In the second one, we record the averagenumber of update intervals when the ﬁrst 1% (and 10%) of hostsrun out of battery. The simulation is repeated until we achieve aprecision of 1% with conﬁdence level of 90%.Fig. 7 shows results of the ﬁrst simulation. In this ﬁgure, NR,
WU et al.: ON CALCULATING POWER-AWARE CONNECTED DOMINATING.... 11ID, ND, EL1, and EL2 represent marking process without ap-plying rules (no rule), Rule 1 and Rule 2 (based on ID), Rule 1aand Rule 2a (based on ND), Rule 1b and Rule 2b (based on EL),and Rule 1b¼and Rule 2b¼(based on EL), respectively. The av-erage numbers of gateway hosts for NR, ID, and ND are calcu-lated by averaging the results from randomly generated graphs.The average numbers for EL1 and EL2, however, depend onthe energy level of each host (which is initialized to the samevalue) and the energy consumption function (one for gatewayand one for non-gateway). Two energy consumption functionsand corresponding network mobility models are used: one with½¼±,¼½ and and the other with ¼±,¼½·¼ ¾ ·¬ ¼ and ½. Each host roams aroundfollowing the same model described early from one interval toanother. The number of gateways is recorded at each interval.Results in Fig. 7 show that the average numbers of gateway hostsfor CLT, ID, ND, EL1, and EL2 are relatively close. CLA andNR are by far the worst (almost every host is gateway). ND isalways the best in both situations. When the network mobility islow ( ½¼±), EL1 and EL2 stay very close and are worse thanID and CLT. The order from the best to the worst is CLA, NR,EL1, EL2, ID, CLT, and ND. When the network mobility is high( ¼±), EL1, EL2, and ID stay very close and are better thanCLT. The order from the best to the worst is NR, CLA, CLT, ID,EL1, EL2, and ND.Fig. 8 shows six results of the second simulation based on dif-ferent selections of and¼under the ﬁrst termination condition(i.e., the 1% of nodes is depleted). Fig. 9 shows four results ofthe second simulation based on different selections of and¼under the second termination condition (i.e., the 10% of nodesis depleted). Results show that results for 1% is comparable toones for 10% in terms of relative rankings of different methodsunder different energy consumption functions. When the energyconsumption functions are constant for both and¼( and¼½ in one simulation and ½ and¼¾¼ in anothersimulation), EL1 and EL2 have the best performance (in termsof longer life span) with EL2 slightly edging EL1. ID performspoorly since hosts with small id’s tend to be frequently selectedand these hosts die quickly. So does CLA because almost ev-ery host is continuously designated as gateway. When the en-ergy consumption function for¼is ½·« ·¬¼, EL1and EL2 are still the best except in Fig. 9 (e) and ID is still theworst. Unlike the other two energy consumption functions withconstant selections of and¼, the life span of larger networksis shorter because of the higher routing and relaying overhead.When the network is relatively stable ( ½¼±) and the routingoverhead is relatively low (« ¼ ¼ ), the performance for CLAimproves signiﬁcantly to almost as good as EL1 and EL2. Thisis not surprising, since the denominator¼in the energy con-sumption function for CLA is signiﬁcantly larger than that forothers. That is, the¼value for CLA is smaller than that for oth-ers. Therefore, hosts tend to live longer. When the routing over-head is very low ( ½¼± and « ¼ ¼¾), CLA even slightlyoutperforms EL1 and CL2. Clearly, trade offs are possible byincreasing the size of the connected dominating set for a longerlife span of the network. However, when the network is highlymobile ( ¼±µ and the routing information is updated fre-quently (« ¼ ¾ or « ¼ ½), CLA is worse than ND, whichhas the smallest¼, because the beneﬁt of lower forwardingoverhead is balanced by the higher routing overhead.VI. CONCLUSIONSIn this paper, we have extended Wu and Li’s distributed al-gorithm for calculating a connected dominating set in a givenad hoc wireless network. The connected dominating set is se-lected based on the node degree and the energy level of eachhost. The objective is to provide a selection scheme so that theoverall energy consumption is balanced in network, and at thesame time, a relatively small connected dominating set is gen-erated. A simulation study has been conducted to compare thelife span of the network under different selection policies. Theresults have shown that the proposed approach based on energylevel is clearly the best in terms of the longer life span of the net-work. Our future work will focus on more in-depth simulationunder different settings.REFERENCES J. Wu and H. Li, “On calculating connected dominating set for efﬁcientrouting in ad hoc wireless networks,” in Proc. of the 3rd Int’l Workshop onDiscrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Commun.,1999, pp. 7–14 J. M. McQuillan, I. Richer, and E. C. Rosen, “The new routing algorithmfor ARPANET,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 28. no 5, pp. 711–719, 1980 J. Moy, “OSPF Version 2,” Internet Request For Comments RFC 1247,July, 1991. C. Hedrick, “Routing information protocol,” Internet Request For Com-ments RFC 1058, June, 1988. J. M. McQuillan and D. C. Walden, “The ARPA network design deci-sions,” Computer Networks, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 243–289 Aug. 1977. T. W. Haynes et al., “Funcamentals of Domination in Rraphs,” MarcelDekker, Inc., A Sireis of Monographs and Text books, 1998. I. Stojmenovic, S. Seddigh, and J. Zunic, “Dominating sets and neighborelimination based broadcasting algorithms in wireless networks,” IEEETrans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 2002, 14–25. B. Das, E. Sivakumar, and V. Bhargavan, “Routing in ad-hoc networksusing a virtual backbone,” in Proc. of the 6th International Conf. on Com-puter Commun. and Networks(IC3N ’97), pp. 1–20, Sept. 1997. B. Das, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bhargavan, “Routing in ad-Hoc NetworksUsing a Spine,” in Proc IEEE International Conf. Computers and Com-mun. Networks, 1997. P. Krishna et al., “A cluster-based approach for routing in ad-hoc net-works,” in Proc. of the Second USENIX Symposium on Mobile andLocation-Independent Computing, 1995, pp. 1–10. N. Bambos, “Toward power-sensitive network architectures in wirelesscommunications: Concepts, issues, and design aspects,” IEEE PersonalCommun., pp. 50–59, June 2000. W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-efﬁcientcommunication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor networks,” in Proc. theHawaii Conf. on System Sciences, Jan. 2000 C. Rohl, H. Woesner, and A. Wolisz, “A short look on power saving mech-anisms in the wireless LAN standard draft IEEE 802.11,” in Porc. 6th WIN-LAB Workshop on Third Generation Wireless Systems, 1997. IEEE Standards Departments, “IEEE Draft Standard - Wireless LAN,”IEEE Press, 1996 C.-K. Toh, “Maximum battery life routing to support ubiquitous mobilecomputing in wireless ad hoc networks,” IEEE Commun. Maga., pp. 138–147, June 2001. S. Singh, M. Woo, and C. S. Raghavendra, “Power-aware routing in mobilead hoc networks,” in Proc. MobiCom’98, Oct. 1998. K Scott and N. Bambos, “Routing and channel assignment for Low powertransmission in PCS,” Proc. ICUPC’96, Oct. 2, 1996, pp. 498–502. J. E. Wieselthier, G. D. Nguyen, and A. Ephremides, “On the constructionand energy-efﬁcient broadcast and multicast trees in wireless networks,”in Proc. INFOCOM, 2000, pp. 585–593. R. Ramanathan and R. Rosales-Hain, “Topology control of multihop wire-less Networks using transmit power adjustment,” in Proc. INFOCOM,2000, pp. 404–413.
12 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL.4, NO.1, MARCH 2002 Jone et al., “A survey of energy efﬁcient network protocols for wirelessnetworks,” ACM/Baltzer Wireless Networks, appear S. Lindsey, K. Sivalingam, and C. S. Raghavendra, “Power optimization inrouting protocols for wireless and mobile networks ,” Wireless Networksand Mobile Computing Handbook, John Wiley & Son, 2002. C. R. Lin and M. Gerla, “Adaptive Clustering for Mobile Wireless Net-works,” IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun., pp. 1265–1275, 1996. I. Stojmenovic and X. Lin, “Power-aware localized routing in wireless net-works,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Systems, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1122–1133, Oct. 2001. J. H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, “Routing for maximum system lifetime inwireless ad-hoc networks,” in Proc. 37th Annual Allerton Conf. on Com-mun., Control, and Computing, Sept. 1999. B. Chen et al., “Span: An energy-efﬁcient coordination algorithm fortopology maintenance in ad hoc wireless networks,” in Proc. Mobi-Com’01, July 2001. D. B. Johnson and D. A. Malts, “Dynamic source routing in ad-hocwireless networks,” Mobile Computing, editor = T. Imielinski, H. Korth,Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. J. Wu and F. Dai, “On Locality of Dominating Set in Ad Hoc Networkswith Switch On/Off Operations,” in Proc. the 6th International Conf. onParallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks (I-SPAN02), note=2002,to appear. L. M. Feeney, “An energy-consumption model for performance analysisof routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proc. the 45th IETFMeeting: MANET Working Group, 1999. T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Commun., Prentice Hall, 1996. A. Sinha and A. Chandrakasan, “Dynamic power management in wirelesssensor networks,” IEEE Design & Test of Computers, pp. 62–74, 2001.Jie Wu a Professor and the Director of CSE graduateprograms at Department of Computer Science, FloridaAtlantic University. He has published over 100 papersin various journal and conference proceedings. His re-search interests are in the area of mobile computing,routing protocols, fault-tolerant computing, intercon-nection networks, Petri net applications, and softwareengineering. He served as a program vice chair for2000 International Conference on Parallel Processing(ICPP) and a program vice chair for 2001 IEEE Inter-national Conference on Distributed Computing Sys-tems (ICDCS). He is a program co-chair of the 12th ISCA International Confer-ence on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems in 1999. He is also a co-guest-editor of a special issue in IEEE Transactions on Parallel and DistributedSystems on “Challenges in Designing Fault-Tolerant Routing in Networks” anda co-guest-editor of a special issue in Journal of Parallel and Distributing Com-puting on ‘Routing in Computer and Communication Networks”. He is the au-thor of the text “Distributed System Design,” published by the CRC press. Cur-rently, he serves as an Associated Edtior in IEEE Transactions on Parallel andDistributed Systems and three other international journals. He a recipient of the1996-97 Researcher of the Year Award at Florida Atlantic University. He is alsoa recipient of the 1998 Outstanding Achievements Award from IASTED. He isan IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Visitor. He is a Member of ACM andISCA and a Senoir Member of IEEE.Fei Dai received the B.S. and M.S. degrees on Com-puter Science in 1990 and 1993, respectively, fromNanjing University. He worked as a senior program-mer in China Greatwall Computer Group from 1993to 1996, as a software project manager in Junan Secu-rities Co., Ltd. from 1996 to 2001. He is currently aPh.D. student in the Department of Computer Scienceand Engineering, Florida Atlantic University.Ming Gao received a B.S. degree in 1996 from Tian-jin Technology Institute, China. He received a M.S.degree on Computer Science in 2001 from Florida At-lantic University.Ivan Stojmenovic received the B.S. and M.S. degreesin 1979 and 1983, respectively, from the Universityof Novi Sad and Ph.D. degree in mathematics in 1985from the University of Zagreb. He earned a third de-gree prize at International Mathematics Olympiad forhigh school students in 1976. In 1980 he joined theInstitute of Mathematics, University of Novi Sad (Yu-goslavia). In Fall 1988, he joined the faculty in theComputer Science Department at the University of Ot-tawa (Canada), where currently he holds the positionof a Full Professor in SITE. Since June 2000 he is fre-quently in Mexico City as researcher in DISCA, IIMAS, UNAM. He publishedover 150 different papers in journals and conferences, and edited Handbook ofWireless Networks and Mobile Computing (John Wiley & Sons, 2002). Hisresearch interests are wireless networks, parallel computing, multiple-valuedlogic, evolutionary computing, neural networks, combinatorial algorithms, com-putational geometry, graph theory and computer science education. He is cur-rently a managing editor of Multiple-Valued Logic, an International Journal, andan editor of the following journals: Parallel Processing Letters, IASTED Inter-national Journal of Parallel and Distributed Systems, Parallel Algorithms andApplications, and Tangenta.