IJCET - Performance Improvement of Automated Address Assignment for Path Cluster WSN Using 2-Level Routing

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING &
International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print),
ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 9, September (2014), pp. 129-137 © IAEME
TECHNOLOGY (IJCET)
ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 9, September (2014), pp. 129-137
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/IJCET.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 8.5328 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
129

IJCET
© I A E M E
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF AUTOMATED ADDRESS
ASSIGNMENT FOR PATH CLUSTER WSN USING 2-LEVEL ROUTING
Prashant P. Rewagad1, Harshal K. Nemade2
1, 2(CSE, GHRIEM Jalgaon, India)

ABSTRACT
Although wireless sensor network have been extensively researched, their deployment is still
a main concern. Observe that many monitoring applications for WSNs have adopted a path-connected-
cluster (PCC) topology, where regions to be monitored are deployed with clusters of
sensor nodes. Since these clusters might be physically separated, paths of sensor nodes are used to
connect them together. Call such networks PCC-WSNs. PCC-WSNs may be widely applied in real
situations, such as bridge-connected islands, street-connected buildings, and pipe-connected ponds.
Show that the address assignment scheme defined by ZigBee will perform poorly in terms of address
utilization. Then propose a systematical solution, which includes network formation, automatic
address assignment, and 2 Level routing. Proposed system contributes in formally defining the PCC-WSN
topology. Also, proposed a formation scheme to divide nodes into several paths and clusters.
Then a two-level ZigBee-like hierarchical address assignment and routing schemes for PCC-WSN
would be conducted. The proposed automated address assignment scheme assigns each node both
level-1 and level-2 addresses as its network address. With such a hierarchical structure, routing can
be easily done based on addresses of nodes.Also show how to allow nodes to utilize shortcuts. With
proposed design, not only network addresses can be efficiently utilized and the spaces required for
the network addresses can be significantly reduced, but also the network scale can be enlarged to
cover wider areas without suffering from address shortage.
Keywords: PCC, Zigbee, WSN.
I. INTRODUCTION TO WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Wireless Sensor Network is a heterogeneous network composed of a largenumber of tiny
low-cost devices, denoted as nodes, and few general-purposecomputing devices referred to as base
stations. The general purpose of wirelesssensor network is to monitor some physical phenomena
(e.g., temperature, barometric pressure, light) inside the area of deployment. Thebasic units of WSN
are nodes (sometimes called motes). These nodes areequipped with communication unit, mostly the

radio transceiver, processingunit, battery and sensors. Due to the size and expected costs of thenodes,
they are constrained in processing power and energy. The numberof nodes deployed in WSN can
vary from tens to tens of thousands dependingon the particular application. Nodes can be deployed,
for example, byprecise placing one by one into predefined positions or by dropping fromthe plane.
Their positions can be static or mobile. Networks with nodesin static positions are more common.
Nodes have to be autonomous andthe network itself has to be self-organizing. They are also prone to
failures,thus the topology of the network changes very often. Beside resource limitednodes, the
wireless sensor network includes one or more base stations(sometimes called sinks). These base
stations have more resources and capabilitiesthan the nodes. Assume base stations might have laptop
capabilities.They act as gateways between the sensor network and other networks,e.g. Internet. They
can also somehow coordinate the nodes. In most commonapplication scheme, the nodes collect
measured data and send themto the base stations, which forward them to the consumer.
130

A Wireless sensor network (WSN) usually needs to configure itself automatically and support
ad hoc routing. A lot of research works have been dedicated to WSNs, including power management
[1], routing [2], data gathering [3], [4], sensor deployment and coverage issues [5], and localization
[6]. On the application side, habitat monitoring is explored in [7], wildfire monitoring is addressed in
[8], healthcare system is proposed in [9], and navigation is studied in [10]. To form a WSN, two
most important issues are addressing and routing. Strict per-node addressing is expensive in a dense
network, because not only the address space would be large, but also these addresses would need to
be allocated and managed according to the topology change. Allocation of addresses in a dense
network is a problem which is often underestimated [11]. On the other hand, routing is to discover
paths from source nodes to destination nodes based on their network addresses. Path discovery in a
dense network could incur high communication overhands. Therefore, designing a light-weight
addressing and routing protocol for WSNs is very important. Recently, ZigBee [12] has been
proposed for addressing and routing on WSNs. It supports three kinds of network topologies, namely
star, tree, and mesh networks. A ZigBee coordinator is responsible for initializing, maintaining, and
controlling the network. Star networks can only cover small areas. For tree and mesh networks,
communications can be conducted in a multi-hop fashion. The backbone of a tree/mesh network is
formed by one ZigBee coordinator and multiple ZigBee routers. An end device must associate with
the coordinator or a router. In a tree network, routing can be done in a stateless manner; a node can
simply route packets based on nodes’ 16-bit short addresses, which are assigned based on the tree
structure. In fact, a mesh network also has a tree inside to serve as its backbone; routing can go
directly along the tree without route discovery or go along better paths if a node is willing to conduct
route discovery first. In this, most works have assumed that a ZigBee network grows in an arbitrary
manner. Recently, the long-thin topology has been proposed for applications where sensor
deployment is subject to environmental constraints [13]. The use of long-thin network ranges from
leakage detection of fuel pipes [14], [15], [16], tunnel monitoring, street lights monitoring [17], flood
protection of rivers [13], debris flow monitoring [18], barrier coverage [19], and in-sewer gas
monitoring [20]. Proposes system further extend the long-thin topology to a path-connected-cluster
(PCC) topology, where regions requiring intensive sensing are deployed with clusters of sensor
nodes and these clusters, which are physically separated, are connected by long paths for occasional
communications. Call such topologies PCC-WSNs. PCC-WSNhas an application for habitat
monitoring in a wildlife park. Sensors for different habitat zones form different clusters. Data from
these clusters is collected through paths connecting them. Such “sometimes fat, sometimes slim”
topologies would worsen the orphan problem [21], which states that the ZigBee address assignment
may not allow some nodes (called orphans) to join the network even if there are available addresses
elsewhere. Although ZigBee supports address-based routing through its distributed addressing
scheme, it could incur a lot of orphans or result in waste of address space [21]. The virtual coordinate
addressing schemes in [22] try to provide stateless routings directly from nodes’ addresses. However,

additional GPS devices or localization mechanisms should be involved. Moreover, these schemes
still need a lot of address spaces. Address assignments for WSNs are studied in [11], [23]–[26].
These works all focus on compact assignment of addresses to sensor nodes, but they need additional
routing protocols to deliver packets because they do not support address-based routing. The work
[11] allows network addresses to be reused to conserve address space, but it only supports many-to-one
131
communication.
II. PROBLEM DEFINITION
Proposed work an automated address assignment and 2 level routing protocol for PCC-WSNs.
Approach is basedon the principle of ZigBee address assignment, but leads tomuch more
compact address usage than the original ZigBee’s design, thus significantly alleviating the orphan
problem inPCC-WSNs. Furthermore, based on addressing, routingstill incurs low communication
overheads. Proposed work contributesin formally defining the PCC-WSN topology. Given a PCC-WSN,
Present a formation scheme to automaticallyseparate paths from clusters in a distributed
manner. Then propose a ZigBee-like automated address assignment scheme for aPCC-WSN. In
particular, Design different addressing strategiesfor slim parts (paths) and fat parts (clusters) of a
PCC-WSN. Proposed design allows us to conduct automated address assignment and 2 level routing.
Although this requires slight modification to ZigBee specification, and finding the leads to quite
efficientcommunications.
ZigBee Address Assignment and Tree Routing
In ZigBee, network addresses are assigned to devices in a distributed manner. To form a
network, the coordinator determines the maximum number of children per router (Cm), the
maximum number of child routers per router (Rm), and the maximum depth of the network (Lm).
Note that children of a router include child routers and child end devices. So Cm Rm and up to Cm
– Rm children of a router must be end devices (an end device cannot have children). Addresses are
assigned in a top-down manner. The coordinator takes 0 as its address and divides the remaining
address space into Rm+1 blocks. The first Rm blocks are to be assigned to its child routers and the
last block has Cm – Rm addresses, each to be assigned to a child end device. The similar approach is
adopted by each router to partition its given address space. From Cm, Rm, and Lm, each router at
depth d can compute a Cskip(d) value, which is the size of one address block to be assigned to a
child router:
1 + Cm × (Lm − d − 1), if Rm= 1.
Cskip(d) = 1+Cm−Rm−CmRmLm−d−1
1 − Rm, otherwise.
Figure 1: An example ZigBee tree network

132

The value of d is 0 for the coordinator and is increased by one after each level. For example,
given an address block, a router at depth d will take the first address for itself, reserve Rm blocks,
each with Cskip(d) addresses, for its child routers, and reserve Cm – Rm addresses for its child end
devices. Fig. 1 shows an example of ZigBee address assignment. Clearly, in Fig. 1, the value of Rm
is at least 3 for supporting 3 router children. Note that ZigBee network address is 16 bits. Even
though set Lm to 9, B and C still cannot associate with the network. Even worse, such address
assignment would work poorly in a PCC-WSN because of its “sometimes fat, sometimes slim”
nature. With the above address assignment, ZigBee supports very simple address-based routing.
When a router receives a packet for Adest, it first checks if it is the destination or one of its children
is the destination. If so, it accepts the packet or forwards this packet to its child whose address block
contains Adest. Otherwise, it relays the packet to its parent. Assume that the depth of this router is d
and its address is A. This packet is forwarded to its child Arwhich satisfies ArAdestAr+ Cskip(d)
+ 1 such that Ar= A + 1 + _Adest− (A + 1)/Cskip(d)_ × Cskip(d). If the Adest is not a descendant of
A, this packet will be forwarded to its parent. Note that in a mesh network, nodes are also assigned
addresses following these rules. This means that address-based routing can coexist with a mesh
routing.
III. PROPOSED SYSTEM
Given a PCC-WSN, propose a low-cost, fully automated scheme to initialize it, assign
addresses to nodes, and conduct ZigBee-like tree routing. First, a distributed network formation
procedure will be launched by the coordinator t to divided nodes into two sets C and P. Then, a two-level
address assignment scheme is conducted to assign a level-1 and a level-2 addresses to each
node. A level-1 address is to uniquely identify a path or a cluster. A level-2 address is similar to
ZigBee addressing but is confined within one cluster/path. For simplicity, assume that all nodes are
router-capable devices. Finally, show how to conduct routing based on proposed system two level
addressing. Also, address how proposed system protocol can adapt to changeable topologies.
Network Formation
Given a PCC-WSN G = (V, E), the network formation process has three goals:
(i)to partition G into clusters and paths,
(ii)to assign a group ID (GID) to each cluster/path, which should be known to each member in that
cluster/path, and
(iii) to identify an entry node for each cluster/path, which is the one nearest to t in terms of the
number of clusters/paths if travel from t to the entry node (as a special case, twill serve as the entry
node of its cluster).
Automated Address Assignment
A two-level addressing.
It has two purposes:
(i) To reduce address space and
(ii) To support ZigBee like stateless routing.
In level-1 addressing, regard each cluster/path as a supernode and use ZigBee-like addressing
to assign an m-bit address to each supernode.
In level-2 addressing, again apply the ZigBee-like addressing on each individual cluster/path
to assign an n-bit address to each node.

133
IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Proposed System simulate some PCC-WSNs that are generated by a systematically method
which has been developed in NS2 Simulator. An S×S m2 rectangle region is simulated, on which n
sensor nodes are randomly deployed. The field is divided into grids, each size of sg× sg m2. In order
to form a PCC-WSN in a systematic way, impose a fail probability of Pf on each grid. If a grid is
determined to fail, all sensor nodes inside the grid fail. This would partition the network into multiple
subnetworks when Pf is sufficiently large. The successful and adjacent grids will be grouped into the
same cluster by proposed system simulator. Then apply a minimum spanning tree algorithm to build
paths between clusters. Simulator generates sensor nodes at every distance of d on each path. The
coordinator t is at the left-top corner. Hence, make the left-top grid always be not failed. Fig. 2 shows
an example of a random generated PCC-WSN. All simulation results are from the average of 50
runs. As Fig.2 shows, protocol can partition the network nodes into 2 sets accurately. Also, each
node can successfully connect to the network by automated addressing assignment. Based on the
same determination principle of Cm, Rm, and Lm, ZigBee addressing can still make all nodes
connect to the network as well. However, the address space conducted by ZigBee is excessively
larger than that conducted by protocol. Larger transmission range will result in smaller address
space. This is because larger transmission range will decrease the value of Lm. Moreover, the
address space conducted by protocol is smaller than that conducted by ZigBee addressing up to
10100. The address space is mainly influenced by the values of Cm and Lm. Below, Proposed
system limit the address space. Mainly consider the number of orphans as proposed system
performance metrics.
Figure 2: Random Generated PCC-WSN
Table 1: Address Space Performance
Time in ms
Existing (Address
Space)
Proposed (Address
Space)
1 0.12 0.14
2 31.87 32
3 0.12 0.12
4 32.87 0.15
5 32.88 38
6 0.12 0.25
7 0.12 0.2
8 0.12 0.18

134

Address Space Comparison
First, in protocol, proposed system fixes Cm and Rm from 3 to 6 but keep Lm determined by
the original principle unchanged. In ZigBee addressing, limit the address space as the one determined
by protocol. Therefore, based on Cm, Rm, and address pool A, the Lm of ZigBee can be determined
as Lm = log (A × (Cm − 1) + 1)/logCm− 1. ZigBee has very poor performance due to the existence
of paths. Larger Cm will result in fewer orphans in protocol because it will cause larger address
space. However, larger transmission range could incur more orphans. This is because larger
transmission range could increase the probability of no routing capacity for a router.
Table 2: Address Utility Performance
Address Space Utility Comparison
Time in ms
Existing (Address
Utility)
Proposed (Address
Utility)
1 0 0
2 0.05 0.0199
3 0.2 0.0187
4 0.3 0.01785
5 0.32 0.0156
6 0.38 0
7 0.45 0
8 0.5 0

135

Next, limit the address pool of ZigBee as the one determined by protocol. Then vary Cm and
Lm of ZigBee to measure the orphans. Protocol does not incur any orphans. However, ZigBee
addressing will result in great part of nodes as orphans. As the network nodes increase, orphans will
also increase. Obviously, ZigBee addressing incurs poor performance on the existence of paths. For
reducing the influence of the paths on ZigBee addressing, set Lm as the maximum depth of the
network which is determined by processing a BFS scheme. By using the same address space A
determined by protocol, Proposed system calculate a Cm such that CmLm+1−1 Cm−1 A. Here,
make the value of Cm at least as 2 even if the address space conducted by ZigBee may be larger than
proposed too much.
Table 3: Packet Delivery Ratio Performance
Time in
ms
Existing(Delivery
Ratio)
Proposed (Delivery
Ratio)
1 0.8 1.199
2 0.09 0.104
3 0.1 0.219
4 0.12 0.231
5 0.18 0.202
6 0.2 0.085
7 0.9 1.199
8 0.95 1.199
9 0.99 1.199
10 1.2 1.199
Packet Delivery Ratio Comparison
Although this method makes ZigBee addressing have better performance. ZigBee addressing
still incurs many orphans. If system wants to let all nodes connect to the network and increase the
Cm of ZigBee, this will result in extremely larger address space and worse address utility.
CONCLUSION
Proposed system, contribute in formally defining the PCC-WSN topology. Also, proposed a
formation scheme to divide nodes into several paths and clusters. Then a two-level ZigBee-like
hierarchical automated address assignment and 2level routing schemes for PCC-WSN are conducted.

The automatic address assignment scheme assigns each node both level-1 and level-2 addresses as its
network address. With such a hierarchical structure, routing can be easily done based on addresses of
nodes. Also show how to allow nodes to utilize shortcuts. With theproposed design, not only network
addresses can be efficiently utilized and the spaces required for the network addresses can be
significantly reduced, but also the network scale can be enlarged to cover wider areas without
suffering from address shortage. Proposed work also verified schemes by simulation programs. In
the future, it deserves to consider applying this work to real cases such as habitat monitoring in a
wildlife park or structure monitoring in an amusement park
136
REFERENCES

[1] F. Salvadori, M. de Campos, P. S. Sausen, R. F. de Camargo, C. Gehrke, C. Rech, M. A.
Spohn, and A. C. Oliveira, “Monitoring in industrial systems using wireless sensor
network with dynamic power management,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 58, no. 9,
pp. 3104–3111, Sep. 2009.
[2] H. Karkvandi, E. Pecht, and O. Yadid-Pecht, “Effective lifetime-aware routing in wireless
sensor networks,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 11, no. 12,pp. 3359–3367, Dec. 2011.
[3] C.-T. Cheng, C. K. Tse, and F. C. M. Lau, “A clustering algorithm for wireless sensor
networks based on social insect colonies,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 711–721, Mar.
2011.
[4] C.-T. Cheng, C. K. Tse, and F. C. M. Lau, “A delay-aware data collection network structure
for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 699–710, Mar. 2011.
[5] A. Chen, T. H. Lai, and D. Xuan, “Measuring and guaranteeing quality of barrier-coverage in
wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM Int. Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Netw. Comput., 2008,
pp. 421–430.
[6] H.-S. Ahn and K. H. Ko, “Simple pedestrian localization algorithms based on distributed
wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4296–4302, Oct.
2009.
[7] A. Mainwaring, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, D. Culler, and J. Anderson, “Wireless sensor
networks for habitat monitoring,” in Proc. ACM Int. Workshop Wireless Sensor Netw. Appl.,
2002, pp. 88–97.
[8] Design and Construction of a Wildfire Instrumentation System Using Networked
Sensors[Online]. Available: http://firebug.sourceforge.net/
[9] R. Casas, A. Marco, I. Plaza, Y. Garrido, and J. Falco, “ZigBee-based alarm system for
pervasive healthcare in rural areas,” IET Commun., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 208–214, Feb. 2008.
[10] Y.-C. Tseng, M.-S.Pan, and Y.-Y.Tsai, “Wireless sensor networks for emergency
navigation,” IEEE Comput., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 55–62, Jul.2006.
[11] S. Kulkarni, A. Iyer, and C. Rosenberg, “An address-light, integrated MAC and routing
protocol for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans.Netw., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 793–806,
Aug. 2006.
[12] ZigBee-2006 Specification, ZigBee Document 064112. (2006) [Online]. Available:
http://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/ece4760/FinalProjects/s2011/kjb79_ajm232/pmeter
/ZigBee%20Specification.pdf
[13] M.-S. Pan, H.-W.Fang, Y.-C.Liu, and Y.-C.Tseng, “Address assignment and routing schemes
for ZigBee-based long-thin wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technol.
Conf., May 2008, pp. 173–177.
[14] I. Jawhar, N. Mohamed, M. M. Mohamed, and J. Aziz, “A routing protocol and addressing
scheme for oil, gas, and water pipeline monitoring using wireless sensor networks,” in Proc.
IFIP Int. Conf. Wireless Opt. Commun. Netw., May 2008, pp. 1–5.

137

[15] Z. Sun, P. Wang, M. C. Vuran, M. A. Al-Rodhaan, A. M. Al-Dhelaan and I. F. Akyildiz,
“MISE-PIPE: Magnetic induction-based wireless sensor networks for underground pipeline
monitoring,” Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 218–227, 2011.
[16] S. Yoon, W. Ye, J. Heidemann, B. Littlefield, and C. Shahabi, “SWATS: Wireless sensor
networks for steam flood and water flood pipeline monitoring,” IEEE Netw., vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 50–56, Jan.–Feb. 2011.
[17] C. Jing, D. Shu, and D. Gu, “Design of streetlight monitoring and control system based on
wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron. Appl., May 2007, pp. 57–62.
[18] H.-C. Lee, C.-J.Liu, J. Yang, J.-T.Huang, Y.-M.Fang, B.-J.Lee, and C.-T.King, “Using
mobile wireless sensors for in-situ tracking of debris flows,” in Proc. ACM Int. Conf.
Embedded Netw. Sensor Syst., 2008, p. 1.
[19] A. Chen, S. Kumar, and T. H. Lai, “Designing localized algorithms for barrier coverage,” in
Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Mobile Comput. Netw., 2007, pp. 1–12.
[20] J. Kim, J. S. Lim, J. Friedman, U. Lee, L. Vieira, D. Rosso, M. Gerla and M. B. Srivastava,
“Sewer Snort: A drifting sensor for in-situ sewer gas monitoring,” in Proc. IEEE Sensor Ad
Hoc Commun. Netw. Conf., Jun. 2009, pp. 1–9.
[21] M.-S. Pan, C.-H.Tsai, and Y.-C.Tseng, “The orphan problem in ZigBee wireless networks,”
IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 8, no. 11, pp.1573–1584, Nov. 2009.
[22] Q. Fang, J. Gao, L. J. Guibas, V. de Silva, and L. Zhang, “GLIDER: Gradient landmark-based
distributed routing for sensor networks,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Commun.,
Mar. 2005, pp. 339–350.
[23] M. Ali and Z. A. Uzmi, “An energy-efficient node address naming scheme for wireless
sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Netw. Commun. Conf., Jun. 2004, pp. 25–30.
[24] E. Ould-Ahmed-Vall, D. M. Blough, B. S. Heck, and G. F. Riley, “Distributed unique global
ID assignment for sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mobile Adhoc Sensor Syst.,
Nov. 2005, pp. 580–587.
[25] C. Schurgers, G. Kulkarni, and M. B. Srivastava, “Distributed on demand address assignment
in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 13, no. 10,
pp. 1056–1065, Oct. 2002.
[26] H. Zhou, M. W. Mutka, and L. M. Ni, “Reactive ID assignment for sensor networks,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mobile Adhoc Sensor Syst., Nov. 2005, pp. 572–577.
[27] Chia-Hung Tsai and Yu-Chee Tseng, Fellow, IEEE, “A Path-Connected-Cluster Wireless
Sensor Network and Its Formation, Addressing and Routing Protocols” in IEEE SENSORS
JOURNAL, VOL. 12, NO. 6, JUNE 2012, pp 2135-2144.[28]
[28] Ansari Md.Asif Md Riyasat, Prof.J.G.Rana, Vijayshree A More and Dr.S.A.Naveed, “Green
House Monitoring Based on Zigbee”, International Journal of Computer Engineering
Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 147 - 154, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.
[29] Sachin Gajjar, Mohanchur Sarkar and Kankar Dasgupta, “Performance Analysis of
Clustering Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks”, International Journal of Electronics and
Communication Engineering Technology (IJECET), Volume 4, Issue 6, 2013,
pp. 107 - 116, ISSN Print: 0976- 6464, ISSN Online: 0976 –6472.
[30] Yogesh V Patil, Pratik Gite and Sanjay Thakur, “Automatic Cluster Formation and Assigning
Address for Wireless Sensor Network”, International Journal of Computer Engineering
Technology (IJCET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 116 - 121, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.

IJCET - Performance Improvement of Automated Address Assignment for Path Cluster WSN Using 2-Level Routing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IJCET - Performance Improvement of Automated Address Assignment for Path Cluster WSN Using 2-Level Routing

Similar to IJCET - Performance Improvement of Automated Address Assignment for Path Cluster WSN Using 2-Level Routing (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IJCET - Performance Improvement of Automated Address Assignment for Path Cluster WSN Using 2-Level Routing