Download to read offline
![Single-hop vs. Multi-hop Networks
• One common problem: limited range of wireless
communication
• Limited transmission power
• Path loss
• Obstacles
• Solution: multi-hop networks
• Send packets to an intermediate node
• Intermediate node forwards packet to its destination
• Store-and-forward multi-hop network
• Basic technique applies to both WSN and MANET
• Note:
• Store-and-forward multi-hopping NOT the only possible
solution
• Ex: Collaborative networking, Network coding [11] [12].…](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kuliah02-240417014255-c7bd18a5/75/kuliah-02-network-architecture-for-student-pptx-6-2048.jpg)
![In-network Processing
• MANETs are supposed to deliver bits from one end to
the other
• WSNs, on the other end, are expected to provide
information, not necessarily original bits
• Ex: manipulate or process the data in the network
• Main example: aggregation
• Apply composable [13] aggregation functions to a
convergecast tree in a network
• Typical functions: minimum, maximum, average, sum, …](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kuliah02-240417014255-c7bd18a5/75/kuliah-02-network-architecture-for-student-pptx-9-2048.jpg)
![Algorithm (cont.)
• Set-up phase
• Node n choosing a random number m between 0 and 1
• If m < T(n) for node n, the node becomes a cluster-head where
• where P = the desired percentage of cluster heads (e.g., P= 0.05),
r=the current round, and G is the set of nodes that have not
been cluster-heads in the last 1/P rounds. Using this threshold,
each node will be a cluster-head at some point within 1/P
rounds. During round 0 (r=0), each node has a probability P of
becoming a cluster-head.
1 [ * mod(1/ )]
( )
0 ,
P
if n G
P r P
T n
otherwise
84](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kuliah02-240417014255-c7bd18a5/75/kuliah-02-network-architecture-for-student-pptx-84-2048.jpg)
kuliah 02 network architecture for student .pptx
- 1.
- 2. Difference between Adhoc and Sensor Networks • (Mobile) Ad hoc Scenarios • Nodes communicate with each other • That means each node can be a source node or destination node • Nodes can communicate “some” node in another network • Ex: Access to Web/Mail/DNS server on the Internet • Typically requires some connection to the fixed network • Applications of Ad hoc network • Traditional data (http, ftp, collaborative apps, …) • Multimedia (voice, video)
- 3. Difference between Adhoc and Sensor Networks • (Mobile) Ad hoc Scenarios Ad hoc network ITS system Disaster area
- 4. Difference between Adhoc and Sensor Networks • Sensor Network Scenarios • Sources: Any sensor node that provides sensing data/measurements • Sinks: Sensor nodes where information is required • Belongs to the sensor network • Could be the same sensor node or an external entity such mobile phone/NB/Table PC • Is part of an external network (e.g., internet), somehow connected to the WSN • Applications of Sensor Network • Usually, machine to machine • Often limited amounts of data • Many different kinds of applications
- 5. Difference between Adhoc and Sensor Networks • Sensor Network Scenarios Sourc e Sink Sink Sink Internet
- 6. Single-hop vs. Multi-hopNetworks • One common problem: limited range of wireless communication • Limited transmission power • Path loss • Obstacles • Solution: multi-hop networks • Send packets to an intermediate node • Intermediate node forwards packet to its destination • Store-and-forward multi-hop network • Basic technique applies to both WSN and MANET • Note: • Store-and-forward multi-hopping NOT the only possible solution • Ex: Collaborative networking, Network coding [11] [12].…
- 7. Single-hop vs. Multi-hopNetworks Sourc e Sink Obstacle Single-hop networks Multi-hop networks
- 8. Multiple Sinks, MultipleSources WSN Sink
- 9. In-network Processing • MANETsare supposed to deliver bits from one end to the other • WSNs, on the other end, are expected to provide information, not necessarily original bits • Ex: manipulate or process the data in the network • Main example: aggregation • Apply composable [13] aggregation functions to a convergecast tree in a network • Typical functions: minimum, maximum, average, sum, …
- 10. In-network Processing • ProcessingAggregation example • The simplest in-network processing technique • Reduce number of transmitted bits/packets by applying an aggregation function in the network Sink 1 1 3 6 1 Sink 1 1 1 1 1 1 Data 1
- 11. Gateway Concepts forWSN/MANET • Gateways are necessary to the Internet for remote access to/from the WSN • For ad hoc networks • Additional complications due to mobility Ex: Change route to the gateway, use different gateways • For WSN • Additionally bridge the gap between different interaction semantics in the gateway
- 12. Gateway Concepts forWSN/MANET • Gateway support for different radios/protocols, … Internet PC PDA Gateway node Wireless sensor network Remote user Remote user Tablet PC Remote user
- 13. WSN to InternetCommunications • Scenario: Deliver an alarm message to an Internet host • Problems • Need to find a gateway (integrates routing & service discovery) • Choose “best” gateway if several are available • How to find John or John’s IP address? Internet John’s PC John’s PDA Gateway node Wireless sensor network John’s Tablet PC Alert John
- 14. Internet to WSNcommunications • How to find the right WSN to answer a need? • How to translate from IP protocols to WSN protocols, semantics? Internet Remote requester Gateway node Gateway node
- 15. WSN Tunneling Internet Gateway nodes Gateway nodes • Theidea is to build a larger, “Virtual” WSN • Use the Internet to “tunnel” WSN packets between two remote WSNs
- 16. WSN Tunneling • Exampleof WSN tunneling • WSNs Testbed Users Web Server Internet Wireless Sensor Network #1 NCU Wireless Sensor Network #2 NTHU Internet / Ethernet Emulating Server
- 17. WSN Tunneling • Exampleof WSN tunneling • Testbed scenario
- 18.
- 19. Overview • Routing inWSNs is challenging due to the inherent characteristics that distinguish these networks from other wireless networks like mobile ad hoc networks or cellular networks. • First, due to the relatively large number of sensor nodes, it is not possible to build a global addressing scheme for the deployment of a large number of sensor nodes. Thus, traditional IP-based protocols may not be applied to WSNs. In WSNs, sometimes getting the data is more important than knowing the IDs of which nodes sent the data. • Second, in contrast to typical communication networks, almost all applications of sensor networks require the flow of sensed data from multiple sources to a particular BS. 19
- 20. Overview (cont.) • Third,sensor nodes are tightly constrained in terms of energy, processing, and storage capacities. Thus, they require carefully resource management. • Fourth, in most application scenarios, nodes in WSNs are generally stationary after deployment except for, may be, a few mobile nodes. • Fifth, sensor networks are application specific, i.e., design requirements of a sensor network change with application. • Sixth, position awareness of sensor nodes is important since data collection is normally based on the location. • Finally, data collected by many sensors in WSNs is typically based on common phenomena, hence there is a high probability that this data has some redundancy. 20
- 21. Overview (cont.) • Thetask of finding and maintaining routes in WSNs is nontrivial since energy restrictions and sudden changes in node status (e.g., failure) cause frequent and unpredictable topological changes. • To minimize energy consumption, routing techniques proposed for WSNs employ some well-known routing strategies, e.g., data aggregation and in-network processing, clustering, different node role assignment, and data-centric methods were employed. 21
- 22. Outline • 4.1 RoutingChallenges and Design Issues in WSNs • 4.2 Flat Routing • 4.3 Hierarchical Routing • 4.4 Location Based Routing • 4.5 QoS Based Routing • 4.6 Data Aggregation and Convergecast • 4.7 Data Centric Networking • 4.8 ZigBee • 4.9 Conclusions 22
- 23. Chapter 4.1 Routing Challengesand Design Issues in WSNs 23
- 24. Overview • The designof routing protocols in WSNs is influenced by many challenging factors. These factors must be overcome before efficient communication can be achieved in WSNs. • Node deployment • Energy considerations • Data delivery model • Node/link heterogeneity • Fault tolerance • Scalability • Network dynamics • Transmission media • Connectivity • Coverage • Data aggregation/convergecast • Quality of service 24
- 25. Node Deployment • Nodedeployment in WSNs is application dependent and affects the performance of the routing protocol. • The deployment can be either deterministic or randomized. • In deterministic deployment, the sensors are manually placed and data is routed through pre- determined paths. • In random node deployment, the sensor nodes are scattered randomly creating an infrastructure in an ad hoc manner. If the resultant distribution of nodes is not uniform, optimal clustering becomes necessary to allow connectivity and enable energy efficient network operation. 25
- 26. Energy Considerations • Sensornodes can use up their limited supply of energy performing computations and transmitting information in a wireless environment. Energy conserving forms of communication and computation are essential. • Sensor node lifetime shows a strong dependence on the battery lifetime. In a multi-hop WSN, each node plays a dual role as data sender and data router. The malfunctioning of some sensor nodes due to power failure can cause significant topological changes and might require rerouting of packets and reorganization of the network. 26
- 27. Data Delivery Model •Time-driven (continuous) • Suitable for applications that require periodic data monitoring • Event-driven • React immediately to sudden and drastic changes • Query-driven • Respond to a query generated by the BS or another node in the network • Hybrid The routing protocol is highly influenced by the data reporting method in terms of energy consumption and route stability. 27
- 28. Node/Link Heterogeneity • Dependingon the application, a sensor node can have a different role or capability. • The existence of a heterogeneous set of sensors raises many technical issues related to data routing. • Even data reading and reporting can be generated from these sensors at different rates, subject to diverse QoS constraints, and can follow multiple data reporting models. 28
- 29. Fault Tolerance • Somesensor nodes may fail or be blocked due to lack of power, physical damage, or environmental interference. • It may require actively adjusting transmit powers and signaling rates on the existing links to reduce energy consumption, or rerouting packets through regions of the network where more energy is available. 29
- 30. Scalability • The numberof sensor nodes deployed in the sensing area may be on the order of hundreds or thousands, or more. • Any routing scheme must be able to work with this huge number of sensor nodes. • In addition, sensor network routing protocols should be scalable enough to respond to events in the environment. 30
- 31. Network Dynamics • Routingmessages from or to moving nodes is more challenging since route and topology stability become important issues. • Moreover, the phenomenon can be mobile (e.g., a target detection/ tracking application). • On the other hand, sensing fixed events allows the network to work in a reactive mode while dynamic events in most applications require periodic reporting to the BS. 31
- 32. Transmission Media • Thetraditional problems associated with a wireless channel may also affect the operation of the sensor network. • In general, the required bandwidth of sensor data will be low, on the order of 1-100 kb/s. Related to the transmission media is the design of MAC. • TDMA (time-division multiple access) • CSMA (carrier sense multiple access) 32
- 33. Connectivity • High nodedensity in sensor networks precludes them from being completely isolated from each other. • However, may not prevent the network topology from being variable and the network size from shrinking due to sensor node failures. • In addition, connectivity depends on the possibly random distribution of nodes. 33
- 34. Coverage • In WSNs,each sensor node obtains a certain view of the environment. • A given sensor’s view of the environment is limited in both range and accuracy. • It can only cover a limited physical area of the environment. 34
- 35. Data Aggregation/Convergecast • Sincesensor nodes may generate significant redundant data, similar packets from multiple nodes can be aggregated to reduce the number of transmissions. • Data aggregation is the combination of data from different sources according to a certain aggregation function. • Convergecasting is collecting information “upwards” from the spanning tree after a broadcast. 35
- 36. Quality of Service •In many applications, conservation of energy, which is directly related to network lifetime. • As energy is depleted, the network may be required to reduce the quality of results in order to reduce energy dissipation in the nodes and hence lengthen the total network lifetime. 36
- 37. Routing Protocols inWSNs: A taxonomy 37 Network Structure Protocol Operation Flat routing • SPIN • Directed Diffusion (DD) Hierarchical routing • LEACH • PEGASIS • TTDD Location based routing • GEAR • GPSR Negotiation based routing • SPIN Multi-path network routing • DD Query based routing • DD, Data centric routing QoS based routing • TBP, SPEED Coherent based routing • DD Aggregation • Data Mules, CTCCAP Routing protocols in WSNs
- 38. Reference • J. N.Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: a survey,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 6-28, Dec. 2004. 38
- 39.
- 40. Overview • In flatnetwork, each node typically plays the same role and sensor nodes collaborate together to perform the sensing task. • Due to the large number of such nodes, it is not feasible to assign a global identifier to each node. This consideration has led to data centric routing, where the BS sends queries to certain regions and waits for data from the sensors located in the selected regions. Since data is being requested through queries, attribute-based naming is necessary to specify the properties of data. • Prior works on data centric routing, e.g., SPIN and directed diffusion, were shown to save energy through data negotiation and elimination of redundant. 40
- 41. 4.2.1 SPIN Sensor Protocols forInformation via Negotiation 41
- 42. SPIN -Motivation • SensorProtocols for Information via Negotiation, SPIN • A Negotiation-Based Protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks. • Dissemination is the process of distributing individual sensor observations to the whole network, treating all sensors as sink nodes • Replicate complete view of the environment • Enhance fault tolerance • Broadcast critical piece of information 42
- 43. SPIN (cont.)- Motivation •Flooding is the classic approach for dissemination • Source node sends data to all neighbors • Receiving node stores and sends data to all its neighbors • Disseminate data quickly • Deficiencies • Implosion • Overlap • Resource blindness 43
- 44. SPIN (cont.)-Implosion Node The direction ofdata sending The connect between nodes 44 A C B D x x x x
- 45. SPIN (cont.)- Overlap q r s (q,r) (s, r) Node The direction of data sending The connect between nodes The searching range of the node A B C 45
- 46. SPIN (cont.)- Resourceblindness • In flooding, nodes do not modify their activities based on the amount of energy available to them. • A network of embedded sensors can be resource- aware and adapt its communication and computation to the state of its energy resource. 46
- 47. SPIN (cont.) Sensor Protocolsfor Information via Negotiation • Negotiation • Before transmitting data, nodes negotiate with each other to overcome implosion and overlap • Only useful information will be transferred • Observed data must be described by meta-data • Resource adaptation • Each sensor node has resource manager • Applications probe manager before transmitting or processing data • Sensors may reduce certain activities when energy is low 47
- 48. SPIN (cont.)- Meta-Data •Completely describe the data • Must be smaller than the actual data for SPIN to be beneficial • If you need to distinguish pieces of data, their meta-data should differ • Meta-Data is application specific • Sensors may use their geographic location or unique node ID • Camera sensor may use coordinate and orientation 48
- 49. SPIN (cont.)- SPINfamily • Protocols of the SPIN family • SPIN-PP • It is designed for a point to point communication, i.e., hop-by-hop routing • SPIN-EC • It works similar to SPIN-PP, but, with an energy heuristic added to it • SPIN-BC • It is designed for broadcast channels • SPIN-RL • When a channel is lossy, a protocol called SPIN-RL is used where adjustments are added to the SPIN-PP protocol to account for the lossy channel. 49
- 50. SPIN (cont.)- Three-stagehandshake protocol • SPIN-PP: A three-stage handshake protocol for point- to-point media • ADV – data advertisement • Node that has data to share can advertise this by transmitting an ADV with meta-data attached • REQ – request for data • Node sends a request when it wishes to receive some actual data • DATA – data message • Contain actual sensor data with a meta-data header • Usually much bigger than ADV or REQ messages 50
- 51.
- 52. 52 SPIN (3-Step Protocol) B A Noticethe color of the data packets sent by node B
- 53. 53 SPIN (3-Step Protocol) B A SPINeffective when DATA sizes are large : REQ, ADV overhead gets amortized
- 54. SPIN (cont.)- SPIN-EC(Energy-Conserve) • Add simple energy-conservation heuristic to SPIN-PP • SPIN-EC: SPIN-PP with a low-energy threshold • Incorporate low-energy-threshold • Works as SPIN-PP when energy level is high • Reduce participation of nodes when approaching low- energy-threshold • When node receives data, it only initiates protocol if it can participate in all three stages with all neighbor nodes • When node receives advertisement, it does not request the data • Node still exhausts energy below threshold by receiving ADV or REQ messages 54
- 55. SPIN (cont.)- Conclusion •SPIN protocols hold the promise of achieving high performance at a low cost in terms of complexity, energy, computation, and communication • Pros • Each node only needs to know its one-hop neighbors • Significantly reduce energy consumption compared to flooding • Cons • Data advertisement cannot guarantee the delivery of data • If the node interested in the data are far from the source, data will not be delivered • Not good for applications requiring reliable data delivery, e.g., intrusion detection 55
- 56. SPIN (cont.)- Reference •J. Kulik, W.R. Heinzelman, and H. Balakrishnan, “Negotiation-based protocols for disseminating information in wireless sensor networks,” Wireless Networks, Vol. 8, pp. 169-185, 2002. 56
- 57. 4.2.2 Directed Diffusion A Scalableand Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks 57
- 58. Overview • Data-centric communication •Data is named by attribute-value pairs • Different form IP-style communication • End-to-end delivery service • E.g. • How many pedestrians do you observe in the geographical region X? 58 Event Sources Sink Node Directed Diffusion A sensor field
- 59. Overview (cont.) • Data-centriccommunication (cont.) • Human operator’s query (task) is diffused • Sensors begin collecting information about query • Information returns along the reverse path • Intermediate nodes aggregate the data • Combing reports from sensors • Directed Diffusion is an important milestone in the data centric routing research of sensor networks 59
- 60. Directed Diffusion • TypicalIP based networks • Requires unique host ID addressing • Application is end-to-end • Directed diffusion – use publish/subscribe • Inquirer expresses an interest, I, using attribute values • Sensor sources that can service I, reply with data 60
- 61. Directed Diffusion (cont.) •Directed diffusion consists of • Interest - Query which specifies what a user wants • Data - Collected information • Gradient • Direction and data-rate • Events start flowing towards the originators of interests • Reinforcement • After the sink starts receiving events, it reinforces at least one neighbor to draw down higher quality events 61
- 62. Data Naming • Expressingan Interest • Using attribute-value pairs • E.g., • Other interest-expressing schemes possible • E.g., hierarchical (different problem) 62
- 63. Interests and Gradients •Interest propagation • The sink broadcasts an interest • Exploratory interest with low data-rate • Neighbors update interest-cache and forwards it • Flooding • Geographic routing • Use cached data to direct interests • Gradient establishment • Gradient set up to upstream neighbor • Low data-rate gradient • Few packets per unit time needed 63
- 64. Gradient Set Up •Inquirer (sink) broadcasts exploratory interest, i1 • Intended to discover routes between source and sink • Neighbors update interest-cache and forwards i1 • Gradient for i1 set up to upstream neighbor • No source routes • Gradient – a weighted reverse link • Low gradient Few packets per unit time needed 64
- 65. Exploratory Gradient 65 Low Data-rateInterest Event Low Data-rate Interest Low Data-rate Interest Exploratory Request Gradient
- 66. Data Propagation • Asensor node that detects a target • Search its interest cache • Compute the highest requested data-rate among all its outgoing gradients • Data message is unicast individually • A node that receives a data message • Find a matching interest entry in its cache • Check the data cache for loop prevention • Re-send the data to neighbors 66
- 67. Event-Data Propagation • Evente1 occurs, matches i1 in sensor cache • e1 identified based on waveform pattern matching • Interest reply diffused down gradient (unicast) • Diffusion initially exploratory (low packet-rate) • Cache filters suppress previously seen data 67
- 68. Reinforcement (1/4) • Positivereinforcement • Sink selects the neighboring node • Original interest message but with high data-rate • Neighboring node must also reinforce at least one neighbor • Low-delay path is selected • Exploratory gradients still exist: useful for faults Sink A sensor field Reinforced gradient Reinforced gradient 68 Source Event
- 69. Reinforcement (2/4) • Pathestablishment for multiple sources and sinks • Node reinforce all neighbors from which new events were recently received • Ex: Multiple sources A and B 69 Sink D Multiple sources C Event A B
- 70. Reinforcement (3/4) • Pathfailure and recovery • Link failure detected by reduced rate, data loss • Choose next best link (i.e., compare links based on infrequent exploratory downloads) • Negatively reinforce lossy link • Either send interest with base (exploratory) data rate or allow neighbor’s cache to expire over time Sink Source A C B M D Link A-M lossy A reinforces B B reinforces C C reinforces D or A negative reinforces M M negative reinforces D 70 Event
- 71. Reinforcement (4/4) • Multipathrouting • Consider each gradient’s link quality • Using negative reinforcement • Path Truncation • Loop removal • For resource saving • Ex: • B gets same data from both A and D, but D always delivers late due to looping • B negative reinforces D, D negative reinforces E, E negative reinforces B • Loop B→E →D →B eliminated • Conservative negative reinforces useful for fault resilience 71 C E D A B A removable loop Sink Source B Multiple paths A Event
- 72. Design Considerations • DesignSpace for Diffusion 72 Diffusion element Design Choices Interest Propagation •Flooding •Constrained or directional flooding based on location •Directional propagation based on previously cached data Data Propagation •Reinforcement to single path delivery •Multipath delivery with selective quality along different paths • Multipath delivery with probabilistic forwarding Data caching and aggregation •For robust data delivery in the face of node failure •For coordinated sensing and data reduction • For directing interests Reinforcement •Rules for deciding when to reinforce •Rules for how many neighbors to reinforce •Negative reinforcement mechanisms and rules
- 73. Directed Diffusion: Pros& Cons • Different from SPIN in terms of on-demand data querying mechanism • Sink floods interests only if necessary (lots of energy savings) • In SPIN, sensors advertise the availability of data • Pros • Data centric: All communications are neighbor to neighbor with no need for a node addressing mechanism • Each node can do aggregation & caching • Cons • On-demand, query-driven: Inappropriate for applications requiring continuous data delivery, e.g., environmental monitoring • Attribute-based naming scheme is application dependent • For each application it should be defined a priori • Extra processing overhead at sensor nodes 73
- 74. Conclusions • Directed diffusion,a paradigm proposed for event monitoring sensor networks • Directed Diffusion has some novel features - data- centric dissemination, reinforcement-based adaptation to the empirically best path, and in- network data aggregation and caching. • Notion of gradient (exploratory and reinforced) • Energy efficiency achievable • Diffusion mechanism resilient to fault tolerance • Conservative negative reinforcements proves useful 74
- 75. References • C. Intanagonwiwat,R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks,” in the Proceedings of the Sixth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networks (MobiCom’00), August 2000. • C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, J. Heidemann, and F. Silva, “Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 11, No. 1, Feb. 2003. 75
- 76.
- 77. Overview • In ahierarchical architecture, higher energy nodes can be used to process and send the information while low energy nodes can be used to perform the sensing of the target. • Hierarchical routing is mainly two-layer routing where one layer is used to select cluster heads and the other layer is used for routing. • Hierarchical routing (or cluster-based routing), e.g., LEACH, PEGASIS, TTDD, is an efficient way to lower energy consumption within a cluster and by performing data aggregation and fusion in order to decrease the number of transmitted messages to the base stations. 77
- 78. 4.3.1 LEACH Low-Energy Adaptive ClusteringHierarchy 78
- 79. LEACH • LEACH (Low-EnergyAdaptive Clustering Hierarchy), a clustering-based protocol that minimizes energy dissipation in sensor networks. • LEACH outperforms classical clustering algorithms by using adaptive clusters and rotating cluster-heads, allowing the energy requirements of the system to be distributed among all the sensors. • LEACH is able to perform local computation in each cluster to reduce the amount of data that must be transmitted to the base station. • LEACH uses a TDMA/CDMA MAC to reduce inter- cluster and intra-cluster collisions. 79
- 80. LEACH (cont.) • Sensorselect themselves to be local cluster-heads at any given time with a certain probability. These cluster-head nodes broadcast their status to the other sensors in the network. • Each sensor node determines to which cluster it wants to belong by choosing the cluster-head that requires the minimum communication energy. • Once all the nodes are organized into clusters, each cluster-head creates a schedule for the nodes in its cluster. • A cluster-head drains the battery of that node. In order to spread this energy usage over multiple nodes, the cluster- head nodes are not fixed; rather, this position is self- elected at different time intervals. 80
- 81. LEACH: Adaptive Clustering •Periodic independent self-election • Probabilistic • CSMA MAC used to advertise • Nodes select advertisement with strongest signal strength • Dynamic TDMA cycles 81 All nodes marked with a given symbol belong to the same cluster, and the cluster head nodes are marked with a ●.
- 82. Algorithm • Periodic process •Three phases per round: • Advertisement • Execute election algorithm • Setup • Schedule creation • the clusters are organized and cluster heads are selected • Steady-State • Data transmission • the data transfers to the BS (Base Station) 82
- 83. Homework Assignment -LEACH 83 Advertisement phase Cluster setup phase Broadcast schedule Time slot 1 Time slot 2 Time slot 3 Setup phase Steady-state phase Self-election of cluster heads Cluster heads compete with CSMA Members compete with CSMA Cluster head Broadcast CDMA code to members Fixed-length cycle 83
- 84. Algorithm (cont.) • Set-upphase • Node n choosing a random number m between 0 and 1 • If m < T(n) for node n, the node becomes a cluster-head where • where P = the desired percentage of cluster heads (e.g., P= 0.05), r=the current round, and G is the set of nodes that have not been cluster-heads in the last 1/P rounds. Using this threshold, each node will be a cluster-head at some point within 1/P rounds. During round 0 (r=0), each node has a probability P of becoming a cluster-head. 1 [ * mod(1/ )] ( ) 0 , P if n G P r P T n otherwise 84
- 85. Algorithm Details (cont.) •Set-up phase • Cluster heads assign a TDMA schedule for their members where each node is assigned a time slot when it can transmit. • Each cluster communications using different CDMA codes to reduce interference from nodes belonging to other clusters. • TDMA intra-cluster • CDMA inter-cluster • Spreading codes determined randomly • Broadcast during advertisement phase 85
- 86. Algorithm (cont.) • Steady-statephase • All source nodes send their data to their cluster heads • Cluster heads perform data aggregation/fusion through local transmission • Cluster heads send them back to the BS using a single direct transmission 86
- 87. An Example ofa LEACH Network • While neither of these diagrams is the optimum scenario, the second is better because the cluster- heads are spaced out and the network is more properly sectioned 87 Node Cluster-Head Node Node that has been cluster-head in the last 1/P rounds Cluster Border X Bad case scenario Good case scenario
- 88. Conclusions • Advantages • Increasesthe lifetime of the network • Even drain of energy • Distributed, no global knowledge required • Energy saving due to aggregation by CHs • Disadvantages • LEACH assumes all nodes can transmit with enough power to reach BS if necessary (e.g., elected as CHs) • Each node should support both TDMA & CDMA • Need to do time synchronization • Nodes use single-hop communication 88
- 89. Reference • W. Heinzelman,A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless sensor networks,” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2000. 89
- 90. Chapter 4.4 Location BasedRouting 90
- 91. Overview • Sensor nodesare addressed by means of their locations. • The distance between neighboring nodes can be estimated on the basis of incoming signal strengths. • Relative coordinates of neighboring nodes can be obtained by exchanging such information between neighbors. • To save energy, some location based schemes demand that nodes should go to sleep if there is no activity. • More energy savings can be obtained by having as many sleeping nodes in the network as possible. • Hereby, two important location based routing protocols, GEAR and GPSR, are introduced. • Geographical and Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) • Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) 91
- 92. 4.4.1 GEAR Geographical and EnergyAware Routing 92
- 93. Geographical and EnergyAware Routing (GEAR) • The protocol, called Geographic and Energy Aware Routing (GEAR), uses energy aware and geographically-informed neighbor selection heuristics to route a packet towards the destination region. • 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. By doing this, GEAR can conserve more energy than directed diffusion. • The basic concept comprises of two main parts • Route packets towards a target region through geographical and energy aware neighbor selection • Disseminate the packet within the region 93
- 94. Energy Aware NeighborComputation • Each node N maintains state h(N, R) which is called learned cost to region R, where R is the target region • Each node infrequently updates neighbor of its cost • When a node wants to send a packet, it checks the learned cost to that region of all its neighbors • If the learned cost of a neighbor to a region is not available, the estimated cost is computed as follows: c(Ni, R) = αd(Ni, R) + (1-α)e(Ni) where α = tunable weight, from 0 to 1. d(Ni, R) = normalized distance of neighbor to region e(Ni) = normalized consumed energy at node i 94
- 95. Energy Aware NeighborComputation (cont.) • When a node wants to forward a packet to a destination, it checks to see if it has any neighbor closer to destination than itself • In case of multiple choices, it aims to minimize the learned cost h(Nmin, R) • It then sets its own cost to: h(N, R) = h(Ni, R) + c(N, Ni) c(N, Ni) = combination of remaining energy of N and Ni and the distance between them 95
- 96. Forwarding Around Holes 5 AB C D E F G H I J K L T S C – T = 2 h(C,T) = h(B,T)+c(C,B) B – T = x 96 5 α is set to 1. Initially, at time 0, at node S, among all neighbors of S, B, C, D are closer to T than S. h(B,T)=c(B,T)= , h(C,T)=c(C,T)=2, h(D,T)=c(D,T)= . 5 5
- 97. Recursive Geographic Forwarding •Once the target region is reached, the packets are disseminated within the region by recursive geographic forwarding • Forwarding stops when a node is the only one in a sub-region 97 Ni
- 98. Recursive Geographic Forwarding(cont.) Pathologies • Inefficient Transmission • Recursive geographic forwarding vs. Restricted flooding F A E B C D Recursive Geographic Forwarding 3 times for sending and 3 times for receiving = consuming 6 units of energy Restricted flooding 1 times for sending and 4 times for receiving = consuming 5 units of energy 98
- 99. Recursive Geographic Forwarding(cont.) Pathologies • Non-Termination • When network density is low compared to (sub) target region size C B F L A E K H 99
- 100. Recursive Geographic Forwarding(cont.) Proposed solution for pathologies • Node degree is used as a criteria to differentiate low density networks from high density ones • Choice of restricted flooding over recursive geographic forwarding is made accordingly 100
- 101. Conclusion • GEAR strategyattempts to balance energy consumption and thereby increase network lifetime • GEAR performs better in terms of connectivity after initial partition 101
- 102. References • Y. Yu,D. Estrin, and R. Govindan, “Geographical and Energy-Aware Routing: A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks”, UCLA Computer Science Department Technical Report, UCLA-CSD TR-01-0023, May 2001. • Nirupama Bulusu, John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin. “Gps-less low cost outdoor localization for very small devices”. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, 7(5):28-34, October 2000. • L. Girod and D. Estrin. “Robust range estimation using acoustic and multimodal sensing”. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2001), Maui, Hawaii, October 2001. • Nissanka B. Priyantha, Anit Chakraborty, and Hari Balakrishnan. “The cricket location-support system”. In Proc. ACM Mobicom, Boston, MA, 2000. • Andreas Savvides, Chih-Chieh Han, and Mani B. Strivastava. “Dynamic fine-grained localization in adhoc networks of sensors”. In Proc. ACM Mobicom, 2001. 102
- 103. 4.4.2 GPSR Greedy Perimeter StatelessRouting 103
- 104. Greedy Perimeter StatelessRouting (GPSR) • Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) proposes the aggressive use of geography to achieve scalability • GEAR was compared to a similar non-energy-aware routing protocol GPSR, which is one of the earlier works in geographic routing that uses planar graphs to solve the problem of holes • In case of GPSR, the packets follow the perimeter of the planar graph to find their route. • Although the GPSR approach reduces the number of states a node should keep, it has been designed for general mobile ad hoc networks and requires a location service to map locations and node identifiers. 104
- 105. Algorithm & Example •The algorithm consists of two methods: greedy forwarding + perimeter forwarding • Greedy forwarding, which is used wherever possible, and perimeter forwarding, which is used in the regions greedy forwarding cannot be done. 105
- 106. Greedy Forwarding (cont.) •Under GPSR, packets are marked by their originator with their destinations’ locations • As a result, a forwarding node can make a locally optimal, greedy choice in choosing a packet’s next hop • Specifically, if a node knows its radio neighbors’ positions, the locally optimal choice of next hop is the neighbor geographically closest to the packet’s destination • Forwarding in this regime follows successively closer geographic hops, until the destination is reached 106
- 107.
- 108. Greedy Forwarding (cont.) •A simple beaconing algorithm provides all nodes with their neighbors’ positions: periodically, each node transmits a beacon to broadcast MAC address, containing its own identifier (e.g., IP address) and position • Position is encoded as two four-byte floating point quantities, for x and y coordinate values • Upon not receiving a beacon from a neighbor for longer than timeout interval T, a GPSR router assumes that the neighbor has failed or gone out-of-range, and deletes the neighbor from its neighbor table 108
- 109. Greedy Forwarding (cont.) TheProblem of Greedy Forwarding x w y D v z |xD|<|wD|and|yD| x will not choose to forward to w or y using greedy forwarding void x x 109
- 110. The Right-Hand Rule:Perimeters • Use the right-hand rule to map perimeters by sending packets on tours of them. The state accumulated in these packets is cached by nodes, which recover from local maxima in greedy forwarding by routing to a node on a cached perimeter closer to the destination. • This approach requires a heuristic, the no-crossing heuristic, to force the right-hand rule to find perimeters that enclose voids in regions where edges of the graph cross 110 x y z
- 111. 111 Right-Hand Rule DoesNot Work with Cross Edges u z w D x x originates a packet to u Right-hand rule results in the tour x-u-z-w-u-x
- 112. 112 Remove Crossing Edge u z w v x Makethe graph planar Remove (w,z) from the graph Right-hand rule results in the tour x-u-z-v-x
- 113. 113 Make a GraphPlanar • A graph in which no two edges cross is known as planar. A set of nodes with radios, where all radios have identical, circular radio range r, can be seen as a graph: each node is a vertex, and edge (n, m) exists between nodes n and m if the distance between n and m, d(n, m)≦r. • Convert a connectivity graph to planar non-crossing graph by removing “bad” edges • Ensure the original graph will not be disconnected • Two types of planar graphs: • Relative Neighborhood Graph (RNG) • Gabriel Graph (GG)
- 114. Planarized Graphs (cont.) GabrielGraph (GG) u v w 114
- 115. Planarized Graphs (cont.) RelativeNeighborhood Graph (RNG) u v w 115
- 116. Planarized Graphs (cont.) •An algorithm for removing edges from the graph that are not part of the RNG or GG would yield a network with no crossing links • The RNG is a subset of the GG • Because RNG removes more edges • Hereby, the RNG is used • If the original graph is connected, RNG is also connected 116
- 117. 117 Connectedness of RNGGraph • Key observation • Any edge on the minimum spanning tree of the original graph is not removed • Proof by contradiction: Assume (u,v) is such an edge but removed in RNG u v w
- 118. Planarized Graphs (cont.) GabrielGraph (GG) Relative Neighborhood Graph (RNG) Original 118 The GG subset of the full graph The full graph of a radio network, 200 nodes, uniformly randomly placed on a 2000 x 2000 meter region, with a radio range of 250 m. The RNG subset of the full and GG graphs.
- 119. Combining Greedy andPlanar Perimeters • All data packets are marked initially at their originators as greedy mode • GPSR packet headers include a flag field indicating whether the packet is in greedy mode or perimeter mode • Packet sources also include the geographic location of the destination in packets • Only a packet’s source sets the location destination field, it is left unchanged as the packet is forwarded through the network • Upon receiving a greedy-mode packet for forwarding, a node searches its neighbor table for the neighbor geographically closest to the packet’s destination • When no neighbor is closer, the node marks the packet into perimeter mode 119
- 120. 120 GPSR Greedy Forwarding PerimeterForwarding greedy fails have left local maxima greedy works greedy fails
- 121. Combining Greedy andPlanar Perimeters (cont.) • GPSR packet header fields used in perimeter mode forwarding 121 Field Function D Lp Lf e0 M Destination Location Location Packet Entered Perimeter Mode Point on xV Packet Entered Current Face First Edge Traversed on Current Face Packet Mode: Greedy or Perimeter
- 122. Combining Greedy andPlanar Perimeters (cont.) Lp Lf e0 D x If forwarding node to D < Lp to D, returns a packet to greedy mode 122
- 123. Conclusion • GPSR’s benefitsall stem from geographic routing’s use of only immediate-neighbor information in forwarding decisions. • GPSR keeps state proportional to the number of its neighbors, while both traffic sources and intermediate DSR routers cache state proportional to the product of the number of routes learned and route length in hops. 123
- 124. References • B. Karpand H. T. Kung, “Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks”, Proc. 6th Annual ACM/IEEE Int'l. Conf. Mobile Comp. Net., Boston, MA, pp. 243-54, August 2000. • G. G. Finn, “Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale internetworks”, Tech. Rep. ISI/RR-87- 180, Information Sciences Institute, March 1987. • S. Floyd and V. Jacoboson, “The synchronization of periodic routing messages”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 2, pp. 122-136, April 1994. • B. Karp “Greedy perimeter state routing”, Invited Seminar at the USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1998. • J. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. Clark, “End-to-end arguments in system design”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 2, No. 4, Pages: 277-288, November 1984. 124
- 125. Chapter 4.5 QoS BasedRouting 125
- 126. Overview • QoS isthe performance level of service offered by a network to the user. • The Goal of QoS is to achieve a more deterministic network behavior so that the information carried by the network can be better delivered and the resources can be better utilized. • In QoS-based routing protocols, the network has to balance between energy consumption and data quality. • In particular, the network has to satisfy certain QoS metrics, e.g., delay, energy, bandwidth, etc. when delivering data to the BS. 126
- 127. Parameters of QoSNetworks • Different services require different QoS parameters • Multimedia • Bandwidth, delay jitter & delay • Emergency services • Network availability • Group communications • Battery life • Generally the parameters that are important are: • bandwidth • delay jitter • battery charge • processing power • buffer space 127
- 128. Challenges in QoSRouting • Dynamically varying network topology • Imprecise state information • Lack of central coordination • Hidden node problem • Limited resource • Insecure medium 128
- 129. 4.5.1 TBP (Ticket-Based Probing) QoSof Bandwidth 129
- 130. Ticket-Based Probing • Distributedmulti path QoS routing scheme • Bandwidth-constrained routing and delay-constrained routing • There are numerous paths from source to destination, we shall not randomly pick several paths to search • We shall not use any flooding path-discovery approaches, which may send routing messages to the entire network • Multipath search is tolerant to imprecise information • We want to make an intelligent hop-by-hop path selection to guide the search along the best candidate paths 130
- 131.
- 132. Ticket-Based Probing (cont.) •A ticket is the permission to search one path. The source node issues a number of tickets based on the available state information • Utilizes tickets to limit the number of paths searched during route discovery • A ticket is the permission to search a single path • More tickets, more QoS constraints are required • Probes (routing messages) are sent from the source toward the destination to search for a low-cost path that satisfies the QoS requirement • Each probe is required to carry at least one ticket 132
- 133.
- 134. Ticket-Based Probing (cont.) S D A B C E 33 3 3 2 2 2 6 5 x Demand = 3 134
- 135. Ticket-Based Probing (cont.) S D A B C E 33 3 2 2 2 2 6 5 Demand = 4 (1.1,3) (1.2,1) (1.2,1) (1.1,3) (1.2,1) 135
- 136. Ticket-Based Probing (cont.) S D A B C E 33 3 2 2 2 2 6 5 (1.1,3) (1.2,1) (1.1.1,2) (1.1.2,1) (1.1.2,1) (1.2,1) (1.2,1) Demand = 4 136
- 137.
- 138. Ticket-Based Probing (cont.) S D A B C E 43 3 2 4 2 3 6 5 x Demand = 4 x (1,4) (2.1,3) (2.2,1) (2.1,3) (2.1,3) (2.1,3) (2.2,1) (2.2,1) 138
- 139. Conclusion • The routingoverhead is controlled by the number of tickets, which allows the dynamic tradeoff between the overhead and the routing performance. Issuing more tickets means searching more paths, which results in a better chance of finding a feasible path at the cost of higher overhead. • A distributed routing process is used to avoid any centralized path computation that could be very expensive for QoS routing in large networks. • This approach not only increases the chance of success but also improves the ability to tolerate the information imprecision because the intermediate nodes may gradually correct a wrong decision made by the source. 139
- 140. Conclusion (cont.) • Ticket-basedprobing scheme achieves a balance between the single-path routing algorithms and the flooding algorithms. It does multipath routing without flooding. • The basic idea is to achieve a near-optimal performance with modest overhead by using a limited number of tickets and making intelligent hop-by- hop path selection. 140
- 141. References • S. Chenand K. Nahrstedt, “On finding multi-constrained paths,” in Proc. IEEE ICC’98, pp. 874-879. • R. Guerin and A. Orda, “QoS-based routing in networks with inaccurate information: Theory and algorithms,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM’97, Japan, pp. 75-83. • Q. Ma and P. Steenkiste, “Quality-of-service routing with performance guarantees,” in Proc. 4th Int. IFIP Workshop Quality of Service, May 1997, pp. 115-126. • Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, “QoS routing for supporting resource reservation,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Sept. 1996. • S. Chen and K Nahrstedt, “Distributed Quality-of-Service Routing in Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun, vol.17, no. 8, pp. 1488- 1505, Aug. 1999. 141
- 142. References • T. Hea,J. A Stankovic, C. Lu, and T. Abdelzaher, “SPEED: a stateless protocol for real-time communication in sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 46- 55, May 2003. • G. S. Ahn, A. T. Campbell, A. Veres, and L.H. Sun. “SWAN: Service Differentiation in Stateless Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM'2002, June 2002. 142