The Second International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications
Configuration of Sensor Networks by Energy Minimisation
Sajeh Zairi1,2 Belhassen Zouari
sajeh.zairi@fst.rnu.tn, 1- LIP2 Lab, University of Tunis
sajeh.zairi@insa-lyon.fr El Manar, 2092 Manar II, Tunis(ia)
belhassen.zouari@fst.rnu.tn
Abstract
Recent advances in wireless sensor networks have led
to many new protocols specifically designed for sensor net-
works where energy awareness is an essential consideration.
Attention has been mostly directed towards routing proto-
cols. These protocols generally implement a view embracing
a local energy reserve. This paper presents an algorithm
for determining optimal paths connecting sensor nodes to
the sink. These optimal paths contribute to minimizing inter-
mediate hops and consider a global energy reserve. Most
of these sensor networks will require application specific
functionalities and performance requirements because of the
wide range of their applications. Modelling sensor network
behaviour before implementation and deployment is there-
fore crucial to programming efficiently the network applica-
tion and to validating all its protocols. Existing works suf-
fer from the problem of insufficient formal models for sensor
network validations. Such models enable formal verification
of all sensor network properties prior to deployment. This
paper will also present a formal model representing sensor
network behaviour.
1. Introduction
Recent advances in micro-electro-mechanical systems
and highly integrated low-power digital electronics have led
to the development of micro sensors [1, 8, 13]. Such sen-
sors are generally equipped with data processing and com-
munication capabilities. They include a minimum number
of essential elements for operating over long periods of time:
sensing the physical world for some meaningful data, pro-
cessing and communicating information to end-users. The
sensing component measures ambient conditions affecting
the environment surrounding the sensor. The sensor deliv-
ers messages, either directly or through intermediate sensors,
sensing data to a command center (sink), usually via wirelles
radio transmitter. Sensor networks are usually application-
driven and perform specific tasks.
Furthermore, the short transmission range of small sen-
978-0-7695-3330-8/08 $25.00 © 2008 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/SENSORCOMM.2008.106
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Eric Niel
2- AMPERE Lab, INSA-Lyon,
F 69621, France,
eric.niel@insa-lyon.fr
sors means that sensing data may travel a large number of
hops to reach intended destinations.
However, sensor nodes are restricted in terms of both en-
ergy supply and bandwidth. Energy awareness is thus re-
quired in all layers of the networking protocol stack. Phys-
ical and link layer related issues are generally common to
every type of sensor application, so research in these areas
has focused on system-level power awareness, for example
such as dynamic voltage scaling, radio communication hard-
ware, low-duty cycle issues, system partitioning, energy-
aware MAC protocols 1 [5, 9] and radio off/on-based proto-
cols [12, 2]. At network layer level, the main aim is to find
ways of setting up energy-efficient route and reliably relay-
ing data from sensor nodes to the sink to ensure maximum
network lifetime .
To transmit data to the sink, a sensor node must compute
the optimal path connecting it to the base station. In many
studies, the optimal path is computed based on the number of
hops (intermediate sensor nodes used for transmitting mes-
sages) or on the transmission cost. Energy is the must im-
portant sensor node characteristic, so we have integrated this
constraint into computing the optimal path, which must not
only feature a minimum intermediate hop, but also a max-
imum global energy reserve in the selected sensor nodes.
Our work therefore differs from existing studies because it
considers multi-objectives. More specifically, we consider
a global energy view for the total path. Optimal paths are
determined on-line. Each sensor node will indeed indepen-
dently determine its optimal path based on local information
and received data (transmitted in specific messages). This
method will be presented later.
Most of these networks will require application-specific
functionalities and performance requirements because the
wide range of sensor network applications and the exponen-
tial increase of deployed sensor nodes [14]. Modelling sen-
sor network behaviour before implementation and deploy-
ment is therefore crucial to efficiently programming a net-
work application. Use of formal models allows formal ver-
ification of the network properties prior to deployment. A
1 (Media Access Control) The protocol that controls access to the physi-
cal transmission medium
148
141
bibliographical study brought to our attention the lack of
such models for validating sensor networks. This deficiency
prompted us to develop a formal model for formal verify-
ing sensor networks. This paper proposes a coloured Petri
net (CP-net) for sensor network modelling, based on gen-
eral characteristics and functionalities. Development of this
CP-net model was also justified by the increasing availabil-
ity of efficient methods and tools based on High-level Petri
net models. Use of such models enable validation or per-
formance analysis of system behaviour through exploring
model state space or simulation. These models also enable
the use of formal verification techniques, such as model-
checking, for verifying system properties. Our work em-
braces many interesting verification properties, for example
existence of reliable paths connecting each node to the sink
and optimality of such paths (with respect to transmission
delay and energy consumption).
The paper is organized in seven sections. Section 2 intro-
duces the algorithm developed to determine optimal paths.
Section 3 defines major functionalities of the different sen-
sor network components. Section 4 presents a CP-net mod-
elling the sensor network functionalities. Section 5 discusses
the differences between the proposed algorithm and related
efforts in sensor networking. Section 6 forms the conclusion.
2. ENERGY-BASED ROUTING
RITHM
In this section, we present an algorithm for optimal path
determination suited to sensor network characteristics. This
data network process has been the subject of continuous
research over the last two decades; numerous routing pro-
tocols have been studied and used in practical networks.
Existing algorithms have invariably considered mono/multi-
objectives. Our interest in developing optimal path algo-
rithms suited to sensor networks was in fact partly motivated
by the problem of the unsuitability of existing algorithms
for sensor characteristics. Indeed, most of the existing al-
gorithms capable of solving the optimal path problem are
unsuitable for sensor networks because of:
• the need for extensive computing capabilities at each
sensor node;
• the handling of large network information. Identifica-
tion of all sensor nodes belonging to an optimal path
and integration of this information into a message to be
transmitted to sensor neighbours exemplifie the fact that
it is impossible to perform this kind of operation in a
sensor node due to limited memory capacity and major
transmission energy consumption for a large message.
Our developed algorithm considers simultaneously two
different objectives, namely : energy and intermediate hops.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Before introducing this approach, we define a number of
concepts to be applied in the developed algorithm.
When considering multi-objective optimization problem,
the major difficulty is to be able to determine the optimal
solution. Unlike the mono-objective optimization problem,
which has only one solution, the multi-objective optimiza-
tion problem has a set of solutions. Each solution in this set
is optimal because we cannot improve one component x∗i of
−
→
the solution vector x∗ without degrading at least one other.
The Pareto dominance concept is normally applied to
solve this problem; this defines an order relation between
two solution vectors − →1 and −
x →2 .
x
Definition 1 (Dominance).
Vector u = (u1 , ..., uk ) dominates vector v = (v1 , ..., vk ),
denoted by u  v, if and only if u is partially less than v, i.e.,
∀ i ∈ {1, ... , k}, ui ≤ vi ∧ ∃ i ∈ {1, ... , k} : ui < vi .
Definition 2 (Pareto optimal solution).
Solution x∗ is a Pareto optimal solution, if and only if
there is no solution x such that Z(x) dominates Z(x∗ ),
where Z(x) represents the cost vector associated with x.
Let us assume that Pcs represents all paths connecting
sensor node ”c” to the sink. In our problem, each solution
is represented by a couple. The first element of the couple
is the hop number (HNb) and the second element represents
ALGO- the energy difference. Indeed, to connect each sensor node to
the sink, we must determine paths with minimum hop num-
ber and maximum total amount of energy in the path (QoE).
The Pareto optimal concept minimizes each vector element,
so the second element of the path cost vector is defined as the
difference between a maximum energy value (ValEnerMax)
and the total quantity of energy in the path.
Definition 3 (Pareto Optimal Path).
p(HN b, QoE) ∈ Pcs is a Pareto optimal path
if and only if there is no path p (HN b , QoE  ) ∈
Pcs , for which (HN b , V alEnerM ax − QoE  ) 
(HN b, V alEnerM ax − QoE).
Optimal path can be built in the following straightforward
way. The sink broadcasts a control message announcing a
cost of (0,0). At any time, information transmitted by the
control message are :
• the sequence number,
• the identity of the sensor node transmitting the message,
• the total energy accumulated on the path,
• the identity of the destination sensor associated with the
sensor node transmitting the message,
• the hop number separating the sensor node transmitting
the message from the sink.
When hearing a control message containing the cost of
the sender, sensor node can verifies one of these two cases:
142
149
 • the received message has a new sequence number, next table:

n Path Hops QoE ValEnerMax

• the received message has a sequence number equals to -QoE
the one recorded by the receiver sensor node. 1 (2,5), (5,0) 2 32 168
2 (2,1), (1,0) 2 30 170
3 (2,3), (3,1), (1,0) 3 55 145
In the first case, the receiver sensor node will directly
4 (2,4), (4,3), (3,1), 4 95 105
records all the information transmitted in the received mes-
(1,0)
sage on its set of optimal paths (Sop ). The sensor node trans-
mitting the received message will be considered as the desti-
To compare these paths, we compare their cost vectors:
nation neighbour. This information will be used to compare
* (2,168) for path 1 * (2,170) for path 2
the subsequent received data to determine the best alterna-
* (3,145) for path 3 * (4,105) for path 4
tives.
The cost vector of path 2 is dominated by the cost vector
In the sencond case, the memorized and received paths of path 1. Message transmission using sensor node 1 or 5 is
must be comparable. Sensor node first checks whether it is equivalent, if we consider the hop number constraint, mes-
not the destination neighbour of the sensor node transmitting sages effectively take two hops. However, using sensor node
the message. This check avoids a cycle. If no cycle, the 5 as the destination neighbour is better in relation to the en-
sensor node must compare the received alternative with its ergy constraint. The Pareto dominance concept allowed us
set of optimal paths (Sop ). to compare these two paths.
Different paths are compared using the Pareto concept, as Path 2 is not a Pareto optimal path and must be elimi-
explained in definition 3. If the cost vector representing the nated. Other paths cannot be compared so they are Pareto
new path is dominated by at least one path belong to Sop , optimal paths. New mechanisms must be introduced to com-
then it will not be considered. If it is a Pareto optimal path, pare Pareto optimal paths.
then it will be added to Sop , and all paths belonging to Sop , To validate the Pareto optimal path determination, we
and dominated by this new path, will be removed. When- have integrated this mechanism into a CP-net, modelling the
ever it determine a Pareto optimal path, the sensor node will generic functions of our sensor network. We have developed
broadcasts a message to its neighbours containing this new this model because there are few formal models representing
alternative. the sensor network functionalities. This type of model per-
mits formal verification of sensor network properties prior to
Example deployment.
In the following section and before introducing this
We consider the example provided by the sensor network model, we describe the considered sensor network functions.
shown in figure 1 to illustrate the optimal path determination. The sink has two different fonctions:

• processing of alert messages,

• periodic broadcast of control message for the synchro-

nisation of all sensor nodes

Each sensor node has three fonctions

• regular monitoring of the environment temperature to

detect fire and transmit an early alert message to the
Figure 1. Example of sensor network sink,

• alert message transmission,

• control message processing for the determination of the

In figure 1, each sensor node is represented by a circle Pareto optimal paths.
defining its identity and its actual energy reserve. The sink
is labelled ”0”. Petri net model representing sensor node behaviour must
The different paths, with no cycles, which can be used by model these three functions; this model is introduced in the
sensor node 2 to transmit messages to the sink are defined in following section.

143
150

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3. PETRI NET MODEL FOR SENSOR NET- sensing idle state (”Idle Sensing” place) and the radio use
WORKS idle state (”Idle Radio” place).
X

In this section, we present the CP-net developed to model Sensing

S
B
Control Mes
Broadcast

the sensor network functions. We assume that reader is fa- 1`1++1`2++

1`3++1`4++1`5

miliar with CP-net concept [6] Idle

Sensing
Cap
Idle
Radio
Copie
Energie
X c
X X
Cap
Active Inactive

3.1. Petri Net Modelling Sink Functioning State

s s
State

A
Alert
Transmission
X to
fire X
STRING

As previously presented, the sink has two functions. Inactive

Cap

These functions are modelled, in the Petri net, by the two

transitions ”Receives Alert Msg” and ”Sends Cont Msg” Figure 3. Petri net modelling sensor node
(figure 2). functions
1`0@+0
Cont
Sequence AMsgs Alert
Seq Msg

seq seq+1@+60 (Y,X,temp,srcA)

1`0
Different sensor node fonctions are represented by macro-
Authorisation
Cap
sensorNode() Sends Cont
Msg
X Idel
Sink
X Receives
Alert Msg transitions in the Petri net model. A Petri net is associ-
Cap

[(seq,0,0,0,0)]
ated with each macro-transition, which represents its perfor-
Cont Msg
mance. We describe these sub-nets in the following sections.
to Send
CMsgs

3.3. ”Sensing” Sub-net

Figure 2. Petri net modelling sink functions
The net shown in figure 4 models environment tempera-
ture sensing. In this model, we represent this operation by
The ”Receives Alert Msg” transition represents recep- obtaining this value from an external file. Modelling tem-
tion of an alert message. This message is represented by perature value obtention in this way allows us to synchro-
a quadruple token in the ”Alert Msg” place, which is a mail- nize our model with other model representing environment
box containing all the alert messages transmitted by the sen- behaviour.
sor nodes.
The ”Sends Cont Msg” transition represents periodic X Idle X
Sens
broadcast of control messages. Periodicity is represented by Cap
X
the ”Cont Sequence” temporized place. seq (X,eng)
The ”Sends Cont Msg” transition fires when the model Sens
Period
Sens
Value
Sensor
Energy
seq@+10 (X,eng-EngSens)
time corresponds to the time associated with the token in the Seq
(X,20)
EngCap

“Cont Sequence” place and the sink is idle. When firing this Send (X,temp) (X,temp)
Value
Msg
transition, a new control message token is deposited in the SAMsgs
Sensed
ValuSens
mailbox. This token will trigger the broadcast of the control (X,X,temp)

message by the sensor nodes near the sink. [temp>50] [temp<50]

No
In the following section, we describe the Petri net, which Fire Fire

models the sensor node functionalities.

3.2. Petri Net Which Models Sensor Node
Functioning
As previously described, a sensor node has three basic
fonctions, namely: temperature sensing, alert message trans-
mission, control message process and broadcast. These func-
tions are respectively represented in the Petri net (figure 3)
by the ”Sensing”, ”Alert Transmission” and ”Control Mes
Broadcast” macro transitions.
Sensing and message processing (radio use) are assumed
to be independent. A sensor node can simultaneously trans-
mit/receive messages and monitor the environment tempera-
ture. In the Petri net model, we have therefore separated the
Figure 4. ”Sensing” Sub-net
Temperature sensing is periodically performed. This pe-
riodicity is represented by the token present in the ”Sens Pe-
riod” temporized place. Tokens of this place indicate when
the sensor node must monitor environment temperature.
Following environment temperature sensing, two cases
arise:
• the measured temperature is lower than the specified
threshold; no fire is detected, the sensor node returns
immediately to its idle place. This operation is per-
formed when the ”No Fire” transition occurs.

144
151

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 • the measured temperature is greater than the specified The generated message will be treated, by the neighbours
threshold; a fire is detected. The sensor node deposits a of the transmettor sensor node, in the same manner as previ-
token representing the alert message in the mailbox and ously described.
returns to its idle place. This is done when the ”Fire”
transition occurs. OPaths
Optimal
Path

We describe the sub-net representing alert message trans- (X,seqa,l) (X,seq+1,l2)

CMsgs
mission in the following section. Idle X Receive (seq,saut,eng,Y,dest)::lop Cont
if (l2<>l) then
((seq,saut,eng,Y,dest)::lop)
Control ^^[(seq,saut+1,eng+e,X,Y)]
Radio Msg
Msgs else ((seq,saut,eng,Y,dest)::lop)
Cap
3.4. ”Alert Transmission” Sub-net
(X,e) (X,Y) CapDest
EngCap
Sensor (seq,saut,e,X,dest)::lop
Alert message transmission is performed in multi-hops. If Sensor
Energy1
Neighbor if(lop<>([]))
then lop
NbNeig

the message has not yet reached the sink, the sensor node re- (Y,Nneig+1) (Y,Nneig)
else empty
(X,Nneig)
Nb Neig
UpdateNeig(X)
ceiving this message will transmit it to its destination neigh-
EngCap
bour. This transmission is represented by the ”Transmit Alert Nb Neighbor
(X,0)
Broadcast
(X,eng)
Sensor
receiving CMsg Cont Msgs Energy
Msg” transition (figure 5). NbNeig
(X,Nneig) (X,eng-EngBroad)

This transition fire, when a token representing the alert

message is deposited in the mailbox place and the sensor Figure 6. ”Control Mes Broadcast” Sub-net
node, which must transmit message, is idle.
Send Idle CapDest
Msg Cap
Radio
SAMsgs
X
(X,Y) Neighbor
Destination
Energy is required to perform each sensor node function.
(X,srcA,temp)

Transmit
(X,eng)
Sensor
Correct estimation of the current energy of each sensor node
Alert Msg Energy

(Y,srcA,temp)
(X,eng-EngATrans)

(X,Y,srcA,temp)
EngCap
Alert
Msg
AMsgs
(X,Y,srcA,temp)
Retrans
mission
[Y<>0]
Figure 5. ”Alert Transmission” Sub-net
We describe the ”Control Mes Broadcast” sub-net in the
following section.
3.5. ”Control Mes Broadcast” Sub-net
We have integrate in the ”Control Mes Broadcast” sub-net
the developed mechanisms, permitting optimal path determi-
nation, for its validation. This sub-net models the process of
control message. When receiving a new path, a node must
choose the best alternative. Each sensor node optimal paths
are memorized in a list structure. This structure is associated
with the corresponding sensor node according to the token
in the ”Optimal path” place (figure 6).
When receiving a new control message (represented by a
token in place message), the sensor node will first define the
new alternative using the message information. Second, it
will compare this alternative to the paths saved on the ”Op-
timal path” place. If the new one is a Pareto dominant path,
then it will be added to this list and all paths dominated
by this new alternative will be removed. This path will no
longer considered, when it is dominated.
Finally, when a new path is considered, the sensor node
informs its neighbours by transmitting a new control mes-
sage defining the new path.
requires us to integrate an energy place (”Sensor Energy”
in figure 4) into the Petri net model . Tokens in this place
associate the current energy reserve with each sensor node.
This reserve is updated at any time the sensor node fires a
transition representing one of its three basic functions.
The described Petri net allows other properties to be
checked in addition to validation of the developed algorithm.
For example, this net can be used to determine the lifetime of
the deployed sensor network or the connectivity of this net-
work. Correct transmission of alert message and validation
of the transmission delays can also be verified.
The developed Petri net also allows performance analysis
of the studied sensor network prior to its deployment.
4. Related work
Different routing protocols try to solve the problem of
routing in ad hoc networks in one way or the other. In re-
active routing approach, a routing protocol does not take
the initiative for finding a route to a destination, until it
is required. The protocol attempts to discover routes only
on-demand by flooding its query in the network. The ex-
amples of this kind of protocols are AODV [11], DSR
[7] and TORA [10]. On the other hand, proactive proto-
cols are based on periodic exchange of control messages.
Some messages are sent locally to enable a node to know
its local neighbourhood, and some messages are sent in en-
tire network which permit to exchange topology among all
the nodes of the network. The proactive protocols imme-
diately provide the required route to the destination when
needed. The examples of this kind of protocols are OLSR

145
152

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[4], TBRPF [3]. In this section, we describe the basic dif-
ferences between the existing work and the developped al-
gorithm.
In this paper, we have proposed a proactive protocol for
routes determination. The developement of such protocol is
justified by the characteristics of the sensor network consid-
ered application : fire detection. Indeed, such application
cannot tolerate the delay of route discovery which is one of
the reactive protocols problems. In this kind of applications,
when fire is detected source must immediately inform the
sink. Therefore, reactive protocols are not so suited, proac-
tive protocols are more adapted. In this kind of application,
sensor nodes are deployed in hostile environment and are
supposed to work efficently as long as possible. To realise
this objective, sensor nodes must have an equivalent energy
level at any time. Indeed, when a node fails a set of nodes
could be disconnected. To extend the network live time as
maximum as possible, nodes having minimum energy re-
serve must not be setected as destination neighbour, if there
are other alternatives. This proposition allows to save mini-
mum energy reserve and to have equitible energy reserve in
all the sensor nodes. Using existing proactive protocols can
not allows this objective. Indeed, most of these protocols de-
termine routes according to the minimisation of transmission
cost and are not consider equitible preservation of energy
reverve in all nodes.
Using OLSR or TBRPF protocols, each nodes must main-
tain a topology table providing the state of each link in the
network (or within a cluster if hierarchical routing is used).
In our algorithm, nodes needs only to record optimal paths.
In this case, node state depends on the neighbour density and
not on the all network density as it is the case with OLSR
and TBRPF protocols. In the developed protocol, control
messages broadcast information representing only a specific
alternative and not all the total topology table as with most
proactive protocols. This proposition allows also to save en-
ergy. Indeed, sensor node needs more energy to transmit
bigger messages.
5. Conclusion
We have defined an algorithm, which determines opti-
mal paths enabling each sensor node to be connected to the
sink. These paths take into account two different constraints,
namely: hop number and energy accumulated on the consid-
ered path. Different alternatives need to be compared using
the Pareto dominance concept.
To validate this algorithm, we have integrated it into a CP-
net, which we have developed. The lack of formal models
representing sensor network operation justified the develop-
ment of this formal model.
Determination of Pareto optimal paths represents a first
stage comprising the following principal prospects. We will
initially use the risk concept to determine the -two- best al-
146
153
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sun Microsystems- sunlibrary@sun.com. Downloaded on February 11, 2010 at 04:45 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ternatives. We consider both alternatives to ensures message
transmission reliability (when the first neighbour failed it can
transmit messages to the second). Correct determination of
optimal paths will permit implementation of a correct con-
figuration/reconfiguration method.
References
[1] I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci.
Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Computer Networks,
38:393–422, March 2002.
[2] A. Bachir, S. Plancoulaine, D. Barthel, M. Heusse, and
A. Duda. Micro-frame preamble mac for multihop wireless
sensor networks. In Proceedings of ICC 2006, 2006.
[3] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, A. Laouiti, P. Muhlethaler,
A. Qayyum, and L. Viennot. Efficient routing protocols for
packet-radio networks based on treesharing. IEEE Inter-
national Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications
(MoMuC ’99), pages 104–113, 1999.
[4] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, P. Laouiti, A.and Muhlethaler,
A. Qayyum, and L. Viennot. Optimized link state routing
protocol. IEEE INMIC, 2001.
[5] W. R. Heinzelman. Energy-scalable algorithms and proto-
cols for wireless sensor networks. in the Proceedings of the
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing (ICASSP ’00), June 2000.
[6] K. Jensen and G. Rozenberg. High-Level Petri Nets: Theory
and Application. Springer Verlag, 1991.
[7] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz. Dynamic source routing in ad
hoc wireless networks. Mobile Computing, 5:153–181, 1996.
[8] R. Min, M. Bhardwaj, S.-H. Cho, E. Shih, A. Sinha, A. Wang,
and A. Chandrakasan. Low power wireless sensor networks.
in the Proceedings of Internation Conference on VLSI De-
sign, January 2001.
[9] R. Min, M. Bhardwaj, C. Seong-Hwan, A. Sinha, E. Shih,
A. Wang, and A. Chandrakasan. An architecture for a power
aware distributed microsensor node. in the Proceedings of
the IEEE Workshop on signal processing systems (SIPS’00),
Octobre 2000.
[10] V. D. Park and M. S. Corson. A highly adaptive dis-
tributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks. In
Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications IN-
FOCOM’97, pages 1405–1413, 1997.
[11] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer. Ad hoc on-demand distance
vector routing. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on
Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pages 90–100,
1999.
[12] J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, and D. Culler. Telos: En-
abling ultra-low power wireless research. In Proceedings of
IPSN/SPOTS, pages 364–369, April 2005.
[13] J. Rabaey, M. Ammer, J. da Silva Jr., D. Patel, and S. Round.
Picoradio supports ad hoc ultra low power wireless network-
ing. IEEE Computer Magazine, 33:42–48, July 2000.
[14] A. Woo, S. Madden, and R. Govindan. Networking support
for query processing in sensor networks. Communications of
the ACM, 47:47–52, Junes 2004.