A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks

By Kemal Akkaya & Mohamed Younis

Presented by Aggelos Vlavianos Jorge Mena Department of Computer Science and Engineering
02/08/05
1

Table of Contents

Goals Introduction System Architecture & Designing Protocols for Sensor Networks Summary

Goals

A survey of recent routing protocols for sensor networks

Classification of these protocols

Introduction

Sensors are micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) Low power devices Data processing capable Communication capabilities

Introduction - Usage

Gather data locally (Temperature, Humidity, Motion Detection, etc.) Send them to a command center (sink) Applications

Surveillance Security Disaster Management Environmental Studies

5

Introduction - Constraints

Limitations

Energy Constrains Bandwidth

All layers must be energy aware Need for energy efficient and reliable network routing Maximize the lifetime of the network
6

Introduction - Routing

No global addressing Redundant data traffic Multiple-source single-destination network Careful resource management

Transmission power On-board energy Processing capacity Storage

7

System Architecture & Designing

Network Dynamics

Mobile or Stationary nodes Static Events (Temperature) Dynamic Events ( Target Detection) Deterministic Placed manually Self-organizing Scattered randomly
8

Node Deployment

System Architecture & Designing

Energy Considerations

Direct vs Multi-hop communication

Direct Preferred Sensors close to sink Multi-hop unavoidable in randomly scattered networks

Data Delivery Models

Continuous Event-driven Query-driven Hybrid

9

System Architecture & Designing

Node Capabilities

Homogenous Heterogeneous Nodes dedicated to a particular task (relaying, sensing, aggregation) Aggregation Combination of data by eliminating redundancy Data Fusion is Aggregation through signal processing techniques Aggregation achieves energy savings
10

Data Aggregation/Fusion

Introduction - Taxonomy

Classification of Routing Protocols

Data Centric Hierarchical Location-based Network Flow & QoS Aware

11

Data-centric Protocols

Sink sends queries to certain regions and waits data from sensors located in that region Attribute-based naming is necessary to specify properties of data

12

Data-centric Protocols

Flooding Gossiping Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN) Directed Diffusion Energy-aware Routing Rumor Routing Gradient-Based Routing (GBR) Constrained Anisotropic Diffusion Routing (CADR) COUGAR ACtive QUery forwarding In sensoR nEtworks (ACQUIRE)

13

Data-centric Protocols

Flooding

Sensor broadcasts every packet it receives Relay of packet till the destination or maximum number of hops No topology maintenance or routing Enhanced version of flooding Sends received packet to a randomly selected neighbor
14

Gossiping

Data-centric Protocols Flooding, Gossiping Problems

Problems of Implosion, Overlap, Resource Blindness

15

Data-centric Protocols

Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN)

16

Data-centric Protocols - SPIN

Topological changes are localized Each node needs to know only its neighbors SPIN halves the redundant data in comparison to flooding Cannot guarantee data delivery SPIN NOT good for applications that need reliable data delivery
17

Data-centric Protocols

Directed Diffusion

Uses a naming scheme for the data to save energy Attribute-value pairs for data and queries ondemand (Interests) Interests are broadcasted by the sink (query) to its neighbors (caching), which can do in-network aggregation Gradients = reply links to an interest (path establishment)
18

Data-centric Protocols Direct Diffusion

Energy saving and delay done with caching No need for global addressing (neighbor-toneighbor mechanism) Cannot be used for continuous data delivery or event-driven applications

19

Data-centric Protocols

Energy-aware Routing

Occasional use of a set of sub-optimal paths Multiple paths used with certain probability Increase of the total lifetime of the network Hinders the ability for recovering from node failure Requires address mechanism Complicate setup

20

Data-centric Protocols

Rumor Routing

Variation of Directed Diffusion Flood the events instead of the queries Creation of an event generation of a long live packet travel through the network (agent) Nodes save the event in a local table When a node receives query checks its table and returns source destination path

21

Data-centric Protocols Rumor Routing

Advantages

Can handle node failure Significant energy savings Works well only with small number of events Overhead through adjusting parameters, like the time to live of the agent
22

Disadvantages

Data-centric Protocols

Gradient-Based Routing (GBR)

Slightly changed version of Directed Diffusion Keep the number of hops to the sink when an interest is created (height of the node) Nodes height neighbors height = gradient of the link Node forward packet to the link with largest gradient

23

Data-centric Protocols -GBR

Traffic Spreading and Data Aggregation Balance uniformly the network traffic

Stochastic scheme Energy-based scheme Stream-based scheme

Outperforms Directed Diffusion in terms of total communication energy

24

Data-centric Protocols

Constrained Anisotropic Diffusion Routing (CADR)

General form of Directed Diffusion Query Sensors Route data in the network Activates sensors close to the event and dynamically adjusts routes Routing based on a local information/cost gradient More energy efficient than Directed Diffusion
25

Data-centric Protocols

COUGAR

Views the network as a huge distributed database Declarative queries to abstract query processing from network layer functions Introduces a new query layer Leader node performs data aggregation and transmits to the sink
26

Data-centric Protocols - COUGAR

Disadvantages

Additional query layer brings overhead in terms of energy consumption and storage In network data computation requires synchronization (i.e. wait for all data before sending data) Dynamically maintenance of leader nodes to prevent failure
27

Data-centric Protocols

ACtive QUery forwarding In sensoR nEtworks (ACQUIRE) Views network as a distributed database Node receiving a query from the sink tries to respond partially and then forwards packet to a neighbor Use of pre-cached information After the query is answered, result is returned to the sink by using the reverse path or the shortest path If cache information is not up to date node gathers information from neighbors within look ahead of d hops
28

Data-centric Protocols ACQUIRE

Motivation: Deal with one shot complex queries Efficient routing by adjusting parameter d If d equals network size behaves similar to flooding If d too small the query has to travel more hops
29

Hierarchical Protocols

Maintain energy consumption of sensor nodes

By multi-hop communication within a particular cluster By data aggregation and fusion decrease the number of the total transmitted packets

30

Hierarchical Protocols

LEACH Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS)

Hierarchical PEGASIS

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network protocol (TEEN)

Adaptive Threshold TEEN (APTEEN) Energy-aware routing for cluster-based sensor networks

Self-organizing protocol

31

Hierarchical Protocols

LEACH Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy

One of the first hierarchical routing protocols Forms clusters of the sensor nodes based on received signal strength Local cluster heads route the information of the cluster to the sink Cluster heads change randomly over time balance energy dissipation Data processing & aggregation done by cluster head
32

Hierarchical Protocols - LEACH

Advantages

Completely distributed No global knowledge of the network Increases the lifetime of the network Uses single-hop routing within cluster not applicable to networks in large regions Dynamic clustering brings extra overhead (advertisements, etc)
33

Disadvantages

Hierarchical Protocols

Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS)

Improvement of LEACH Forms chains from sensors rather than clusters

Data aggregation in the chain one node sends the data to the base station Outperforms LEACH Excessive delay for distant nodes in the chain
34

Hierarchical Protocols

Hierarchical PEGASIS

Extension of PEGASIS Decrease the delay for the packets during transmission to the base station Solution to the delay data gathering problem

Simultaneous transmissions of data messages Avoid collisions and possible signal interference

Signal Coding (e.g. CDMA) Spatially separated nodes can transmit at the same time 35

Hierarchical Protocols

Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network protocol (TEEN)

Good for time-critical applications Hierarchical along with a data-centric approach Hierarchical grouping: Close nodes form clusters and this process goes on the second level until sink is reached Cluster headers broadcast:

Hard Threshold Soft Threshold

36

Not good for applications that need periodic reports

Hierarchical Protocols

37

Hierarchical Protocols

Adaptive Threshold TEEN (APTEEN)

Captures both periodic data collection and reacting to time-critical events APTEEN supports queries:

Historical -Analyze past data values One-Time Take a snapshot of the current network view Persistent monitor an event for a period of time
38

Hierarchical Protocols TEEN & APTEEN

Advantages

Outperform LEACH in terms of energy dissipation and total lifetime of the network Overhead and complexity of:

Disadvantages

Forming multiple level clusters Implementing threshold-based functions Dealing with attribute-based naming of queries

39

Hierarchical Protocols

Energy-aware routing for cluster-based sensor networks Assumptions:

Sensors are grouped into clusters prior to network operation Cluster Heads (Gateways) less energy constrained Cluster Heads know the location of the sensors Known Multi-Hop routing to collect data Communication node (sink) communicates only with gateways
40

Hierarchical Protocols

Stages of a Sensor inside a cluster

Sensing only Relaying only Sensing-Relaying Inactive

41

Hierarchical Protocols

Least Cost path used between nodes and gateway Cost function

Energy Consumption Delay Optimization Performance Metrics

TDMA based MAC is used for nodes to send data to the gateways Protocol performs well for

Energy-based metrics (e.g. network lifetime) Cotemporary metrics (e.g. throughput)

42

Hierarchical Protocols

Self-organizing protocol

Architecture supports heterogeneous sensors Nodes act as routers backbone of communication Stationary Sensing nodes forward data to the routers Stationary Mobile Sensors are a part of the network if they are reachable by a router
43

Hierarchical Protocols

The architecture requires addressing

Sensor identified by the router is connected to

Algorithm for Self-Organizing & Creation of routing table

Discovery phase Organization phase Maintenance phase Self-reorganization phase

Utilizes router nodes to keep all sensors connected by forming a dominating set
44

Hierarchical Protocols

Advantages

Useful for applications which need communication of a specific node (e.g. parkinglot networks) Small cost of maintaining routing tables Keeping routing hierarchy strictly balanced Energy Savings Utilization of a limited subset of nodes Organization phase not on demand Many cuts in the network increase the probability of applying reorganization phase
45

Disadvantages

Location-based Protocols

Distance between two nodes is calculated using location information Energy consumption can be estimated

Efficient energy utilization

Protocols designed for Ad hoc networks with mobility in mind

Applicable to Sensor Networks as well Only energy-aware protocols are considered

46

Location-based Protocols

MECN & SMECN

Minimum Energy Communication Network

GAF

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity

GEAR

Geographic and Energy Aware Routing

47

MECN & SMECN

Utilizes low power GPS Best applicable to non-mobile sensor networks Identifies a relay region Find a sub-network to relay traffic Self-reconfiguring Dynamically adaptive
48

SMECN

Assumption: broadcasting allowed Obstacles considered Smaller network (number of edges)

Less hops per transmission

More energy efficient than MECN Less maintenance cost of links More overhead introduced
49

GAF

Forms a virtual grid for covered area Nodes use GPS to associate itself to the grid Nodes are allowed
to be turned off if are equivalent.

Handle mobility
50

GAF

Three States

Discovery Active Sleep

Representative Node is always active

No aggregation or fusion performed

As good as a normal Ad hoc in terms of latency and packet loss (saving energy)
51

GEAR

Uses heuristics to route packets

Energy aware neighbor Geographic informed neighbor

Same as Direct Diffusion but restricts interest by region Estimated Cost

Residual energy and distance to destination Accounts for routing around holes
52

Learned Cost

Network Flow & QoS-aware Protocols

Network Flow: Maximize traffic flow between two nodes, respecting the capacities of the links
QoS-aware protocols consider end-toend delay requirements while setting up paths
53

Network Flow & QoS-aware Protocols

Maximum Lifetime Energy Routing Maximum Lifetime Data Gathering Minimum Cost Forwarding Sequential Assignment Routing Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol SPEED
54

Maximum Lifetime Energy Routing

Maximizes network lifetime by defining link cost as a function of:

Remaining energy Required transmission energy

Tries to find traffic distribution (Network flow problem) The least cost path is one with the highest residual energy among paths
55

Maximum Lifetime Data Gathering

Maximizes the Data-gathering schedule Maximum Lifetime Data Aggregation

Data aggregation plus setting up maximum lifetime of routes When data aggregation is not possible Clustering MLDA
56

Maximum Lifetime Data Routing

Computational Expensive (scalability)

Minimum Cost Forwarding

Aims at finding the minimum cost path in a large network, simple and scalable Cost function captures delay, throughput, and energy metrics from node to sink

Back-off based algorithm

Finds optimal cost of all nodes to the sink by using only one message per node Does not require addressing or forwarding paths
57

Sequential Assignment Routing

Table-driven, multi-path protocol Creates trees rooted at immediate neighbors of the sink (multiple paths)

QoS metrics, energy resource, priority level of each packet

Failure recoverable (done locally) High overhead to maintain tables and states at each sensor
58

Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol

Finds least cost and energy efficient paths that meet the end-to-end delay during connection

Energy reserve, transmission energy, error rate

Class-based queuing model used to support best-effort and real-time traffic

59

Energy Aware QoS Routing Protocol

60

SPEED

Each node maintains info about its neighbors and uses geographic forwarding to find the paths Tries to ensure a certain speed for each packet in the network Congestion avoidance

61

Summary

62

Questions

63