Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 107

Routing Techniques in

Wireless Sensor
Networks: A Survey
IEEE Wireless Communication Dec 2004
Jamal N. Al-Karaki, The Hashemite University
Ahmed E. Kamal, Iowa State University
presented by R93725047

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Introduction (1/2)
Routing protocols in WSNs Differ depending on the
application and network architecture
Classified into three categories based on the underlying
network structure:

Flat: Nodes are assigned equal roles


Hierarchical: Nodes will play different roles
Location-based: Nodes positions are exploited to route data

Classified into multipath-based, query-based, negotiationbased, QoS-based, and coherent-based depending on the
protocol operation
Trade-offs between energy and communication overhead
savings

Introduction (2/2)

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Challenges (1/2)
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 as the overhead of ID
maintenance is high
Applications of sensor networks require the few
of sensed data from multiple sources to a
particular BS
Sensor nodes are tightly constrained in terms of
energy, processing, and storage capacities

Challenges (2/2)
In most application scenarios, nodes in WSNs are
generally stationary after deployment except for
maybe a few mobile nodes.
Sensor networks are application-specific
Position awareness of sensor nodes is important
since data collection is normally based on the
location
Data collected based on common phenomena, so
there is a high probability that this data has some
redundancy

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Design Issues (1/4)


The main design goals
of WSNs is to carry
out data
communication while
trying to prolong the
lifetime of the
network and prevent
connectivity
degradation by
employing aggressive
energy management
techniques

Design Issues (2/4)

Node deployment: application-dependent

Energy consumption without losing accuracy

Data reporting method

Manual (deterministic): data is routed through predetermined paths


Randomized: nodes are scattered randomly, creating an ad hoc routing
infrastructure
Distribution of nodes is not uniform, optimal clustering becomes
necessary
Use up their limited supply of energy
The malfunctioning of some sensor nodes

Time-driven: for application requiring periodic data monitoring


Event-driven: react due to a certain event (time-critical ap)
Query-driven: response to a query (time-critical ap)
Hybrid

Design Issues (3/4)

Node/link heterogeneity

Fault tolerance

Scalability

Network dynamics

Transmission media

For example, hierarchical protocols designate a cluster head node


The failure of sensor nodes should not affect the overall task of the
sensor network
Any routing scheme must be able to work with huge number of sensor
nodes
Nodes can be mobile
The phenomenon can be mobile
The required bandwidth is low(1-100 kb/s)
TDMA-based protocols conserve more energy than contention-based
protocols (like CSMA)

Design Issues (4/4)

Connectivity

Coverage

Data aggregation

Quality of service

Density in sensor networks


Depends on the possibly random distribution of nodes
A sensors view of the environment is limited in both range and
accuracy

Sensor nodes may generate significant redundant data


To reduce the number of transmissions
Network lifetime often is considered more important
Bounded latency for data delivery is a condition for time-constrained
applications

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Flat Routing

Each node plays the same role


Data-centric routing

Protocols

Due to not feasible to assign a global id to each node


Save energy through data negotiation and elimination of redundant data

Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN)


Directed diffusion (DD)
Rumor routing
Minimum Cost Forwarding Algorithm (MCFA)
Gradient-based routing (GBR)
Information-driven sensor querying/Constrained anisotropic diffusion
routing (IDSQ/CADR)
COUGAR
ACQUIRE
Energy-Aware Routing
Routing protocols with random walks

Sensor protocols for information


via negotiation (SPIN)

Features

Negotiation

to operate efficiently and to conserve energy


using a meta-data

Resource adaptation

To extend the operating lifetime of the system


monitoring their own energy resources

SPIN Message

ADV new data advertisement


REQ request for ADV data
DATA actual data message

ADV, REQ messages contain only meta-data

Sensor protocols for information


via negotiation (SPIN)

Operation process
ADV

REQ

Step1

Step2

ADV

REQ

Step4

Step5

DATA

Step3

DATA

Step6

Sensor protocols for information


via negotiation (SPIN)

Resource adaptive algorithm


When energy is plentiful

Communicate using the 3-stage handshake protocol

When energy is approaching a low-energy threshold

If a node receives ADV, it does not send out REQ


Energy is reserved to sensing the event

Advantage

Simplicity

Each node performs little decision making when it receives new data
Need not forwarding table

Robust to topology change

Drawback

Large overhead

Data broadcasting

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Feature

Four elements

Data-centric routing protocol


A path is established between sink node and source node
Localized interactions
The propagation and aggregation procedures are all based on local
information

Interest

A task description which is named by a list of attribute-value pairs that


describe a task

Gradient

Path direction, data transmission rate

Data message
Reinforcement

To select a single path from multiple paths

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Basic scheme

Low rate

Event

Event

Source

Sink

Source

Sink

Interests

Step 1 : Interest propagation

Gradients

Step 2 : Initial gradients setup

Event

Source

Sink

High rate

Step 3 : Data delivery along reinforced path

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Advantage

Small delay

Always transmit the data through shortest path

Robust to failed path

Drawback

Imbalance of node lifetime

The energy of node on shortest path is drained faster than another

Time synchronization technique

To implement data aggregation


Not easy to realize in a sensor network

The overhead involved in recording information


Increasing the cost of a sensor node

Rumor Routing
Feature

Combine query flooding and event flooding


Discovering arbitrary paths instead of the shortest path
Rumor routing is attractive only when
The number of queries is larger than a threshold
The number of events is smaller than another threshold

Assumption

The network is composed of densely distributed nodes


Only short distance transmissions
Immobile nodes

Rumor Routing
Basic scheme

Each node maintain

A lists of neighbors
An event table

When a node detects an event

Generate an agent
Let it travel on a random path
The visited node form a gradient
to the event

When a sink needs an event

Transmit a query
The query meets some node
which lies on the gradient
Route establishment

Rumor Routing
The node sensing an event probabilistically
generates an agent. The probability of generating
an agent is an algorithm parameter
In order to propagate directions to the event as
far as possible in the network, a straightening
algorithm is used
The agent maintains a list of recently seen nodes.
When picking its next hop, it will first try nodes not in the list.

Minimum Cost Forwarding


Algorithm (MCFA)
Objective

Establish the cost field


Transmit the data through the minimum-cost path

Feature

Optimality

Minimum cost path criteria : hop count, energy consumption,


delay etc.

Simplicity

Need not to maintain forwarding table


Need not to know an ID for a neighbor node

Minimum Cost Forwarding


Algorithm (MCFA)
Operation process

Each node stores its cost to the sink


The sink broadcasts an ADV message
containing its own cost (0 initially)

Each node receiving the message transmits neighbor node


Add the cost in ADV message to its own cost

The cost field is set up

after the ADV message propagates through the network

The source transmits an information through cost field

Drawback

Limited network size

The time to set the cost field is directly proportional to the size of the
network

Load is not balanced

Minimum Cost Forwarding


Algorithm (MCFA)
The direction of routing is
always known toward the
fixed external BS

The BS broadcasts a
message with the cost set
to zero, while every node
initially sets its least cost
to the BS to infinity
To check if the estimate
in the message plus the
link on which it is received
is less than the current
estimate.

110

Gradient-based routing
Memorize the number of hops when the
interest is diffused
Minimum the number of hops to reach the
BS
To obtain balanced traffic and prolong
lifetime:
A stochastic scheme
An energy-based
A stream-based scheme

Information-driven sensor querying and


constrained anisotropic diffusion
routing (IDSQ/CADR)
Key idea

Routing data in a network so that information gain is maximized


while power and bandwidth consumption is minimized

CADR:

Aims to be a general form of directed diffusion


Diffuses queries by using a set of information criteria to
select which sensors can get the data

IDSQ:

Does not specifically define how the query and information are
routed
The querying node can determine which node can provide the
most useful information with the additional advantage of
balancing the energy cost

Information-driven sensor querying and


constrained anisotropic diffusion
routing (IDSQ/CADR)
CADR
with global knowledge of sensor positions
optimal position to route query to is given by
xo = argx [Mc = 0] note: Mc = Mu (1 - )Ma
The routing is directly addressed to the sensor
node that is closest to the optimal position

COUGAR
View the network as a huge distributed
database system
Use declarative queries
Abstract query processing from the
network layer
Disadvantages
May add extra overhead query layer
Synchronization
Leader nodes maintenance

COUGAR

ACQUIRE
Views the network as a distributed DB where
complex queries can be divided into several
subqueries
The BS sends a query, which is then forwarded by
each node receiving the query
Each node tries to respond to the query partially
bye using its precached information
Triggered update obtaining information from all
neighborhood within a look-ahead of d hops
Query is returned back to the querying node as a
completed response

ACQUIRE

Active Query
Update Messages
Complete Response

Update only if current information is obsolete


Randomly select next node to forward
Complete response is routed back directly to the original querier

Energy-Aware Routing
A destination-initiated reactive
protocol
It maintains a set of paths
Choosing paths by means of certain
probability depending on how low the
energy consumption is

Energy-Aware Routing
Setup Phase
Local Rule

Directional flooding

Sensor

p1 = 0.75

Controller
p2 = 0.25

10 nJ

30 nJ

Energy-Aware Routing
Data Communication Phase
Each node makes
a local decision
0.3 Sensor

0.6

Controller

1.0

1.0

0.4

0.7

Routing protocols with


random walks
A routing protocol for WSN that tries to do load
balancing among intermediate nodes.
Making use of multiple paths that exist from source to
destination by making local packet forwarding decisions
Current algorithm is only valid for grid-topology sensor
0
1
2
3
network
1/2
2/3
3/4
0
S
Advantages
1
1

2/3

1/2

1/2

1/3

1/3
2/3

1/2

3/4

1/2

1/4

1/4

1/3

1/3
2/3

Topology may not be practical

1/2

Archiving load balancing


Maintaining little state information
1
Disadvantages

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Hierarchical Routing

Nodes will play different roles


Advantages related to scalability and efficient communication
Mainly two-layer routing

Protocols

Select cluster heads


Routing

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH)


Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS)
Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols
Small Minimum energy communication network (MECN)
Self-organizing protocol (SOP)
Virtual grid architecture routing
Hierarchical power-aware routing
Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Low-energy adaptive clustering


hierarchy (LEACH)

Randomly select sensor nodes as cluster-heads, so the


high energy dissipation in communicating with the base
station is spread to all sensor nodes in the sensor
network.
Set-up phase
each sensor node chooses a random number between 0
and 1
If this random number is less than the threshold T(n),
the sensor node is a cluster-head.

Low-energy adaptive clustering


hierarchy (LEACH)
Set-up phase

The cluster-heads advertise to all sensor


nodes in the network
The sensor nodes inform the appropriate
cluster-heads that they will be a member of
the cluster. (base on signal strength)
Afterwards, the cluster-heads assign the
time on which the sensor nodes can send
data to the cluster-heads based on a TDMA
approach.

Low-energy adaptive clustering


hierarchy (LEACH)
Steady phase

the sensor nodes can begin sensing and transmitting


data to the cluster-heads.
The cluster-heads also aggregate data from the
nodes in their cluster before sending these data to
the base station.

After a certain period of time spent on the


steady phase, the network

goes into the set-up phase again and


enters into another round of selecting the clusterheads.

Me Head !!!

I am with you

(CSMA-MAC)

(CSMA-MAC)

Advertisement

Cluster Set up

Phase

Phase

Every node chooses a random number (R) and compute a After decide which cluster it
To reduce
energy consumption nonthreshold
T(n).
joins, each node informs the
T(n) = P/(1-P*(r mod(1/p))
if n element of G,
cluster-head
nodes:
cluster-head
Based
on
the
number of nodes in the
0
else
Use=minimal
amount of energy
cluster, the cluster-head node creates
P desired percentage of cluster heads (e.g. 5%)
chosen
based on the strength of the
r the current round
a TDMA schedule telling each node
cluster-head
advertisement.
G set of nodes that have not been cluster head in the last
1/P it can transmit.
when
rounds
Can turn off the radio until their
This schedule is broadcast back to the
It elects
itself as
a cluster-headtime.
if R < T(n)
allocated
transmission
nodes in the cluster.

Every cluster-head broadcast an advertisement message,


Thanks
forsame
the transmit energy.
with the

Heres your time slot

time slot, Heres


my
Non-cluster-head
node decide which cluster it joins in this
data
Schedule

round based onData


the received signal stregth.
(TDMA)
LargestTransmission
strength closet minimal enery needed for
communication.

Phase

Creation
Phase

Modified from http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/dzsong/teaching/fall2004/netbot/John_G.ppt

Low-energy adaptive clustering


hierarchy (LEACH)

p=0.05

0.0500 = 0.05/(1-0.05*0)
0.0526 = 0.05/(1-0.05*1)
0.0555 = 0.05/(1-0.05*2)
0.0588 = 0.05/(1-0.05*3)
0.0625 = 0.05/(1-0.05*4)
0.0666 = 0.05/(1-0.05*5)
0.0714 = 0.05/(1-0.05*6)
0.0769 = 0.05/(1-0.05*7)
0.0833 = 0.05/(1-0.05*8)
0.0909 = 0.05/(1-0.05*9)
0.1000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*10)

0.5000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*18)
1.0000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*19)

Number of clusters may not fixed


in any round.
To avoid the case that there is no
cluster-head in a round(PE-WASUN04,
Oct. 7, 2004)

Simply skips the round which has no


cluster-heads elected

Power-Efficient Gathering in
Sensor Information Systems
(PEGASIS)
Assumption

All nodes have location information about all other nodes


Sensor nodes are immobile

Feature

Chain-based power efficient protocol


The chain construction by greedy algorithm
Each node has global knowledge

Dynamic leader selection

To evenly distribute the energy load

Data fusion

Power-Efficient Gathering in
Sensor Information Systems
(PEGASIS)
Performance

PEGASIS Outperforms LEACH

By eliminating the overhead of dynamic cluster formation


By minimizing the total sum of transmission distances
By limiting the number of transmissions

Problem

To obtain a global knowledge is difficult


It is not suitable for sensor networks

Scalability problem
Very long delay

Threshold-Sensitive Energy
Efficient Protocols

Terminology

Hard Threshold (HT)

A threshold value for the sensed attribute


The absolute value of the attribute

Soft Threshold (ST)

A small change in the value of the sensed attribute which triggers the node
to switch on its transmitter

Feature

Cluster-based routing protocol based on LEACH


Time critical application
The user can control the trade-off between energy efficiency and
accuracy
A smaller value of the ST

more accurate picture of the network


increased energy consumption

Threshold-Sensitive Energy
Efficient Protocols

Basic scheme

A gain of sensing value


Decision whether to report it or not
Based on the values of HT and ST

Data are reported only

When the sensed value exceeds HT


When the values change is bigger than ST

Drawback

Cannot allocate the time slot

Each node turn on its transmitter all the time

Cannot distinguish a node which does not sense a big change from a
dead or failed node
Collision occurrence in the cluster

Small Minimum energy


communication network (MECN)
Use small subgraph to
communication
The energy required to
transmit data from node
u to all its neighbors in
subgraph G is less than
the energy required to
transmit to all its
neighbors in graph G

MECN
G

SMECN
v
u

Self-organizing protocol
(SOP)
To build architecture to support
heterogeneous sensor
SOP

Discovery Phase: discovery neighbors


Organization Phase: organize a hierarchy
which is height balanced
Maintenance Phase: keep track alive and
routing table
Self-Reorganization Phase: when group
partitions or node failures

Sensor aggregates
routing
The objective:

To collectively monitor target activity in a


certain environment (target tracking
applications)

Sensors are divided into clusters


according to their sensed signal strength
To elect a leader, information exchanges
between neighboring sensors

Three algs: DAM, EBAM, EMLAM

Sensor aggregates
routing

Sensor aggregates
routing
DAM algorithm:
Goal : elect local
cluster leaders.
One peak may
represent one target
Compare with one-hop
neighbors
Broadcasts
qualification
Downward only

Sensor aggregates
routing
12
13
10
12

14

15

12
10
12

11
10

Sensor aggregates
routing

EBAM algorithm:

Provides a solution to count a targets within each sensor


cluster
Consider the energy level of target signal sources
The energy level is estimated by computing the signal
impact area, combining a weighted form of the detected
target energy at each impacted sensor.
To convert the energy level into the corresponding target
density:
assume roughly constant source energy output for the
targets.

Sensor aggregates
routing
MLAM algorithm:

removes the constant and equal


target energy level assumption.
estimates the target positions and
signal energy using received signals,
uses the resulting estimates to
predict how signals from the targets
may be mixed at each sensor.

Virtual grid architecture


routing
Utilizes data aggregation and
in-network processing to
maximize the network lifetime
In side each zone, a node is
optimally selected to act as CH.
Data aggregation is performed
at two levels:
Local: the set of CHs
performing local aggregation
Global: the selection of global
aggregation points is NP-hard

Strategies for the selection of


MAs:
Exact alg: ILP
Approximate algs: geneticsbased, k-means, greedy-based

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Goal
To optimize the lifetime of the network.
We develop an approximation algorithm
called max-min zPmin.
To ensure scalability, we introduce a
hierarchical algorithm, which is called
zone-based routing

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Max-min zPmin algorithm

: Maximal minimal fraction of remaining


power after transmission

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Adaptive computation for z

: lifetime estimate

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Max-min zPmin: requires accurate
power level information for all nodes
Zone-based: a hierarchical approach
Zone power estimation
Routing across zones (Globe path routing)
Routing within each zone (local path
selection)

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Zone power estimation

P: maximal number of messages

Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Globe path routing:
Modified Bellman-Ford algorithm

Local path selection:


Max-min zPmin algorithm is used directly to
route a message within a zone

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Excessive Power
Consumption
Increased Wireless
Transmission
Collisions

State Maintenance
Overhead

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Assumption

Sensor nodes are stationary and location-aware


Sinks may change their location dramatically
Sensor nodes are aware of their missions

Feature

Scalable and efficient data delivery protocol to multiple mobile


sinks
Mobile sensor nodes are not allowed in the network
Location information is required to set up the grid structure
Sensitive to the topology change

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Dissemination Node

Data Announcement
Source
Data
Sink
Query
Immediate
Dissemination
Node

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Dissemination Node
Trajectory
Forwarding

Data Announcement
Source
Data

Source

Immediate
Dissemination
Node

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Grid maintenance issues:

Handle unexpected dissemination node failures


Efficiency

Solutions:

Source sets the Grid Lifetime in Data


Announcement
DN replication: each DN recruits several sensor
nodes from its one-hop neighbor, replicates the
location of the upstream DN
DN failure detected and replaced on-demand by
on-going query and data flows

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Dissemination Node

Source

X
Data

Immediate
Dissemination
Node

Two Tier Data


Dissemination (TTDD)
Dissemination Node

Source

X
Data

Immediate
Dissemination
Node

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Hierarchical vs. Flat
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Hierarchical vs. Flat

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Location-Based Routing
Protocols
Nodes positions are exploited to route data

Sensor nodes are addressed by means of their locations


Distance can be estimated on the basis of incoming
signal strengths

Protocols:

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity


Geographic and Energy Aware Routing
MFR, DIR and GEDIR
The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing
SPAN

Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Core idea
Turn off a node if it is equivalent from a
routing perspective
Adaptively adjust routing fidelity use node
deployment density

Whats fidelity
Uninterrupted connectivity between
communicating nodes

Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Determine routing equivalence
r 2 ( 2r ) 2 R 2

Whats fidelity

R
r
5

Uninterrupted connectivity between


communicating nodes

Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Use GPS information
to decide virtual grid
ID
3-state transition
Discovery (Td)
Active (Ta)
Sleep (Ts)

Node ranking

Active node wins


High energy node wins

Adapting to mobility

With GPS information

Geographic and Energy


Aware Routing
Motivation:

Reduce overhead of interest and low rate data flooding


in directed diffusion

Basic ideas:

Leverage geographical information to restrict flooding,


and recursively disseminate data inside the target
region.
Extend overall network lifetime using local techniques to
balance energy usage
Reuse routing information across multiple user queries.

Geographic and Energy


Aware Routing
Forward the packets towards
the target region:

Greedy mode: minimizing cost


function (f=mix function of
distance and energy)
Route around communication
holes with energy aware neighbor
estimation

Disseminate the packet within


the target region:
Geographic Recursive Forwarding
recursively re-send packets to
sub-regions of the original
geographic region

Geographic and Energy


Aware Routing
Each node has a learned
cost (historical cost) and
an estimated cost (present
state cost) to decide the
next forwarding node
Learned cost

h( N , R) h( N min , R) C ( N , N min )

Estimated cost

c( Ni , R) d ( Ni , R) (1 )e( Ni )

MFR, DIR and GEDIR


MFR most forward with progress
B

S
E

Minimize DS.DA = |DS||DA|

MFR, DIR and GEDIR


DIR best direction
A
S

Closest direction

MFR, DIR and GEDIR


GEDIR closest to destination

S
B

Closest neighbor to D

MFR, DIR and GEDIR


MFR vs GEDIR

A
S

D
A B

may choose different node


choice is same most of time!

GEDIR wins in power efficiency AD<BD

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing
Problem with greedy: Holes
Stuck at X: No neighbor of X is closer to D than X.

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing
a)
b)

Route through the sequence of faces that


intersect the line segment [S,D].
Go around each face.
Switch to the next face at a common edge.
D

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing
Simple face routing can be very bad

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing
Bound Searchable Area

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing
What is the correct size of the bounding
area?
Start with a small searchable area
Grow area each time you cannot reach the
destination
In other words, adapt area size whenever it is
too small

Adaptive Face Routing AFR

The Greedy Other


Adaptive Face Routing

GOAFR: Combine Greedy and (Other) Adaptive Face Routing


Route greedily as long as possible.
If stuck, do face routing.
Switch to greedy, from the best point in the current face.

Starting at s, GOAFR proceeds in greedy mode until reaching the local minimum n1.
The algorithm switches to face routing mode and explores the boundary of face F to
find n2, the node closest to t on F's boundary. GOAFR falls back to greedy mode and
finally reaches t.

SPAN
Goal
Turn off nodes without significantly
diminishing the capacity or connectivity of the
network

Core concept
Coordinator
Forwarding backbone
Non-coordinator

SPAN
Rule1: periodically broadcasts HELLO message
Current Status (coordinator or not)
Current coordinator
Current neighbors

Rule2: coordinator announcement

A node decides to volunteer to be a coordinator if it discovers


that two of its neighbors cannot communicate with each other
directly or via one or two coordinators
Avoid coordinator contention: delayed announcement

Rule3: coordinator withdrawal

If every pair of its neighbors can reach each other either


directly or via some other coordinators
To archive fairness, if one node has been a coordinator for
some period of time and every pair of neighbor nodes can
reach each other via some other neighbors (even if they are
not coordinators yet)

SPAN
Announcement contention
1

2
1

4
6

2
4

1
5

Boo

Boo

Boo

7
6

Initial configuration

All the nodes are eligible Coordinator contention


And try to be a coordinator
at the same time

SPAN
Resolving announcement contention using
backoff

utility 0<R<1

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Routing Protocols Based


on Protocol Operation

Multipath Routing Protocols


Query-Based Routing
Negotiation-Based Routing Protocols
QoS-based Routing
Coherent and Noncoherent Processing

Multipath Routing
Protocols
Use multiple paths in order to
enhance network performance

Fault tolerance
Balance energy consumption
Energy-efficient
Reliability

Query-Based Routing
Destination nodes propagate a query for
data
Usually theses queries are described in
natural language or high-level query
language
E.g.
Directed diffusion
Rumor routing protocol

Negotiation-Based
Routing Protocols
Use high-level data descriptors in order to
eliminate redundant data transmissions
through negotiation
Communication decisions are also made
based on the resources available to them
E.g.
SPIN

QoS-based Routing
Has to balance between energy
consumption and data quality
E.g.
SPEED (congestion avoidance)

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Future Directions (1/2)

QoS
Nodes mobility
Exploit redundancy
Tiered architectures
Exploit spatial diversity and density of
sensor nodes
Achieve desired global behavior with
adaptive localized algorithms

Future Directions

(2/2)

Leverage data processing inside the


network and exploit computation near data
sources to reduce communication
Time and location synchronization
Localization
Self-configuration and reconfiguration
Secure routing
Integration of sensor networks with wired
networks

Outline

Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions

Conclusions
They have the common objective of
trying to extend the lifetime of
network
Trade-off energy and communication
overhead
There are still many challenges that
need to be solved

The End
Thanks for Listening

Вам также может понравиться