Robust and Energy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks Routing Algorithms

University of Leicester Department of Computer Science

Robust and Energy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks Routing Algorithms

Author: Student No: Course Title: Module: First Supervisor: Second Supervisor: Date:

Mohammad Hammoudeh 059012660 MSc Advanced Distributed Systems CO7201 Individual Project Alexander Kurz Emilio Tuosto 29 September, 2006

Abstract

Wireless sensor network is a new technology with a wide range of applications such as military, environment monitoring, surveillance, etc. Sensor networks have energy constraints, many-to-one flows, and redundant law-rate data. There are many routing protocols proposed in sensor networks. However, most protocols aim for achieving energy efficiency with little or no attention for robustness and fault-tolerance. In piece of work we consider the area of fault-tolerance in ad-hoc sensor network routing. In particular, we regard the design and development of robust and energy efficient routing protocols that separate between local and large-scale traffic. A new multipath routing protocols is proposed and simulated. This proposed protocol consider the number of hops metric and employs a waiting time before transmitting messages to sink.

2

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all those people who made this thesis possible and an enjoyable experience for me. First of all I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Alexander Kurz, who guided this work and helped whenever I was in need. A special thanks to people in the Cogent Research Group particularly Sarah Mount.

Thank you

3

Table of Content Abstract Acknowledgments Chapter One: Introduction and Back Ground Information 1.1 Sensor Networks Definition 1.1 Review of routing in traditional networks 1.1.1 Routing definition 1.1.2 Routing Algorithms 1.1.2.1 Design goals 1.1.3 Algorithm types Chapter Two: Routing in Sensor Networks 2.1 Difference between sensor networks and traditional ad-hoc networks 2.2 Routing protocols design factors in sensor networks Chapter Three: A Survey on Sensor Networks Routing Protocols 3.1 Data-centric routing protocols 3.1.1 Flooding 3.1.2 Gossiping 3.1.3 Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation 3.1.4 Directed-Diffusion 3.1.5 Energy-Aware Routing 3.1.6 Rumor routing 3.1.7 Routing protocols with random walks 3.2 Gradient-based routing 3.2.1 CADR and IDSQ 3.2.2 COUGAR 3.2.3 ACQUIRE 3.3 Hierarchical protocols 3.3.1 LEACH 3.3.2 PEGASIS 3.3.3 TEEN 3.3.4 Self-organizing protocol 3.4 Location-based protocols 3.4.1 GAF 3.4.2 MECN 3.4.3 GEAR 3.5 Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation 3.5.1 Multi-path routing protocols 3.6 Query based routing 3.6.1 Negotiation based routing protocols 3.6.2 QoS-based routing 3.6.3 Sequential Assignment Routing 3.6.4 Maximum lifetime energy routing 3.6.5 Coherent and non-coherent processing Chapter Four: New routing protocol 4.1 Description of the new routing protocol 4.1.1 Setup phase

4

2 3 6 7 9 9 11 11 12 14 15 16 22 23 23 24 24 26 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 43 44 46 47 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 51 52 53

4.1.2 Data Transmission Phase 4.2 Data aggregation 4.3 Simulation Conclusions and Future Work References

57 58 59 67 69

5

Chapter One: Introduction and Back Ground Information

Sensor networks are wireless ad-hoc networks of a set of low-cost hosts that are spatially distributed devices using sensors to monitor a given phenomenon such as temperature, sound humidity, position, motion, and others. The sensor networks are used for diverse applications areas (e.g., health care, agriculture, civil engineering, surveillance, and military). Usually these devices are small in size and resources including energy, memory, bandwidth, and computational power.

Since they are

inexpensive, they are deployed in large scale within the phenomenon area to monitor physical condition changes. Recent advancement in wireless communications and electronics enabled the development of smaller, cheaper, and power-efficient devices that communicate with each other over a wireless channel. These are self organizing decentralized nodes that communicate directly or through an arbitrary number of intermediate nodes.

6

1.1 Sensor Networks Definition A Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is an ad-hoc network that consists of tiny sensor nodes with sensing, processing, and computation capabilities. These nodes are densely deployed either inside the phenomenon or near to it to measure ambient conditions in the sensed environment and then transform these measurements into messages that can be communicated through wireless links to the sink node. WSN has been recognized as one of the most important technologies for the 21st century [3]. Due to recent advances in wireless communications and electronics, the production of small and inexpensive low-power multifunctional sensor nodes has become achievable.

Sensor nodes can be imagined as small special

purpose computers with sensing capabilities as input devices and with limited computation and memory. Famous examples of sensor nodes which are still in research stage are: Mica Mote, WINS, Smart Dust, COTS Dust, etc. Each sensor node is typically composed of a processing unit, memory, sensor, communication unit (usually radio transceivers or optical in Dust nodes), and power source usually AA batteries. Figure 1 shows the block diagram for a Mica2 node [4].

Figure 1: Mica2 block diagram. The sink node (also known as the base station) is any sensor node connected to a standard PC interface or gateway board [4]. A sink node

7

aggregate network data that can be stored or analyzed to reveal the conditions of the observed phenomena.

Figure 2: Communication architecture of WSN According to [5] deployment of sensor networks can be in random fashion (e.g. dropped by airplane in the phenomena area) or regular (e.g. manual deployment of machine monitoring sensors).

Deployment of

sensors may be on ground, in the air (e.g. on board of an airplane), under water (e.g. Columbia River estuary monitoring), in vehicles, inside buildings, and inside human body [6]. Naturally, WSN are networks of large number of nodes which collaborate to monitor phenomena and report collected data over wireless links. As mentioned above, each node has a communication unit, typically RF, to communicate with other nodes or directly to the sink node or base station. Figure 2 shows schematic communication architecture of WSN. As Figure 2 shows, sensor nodes are densely scattered over the sensor area where the phenomena is located and the sensor nodes are deployed. Each node collects data via sensors and route data either to other sensor node or to external base station. Sensor nodes organize themselves to provide high-quality data about the phenomena conditions, this can be done by dividing work among nodes 8

to save energy by entering to sleep mode according to contribution to the sensing coverage. The following features enable wide and numerous applications for WSNs [7]. A WSN has close connection with its immediate environment without disturbance to environment, animals’, plants, etc. Furthermore, WSN is an economical method for long-term data gathering (one deployment, much utilization) and it avoid unsafe or unwise repeated field studies. For instance, rapid deployment, self-organization, and fault tolerance characteristics of WSN make them of high value for military uses including intelligence, surveillance, and targeting systems [8]. In health, WSN also has profound effects like monitoring disabled people and even biomedical sensors could help to help to create vision. Many other

applications

exist

like

habitat

monitoring,

environmental

observation and forecasting systems (e.g. using thermal sensors to monitor temperature in a forest), and commercial applications including managing inventory, monitoring and controlling machines, monitoring product quality, safety, etc.

1.1 Review of routing in traditional networks 1.1.1 Routing definition

Routing is defined in [1] as “the act of moving information across an internetwork from a source to destination”.

Routing has been a hot

research issue since 1970s but it has achieved commercial popularity in the mid 1980s with the growth of large-scale heterogeneous networks. Routing is usually divided into two separate activities: Determining optimal routing routes: routing protocols use routing tables to maintain route information.

Different routing algorithms maintain

different rout information such as destination and next hop that means the

9

best path to a specific destination is through the next hop on the way to the final destination. When a router receives a packet it, it checks the destination address to see if the packet is addressed to itself otherwise it forwards the packet to next hop. Figure 3 shows a simple routing table.

Figure 3: Destination, Cost, Next Hop routing table Routing tables can contain other information and compare metrics to determine the best path for a packet to travel to its destination; these metrics differ between various algorithms.

Routing protocols use

different metrics or a combination of multiple metrics called hybrid metrics, an example of simple metrics include path length, link reliability, delay, traffic/congestion, bandwidth, and cost. Routers maintain up to date routing tables through the exchange of routing update messages that consist of all or a portion of a routing table. Router can build a complete picture of the network topology by evaluating routing updates from other routers and through link-state advertisements. Transporting packets through and internetwork: this is straightforward process known as packet switching. Packet switching occurs at Layer 2 (the data link layer) of the OSI model, whereas routing occurs at Layer 3 (the network layer). Figure 4 shows a simple switching table.

Figure 4: Simple switching table

10

1.1.2 Routing Algorithms

Routing algorithms can be classified into two broad classes according to [1]. 1.1.2.1 Design goals Algorithm designer goals must be implied on the operation of the resulting routing protocol. Each routing algorithm may have one or many design goals, these design goals include:  Optimality: is the ability to select the optimal rout to transfer message from source to destination. The best path is calculated using weighted metrics, for example, path length and link reliability are used by routing algorithm where the former metric is given more weight than the other metric.  Simplicity and low overhead:

routing algorithms design must be

simple with high level of functional efficiency. Efficiency means to do the job with minimum resource utilization and overhead. Efficiency is with high value when routing algorithms is to run on computers with limited physical resources such as sensor nodes.  Robustness and stability: a routing algorithm is said to be robust when they have the ability to handle emerging or unexpected situations like link failure and endure numerous network conditions.  Rapid convergence:

convergence is part of routing table update

process. Convergence occurs when all nodes have consistent routing tables and correct distance information, when a link or node fails, the neighbouring nodes notice it and update their rout entries and stimulate recalculation of optimal routes so that all routers agree on these routes.

Slow convergence has lethal consequences such as

routing loops or network outages [1, 2].

11

 Flexibility: refers to the ability of a routing algorithm to adapt rapidly to different network conditions. 1.1.3 Algorithm types

Most algorithms lie in one of the following broad categories [1]: Static versus Dynamic: static routing tables is created and maintained by the network administrator and cant react dynamically to network changes. Static routing algorithms best fit small and steady network environments and they do not suit ad-hock networks. Dynamic routing the dominant routing algorithm [1] now a days, these algorithms adjust dynamically to changes in network conditions by exchanging routing updates that could be sent periodically or triggered by network changes. After receiving rout update messages, routing algorithms recalculate their entries accordingly. Hybrid algorithms that use a combination of both static and dynamic algorithms are also possible.  Single-Path versus Multipath:

multipath routing algorithms also

known as load sharing algorithms that support one or more path to a certain destination and use multiplexing over these paths which lead to improved throughput/less delay and more reliability.  Flat versus Hierarchical: flat routing is simply a system where all routers are peers. Whereas hierarchical routing systems has some routers acting as a backbone where all packets from non-backbone routers are forwarded towards the backbone until they arrive the last router in the backbone which is the closest to the destination or in the same domain as the destination. At this point autonomous routing is used to deliver the packet to the final destination directly or through one or more intermediary nodes. Each backbone router can only communicate with nodes in its domain or with other routers. The prominent advantage of hierarchical algorithm is the simplified

12

organization and efficient traffic isolation within limited domains. In addition, the router design itself could be simplified and more efficient since it has only to know about its domain and other routers.  Intradomain versus Interdomain:

Intradomain routing (e.g., Open

Shortest Path First) function within domains using routing metrics. While, Interdeomain routing (e.g., Border Gateway Protocol) operate between domains and is more concerned with reachability and policy.

Figure 5: Interdoamin versus Intradomain  Link-State versus Distance Vector: Link-State (shortest path first) is the second major class of intradomain routing algorithms [2]. LinkState algorithms operate by disseminating information about the whole network to every node through flooding link-state packets (LSP); these updates are small in size.

Link-state protocols can

converge more rapidly and are more scalable than distance vector protocols but require more processing and memory capabilities. In distance vector (Bellman-Ford) algorithms, each node maintains a vector containing distances to all other nodes and sends it only to its neighbours. The messages send in distance vector algorithms are large in size but sent only to direct nodes neighbours.

13

2 Chapter Two: Routing in Sensor Networks In WSNs, robust routing algorithms that improve energy and bandwidth utilization are highly desirable. Realization of the inborn characteristics mentioned in section one, sensor network application requires wireless ad hoc networking techniques [8]. However, the existing protocols and algorithms proposed for traditional wireless ad hoc networks like cellular networks. Due to their unique features and applications, routing in WSNs is a very challenging and difficult problem. In this chapter we study the difference in routing protocols between traditional networks and sensor networks. We also study the design factors of routing protocols in sensor networks.

14

2.1 Difference between sensor networks and traditional adhoc networks In the following the differences between sensor networks and ad hoc networks are listed: 1. It is quite difficult to adopt a global identification scheme due to the large number of sensor nodes and the high overhead cost required for ID maintenance. In contrast to sensor networks, traditional networks use IP address as global identification thus IP-based protocols can not be applied to WSN. In some cases, getting the data is more important than the sender node ID [5]. 2. Unlike traditional communication networks, sensor networks mainly use the broadcast communication paradigm typically to transmit sensed data from multiple sources to the sink node. Whereas most ad hoc networks are based on multicast or peer-to-peer communications. 3. Sensor nodes require careful resource management as they have limited energy, low bandwidth radio, limited processing capabilities, and storage. 4. Sensor nodes can be mobile which results unpredictable and frequent topological changes.

Topological changes can also be caused by

nodes failure or entering inactive state. 5. In WSNs routing is application dependent and design goals vary among different applications. For example, in military applications low energy is higher weighted than robustness whereas in emergency rescue and response the opposite is true. 6. Position awareness of sensor nodes is necessary since data is collected on location bases [5]. Sensor networks are deployed in ad hoc fashion and they operate in unattended mode. As a result, nodes need to discover neighbours and form connections.

15

Many solutions were

proposed for finding position like triangulation based algorithm proposed in [original].

Algorithms based on triangulation

approximate their position using radio strength from few nodes who know their position using Global Positioning Systems (GPS). 7. WSNs are data-centric networks since data is collected based on a specific attribute or query (e.g., only nodes that sense temperature over 40 c need to response for query of the form “>40c”). Since many nodes may response with same data about the same phenomena, the generated data will contain significant redundancy. This redundancy could be used in positive way by routing protocols to improve energy and bandwidth utilization or even error elimination. 8. The number of sensor nodes in a sensor network can be several orders of magnitude higher than the nodes in an ad hoc network [8]. 9. Sensor nodes are densely deployed (from tens to thousands). 10.Sensor networks are fault-prone (due to physical damage or environmental interference) and since their on-site maintenance is infeasible, scalable self-healing is crucial for enabling the deployment of large-scale sensor network applications. 11.Unreliable communication channels (harsh environment or battery depletion). 2.2 Routing protocols design factors in sensor networks Many researchers are currently working on developing new algorithms or protocols that take into consideration the differences between sensor networks and ad hoc networks along with applications and architectural requirements. Since in sensor networks topological changes are very frequent, network routes need frequent updates as well. Maintaining up to date routing tables is challenging process due to energy restrictions and other factors. Most of the existing protocols focus on reducing energy

16

consumption and ignore other important design factors such as fault tolerance, scalability, etc.

To reduce energy expenditure, routing

protocols proposed in the literature for sensor networks adopt existing well known routing strategies as well as new strategies developed specially to meet the inherent properties of sensor networks. Almost all of the routing protocols can be broken down based on the routing techniques as flooding, gradient, clustering, and geographic. Moreover, these protocols can be classified according to the network structure as flat, hierarchal, or location-based.

In flooding protocols data is

broadcasted to all neighbouring nodes, while in gradient protocols the number of hops is memorized when the data is disseminated through the whole network [9].

In clustering protocols, cluster-heads nodes are

selected so the high energy dissipation in communicating with the sink node is spread to all sensor nodes in the network [10]. The last category of protocols, geographic, employs position information to deliver the data to specific area rather than the whole network [11]. In the following we review the most prominent factors that have bearing on routing protocols design. 1. Fault Tolerance: Loosely speaking, fault tolerance means reliability and availability. Sensor nodes may fail due to software errors (e.g., timing failure [12]) or hardware errors (e.g. physical damage, lack of power, or environmental interference). The failure of sensor nodes should not block the whole network, instead routing protocols must find alternative routes to the data collection sink and sustain the overall function without any interruption due to sensor node failures [8]. This is known as the reliability or fault tolerance issue. Fault tolerance requires signalling rates and dynamic transmit power adjustments or forward packets through nodes with higher energy.

17

Consequently, redundancy could be useful in a fault tolerant sensor network. 2. Scalability:

Scalability is one of the features of a good network

design. Data-link and physical-layer technologies may change quite often but the network control plane, of which routing is the cornerstone, must last many generations of underlying technology. Sensor networks consist of large number of sensor nodes ranging from hundreds to thousands depending on the application.

Routing

protocols must be able to operate correctly with such large number of nodes and exploit the density of sensor networks in saving energy, distributing load, and fault correction. Furthermore, routing protocols must be able to dynamically interact with environmental events. When the phenomena conditions are stable some nodes enter into sleep mode while other nodes keep the network functioning with high performance.

When important events occur sleeping nodes

automatically change state to active and start operating again. 3. Node cost:

The number of sensor nodes used to monitor a

phenomenon may reach thousands of nodes. Because of this large number of node, the cost of a single node has to be kept low. If the cost of the network is more expensive than deploying traditional sensor, the sensor network is not cost justified [8]. 4. Hardware constraints: Typical sensor node is made of power unit, processing unit, sensing unit, and a transceiver [13]. They also have application specific components like power generator, mobilizer, and location finding system. Sensing unit is composed of sensors that can sense a variety of phenomena attributes (e.g. temperature, pressure, etc…) and ADC unit that convert analogy inputs into digital signals that can be processed by the processing unit.

The processor is

normally coupled with small memory to carry out functions that make 18

sensor node collaborate with other nodes to achieve desired task. The transceiver is the communication unit that enable sensor node to interact with peer sensors or directly with the sink. The power unit is also a major unit that support node with energy; some times it is also associated with power generator (e.g. solar cell). Other application specific components include mobilizer to handle node mobility and location finding system to find the location of a sensor node. 5. Transmission media: In sensor networks wireless communication medium takes many forms including radio, infrared, or optical media. The µAMPS sensor node [14] uses a Bluetooth 2.4 GHz transceiver. In [15] a wireless sensor node uses a single channel RF transceiver operating at 916 MHz.

The Wireless Integrated Network Sensor

(WINS) [16] is based on radio links for communication. Optical media is another important transmission media that the Smart Dust mote [17] uses for transmission.

Infrared is a license free

communication media used by sensor nodes deployed in high interference environments. Similar to optical media, infrared require line of sight between two communication endpoints. 6. Environment:

Sensor networks operate in unattained environment

whenever they are deployed in remote areas. They may be working under the soil, embedded in machines, under water, or in biologically contaminated field, in a home, or building. 7. Sensor network Topology: Hundreds to several thousands of nodes are deployed throughout the sensor field [8]. They are deployed in high density as 20 nodes/m3 [14], this high density require careful handling of topology maintenance. In [8], topology maintenance and change is viewed as three phases: a. Pre-deployment and deployment phase: deployment of sensor nodes in the sensor field can take several forms: 19

i.

Random deployment: place sensor in remote or dangerous environments without any communication lines. This could be done by dropping nodes from an airplane, rocket, etc. common

in

disaster

This type of deployment is management

and

military

application. ii.

Manual deployment: nodes are placed one by one in the sensor field. This can be done by human or robot. This type of deployment is widely used in agricultural (e.g., planted underground) applications.

b. Post-deployment phase: after deployment, topological changes occur due to many factors such as coverage, interference, power management, task, etc. c. Redeployment of additional nodes phase: to compensate for nodes that fail due to energy reasons or physical damage, a redeployment of new sensors may be necessary to keep network functioning. 8. Power: Wireless sensor nodes are usually powered by batteries which make sensor node life time directly dependent on battery life time. Sensor node collects data about the environment and performs a quick local processing on sensed data before transmission. Thus, power consumption is distributed over the three tasks: sensing, processing, and transmission.

In addition, nodes also can act as a router of

intermediate node that reroute other nodes data.

As nodes fail,

possibly due to power failure, routing paths need to be updated. Due to the aforementioned reasons, power conservation is acquiring more importance and researchers are paying more attention on designing of power aware protocols for sensor networks.

20

9. Data Aggregation:

Since sensor nodes may generate significant

redundant data, similar packets from multiple nodes can be aggregated to reduce the number of transmissions [18]. A variety of aggregation functions can be sued to combine data from different sources such as duplicate suppression, minima, maxima, and average [19]. If sensor nodes were allowed to in-network data reduction, some of the mentioned aggregation functions can be applied fully or partially in each sensor node [20]. According to [18], communication consumes more energy than processing would take.

For this reason, this

technique has been applied in many routing protocols to achieve energy efficiency and data transmission [10].

Signal processing

techniques can also use aggregation. In this case its is referred to as data fusion where node use techniques like beam-forming to combine signals and reducing noise in these signals to produce accurate output signal. 10.Data Delivery Method: Data delivery to the sink can be classified as time-driven, event driven, or hybrid method using a combination of any of these categories depending on the application. The time-driven is used in applications that transmit data periodically. In event-driven, data transmission occurs as a response to drastic events or responds to query generated by the sink or other node. Data delivery method has significant impact on routing protocols in terms of energy minimization and route convergence.

21

3 Chapter Three: A Survey on Sensor Networks Routing Protocols In this section we focus our study to the network layer of sensor networks describing and classifying different routing protocols. A routing protocol is said to be adaptive if it has the ability to change dynamically to adapt to current network and node conditions such as energy available. Routing in sensor networks can be categorized based on the network structure into flat-based routing, hierarchical-based routing, and location-based routing. In flat-based routing, all nodes are peers with equal roles and functionality.

In hierarchical-based routing, nodes are distributed to

different levels where each level reflect different role in the network. In location-based routing, data routing decisions built on location information.

Additionally, sensor networks routing protocols can be

classified depending on the protocol operation into multiplepath-based, negotiation-based,

and

QoS-based,

or

coherent-based

routing.

Furthermore, routing protocols can be categorized based on how source find a rout to destination (normally to the sink) into proactive, reactive and hybrid. In proactive protocols, all routes are computed and stored into routing tables before they are needed. Whereas, in reactive protocols routes are computed on only demand. Hybrid protocols are a mixture of both classes. Another class of routing is called cooperative routing. In this routing class, data is sent to a central node where it can be aggregated or undergo processing to reduce energy consumption. classifications exist such as timing or location based classes.

22

Many other

3.1 Data-centric routing protocols Nodes address is the base of routing in traditional networks. However, in sensor networks it is not feasible to assign global identifiers to sensor nodes due to the large number of nodes. This makes it very difficult to query a set of nodes and avoid transmitting data from all nodes in the network which is energy inefficient.

Many routing protocols were

proposed to solve this problem known as data-centric protocols. In this section we will examine a set of these protocols in details and compare them to each other with highlight on points of strength and points of weakness for every protocol. 3.1.1 Flooding [20]

Originally was developed for traditional networks but can be used for routing in sensor networks. Flooding is a reactive technique that does not require complex routing algorithms and topology maintenance; each sensor node upon receiving a packet, data or network traffic, forward it to all of its neighbours. This process is repeated until packet has reached its destination or exceeded the maximum number of hops allowed. This algorithm has a number of deficiencies listed in [21]: Implosion: Happens when a node receive several copies of the same packet from several neighbours. For example if a sensor node X has N neighbours that are also neighbours of sensor node Y, then Y will receive N copies of the same packet. Overlap: If many nodes observing the same area, then neighbours will receive duplicated messages about the state of the shared area. Resource blindness: Flooding is not energy aware. An energy efficient protocol must adapt to the amount of energy available and change behaviour accordingly.

23

3.1.2 Gossiping [20]

Gossiping is an enhanced version of flooding in which incoming packets forwarded to only one is randomly selected neighbour rather than broadcast to all neighbours. Each sensor node repeats the same process until packet is delivered to its final destination. This algorithm eliminates the implosion problem by having only one copy of the message at any sensor node. However, this algorithm cause propagation delays due to the long time to send the packet to all sensor nodes. 3.1.3 Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN) [21]

A family of adaptive protocols designed to overcome the deficiencies of flooding by negotiation and resource-adaptation. The basic idea to make sensor nodes operate more efficiently and conserve energy is to transmit meta-data, data that describes data, instead of the actual data itself since meta-data is shorter than the actual packets. The meta-data has one-toone relationship with the actual data.

This means two pieces f

indistinguishable data share the same meta-data and two distinguishable data does not share the same meta-data. The meta-data should be smaller in size that the actual data to be beneficial for SPIN. The format of the meta-data is application specific and not specified in SPIN. For example, sensor nodes may use their own unique IDs to present meta-data if they cover a certain known area. The SPIN family of protocols uses meta-data negotiation to address the problem of flooding to conserve energy by sending meta-data instead of sending the data itself. SPIN is a three-stage protocol where each stage uses different type of message to communicate. It has three types of messages, which are ADV, REQ, and DATA. When a SPIN node has data to transmit it, it broadcast an ADV message containing meta-data of the DATA. If a neighbour receiving and ADV is interested in the data, it sends a REQ message for the DATA

24

and sensor node originating the ADV message send data to this neighbour. If a sensor node does not respond for an ADV message the sender implicitly understand that the node is not interested which reduce messaging overhead. SPIN also use a random time for REQ messages to prevent overlap. This process is repeated at each neighbour node until every node in the entire sensor network that is interested in the data will get a copy of the DATA message. The SPIN family of protocols include many protocols including [21] [23] [24]:  SPIN-1: each node use negotiation before transmitting data to ensure that only useful data will be transferred (no duplicate messages or overlap).  SPIN-2: threshold-based energy aware copy of SPIN-1. Also each node has resource manager. When energy in a node approaches a lower energy threshold, it reduces its participation in the protocol (e.g. it only participates when it has enough energy to complete the three stages).  SPIN-BC: broadcast channels protocol.  SPIN-PP: designed for point-to-point communication.  SPIN-EC: similar to SPIN-PP but with an energy heuristics.  SPIN-RL: similar to SPIN-PP but with adjustments to deal with loosely channels. SPIN was compared experimentally to flooding and gossiping in [21]. Results gave SPIN-1 performance compared to time is same as flooding but suing 25% of energy, whereas SPIN-2 delivers 60% more data per unit of energy than standard flooding. Both SPIN-1 and SPIN-2 performs gossiping and come close to ideal dissemination protocol. In terms of mode, SPIN nodes and user can be mobile or stationary and events

25

monitored could also be continuous or target detection. SPIN has many points of strength and drawbacks; some of these are summarized in the following. Points of strength:  Simple negotiation  Topological changes are localized  Works for mobile sensors and users  Robust since it is immune to node failure  Scalable since it needs local interaction with neighbours only  Solve deficiencies of classical flooding efficiently  Small delays Points of weakness:  Use flooding  Nodes are always active consuming more energy  Advertisement methods can not guarantee the delivery of data In conclusion, SPIN family of protocols are simple protocols that disseminate data efficiently without maintaining any topological information or neighbours state.

This makes it very efficient for

environments with mobile nodes or users since forwarding decisions are build on local neighbourhood information. 3.1.4 Directed-Diffusion

The directed-diffusion is a data-centric paradigm for sensor networks proposed by Intanagonwiwat et al in [20]. It is data-centric in the sense that all sensor nodes data is named by assigning attribute-value pairs. The sink query data by broadcasting interest which is a task description defined using list of attribute-value pairs such as interval, geographical area, etc. The interest message contains a timestamp field and several gradient fields. A gradient is a reply link to the sensor node from which 26

the interest was received. Each node receiving the interest stores a copy in the cash to compare the sensed data with the interest and to prevent loops. The interest and data propagation and aggregation are decided locally. As the interest is propagated throughout the sensor network, gradient from the source back to the sink are set up to draw data satisfying the query toward the requesting node. Every node that receives the interest setup a gradient until gradients are drawn from the source back to the sink. The amount of information flow depends on the strength of the gradient toward different neighbours. For example, when the interest fit gradients, multiple pates of information flow are formed but only the best paths are reinforced to avoid flooding and then reduce communication overhead. The nodes ability to do data aggregation is known as a minimum Steiner tree problem [19]. When the sink starts to receive data from the source it periodically retransmit the original interest message with smaller interval of time to reinforce the source node to send data more frequently on a specific path.

This is essential because interests are not reliably

transmitted. When the path from source node to sink fails an alternative path can be found and used. In directed-diffusion networks, nodes are application aware which help to save energy by selecting best-paths, cashing, and processing data locally. Cashing is the essence of directed-diffusion which increase scalability and robustness of sensor networks.

This paradigm is well suited to

persistent queries where sink does not expect data that satisfy a query for a certain period of time. For the aforementioned reason, it is unsuitable for one-time queries since it will be expensive to draw gradients for one use only. For example, directed-diffusion can not be applied to monitor environmental conditions because it is on-demand model which is not beneficial in such application domain. In [5] three factors that affect the 27

performance of data aggregation used in directed-diffusion were pointed: location of the source node within the network, number of sources, and the network topology. In directed-diffusion, the energy saved with data aggregation is spent to improve robustness with respect to sensed phenomena dynamics. Based on the previous discussion we know that users and sensor nodes are stationary in this paradigm and event observed (query) is sent back to sink by unicast or multicast while interest could be transmitted by broadcast, multicast, or unicast. In SPIN communication is initiated at sensor nodes by advertising the availability of data giving way for nodes interested with advertised data to send query request. However, in directed-diffusion communication is started by a query sent by the sink to sensor nodes by flooding some tasks (on-demand). In the following we list some of the strength and weakness points in directed diffusion paradigm. Points of strength:  Scalable, since it is based on local interaction only  Latency is minimized by selecting best path among multiple available paths  Compared to flooding and data aggregation it has less traffic which reduce energy consumption  It is robust due to law data rate gradients and interest retransmission  On demand data transmission Point of weakness:  High cost of gradient setup  It is not energy aware as the best paths might be always used  Absence of mechanisms to select alternative path and interest retransmission

28

 Not suitable for applications that require continuous data delivery to sink such as environmental monitoring  Naming schemes are application dependent and require to be specified before deployment  Comparing data and interest might add processing overhead at the sensor nodes 3.1.5 Energy-Aware Routing

Energy-Aware Routing [25] is a destination-initiated reactive protocol that aims to increase network lifetime.

This protocol differs from

directed-diffusion in the sense that it uses a set of sub-optimal paths to increase network lifetime instead of using the minimum energy path which will deplete the nodes energy.

These paths are chosen and

maintained by means of energy-consumption dependent probability function. The protocol assumes that each node is addressable through a class-based addressing which includes the location and types of the nodes. The protocol can pass through three phases: i.

Setup phase: The protocol initializes routing tables and discovers routes through localized flooding. In this phase the total energy cost in each node is calculated. Routing tables are constructed by assigning probability to each node neighbours corresponding to the node cost. Paths that have a very high cost are discarded.

ii.

Data communication phase:

Nodes use the routing tables

constructed in the previous phase to send data to destination with probability inversely proportional to their cost. iii.

Route maintenance: Perform localized flooding as in the initialization phase to update routes and keep all the paths alive.

In Energy-Aware Routing approach path from source to destination is calculated in similar way to directed-diffusion and path is randomly

29

selected form a list of alternatives. However, in directed-diffusion data is sent through multiple paths and only one of them is reinforced. The use of single path make recovering from path failure very complicated process compared to directed diffusion.

In addition, setting up the

addressing mechanism for nodes and collecting location information add more complexity to the approach. 3.1.6 Rumor routing

Rumor routing [26] is a variation of directed-diffusion intended for applications where geographic routing is not possible. When there is no geographic criterion to diffuse task, directed-diffusion floods the query to all nodes in the network. It is not always necessary to flood the network especially when the amount of data requested from nodes is small. An alternative approach is to flood events if number of events is small and the number of queries is large. In this approach, only nodes that have sensed a particular event receive the queries rather than flooding the entire network to retrieve information about observed events. To flood events through the network Rumor routing nodes maintain an event table whose entries are observed events and an agent which is a long-lived packets. Agents traverse the network to propagate information about observed events to distant nodes. Nodes that know the route may respond to queries by checking their event tables. Unwanted flooding can be avoided by that way reducing costly communication overhead. Rumor routing keeps only a single path between communication end-points as opposed to directed-diffusion that maintains multiple paths at low rates. Simulation results revealed that Rumor routing performance is inversely proportional to the number of events. It has been shown that Rumor routing is robust and can recover from failures efficiently. In addition, it has achieved a significant energy savings compared to classical flooding.

30

When the number of events becomes very large and there is no enough interest in these events, the cost of maintaining agents and event-tables in every node may become very high or even infeasible. Another concern in this approach is to use parameters such as time-to-live to manage the overhead for queries and agents. The selection of net-hop in Rumor routing is affected by the way the route of an event agent is defined. 3.1.7 Routing protocols with random walks

Proposed in [27] for large-scale network where nodes have limited mobility. Random-walks-based routing paradigm aims to achieve load balancing using multipath routing in a statistical manner. Similar to energy-aware routing, this protocol assumes that each node has a unique identifier but without the need of location information, it is also assumed that each node can be turned on or off at random times. Topology can be irregular but nodes were placed at crossing point of a regular grid on a plane.

Using the distributed asynchronous version of Bellman-Ford

algorithm to calculate to the location information, the rout from source to destination can be identified. According to a computed probability, on intermediate node would select the neighbouring node that is closer to the destination as the next hop. The load balancing is achieved by carefully calculating this probability. In conclusion this protocol is simple as nodes need to maintain little state information and different routes are selected between the same pair of source and destination of different times. However, the drawback of this algorithm is the topology; network topology may be impractical. 3.2 Gradient-based routing Gradient-based routing (GBR) is another variant of directed-diffusion proposed by Schurgers et al. [9]. The basic idea is to memorize the number of hops when interest is flooded through the network. Hence, 31

each node can calculate the minimum number of hops to reach the sink. This parameter is called the height of the node.

The gradient on a

specific link between two neighbouring nodes is calculated as the difference between a node’s height and that of its neighbour. A packet is forwarded of a link with the largest gradient. GBR uses some auxiliary techniques to uniformly divide the traffic over the network; such techniques include data aggregation and traffic spreading. When a node fall in multiple paths, acts as a relay node, it can create data combining according to a certain function. On the other hand, three different data spreading techniques have been presented: 1. Stochastic-based: when there are two or more next hops with equal gradients the node chooses one among them randomly. 2. An energy-based scheme: when energy approaches a certain threshold, a node increases its height to discourage other sensor nodes from sending data to that node. 3. A stream-based scheme: divert new streams away from nodes that are currently part of the path of other streams. Data spreading contribute to achieve balanced distribution of the traffic in the network which is the main objective of this algorithm. Also the discussed techniques for traffic load balancing and data fusion are also applicable to other routing protocols for enhanced performance. Simulations results of GBR have shown outperform directed-diffusion in terms of total communication energy. 3.2.1 CADR and IDSQ

Two routing techniques were proposed in [28]: Constrained anisotropic diffusion routing (CADR) and information-driven sensor querying (IDSQ). CADR aims to be a general form of directed-diffusion. The main idea is to query nodes and route packets such that information gain

32

is maximized while latency and bandwidth are minimized.

CARD

generate queries using certain criteria to select sensor that can get the data through acting only the sensors that are near event of concern and dynamically adjusting data routes.

The difference from directed-

diffusion is the consideration of information gain in addition to the communication cost. In CADR, each node evaluates on information/cost gradient and end-user requirements. model information utility technique.

Estimation theory was used to However, IDSQ does not

specifically define how the query and information are routed but it gives a mechanism of choosing the best order of sensors for maximum incremental information gain.

Therefore, IDSQ can be viewed as a

complementary optimization procedure. Simulation results confirmed that these techniques are more efficient than directed-diffusion where queries are diffused in an isotropic fashion and reach closest neighbours first. 3.2.2 COUGAR

Proposed in [29] where the network is viewed as a huge distributed database system. The basic idea is to abstract query processing through using declarative queries. In addition, COUGAR utilizes in-network data aggregation to achieve more energy savings. A new abstraction layer was added between the network and application layers to provide networklayer independent method for data query. The architecture proposed in COUGAR has a node called the leader that performs aggregation and transmit the data to the sink. The leader is selected by other sensor nodes in the distributed database system. The sink generates a query plan that specifies the necessary information about data flow, in-network computation for incoming query and sends it to the relevant nodes, and describes how to select a leader for the query. This architecture provides

33

in-network computation ability that can provide energy efficiently when the generated data is large. Nevertheless, COUGAR has three prominent drawbacks: 1. The addition of new layer, query layer, at each sensor node adds extra energy consumption and storage overhead. 2. In-network data computation requires synchronization among nodes prior sending any data to leader node. 3. Leader nodes require dynamic maintenance mechanism to prevent depleting these nodes. 3.2.3 ACQUIRE

Is a brand new idea proposed by Sadagopan et al. in [30]. Active Query forwarding In sensoR nEtworks views the network as a distributed database where complex queries can be divided into sub-quires. The operation mechanism can be described as follows:

The query is

generated by the sink and each node receiving the query tries to respond to the query partially using its pre-cashed information then forward it to other sensors. The nodes whose cash is not up-to-date gather information from their neighbours within a look-ahead of d hops. Once the query is being resolved completely, it is sent back through either the reverse or shortest path to the sink. Thus ACQUIRE deal with complex queries by allowing many nodes to send response. Other data-centric protocols such as directed-diffusion uses flooding-based query mechanism for continuous and aggregate queries which make them impractical for complex queries due to energy constraints. ACQUIRE algorithm provide efficient querying by adjusting the value of the look-ahead parameter d. Note that when d is equal to the network diameter, ACQUIRE behaves like standard flooding and when d is very small then the query has to travel more nodes.

34

A mathematical modelling has been used to derive the optimal value of the look-ahead d for a grid setup of sensors where each node has four immediate neighbours.

However, there is no validation results by

simulation and the reception cost have not taken into consideration during modelling. To select the next node for forwarding the query was addressed in CADR [28] and Rumor Routing [26].

In CADR, query nodes use IDSQ

mechanism to determine which node can provide most useful information by using estimation theory. Rumor routing tries to forward query to node which knows the path to the searched event. In [30], the next hop is either chosen randomly or based on maximum potential of query satisfaction. 3.3 Hierarchical protocols Also called cluster-based protocols, is a two tires protocol known for their scalability and efficient communication. Originally was developed for traditional wired-networks but latter was utilized to perform energyefficient routing in sensor networks. A single tire network can cause congestion at the gateway especially with high sensors density. This leads to communication delays and inadequate tracking of events in addition to limited scalability.

To overcome these problems without

degrading the service, network clustering has been proposed in some routing approaches. In hierarchical architectures clusters are created and special tasks are assigned to cluster-heads, this must be done with intensive care because it has a great impact on the overall system scalability, network lifetime, and energy consumption. In hierarchical protocols high-energy nodes can be used to process and send information while low-energy nodes can perform sensing. Hierarchical routing is two-tire routing where one tire is used to elect cluster-heads and the other

35

for routing. Cluster-heads reduce energy consumption by performing data aggregation and fusion which decrease messaging towards the sink. In this section we will review hierarchical routing protocols. 3.3.1 LEACH

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) [10] is one of the first hierarchal routing algorithms for sensor networks.

LEACH

randomly select sensor nodes as cluster-heads and rotates this role to distribute energy load among the sensors since using the same node will deplete its energy. The cluster heads aggregates data received from nodes to reduce the number of messages sent to the sink. This approach is wellsuited for applications where constant monitoring is needed in which data periodic collection is centralized. This will save energy as only clusterhead nodes transmits to the sink rather that all sensor nodes. Based on simulations the optimal number of cluster heads is estimated to be five percent of the total number of nodes. The operation of LEACH is split into two phases, the setup phase and the steady state phase. In order to minimize overhead the duration of steady phase is longer than the setup phase. During the setup phase, the clusters are created and cluster heads are selected. This selection is made by the node choosing a random number between zero and one. The sensor node is a cluster-head if this random number is less than the threshold T(n) calculated as the following: P/[1-P*(rmod(1/P))] if n Є G T(n)=

0

otherwise

Where P is the desired percentage to become a cluster head, r is the current round, and G is the set of nodes that have been selected as a cluster head in the last 1/P rounds. After cluster-heads are chosen they broadcast an advertisement to the entire network that they are the new 36

cluster-heads. Every node receiving the advertisement decides to which cluster they want to belong depending on the signal strength. The sensor node sends a message to register with cluster-head of their choice. The cluster-head based on a TDMA approach assigns each node registered in its cluster a time slot when it can send data. During the sensing phase cluster nodes can start sensing and transmitting data to the cluster-heads. All the data processing such as data fusion and aggregation are local to the cluster. After a certain period of time spent on the steady phase, the network enters the setup phase again and start anew round of selecting cluster-heads. LEACH is able to increase the network lifetime. It achieves over a factor of seven reduction in energy dissipation compared to direct communication and a factor of four to eight compared to the minimum transmission energy routing protocol.

LEACH has a number of

drawbacks listed in [5]: 1. Assumes that all nodes can transmit with enough power to reach the sink. 2. It is not applicable to networks deployed in large regions. 3. Dynamic clustering brings extra overhead, e.g. head changes, advertisements, etc., which may diminish the gain in energy consumption. 4. Assumes that all nodes begin with the same amount of energy and a cluster-head consumes approximately the same amount of energy. 5. Assigns time slot to each node even it node has no data to transmit. Optimal route Network lifetime Resource awareness Use of meta-data

SPIN No Good Yes Yes

LEACH No Very good Yes No

Directed-diffusion Yes Good Yes Yes

Table 1: Comparison between SPIN, LEACH, and Directed-diffusion 37

Leach with negotiation is an extension of LEACH proposed in [10]. It use meta-data as in SPIN prior data transfer to ensure that only interesting data is transmitted to head-clusters before being transmitted to the sink. Table 2.1 taken from [5] shows a small comparison between SPIN, LEACH, and directed-diffusion. 3.3.2 PEGASIS

Power-Efficient

GAthering

in

Sensor

Information

Systems

an

enhancement over the LEACH protocol was proposed in [31].

As

opposed to LEACH, PEGASIS has no clusters, instead it creates chains from sensor nodes so that each node communicate only with their closest neighbours and only one node is selected from the chain to communicate with the sink. When the round of all nodes communicating with the sink ends, a new round starts and so on. This allows distributing energy consumption uniformly among all nodes. PEGASIS forms near optimal chins in a greedy way. The use of collaborative techniques increases node and network lifetime in addition it reduce the communication bandwidth by local coordination between close nodes. PEGASIS nodes use signal strength to measure the distance to neighbouring nodes. Each node aggregate data to be sent to the sink by any node in the chain and the nodes in the chain will take turns sending to the sink. Simulation results in [31] showed that PEGASIS outperformed LEACH about 100 to 300% for different network sizes and topologies. This performance is achieved through the use of data aggregation and the reduction of overhead brought by cluster formation. In order to rout its data, nodes need to know about the energy level of its neighbours which requires dynamic adjustments of PEGASIS topology. Such topological adjustments, especially in high utilized networks, may introduce significant overhead.

Another important drawback is the absence of 38

methods by which nodes determine its location in a network; it is assumed that all nodes maintain a complete database of the location of all other nodes in the network. Moreover, this protocol assumes that each sensor node can communicate with the sink directly and does not outline multi-hop communication to reach the sink.

In addition, PEGASIS

assumes that all nodes start with the same level of energy and consumption rates are equal. Also the single head of the chain can become a bottleneck and distant nodes may suffer from excessive delays. Finally, in terms of modelling, this approach also assumes that nodes are stationary. An extension to PEGASIS is Hierarchical-PEGASIS proposed in [32] to decrease delay incurred for packets during transmission to the sink and suggests energy X delay metric to solve data gathering problem. Simultaneous data messages are utilized to reduce delay.

Two

approaches were studied to avoid possible collisions and signal interference: signal coding and spatial transmission. In the latter one only spatially separated modes are allowed to transmit at the same time. This chain-based protocol with CDMA capable nodes, constructs a chin of nodes that forms a tree like hierarchy and each selected node in a particular level transmits data to the node in the upper level of the hierarchy. This method ensures data transmitting in parallel and reduces the delay significantly. Since nodes are not aware of their neighbour's energy levels, Hierarchical-PEGASIS still require dynamic topological adjustment.

Even though, they have performed better than standard

PEGASIS by a factor of about 60. 3.3.3 TEEN

Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols [33] were proposed for time-critical application in which network operate in a reactive mode.

39

TEEN utilizes a hierarchical approach along with data-centric mechanism. It is very suitable for situations where the environment is sensed continuously but data transmission is done less frequently. The basic idea behind this approach is the grouping of closer nodes into clusters and this process goes on the second level until the sink is reached. Figure 6 redrawn from [33] shows TEEN networks architecture.

Figure 6: Hierarchical Clustering in TEEN & APTEEN Cluster-heads broadcasts to its members a head threshold (which is the minimum possible value of the sensed attribute to be sent to cluster-head) and a soft threshold (which is a small change in the value of the sensed attribute that triggers the node to switch on its transmitter and transmit). Thus, the hard threshold tries to reduce the number of transmissions by enforcing nodes to transmit only when sensed attribute is in the range of interest. While the soft threshold reduces the numbers of transmissions by blocking all messages about little or no change in the sensed attribute. As a result, the user can control the trade off between energy efficiency and data accuracy; smaller value of the soft threshold gives more accurate

40

picture of the environment but consumes more energy on the other hand. Note that the user can change both threshold values as required but this is impractical for applications where periodic reports are needed, since the broadcast message may be lost consequently nodes will never communicate. The Adaptive Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network protocol (APTEEN) [34] is an enhancement version of TEEN that changes the periodicity or threshold value used in the TEEN protocol. The architecture is the same as TEEN but here the cluster-head broadcast four parameters:  Attributes: set of physical parameters that user is interested with  Thresholds: hard threshold and soft threshold  Schedule: a TDMA schedule, assigning time slot to each node to transmit  Count time: maximum time between two successive reports sent by a node Once a node sense a change in some attribute value equal to or greater than the soft threshold or sense a value greater than the hard threshold it transmits data to cluster-head. Despite the improvements over TEEN, APTEEN has added additional complexity to implement new parameters (Attribute, Count Time, and Schedule). On the other hand, it offers more flexibility and combines proactive and reactive techniques. Simulation results have shown that both TEEN and APTEEN has outperformed LEACH [10]. In terms of energy dissipation and network lifetime, TEEN gives the best results while APTEEN is between LEACH and TEEN. 3.3.4 Self-organizing protocol

Subramanian et al. [35] describes not only a self-organizing protocol, but also application taxonomy. The proposed taxonomy was used to build

41

architecture and infrastructure components to support heterogeneous sensors.

Some sensors, could be mobile or stationary, probe the

environment and transmit messages to a designated set of stationary nodes that act as routers. Each node should be reachable by a router that forms the backbone for transmitting data to more powerful sink nodes. Also each sensing node was assumed to have unique identifier and they can be identified by the address of the router node to which they are connected.

The routing architecture is hierarchical where groups of

nodes are formed and merge when needed. Fault tolerance is achieved by using Local Markov Loops (LML) algorithm in broadcast trees. In this approach router nodes keep the entire sensor connected by forming a dominating set. The phase of self-organizing router nodes and initializing routing tables are:  Discovery phase: discover neighbouring nodes  Organization phase: groups are formed and merged where each node is identified by address or router node it is connected to. Routing tables and broadcast tree and built  Maintenance phase: routing tables update messages are exchanged and broadcast trees are maintained by LML 

Self-reorganization phase: when node or partition failure occurs

Since the sensor nodes can be addressed individually in the routing architecture,

this

approach

is

suitable

for

applications

where

communication to a particular node is required. Moreover, the cost for maintaining routing tables and keeping a balanced routing hierarchy is minimized which is one of the several strength points in this approach. As for broadcasting a message is less than that consumed in SPIN protocol [22]. However, this is not on-demand protocol which adds additional overhead in the organization phase of the algorithm. Furthermore, in case of many cuts in the network the hierarchy forming 42

will be every expensive because networks cuts increase the probability of applying reorganization phase. 3.4 Location-based protocols In this category of protocols nodes are addressed by their location. The distance between nodes is measured on the basis of incoming signal strengths and used to estimate energy consumption. signals

strengths,

nodes

can

calculate

relative

By estimating coordinates

of

neighbouring nodes that can be utilized in routing data efficiently especially in

the

absence

of standard

addressing

scheme[36].

Furthermore, nodes equipped with a low power GPS receiver can obtain their location directly by communicating with a satellite [37].

The

location information could be used to efficiently diffuse quires to a certain region of a sensor network rather than flooding the entire networks. To save more energy, some location based schemes demand that nodes should go to sleep if there is no activity. Some protocols that was originally developed for mobile ad hoc networks are also applicable to sensor networks while others like Cartesian and trajectory-based routing [38] [39] are not. In this section we review the most prominent energy aware location-based protocols. 3.4.1 GAF

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF) [37] is an energy-aware locationbased routing algorithm developed for mobile ad hoc networks but can be used in sensor networks. It can also be considered as a hierarchical protocol where the clusters are based on geographic location.

The

network area is divided into fixed zones to form a virtual grid. Each node associate itself with a zone in the grid based on its GPS-indicated location. Nodes within the same zone collaborate to save energy by turning off unnecessary nodes without affecting the level of routing 43

fidelity. Nodes that are located with the same zone on the grid are considered equivalent in terms of packet routing.

Thus, GAF can

substantially increase the lifetime as the number of nodes increase. GAF nodes can be in one of three states: discovery, for determining the neighbouring nodes in the grid, active reflect participation in routing and sleep when radio is turned off. Mobile nodes estimates its leaving time of grid and forward it to its neighbours so that sleeping neighbours adjust their sleeping time accordingly to keep high level of routing fidelity. Before the leaving time of the active nodes expires, sleeping nodes wakeup and one of them becomes active. In [37] the fixed zones are chosen to be square and equal.

GAF strives to keep the network

connected by keeping representative nodes always in active node for each region on its virtual grid.

Simulation results have shown that GAF

performs as well as a normal ad hoc routing protocol. It was proved that GAF saved energy which result an increase of network lifetime and decrease in delays and packet rates. 3.4.2 MECN

Small Minimum Energy Communication Network (MECN) was proposed in [40], it use low power GPS to compute an-energy efficient sub-networks. The main objective of MECN is to form a sub-network such that the number of nodes and the transmission power is minimized. This allows finding global minimum power paths without considering the entire network. This is achieved by utilizing a localized search for each node considering its relay region. MECN identifies a relay region for every node. The relay region consists of nodes in a surrounding area where transmitting through those nodes is more energy efficient than direct transmission. The relay region for node pair (1, r) is depicted in Figure 7 redrawn from [41].

44

Figure 7: Relay region of transmit-relay node pair (i, r) in MECN. The enclosure of a node I is then created by the union of all nodes reachable by i. the protocol can be viewed as two stages: 1. Construct the enclosure graph which contains globally optimal links in terms of energy consumptions. This phase requires local computations in nodes. 2. Identify optimal links on the enclosure graph using distributed Belman-Ford shortest path algorithm with power consumption as the cost metric. MECN support fault tolerance because they are self-reconfiguring and thus can dynamically adapt to nodes failure or deploying/ leaving sensors. The small minimum energy communication network (SMECN) [40] is an extension to MECN which consider obstacles between any pair of nodes. In MECN, it is assumed that every node can transmit to every other node which is not possible every time. But the network is assumed to be fully connected as in MECN. In terms of the number of edges, the subnetwork constructed by SMECN is smaller than the one constructed by MECN. As a result, the sub-network constructed by MECN is smaller than that constructed by SMCN if the broadcast region is circular around the broadcasting node for a given power setting.

The energy

consumption needed to transmit data from a node to all its neighbours in

45

SMECN sub-graph is less than that needed in MECN sub-graph. Moreover, in SMECN maintenance cost is less than that in MECN since the former makes it more likely that the path used requires less energy consumption.

Finally, a sub-network with smaller number of edges

introduces more overhead in the algorithm. 3.4.3 GEAR

Geographic Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) [42] exploit the fact that data queries often contain geographic attributes to send queries only to a particular area which reduce the number of messages significantly which can conserve more energy. GEAR uses energy aware and geographically informed neighbour selection heuristics to route a packet to destination region.

In GEAR environments, nodes keep and estimated cost (a

combination of residual energy and distance to destination) and a learning cost of reaching the destination through its neighbours (a refinement of the estimated cost that accounts for routing around holes in the network). When a node does not have any closer neighbour to the target region than itself, hole occurs. In the absence of any holes, the estimated cost is equal to learned cost.

The route setup for next packet is adjusted by

propagating the learned cost on hop back every time a packet reaches the target. There are two phases in the algorithm: 1. Forwarding packets towards the target region: When a node has data to send it checks its neighbours to find closer neighbour to the target region than itself. In case of more than one node, the nearest neighbour to the target region is selected as next hop. When there is a hole, one of the neighbours is selected to forward the packet based on the learning cost function. 2. Forwarding the packets within the region: As soon as the packet reaches the target region, it can be diffused in that region by either

46

recursive geographic forwarding or restricted flooding. The latter is more energy efficient in high density networks. When compared to GPSR [43] which is a geographic routing protocol that uses planar graphs to solve the holes problem. GEAR was found to reduce energy consumption for route setup and perform better than GPSR in terms of packet delivery. The simulation results have also revealed that for an uneven traffic distribution, GEAR delivers 70% to 80% more than (GPSR). For uniform traffic pairs GEAR delivers 25% - 35% more packets than GPSR. 3.5 Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation In this section, we review routing protocols based on routing functionality. Some of the protocols may fall under one or more of the above routing categories. 3.5.1 Multi-path routing protocols

In the following we review briefly a set of routing protocols that use multiple paths to enhance the network performance and support fault tolerance. The fault tolerance (resilience) of a protocol is measured by the likelihood that an alternate path exists between a source and a destination when the primary path fails.

This increase energy

consumption and traffic generation. The following table summarize some of these protocols. In [36], the path whose nodes have the largest residual energy is used to route packets. The energy consumption is distributed over node by switching to the backup path when the primary path energy falls. In [44], based on the energy consumption of each path, sub-optimal paths are chosen to increase network lifetime. In [45], a trade off between minimizing the total power consumed and the residual energy of the network was achieved. In some cases, it is very expensive to use the path with larges residual energy. In [46], the trade off between the amount of traffic and network reliability in studied using redundancy function that is dependent on the multi-degree and on failing probabilities of the available paths. This algorithm operates as follows: instead of

47

sending multiple copies of the same packet on multiple paths, the packet is divided into sub-packets that can be transmitted over available paths. The receiving nodes reconstructs the original message even with some sub-packets was lost. [47] Is a robust multi-path routing algorithm based on directed-diffusion to keep the cost of maintaining the multi-paths low. The main idea is to compare the costs of alternative paths to primary path because they tend to be much closer to the primary path.

Table 2: Multi-path routing protocols 3.6 Query based routing In these protocols, the destination nodes generate a query for data that describes a specific sensing task to sensing nodes. Usually queries are written in high level language similar to natural language. Only nodes that receive the query and have data which matches the query respond by sending their data.

Directed-diffusion and rumor routing, discussed

earlier, are examples of this type of routing. 3.6.1 Negotiation based routing protocols

These set of protocols use high level data descriptions to eliminate redundant data transmissions through negotiation.

Communication

decisions are taken based on available resources. SPIN family protocols discussed earlier is an example of such protocols. 3.6.2 QoS-based routing

QoS protocols consider delay, energy, bandwidth, etc. when delivering data to destination. These protocols keep a trade off between energy consumption and data quality. 3.6.3 Sequential Assignment Routing (SAR) [48]

Is a table-driven multi-path protocol that aims to achieve energy efficiency and fault tolerance. SAR crates a tree rooted at the source node to destination nodes to crate multiple paths from a source node. Routing decisions in SAR is based on three metrics: energy resources, QoS on each path, and the priority level of each packet. Periodic re48

computation of paths is initiated by the root of the tree,

also any

topological changes, such as nodes failure, triggers path re-computation. Failure recovery is achieved by keeping consistency between up streams and down streams nodes on each path. When the number of nodes is large, the protocol suffers from the overhead of maintaining the tables and states at each sensor node. Simulation results showed that SAR consumes less energy than the minimum energy metric algorithm. 3.6.4 Maximum lifetime energy routing

Proposed in [49] and based on a network flow approach to increase the network lifetime. In this approach routing decisions is based on node remaining energy and the required transmission energy using specific link.

This protocol tries to find traffic distribution to maximize the

network life lifetime. Two maximum residual energy path algorithms are studied to find out the best link metric for the stated maximization problem. The two nodes residual energy. The used link costs are:

where eij is the energy consumed during transmission of packets over link i-j, and Ei is the residual energy at node i. The least cost paths to the destination are found using Bellman-Ford shortest path algorithm. When compared to Minimum transmitted energy (MTE) [5], it was found that the proposed maximum residual energy path approach has better average lifetime than MIE for both link and cost models. 3.6.5 Coherent and non-coherent processing

Loosely speaking, most protocols can be categorized, based on data processing techniques incorporated, into coherent and non-coherent protocols [48]. In coherent routing, nodes perform minimum processing before transmission to aggregators (nodes that perform further data

49

processing). The minimum processing includes time stamping, duplicate suppression, etc. Coherent routing is typically used in energy sensitive applications.

Whereas non-coherent data processing routing, nodes

process raw data locally before transmission for other nodes for further processing. In non-coherent processing has three phases: 1. Target detection, data collection, and pre-processing 2. Membership declaration, node declare to all neighbours its participation in a cooperative function 3. Central nodes election, this node must have enough energy to perform more sophisticated data processing In [48], a single and multiple winner algorithms where proposed for noncoherent and coherent data processing respectively. The single winner algorithm (SWE) aims to build a minimum-hop spanning tree that covers the entire network. SWE nodes elect a single aggregator node based on the energy levels and computational capacity to perform complex data processing. While in multi-path winner algorithm (MWE), an extension to SWE, each node keep a record for the best n central aggregator nodes to limit the number of sources that can send data to the central aggregator node which consumes a large amount of energy. At the end of the MWE process, each sensor has a set of the minimum energy paths to each source node. After that, the SWE is used to find the node that results the minimum energy consumption. This complex operation of MWE adds overhead, longer delays and limited scalability unlike that for noncoherent processing networks.

50

4 Chapter Four: New routing protocol In this chapter we propose a new multi-path hierarchical routing protocol that is a self-organized cluster-based protocol appropriate for situations where constant monitoring by the sensor network is a need.

As in

LEACH (see p. 35), nodes are often designated into logical groups called clusters where each cluster is managed by a cluster head through which nodes can communicate with the sink. Every node must belong to some cluster to participate in the protocol and every node can belong to only one cluster. The entire cluster is viewed by the sink and other cluster in the network as a single virtual node. In this protocol robustness is achieved by storing multipath and electing backup node(s) that can substitute the cluster-head in some failures. It also improves network performance and reliability by localizing network traffic. Finally, the protocol is simulated and performance is measured and evaluated.

51

4.1 Description of the new routing protocol The main objective of this protocol is to provide energy-efficient and robust communication. The energy efficiency is achieved by load sharing at two levels:  Network level:

cluster-head node perform traffic multiplexing

over multiple paths  Cluster level: rotation of the cluster head role every given interval of time This will prevent energy depletion resulting from constantly using the same path for transmission or single node playing the role of cluster head. On the other hand, storing multiple paths is not only used for load balancing but also when path failures occur. When a path fails, an alternative path can be immediately used which makes the protocol dynamically adapt to failures without delays or degradation in the quality of service. Since the role of cluster-head is energy consuming, new cluster-heads are selected after a constant period of time called round time. After each round time, one node is selected to play the role of cluster-head and one or more nodes are selected to act as cluster-head backup nodes. The backup node is used to substitute for the original cluster-head in case of failure or when the current cluster-head decide to reduce its participation in the protocol if energy level approaches a certain threshold value.

As in LEACH, this algorithm uses

TDMA/CDMA MAC to reduce inter-cluster, and intra-cluster collisions. Each node knows at least two paths, one to the cluster-head and the other directly to the sink. The latter is only used when path to the cluster-head fails. All nodes in the network, sensing and cluster-head nodes perform data aggregation. The benefits of data aggregation is studied in detail in this section. Furthermore, each node suggests itself to play the role of

52

backup node for the current cluster round. In case of failure the clusterhead role will be handed to the backup node which will start new cluster by broadcasting an advertisement message. The backup node could be any node with enough energy. In this protocol we have introduced a "NumHop" metric that indicates how far the cluster-head from the sensing node is. This new metric allow nodes to: 1- Select the nearest cluster-head node, which saves energy and reduces messaging. 2- Allow nodes to learn the best/shortest path to the selected cluster-head. We have also introduced a waiting time similar to one proposed in [53]. This waiting time will decrease the number of setup messages and help to form more uniform clusters (energy efficient cluster formation). The operation of our new routing protocol consists of two phases: setup phase and data transfer phase. 4.1.1 Setup phase

During the setup phase clusters are created and cluster-head nodes are selected using the threshold function given in [10]. P/[1-P*(rmod(1/P))] if n Є G T(n)=

0

otherwise

where P is the difference of the desired percentage of cluster heads (pc) and percentage of retained clusters (pr), G is the set of nodes that have not yet become cluster-head members for the last 1/P rounds and r is the current round. Initially r will be zero as there are no clusters in the network. In [10], it was found that the optimal number of cluster-head nodes is 5% of the total number of nodes in the network. Initially, nodes are in "Waiting" state waiting to be discovered by the sink. The sink will randomly select some nodes to play the cluster-head role and flood and "INICH" message to inform them that they have been selected to be

53

cluster-heads. Upon receiving the "INICH" message, nodes change their state into "Actuator" and check to find out if they are in the forwarded cluster-head list, if yes; nodes will start creating new cluster by broadcasting an advertisement message called "ImCH" message, otherwise, node will simply broadcast the received message to its neighbours.

Each node will remember the node from which it has

received the "INICH" message as the nearest neighbour to the sink. This path will be used for transmitting "ToS" messages directly to the sink, not through the cluster-head, in case of failures in the path to cluster-head. When a node discover that it has been selected as a cluster-head, it broadcast an advertisement message called "ImCH" to publish its new role. Nodes will register themselves with the closest cluster-head. The closest node is known from the "NumHop" metric forwarded with the "ImCH" advertisement message. This metric indicates the number of hops to reach the cluster-head.

When a node receives and "ImCH"

message it will do the following: a- If node already belongs to cluster, then ignore the received advertisement message b- If waiting timer is not expired and this is the first advertisement received, the node first remembers the node from which it received the message as the closest node to cluster-head node. Second, it remembers the cluster-head node address. Third, it increment the number of hops value. Forth, it will start up the waiting timer. During the timer life time, node will be able to receive "ImCH" advertisements but it will only consider those advertisements with better "NumHop" metric and update its data accordingly. c- When the timer expires, the node will assign itself to the cluster with the best "NumHop" metric. Then it calculates a value call "Wish" and sends it to the cluster-head through the path it learned 54

from the "ImCH" message.

Finally, it forwards the "ImCH"

message with best "NumHop" value to neighbours and it can start receiving and sending data to the cluster-head node. The "Wish" value could model node available energy and other factors that participate in playing efficiently the cluster-head role. Nodes can receive many advertisement messages from different cluster-heads and depending on the "NumHop" metric, node choose to which cluster it will belong by sending a registration request back to the cluster head. The registration message is the same as the "Wish" message for efficiency. If the node wants to register with the cluster-head node it simply generate and send a "Wish" message, otherwise, it does nothing. This combination of registration and "Wish" messages reduce messaging overhead; when a cluster-head node receive a "Wish" message it understand that the node want to belong to the cluster and the wish value represent how much suitable it is to play cluster-head role in the next round. This makes the protocol more stable that reduce messages sent over the network. Each “Wish” message contains the address of the sending node and the path to that node in addition to the wish value. The cluster-head node uses the received “Wish” value to select backup node(s). The clusterhead will always remember the path of the node(s) that generated the best wish value. The backup node functions as a normal node and it is not aware that it was accepted as cluster-head node, this saves notifying the backup node that its not backup node any more in case the cluster-head receive better “Wish” message from different source. After the clusterhead timer expires, it will send the backup node a notification message called “NOT” to tell the backup node to start new cluster immediately. The current cluster-head node will change to a sensing node and it will wait for an advertisement to join a cluster to become part of the network again. The cluster-head role will also be handed to backup node when a 55

fault happens to the current cluster-head node. However, this is limited to small set of faults like when counting an internal error or when the energy level approaches a threshold. But in case of faults like physical damage or fatal internal errors in the cluster-head the nodes will wait until they expire and join a new cluster.

The table below summarize various

messages sent through out the protocol lifetime. Message Type INICH

ImCH Wish

NOT ToS

ToCH Data

Description

Colour

Sent by sink when the protocol starts for the first time. It contains a list of selected cluster head node. Nodes receiving the message become discovered and change stat from “Waiting” to “Actuator”. This is sent only one time in the protocol life time unless new nodes are deployed. Nodes remember the node they receive the message from as the nearest neighbouring node to the sink. This is the advertisement message that selected cluster-head nodes send to publish their new role in the protocol. Used by nodes to register with the cluster they wish to belong to, also, this message carries the “Wish” value that represent the willingness or the ability of the node to play cluster-head role in the next round. Sent by current cluster-head node to tell the backup node to start new cluster. This is used when the communication path between the source node and the cluster-head is not available due to failures or timer expiry. Carry aggregated data from cluster-head to sink through multiple hops Message that carry sensed data from the source node to the cluster-head node. When a node in the path fails to send the message to next node in the path, it forwards the packet to randomly selected neighbour (Grey).

Red

Blue Light Blue

Magenta Yellow

Black Black

Table 3: Messages summary When a node receives an "ImCH" message, it waits for a short period of time for messages from other cluster-head nodes to arrive and choose to join the cluster with better "NumHops" metric which may arrive during this time. When the waiting time ends, the node increment the best "NumHops" value by one and broadcast the "ImCH" message with the minimum number of hops to cluster-head. In that way, the number of setup messages in every cluster, consequently in the entire network, will 56

decrease dramatically.

Furthermore, clusters will be formed more

uniformly leading to minimum energy consumption within the cluster, thus increasing the overall network lifetime. 4.1.2 Data Transmission Phase

During the transmission phase, sensing nodes transmit data to their cluster-head. Cluster-heads aggregate received data before transmission to the sink or multiplex messages over multiple lines in case of time critical applications. The cluster-head encapsulate messages with the cluster-head address before transmission which vitalize that all packets are sent from a single node. However, the original source sensing node address can be extracted if application requires. This phase can exist and new cluster setup round can be triggered when a node approach energy threshold and backup node is absent. Otherwise, cluster-head hand its rule to the backup node smoothly without interrupting the entire cluster functionality. Each member node transmits data on its assigned time slot scheduled by TDMA. Furthermore, each cluster communicates using unique CDMA codes to avoid interference with traffic generated by other clusters. Code division multiple access [50] (CDMA) is a multiplexing scheme and a method of multiple access that encodes data with a special code associated with each channel and uses the constructive interference properties of the special codes to perform the multiplexing instead of dividing up the channel by time (as in TDMA), or frequency (as in FDMA). The election of backup nodes wishing to serve as cluster-head is done internally within the cluster depending on the energy level of each node and other related factors. This process will be initiated every time the backup nodes queue is empty which decrease the possibility of going back to complete setup phase. The last mentioned feature makes the protocol reliable and dynamically adaptable to faults.

57

4.2 Data aggregation In our proposed protocol both sensing nodes and cluster-head nodes perform aggregation to remove redundant messages and reduce transmissions. Each node will aggregate received data within a certain period of time and send all accumulated data in one message. Data aggregation has been identified in [51] as a useful technique for routing in sensor networks. It aims to combine received data to reduce redundancy and minimize energy consumption by decreasing the number of transmissions. Data aggregation can be implemented in a number of ways to combine data from different sources. The simplest function is duplicate suppression in which a node forward only one copy out of multiple same received data. Other aggregation function could be any function with multiple inputs like max or min. Nodes use the max or min to transmit data within a certain range or threshold that is a point of concern.

The main factors that can affect the performance of data

aggregation methods are the position of the sources in the network, the number of sources, and the communication network topology. In looking at the tradeoffs involved when applying data aggregation we consider three measures that affect the overall protocol performance [19]: 1. Energy savings: by aggregating the messages sent from sources, transmissions to the sink will be fewer leading to more energy savings. 2. Delay: "data from nearer sources may have to be held back at intermediate node in order to be aggregated with data coming from sources that are farther away." Data from nearer sources will get to sink before data from farther resources if no aggregation is applied. The worst delay time due to aggregation is proportional to the number of hops between the sink and the nearest node. Besides the

58

distance between the source and the sink, the delay time depends on the aggregation functions. 3. Robustness: data aggregation makes routing protocols more robust. Due to data aggregation, the marginal energy cost of connecting additional dynamics in the sensed phenomena. Data aggregation is critical when multi-paths are used to transmit data, it is likely that multiple copies of a data event arrive at the same data forwarding node. By dropping the later arrived copies at this point, transmission overhead can be reduced. 4.3 Simulation In order to implement the new routing protocol and study its properties, we have used a sensor network simulator called "SenSor" [54]. SenSor is a realistic and scalable Python based sensor networks simulator. In SenSor each sensor node runs in its own thread and behaves like a real sensor. SenSors have a fixed API, with customizable internals. This enables us to experiment with different algorithms for managing the network topology, fault management and so on, within the same simulation. Sensors are modelled as a pool of concurrent, communicating threads. Individual sensors are being able to:  Gather and process data from a model environment;  locate and communicate with their (geographically or otherwise) nearest neighbours and  Determine whether they are operating "correctly" and act accordingly to alter the network topology. Separate interfaces gather information from the network and display it. This partitioning allows us to experiment with different ways of processing individual node data into information. Using this simulation framework, we implement the new protocol and LEACH.

59

For our

simulation, we gave all the nodes virtually infinite supply of energy and ran each protocol until it converged. Since the energy is unlimited we have used other metrics to measure energy consumption like the number of messages sent. For our experiments, we created a 100-node network in such a way that nodes are scattered randomly in area of 600 x 600 m2. Figure 8 shows a random topology of 100-nodes where the edges represent communication neighbours. The power of the sensor radio transmitter is set to cover all nodes within a 20 meter radius.

The

processing delay for transmitting a message is randomly chosen between 5s and 10s.

Our test assumes no network losses and there is 15s

approximate delay between different nodes transmitting data. Using this network configuration we ran protocol and tracked its progress in terms of number of messages sent and delays. The result of experiments is represented in the following.

Figure 8: Random topology of 100-nodes 60

Experiment 1: In this experiment we study how the introduction of the "NumHop" metric and "ImCH" message delay time can affect the network performance.

Figure 9 shows four topologies, each resulting from

different experiment. The lines indicate the borders of different clusters. In each experiment we studied how the delay time can help to form more uniform clusters besides choosing the best "NumHop" metric received during the waiting period.

(9-a)

(9-b)

(9-c) (9-d) Figure 9: Uniform cluster formation In the above four experiments, Figure 9, we have used the same configuration described before. In Figures (9-a) and (9-b), we did not use a waiting time (waiting time was set to zero) neither the number of hops metric; the resulted clusters are shown in the Figure. Whereas, Figures

61

(9-c) and (9-d) are two experiments with the waiting time set to 20s and the number of nodes metric initially set to infinite value. It is clear that the waiting time together with the "NumHop" metric lead to the formation of more energy efficient clusters. In Figures (9-a) and (9-b), the number of nodes is not distributed fairly among clusters and the area of different clusters varies largely. This cluster distribution is not energy efficient because data needs to traverse large number of nodes to reach the sink or cluster-head. While the use of "NumHop" metric and waiting time will make routes shorter. Furthermore, the number of "ImCH" advertisement message will be reduced due to the fact that node will only forward the advertisement received within the waiting time with the best "NumHop" metric. This behaviour will stop unnecessary flood early at the border of neighbouring clusters leading to less network messages.

In Figure 10,

the number of network setup messages is studied against the waiting time. When the waiting time is zero the total number of sent messages will be similar to that in LEACH. The Figure also shows that as the waiting time is getting larger, the number of messages will decrease until the time becomes large enough to receive advertisements from all cluster-heads. This shows that waiting time should be shortened enough to receive possible advertisements and keep delay smaller and much as possible on the other hand. In Figure 11, we study network convergence time versus the waiting time. It is obvious that the time needed to establish routes is directly proportional to the waiting time. As the waiting time increase, time needed to achieve network convergence will increase.

In time

critical applications it is very important that convergence time is reduced which push toward reducing the waiting time to a minimal value to capture the advantages of waiting time with minimal delay to achieve high performance.

62

Convergence time versus w aiting time

Number of netw ork messages versus w aite time 90

1800

80

Number of messages

1600 70 Convergence time

1400 1200 1000 800

60 50 40

600

30

400 0

20

40

60

20

80

0

Waiting time

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Waiting time

Figure 10: Number of messages versus waiting time

Figure 11: Convergence time versus waiting time

Experiment 2 The area of fault tolerance is never clearly defined; there is a lack of a common view of what fault tolerance is and how it can help in the design of reliable routing protocols. In the context of fault tolerance, there are two main attributes of a system: reliability (deals with the continuity of service) and availability (deals with readiness of usage).

In sensor

networks, fault detection and isolation is of high value as they may help to increase the life time of the network [55].

Newman et. al. has

identified three factors to determine the performance of fault management techniques: the fault detection time, the false detection rate, and the fault correction time. It was found that the fault detection time is inversely proportional to the error rate. Most of the proposed protocols in the field are fault tolerance poor in the face of frequent nodes failures. In our new protocol we provide robust network fault tolerance through multi-path routing strategy. The multipaths are learned by nodes through the setup phase from messages sent for multiple purposes.

For example, every node learn the nearest

neighbour to the sink when it receive the discovery "INICH" messages, no special messages are sent to find out paths, also, the path to the

63

cluster-head node is learnt from the advertisement "ImCH" message sent by the cluster-head. Each node knows how to reach the cluster-head and how to communicate to the sink directly by remembering only the first node in the path. Each node joins the cluster for a certain period of time, called TnC, before it expires and re-registers with the cluster again or registers with new cluster. This is useful for nodes to recover from faulty paths (built during previous cluster round) and form more efficient paths. The cluster has also a life called TCl; cluster-head ends the cluster by handing the cluster-head role to the backup node. The cluster life is usually longer than the lifetime of sensing nodes in a cluster to achieve efficiency. However, tradeoffs must be kept between the two life times because it affect the fault detection and isolation time. In this approach, the worst time, TR, to recover from a node failure is the time a node leave a cluster or need to renew registration with the same cluster-head it currently belong. This is written as: TR = TCl - TnC

(2)

Nodes keep track of neighbouring nodes that they use to communicate by sending shorter range signals. When a node detects a failure in the neighbouring node connecting it to the cluster-head, it starts sending data directly to the sink. This scenario usually happens when the cluster-head ends the cluster session giving way for the backup node to start new cluster. However, if both paths fail at the same time the node will broadcast its data to neighbours. Neighbours will then pass the message to the cluster-head they belong to. The cluster-head in this case may receive multiple copies of the message and it can eliminate redundancy through aggregation techniques. If the node is on the border of more than one cluster and it fails to reach the sink or the neighbouring node connecting it to the cluster-head, the sink may receive multiple copies of the message from different cluster-head nodes. To avoid any packet loss, 64

before nodes expire, all the stored aggregated data is sent before the aggregation timer expires. To measure fault tolerance capabilities of this protocol we enforce some nodes to sleep and drop all packets it receives to affect the communication paths. These nodes will be blocked after paths are setup and continue to function correctly in the new cluster formation round. In this experiment we study the fault tolerance capabilities of our routing protocol by measuring the Data Delivery Ration (DDR) against the number of nodes. DDR is a service level parameter that indicates the network effectiveness in transmitting offered data in one direction of virtual connection [52]. DDR parameter is the ratio of successful packets received to attempted packets transmitted. Attempted packets transmitted are referred to as DataOffered.

Successfully delivered packets are

referred to as DataDelivered. Then the ration can be written as: DDR = DataDelivered DataOffered

(3)

Data Delivery Ratio Tracing

1

Data Delivery Ratio

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 20

40

60

80

100

Number of Nodes

Figure 12: Fault tolerance capability measuring

65

Throughout the experiments about three to ten percent of the nodes were blocked to represent faulty nodes. Figure 12 shows the result of five experiments with the same configuration as described before; the Figure shows that the protocol maintained a high delivery ratio using two paths.

66

Conclusions and Future Work This thesis has presented a robust and energy efficient routing protocol for wireless sensor nodes. By utilizing multipath the protocol is able to support flexible communications without sacrificing efficiency or energy. This protocol has been implemented and validated through SenSor simulator. This chapter summarises this work and its conclusions, and highlights areas that deserve further investigation. We have defined sensor networks and reviewed the basics of routing in Chapter 1.

Previous research into routing in sensor networks has

highlighted the features that make routing protocols in traditional networks invalid for sensor networks.

Chapter 2 addresses these

differences and asserts routing protocols design factors in sensor networks. Given these factors a new routing protocols is required. In Chapter 3 we attempt to identify existing protocols and give an overview of current protocols under six different classes. Chapter 4 describes new robust multipath hierarchal routing protocol that use the number of hops metric to allow for the sensing nodes to select the nearest cluster-head. We have added a waiting time that allow nodes to receive cluster-head advertisements during that time and choose the advertisement with the lowest number of hops metric after the waiting time ends. We argue that the number of hops metric with the waiting time could lead to the formation of more uniform clusters. To evaluate the protocol, simulations were conducted with 100-nodes random topology. In experiment one; we studied the effect of introducing the "NumHop" metric with the waiting time. In this experiment we have measured the waiting time against the number of messages and we have

67

seen that the waiting time helped to reduce significantly the number of setup messages by aggregating advertisement messages and then selecting the best one based on the "NumHop" metric. In the second experiment we use the Data Delivery Ratio to measure the level of robustness. DDR parameter is the ratio of successful packets received to attempted packets transmitted. The results of the second experiment revealed that the protocol kept a high ratio during five runs which is strong evidence that the protocol used different paths to transmit messages successfully when a path failure occurs. The new protocol described is a prototype and future work will need to be undertaken before it can be deployed in a real environment. The protocol behaviour needs to be compared with other protocols and the energy consumption need to be measured as well. In the future we are planning to develop new algorithm to select cluster-head nodes more efficiently particularly depending on the location information.

Several issues

regarding fault tolerance and robustness deserve further investigation. Although this dissertation describes how the proposed protocol deals with different failures, however, more detailed examples and more complex simulations need to be studied. It would be desirable to define fault tolerance framework to help in the design of reliable protocols.

68

References [1] http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/routing.h tm 29.06.06 [2] Larry L. Peterson, Bruce S. Davie, "Computer Networks - A Systems Approach," 3rd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003. [3] C. Y. Chong and S. Kumar, “Sensor Networks: Evolution, Opportunities, and Challenges,” Proceedings of the IEEE, VOL. 91. NO. 8, 2003 [4] www.xbow.com/Products/Wireless Sensor Networks.htm 29.06.06 [5] Jamal N. Al-Karaki and Ahmed E. Kamal, “Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey,” IEEE 1536-1284/04, 2004. [6] Loren Schwiebert, Sandeep Gupta, and Jennifer Weinmann, “Research Challenges in Wireless Networks of Biomedical Sensors,” ACM, 2001. [7] M. Alan, P. Joseph, S. Robert, et al, “Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat Monitoring,” ACM 1 581135890/02/0009, 2002. [8] Ian. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “A survey on Sensor networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, 2002. [9] C. Schurgers and M. B. Srivastava, “Energy Efficient routing in Wireless Sensor Networks,” MILICOM Proc. Commun. For NetworkCentric Ops.: Creating the Info. Force, McLean, Va, 2001. [10] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “EnergyEfficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks,” In Proceedings of the Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Jan. 2000. [11] B. Karp and H. T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless sensor networks,” in the Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking MobiCom '00, Boston, MA, August 2000. [12] C. Almeida and P. Ver´ýssimo “Timing failure detection and realtime group communication in quasi-synchronous systems,” In Proceedings of the 8th Euromicro Workshop on Real-Time Systems, L’Aquila, Italy, 1996. [13] R. Poornachandran, H. Ahmad1 and H, “Energy-Efficient Task Scheduling for Wireless Sensor Nodes with Multiple Sensing Units,” Arizona State University. [14] E. Shih et al., “Physical Layer Driven Protocols and Algorithm Design for Energy-Efficient Wireless Sensor networks,” Proc. ACM MobiCom '00, Rome, Italy, July 2001.

69

[15] A. Woo, and D. Culler, “A Transmission Control Scheme for Media Access in Sensor Networks,” Proc. ACM MobiCom '00, Rome, Italy, July 2001. [16] G. J. Pottie and W. J. Kaiser, “Wireless Integrated Network Sensors,” Commun. ACM, vol. 43, no. 5, May 2000. [17] J. M. Kahn, R. H. Katz, and K. S. J. Pister, “Next Century Challenges: Mobile Networking for Smart Dust,” Proc. ACM MobiCom '99, Washington, Dc, 1999. [18] K. Akkaya and M. Younis, “A survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks,” [19] B. Krishnamachari, D. Estrin, S. Wicker, “Modeling Data Centric Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks,” In the Proceedings of IEEEINFOCOM, New York, NY, June 2002. [20] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan and D. Estrin, “Directed diffusion: A scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks”, in the Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM/IEEE International conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’00), Boston, MA, August 2000. [21] S. Hedetniemi and A. Liestman, “A survey of gossiping and broadcasting in communication networks,” Networks, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 319-349, 1998. [22] W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, “Adaptive protocol for information dissemination in wireless sensor networks,” in the Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’99), Seattle, WA, August 1999. [23] I. Akyildiz et al., “A Survey on Sensor Networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 102-114, August 2002. [24] http://www.ieee802.org/15/ 03.08.06 [25] R. Shah and J. Rabaey, “Energy Aware Routing for Low Energy Ad Hoc Sensor Networks,” in the Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Sensor networks Protocol and Applications, Anchorage, Alaska, May 2003. [26] D. Braginsky and D. Estrin, “Rumor Routing Algorithm for Sensor Networks,” in the Proceedings of the First Workshop on Sensor networks and Applications (WSNA), Atlanta, GA, October 2002. [27] S. Servetto and G. Barrenechea, “Constrained Random Walks on Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms for Large Scale Wireless Sensor Networks,” Proc. 1st ACM Int’l. Wksp. Wireless Sensor Networks and Apps., Atlanta, GA, 2002. [28] M. Chu, H. Haussecker, and F. Zhao, “Scalable InformationDriven Sensor Querying and Routing for ad hoc Hetrogeneous Sensor

70

Networks,” The international Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, Vol. 16, No. 3, August 2002. [29] Y. Yao and J. Gehrke, “The conugar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks,” in SIGMOD Record, September 2002. [30] N. Sadagopan et al., “The ACQUIRE mechanism for efficient querying in sensor networks,” in the Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocol and Applications, Anchorage, Alaska, May 2003. [31] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, "PEGASIS: Power Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems," in the Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March 2002. [32] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, "Data Gathering in Sensor Networks using the Energy*Delay Metric," in the Proceedings of the IPDPS Workshop on Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing, San Francisco, CA, April 2001. [33] A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, "TEEN: A Protocol for Enhanced Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks," in the Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing, San Francisco, CA, April 2000. [34] A Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, "APTEEN: A Hybrid Protocol for Efficient Routing and Comprehensive Information Retrieval in Wireless Sensor Networks," in the Proceeding of the 2nd International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile computing, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, March 2002. [35] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, "Energyefficient communication protocol for wireless sensor networks," in the Proceeding of the Hawaii International Conference System Sciences, Hawaii, January 2000. [36] N. Bulusu, J. Heindemann, D. Estrin, "GPS-less low cost outdoor localization for very small devices," Technical report 00-729, Computer science department, University of Southern California, Apr. 2000. [37] Y. Xu, J. Heindemann, D. Estrin, "Geography-informed Energy Conservation for Ad-hoc Routing," In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 70-84, 2002. [38] G. Finn, "Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitanscale internetworks," University of Southern California, Tech. Rep. ISI Research Report ISI/RR-87-180, 1987. [39] B. Nath and D. Niculescu, "Routing on a curve," in HOTENETS 1, Princeton, NJ, October 2002. 71

[40] Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, "Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing," in the Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’01), Rome, Italy, July 2001. [41] V. Rodoplu and T.H. Ming, "Minimum energy mobile wireless networks," IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1333-1344, 1999. [42] Y. Yu, D. Estrin, and R. Govindan, “Geographical and EnergyAware Routing: A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks,” UCLA Computer Science Department Technical Report, UCLA-CSD TR-01-0023, May 2001. [43] B. Karp and H. T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless sensor networks,” in the Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom '00), Boston, MA, August 2000. [44] C. Rahul, J. Rabaey, "Energy Aware Routing for Low Energy Ad Hoc Sensor Networks", IEEE Wireless Communications and networking Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 350-355, March 2002. [45] Q. Li, J. Aslam, and D. Rus, "Hierarchical Power-aware Routing Sensor Networks," in the Proceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Pervasive Networking, May 2001. [46] S. Dulman et al., "Trade-Off between Traffic Overhead and Reliability in Multipath routing for Wireless Sensor networks," WCNC Workshop, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, March 2003. [47] D. Ganesan et al., "Highly-resilient, energy-efficient multipath routing in wireless sensor networks," ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1125, 2001. [48] K. Sohrabi, J. Pottie, "Protocols for self-organization of a wireless sensor network," IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7, Issue 5, pp 16-27, 2000. [49] J.-H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, "Maximum Lifetime Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks," in the Proceedings of the Advanced Telecommunications and Information Distribution Research Program (ATIRP'2000), College Park, MD, March 2000. [50] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_division_multiple_access#Usag e_in_mobile_telephony 17.08.06 [51] J. Heidemann, F. Silva, C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, and D. Ganesan, “Building Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks with Low-Level Naming,” 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, October 21-24, 2001. [52] Dunn and Martin, "Terminology for Frame Relay Benchmarking," pp 13, June 2001. 72

[53] L. Xia, X. Chen, and X. Guan, "A New Gradient-Based Routing Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks," Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. [54] S. Mount, R. Newman, and E. Gaura., "A Simulation Tool for System Services in ad-hoc Wireless Sensor Networks," In Proceedings of NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show (Nanotech'05), Vol. 3, Ch. 7, pp 423-426. Anaheim, California, USA, May 2005. [55] R. Newman, E. Gaura, and S. Mount, "The myth and reality of Wireless Sensor Networks: Desingning Optimally Redundant Networks," IEEE ICMA, China, June 2006.

73