Routing protocol on wireless sensor network

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Router protocol on wireless sensor network:

1 Router protocol on wireless sensor network

The definition of WSN:

The definition of WSN 2 Definition[1]: consist of large amount of sensor nodes Multi-hop, self-organize wireless communication cooperative sensing, collection, process Send to observe.

the nodes of WSN:

the nodes of WSN 3

The difference between WSN and Ad hoc (1/2):

The difference between WSN and Ad hoc (1/2 ) 4 The number of nodes Sensor nodes are densely deployed Sensor nodes are prone to failures The topology of a sensor network changes very frequently

The difference between WSN and Ad hoc (2/2):

The difference between WSN and Ad hoc (2/2 ) 5 WSN broadcast but ad hoc point-to point Sensor node are limited in power computation capacities and memory Sensor nodes may not have global identification

Outline:

Outline 6 WSN Introduction The definition of WSN The nodes of WSN The difference between WSN and Ad hoc WSN Routing Protocol Conclusion Reference

Routing protocol survey:

Routing protocol survey 7 Traditional technique Flooding Gossiping Current routing technique Flat-routing Hierarchical-routing Location-based routing

Flooding(1/2):

Flooding(1/2) 8 A classical mechanisms to relay data in sensor networks without the need for any routing algorithms and topology maintenance. drawbacks: Implosion Overlap Resource blindness

Flooding(2/2):

Flooding(2/2) 9

Gossiping:

Gossiping 10 A slightly enhanced version of flooding where the receiving node sends the packet to a randomly selected neighbor which picks another neighbor to forward the packet to and so on. Advantage: avoid the implosion Drawback: Transmission delay

Router protocol survey:

Router protocol survey 11 Traditional routing technique Flooding Gossiping Current routing technique[1] Flat-routing Hierarchical-routing Location-based routing

Flat-routing:

Flat-routing 12 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation) DD (Directed diffusion) Rumor routing

SPIN(1/3):

SPIN(1/3 ) 13 A family of adaptive protocols called Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation assign a high-level name to completely describe their collected data (called meta-data) Use thee types of messages ADV (advertisement), REQ (request) and DATA

SPIN(2/3):

SPIN(2/3) 14

SPIN(3/3):

SPIN(3/3) 15 Topological changes are localized provides more energy savings than flooding, and metadata negotiation almost halves the redundant data. Drawback: SPIN ’ s data advertisement mechanism cannot guarantee delivery of data.

Flat-routing:

Flat-routing 16 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation) DD (Directed diffusion) Rumor routing

DD(1/3):

DD(1/3 ) 17 Propagate interest Set up gradients Send data and path reinforcement

DD(2/3):

DD(2/3) 18

DD(3/3):

DD(3/3) 19 Directed diffusion differs from SPIN in two aspects. Query method Communication method directed diffusion may not be applied to applications (e.g., environmental monitoring) Matching data to queries might require some extra overhead

Flat-routing:

Flat-routing 20 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation) DD (Directed diffusion) Rumor routing

Rumor routing:

Rumor routing 21 A variation of directed diffusion Use an events table and a agent The number of events is small and the number of queries is large

Rumor routing:

Rumor routing 22

Router protocol survey:

Router protocol survey 23 Traditional routing technique Flooding Gossiping Current routing technique Flat-routing Hierarchical-routing Location-based routing

Hierarchical-routing:

Hierarchical-routing 24 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy ) PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems) TEEN(APTEEN) (Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols)

LEACH(1/3):

LEACH(1/3 ) 25 LEACH is a cluster-based protocol Setup phase Steady state phase

LEACH(2/3):

LEACH(2/3) 26

LEACH(3/3):

LEACH(3/3 ) 27 Drawbacks It is not applicable to networks deployed in large regions The idea of dynamic clustering brings extra overhead The protocol assumes that all nodes begin with the same amount of energy capacity in each election round, assuming that being a CH consumes approximately the same amount of energy fore ach node

Comparison between SPIN LEACH and directed diffusion:

Comparison between SPIN LEACH and directed diffusion 28

Hierarchical-routing:

Hierarchical-routing 29 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy) PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems) TEEN(APTEEN) (Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols)

PEGASIS(1/2):

PEGASIS(1/2 ) 30 An enhancement over the LEACH protocol is a near optimal chain-based protocol increase the lifetime of each node by using collaborative techniques. allow only local coordination between nodes and the bandwidth consumed in communication is reduced

PEGASIS(2/2):

PEGASIS(2/2) 31 Drawbacks: assumes that each sensor node is able to communicate with the BS directly assumes that all sensor nodes have the same level of energy and are likely to die at the same time the single leader can become a bottleneck. excessive data delay

Comparison between PEGASIS and SPIN:

Comparison between PEGASIS and SPIN 32 PEGASIS saving energy in several stages In the local gathering , the distance that node transmit The amount of data for CH head to receive Only one node transmits to BS

PowerPoint Presentation:

33

Hierarchical-routing:

Hierarchical-routing 34 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy) PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems) TEEN (Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols)

TEEN:

TEEN 35 TEEN ’ S CH sensor sends its members a hard threshold and a soft threshold. TEEN ’ S suitability for time-critical sensing applications TEEN is also quite efficient in terms of energy consumption and response time TEEN also allows the user to control the energy consumption and accuracy to suit the application.

Comparison of between TEEN and LEACH:

Comparison of between TEEN and LEACH 51 36 average energy dissipation(100nodes and 100*100units)

Hierarchical vs. flat topologies routing.:

Hierarchical vs. flat topologies routing . 37

Router protocol survey:

Router protocol survey 38 Traditional routing technique Flooding Gossiping Current routing technique Flat-routing Hierarchical-routing Location-based routing

Location-based routing:

Location-based routing 39 GEAR ( Geographic and Energy Aware Routing ) GEM

GEAR(1/3):

GEAR(1/3) 40 The key idea is to restrict the number of interests in directed diffusion by only considering a certain region rather than sending the interests to the whole network. keeps an estimated cost and a learning cost

GEAR(2/3):

GEAR(2/3) 41

GEAR(3/3):

GEAR(3/3) 42

Comparison between GPSR and GEAR:

Comparison between GPSR and GEAR 43 GPSR : designed for general mobile ad hoc networks Two parameter Uniform Traffic Non-uniform Traffic For uneven traffic distribution, GEAR delivers 70 – 80 percent more packets than GPSR. For uniform traffic pairs GEAR delivers 25 – 35 percent more packets than GPSR.

GEM(1/2):

GEM(1/2) 44 Three type of storage data Local storage External storage Data-centric storage Setup phase Set up a tree Feedback the number of tree Assign the virtual degree

GEM(2/2):

GEM(2/2) 45 The main application of relative steady topology sensor network

Conclusion:

Conclusion 46 based on the network structure divide three categories: flat, hierarchical, and location-based routing protocols. The advantages and disadvantages of each routing technique In general hierarchical routing are outperform than flat routing

Thank You!:

47 Thank You!

authorStream Live Help