1 / 35

Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR)

Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR). A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar. Outline. Introduction Motivation Goals GPSR GEAR Simulation Results Conclusions. Introduction.

Download Presentation

Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR)vs.Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar

  2. Outline • Introduction • Motivation • Goals • GPSR • GEAR • Simulation • Results • Conclusions

  3. Introduction • Topology changes are more frequent in wireless networks as opposed to wired networks • Traditional routing algorithms such as Distance Vector (DV) and Link State (LS) are not efficient (network congestion, mobility overhead) for packet forwarding in wireless networks • Routing protocols based on DV and LS consume enormous network bandwidth and have low scalability

  4. Motivation • Routing table exchange proportional to network size & mobility • Nodes often overloaded with participating in the network; not enough time to sense • Routing information storage • Adaptability requirement • End-to-end route maintenance • No support for regional query

  5. What to Do ???? Answer is LOCATION !!!!!

  6. Why Geographical Routing ??? Geographic routing allows nodes to be nearly stateless and requires propagation of topology information for only a single hop The position of a packet’s destination and next-hop neighbor positions are sufficient for making packet forwarding decisions

  7. Why Regional Support ??? What is the average temperature in a region R during time period (t1, t2) Find the road traffic flow in region X for time duration t

  8. Goals • Reduce size of topology information stored (state) in the nodes • Provide geography-based forwarding • Minimize the mobility overhead traffic • Extend life-time of the network

  9. Geographical Routing • Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) • Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR)

  10. GPSR Facts • Scalability • Location-based communication • Nearly Stateless • Routing adaptability • Mobility support

  11. Assumptions • Source knows its position • Each node knows position of its neighbors by simple beacon message • Sources can determine the location of destinations • Local directory service (Node ID to location mapping), location registration • Bonus: location-based communication make directory service unnecessary

  12. GPSR Modes • GPSR has two modes of operation for packet forwarding • Greedy Forwarding • Perimeter Forwarding

  13. Greedy Forwarding Geographically Closest to Destination Destination Source

  14. When Greedy Forwarding Fails ??? Destination X Reached local maxima

  15. Perimeter Forwarding Destination X

  16. Assembling GPSR Together greedy fails PerimeterForwarding GreedyForwarding have left local maxima greedy works greedy fails

  17. GEAR Facts • Geographic packet forwarding • Extended overall network lifetime • High Scalability • Routing adaptability • Mobility Support • Nearly Stateless • Regional Support • Extension of GPSR

  18. Assumptions • Each query packet has target region specified in the original packet • Each node knows its position (GPS) and remaining energy level • Each node knows its neighbors’ position (beacon) and their remaining energy levels • Links (Transmission) are bi-directional

  19. GEAR Modes • GEAR has two modes of operation for packet forwarding • Energy-aware Regional Forwarding • Recursive Geographic Forwarding / Restricted Flooding

  20. Energy-aware Regional Forwarding Geographically Closest to Region Region Source

  21. Recursive Geographic Forwarding Region

  22. Restricted Flooding Region

  23. Assembling GEAR Together Recursive Geographic Forwarding Region arrived Source-region Region If RGF fails or sparse region Energy-aware Regional Routing Restricted Flooding

  24. Simulation Environment • Forward packets to all nodes in the region • No need for location database • Static sensor nodes • Existence of localization system • Energy-metrics + Geographical Information utilization

  25. Simulation Scenarios • Uniform Traffic Distribution The source and target regions are randomly selected throughout the network • Non-uniform Traffic Distribution (Clustered sources and Destinations) Sources and Destinations are randomly selected but source-pairs and destination- pairs are geographically close to each other

  26. Comparison For Uniform Traffic

  27. Comparison For Non-uniform Traffic

  28. Total broken pairs vs. Total data delivered

  29. Results • Uniform Traffic (GEAR vs. GPRS) • 25 – 35 % more packet delivery • Non-uniform Traffic (GEAR vs. GPRS) • 70 – 80 % more packet delivery • GEAR vs. Flooding • 40 – 100 times more packet delivery

  30. Goals Achieved !!!! Reduced mobility traffic overhead Localized topology information storage Geography-based Dissemination Extended network life-time

  31. Summary

  32. Conclusions • GEAR propagates query to target region without flooding • GEAR provides extended life of the sensor networks • GEAR outperforms GPSR in both uniform and non-uniform scenarios in packet delivery • GEAR performs better in terms of connectivity after partition

  33. Issues That I Recommend To Explore • Reliability of packet delivery • Sensor positional error • Secure data transmission • Protocol Implementation in 3-D space

  34. References • Yan Yun., Ramesh Govindan, and Estrin Deborah: Geographical and Energy Aware Routing, August 2001 Paper Website: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/shah02energy.html • Brad Karp, H. T. Kung : GPSR-Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks, MobiComm 2000 Paper Website: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/karp00gpsr.html • Rahul Jain, Anuj Puri, and Raja Sengupta: Geographical Routing Using Partial Information for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, 1999 Paper Website: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/336698.html • Chenyang Lu: GPSR Ad Hoc Routing III, Fall 2002 Presentation Website: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~lu/cs537s/presentations/gpsr.ppt • Brad Karp: Geographic Routing for Wireless Networks, Phd Dissertation, Harvard University, October 2002 Paper Website: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/472843.html

  35. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR)vs.Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar

More Related