1 / 31

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks. Zhen Jiang Computer Science Department West Chester University. Jie Wu Department of Computer Sci. & Eng. Florida Atlantic University. Junchao Ma, Wei Lou Department of Computing

bryga
Download Presentation

An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks

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. An Information Model for Geographic Greedy Forwarding in Wireless Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Zhen Jiang Computer Science Department West Chester University Jie Wu Department of Computer Sci. & Eng. Florida Atlantic University Junchao Ma, Wei Lou Department of Computing The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Infocom 2008

  2. Outline • Introductions • Related works • Safety Model For LGF Routing • Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing (SLFG) • Experimental Results • Conclusions

  3. Introductions • Geographic greedy forwarding routing is the most promising routing scheme in Wireless Ad-hoc Sensor Networks. • An important challenge often faced in geographic greedy forwarding in WASNs is the “local minimum phenomenon (Dead end)”.

  4. Introductions • To mitigate the local minimum issue, GFG,GPSR and GOAFR are currently the most popular methods. • However, without enough shape information of the holes, such a routing may use a long detour path in the perimeter routing.

  5. Introductions – goal • In this paper, the authors propose a simple and efficient method to achieve a shorter path.

  6. Related works - Geographic greedy forwarding (GF) Destination Source B. Karp and H. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless sensor networks,” Proc. of the 6th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM/IEEE MOBICOM’00), August 2000, pp. 243-254.

  7. Related works - Limited geographic greedyforwarding (LGF) Quadrant II (Northwest) Quadrant I (Northeast) Destination Quadrant III (Southwest) Quadrant IV (Southeast) Source

  8. Related works - BOUNDHOLE Destination Boundary Source Q. Fang, J. Gao, and L. Guibas, “Locating and bypassing routing holesin sensor networks,” Proc. of the 23rd Annual Joint Conference of theIEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE INFOCOM’04),2004, pp. 2458-2468.

  9. Safety Model For LGF Routing -assumption • Each node has its location information. • Sources are aware of the location of the destination. • All sensor has the same communication range • Each node has four forwardingzone. • The system is rounded based

  10. Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing (SLGF) Destination Unsafe Area Unsafe Node Source Safe Node

  11. Safety Model For LGF Routing –compare with BOUNDHOLE • BOUNDHOLE needs boundaries to encircled the hole and there are many unnecessarynodes in a boundary. • A boundary may be concave ,but the shape of the unsafe are has been optimized to a rectangle in a local view of each unsafe node. • Each unsafe node only stores the location of the opposite corner of rectangle • Safety model don’t need to calculate to identify the boundary.

  12. Safety Model For LGF Routing u1(NE,NW,SW,SE) Quadrant I (NorthEast) Quadrant II (NorthWest) u1 Quadrant III (SouthWest) Quadrant IV (SouthEast)

  13. Safety Model For LGF Routing • At the beginning, all forwarding regions are labeled as safe. u1(s,s,s,s) u2(s,s,s,s) u2 u4 u3(s,s,s,s) u4(s,s,s,s) u3 u1

  14. Safety Model For LGF Routing • Each node starts labeling process u1(s,s,s,s) u1(u,s,s,s) u2(u,s,s,s) u2(s,s,s,s) u2 u4 u3(s,s,s,s) u3(u,s,s,s) u4(s,s,s,s) u4(u,s,s,s) u3 u1 u5(s,s,s,s)

  15. Safety Model For LGF Routing • Each unsafe node would estimated its unsafe area. u1 u2 Unsafe Area

  16. Safety Model For LGF Routing Proof in contrapositive form If a greedy forwarding pathexists, we can find anunsafe node ujthat its successor uj+1is safe. Destination uj+1 uj Source Unsafe Node

  17. Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing (SLGF) Destination Unsafe Node Source Safe Node

  18. Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing (SLGF) -Source or destination inside unsafe area • The SLGF scheme will ignore unsafe node to avoid local minimum. Destination ? Destination ? Source Source

  19. Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing – destination inside unsafe area D is inside the area. Forward the packet and discard safety information. Check if D is inside its unsafe area Destination Source

  20. Safety -Information-Based LGF Routing -source inside unsafe area • The quickest way to leave such an unsafe area is to route in the opposite direction to d Destination Source

  21. Experimental Results • Simulator: built in c++ • Field : 200m x 200m • Uniform deployment (IA) (Hole is very small) • Random deployment (FA) (Hole is larger than Uniform) • The transmission radius of a node is 20m • Number of nodes 400 to 800 in incensement of 50

  22. Experimental Results - construction process under different information models Boundary of BOUNDHOLE Boundary of Safety Model for type I Both BOUNDHOLE & Safety Model

  23. Experimental Results

  24. Experimental Results

  25. Experimental Results

  26. Experimental Results

  27. Experimental Results

  28. Experimental Results

  29. Experimental Results

  30. Conclusions • This paper is the first attempt to find the balance of the tradeoff • between routing adaptivity and information model cost while pursuing better routing performance in WASNs. • The authors proposed • a easy and quick construction model

  31. End

More Related