1 / 35

Wireless Communication Issues in Sensor Networks

Wireless Communication Issues in Sensor Networks. Alec Woo UC Berkeley October 2 nd , 2003. Theme. Explore underlying communication issues and their effects on high-level protocol design Single hop Zhao and Govindan, SenSys 2003 Extra: SCALE (Cerpa et al. CENS TR 2003)

essiet
Download Presentation

Wireless Communication Issues in 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. Wireless Communication Issues in Sensor Networks Alec Woo UC Berkeley October 2nd, 2003

  2. Theme • Explore underlying communication issues and their effects on high-level protocol design • Single hop • Zhao and Govindan, SenSys 2003 • Extra: SCALE (Cerpa et al. CENS TR 2003) • Network-level protocol • multi-hop routing for data collection. (Woo et al., SenSys 2003)

  3. Motivation • Why do we care about all these details? • we will experience it! • if we want to implement our protocols • actual deployment decision

  4. Roadmap • Single Hop packet loss characteristics • Core dimensions • Environment, distance, transmit power, temporal correlation, data rate, packet size • Services for High Level Protocols/Applications • Link estimation • Neighborhood management • Reliable Multihop Routing

  5. Zhao’s Study • Hardware • Mica, RFM 433MHz • MAC • TinyOS Mac (CSMA) • Encoding • Manchester (1:2) • 4b/6b (1:1.5) • SECDED (1:3) • Environment • Indoor, Open Structure, Habitat Environment

  6. Indoor is the Harshest • Linear topology over a hallway (0.5/0.25m spacing) • 40% of the links have quality < 70% • Lower transmit power • yields smaller tail distribution • SECDEC • significantly helps to lower the heavy tail

  7. Packet Loss and Distance • Gray/Transitional Area • ranges from 20% to 50% of the communication range • Habitat has smaller communication range? • Other evidence (Cerpa et al., Woo et al.) • RFM: BAD RADIO??

  8. ChipCon Radio (Cerpa et al.) Mica On Ceiling • Higher transmit power doesn’t eliminate transitional region • Range in (a) and (b) are the same? • Indoor RFM result is worst than that in Zhao’s work • cannot even see the effective region

  9. Can better coding help? • SECDED is effective if start symbol is detected but does not increase “communication range” • Bit error rate (BER) is higher in transitional region • Missing start symbol is fatal • Better coding for start symbol?

  10. Loss Variation (Cerpa et al.) • Variation over distance and over time • binomial approximation for variation over time? • Zhao shows that SECDED helps decrease the variation over distance (but very large SD here)

  11. Packet Loss vs. Workload • Packet loss increases as network load increases • But what is the network load? • How many nodes are in range? • Not sure! • Is 0.5packets/s already in saturation? • Difficult to observe is it hidden node terminal

  12. Packet Loss vs. RSSI • Low packet loss => good RSSI • But not vice versa • Too high a threshold limits number of links • Network partition??

  13. Other Findings • Correlation of Packet Loss • correlation at the gray (transitional) region for indoor • Habitat: much less • Independent losses are reasonable • 50%-80% of the retransmissions are wasted • Neighbor = hear a node once • Asymmetric links are common • > 10% of link pairs have link quality difference > 50% • Cerpa et al. • Moving a little bit doesn’t help • Swap the two nodes, asymmetrical link swaps too • i.e. not due to the environment

  14. Packet Size (Cerpa et al.) • Loss over distance is relatively the same for different packet size (25 bytes and 150 bytes) at different transmit power

  15. Take Away • Who to blame? • Radio? • Similar results found over RFM and ChipCon radio • Hardware calibration! Yeah!  • Base-band radio • Multi-path will remain unless spread-spectrum radio is used • But 802.11 is also not ideal (Decouto et al. Mobicom 03) • What is the effective communication range? • What does it mean when you deploy a network • What defines a neighbor? • Why study high density sensor network? • Break?

  16. Roadmap • Single Hop packet loss characteristics • Core dimensions • Environment, distance, transmit power, temporal correlation, data rate, packet size • Services for High Level Protocols/Applications • Link estimation • Neighborhood management • Reliable multihop routing for data collection

  17. Link Quality Estimation • Estimate rate of successful reception from neighboring nodes • RSSI may not work well • Neighbors exchange estimations to derive bi-directional link quality • 2 Techniques: Passive vs. Active • Key decision factor: broadcast medium • Passive: snoop on neighbor packets

  18. What is a good Estimator? • For a given error bound and agility, • yields the most stable estimation • with the smallest memory footprint • and the simplest algorithm • Agility and stability are at odds with each other

  19. Agility and Error Bound • Simulation worst case: 10% error ~ 100 packet time • Assuming IID Binomial model, by the central limit theorem • Worst case (p = 0.5) requires • 10% error with 90% confidence requires ~100 packet opportunities to learn • For example: at 30sec/packet • 50 minutes for 100 packets • forwarding traffic helps to reduce this time but potentially a long delay • Major disadvantage

  20. Infer Packet Loss • Packet sequence number for inferring packet loss • Issue: cannot infer loss until hearing the next packet • E.g. dead node or mobility • Can infer losses based on time • Assume minimum data rate is known • Likely to be true in periodic data collection

  21. WMEWMA Estimator • Compute an average success rate over time, T, and smoothes with an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) • Average calculation • Packet Received over T divided by • Max of • Number of packets expected over T • Number of packets sent over T suggested by sequence number • Tuning parameters: • T and history size of EWMA • Performance • Yields agile and stable estimations • Uses constant memory, and is very simple

  22. Neighbor Table • Maintain link estimation statistics and routing information of each neighbor • How large should this table be? • O(cell density) * meta-data for each neighbor • Issue: • Density can be high but memory is limited • At high density, many links are poor or asymmetric • Question: • Can we use constant memory to maintain a set of good neighbors regardless of cell density?

  23. Neighborhood Management • Question: when table becomes full, • should we add new neighbor? • If so, evict which old neighbor? • Neighbor Goodness • Basic one is link quality but it is unknown • Signal strength is a hint • Rely on frequency of packet reception • Assume periodic data packets or beacons • Similar to • frequency estimation of data streams, or • classical cache policy

  24. Management Algorithm • When we hear a node, if • In table: increment a counter for this node • Not in table • Insert if table is not full • down-sample if table is full • If successful, insert only if some nodes can be evicted • Eviction: (FREQUENCY) • Decrement counter for each table entry • Nodes with counter = 0 can be evicted • Otherwise, all nodes stay in the table

  25. Key Results • FREQUENCY algorithm can effectively • utilize 50% to 70% of the table space to maintain a set of good neighbors • while being adaptive to neighborhood changes • Routing simulation: • Neighbor goodness is augmented to avoid maintaining sibling nodes based on routing cost difference

  26. Reliable Routing • 3 core components for Routing • Routing protocol • Neighbor table management • Link estimation • Example • Tree based routing for data collection • Reliable end-to-end packet delivery with minimum number of transmissions (link retransmissions) • Advocate stability • Simple

  27. Design Issues • Shortest path alone yields poor end-to-end success rate • Multi-hop over bad links has exponential loss effect • Two approaches • SP over some link quality threshold • Minimum expected number of transmissions as routing cost • Route damping • New route is not evaluated on every route updates • Link failure detection using consecutive packet loss leads to instability • link quality characterization is better • Queuing Policy • Two queues • Fair allocation between forwarding and originating traffic • Cycles • Detection vs. loop-free

  28. SP with Threshold • High threshold (e.g. 70%) fails to form a tree • Works fine in simulation! • link quality degrades when there is traffic • High threshold leads to network partition • Echo the observation made in Zhao’s work • Lower threshold (e.g. 40%) is also problematic • Tree prunes and rebuilds over time when traffic is high

  29. MT • No predefine threshold is necessary • Captures both reliability and energy cost • Routing cost builds upon individual estimations along the path • Cost = hops + number of expected link retransmissions • if link quality = 100%, MT reduces to normal SP routing

  30. Methodology • Graph analysis • Network simulation • Assuming packet loss are independent, following Binomial model • Empirical evaluation • On site connectivity vs. distance study • Find minimum transmit power • Transitional/gray area starts at average node distance

  31. Findings (I) • Hop distribution and success rate • longer majority hop-count yields higher success • Hop distribution and distance • Evidence of long links, potentially reliable • Retransmissions are not too effective • MT yields ~80% success rate • packets delivered only experience 1 retransmission along the path • A maximum of 2 retransmission per hop can • Needs a maximum of 3 per hop to achieve over 90% end-to-end success rate

  32. Findings (II) • Link failure detection with consecutive packet loss leads to instability • Stability and Congestion • link quality fluctuates at congestion period • creates global instability • BS can hear half the number of neighbors in the network even with a low power setting • MT metrics build upon link estimations are stable • No cycles are detected

  33. Discussions (I) • Passive snooping • What are the assumptions for this to work? • Estimation takes too long • Can we infer from BER before FEC? (tricky)? • But missing start symbol is the major cause! • Neighborhood management argument • Do you buy it? • Stability • Do we care? • Congestion • How to avoid it? • Scheduled communication?

  34. Discussions (II) • Can we define a hop? • One hop neighbor? • What is the averaged hop distance? • Deployment • What’s the expected hop-count? • What distance or transmit power should we use? • Overhead • Anecdotal setting of route update rate • Can it be adaptive?

  35. Discussion (III) • Power • No address on power management • How does it work with scheduled communication which avoids overhearing? • Potentially run over low-power listening • What’s used in Great Duck Island • DSDV (Yarvis et al. ICPP Workshop 2002) • Different kinds of link estimation and routing cost • Do we need to prevent cycle like DSDV in a relatively static network? • N-to-N Routing?

More Related