Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks

1. Routing ProtocolsforSensor Networks

2. Agenda • General Properties • Architectures and Requirements • Routing Protocols Classification • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: • LEACH • PEGASIS • TEEN • APTEEN • SPIN • DD • MCF • TTDD • RW • RR

3. Acknowledgements • E. Magistretti (U. Bologna Italy) • J. Kulik (MIT; BBN Co.) • R. R. Choudhury, P. Kyasanur & N. Vaidya (UIUC) • P. Desai (UFL) • D. Braginsky and D. Estrin (UCLA) • S. Hazarika, W. Chen, Y. Gong & X. Liu (UMASS) • T. Kwon & Mjnam (SNU Korea) • R. Peterson & D. Rus (Dartmouth C.) • H.C. Chung, K. Ghoshal & J. Krishna (TAMU) • C. Tavoularis (Cornell ) • G. Dong (Virginia U.)

4. WSN Dartmouth College

5. Concepts

6. Application:Military From UMASS

7. Environmental From UMASS

8. Circulatory Net Future Health

9. Agenda • General Properties • Architectures and Requirements • Routing Protocols Classification • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: • LEACH • PEGASIS • TEEN • APTEEN • SPIN • DD • MCF • TTDD • RW • RR

10. General Properties (1) • Mainly for Information Collection • Single Owner • Up to Hundreds of Thousands of Nodes • Disposable Nodes • Cheap Nodes • Security Concerns

11. General Properties (2) • Bounded Directed Stream (from/to Sink) • Somewhat Limited Computation Capability • Limited Communication Capability • Limited Power Resources • Node may not have Unique ID • Common case - Stationary Nodes

12. Agenda • General Properties • Architectures and Requirements • Routing Protocols Classification • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: • LEACH • PEGASIS • TEEN • APTEEN • SPIN • DD • MCF • TTDD • RW • RR

13. General Architecture (1) Sensor Network Node Main Components • Sensor Unit • ADC – Analog Digital Converter • CPU – Central Processing Unit • Power Unit • Communication Unit

14. General Architecture (2)

15. General Requirements (1) • Varying Network Size • Inexpensive Nodes Equipment • Long Lifetime (Power) Þ Load-Balancing • Self-Organization • Re-tasking and Querying Capability

16. General Requirements (2) • Sensible Data Aggregation • Consolidation of Redundant Data • Application Awareness Þ Tradeoff Communication for Computation • Possible Mobility

17. Agenda • General Properties • Architectures and Requirements • Routing Protocols Classification • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: • LEACH • PEGASIS • TEEN • APTEEN • SPIN • DD • MCF • TTDD • RW • RR

18. Protocol Classification (1) • Proactive – First Compute all Routes; Then Route • Reactive – Compute Routes On-Demand • Hybrid – First Compute all Routes; Then Improve While Routing

19. Protocol Classification (2) • Direct – Node and Sink Communicate Directly(Fast Drainage; Small Scale) • Flat (Equal) – Random Indirect Route(Fast Drainage Around Sink; Medium Scale) • Clustering (Hierarchical) – Route Thru Distinguished Nodes

20. Protocol Classification (3) • Location Aware – Nodes knows where they are • Location-Less – Nodes location is unimportant • Mobility Aware – Nodes may move – Sources; Sinks; All

21. Protocol Classification (4) • Unicast – One-to-One Message Passing • Multicast (actually Local Broadcast) – Node-to-Neighbors Message Passing • Broadcast – Full-Mesh – Source to Everyone

22. Protocol Classification (5) Query Models: • Historical Queries: Analysis of historical data“What was the watermark 2h ago in the southeast?” • One-time Queries:Snapshot view“What is the watermark in the southeast?” • Persistent Queries:Monitoring over time“Report the watermark in the southeast for the next 4h”

23. Protocol Classification (6)

24. Agenda • General Properties • Architectures and Requirements • Routing Protocols Classification • 10 Suggested Routing Protocols: • LEACH • PEGASIS • TEEN • APTEEN • SPIN • DD • MCF • TTDD • RW • RR

25. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH – Discussed … • Self-Organizing – Adaptive Clustering • Cluster-Heads elect themselves – Now – “Random Round-Robin”Future – Power-Based Probability • Nodes die in random • Stationary Sink • Localized Coordination • Data Fusion Protocol Highlights

26. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH (2) • “Hot Spot” Problem(Nodes on a path from an event-congested area to the sink may drain) • Inadequate for Time-Critical Applications • Stationary Sink – Maybe Unpractical • Basic Algorithm assumes any node can communicate with sink – limited scale Main Drawbacks

27. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH (3) • Works in Rounds, each with Set-Up (Short) and Steady-State (Long) • Set-Up Phase - subdivided: • Advertisement (I am a Cluster-Head) • Cluster Set-Up (I am in your Cluster) • Schedule Creation (This is your slot) • Steady-State Phase: • Data Transmission using TDMA Main Procedures

28. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH (4) • Everyone uses the same channel • Different clusters use different CDMA codes • Code chosen in random • Cluster-Head communicate with Sink • Can be extended to Hierarchical Clustering Main Procedures

29. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH (5) Illustrations

30. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy 1 - LEACH (6) Illustrations

31. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems 2 - PEGASIS (1) • Token-Passing Chain-Based • Considered Near-Optimal (in a sense) • Nodes die in random • Stationary Nodes and Sink • Every node have a global network map • Data Fusion • Greedy chain construction Protocol Highlights

32. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems 2 - PEGASIS (2) • Stationary Nodes • Global Information Limited Scale: • Information travels many nodes • Assumes any node can communicate with sink Main Drawbacks

33. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems 2 - PEGASIS (3) • Greedy Algorithm Construct Chain –Start at a node far from sink and gather everyone neighbor by neighbor • Node i (mod N) is the leader in round i • Nodes passes token thru the chain to leader from both sides • Each node fuse its data with the rest • Leader transmit to sink Main Procedures

34. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems 2 - PEGASIS (4) Illustrations

35. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems 2 - PEGASIS (5) Rounds Until Death Illustrations

36. Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 3 - TEEN (1) • LEACH based Clustering • Smart data transmission (Saves Power) • Nodes dynamic reconfiguration ability • Suits for Time-Critical applications Protocol Highlights

37. Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 3 - TEEN (2) • “Hot Spot” Problem • Cluster-Heads need to listen constantly • Wasted time-slots • Can’t distinguish dead nodes • Other LEACH problems… Main Drawbacks

38. Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 3 - TEEN (3) • LEACH Proactive Clustering • Node transmit in timeslot only if both: • Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT) • Value differs from last transmitted value (SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST) • After transmission SV is reset Main Procedures

39. Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 3 - TEEN (4) Illustrations

40. Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 4 - APTEEN (1) • Improved (Adaptive - Hybrid) TEEN • All TEEN Features • More flexible logic and timeslots • Multi-type Queries: • Historical (What was the temp. then?) • One-time (What’s the temp. now?) • Persistent (Tell me the temp for 2 hours) • Can distinguish dead nodes Protocol Highlights

41. Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 4 - APTEEN (2) • LEACH problems… • Complex logic Main Drawbacks

42. Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 4 - APTEEN (3) • LEACH Proactive Clustering • Node transmit in timeslot only if both: • Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT) • Value differs from last transmitted value (SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST) Or If did not transmit for a max time (TC ) Or if queried by some sink • After transmission SV is reset Main Procedures

43. Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network 4 - APTEEN (4) Power Consumption: • As could be expected – APTEEN is better the LEACHbut not as good as TEEN Illustrations

44. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (1) • Network-wide Broadcast Limited by Negotiation and using Local Communication • Flooding problems solved: • Implosion – same data from many neighbors • Detection of overlapping regions • Excessive resources consumption (Blindness) • Needs only Localized Information • Data Fusion • Two main protocols SPIN-PP & SPIN-BC Protocol Highlights

45. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (2) • Broadcast - Limited Scale – every node handles O(n) messages • Data is updated throughout network – unnecessary in many cases • Network lifetime - not clear • High degree nodes = High power needs Main Drawbacks

46. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (3) SPIN-PP (Point-to-Point Communication) • Data is described by meta-data ADV msg. • Node has data Þsends ADV to neighbors • If neighbor do not have data Þ sends REQ • Node responds by sending the DATA • This process continues around the network • Nodes may aggregate their data to ADV • In a Lossy Network ADV may be repeated periodically and REQ if not answered Main Procedures

47. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (4) SPIN-BC (Local Broadcast Communication) • ADV and DATA sending like PP (but in B.C.) • Since only one REQ answer is needed, any node waits a random interval and B.C. REQ only if none was received yet. • The rest – like SPIN-PP Main Procedures

48. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (5) Node with data ADV Illustrations SPIN-PP Node with data advertises to all its neighbors

49. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (5) Node with data REQ Illustrations SPIN-PP Neighbor requests for data and it is sent

50. Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation 5 - SPIN (5) Node with data DATA Illustrations SPIN-PP Node with data advertises to all its neighbors