Adaptive protocols for information dissemination in wireless sensor networks
01 Aug 1999-pp 174-185
TL;DR: It is found that the SPIN protocols can deliver 60% more data for a given amount of energy than conventional approaches, and that, in terms of dissemination rate and energy usage, the SPlN protocols perform close to the theoretical optimum.
Abstract: In this paper, we present a family of adaptive protocols, called SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation), that efficiently disseminates information among sensors in an energy-constrained wireless sensor network. Nodes running a SPIN communication protocol name their data using high-level data descriptors, called meta-data. They use meta-data negotiations to eliminate the transmission of redundant data throughout the network. In addition, SPIN nodes can base their communication decisions both upon application-specific knowledge of the data and upon knowledge of the resources that are available to them. This allows the sensors to efficiently distribute data given a limited energy supply. We simulate and analyze the performance of two specific SPIN protocols, comparing them to other possible approaches and a theoretically optimal protocol. We find that the SPIN protocols can deliver 60% more data for a given amount of energy than conventional approaches. We also find that, in terms of dissemination rate and energy usage, the SPlN protocols perform close to the theoretical optimum.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The concept of sensor networks which has been made viable by the convergence of micro-electro-mechanical systems technology, wireless communications and digital electronics is described.
17,936 citations
Cites background or methods from "Adaptive protocols for information ..."
...SPIN [35] Sends data to sensor nodes only if they are interested; has three types of messages, i....
[...]
...There are two approaches used for interest dissemination: sinks broadcast the interest [39], and sensor nodes broadcast an advertisement for the available data [35] and wait for a request from the interested sinks....
[...]
...However, it has several deficiencies such as [35]:...
[...]
...(SPIN): A family of adaptive protocols called SPIN [35] is designed to address the deficiencies of classic flooding by negotiation and resource adaptation....
[...]
...Note that SPIN is based on data-centric routing [35] where the sensor nodes broadcast an advertisement for the available data and wait for a request from interested sinks....
[...]
TL;DR: The current state of the art of sensor networks is captured in this article, where solutions are discussed under their related protocol stack layer sections.
Abstract: The advancement in wireless communications and electronics has enabled the development of low-cost sensor networks. The sensor networks can be used for various application areas (e.g., health, military, home). For different application areas, there are different technical issues that researchers are currently resolving. The current state of the art of sensor networks is captured in this article, where solutions are discussed under their related protocol stack layer sections. This article also points out the open research issues and intends to spark new interests and developments in this field.
14,048 citations
Cites background or methods from "Adaptive protocols for information ..."
...With this respect, data aggregation is known as data fusion [ 15 ]....
[...]
...For attribute based naming, the users are more interested in querying an � Figure 4. a) The power efficiency of the routes; b) an example of data aggregation; c) the SPIN protocol [ 15 ]; d) an example of directed diffusion [5]....
[...]
...However, it has several deficiencies such as [ 15 ]: • Implosion: Implosion is a situation where duplicated messages are sent to the same node....
[...]
...Note that SPIN is based on data-centric routing [ 15 ] where the sensor nodes broadcast an advertisement for the available data and wait for a request from interested sinks....
[...]
...A family of adaptive protocols called Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN) [ 15 ] is designed to address the deficiencies of classic flooding by negotiation and resource adaptation....
[...]
04 Jan 2000
TL;DR: The Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) as mentioned in this paper is a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster based station (cluster-heads) to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensors in the network.
Abstract: Wireless distributed microsensor systems will enable the reliable monitoring of a variety of environments for both civil and military applications. In this paper, we look at communication protocols, which can have significant impact on the overall energy dissipation of these networks. Based on our findings that the conventional protocols of direct transmission, minimum-transmission-energy, multi-hop routing, and static clustering may not be optimal for sensor networks, we propose LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy), a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster based station (cluster-heads) to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensors in the network. LEACH uses localized coordination to enable scalability and robustness for dynamic networks, and incorporates data fusion into the routing protocol to reduce the amount of information that must be transmitted to the base station. Simulations show the LEACH can achieve as much as a factor of 8 reduction in energy dissipation compared with conventional outing protocols. In addition, LEACH is able to distribute energy dissipation evenly throughout the sensors, doubling the useful system lifetime for the networks we simulated.
12,497 citations
01 Jan 2000
TL;DR: LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy), a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster based station (cluster-heads) to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensors in the network, is proposed.
Abstract: Wireless distributed microsensor systems will enable the reliable monitoring of a variety of environments for both civil and military applications. In this paper, we look at communication protocols, which can have signicant impact on the overall energy dissipation of these networks. Based on our ndings that the conventional protocols of direct transmission, minimum-transmission-energy, multihop routing, and static clustering may not be optimal for sensor networks, we propose LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy), a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster base stations (cluster-heads) to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensors in the network. LEACH uses localized coordination to enable scalability and robustness for dynamic networks, and incorporates data fusion into the routing protocol to reduce the amount of information that must be transmitted to the base station. Simulations show that LEACH can achieve as much as a factor of 8 reduction in energy dissipation compared with conventional routing protocols. In addition, LEACH is able to distribute energy dissipation evenly throughout the sensors, doubling the useful system lifetime for the networks we simulated.
11,412 citations
TL;DR: This work develops and analyzes low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH), a protocol architecture for microsensor networks that combines the ideas of energy-efficient cluster-based routing and media access together with application-specific data aggregation to achieve good performance in terms of system lifetime, latency, and application-perceived quality.
Abstract: Networking together hundreds or thousands of cheap microsensor nodes allows users to accurately monitor a remote environment by intelligently combining the data from the individual nodes. These networks require robust wireless communication protocols that are energy efficient and provide low latency. We develop and analyze low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH), a protocol architecture for microsensor networks that combines the ideas of energy-efficient cluster-based routing and media access together with application-specific data aggregation to achieve good performance in terms of system lifetime, latency, and application-perceived quality. LEACH includes a new, distributed cluster formation technique that enables self-organization of large numbers of nodes, algorithms for adapting clusters and rotating cluster head positions to evenly distribute the energy load among all the nodes, and techniques to enable distributed signal processing to save communication resources. Our results show that LEACH can improve system lifetime by an order of magnitude compared with general-purpose multihop approaches.
10,296 citations
Cites background or methods from "Adaptive protocols for information ..."
...We added a Resource-Adaptive Node [41] to ns, as shown in Figure A-2....
[...]
...With this goal in mind, the authors in [41] developed SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation), a family of protocols to disseminate information in a wireless microsensor network....
[...]
...Recently, there has been a great deal of work on application-controlled routing [3, 41, 48]....
[...]
...Similarly, the SPIN [41] and directed di usion [48] protocols use application-speci c data naming and routing to achieve energy e ciency in a wireless microsensor network....
[...]
...Internet delivery [8], application-controlled routing [3, 41, 48], wireless multimedia delivery [46, 49], and protocol frameworks for active wireless networks [53]....
[...]
References
More filters
21 Mar 1999
TL;DR: Preliminary performance evaluation shows that CEDAR is a robust and adaptive QoS routing algorithm that reacts effectively to the dynamics of the network while still approximating link-state performance for stable networks.
Abstract: CEDAR is an algorithm for QoS routing in ad hoc network environments. It has three key components: (a) the establishment and maintenance of a self-organizing routing infrastructure called the core for performing route computations, (b) the propagation of the link-state of stable high-bandwidth links in the core through increase/decrease waves, and (c) a QoS route computation algorithm that is executed at the core nodes using only locally available state. But preliminary performance evaluation shows that CEDAR is a robust and adaptive QoS routing algorithm that reacts effectively to the dynamics of the network while still approximating link-state performance for stable networks.
719 citations
"Adaptive protocols for information ..." refers background in this paper
...Recently, mobile ad hoc routing protocols have become an active area of research [3, 11, 17, 19, 23]....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: This paper presents an introduction to Routing in the Internet, focusing on RIP and OSPF and the Structure of Interconnections, and the structure of Multicast Routing.
Abstract: 1. Introduction to Routing in the Internet. The Worldwide Internet. How Is It Organized? A Study of Routing. Acknowledgments. I. ARCHITECTURE AND PROTOCOLS 2. The Internet Architecture. Is There an Internet Architecture? The End-to-End Argument. IP over Everything. Connectivity Is Its Own Reward. Developing the Internet Architecture. The Future of the Internet. 3. The Internet Protocol. Model of Operation. The Internet Addresses. The Internet Protocol. ICMP. Sending IP Packets. IP and Companion Protocols. Interconnecting Local Networks. 4. From IPv4 to IPv6. IPv6 Address Architecture. The IPv6 Header Format. ICMP v6. Address Resolution. Automatic Configuration. When Will We Deploy IPv6? II. INTERIOR ROUTING PROTOCOLS 5. Why Is RIP So Simple? Routing Information Protocol. An Introduction to Distance Vector Protocols. RIP, Version 1. RIP, Version 2. Using RIPng for IPv6. Further Improvements. The Cost of Simplicity. 6. Why Is OSPF So Complex? Open Shortest Path First. What Is a Link State Routing Protocol? Why Is a Link State Protocol Better? The Design of OSPF. The Link State Database. The Protocols within OSPF. OSPF for IPv6. Research and Developments. Complexity and Services. 7. Other Routing Protocols. RIP and OSPF Are Not Alone. Routers or Intermediate Systems? IGRP. Enhanced IGRP. Choosing Routing Protocols. III. EXTERIOR ROUTING PROTOCOLS 8. EGP: A First Step Toward The Global Internet. Splitting the Internet into Autonomous Systems. Exchanging Information through EGP. Routes, Distances, and Loops. The Limits of EGP. Developing BGP. 9. With BGP and CIDR Toward the World Wide Internet. Exponential Growth and the Need for CIDR. The Concept of Path Vectors. The Border Gateway Protocol. Synchronizing with the IGP. Growing Pains. 10. Growing Pains: From CIDR to IPv6. Addresses, Networks, and Routing Tables. The Structure of Interconnections. Routing Table Aggregation and Address Allocation. Is IPv6 the Solution? Waiting for the New IP. 11. Policy Routing. The Objectives of Policy Routing. Provider Selection. The IDPR Approach. Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The Future of Policy Routing. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS 12. IP Multicast Routing. Benefits of Multicast. Multicast Routing. Multicast Routing Protocols for the Internet. Internet Multicast Today. IP Multicast Deployment Issues. The Future of Multicast Routing. 13. Mobility. Mobile Hosts. The Objectives of IP Mobility. Architecture/Terminology. Protocols and Conventions. Further Refinements. Mobility and IPv6. The Future of Mobility. 14. Network Service Quality and Resource Reservation. Queues and Delays. Queuing and Scheduling. A Reservation Protocol. Do We Need Resource Reservation? Differentiated Services. Future Internet Services. 15. Toward the New IP. The Internet Lives. Address Depletion. Preparing for IPv6. Index.
561 citations
28 Aug 1996
TL;DR: This paper presents a decentralized channel access scheme for scalable packet radio networks that is free of packet loss due to collisions and that at each hop requires no per-packet transmissions other than the single transmission used to convey the packet to the next-hop station.
Abstract: Prior work in the field of packet radio networks has often assumed a simple success-if-exclusive model of successful reception. This simple model is insufficient to model interference in large dense packet radio networks accurately. In this paper we present a model that more closely approximates communication theory and the underlying physics of radio communication. Using this model we present a decentralized channel access scheme for scalable packet radio networks that is free of packet loss due to collisions and that at each hop requires no per-packet transmissions other than the single transmission used to convey the packet to the next-hop station. We also show that with a modest fraction of the radio spectrum, pessimistic assumptions about propagation resulting in maximum-possible self-interference, and an optimistic view of future signal processing capabilities that a self-organizing packet radio network may scale to millions of stations within a metro area with raw per-station rates in the hundreds of megabits per second.
305 citations
01 May 1999
TL;DR: This paper proposes a very simple algorithm called Name-Dropper whereby all machines learn about each other within O(log’ n) rounds with high probability, where n is the number of machines in the network.
Abstract: In large distributed networks of computers, it is often the case that a subset of machines wants to cooperate to perform a task. Before they can do so, these machines need to learn of the existence of each other. In this paper we are interested in distributed algorithms whereby machines in a network learn of other machines in the network by making queries to machines they already know. The algorithms should be efficient both in terms of the time required and in terms of the total network communication required until all machines have discovered all other machines. We propose a very simple algorithm called Name-Dropper whereby all machines learn about each other within O(log’ n) rounds with high probability, where n is the number of machines in the network. The total number of connections required is O(n log2 n) and the total number of pointers which must be communicated is O(n2 log2 n), with high probability. Each of the preceding bounds is optimal to within polylogarithmic factors.
217 citations
"Adaptive protocols for information ..." refers methods in this paper
...Recently, such techniques have also been used for resource discovery in networks [7]....
[...]
Book•
27 Apr 1995TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a detailed overview of the most important aspects of the current state of the art in wireless networks, including the following: PACKET-SWITCHING NETWORKS.
Abstract: I. CIRCUIT-SWITCHING NETWORKS. AT&Ts Dynamic Routing Network, G.R. Ash Dynamic Alternative Routing, R.J. Gibbens, F.P. Kelly, and P.B. Key II. PACKET-SWITCHING NETWORKS. Distance Vector Routing, G.S. Malkin and M.E. Steenstrup Inter-Domain Routing: EGP, BGP, and IDRP, Y. Rekhter Link State Routing, J. Moy AppleTalk Routing, A.B. Oppenheimer and F. Kuang SNA Routing, A. Garuge III. HIGH-SPEED NETWORKS. Routing in Optical Networks, J. Bannister, M. Gerla, and M. Kovacevic On Routing in ATM Networks, S. Gupta, K.W. Ross, and M. El Zarki Routing in the plaNET Network, I. Cidon and R. Guerin Deflection Routing, F. Borgonovo IV. MOBILE NETWORKS. Routing in Cellular Mobile Radio Communications Networks, J. Ketchum Packet Radio Routing, G.S. Lauder
192 citations