Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey

IEEE Wireless Communication Dec 2004 Jamal N. Al-Karaki, The Hashemite University Ahmed E. Kamal, Iowa State University presented by R93725047

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Introduction (1/2)
Routing protocols in WSNs Differ depending on the application and network architecture Classified into three categories based on the underlying network structure:
Flat: Nodes are assigned equal roles Hierarchical: Nodes will play different roles Location-based: Nodes positions are exploited to route data

Classified into multipath-based, query-based, negotiationbased, QoS-based, and coherent-based depending on the protocol operation Trade-offs between energy and communication overhead savings

Introduction (2/2)

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Challenges (1/2)
Due to the relatively large number of sensor nodes, it is not possible to build a global addressing scheme for the deployment of a large number of sensor nodes as the overhead of ID maintenance is high Applications of sensor networks require the few of sensed data from multiple sources to a particular BS Sensor nodes are tightly constrained in terms of energy, processing, and storage capacities

Challenges (2/2)
In most application scenarios, nodes in WSNs are generally stationary after deployment except for maybe a few mobile nodes. Sensor networks are application-specific Position awareness of sensor nodes is important since data collection is normally based on the location Data collected based on common phenomena, so there is a high probability that this data has some redundancy

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Design Issues (1/4)

The main design goals of WSNs is to carry out data communication while trying to prolong the lifetime of the network and prevent connectivity degradation by employing aggressive energy management techniques

Design Issues (2/4)

Node deployment: application-dependent
Manual (deterministic): data is routed through predetermined paths Randomized: nodes are scattered randomly, creating an ad hoc routing infrastructure Distribution of nodes is not uniform, optimal clustering becomes necessary Use up their limited supply of energy The malfunctioning of some sensor nodes

Energy consumption without losing accuracy Data reporting method

Time-driven: for application requiring periodic data monitoring Event-driven: react due to a certain event (time-critical ap) Query-driven: response to a query (time-critical ap) Hybrid

Design Issues (3/4)

Node/link heterogeneity Fault tolerance Scalability
For example, hierarchical protocols designate a cluster head node
The failure of sensor nodes should not affect the overall task of the sensor network Any routing scheme must be able to work with huge number of sensor nodes Nodes can be mobile The phenomenon can be mobile The required bandwidth is low(1-100 kb/s) TDMA-based protocols conserve more energy than contention-based protocols (like CSMA)

Network dynamics

Transmission media

Design Issues (4/4)

Connectivity Coverage
Density in sensor networks Depends on the possibly random distribution of nodes
A sensors view of the environment is limited in both range and accuracy

Data aggregation

Quality of service

Sensor nodes may generate significant redundant data To reduce the number of transmissions
Network lifetime often is considered more important Bounded latency for data delivery is a condition for time-constrained applications

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Flat Routing
Each node plays the same role Data-centric routing Protocols
Due to not feasible to assign a global id to each node Save energy through data negotiation and elimination of redundant data Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN) Directed diffusion (DD) Rumor routing Minimum Cost Forwarding Algorithm (MCFA) Gradient-based routing (GBR) Information-driven sensor querying/Constrained anisotropic diffusion routing (IDSQ/CADR) COUGAR ACQUIRE Energy-Aware Routing Routing protocols with random walks

Sensor protocols for information via negotiation (SPIN)

Features
Negotiation
Resource adaptation
to operate efficiently and to conserve energy using a meta-data To extend the operating lifetime of the system monitoring their own energy resources

SPIN Message

ADV new data advertisement REQ request for ADV data DATA actual data message

ADV, REQ messages contain only meta-data

Sensor protocols for information via negotiation (SPIN)

Operation process
ADV REQ DATA

Step1

Step2

Step3

ADV

REQ

DATA

Step4

Step5

Step6

Sensor protocols for information via negotiation (SPIN)

Resource adaptive algorithm
When energy is plentiful
When energy is approaching a low-energy threshold
Communicate using the 3-stage handshake protocol If a node receives ADV, it does not send out REQ Energy is reserved to sensing the event

Advantage

Simplicity

Drawback

Robust to topology change Large overhead

Data broadcasting

Each node performs little decision making when it receives new data Need not forwarding table

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Feature
Data-centric routing protocol A path is established between sink node and source node Localized interactions The propagation and aggregation procedures are all based on local information

Four elements
Interest Gradient
A task description which is named by a list of attribute-value pairs that describe a task Path direction, data transmission rate

Data message Reinforcement

To select a single path from multiple paths

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Basic scheme
Event Event Low rate Source Sink Interests Source Sink Gradients

Step 1 : Interest propagation

Event

Step 2 : Initial gradients setup

Source

Sink

High rate

Step 3 : Data delivery along reinforced path

Directed Diffusion (DD)

Advantage
Small delay
Robust to failed path
Always transmit the data through shortest path

Drawback

Imbalance of node lifetime

Time synchronization technique

The energy of node on shortest path is drained faster than another To implement data aggregation Not easy to realize in a sensor network Increasing the cost of a sensor node

The overhead involved in recording information

Rumor Routing
Feature
Combine query flooding and event flooding Discovering arbitrary paths instead of the shortest path Rumor routing is attractive only when
The number of queries is larger than a threshold The number of events is smaller than another threshold

Assumption

The network is composed of densely distributed nodes Only short distance transmissions Immobile nodes

Rumor Routing
Basic scheme
Each node maintain
A lists of neighbors An event table Generate an agent Let it travel on a random path The visited node form a gradient to the event Transmit a query The query meets some node which lies on the gradient
Route establishment

When a node detects an event

When a sink needs an event

Rumor Routing
The node sensing an event probabilistically generates an agent. The probability of generating an agent is an algorithm parameter In order to propagate directions to the event as far as possible in the network, a straightening algorithm is used
The agent maintains a list of recently seen nodes. When picking its next hop, it will first try nodes not in the list.

Minimum Cost Forwarding Algorithm (MCFA)

Objective
Establish the cost field Transmit the data through the minimum-cost path

Feature

Optimality Simplicity

Minimum cost path criteria : hop count, energy consumption, delay etc. Need not to maintain forwarding table Need not to know an ID for a neighbor node

Minimum Cost Forwarding Algorithm (MCFA)

Operation process
Each node stores its cost to the sink The sink broadcasts an ADV message
Each node receiving the message transmits neighbor node The cost field is set up
Add the cost in ADV message to its own cost containing its own cost (0 initially)

The source transmits an information through cost field

after the ADV message propagates through the network

Drawback

Limited network size Load is not balanced

The time to set the cost field is directly proportional to the size of the network

Minimum Cost Forwarding Algorithm (MCFA)

The direction of routing is always known toward the fixed external BS
The BS broadcasts a message with the cost set to zero, while every node initially sets its least cost to the BS to infinity To check if the estimate in the message plus the link on which it is received is less than the current estimate.

110

Gradient-based routing
Memorize the number of hops when the interest is diffused Minimum the number of hops to reach the BS To obtain balanced traffic and prolong lifetime:
A stochastic scheme An energy-based A stream-based scheme

Information-driven sensor querying and constrained anisotropic diffusion routing (IDSQ/CADR)

Key idea CADR:
Routing data in a network so that information gain is maximized while power and bandwidth consumption is minimized
Aims to be a general form of directed diffusion Diffuses queries by using a set of information criteria to select which sensors can get the data Does not specifically define how the query and information are routed The querying node can determine which node can provide the most useful information with the additional advantage of balancing the energy cost

IDSQ:

Information-driven sensor querying and constrained anisotropic diffusion routing (IDSQ/CADR) CADR
with global knowledge of sensor positions optimal position to route query to is given by xo = argx [Mc = 0] note: Mc = Mu (1 - )Ma The routing is directly addressed to the sensor node that is closest to the optimal position

COUGAR
View the network as a huge distributed database system Use declarative queries Abstract query processing from the network layer Disadvantages
May add extra overhead query layer Synchronization Leader nodes maintenance

COUGAR

ACQUIRE
Views the network as a distributed DB where complex queries can be divided into several subqueries The BS sends a query, which is then forwarded by each node receiving the query Each node tries to respond to the query partially bye using its precached information Triggered update obtaining information from all neighborhood within a look-ahead of d hops Query is returned back to the querying node as a completed response

ACQUIRE

Active Query Update Messages Complete Response

Update only if current information is obsolete

Randomly select next node to forward Complete response is routed back directly to the original querier

Energy-Aware Routing
A destination-initiated reactive protocol It maintains a set of paths Choosing paths by means of certain probability depending on how low the energy consumption is

Energy-Aware Routing
Setup Phase
Directional flooding
Local Rule

Sensor Controller

p1 = 0.75 p2 = 0.25

10 nJ

30 nJ

Energy-Aware Routing
Data Communication Phase
Each node makes a local decision
0.3 Sensor
Controller

0.6
1.0 1.0 0.4

0.7

Routing protocols with random walks

A routing protocol for WSN that tries to do load balancing among intermediate nodes. Making use of multiple paths that exist from source to destination by making local packet forwarding decisions Current algorithm is only valid for grid-topology sensor 0 1 2 3 network 1/2 2/3 3/4 0 S Advantages
Archiving load balancing Maintaining little state information 1 Disadvantages
1/2 1/3 1/4 1

1/3
2/3 1/2

1/2
2/3

1/3
1

Topology may not be practical

2
3/4

1/4
1/3

2/3
1/2

1/2
1

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Hierarchical Routing
Nodes will play different roles Advantages related to scalability and efficient communication Mainly two-layer routing Protocols
Select cluster heads Routing

Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols Small Minimum energy communication network (MECN) Self-organizing protocol (SOP) Virtual grid architecture routing Hierarchical power-aware routing Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

 Randomly select sensor nodes as cluster-heads, so the high energy dissipation in communicating with the base station is spread to all sensor nodes in the sensor network. Set-up phase each sensor node chooses a random number between 0 and 1 If this random number is less than the threshold T(n), the sensor node is a cluster-head.

Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH)

Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH)

Set-up phase
The cluster-heads advertise to all sensor nodes in the network The sensor nodes inform the appropriate cluster-heads that they will be a member of the cluster. (base on signal strength) Afterwards, the cluster-heads assign the time on which the sensor nodes can send data to the cluster-heads based on a TDMA approach.

Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH)

Steady phase
the sensor nodes can begin sensing and transmitting data to the cluster-heads. The cluster-heads also aggregate data from the nodes in their cluster before sending these data to the base station.

After a certain period of time spent on the steady phase, the network

goes into the set-up phase again and enters into another round of selecting the clusterheads.

Me Head !!!
(CSMA-MAC)

I am with you (CSMA-MAC) Cluster Set up Phase Phase

Advertisement

To reduce energy consumption noncluster-head nodes: Use minimal amount of energy chosen based on the strength of the cluster-head advertisement. Can turn off the radio until their allocated transmission time.
Thanks for the
time slot, Heres my data

Based on the number of nodes in the cluster, the cluster-head node creates a TDMA schedule telling each node when it can transmit. This schedule is broadcast back to the nodes in the cluster.
Heres your time slot

Data Transmission
Phase

(TDMA)

Schedule Creation Phase

Modified from http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/dzsong/teaching/fall2004/netbot/John_G.ppt

Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH)

p=0.05 0.0500 = 0.05/(1-0.05*0) 0.0526 = 0.05/(1-0.05*1) 0.0555 = 0.05/(1-0.05*2) 0.0588 = 0.05/(1-0.05*3) 0.0625 = 0.05/(1-0.05*4) 0.0666 = 0.05/(1-0.05*5) 0.0714 = 0.05/(1-0.05*6) 0.0769 = 0.05/(1-0.05*7) 0.0833 = 0.05/(1-0.05*8) 0.0909 = 0.05/(1-0.05*9) 0.1000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*10) 0.5000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*18) 1.0000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*19)

Number of clusters may not fixed in any round. To avoid the case that there is no cluster-head in a round(PE-WASUN04,
Oct. 7, 2004)

Simply skips the round which has no cluster-heads elected

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS)

Assumption
All nodes have location information about all other nodes Sensor nodes are immobile

Feature

Chain-based power efficient protocol The chain construction by greedy algorithm

Dynamic leader selection
Each node has global knowledge To evenly distribute the energy load

Data fusion

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS)

Performance
PEGASIS Outperforms LEACH
By eliminating the overhead of dynamic cluster formation By minimizing the total sum of transmission distances By limiting the number of transmissions

Problem

To obtain a global knowledge is difficult Scalability problem Very long delay

It is not suitable for sensor networks

Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols

Terminology
Hard Threshold (HT)
Soft Threshold (ST)
A threshold value for the sensed attribute The absolute value of the attribute A small change in the value of the sensed attribute which triggers the node to switch on its transmitter

Feature

Cluster-based routing protocol based on LEACH Time critical application The user can control the trade-off between energy efficiency and accuracy
A smaller value of the ST
more accurate picture of the network increased energy consumption

Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Protocols

Basic scheme
A gain of sensing value Decision whether to report it or not
Data are reported only
Based on the values of HT and ST When the sensed value exceeds HT When the values change is bigger than ST

Drawback

Cannot allocate the time slot

Cannot distinguish a node which does not sense a big change from a dead or failed node Collision occurrence in the cluster

Each node turn on its transmitter all the time

Small Minimum energy communication network (MECN)

Use small subgraph to communication The energy required to transmit data from node u to all its neighbors in subgraph G is less than the energy required to transmit to all its neighbors in graph G
MECN G

SMECN
v u G

Self-organizing protocol (SOP)

To build architecture to support heterogeneous sensor SOP
Discovery Phase: discovery neighbors Organization Phase: organize a hierarchy which is height balanced Maintenance Phase: keep track alive and routing table Self-Reorganization Phase: when group partitions or node failures

Sensor aggregates routing

The objective:
To collectively monitor target activity in a certain environment (target tracking applications)

Sensors are divided into clusters according to their sensed signal strength Three algs: DAM, EBAM, EMLAM
To elect a leader, information exchanges between neighboring sensors

Sensor aggregates routing

Sensor aggregates routing

DAM algorithm:
Goal : elect local cluster leaders. One peak may represent one target Compare with one-hop neighbors Broadcasts qualification Downward only

Sensor aggregates routing

12 13 10 12

15

14

12 10 12

11 10

 Provides a solution to count a targets within each sensor cluster Consider the energy level of target signal sources The energy level is estimated by computing the signal impact area, combining a weighted form of the detected target energy at each impacted sensor. To convert the energy level into the corresponding target density: assume roughly constant source energy output for the targets.

EBAM algorithm:

Sensor aggregates routing

Sensor aggregates routing

removes the constant and equal target energy level assumption. estimates the target positions and signal energy using received signals, uses the resulting estimates to predict how signals from the targets may be mixed at each sensor.

MLAM algorithm:

Virtual grid architecture routing

Utilizes data aggregation and in-network processing to maximize the network lifetime In side each zone, a node is optimally selected to act as CH. Data aggregation is performed at two levels:
Local: the set of CHs performing local aggregation Global: the selection of global aggregation points is NP-hard

Strategies for the selection of MAs:

Exact alg: ILP Approximate algs: geneticsbased, k-means, greedy-based

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Goal
To optimize the lifetime of the network. We develop an approximation algorithm called max-min zPmin. To ensure scalability, we introduce a hierarchical algorithm, which is called zone-based routing

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Max-min zPmin algorithm

: Maximal minimal fraction of remaining power after transmission

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Adaptive computation for z

: lifetime estimate

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Max-min zPmin: requires accurate power level information for all nodes Zone-based: a hierarchical approach
Zone power estimation Routing across zones (Globe path routing) Routing within each zone (local path selection)

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Zone power estimation

P: maximal number of messages

Hierarchical power-aware routing

Globe path routing:
Modified Bellman-Ford algorithm

Local path selection:

Max-min zPmin algorithm is used directly to route a message within a zone

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Excessive Power Consumption Increased Wireless Transmission Collisions

State Maintenance Overhead

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Assumption
Sensor nodes are stationary and location-aware Sinks may change their location dramatically Sensor nodes are aware of their missions Scalable and efficient data delivery protocol to multiple mobile sinks Mobile sensor nodes are not allowed in the network Location information is required to set up the grid structure Sensitive to the topology change

Feature

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Dissemination Node

Data Announcement Source Data Sink Query Immediate Dissemination Node

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Dissemination Node Data Announcement Source Data Trajectory Forwarding Immediate Dissemination Node

Source

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Grid maintenance issues:
Solutions:
Handle unexpected dissemination node failures Efficiency Source sets the Grid Lifetime in Data Announcement DN replication: each DN recruits several sensor nodes from its one-hop neighbor, replicates the location of the upstream DN DN failure detected and replaced on-demand by on-going query and data flows

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Dissemination Node

Source Data

Immediate Dissemination Node

Two Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD)

Dissemination Node

Source Data

Immediate Dissemination Node

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Hierarchical vs. Flat Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Hierarchical vs. Flat

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Location-Based Routing Protocols

Nodes positions are exploited to route data
Sensor nodes are addressed by means of their locations Distance can be estimated on the basis of incoming signal strengths

Protocols:

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity Geographic and Energy Aware Routing MFR, DIR and GEDIR The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing SPAN

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity

Core idea
Turn off a node if it is equivalent from a routing perspective Adaptively adjust routing fidelity use node deployment density

Whats fidelity
Uninterrupted connectivity between communicating nodes

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity

Determine routing equivalence
r 2 ( 2r ) 2 R 2 R r 5

Whats fidelity

Uninterrupted connectivity between communicating nodes

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity

Use GPS information to decide virtual grid ID 3-state transition
Discovery (Td) Active (Ta) Sleep (Ts)

Node ranking

Adapting to mobility

Active node wins High energy node wins With GPS information

Geographic and Energy Aware Routing

Motivation:
Basic ideas:
Reduce overhead of interest and low rate data flooding in directed diffusion Leverage geographical information to restrict flooding, and recursively disseminate data inside the target region. Extend overall network lifetime using local techniques to balance energy usage Reuse routing information across multiple user queries.

Geographic and Energy Aware Routing

Forward the packets towards the target region:
Greedy mode: minimizing cost function (f=mix function of distance and energy) Route around communication holes with energy aware neighbor estimation
Geographic Recursive Forwarding recursively re-send packets to sub-regions of the original geographic region

Disseminate the packet within the target region:

Geographic and Energy Aware Routing

Each node has a learned cost (historical cost) and an estimated cost (present state cost) to decide the next forwarding node
Learned cost

Estimated cost

h( N , R) h( N min , R) C ( N , N min )

c( Ni , R) d ( Ni , R) (1 )e( Ni )

MFR, DIR and GEDIR

MFR most forward with progress
B C A A S E F Minimize DS.DA = |DS||DA| D

MFR, DIR and GEDIR

DIR best direction
A
S D

Closest direction

MFR, DIR and GEDIR

GEDIR closest to destination

A
S B

Closest neighbor to D

MFR, DIR and GEDIR

MFR vs GEDIR
A S A B D B

may choose different node choice is same most of time!

GEDIR wins in power efficiency AD<BD

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

Problem with greedy: Holes
Stuck at X: No neighbor of X is closer to D than X.

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

a) b)

Route through the sequence of faces that intersect the line segment [S,D]. Go around each face. Switch to the next face at a common edge.
D

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

Simple face routing can be very bad

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

Bound Searchable Area

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

What is the correct size of the bounding area?
Start with a small searchable area Grow area each time you cannot reach the destination In other words, adapt area size whenever it is too small

Adaptive Face Routing AFR

The Greedy Other Adaptive Face Routing

GOAFR: Combine Greedy and (Other) Adaptive Face Routing Route greedily as long as possible. If stuck, do face routing. Switch to greedy, from the best point in the current face.

Starting at s, GOAFR proceeds in greedy mode until reaching the local minimum n1. The algorithm switches to face routing mode and explores the boundary of face F to find n2, the node closest to t on F's boundary. GOAFR falls back to greedy mode and finally reaches t.

SPAN
Goal
Turn off nodes without significantly diminishing the capacity or connectivity of the network

Core concept
Coordinator Forwarding backbone Non-coordinator

SPAN
Rule1: periodically broadcasts HELLO message
Current Status (coordinator or not) Current coordinator Current neighbors

Rule2: coordinator announcement

Rule3: coordinator withdrawal

A node decides to volunteer to be a coordinator if it discovers that two of its neighbors cannot communicate with each other directly or via one or two coordinators Avoid coordinator contention: delayed announcement If every pair of its neighbors can reach each other either directly or via some other coordinators To archive fairness, if one node has been a coordinator for some period of time and every pair of neighbor nodes can reach each other via some other neighbors (even if they are not coordinators yet)

SPAN
Announcement contention
1 3 2 1 2 4 6 Initial configuration 7 5 3 1
Boo

2 5

4
6 7

Boo

Boo

All the nodes are eligible Coordinator contention And try to be a coordinator at the same time

SPAN
Resolving announcement contention using backoff

utility 0<R<1

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation

Multipath Routing Protocols Query-Based Routing Negotiation-Based Routing Protocols QoS-based Routing Coherent and Noncoherent Processing

Multipath Routing Protocols

Use multiple paths in order to enhance network performance
Fault tolerance Balance energy consumption Energy-efficient Reliability

Query-Based Routing
Destination nodes propagate a query for data Usually theses queries are described in natural language or high-level query language E.g.
Directed diffusion Rumor routing protocol

Negotiation-Based Routing Protocols

Use high-level data descriptors in order to eliminate redundant data transmissions through negotiation Communication decisions are also made based on the resources available to them E.g.
SPIN

QoS-based Routing
Has to balance between energy consumption and data quality E.g.
SPEED (congestion avoidance)

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Future Directions (1/2)

QoS Nodes mobility Exploit redundancy Tiered architectures Exploit spatial diversity and density of sensor nodes Achieve desired global behavior with adaptive localized algorithms

Future Directions

(2/2)

Leverage data processing inside the network and exploit computation near data sources to reduce communication Time and location synchronization Localization Self-configuration and reconfiguration Secure routing Integration of sensor networks with wired networks

Outline
Introduction Challenges Design Issues Flat Routing Hierarchical Routing Flat vs. Hierarchical Location-based Routing Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation Future Directions Conclusions

Conclusions
They have the common objective of trying to extend the lifetime of network Trade-off energy and communication overhead There are still many challenges that need to be solved

The End
Thanks for Listening