Advertisement

Latency and Network Lifetime Trade-Off in Geographic Multicast Routing for Multi-Sink Wireless Sensor Networks

  • Lucas LeãoEmail author
  • Violeta Felea
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11005)

Abstract

The deployment of multiple sinks in Wireless Sensor Networks may provide better reliability, timely communication and longevity, depending on the routing strategy. Moreover, geographic routing is a powerful strategy to avoid the costs related to maintaining high network knowledge. In this paper, we present a Geographic Multicast Routing solution (GeoM), focused on the latency and network lifetime trade-off. Our solution considers a linear combination of network metrics during the decision process of the next hop. Packets are forwarded to all sinks, and duplications are defined on the fly during the forwarding. The network lifetime is addressed with an energy balance strategy and a trade-off between progress and energy cost. We make use of the maximum energy consumption as an indication of the network lifetime. Simulation results show that GeoM has an overall better performance than the existing solutions, with improvements of approximately 11% for the average latency, and 54% for the maximum energy consumption.

Keywords

Multi-Sink Wireless Sensor Networks Routing Multicast Latency Network lifetime Geographic routing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). Computations have been performed on the supercomputer facilities of the Mésocentre de calcul de Franche-Comté.

References

  1. 1.
    Buettner, M., Yee, G.V., Anderson, E., Han, R.: X-MAC: a short preamble MAC protocol for duty-cycled wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pp. 307–320. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buratti, C., Conti, A., Dardari, D., Verdone, R.: An overview on wireless sensor networks technology and evolution. Sensors 9(9), 6869–6896 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakraborty, S., Chakraborty, S., Nandi, S., Karmakar, S.: Fault resilience in sensor networks: distributed node-disjoint multi-path multi-sink forwarding. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 57, 85–101 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, D., Varshney, P.K.: A survey of void handling techniques for geographic routing in wireless networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 9(1), 50–67 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciciriello, P., Mottola, L., Picco, G.P.: Efficient routing from multiple sources to multiple sinks in wireless sensor networks. In: Langendoen, K., Voigt, T. (eds.) EWSN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4373, pp. 34–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69830-2_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Contiki OS: The Open Source OS for the Internet of Things. http://www.contiki-os.org/. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  7. 7.
    Facility FIT: FIT IoT-LAB. https://www.iot-lab.info/. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  8. 8.
    Gao, D., Lin, H., Liu, X.: Routing protocol for k-anycast communication in rechargeable wireless sensor networks. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 43, 12–20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, X., Kamei, S., Fujita, S.: Autonomous multi-source multi-sink routing in wireless sensor networks. Inf. Media Technol. 7(1), 488–495 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinzelman, W.R., Chandrakasan, A., Balakrishnan, H.: Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In: 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heissenbüttel, M., Braun, T., Bernoulli, T., WäLchli, M.: BLR: beacon-less routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks. Comput. Commun. 27(11), 1076–1086 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, D., et al.: On bounding node-to-sink latency in wireless sensor networks with multiple sinks. Int. J. Sens. Netw. 13(1), 13–29 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitton, N., Simplot-Ryl, D., Stojmenovic, I.: Guaranteed delivery for geographical anycasting in wireless multi-sink sensor and sensor-actor networks. In: 28th Annual IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp. 2691–2695 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitton, N., Simplot-Ryl, D., Voge, M.-E., Zhang, L.: Energy efficient k-anycast routing in multi-sink wireless networks with guaranteed delivery. In: Li, X.-Y., Papavassiliou, S., Ruehrup, S. (eds.) ADHOC-NOW 2012. LNCS, vol. 7363, pp. 385–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31638-8_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osterlind, F., Dunkels, A., Eriksson, J., Finne, N., Voigt, T.: Cross-level sensor network simulation with COOJA. In: Proceedings of 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, pp. 641–648. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FEMTO-ST institute, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CNRS, DISCBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations