Advertisement

Congestion-Aware Routing Protocol for 6LoWPANs

  • Hayder Al-KashoashEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

It is known that existing protocols and the architecture of the Internet are inefficient for WSNs. Recently, the IETF has developed a set of IP-based protocols for 6LoWPAN networks through the 6LoWPAN and ROLL working groups [1]. One of the main protocols is RPL [2] which is expected to be the standard routing protocol for 6LoWPAN networks [3]. Many metrics have been proposed to be used with RPL that can be divided into link and node metrics, e.g. hop count, expected transmission count (ETX), node energy, latency, link quality and throughput [4].

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang T, Li X (2014) Evaluating and analyzing the performance of RPL in contiki. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on mobile sensing, computing and communication, ACM, pp 19–24Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winter T, Thubert P, Brandt A, Hui J, Kelsey R (2012) RPL: IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks. IETF, RFC 6550Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaddour O, Koubâa A, Baccour N, Abid M (2014) OF-FL: QoS-aware fuzzy logic objective function for the RPL routing protocol. In: Proceedings of 12th international symposium on modeling and optimization in mobile, Ad hoc, and wireless networks (WiOpt). IEEE, pp 365–372Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vasseur J-P, Kim M, Pister K, Dejean N, Barthel D (2012) Routing metrics used for path calculation in low-power and lossy networks. RFC 6551Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thubert P (2012) Objective function zero for the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL). RFC 6552Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gnawali O, Levis P (2010) The ETX objective function for RPL. Internet draft: draft-gnawali-roll-etxof-00Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonizzi P, Monica R, Ferrari G (2013) Design and evaluation of a delay-efficient RPL routing metric. In: Proceedings of 9th international wireless communications and mobile computing conference (IWCMC). IEEE, pp 1573–1577Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamgueu PO, Nataf E, Ndié TD, Festor O (2013) Energy-based routing metric for RPL. [Research report] RR-8208, INRIA, 14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karkazis P, Leligou HC, Sarakis L, Zahariadis T, Trakadas P, Velivassaki TH, Capsalis C (2012) Design of primary and composite routing metrics for RPL-compliant wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of international conference on telecommunications and multimedia (TEMU). IEEE, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Marco P, Fischione C, Athanasiou G, Mekikis P-V (2013) MAC-aware routing metrics for low power and lossy networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, pp 13–14Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moeller S, Sridharan A, Krishnamachari B, Gnawali O (2010) Routing without routes: the backpressure collection protocol. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on information processing in sensor networks. ACM, pp 279–290Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xiao W, Liu J, Jiang N, Shi H (2014) An optimization of the object function for routing protocol of low-power and lossy networks. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on systems and informatics (ICSAI). IEEE, pp 515–519Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang W, Ma X, Huang J, Wei J (2015) Toward improved RPL: a congestion avoidance multipath routing protocol with time factor for wireless sensor networks. J Sens 2016Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levis P, Clausen T, Hui J, Gnawali O, Ko J (2011) The trickle algorithm. Internet engineering task force, RFC 6206Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical Institute/QurnaSouthern Technical UniversityBasraIraq

Personalised recommendations