1 / 34

Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding for Enhanced Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks

This paper presents Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding (CCBF) designed to optimize routing in wireless sensor networks. CCBF aims to improve packet delivery efficacy while reducing duplications and enhancing throughput through cooperative node strategies. Key features include a two-phase approach for next-hop selection and cooperative forwarding, with simulations illustrating its advantages in average advance per hop (AAPH), energy efficiency, and latency. The research emphasizes the importance of cooperation among nodes to circumvent issues like poor link quality and interference.

luna
Télécharger la présentation

Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding for Enhanced Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding for Wireless Sensor Networks Long Cheng†‡, JiannongCao‡, CanfengChen§, HongyangChen∥, JianMa§, Joanna IzabelaSiebert‡ †State Key Lab of Networking & Switching Tech., Beijing Univ. of Posts and Telecomm., China ‡Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong §Nokia Research Center, Beijing, China ∥Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan ACM IWCMC 2010

  2. Outline • Introduction • Related Works • Goals • Assumption • Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding (CCBF) • Simulation • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Geographic routing Overhear transmissions Source Poor link quality Unreliable link Interference Sink Overhear transmissions

  4. Introduction How to choose the cooperative node? Source B Sink

  5. Introduction • Cooperative • PHY Layer Sender Sender Receiver Receiver Cooperative node (CN) Cooperative node (CN)

  6. Introduction • Cooperative • MAC Layer Sender Receiver Cooperative node (CN)

  7. Related Works • CBF (Cluster-based forwarding) Distant helper D nexthop Sink Sender A B C Intermediatehelper

  8. CBF Distant helper D Sink New nexthop Sender A nexthopB C Intermediatehelper Data Sender A Data nexthopB Data C Data Data D Data New nexthop RTS CTS Slot for distant helper Slot for intermediate helper

  9. Related Works • CBF (Cluster-based forwarding) D nexthop Sink Sender A B C Intermediatehelper

  10. CBF Distant helper D Sink New nexthop Sender A nexthopB C Intermediatehelper Data Sender A Data Data nexthopB Data Data C D New nexthop RTS CTS Slot for distant helper Slot for intermediate helper

  11. Related Works • CRL (Cooperative Relaying and Leapfrogging) Leapfrog Node Didn’t receive RTS from A. Overhear a data packet from C. LPF D nexthop Sink Sender A B C Relay

  12. CRL LPF D Sink Sender A nexthopB C Relay Timer Data Sender A LOSS ACKD terminates the forwarding process of B. Data Data nexthopB Data Data C D becomes a new sender. Data LPF D RTS CTS ACK

  13. Related Works – Disadvantage t0：A→B t1：C→B Hiddenhelper problem Packetduplications t2：D→B helper C Sender A nexthop B helper D Data Sender A LOSS Destination duplications Data Data Data nexthopB Data Data C Data Data D

  14. Goals • Select better next-hop. • increasing the average advance per hop(AAPH) • Avoid packetduplications. C S D B A

  15. Assumption • Every node knows • Its location. • Neighbor locations. • Destination and its location.

  16. Cooperative Contention-Based Forwarding (CCBF) Overview nexthop Sender A B E C D Destination

  17. CCBF • Phase I • Nexthop Selection • Phase II • Cooperative Forwarding

  18. CCBF • Next-Hop Selection Sender A BackoffB = t(sender, B, dest.) B BackoffC = t(sender, C, dest.) C Sender A BackoffE= t(sender, E, dest.) B E Destination E C RTS CTS

  19. CCBF • Next-Hop Selection • Dist(B,d) = 116 • PRRB = 0.91 • Dist(A,d) = 141 B Sender A E • Dist(E,d) = 104 • PRRE = 0.41 C Packet reception ratio • Dist(C,d) = 133 • PRRC = 0.79 NODE B C E Tmax 10s 10s 10s 3s 3s 3s NODE B C E d Dist 141-116 = 25 141-133 = 8 141-104 = 37 1s 3s 1s PRR 0.91 0.79 0.41 t(s,n,d) (backoff) EADV 22.75 6.32 15.17 19

  20. CCBF • Next-Hop Selection Data Sender A BackoffB = t(sender, B, dest.) B BackoffC = t(sender, C, dest.) CTS Cancelsbackoff. C nexthop Sender A BackoffE= t(sender, E, dest.) B CTS Cancels backoff. E Destination E C RTS CTS

  21. CCBF • Phase I • Nexthop Selection • Phase II • Cooperative Forwarding

  22. CCBF • Cooperative Forwarding • Cooperative Area • received the data packet • received the CTS • positive advances toward the destination

  23. CCBF • Cooperative Area 2) Received the CTS 3) Positive advances toward the destination Cooperative Area nexthop Sender A B E C Destination D 1) Received the data packet

  24. CCBF • Cooperative Forwarding Phase I Phase II Data Sender A BackoffB ACK Cancelsbackoff. Data B BackoffC ACK Cancelsbackoff. Data C BackoffE nexthop Sender A … Data E B E RTS CTS ACK C

  25. CCBF • Next-hop receiver B and it serves as the actual forwarder. Other node Nexthop & forwarder Sender A Phase I Phase II B Data Sender A E … Data B RTS CTS ACK

  26. CCBF • The helper E serves as the actual forwarder. Other node Phase I Phase II Nexthop Data Sender A Sender A B Forwarder Data B E Data Other node (A’s neighbors) Data … E RTS CTS ACK CONF (confirmation)

  27. Simulation

  28. Simulation (200,200) Source 200m Sink (0,0) 200m

  29. Simulation

  30. Simulation

  31. Simulation

  32. Simulation

  33. Conclusion • CCBFavoids packet duplications. • In simulations, • Increasing the average advance per hop • Improving the end-to-end energy efficiency and latency • Improving the packet loss ratio

  34. Thanks for your attention

More Related