1 / 25

Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets

Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets. Motivation. Most existing protocols only support basic many-to-one or one-to-many routing primitives (e.g., Directed diffusion, TAG, …) More point-to-point routing protocols have recently been proposed

virgo
Télécharger la présentation

Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets

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. Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-Point Routing in Wireless Sensornets

  2. Motivation • Most existing protocols only support basic many-to-one or one-to-many routing primitives (e.g., Directed diffusion, TAG, …) • More point-to-point routing protocols have recently been proposed • Applications: Pursuer-evader game, spatial queries, reactive tasking, multi-dimensional range queries, data centric storage, … • No practical and broadly applicable implementation of point-to-point routing in WSNs

  3. Design Goals • Develop & implement a point-point routing protocol: • That is simple – minimal complexity • That makes minimal assumptions about radio quality, presence of GPS, … • Use TinyOS tree construction prtocol

  4. Key Ideas • Randomly select a few beacon nodes • Construct trees from the beacons to every other node • Every node knows its distance (#hops) to every beacon by using the standard reverse path tree construction • These beacon vectors serve as coordinates • Apply simple greedy, geographic forwarding

  5. Approach • Nodes periodically send a local broadcast to announce their coordinates • Distance function δ(p, d) to measure how good p would be as a next hop to reach the destination d? • A node q’s position P(q) = <q1, q2, …, qr> where qi is #hops from node q to beacon i • Move towards a beacon when the destination is closer to the beacon than the current node • Move away from a beacon when the destination is further from the beacon than the current node

  6. Fallback mode • If a node cannot make a progress towards the destination itself, it forwards the packet to the parent in the corresponding beacon tree • A packet will eventually reach the beacon node closest to d • If the closest beacon still cannot find the destination, it does scoped flooding

  7. Beacon maintenance • Route based on the beacons the source and destination have in common • Does not require perfect beacon info. • Each entry in the beacon vector has a sequence number • Periodically updated by the corresponding beacon • Timeout • If the #beacons < r, non-beacon nodes nominate themselves as beacons

  8. Location directory • First look up the destination coordinates by name • Hashing H: nodeid → beaconid [14] • Use beacons as storage • Each node k that wants to be a destination periodically publishes its coordinates to its corresponding beacon bk = H(k) • When a node wants to route to node k, it sends a lookup request to bk • Cache the coordinates

  9. Simulation Results • Assumptions for high level simulation • Fixed circular radio range • Ignore the network capacity and congestion • Ignore packet losses • Place nodes uniformly at random in a square planner region • 3200 nodes uniformly distributed in a 200 * 200 unit area • Radio range is 8 units • Average node degree is 16 • Vary #total beacons and #routing beacons

  10. Greedy success rate

  11. Success ratio given 10 routing beacons

  12. On-demand two hop neighbor acquisition • At lower densities, each node has fewer immediate neighbors • The performance of greedy routing drops • Add a neighbor’s neighbors to the routing table, if greedy forwarding is impossible

  13. #beacons required to achieve less than 5% scoped floods

  14. Performance under obstacles • Place horizontal & vertical walls with lengths of 10 or 20 units when the radio range is 8 units

  15. Transmission stretch over the shortest path

  16. Prototype evaluation • Office-Net: 42 mica2dot motes in a 20m * 50m office • Univ-Net: 74 mica2dot motes deployed across multiple student offices on a single floor in a UC Berkeley building

  17. Link quality vs. distance • Orthogonal! (in Office-Net) • Contradicts to circular radio assumptions made by geographic routing protocols • BVR is connectivity based

  18. Routing performance in Office-Net

  19. Routing performance in Univ-Net

  20. Office-Net success rate

  21. Beacon failure • TOSSIM – TinyOS simulator • 100 motes with 8 beacons • Expected node degree of 12 • TOSSIM’s lossy link generator • Based on empirical data to simulate lossy and asymmetric connectivity

  22. Related Work • DSDV computes the shortest path between all possible pair of source and destination • Scalibility problem • On-demand route discovery • Poor performance when many source-destination pair want to communicate • Landmark routing • Hierarchical set of landmark nodes periodically send scoped route discovery messages • +Each node self-configures its address – concatenation of the closest landmark at each level of the hierarchy • -Landmark maintenance • -How to tune the landmark scope?

  23. Geographic routing • GPSR • +Highly scalable • O(1) route discovery • O(1) routing table • Local planarization • Path lengths are close to the shortest path • -Unit graph assumption • -Each node should node its geographic coordinates • -Greedy forwarding can be suboptimal because it does not use real connectivity info.

  24. Questions?

More Related