yori
Uploaded by
6 SLIDES
206 VUES
60LIKES

Enhancing Header Compression in Wireless Sensor Networks through Flow-Based Techniques

DESCRIPTION

This paper discusses the challenges and inefficiencies of packet overhead in sensor networks, where over 90% of packets can be involved. Current multi-hop overhead is excessive, leading to inefficiencies. We propose a novel approach utilizing flow-based header compression that leverages shared state information along packet paths. By employing flow labels and soft state mechanisms, we aim to minimize the overhead while maintaining effective flow management. This approach requires the collaboration of IEEE and IETF standards to optimize performance across multiple layers of network communication, particularly in Time Synchronized Mesh Protocols.

1 / 6

Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Header Compression in Wireless Sensor Networks through Flow-Based Techniques

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

Playing audio...

  1. Stateful Header Compression Kris Pister UC Berkeley Dust Networks

  2. The Motivation Working in IEEE to fix this • In many sensor networks, >90% of packets • Flow along paths with lots of shared state • Final destination, sometimes source • Link and end-to-end crypto • Source & destination ports • Route • … • Have very short “fundamental” payloads • 2B, 4B not uncommon. Data, or (data, timestamp) • Today’s minimum multi-hop overhead • Application: 0-20B • Transport+Network: 12B (HC1, HC2_UDP) • Link: 11B + 9B (security) • PHY: 6B • >10x overhead • Why fix our part?

  3. Example • Once per second, mote A wakes up and sends a packet with exactly the same • 5B: Mesh header • 3B: Dispatch, HC1, HC2 • 1B: UDP compressed ports • For a period of hours or days (thousands to millions of packets) this information doesn’t change

  4. Flow-based compression • Perhaps instead a flow label could be sent • New dispatch byte • Header compression associated with flows • Flow label index into a table with all “HCx” values • Soft state – nodes along path can reconstruct full packet if necessary • Checksums, MICs performed on full packet w/ virtual headers • Crazy talk • Both Dispatch & Flow label could come from L2 • Implicit in link type • Dozer, SCP, TSMP all have mechanisms for uniquely determining flows

  5. The Dream • Provide a continuum of header compression from 0 to 100% depending on shared state • Application • Transport • Network • Link • Requires cooperation between IEEE and IETF

  6. TSMP as an example • Time Synchronized Mesh Protocol • Basis of Wireless HART, SP100 ( 15.4E) • Sub-ms time synch across network • << 0.1% radio duty cycle maintains synch • Additional duty cycle allocated as needed by traffic • Uses a flow label to associate L2 resources and L3 routes with L4 QoS • L2 activity uniquely associated with particular flows • If it’s 8:42:06.351 AM, you must be node X with a message from node Y to node Z and the next hop is Q.

More Related