Adaptive Protocols
for
Information Dissemination
in
Wireless Sensor Networks
The X – Matrix Team
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/students/fshariff/projects/spin
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
1
Who, What and How
The X-Matrix Team
- Wasif, Fahd, Philip, Muhammad and Kumardev
The paper - Negotiation-based Protocols for
Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor
Networks
by
Joanna Kulik,Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman,and Hari Balakrishnan,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
The broad concepts outlined in the paper
Our Approach
De-construction and Analysis of work X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
2 Presentation Structure and Flow
Fundamental Concepts
Wireless Sensor Networks
Sensors – typical size, weight, power
characteristics
Sensor Networks are a subset of Ad Hoc
Networks
Fixed / Mobile
Routing in Ad Hoc / Sensor Networks
Traditional protocols – Classic flooding,
Gossiping
Adaptive protocols – SPIN, Others X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
3 What are these so-called ‘adaptive
Classic Flooding
A
B C
D Sink Node
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
4
Problems with Classic Flooding
Implosion Data overlap
(a) A (a) q s r
B C A B
(a) D (a) (q,r) C (r,s)
Energy
Conservation
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
5
Gossiping
Alternative to
A
Classic Flooding
Randomisation to
conserve energy B
Avoids implosion
C
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
6
The Ideal Protocol
“Ideal”
Shortest-path
routes A
No wasted energy C
No redundant data B
D E
F
G
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
7
SPIN: Negotiation and
Dissemination
Overview of SPIN
Application-Level Control ADV
Meta-Data Negotiation A B
Spin Messages
REQ
ADV – New data
advertisement A B
REQ – Request for data
DATA
DATA – The actual data
message A B
SPIN Resource
X-Matrix Team
8
Management
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
SPIN family of protocols
Point-to-Point
SPIN-PP: a 3-stage handshake protocol for
point-to-point media
SPIN-EC: SPIN-PP with a low-energy threshold
Broadcast
SPIN-BC: a 3-stage handshake protocol for
broadcast media
SPIN-RL: SPIN-BC for lossy networks
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
9
SPIN-PP
D
A
DATA message
E ADV message
C REQ message
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
10
SPIN-EC
SPIN-PP with simple energy conservation
heuristic
When the low-energy threshold is
observed, the node reduces its
participation in the protocol
Node can still receive
Data messages cannot be transmitted
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
11
Questioning SPIN for Point-to-
Point
Why use PP when we already have
BC?
Do we need energy conservation or
is it application dependent?
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
12
Point-to-Point Media
Simulations
Compare SPIN-PP and SPIN-EC with
classic flooding, gossiping and the
ideal protocol
Parameters of interest include:
Data throughput
Energy usage
Enhanced ns simulator
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
13
Simulation Testbed
25 nodes, 59 edges
25 data items
3 items/node overlap
Antenna reach: 10 m
16 500
bytes bytes
Meta-data Data
No network losses or queuing delays
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
14
Unlimited Energy Simulations
-- SPIN-PP
-- Ideal
-- Flooding
Flooding fastest SPIN-PP uses 3.5x
less energy than
flooding
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
15
Limited Energy Simulations
-- SPIN-PP
-- SPIN-EC
-- Ideal
-- Flooding
SPIN-EC distributes SPIN uses energy at a
nearly the same much slower rate
amount as the ideal X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
16
Simulation Issues
Does not take into account for any
delay caused by meta-data
negotiation
ns constraints:
Memory
CPU time
A simulator model of a real-world
system is necessarily a simplification
of the real-world system itself
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
17
SPIN-BC Motivations
One-to-many communication is:
1/n times cheaper in a broadcast
network than in a point-to-point
network
where n is the number of neighbours
for each node
Saves energy
Lets each node overhear all
transactions that occur coordinate
better X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
18
SPIN-BC
For lossless broadcast network
Uses a shared channel
Like SPIN-PP, uses ADV, REQ and DATA
messages
Three differences:
Messages sent to a broadcast address
When received ADV, sets random timer, sends
REQ upon timeout. Other nodes hearing REQ
will cancel their timer
Nodes will send data to the broadcast address
only once, assuming lossless network
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
19
SPIN-BC Example
DATA E
ADV
B
A
C D
REQ
A Nodes with data ADV
A Nodes without data
A Nodes waiting
to transmit REQ X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
20
SPIN-RL
For lossy broadcast network
Two modifications
Firstly, if a node does not receive data
within a period of time, it sends REQ
again
Secondly, when a data item is
repeatedly requested, the node will wait
for a predetermined amount of time
before responding to any requests.
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
21
SPIN - BC and RL : best option?
Open questions:
Bandwidth-saving, how about utilising IP
Multicast?
Reliable multicast?
Need further research
Our opinion: if yes, a trimmed-down
version of multicasting is needed.
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
22
Broadcast Media Simulations
Simulation Testbed same as the one
used in SPIN-PP with following
variations:
Single shared-media channel
Nodes use 802.11 MAC layer protocol
Delay and packet losses taken into account
Simulation Setup
monarch – extension of ns
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
23
Simulations with No Packet Losses
--- SPIN-BC
--- Ideal
--- Flooding
SPIN-BC
Converges quicker than flooding
Dissipates 50% less energy as compared to
flooding
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
24
Simulations with Packet Losses
--- SPIN-BC
--- SPIN-RL
--- Ideal
-- Flooding-
SPIN-RL
Only ideal and SPIN-RL converge because of their
ability to recover from packet loss, rest do not
converge
This is closer to reality scenario.
Expends more energy as compared to BC and
the ideal X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
25
Data Distributed Per Unit Energy
--- SPIN-BC
--- SPIN-RL
--- Ideal
--- Flooding
SPIN-RL delivers twice as much data per unit
energy than flooding (100% more)
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
26
Validity/Relevance of results
Simulation environment selected in SPIN-
RL is a better representation of real
world scenario
Channel interference and collision which
were ignored in SPIN-BC, PP and EC have
been taken into account
SPIN-RL: Theoretical integrity consistent
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
27
Major Short-comings
Simulation Environment does not closely
model Wireless Sensor Networks
environment
False assumption: the infinite supply of
energy in SPIN-RL
Results fall short of supporting a
convincing argument in favour of SPIN
protocols
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
28
Summary of relevant/similar
work
What is similar and/or relevant?
SPIN and NNTP – comparable?
SPIN and Energy-Conservation based
routing
SPIN and other Flat Multi-hop routing
protocols
X-Matrix Team
29
Spin and Others – AIDA, LEACH
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
SPIN vs Directed Diffusion
What is directed diffusion?
Similarities:
Optimized for disseminating application-specific
information in a sensor network, specifically
between source and sink nodes
Use of data naming allows negotiation between
nodes prior to data forwarding to eliminate
redundancy
Interest (REQ) and data (DATA) caches
maintained at each node
Node-local decision making
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
30
SPIN vs Directed Diffusion - 2
Dissimilarities:
SPIN uses a push model for disseminating
information to all nodes, while DD uses a
pull model for obtaining information
Data is sent to all nodes in SPIN while
data is NOT sent to all nodes in Directed
diffusion.
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
31
Sensor Network Applications and
SPIN
Applications make the Networks SPIN
around
Typical Sensor Network Applications
Application/Network type – Time Critical
Application/Network type – Reliable & Re-
Usable
X-Matrix Team
32 What kind of Protocols are optimal ?
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
Applications and SPIN
Application/Network type – Time Critical
Characteristics
Typical example – Seismic Activity Detection
SPIN – is it optimal for this type of apps?
Application/Network type – Reliable & Re-
usable
Characteristics
Typical example – MARS Habitat Monitoring
SPIN – is it optimal for this type of apps?
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
33
Summary and Crystal Ball
The Potential of Wireless Sensor
Networks
The Future of Wireless Sensor
Networks
The Potential of SPIN
The Limitations of SPIN
The Future of SPIN
X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
34
Ask us!
We asked Joanna Kulik, one of the SPIN
authors..
X-Matrix: “Could you address any SPIN protocol
weaknesses (if any?)”
Joanna: “I haven't thought about SPIN in many
years. I'm sure that there are many weaknesses,
and that they would be easy to find. With SPIN we
were just trying to lay some initial groundwork in
the field. With any
initial work, there are hundreds of ways that the Team
X-Matrix
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
35 work
References
D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann, S. Kumar,
Next century challenges: Scalable coordination
in sensor networks, Proc. MOBICOM, 1999,
Seattle, 263-270.
C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, , and D. Estrin.
Directed diffusion: A scalable and robust
communication paradigm for sensor networks.
In MobiCOM, Boston, MA, August 2000.
Wireless Networks of Devices (WIND)
[http://wind.lcs.mit.edu]
Praveen Rentala, Ravi Musunnuri, Shashidhar
Gandham, Udit Saxena, Survey on Sensor
Networks
LEACH [http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/projects/leach] X-Matrix Team
MSc Data Communications, Networks and Distributed Systems; Computer Science Department, UCL
36
