A case for evaluating sensor network protocols concurrently

Researchers typically evaluate and compare protocols on the testbeds by running them one at a time. This methodology ignores the variation in link qualities and wireless environment across these experiments. These variations can introduce significant noise in the results. Evaluating two protocols concurrently, however, suffers from inter-protocol interactions. These interactions can perturb performance even under very light load, especially timing and timing sensitive protocols. We argue that the benefits of running protocols concurrently greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Protocols rarely run in isolation in real networks, and so considering such interactions is valuable. Although the wireless environment is still uncontrolled, concurrent evaluations make comparisons fair and more statistically sound. Through experiments on two testbeds, we make the case for evaluating and comparing low data-rate sensor network protocols by running them concurrently.

[1]  윤창근 해외동향 : Global Environment for Network Innovations(GENI): 미국의 미래 인터넷 전략 , 2010 .

[2]  Klaus Wehrle,et al.  Bursty traffic over bursty links , 2009, SenSys '09.

[3]  David E. Culler,et al.  Telos: enabling ultra-low power wireless research , 2005, IPSN 2005. Fourth International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2005..

[4]  Jonathan W. Hui,et al.  T 2 : A Second Generation OS For Embedded Sensor Networks , 2005 .

[5]  Benjamin A. Chambers The Grid Roofnet: a Rooftop Ad Hoc Wireless Network , 2002 .

[6]  John S. Heidemann,et al.  RBP: robust broadcast propagation in wireless networks , 2006, SenSys '06.

[7]  Philip Levis,et al.  Collection tree protocol , 2009, SenSys '09.

[8]  Wu-chi Feng,et al.  DHV: A Code Consistency Maintenance Protocol for Multi-hop Wireless Sensor Networks , 2009, EWSN.

[9]  Philip Levis,et al.  The case for a network protocol isolation layer , 2009, SenSys '09.

[10]  Matt Welsh,et al.  MoteLab: a wireless sensor network testbed , 2005, IPSN '05.

[11]  Gregory Smith,et al.  Wireless virtualization on commodity 802.11 hardware , 2007, WinTECH '07.

[12]  David E. Culler,et al.  Versatile low power media access for wireless sensor networks , 2004, SenSys '04.

[13]  Ankur Mehta,et al.  Reliability through frequency diversity: why channel hopping makes sense , 2009, PE-WASUN '09.

[14]  Leandros Tassiulas,et al.  A new slicing scheme for efficient use of wireless testbeds , 2009, WINTECH '09.

[15]  Marc E. Fiuczynski PlanetLab: overview, history, and future directions , 2006, OPSR.

[16]  Philip Levis,et al.  Data Discovery and Dissemination with DIP , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (ipsn 2008).

[17]  Robert Tappan Morris,et al.  a high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing , 2003, MobiCom '03.

[18]  Paramvir Bahl,et al.  Distributed fair scheduling in a wireless LAN , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[19]  Chenyang Lu,et al.  Robust topology control for indoor wireless sensor networks , 2008, SenSys '08.

[20]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  The Tenet architecture for tiered sensor networks , 2006, SenSys '06.

[21]  Kok-Kiong Yap,et al.  The Stanford OpenRoads deployment , 2009, WINTECH '09.