Available-Bandwidth-Based Routing in IEEE 802.15.4-Based Ad-Hoc Networks: Proactive vs. Opportunistic Technique

In this paper, we present an available-bandwidth-based proactive routing protocol for IEEE 802.15.4-based single-sink and multi-sink ad-hoc networks. The available-bandwidth-based proactive routing protocol maintains the best forwarding path in terms of the end-to-end available bandwidth towards each sink node present in a network. Moreover, a node can maintain more than one data forwarding path towards the same sink node. We performed extensive simulations, and compared our proactive routing protocol with a state-of-the-art opportunistic routing protocol. The simulation results demonstrate that the opportunistic routing protocol can distribute data load unevenly (in case of multiple sink nodes), hence results in high end-to-end delay and low Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). In case of our proactive routing protocol, selecting forwarding paths by only considering the end-to-end available bandwidth invariably results in lengthy data forwarding paths. Lengthy data forwarding paths results in higher intra-flow contention, hence PDR and end-to-end delay are impacted. One of the simulation scenarios, using multiple sink nodes, demonstrates that in case of our proactive routing protocol, carefully selecting the data forwarding path(s) that are not too long compared to the shortest available data forwarding path(s), but have better end-to-end available bandwidth significantly improves the performance of the proactive routing protocol. Therefore, our results hint that, in general, trading off end-to-end available bandwidth and the length of a data forwarding path may improve end-to-end PDR and delay.

[1]  Djamel Djenouri,et al.  Traffic-Differentiation-Based Modular QoS Localized Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[2]  Bo Sun,et al.  TORP: TinyOS Opportunistic Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC).

[3]  John Anderson,et al.  Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring , 2002, WSNA '02.

[4]  Petros Spachos,et al.  Energy Aware Opportunistic Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks , 2012, 2012 IEEE Globecom Workshops.

[5]  Thomas Kunz,et al.  Proactive Bandwidth Estimation for IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks , 2013, 2013 IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring).

[6]  Jian Ma,et al.  Exploiting geographic opportunistic routing for soft QoS provisioning in wireless sensor networks , 2010, The 7th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems (IEEE MASS 2010).

[7]  Mihaela Cardei,et al.  A QoS based routing protocol for wireless sensor networks , 2010, International Performance Computing and Communications Conference.

[8]  Robin Kravets,et al.  Contention-aware admission control for ad hoc networks , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[9]  Mainak Chatterjee,et al.  Traffic Based Dynamic Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2009, 2009 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference.

[10]  Petros Spachos,et al.  Performance Comparison of Opportunistic Routing Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks , 2011, 2011 Ninth Annual Communication Networks and Services Research Conference.

[11]  Insup Lee,et al.  Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution , 2010, Design Automation Conference.

[12]  Giuseppe Lipari,et al.  Wireless line sensor network for distributed visual surveillance , 2009, PE-WASUN '09.

[13]  Allen R. Hanson,et al.  Design and Implementation of a Dual-Camera Wireless Sensor Network for Object Retrieval , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (ipsn 2008).