+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2,...

Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2,...

Date post: 18-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: everett-henderson
View: 212 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
26
Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1 , Euhanna Ghadimi 2 , Simon Duquennoy 3 , Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden 2 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden 3 Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS), Sweden IPSN 2012 Presenter: SY
Transcript
Page 1: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling

Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi2, Simon Duquennoy3, Mikael Johansson2

1Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden2KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

3Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS), SwedenIPSN 2012

Presenter: SY

Page 2: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

This Paper

• Opportunistic Routing for wireless sensor network– Duty cycled nodes

• Benefits– Improve energy efficiency– Reduce end-to-end delay– Increase resilience to link dynamics

Page 3: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Unicast Routing in Duty Cycled WSNs‐

• Routing protocol: selects next hop• MAC: wait for next hop to wakeup– Assume: no synchronization

Page 4: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Unicast Routing in Duty Cycled WSNs‐

• Routing protocol: selects next hop• MAC: wait for next hop to wakeup– Assume: no synchronization

Page 5: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Opportunistic Forwarding

• The node that– Wakes up first– Successflly receives the packet– Provides routing progress

• Forward the packet

Page 6: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Outline

• System design• Evaluation• Conclusion

Page 7: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

DODAG

• Topology: DODAG– Destination oriented directed acyclic graph

• Requirements of routing metric– Builds loop free DODAG– Minimize energy: radio-on time– Minimize delay

Page 8: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Expected Duty Cycled Wakeups (EDC)

• Single hop EDC: 1/(sum of neighbors link quality) – Left case: A has a single neighbor with a perfect link, its single

hop EDC is 1/1 = 1;– Right case: A has two neighbors both having perfect links, its

single hop EDC is 1/(1 + 1) = 0:5;– Middle case: A has two neighbors with link qualities 1 and 0.25.

Its single hop EDC is 1/(1 + 0:25) = 0:8.

Single hop EDC

Link quality

Page 9: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Overall EDC

• Overall EDC– Sum of single hop EDC and neighbors’ EDC

• Which neighbors to include?– Forwarder set

Single hop EDCEDC of neighbor

Weight

Page 10: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Forwarders Set

• Sort neighbor nodes by EDC• Add one by one (from lowest)• Find minimum EDC

Page 11: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Forwarding Cost

• Forwarding cost w– Constant value, transmission penalty– Increase w decrease forwarders set• Fewer hops to destination• Increase delay and energy consumption

– Too low: increase the risk of routing loop• To balance delay and energy with routing

progress and stability

Page 12: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Link Estimation

• Link quality = (Rate of packet overheard)/(forwarding rate)

• Rate of packet overheard– Wakeup, listen to the radio, record packet

overheard• Forwarding rate– Header field contain the average forwarding rate

• Bootstrap– Probing during initialization

Page 13: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Unique Forwarder

• Make sure only one node forward the packet1. Majority of cases only one receiver

Page 14: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Unique Forwarder – Cont.

• Coordination algorithm– Demand a single ACK• If (sender) receives multiple ACK

– Resend the packet

• If (receiver) detect link-layer duplicate– Send second ACK with 50% probability

– Data transmission overhearing• If overhears same packet, cancels transmission

– Network-layer duplication detection• Detect duplication at network layer

Page 15: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Outline

• System design• Evaluation• Conclusion

Page 16: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Setup

• Testbed– Indriya(Singapore): 120 nodes– Twist(Berlin): 96 nodes

• Compare– CTP

• Metrics– Delay, Duty cycle, # of TX nodes, Reliability

• Implementation– TinyOS, default MAC– Wakeup every 2s (optimal for CTP)– Randomly generate a packet every 4 minutes

Page 17: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

System Calibration

• Choose w=0.1

Page 18: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Indriya, 0 dBm Tx Power

Page 19: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Indriya, -10 dBm Tx Power

Page 20: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Twist, 0 dBm Tx Power

Page 21: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Impart of Churn

• Remove average 10 nodes every 15 minutes• Reduce from 120 to 30 nodes

Page 22: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Convergence

Page 23: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Wakeup Interval

Page 24: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Outline

• System design• Evaluation• Conclusion

Page 25: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Discussion And Limitation

• Works best at high network density• Optimal at lower wakeup rates– Compare to CTP

• At high wakeup rate– CTP and ORW are similar

• Not well suited for high throughput applications

Page 26: Low Power, Low Delay: Opportunistic Routing meets Duty Cycling Olaf Landsiedel 1, Euhanna Ghadimi 2, Simon Duquennoy 3, Mikael Johansson 2 1 Chalmers University.

Conclusion

• New routing metric– Taken energy into account

• Real implementation– Previous works mostly analytical and simulation

• Paper writing– A bit harder to get the big picture


Recommended