KEMBAR78
Directed diffusion for wireless sensor networking | PPT
Directed Diffusion for Wireless
Sensor Networking
Authors:
Chalermek Intanagonwiwat, Ramesh Govindan, Deborah
Estrin, John Heidemann, and Fabio Silva
Presented by:
Md. Habibur Rahman (AIUB)
Course:
Sensor Networks and Wireless Computing
Instructor:
Md. Saidur Rahman (AIUB)
Wireless Networks
Variety of architectures
Single hop networks
Multi-hop networks
Internet
The Wireless Future …
Motivation
Properties of Sensor Networks
Data centric approach: communication based named data,
not named nodes
No central authority
Resource constrained like limited power, computation
capacities and memory
Nodes are tied to physical locations
Nodes may not know the topology due to rapidly changes
of topology
Nodes are generally stationary
Q: How can we get data from the sensors?
Introduction(1/2)
A sensor network is composed of a large number of
sensor nodes, which are densely deployed either inside
the phenomenon or very close to it.
Random deployment
Cooperative capabilities
Sensor nodes scattered in a sensor field
Multi-hop communication is expected
Motivating factors for emergence
Applications
Advances in wireless technology
Introduction(2/2)
A region requires event-
monitoring
Deploy sensors forming a
distributed network
Wireless networking
Energy-limited nodes
On event, sensed and/or
processed information
delivered to the inquiring
destination
The Problem
 Where should the data be
stored?
 How should queries be
routed to the stored data?
 How should queries for
sensor networks be
expressed?
 Where and how should
aggregation be performed?
EventEvent
Sources
Sink Node
Directed
Diffusion
A sensor field
Directed Diffusion
Designed for robustness, scaling and energy efficiency
Data centric
Sinks place requests as interests for named data
Sources satisfying the interest can be found
Intermediate nodes can cache or transform data directly
toward sinks
Attribute-naming based
Data aggregation
Interest, data aggregation and data propagation are
determined by localized interactions.
Directed Diffusion
Four main features: Interests, Data, Gradients &
Reinforcement
Interest: a query or an interrogation which specifies what
a user wants.
Data: collected or processed information
Gradient: direction state created in each node that
receives interest.
Gradient direction is toward the neighboring node which the
interest is received
Events start flowing from originators of interests along
multiple gradient paths.
Directed Diffusion
Directed Diffusion
Naming
 Task descriptions are named by a list of attribute value pairs that
describe a task
 eg:
type=wheeled vehicle // detect vehicle location
interval=20ms // send events every 20 ms
duration=10s // for the next 10s
rect=[-100,100,200,400]// from sensors within rectangle
Interests and Gradients
 Interest is usually injected to the network from sink
 For each active task, sink periodically broadcasts an interest
message to each of its neighbors
 Initial interest contains the specified rect and duration attributes
but larger interval attribute
 Interests tries to determine if there are any sensor nodes that
detect the wheeled vehicle(exploratory).
Interests
Interests: a query which specifies what a user wants by
naming the data.
Sink periodically broadcasts interest messages to each
neighbor.
Includes the rectangle and duration attributes from the
request.
Includes a larger interval attribute
All nodes maintain an interest cache
Interest Cache
Sensor Node
Receives interest packet
Node is within the rectangle coordinates
Task the sensor system to generate samples at the
highest rate of all the gradients.
Data is sent using unicast
Data Return
Exploratory versus Data
Exploratory use lower data rates
Once the sensor is able to report the data a reinforcement
path is created
Data gradients used to report high quality/high
bandwidth data.
Positive Reinforcement
Sink re-sends original interest message with smaller
interval
Neighbor nodes see the high bandwidth request and
reinforce at least one neighbor using its data cache
This process selects an empirically low-delay path.
Multiple Sources & Sinks
The current rules work for multiple sources and sinks
Negative Reinforcement
Repair can result in more than one path being reinforced
Time out gradients
Send negative reinforcement message
Repair
C detects degradation
Notices rate of data significantly lower
Gets data from another neighbor that it hasn’t seen
To avoid downstream nodes from repairing their paths C
must keep sending interpolated location estimates.
Design Considerations
Simulation Environment
NS2, 50 nodes in 160x160 sqm., range 40m
Random 5 sources in 70x70, random 5 sinks
Average node density constant in all simulations
Comparison against flooding and omniscient multicast
1.6Mbps 802.11 MAC
Not realistic (reliable transmission, RTS/CTS, high power, idle
power ~ receive power)
Set idle power to 10% of receive power, 5% of transmit
power
Metrics
Average dissipated energy
per node energy dissipation / # events seen by sinks
Average packet delay
latency of event transmission to reception at sink
Distinct event delivery
# of distinct events received / # of events originally sent
Both measured as functions of network size
Average Dissipated Energy
In-network aggregation reduces DD redundancy
Flooding poor because of multiple paths from source to sink
flooding
DiffusionMulticast
Flooding
DiffusionMulticast
Delay
DD finds least delay paths, as OM – encouraging
Flooding incurs latency due to high MAC contention,
collision
flooding
Diffusion
Multicast
Average energy and delay
Average delay is misleading
Directed Diffusion is better than Omniscient Multicast!?
Omniscient multicast sends duplicate messages over the
same paths
Topology has little path diversity
Why not suppress messages with Omniscient Multicast
just as in Directed Diffusion?
Event Delivery Ratio under node failures
Delivery ratio degrades with higher % node failures
Graceful degradation indicates efficient negative
reinforcement
0 %
10%
20%
Analysis
Energy gains are dependent on 802.11 energy assumptions
Directed Diffusion has lowest average dissipated energy
Data aggregation and negative reinforcement enhance
performance considerably
Differences in power consumption disappear if idle–
time power consumption is high
Can the network always deliver at the interest’s requested
rate?
Can diffusion handle overloads?
Does reinforcement actually work?
Continued….
Pros
Energy – Much less traffic than flooding.
Latency – Transmits data along the best path
Scalability – Local interactions only
Robust – Retransmissions of interests
Cons
The set up phase of the gradients is expensive
Need of and adequate MAC layer to support an efficient
implementation. The simulation analysis uses a modified
802.11 MAC protocol
Design doesn’t deal with congestion or loss
Periodic broadcasts of interest reduces network lifetime
Nodes within range of human operator may die quickly
Conclusions
Directed diffusion, a paradigm proposed for event
monitoring sensor networks
Energy efficiency achievable
Diffusion mechanism resilient to fault tolerance
Conservative negative reinforcements proves useful
More thorough performance evaluation is required
MAC for sensor networks needs to be designed
carefully for further performance gains
Thank you 

Directed diffusion for wireless sensor networking

  • 1.
    Directed Diffusion forWireless Sensor Networking Authors: Chalermek Intanagonwiwat, Ramesh Govindan, Deborah Estrin, John Heidemann, and Fabio Silva Presented by: Md. Habibur Rahman (AIUB) Course: Sensor Networks and Wireless Computing Instructor: Md. Saidur Rahman (AIUB)
  • 2.
    Wireless Networks Variety ofarchitectures Single hop networks Multi-hop networks
  • 3.
  • 4.
    Motivation Properties of SensorNetworks Data centric approach: communication based named data, not named nodes No central authority Resource constrained like limited power, computation capacities and memory Nodes are tied to physical locations Nodes may not know the topology due to rapidly changes of topology Nodes are generally stationary Q: How can we get data from the sensors?
  • 5.
    Introduction(1/2) A sensor networkis composed of a large number of sensor nodes, which are densely deployed either inside the phenomenon or very close to it. Random deployment Cooperative capabilities Sensor nodes scattered in a sensor field Multi-hop communication is expected Motivating factors for emergence Applications Advances in wireless technology
  • 6.
    Introduction(2/2) A region requiresevent- monitoring Deploy sensors forming a distributed network Wireless networking Energy-limited nodes On event, sensed and/or processed information delivered to the inquiring destination
  • 7.
    The Problem  Whereshould the data be stored?  How should queries be routed to the stored data?  How should queries for sensor networks be expressed?  Where and how should aggregation be performed? EventEvent Sources Sink Node Directed Diffusion A sensor field
  • 8.
    Directed Diffusion Designed forrobustness, scaling and energy efficiency Data centric Sinks place requests as interests for named data Sources satisfying the interest can be found Intermediate nodes can cache or transform data directly toward sinks Attribute-naming based Data aggregation Interest, data aggregation and data propagation are determined by localized interactions.
  • 9.
    Directed Diffusion Four mainfeatures: Interests, Data, Gradients & Reinforcement Interest: a query or an interrogation which specifies what a user wants. Data: collected or processed information Gradient: direction state created in each node that receives interest. Gradient direction is toward the neighboring node which the interest is received Events start flowing from originators of interests along multiple gradient paths.
  • 10.
  • 11.
    Directed Diffusion Naming  Taskdescriptions are named by a list of attribute value pairs that describe a task  eg: type=wheeled vehicle // detect vehicle location interval=20ms // send events every 20 ms duration=10s // for the next 10s rect=[-100,100,200,400]// from sensors within rectangle Interests and Gradients  Interest is usually injected to the network from sink  For each active task, sink periodically broadcasts an interest message to each of its neighbors  Initial interest contains the specified rect and duration attributes but larger interval attribute  Interests tries to determine if there are any sensor nodes that detect the wheeled vehicle(exploratory).
  • 12.
    Interests Interests: a querywhich specifies what a user wants by naming the data. Sink periodically broadcasts interest messages to each neighbor. Includes the rectangle and duration attributes from the request. Includes a larger interval attribute All nodes maintain an interest cache
  • 13.
  • 14.
    Sensor Node Receives interestpacket Node is within the rectangle coordinates Task the sensor system to generate samples at the highest rate of all the gradients. Data is sent using unicast
  • 15.
  • 16.
    Exploratory versus Data Exploratoryuse lower data rates Once the sensor is able to report the data a reinforcement path is created Data gradients used to report high quality/high bandwidth data.
  • 17.
    Positive Reinforcement Sink re-sendsoriginal interest message with smaller interval Neighbor nodes see the high bandwidth request and reinforce at least one neighbor using its data cache This process selects an empirically low-delay path.
  • 18.
    Multiple Sources &Sinks The current rules work for multiple sources and sinks
  • 19.
    Negative Reinforcement Repair canresult in more than one path being reinforced Time out gradients Send negative reinforcement message
  • 20.
    Repair C detects degradation Noticesrate of data significantly lower Gets data from another neighbor that it hasn’t seen To avoid downstream nodes from repairing their paths C must keep sending interpolated location estimates.
  • 21.
  • 22.
    Simulation Environment NS2, 50nodes in 160x160 sqm., range 40m Random 5 sources in 70x70, random 5 sinks Average node density constant in all simulations Comparison against flooding and omniscient multicast 1.6Mbps 802.11 MAC Not realistic (reliable transmission, RTS/CTS, high power, idle power ~ receive power) Set idle power to 10% of receive power, 5% of transmit power
  • 23.
    Metrics Average dissipated energy pernode energy dissipation / # events seen by sinks Average packet delay latency of event transmission to reception at sink Distinct event delivery # of distinct events received / # of events originally sent Both measured as functions of network size
  • 24.
    Average Dissipated Energy In-networkaggregation reduces DD redundancy Flooding poor because of multiple paths from source to sink flooding DiffusionMulticast Flooding DiffusionMulticast
  • 25.
    Delay DD finds leastdelay paths, as OM – encouraging Flooding incurs latency due to high MAC contention, collision flooding Diffusion Multicast
  • 26.
    Average energy anddelay Average delay is misleading Directed Diffusion is better than Omniscient Multicast!? Omniscient multicast sends duplicate messages over the same paths Topology has little path diversity Why not suppress messages with Omniscient Multicast just as in Directed Diffusion?
  • 27.
    Event Delivery Ratiounder node failures Delivery ratio degrades with higher % node failures Graceful degradation indicates efficient negative reinforcement 0 % 10% 20%
  • 28.
    Analysis Energy gains aredependent on 802.11 energy assumptions Directed Diffusion has lowest average dissipated energy Data aggregation and negative reinforcement enhance performance considerably Differences in power consumption disappear if idle– time power consumption is high Can the network always deliver at the interest’s requested rate? Can diffusion handle overloads? Does reinforcement actually work?
  • 29.
    Continued…. Pros Energy – Muchless traffic than flooding. Latency – Transmits data along the best path Scalability – Local interactions only Robust – Retransmissions of interests Cons The set up phase of the gradients is expensive Need of and adequate MAC layer to support an efficient implementation. The simulation analysis uses a modified 802.11 MAC protocol Design doesn’t deal with congestion or loss Periodic broadcasts of interest reduces network lifetime Nodes within range of human operator may die quickly
  • 30.
    Conclusions Directed diffusion, aparadigm proposed for event monitoring sensor networks Energy efficiency achievable Diffusion mechanism resilient to fault tolerance Conservative negative reinforcements proves useful More thorough performance evaluation is required MAC for sensor networks needs to be designed carefully for further performance gains
  • 31.