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