Lightweight Routing with

QoS Support in

Wireless Sensor and Actor

Networks Mustafa İlhan Akbaş and Damla Turgut

University of Central Florida

December 8, 2010

Problem Definition

• WSANs used in various settings

• Variance in applications → QoS

• Heterogeneous node structure → Not same as WSNs

• Objective

• Lightweight

• QoS aware routing

Related Work

• QBRP – QoS Based Routing Protocol for WSANs

• Similarities

• WSAN protocol

• Network organization

• Differences

• Data collection from the network

• Central processing for routing

Phase 1: Dividing the network

into acting areas

•Actors flood area

configuration

messages

•The sensor nodes

get their hop values

and actor IDs

•The network among actors

•Sink starts formation with

the area integration packet

•First transmitting neighbor

is the data destination

•The others saved in a

redundancy list

Phase 2: Formation of communication

backbone

Phase 3: Interest subscription

•Sink transmits the

interests via the

communication

backbone

•Actors distribute

interests in their areas

•Sensor nodes get the

interest information

Phase 4: Data transmission

• Packet tags: interest, rate, weight

• Tags based on local information

• The efficient rate for each interest: 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠

• FIFO queuing & probabilistic dropping at sensor

nodes

𝐷𝑝 = 1 − 𝐶𝑠/(𝑁𝑠 ∙ 𝑅𝑝)

𝐷𝑝=Dropping probability, 𝐶𝑠=Shared capacity, 𝑁𝑠=Number of sharing flows

𝑅𝑝=Rate of the packet

• Stateful approach for actors

• Actors estimate per-flow rate, update tags

𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑤=(1-𝑒−𝑇/𝐾)

𝑙

𝑇+𝑒−𝑇/𝐾𝑅𝑖

𝑜𝑙𝑑

where 𝑖 = interest,

𝑇= time between last two packets of 𝑖, 𝑙 = packet length

• Actors may request changes

Phase 4: Data transmission (2)

Example (1)

output

capacity

9

Rate: 8

Rate: 6

Rate: 2

Input Output

4

4

2

8 > 3

6 > 3

2 < 3

8 > 3.5

6 > 3.5

Black = 𝑫𝒑= 3.5/8

Red = 𝑫𝒑 = 3.5/6

Blue = no drop

𝟗

𝟑 = 3

𝟗−𝟐

𝟐=3.5

output

capacity

10

8, w = 2

6, w = 1

2, w = 1

Input Output

5,2

2,6

2

8/2 > 2,5

6 > 2,5

2 < 2,5

8/2 > 2,6

6 > 2,6

Black = 5,2

Red = 2,6

Blue = 2

Example (2)

𝟏𝟎

𝟒 =2.5

𝟏𝟎−𝟐

𝟑 =2.6

Simulation Study • OPNET

• LRP-QS vs QBRP

• Network • Interest area: 200 m x 200 m

• No. of actor/sensor nodes: 4/60

• Sensor transmission range: 50 m

• Actor transmission range: 180 m

• Metrics • Packet loss

• Memory consumption

• Control traffic overhead

• Delay

Packet loss

Control Overhead

Memory consumption

End-to-end delay

Conclusion

• LRP-QS is developed considering the

heterogeneous structure of nodes in WSAN

• LRP-QS outperforms QBRP with a lightweight

approach

• Future work

• Integrate actor placement

• Improve the performance with data aggregation

• Mobile actors and sensor nodes

• Dynamic network organization