wireless sensor networks: principle and challenges sensor networks: principle and challenges ruby...

Wireless Sensor Networks: Principle and Challenges

Ruby Singh

M.Tech Final year,IT Branch ITM University,Gwalior

[email protected]

Shashi Kant Gupta Asst. Prof, CSE Dept.

ITM University, Gwalior [email protected]

Ms. Pallavi Khatri Associate Prof, CSE Dept ITM University, Gwalior

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The esteem of Wireless Sensor Networks has increased

tremendously in recent time due to growth in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems technology. WSN has the potentiality to

connect the physical world with the virtual world by forming

a network of sensor nodes. In this paper there is a study of

issues and challenges of security attack on wireless sensor network .After that study of some routing protocols in

wireless sensor network and comparison between multipath

routing protocols are also discussed in this paper.

General Terms

Wireless Sensor Network, Routing Protocol, Security in WSN

Keywords

Wireless Sensor Network, Routing, LEACH , DSR, SPIN

1. INTRODUCTION Wireless sensor network[1][5] is widely used and it provides

variety of applications like in military areas, environment

monitoring, presence or absence of certain kinds of objects.

Each sensor node has a radio transceiver and microcontroller.

A sensor node can be of size like shoebox or grain of dust. A

sensor coverts energy in physical environment into electric

energy. In order to cover large geographical area nodes in

sensor network are deployed in ad-hoc fashion. Sensor

network can be used in many fields like in forest fire

detection, natural disaster prevention, landslide detection and

so on. Sensor networks are application specific means for

different applications different sensors are used and behavior

of the network differs in different application.

Fig 1: Architecture of Sensor Network

In the above diagram actuator is a type of motor for moving or

controlling a mechanism which is an optional part. We can

see that in the diagram there is a process which is sensed by a

sensor and ADC is analog to digital converter and DAC is digital to analog.

Fig: 2 Wireless Sensor Network

A wireless sensor network consists of sink node which is also

called as base station. In the above diagram all sensor send

their data to sink and sink is connected to internet for further

processing of sensed data

2. ISSUES IN WIRELESS SENSOR

NETWORK

2.1 Design Issues In order to design good applications for wireless micro-sensor

networks, it is essential to understand factors important to the sensor network applications. Although WSNs share some

commonalities with existing wireless ad-hoc networks they

pose a number of technical challenges different from

traditional wireless ad-hoc networks. To illustrate this point, differences between sensor networks and traditional networks

are outlined below:

2.1.1 Energy Issue Energy is the major issue in wireless sensor network. In

wireless sensor network sensor nodes have limited memory,

bandwidth, and energy and computation power. These tiny sensors are inexpensive and doing some limited data

processing. Because of small size, small batteries are not

easily recharged or replaced when deployed in remote and

hostile environments. Many techniques have been suggested for improving energy efficiency in wireless sensor network

since it determines the lifetime of wireless sensor network.

There are many techniques which have been suggested for

energy efficiency. First technique is on demand scheme or event based scheme in which switching of radio to sleep state

when there is no data to send or receive takes place. There is

Proc

ess

Sensor Conditioning ADC

con

dtio

ning

Actuator DAC

Signal -processing

Ruby Singh et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (1),57-63

IJCTA | Jan-Feb 2015 Available [email protected]

57

ISSN:2229-6093

another technique scheduling in which all the nodes will be in

sleep mode or active mode on regular time interval. There is one more technique used for energy conservation called

clustering. If sensor network is used for an application in

which number of nodes is large then data aggregation has to

be done. We can see that more energy will be consumed if all the nodes in the network try to send the data to base station

Other energy efficient protocols are LEACH(Low energy

adaptive clustering hierarchy) and PEGASIS(Power efficient

gathering in sensor network). LEACH is a cluster based protocol in which different set of nodes become the cluster

heads. Every time cluster head takes the responsibility of

aggregation data from non cluster nodes and then sends the

data to the base station. Thus, this mechanism reduces the energy wastage of all the nodes. There is another protocol

PEGASIS which is a greedy chain protocol used for resolving

data gathering problem. In this approach distribution of

energy load evenly among nodes in wireless sensor network takes place. In this, sensor nodes are arranged in the form of

chain. This can be accomplished by sensor nodes

2.1.2 Localization

Second design issue is localization; it is the problem of

determining the position of nodes. There are many techniques

for solving this problem. First technique is GPS based solution. GPS(Global positioning system) is space based

satellite navigation system. GPS provides location and time

information. However, this is expensive if each node is having

GPS receiver. Thus, due to this problem another technique was suggested by Radu Stoleru, Tian Hi, John A. Stankuwic.

In this technique either a person or vehicle carries a GPS

device in the network. This GPS device periodically

broadcasts its location and thus nodes estimate their position from the location broadcast by GPS. This method is

inexpensive and having less overhead as compared to having

GPS at all nodes.

2.1.3 Coverage In wireless sensor network there are some coverage nodes.

Sensor nodes sense data using coverage algorithms and after that they send sensed data to base station using routing

algorithm. Issue in WSN is to select the coverage nodes.

Coverage node should be selected such that they work

efficiently and the whole network must be covered by them. Techniques for this are minimal and maximal exposure path

algorithm and by using coverage configuration protocols in

the network.

In WSN synchronization of clock is also an issue. Clocks must be synchronized in sensor network. This is necessary

basically in applications like tracking and monitoring some

area or phenomena.

2.1.4 Computation In wireless sensor network computation is an important task.

Amount of data processed by nodes dependent on application since complexity of WSN is application specific. Sensor

nodes are required to use as minimum resources as they can.

2.1.5 Query Processing Query processing in wireless sensor network involves giving

reply to query from sink which is also called as base station by collecting information from other sensor nodes in the

network.

2.1.6 Fault Tolerance Fault tolerance is graceful degradation means after

degradation, system or network is capable of performing its

task. Network is said to be fault tolerant if it is able to work and perform its intended task rather than failing completely

when some components stop working.

2.2 Security Issues When it comes to security there are several security threats.

Sensor nodes in WSN can be deployed in hostile environment where security of sensitive information must be protected.

Also, unreliable connectionless communication is another

threat to security. Depending on the application the sensor

nodes may be left unattended and due to this, physical attacks can be possible Also, a WSN should be distributed without

central management because if a centralized network is used

and the central node fails, then the entire sensor network stops

working. Thus, reliability increases by using distributed control architecture. However, this type of architecture is

more vulnerable to attacks. Now there are some attacks or

security threats to wireless sensor network described below

2.2.1 Hello Flood Attack This is a network layer attack. In this an attacker which is not

legal node floods hello request to legitimate node. Attacker uses high transmission power for performing this type of

attack. In WSN some protocols require that nodes broadcast

„hello flood‟ packets to advertize themselves. However, a

laptop class adversary can convince a node that it is a neighbor by sending high power hello message. When a node

gets hello packet, it assumes that it is inside the radio range of

the node that sent that packet and thus creating confusions in

the network. Cryptographic techniques are the current solution to this problem but on the other hand include heavy

computational complexity for ex- memory and battery power.

Due to these problems a technique called signal strength and

time threshold based AODV-HFDP(Ad-hoc on demand distance routing with hello flood detection cum prevention) is

proposed by Virendra Pal Singh, Aishwarya S.Anand Ukay

and Sweta Jain. In this mechanism detection of hello flood

attack is achieved by assuming that strength of all nodes are same in radio range. Each node upon receiving hello flood

message checks the signal strength with respect to its radio

range strength. If the strength is same then node is considered

as friend otherwise stranger.

2.2.2 Wormhole attack This type of attack can be achieved by single or pair of colluding nodes. This is a type of Denial of Service attack.

One attacker listens packet transmission at one end and

tunnels them to his partner at the other end, who replays

packets to local area. These types of attacks can drop or selectively forward the packets and disrupt the network.

Packet leashes are one of the techniques used to prevent

wormhole attack. Packet leashes were proposed by Hi and

Perris. Packet leashes are of two types 1. Geographical packet leashes 2. Temporal packet leashes. This technique put upper

bound on location of the receiver and also it restrict a packet

to travel long distances. There are two drawbacks of this

technique that each node must know its own location and all

nodes must have loosely synchronized clocks. Another

technique TTM (Transmission time based) is used which

detects wormhole attack [10] during route setup procedure. In

this technique, source nodes compute transmission time between every two successive nodes. This technique is based

on the fact that transmission time between two fake neighbors

created by wormhole is considerably higher than that between two real neighbors which are within the radio range of each

other. Disadvantage of this technique is it shows good result

in low traffic and cannot perform well in high traffic.

2.2.3 Sink Hole Attack In this type of attack a sensor node will have number of false

neighbors. Goal of attacker is to attract almost all the traffic from a particular area through a compromised node. This



58

ISSN:2229-6093

type of attack is specific to wireless sensor network only. An

attacker advertises high quality link to the base station and thus taking attention of many nodes in the network.

2.2.4 Sybil attack When a node claims fake id or multiple identities it is called

as Sybil attack. This type of attack make network easily

vulnerable to attacks. There are basically three types of Sybil

attacks a. indirect and direct communication Sybil attack b. simultaneous and non simultaneous attack c. fabricate and

stolen identities.

Techniques for this attack are as follows

i. By using position verification

ii. Radio resource listening

iii. By registration

These techniques has disadvantage that by using them we

cannot find all types of Sybil attack.

3. ROUTING PROTOCOLS In wireless sensor network there are many protocols which

serves different purposes in the network. The hierarchy of

protocols are give below:

Fig 3: Classification of Routing Protocols

3.1 Network Organization The first type of routing protocols is network organization. In

this classification of protocols are done on the basis of their

nature in the network.

3.1.1 Flat Based In flat based routing all nodes have similar tasks and their

capabilities are also same. Example of flat based protocols

are given below

3.1.1.1 SPIN (Sensor protocol for information via

negotiation) This protocol is an example of negotiation based routing and

it addresses resource blindness problem. SPIN [9] uses metadata and key requirement for this is suppose x describes

meta data for sensor data X then size of x should be less than

X. There are some versions of SPIN protocol like SPIN-PP

which is used when two nodes communicate without any interference that is for networks using point to point

transmission media. SPIN–EC is similar to SPIN–PP the only

difference is SPIN-EC provides energy heuristic. There is

another version of SPIN termed as SPIN-BC which exploits characteristics of broadcast transmission. SPIN-RL is reliable

version of SPIN-BC and it addresses packet loss.

Disadvantage of SPIN protocol is data advertisement cannot guarantee delivery of data thus does not fit in applications

requires reliability of data.

Fig 4: SPIN Protocol

3.1.1.2 Directed Diffusion It is data centric data dissemination protocol. In this nodes

generate data which is named as attribute-value pair .Sender

request data by sending interests for named data. Each interest

entry has at least one gradient. This gradient specifies where

to forward the data associated with the interest. Gradient

contains information like data rates ,duration( means how

long the data should be forwarded) and where to forward the data. Directed diffusion [8] supports queries or interests

issued on demand by the base station or we can say sink while

in SPIN queries are advertised by source. Also directed

diffusion supports multi path routing and thus provides reliability. Disadvantage of directed diffusion is that it is not

suitable for applications which requires continuous data

delivery for example in environment monitoring. Another

disadvantage is attribute based naming approach is application specific

3.1.2 Hierarchical Based

This type of protocols addresses to some extent limitations of

flat based routing protocols. In this technique nodes are

grouped together into clusters and there is a cluster head in each cluster [7]. All group members or cluster members send

their sensed data to cluster head. These cluster heads are more

powerful than ordinary nodes. These cluster heads can

directly communicate with sink. When they cannot communicate to sink directly they follow multi- hop paths.

Now we will discuss two hierarchical based protocols.

3.1.2.1 LEACH (Low energy adaptive clustering

hierarchy) LEACH [11] combines clustering techniques with MAC layer

techniques. LEACH protocol minimizes energy usage and

outperforms classical clustering approaches. It is distributed

and increases lifetime of network. It is the responsibility of

cluster head to allow communication between group members

and sink. They also do aggregation of data and local data

fusion thereby eliminates redundancies. Drawback of LEACH

protocol is that it requires time synchronization and each node

should support TDMA and CDMA. All members



59

ISSN:2229-6093

communicate to their cluster head and thus uses single hop

communication.

Fig 5: LEACH Protocol

We can compare LEACH and SPIN protocols on the given

parameters like when it comes to optimal route there are no optimal route in LEACH and SPIN, but network life is good

in both. SPIN uses meta data but LEACH does not. Resource

awareness can be finding in both. LEACH can be extended by

providing high level of negotiation like in SPIN. Due to limitations of LEACH there is another protocol better than

LEACH PEGASIS (Power-efficient gathering in sensor

network) discussed below

3.1.2.2 PEGASIS (Power-efficient gathering in

sensor network)

PEGASIS [12]is the improvement of LEACH protocol. In this

type of protocol nodes organize into a chain and each node

exchange data to their neighbors and takes turns for relaying them to the sink. Nodes use a greedy algorithm to form chain

and each node only communicate with its closest neighbors

therefore it is energy efficient. PEGASIS assumes that all nodes can communicate with the sink like LEACH protocol.

There are two steps in this protocol first is construction of the

chain and second one is gathering data. PEGASIS reduces

amount of energy per round and eliminate overhead of dynamic cluster formation. Disadvantages of PEGASIS are

delay, scalability problem, redundant transmission because

there is only one head node

3.1.3 Location Based This is also called as geographic routing. In this type of

routing nodes can determine their position and a sender must aware its location as well as destination location .Basically

this type of routing considers node location to route data in

the network. In location based routing location information is

queried or obtained from a location broker. There are three types of location based routing-

3.1.3.1 Unicast In this type of routing there is a single destination. There is a

greedy forwarding approach in which each node knows its

location and the location of its neighbors but source must

know the location of the destination. This greedy approach has a drawback for ex- if a packet arrives at a node in the

network that does not have any neighbors which are able to

serve as next hops to bring the packet closer to the intended

receiver. Most of the location based routing protocols facing

this challenge to identify such voids in the network. Example

of unicast routing is as follows- GPRS (Greedy perimeter

stateless routing)- According to this protocol a node forward

data to its neighbor which is geographically closest to the

receiver .GPRS is non energy aware routing protocol. A

sender of a packet marks the packet with the location of the

receiver since a sender knows the location of the receiver and

intermediate nodes make local decision to forward packet to

the neighbor that is closest to the receiver. This forwarding

decision is made by intermediate nodes based only on the

knowledge of location of their neighbors .GPRS uses two

forwarding approach greedy forwarding and perimeter

forwarding. Perimeter forwarding is used where greedy

approach fails. In perimeter forwarding approach the data

packet is mark as being in perimeter mode and each node

receiving such a packet uses right hand rule to forward data to

nodes. Drawbacks of GPRS are it may be possible that GPS

system is not available anywhere and overhead related to

location registration and lookup also present in this protocol.

3.1.3.2 Multicast In this type of routing there are multiple destinations which

are recipient of same packet. Example of this type of routing is SPBM (Scalable position based multicast) - In this protocol,

list of all destinations is maintained for a particular packet. In

SPMB, hierarchical addressing scheme is used and two tables

are maintained named as global member table and local member table. SPBM uses greedy forwarding approach like

GPRS and also when greedy approach fails it uses perimeter

mode.

3.1.3.3 Geocast In this type of routing sensed data is propagated within certain

geographic region. This is called as geocasting. After reaching to specific location packet either multicast to all nodes within

the area or transmitted to at least one destination. i.e any cast.

Example of this type of routing is GEAR (Geographical and

energy aware routing) - GEAR is energy aware protocol. In GEAR protocol, interest is sent to a certain region not like

directed diffusion in which interest is sent to whole network.

This protocol keeps two type of cost, estimated cost and

learning cost and there are two phases in GEAR . First phase -A geographical and energy aware neighbor selection

algorithm is used to forward packets towards target area.

Second Phase-A recursive geographic forwarding algorithm is

used to disseminate packets to nodes within the target area.

3.2 Route Discovery In route discovery phase routes are found by nodes in

different manner. For example like in table driven protocols also called as proactive routing tables are shared periodically

and in reactive routing which is also known as on-demand

routing table is shared on demand. Discussion of these types

of protocols

3.2.1 Proactive

This is also termed as table driven and in this continuous

evaluation of routes take place. Whenever a route is required

one may be ready immediately because routes are established

before they are needed and this type of routing maintains up- to-date routing information. Example of proactive routing

protocol is DSDV (Destination sequenced distance vector)

protocol. It is based on Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. In

DSDV, each node maintains one or more tables in which information of routes to other nodes is available. In order to

get a fresh view of entire network nodes update tables

continuously. Data which is being transmitted contains

sequence number, destination address and number of hops.



60

ISSN:2229-6093

Nodes periodically broadcast their tables and also broadcast

when they observe significant change to their neighbors. There are two types of table updates full dump and

incremental updates. As specified in the name full dump

contains full or entire routing table on the other hand

incremental update contains only changed entries. Drawback of this protocol is there is a heavy control overhead when

links are broken by nodes this is because of high mobility in

the network. DSDV offers delay since to get information

about a particular destination a node has to wait for table update message

3.2.2 . Reactive

This is also termed as on-demand routing. In AODV routes

are established only when needed. In AODV when a source

does not know route to the desired destination then it

broadcast RREQ(route request) packet to its neighbors which in turn further rebroadcast if they do not have a valid route to

destination. RREQ packet contains information like source

identifier, destination identifier, source sequence number,

destination sequence number, time to live field and broadcast identifier. In AODV destination sequence numbers are used to

get latest route to the destination. For a single RREQ a source

may receive multiple RREP (route reply) packets. RREQ is

broadcast while RREP is unicast in the network. Path taken by RREP packet is given below

Fig 6: RREP Path

Drawback of AODV protocol is for a single RREQ packet

multiple RREP causes heavy control overhead. Also

bandwidth consumption is more due to periodic beaconing

3.2.3 Hybrid Hybrid routing protocols combines best features of proactive

routing protocols and reactive routing protocols. Examples of

hybrid routing protocols are CEDAR (Core extraction

distributed ad-hoc routing) protocol, ZRP (Zone routing

protocol) and ZHLS (Zone hierarchical based link state)

protocol..

3.3 Protocol Operation Routing protocol can also be categorized on the basis of

protocol operation

3.3.1 QOS (Quality of Service) There are some quality of service metrics like high reliability, low jitter, low energy consumption and low end to end delay.

Quality of service protocols exploits some of these metrics.

For example SAR (Sequential assignment routing) this is a

multipath routing protocol in which multiple trees are created. Based on QOS routes are selected by keeping in mind energy

level, like how many packets can be transmitted successfully

without energy depletion but this is expensive since

establishment and maintenance of trees is needed.

3.3.2 Multi-Path routing This type of routing [3] [4] is used to find alternate paths from

source to the base station and provides reliability, fault

tolerance, load balancing and reduced delay. Some multi-path routing protocols are discussed below

3.3.2.1 REAR (Reliable energy aware routing

protocol) This is an alternative routing and it considers residual energy capacity of nodes. It provides reliability as well as energy

efficiency in sensor network. In REAR [6] sensor node can

confirm about successful transmission of packets by DATA-

ACK oriented packet transmission which is sent by sink to source node. In this protocol when the capacity of sensor node

is degraded under the threshold value in the path then

alternate routing path can be used. Thus there is a alternative

route when the first route is degraded. When a source wants to

establish a connection with the destination it broadcast MREQ

(multi path route request) packet, nodes receiving this packet

forward it after checking their energy level. Nodes forward

packet after some delay depends on their energy level and thus nodes having more energy forward MREQ more quickly

in the network. This facilitates selection of nodes having more

energy thus provides energy efficiency. . Limitation of this

protocol is interference problem is neglected

3.3.2.2 H-SPREAD In this protocol extra routes can be finding by additional messages and it breaks the rule of one message per node. A

sensor node informs its neighbors when it finds an alternate

path and this information is recursively propagated through

the network in order to maximize number of disjoint paths. H-Spread is useful in node failure and link failure situations in

the network .H-SPREAD utilizes the N-1 routing algorithm

therefore it faces wireless interference.

3.3.2.3 N-1 Protocol

In this type of multi-path protocol node-disjoint routes are found between a base station and source by this protocol. In

this security and reliability is improved by multi-paths but

during route construction phase this protocol does not see

energy level of the node.

3.3.2.4 MMSPEED Protocol MMSPEED protocol stands for multipath multi-speed protocol. It provides QOS (quality of service) and reduces

overhead since it does not require global network state

updates. This protocol based on geographic locations of

nodes. MMSPEED provides multiple redundant paths from source to a destination. Drawback of this protocol is it does

not focus on energy metric.

3.3.2.5 Braided Multipath Protocol In this type of routing there are small number of alternative

paths on the existing paths which are called main paths and

these alternative paths are known as braided multipath The main idea behind this routing is to find alternative paths for

each node on the main path provided that these alternative

paths does not contain that node. In this protocol there is

maintenance overhead of these alternative paths and these

paths are energy inefficient. Comparative study of multipath

routing protocols is done and shown in the table below.

Protocols are compared on the basis of number of paths they

choose, reliability, and energy and so on.



61

ISSN:2229-6093

Table 1: Comparative study of multipath routing path protocols

MULTI-PATH

Routing Protocol Path chooser Performance Reliability

Path

Disjointedness

Number of

paths

Energy

efficient

Directed diffusion Sink node

Suffers from delay

and packet loss NO Partially disjoint Not limited YES

H-Spread protocol

Source node and

intermediate nodes

Provides reliability as

well as security YES Node-disjoint Not limited NO

Reliable and energy

aware routing

Source node and

intermediate nodes

Network lifetime and

packet loss YES Node-disjoint Two paths YES

Braided multi-path

routing Sink node

Packet loss and delay

occurs YES Partially disjoint Not limited NO

MMSPEED

protocol

Source node and

intermediate nodes Reliability and delay YES Partially disjoint

Based on

reliability

NO

N-1 multi-path

routing

Source node and

intermediate nodes Reliability YES Node-disjoint Not limited NO

4. CONCLUSION In this paper different routing protocols have been studied in

Sensor network. Study of advantages as well as disadvantages

of routing protocols have been discussed in this paper. In

future efforts will be given by us to remove all these

Shortcomings of routing in sensor network.. In wireless sensor

network in-spite of these flaws sensor network serves us so

many applications Researchers have been working in this field

for many years. Features and applications like in disaster

relief operation, wildlife detection, intelligent buildings

monitoring are big contribution to our society.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ms. Ruby Singh M.Tech research scholar in

Department of of Computer Science

Department, ITM university Gwalior. My area

of interest is wireless sensor network and I am

working on energy issue in this network.

Dr. Pallavi Khatri received her Ph.D. from

Jiwaji University, Gwalior,. She completed her

M.Tech. from MITS, Gwalior. She did her

B.E. in Computer Technology from RCERT-

Chandrapur . She is an Associate Professor at

ITM University Gwalior, India.

Shashi Kant Gupta working as Asst.

Professor in Department of of Computer

Science Department, ITM university Gwalior.

He received his MCA from ITM Gwalior and

he completed MTech. from BIST Bhopal.

6. REFERENCES [1] G.R.Sakthidharan, S.chitra,” A survey on wireless sensor network- an application perspective”, international conference

on computer communication and informatics, (2012)

[2] Mallangauda patil, Rajashekhar C. Beradar, “A survey on

routing protocols in wireless sensor networks”,Institute of electrical and electronics engineers, (2012),86-91

[3] Mohammad Masdari and Maryan Tanabi,” Multi-path

routing protocols in wireless sensor networks”, International

journal of future generation communication and networking,(2013), volume-6,181-192

[4] Lomin Joy V, C.Priyadharsini,” A survey on sink based

multi-path routing in wireless sensor networks”, International

journal of computer science and management research,(2012), volume-1,1108-1111

[5] I.F.Akyildiz, W.Su*, Y.sankarasubramaniam, E.cayirci, “

Wireless sensor network: a survey”,Broadband and wireless

networking laboratory, school of electrical and computer engineering Georgia institute of technology, Atlanta,GA

30332, USA,(2002), 393-422

[6] kee-young shin , Junkeun song, JinWon Kim, Misun Yu

and Pyeong,”Reliable energy aware routing protocol for wireless sensor network”, Electronics and

Telecommunications Research Institute(ETRI),(2007),525-

530.

[7] Abdul Gani Khan, Abdur Rahman,” Classification of hierarchical based routing protocols for wireless sensor

network”, International journal of innovations in engineering

and technology,(2013),43-49.

[8] Priyanka Mangla, Vasudha Arora,”Comparative study and analysis of data centric routing protocols for wireless sensor

network based on energy consumption”, International journal

of scientific and research publications,(2013),volume 3,1-5.

[9] [9] K. Karthikeyan, M.Kavitha,” Comparative analysis of data centric routing protocols for wireless sensor networks



62

ISSN:2229-6093

SPIN”, International journal of scientific and research

publications, (2013),volume 3,1-6. [10] Priya Maidamwar, Nekita Chavhan,”A survey on

security issues to detect wormhole attack in wireless sensor

network”,International journal on AdHoc Networking

Systems , (2012),volume 2, 37-49. [11]Alakesh Braman, Umapathi G.R,”A comparative study on

advances in LEACH routing protocol for wireless sensor

networks: A survey”, International journal of advanced

research in computer and communication engineering,(2014),volume 3,5683-5690.

[12] Sunita Rani,Tarun Gulati,”An improved PEGASIS

protocol to enhance energy utilization in wireless sensor

network”, International journalof advanced research in computer science and software engineering,(2012),volume 2,

248-253



63

ISSN:2229-6093

wireless sensor networks: principle and challenges sensor networks: principle and challenges ruby...

Documents