Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 649–660 | Cite as

Wireless Medium Access Control under Mobility and Bursty Traffic Assumptions in WSNs

  • Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
  • Vasileios Kotsiou
  • Antoine Gallais
  • Periklis Chatzimisios
  • Thomas Noël
Article

Abstract

In Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) the nodes can be either static or mobile depending on the requirements of each application. During the design of Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols, mobility may pose many communication challenges. These difficulties require first a link establishment between mobile and static nodes, and then an energy efficient and low delay burst handling mechanism. In this study, we investigate preamble-sampling solutions that allow asynchronous operation. We first introduce anycast transmission to ContikiMAC where a mobile node emits an anycast data packet whose first acknowledging node will serve as responsible to forward it towards the sink. Once this link is established, burst transmission can start, according to the respective burst handling mechanism of ContikiMAC. Although it is considered as negligible in the literature, such an anycast-based on-the-fly operation actually results in high packet duplication at the sink. Hence, we demonstrate that even a basic anycast-based M-ContikiMAC would fail to handle bursty traffic from mobile nodes mainly due to increased unnecessary traffic and channel occupancy. We then propose Mobility-Enhanced ContikiMAC (ME-ContikiMAC), a protocol that reduces packet duplications in the network by more than 90 % comparing to M-ContikiMAC. Moreover, our results in a 48-node scenario show that ME-ContikiMAC outperforms a number of state-of-the-art solutions (including MoX-MAC and MOBINET), by terms of reducing both delay and energy consumption.

Keywords

Wireless Sensor Networks Medium Access Control Mobility Neighbor discovery Bursty traffic Energy efficiency ContikiMAC 

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang P, Sadler CM (2004). In: Lyon SA, Martonosi M (eds) Hardware design experiences in ZebraNet. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (Sensys), pp 227–238Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dong Q, Dargie W (2013) A survey on mobility and mobility-aware MAC protocols in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun Surveys Tutorials 15(1):88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papadopoulos GZ, Gallais A, Noel T, Kotsiou V, Chatzimisios P (2014) Enhancing ContikiMAC for Bursty Traffic in Mobile Sensor Networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE sensorsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunkels A (2011) The ContikiMAC radio duty cycling protocol. Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Technical Report Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ba PD, Niang I, Gueye B (2014) An optimized and power savings protocol for mobility energy-aware in wireless sensor networks. Telecommun Syst 55(2):271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roth D, Montavont J, Noel T (2011) MOBINET: mobility management across different wireless sensor networks. In: IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunkels A., Gronvall B, Voigt T (2004) Contiki - a Lightweight and Flexible Operating System for Tiny Networked Sensors. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), pp 455–462Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loo J, Mauri JL, Ortiz JH (2011) Mobile Ad hoc networks: current status and future trends. CRC Press, Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhiyong T, Dargie W (2010) A mobility-aware medium access control protocol for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) Workshops, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buettner M, Yee GV, Anderson E, Han R (2006) X-MAC: a short preamble MAC protocol for duty-cycled wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (Sensys), pp 307–320Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dargie W, Wen J (2014) A seamless handover for WSN Using LMS filter. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE conference on local computer networks (LCN), pp. 287–288. [Online]. Available: http://www.rn.inf.tu-dresden.de/uploads/Publikationen/LCN2014V2.pdf
  12. 12.
    Kuntz R, Montavont J, Noël T (2013) Improving the medium access in highly mobile wireless sensor networks. Telecommun Syst 52(4):2437–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Hoiydi A, Decotignie J-D, Enz C, Le Roux E (2003) WiseMAC, an ultra low power MAC protocol for the wiseNET wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (Sensys), pp 302–303Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moss D, Levis P (2008) BoX-MACs: exploiting physical and link layer boundaries in low-power networking, Technical Report SING-08-00, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duquennoy S, Österlind F, Dunkels A (2011) Lossy links, low power, high throughput. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (Sensys), pp 12–25Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michel M (2014) ContikiMAC vs X-MAC performance analysis. University of Mons, Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papadopoulos GZ, Beaudaux J, Gallais A, Chatzimisios P, Noel T (2014) Toward a packet duplication control for opportunistic routing in WSNs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM), pp. 94–99Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osterlind F, Dunkels A, Eriksson J, Finne N, Voigt T (2006) Cross-level sensor network simulation with COOJA. In:Proceedings of the 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aschenbruck N, Ernst R, Gerhards-Padilla E, Schwamborn M (2010) BonnMotion: a mobility scenario generation and analysis tool. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUTools)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dandelski C, Wenning B-L, Perez D, Pesch D, Linnartz J-P (2015) Scalability of dense wireless lighting control networks. IEEE Commun Mag 53(1):157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watteyne T, Kris Pister DB, Dohler M, Auge-Blum I (2009) Implementation of gradient routing in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunkels A, Osterlind F, Tsiftes N, He Z (2007) Software-based on-line energy estimation for sensor nodes. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACN Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors (EmNets), pp 28–32Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papadopoulos GZ, Beaudaux J, Gallais A, Noel T, Schreiner G (2013) Adding value to WSN simulation using the IoT-LAB experimental platform. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp 485–490Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Freitas EP, Heimfarth T, Vinel A, Wagner FR, Pereira CE, Larsson T (2013) Cooperation among wirelessly connected static and mobile sensor nodes for surveillance applications. Sensors 13(10):12903–12928CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
    • 1
  • Vasileios Kotsiou
    • 2
  • Antoine Gallais
    • 1
  • Periklis Chatzimisios
    • 2
  • Thomas Noël
    • 1
  1. 1.ICube LaboratoryUniversity of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Hellenic Open University and ATEITHEPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations