Wireless Networks

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 565–578 | Cite as

Beacon-less geographic multicast routing in a real-world wireless sensor network testbed

  • Juan A. Sanchez
  • Rafael Marin-Perez
  • Pedro M. Ruiz


We study the problem of geographic multicast routing (GMR) in a wireless sensor network. In particular, we are interested in geographic routing solutions with a very limited control overhead and overall bandwidth consumption. Existing GMR protocols require nodes to periodically exchange beacon messages to gather information about the position of their neighbors. These beacons represent a waste of resources, specially in areas of the network with no active communications. Beacons also induce significant problems in real deployments such as interferences and collisions that cause inconsistencies in neighboring tables. In this paper we propose a new beacon-less geographic multicast routing protocol called BRUMA. Unlike previous solutions, BRUMA uses the propagation of data packets to opportunistically select next hops among those that are reachable from the sending node. In addition, we contribute a novel next hop selection function by which candidate next hops schedule their responses based on their progress along each of the branches of the multicast tree. This allows the protocol to overcome most of the issues of beacon-based solutions in real deployments such as collisions, low-quality links, etc. The results of our empirical tests in a real testbed as well as in simulations show that BRUMA achieves a higher packet delivery ratio and a lower overall bandwidth consumption than GMR, which is the protocol performing best among existing geographic multicast solutions.


Beacon-less Multicast Geographic Localized Routing 


  1. 1.
    Blum, B., He, T., Son, S., & Stankovic, J. (2003). IGF: A state-free robust communication protocol for wireless sensor networks. Technical report CS-2003-11, Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bose, P., Morin, P., Stojmenovic, I., & Urrutia, J. (2001). Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks. Wireless Networks, 7(6), 609–616.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chawla, M., Goel, N., Kalaichelvan, K., Nayak, A., & Stojmenovic, I. (2006). Beaconless position based routing with guaranteed delivery for wireless ad-hoc and sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 19th IFIP world computer congress, August 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Morais Cordeiro, C., Gossain, H., & Agrawal, D. P. (2003). Multicast over wireless mobile ad hoc networks: Present and future directions. IEEE Network, 17(1), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feng, C.-H., Zhang, Y., Demirkol, I., & Heinzelman, W. B. (2011). Stateless multicast protocol for ad-hoc networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frey, H., Ingelrest, F., & Simplot-Ryl, D. (2003). Localized minimum spanning tree based multicast routing with energy-efficient guaranteed delivery in ad hoc and sensor networks. Technical report RT-0337, INRIA, June 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Füßler, H., Widmer, J., Käsemann, M., Mauve, M., & Hartenstein, H. (2003). Contention-based forwarding for mobile ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks, 1(4), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giordano, S., Stojmenovic, I., & Blazevic, L. (2001). Position based routing algorithms for ad hoc networks: A taxonomy. In X. Cheng, X. Huang, & D.Z. Du (Eds.), Ad hoc wireless networking (pp. 103-136). Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heissenbüttel, M., & Braun, T. (2003). A novel position-based and beacon-less routing algorithm for mobile ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of the of the 3rd IEEE workshop on applications and services in wireless networks, (ASWN’ 03) (pp. 197–210), July 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heissenbüttel, M., Braun, T., Wälchli, M., & Bernoulli, T. (2007). Evaluating the limitations of and alternatives in beaconing. Ad Hoc Networks, 5(5), 558–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levis, P., Lee, N., Welsh, M., & Culler, D. (2003). TOSSIM: Accurate and scalable simulation of entire TinyOS applications. In Proceedings of the of the first ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems, (SenSys 2003), November 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, J., Jannotti, J., De Couto, D. S. J., Karger, D. R., & Morris, R. (2000). A scalable location service for geographic ad hoc routing. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mauve, M., Füßler, H., Widmer, J., & Lang, T. (2003). Position-based multicast routing for mobile ad-hoc networks. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 7(3), 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ovalle-martínez, F., Nayak, A., Stojmenovic, I., Carle, J., & Simplot-Ryl, D. (2006). Area based beaconless reliable broadcasting in ad hoc and sensor networks. International Journal of Sensor Networks, 2(2), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sánchez, J. A., Marín-Pérez, R., & Ruiz, P. M. (2007). BOSS: Beaconless on-demand strategy for geographic routing in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international conference on mobile ad-hoc and sensor systems (MASS ’07), October 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sánchez, J. A. & Ruiz, P. M. (2006). Lema: Localized energy-efficient multicast algorithm based on geographic routing. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE conference on local computer networks (LCN ’06) (pp. 3–12), November 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sánchez, J. A., Ruiz, P. M., Liu, J., & Stojmenovic, I. (2007) Bandwidth-efficient geographic multicast routing protocol for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 7, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stojmenovic, I. (2002). Position based routing in ad hoc wireless networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 7(40), 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viswanath, K., & Tsudik, G. (2006). Exploring mesh and tree-based multicast routing protocols for manets. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 5(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Witt, M., & Turau, V. (2005). BGR: Blind geographic routing for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the of the third workshop on intelligent solutions in embedded systems (WISES’05) (pp. 51–61), Hamburg, Germany, May 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woo, A., Tong, T., & Culler, D. (2003). Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the first international conference on embedded networked sensor systems (SenSys ’03) (pp. 14–27), November 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, J., & Govindan, R. (2003). Understanding packet delivery performance in dense wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the first international conference on embedded networked sensor systems (SenSys ’03) (pp. 1–13), November 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zorzi, M., & Rao, R. R. (2003). Geographic random forwarding (GeRaF) for ad hoc and sensor networks: energy and latency performance. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2(4), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan A. Sanchez
    • 1
  • Rafael Marin-Perez
    • 1
  • Pedro M. Ruiz
    • 1
  1. 1.DIIC, Facultad de Informatica, University of MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations