Heterogeneous MAC duty-cycling for energy-efficient Internet of Things deployments
- 88 Downloads
The Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm aims at connecting any object to the Internet (i.e. to the IP world). Due to the physical constraints (limited energy capacities) and deployment conditions (numerous autonomous devices scattered into an area) of such Things, power management and scalability are key issues in IoT deployments. While the problematics of the IP addressing have been successfully transposed to IoT networks, the dedicated IEEE 802.15.4 Medium Access Control standard lacks of scalability, provides insufficient energy-efficiency and thus fails to fulfill their needs. In this paper, we consider alternative MAC protocols, compatible with IoT specificities. These protocols realize energy gains by asynchronously alternating active and passive periods at the radio scale, thus allowing both energy-efficiency and scalability. For the time being, most real IoT deployments implement static and homogeneous duty-cycling (i.e. invariant and identical for each node in the network). Although preventing any node isolation, such method fails to address the dynamics of the network efficiently. We propose a strategy to enable heterogeneous MAC duty-cycle configurations among nodes in the network. We aim at granting each node a specific sleep-depth, according to criteria specific to the deployment (e.g. applicative criteria, location in the routing structure). To implement this idea, the nodes are divided into disjoint subsets, each of them standing for a given duty-cycle configuration and leading to a network performance managed at its best (e.g. energy consumption, loss-rate, delays). We detail to what extent our approach preserves network connectivity with coherent heterogeneous duty-cycling, thus reaching a compromise between energy consumption and reactivity. The presented experimental campaign was led over the IoT SensLAB testbed. It demonstrates that our solutions provide up to 61% energy saving, preserve the loss-rate below 10% and guarantee the connectivity of the network. They thus offer a better compromise between energy-efficiency and network performances than any homogeneous MAC configuration.
KeywordsInternet of Things medium access control low-power-listening auto-adaptation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- T. W. Hnat, V. Srinivasan, J. Lu, T. I. Sookoor, R. Dawson, J. Stankovic, and K. Whitehouse, “The hitchhiker’s guide to successful residential sensing deployments,” in Proc. ACM Conf. Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). New York: ACM, 2011, pp 232–245.Google Scholar
- Wireless Medium Access Control and Physical Layer Specifications for Low-rate Wireless Personal Area Networks, IEEE Standard 802.15.4-2009, 2009.Google Scholar
- A. Kansal, J. Hsu, S. Zahedi, and M. B. Srivastava “Power management in energy harvesting sensor networks,” ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., vol. 6, no. 4, Article no. 32, Sept. 2007.Google Scholar
- F. Khadar and T. Razafindralambo, “Performance evaluation of gradient routing strategies for wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. IFIP-TC 6 Networking. Berlin: Springer, 2009, pp 535–547.Google Scholar
- M. Buettner, G. V. Yee, E. Anderson, and R. Han, “X-MAC: A short preamble MAC protocol for duty-cycled wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. 4th ACM Int. Conf. Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). New York: ACM, 2006, pp. 307–320.Google Scholar
- C. B. des Roziers, G. Chelius, T. Ducrocq, E. Fleury, A. Fraboulet, A. Gallais, N. Mitton, T. Noël, and J. Vandaele, “Using SensLAB as a first class scientific tool for large scale wireless sensor network experiments,” in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. IFIP-TC 6 Networking. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
- G. Schiele, C. Becker, and K. Rothermel, “Energy-efficient cluster-based service discovery for ubiquitous computing,” in Proc. 11th Workshop ACM SIGOPS European Workshop. New York: ACM, Article no. 14, 2004.Google Scholar
- T. Voigt, H. Ritter, and J. Schiller, “Utilizing solar power in wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. 28th Annu. IEEE Int. Conf. Local Computer Networks (LCN). Washington DC: IEEE, 2003, pp. 416–422.Google Scholar
- T. Winter, P. Thubert, A. Brandt, J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, J. P. Vasseur, and R. Alexander, “RFC 6550: RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks,” IETF, Mar. 2012.Google Scholar