Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 101, Issue 2, pp 755–773 | Cite as

WSANFlow: An Interface Protocol Between SDN Controller and End Devices for SDN-Oriented WSAN

  • Ali Burhan Al-Shaikhli
  • Celal Çeken
  • Mohammed Al-Hubaishi
Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

When dealing with a Wireless Sensor and Actuator Network (WSAN) structure, one of the challenging problems is lack of flexibility in such network operations as establishment, management, and configuration. Software-defined Networking (SDN) is a promising technology for a simpler, more flexible, and less overworked network structure. Integration of SDN as a solution into the existing WSAN structures seems to be a strong candidate of deployment solutions for next generation WSAN systems. In order to get enhanced performance results for WSAN systems, we proposed an interface protocol, referred to as WSANFlow, which is responsible for all the communications between SDN controller (SDNC) and SDN-oriented end devices. The SDNC in this approach has the network intelligence and is capable of handling all the control and management operations related to the network. Thus, advanced communication operations can be managed and efficiently optimized efficiently by the SDN controller and then, subsequently, corresponding instructions can be delivered to end devices using the proposed WSANFlow protocol. In the study, we analyzed the proposed framework performance, in terms of power consumption ratio, throughput, and end to end delay metrics. Then, we compared the results with those of a ZigBee-based counterpart for different workloads such as; light, heavy and heavier load which modelizes a video stream of mild parameters. The results show that not only has the overall performance of the existing WSAN system been enhanced, but also control and management operations have been simplified by the proposed model.

Keywords

WSAN SDN SDNC Wireless sensor and actuator networks Software-defined networking WSANFlow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge that this work is supported by the scientific and technological research council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) with Project Number (116E008) and by the Internet of Things Laboratory at Sakarya University.

References

  1. 1.
    De Gante, A., Aslan, M., & Matrawy, A. (2014). Smart wireless sensor network management based on software-defined networking. In 2014 27th Biennial symposium on communications (pp. 71–75).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luo, T., Tan, H. P., & Quek, T. Q. S. (2012). Sensor openflow: Enabling software-defined wireless sensor networks. IEEE Communications Letters, 16(11), 1896–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han, Z., & Ren, W. (2014). A novel wireless sensor networks structure based on the SDN. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2014(7), 1–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heinzelman, W. R., Chandrakasan, A. & Balakrishnan, H. (2000). Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In Proceedings of 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (Vol. 0, no. c, pp. 3005–3014).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qing, L., Zhu, Q., & Wang, M. (2006). Design of a distributed energy-efficient clustering algorithm for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Computer Communications, 29(12), 2230–2237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Oliveira, B. T., Batista Gabriel, L., & Borges Margi, C. (2015). TinySDN: Enabling multiple controllers for software-defined wireless sensor networks. In IEEE Latin America Transactions (Vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 3690–3696).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu, Y., Huang, X., Huang, B., Xu, W., Zhang, Q., Xu, R., & Liu, D. (2015). A study on the reliability of software defined wireless sensor network. In 2015 IEEE international conference on Smart City/SocialCom/SustainCom (pp. 129–134).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buratti, C., Stajkic, A., Gardasevic, G., Milardo, S., Abrignani, M. D., Mijovic, S., et al. (2016). Testing protocols for the internet of things on the EuWIn platform. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 3(1), 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jayashree, P., & Infant Princy, F. (2015). Leveraging SDN to conserve energy in WSN-an analysis. In 2015 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing, Communication and Networking (ICSCN), Chennai, 2015 (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeng, D., Li, P., Guo, S., Miyazaki, T., Hu, J., & Xiang, Y. (2015). Energy minimization in multi-task software-defined sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 64(11), 3128–3139.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galluccio, L., Milardo, S., Morabito , G., & Palazzo, S. (2015). SDN-WISE: Design, prototyping and experimentation of a stateful SDN solution for WIreless SEnsor networks. In 2015 IEEE conference on computer communications (INFOCOM), Kowloon (pp. 513–521).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, Y., Chen, H., Wu, X., & Shu, L. (2016). An energy-efficient SDN based sleep scheduling algorithm for WSNs. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 59, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cao, C., Luo, L., Gao, Y., Dong, W., & Chen, C. (2016). TinySDM: Software defined measurement in wireless sensor networks. In 2016 15th ACM/IEEE international conference on information processing in sensor networks, IPSN 2016Proceedings.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costanzo, S., Galluccio, L., Morabito, G., & Palazzo, S. (2012). Software defined wireless networks: Unbridling SDNs. In Proceedings of European workshop on software defined networking, EWSDN 2012 (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Standard, I., & Society, I. C. (2011). IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area networkspart 15. 4: Low-rate wireless personal area networks (LR-WPANs) (Vol. 2011, no. September).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krunz, M., & Tripathi, S. K. (1997). On the characterization of VBR MPEG streams. In SIGMETRICS’97 Proceedings of 1997 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on measurement and modeling of computer systems (pp. 192–202).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanwir, S., & Perros, H. (2013). A survey of VBR video traffic models. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 15(4), 1778–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jasim, A., & Ceken, C. (2015). Video streaming over wireless sensor networks. In 2015 IEEE conference on wireless sensors (ICWiSe) (pp. 63–66).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tennina, S., Koubâa, A., Daidone, R., Alves, M., Jurcík, P., Severino, R., et al. (2013). IEEE 802.15.4 and ZigBee as enabling technologies for low-power wireless systems with quality-of-service constraints. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    JurcAk, P., & Koubaa, A. (2010). Open-ZB.net-OpenSource toolset for IEEE 802.15.4 and ZigBee. In 2010 open-zb.net. All Rights Reserved, 2010. [Online]. http://www.open-zb.net/. Accessed 07 Nov 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Burhan Al-Shaikhli
    • 1
  • Celal Çeken
    • 2
  • Mohammed Al-Hubaishi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Engineering, Institute of Natural SciencesUniversity of SakaryaSakaryaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Computer and Information SciencesUniversity of SakaryaSakaryaTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer Science and Information SystemThamar UniversityThamarYemen

Personalised recommendations