On the Relevance of Using Interference and Service Differentiation Routing in the Internet-of-Things

  • Antoine Bigomokero Bagula
  • Djamel Djenouri
  • Elmouatezbillah Karbab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8121)

Abstract

Next generation sensor networks are predicted to be deployed in the Internet-of-the-Things (IoT) with a high level of heterogeneity. They will be using sensor motes which are equipped with different sensing and communication devices and tasked to deliver different services leading to different energy consumption patterns. The application of traditional wireless sensor routing algorithms designed for sensor motes expanding the same energy to such heterogeneous networks may lead to energy unbalance and subsequent short-lived sensor networks resulting from routing the sensor readings over the most overworked sensor nodes while leaving the least used nodes idle. Building upon node interference awareness and sensor devices service identification, we assess the relevance of using a routing protocol that combines these two key features to achieve efficient traffic engineering in IoT settings and its relative efficiency compared to traditional sensor routing. Performance evaluation with simulation reveals clear improvement of the proposed protocol vs. state of the art solutions in terms of load balancing, notably for critical nodes that cover more services. Results show that the proposed protocol considerably reduce the number of packets routed by critical nodes, where the difference with the compared protocol becomes more and more important as the number of nodes increases. Results also reveal clear reduction in the average energy consumption.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bagula, A., et al.: Ubiquitous Sensor Networking for Development (USN4D): An Application to Pollution Monitoring. MDPI Sensors 12(1), 391–414 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vasseur, J., Dunkels, A.: Interconnecting Smart Objects with IP, The Next Internet. Morgan Kaufmann (July 2010) ISBN: 9780123751652Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang, G., Xiao, M., Chen, C.: A simple energy-balancing method in RFID sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Workshop on Anti-Counterfeiting, Security, Identification, Xiamen China, April 16-18, pp. 306–310 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruzzelli, A.G., Jurdak, R., O’Hare, G.M.P.: On the RFID wake-up impulse for multi-hop sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 1st ACM Workshop on Convergence of RFID and Wireless Sensor Networks and their Applications (SenseID) at the 5th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys 2007), Sydney, Australia (November 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Englund, H.W.: RFID in wireless sensor network, Tech. Report, Dept. of Signals & systems, Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Sweden, pp. 1-69 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dyo, V., Ellwood, S.A., Macdonald, D.W., Markham, A., Mascolo, C., Pasztor, B., Scellato, S., Trigoni, N., Wohlers, R., Yousef, K.: Wildlife and Environmental Monitoring using RFID and WSN Technology. In: Proc. of the 7th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2009), Berkeley CA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagula, A.B.: Modelling and Implementation of QoS in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Multi-constrained Traffic Engineering Model. Eurasip Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2010, Article ID 468737 (2010), doi:10.1155/2010/468737Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djenouri, D., Balasingham, I.: Traffic-Differentiation-Based Modular QoS Localized Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 10(6), 797–809 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felemban, E., Lee, C.-G., Ekici, E.: MMSPEED: Multipath Multi-Speed Protocol for QoS Guarantee of Reliability and Timeliness in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing 5(6), 738–754 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gnawali, O., et al.: Collection Tree Protocol. In: Proc. of ACM SenSys 2009, Berkeley, CA, USA, November 4-6 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill, J., et al.: System architecture directions for networked sensors. In: Proc. of ACM Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS IX) (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levis, P., Lee, N., Welsh, M., Culler, D.: TOSSIM: Simulating large wireless sensor networks of tinyos motes. In: Proc. of ACM SenSys 2003, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 126–137 (November 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winter, T., et al.: RPL: IPv6 Routing protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks. In: RFC 6550 (March 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bagula, A.: Hybrid traffic engineering: the least path interference algorithm. In: Proc. of ACM Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries, pp. 89–96 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagula, A.: On Achieving Bandwidth-aware LSP/LambdaSP Multiplexing/Separation in Multi-layer Networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC): Special issue on Traffic Engineering for Multi-Layer Networks 25(5) (June 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zennaro, M., Bagula, A.B.: Design of a flexible and robust gateway to collect sensor data in intermittent power environments. International Journal of Sensor Networks 8(3/4) (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Bigomokero Bagula
    • 1
  • Djamel Djenouri
    • 2
  • Elmouatezbillah Karbab
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.CERIST Research CenterAlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations