In this paper, we have modeled the routing overhead generated by three reactive routing protocols; Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and DYnamic MANET On-deman (DYMO). Routing performed by reactive protocols consists of two phases; route discovery and route maintenance. Total cost paid by a protocol for efficient routing is sum of the cost paid in the form of energy consumed and time spent. These protocols majorly focus on the optimization performed by expanding ring search algorithm to control the flooding generated by the mechanism of blind flooding. So, we have modeled the energy consumed and time spent per packet both for route discovery and route maintenance. The proposed framework is evaluated in NS-2 to compare performance of the chosen routing protocols.
Abstract-This I. BACKGROUNDIn Direct Transmission [1], each node in the sensor network communicates directly to BS. In the aforementioned protocol, farthest nodes die faster than the nearest nodes. In Minimum transmission energy [2] routing protocol each node transmits to its nearest node so the nearest nodes die at a faster rate because they receive data from the farther nodes. In the current body of research going in the field of WSNs clustering based protocols have attain significant attraction. In clustering based routing protocols the sensor nodes form clusters. In these clusters, one node is selected as CH. The nodes sense data and send to their respective CHs which aggregate and fuse the data, thus saving the energy as global communication is reduced due to local compression.Once the CH receives data from its nodes it aggregates and fuses the data into a small set and sends to BS. Unbalanced energy consumption among the sensor nodes may cause network partition and node failures where transmission from some sensors to the sink node becomes blocked. Therefore, construction of a stable backbone is one of the challenges in sensor network applications.LEACH [3] proposes a clustering based routing protocol for homogenous networks in which a node becomes CH by a probabilistic equation and forms a cluster of those nodes which receive strong signal to noise ratio from it. The nodes sense the environment and send data to CH where it is aggregated and finally send to BS. In LEACH there is a localized coordination amongst the nodes for cluster set up and locally compress the data to reduce global communication. CHs in LEACH are rotated randomly. Heterogeneous networks are more stable and beneficiary than homogenous networks. A number of protocols like SEP, DEEC and Threshold Distributed Energy-Efficient Clustering protocol (T-DEEC) have been proposed for WSNs. SEP [4] has two level of heterogeneity. In DEEC [5], CH selection is based on the ratio of residual energy and average energy of the network. The high energy nodes have more chances to become CH. In this way the energy is evenly distributed in the network. These routing protocols have some limitation due to their design and performance. II. THE ACH SCHEME A. Optimal Number Of CHsThe optimal probability of a node to take part in election for selection of CHs is a function of the spatial density when the nodes are uniformly distributed over the sensors' field. When the total energy consumption is minimum and energy consumption is well distributed over all sensors, the clustering is then called optimal clustering. The energy model we use for our simulation effect the optimal number of CHs. We use similar energy model as proposed in LEACH, SEP and DEEC. We have been giving particular attention to distribution of CHs in network so as energy in the network. Once nodes are deployed in region of interest the nodes locally coordinate for cluster set up and operation. Each node decides whether to become a CH or not. The node generates a random number and compares it with...
In this paper, we present a detailed framework consisting of modeling of routing overhead generated by three widely used proactive routing protocols; Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Fish-eye State Routing (FSR) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR). The questions like, how these protocols differ from each other on the basis of implementing different routing strategies, how neighbor estimation errors affect broadcast of route requests, how reduction of broadcast overhead achieves bandwidth, how to cope with the problem of mobility and density, etc, are attempted to respond. In all of the above mentioned situations, routing overhead and delay generated by the chosen protocols can exactly be calculated from our modeled equations. Finally, we analyze the performance of selected routing protocols using our proposed framework in NS-2 by considering different performance parameters; Route REQuest (RREQ) packet generation, End-to-End Delay (E2ED) and Normalized Routing Load (NRL) with respect to varying rates of mobility and density of nodes in the underlying wireless network.
This paper presents comparison of Access Techniques used in Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol for Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs). Comparison is performed between Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA), Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA), Pure ALOHA and Slotted ALOHA (S-ALOHA). Performance metrics used for comparison are throughput(T), delay(D) and offered load(G). The main goal for comparison is to show which technique gives highest Throughput and lowest Delay with increase in Load. Energy efficiency is major issue in WBAN that is why there is need to know which technique performs best for energy conservation and also gives minimum delay. Simulations are performed for different scenarios and results are compared for all techniques. We suggest TDMA as best technique to be used in MAC protocol for WBANs due to its high throughput and minimum delay with increase in load. MATLAB is the tool that is used for simulation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.