Transcript Slide 1

Centre for Wireless
Communications
Wireless Ad Hoc & Sensor Networks
Nordic Radio Symposium 2004
August 16 – 18, 2004
University of Oulu, Finland
Presenter: Carlos Pomalaza-Ráez
[email protected]
http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~carlos/NRS_04_Tutorial.ppt
Outline
 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)
 Main features
 Very brief discussion of graph theory, shortest path
algorithms, and routing algorithms
 Wireless Sensor Networks
 Main features
 Energy model
 WSN protocols
 Final Words
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET)
A loose collection of mobile nodes that are capable of
communicating with each other without the aid of any
established infrastructure or centralized administration
Main Features
 Dynamic topology
 Each node acts as an independent router
 Because of the wireless mode of communication:
 Bandwidth-constrained and variable capacity links
 Limited transmitter range
 Energy-constrained
 Limited physical security
 MAC and network protocols are of a distributed nature
 Complex routing protocols with large transmission
overheads and large processing loads on each node
Dynamic Topology
Node mobility has a great
effect on the designing of
routing protocols
Node mobility creates a
dynamic topology, i.e.,
changes in the connectivity
between the nodes
Mobility in Ad Hoc Networks
Dynamic Routing
Route Maintenance
Graph Theory Application to MANETS
 Networks can be represented by weighted graphs
 The nodes are the vertices
 The communication links are the edges
 Edge weights can be used to represent metrics, e.g. cost
associated with the communication links
1
5
8
Vertices
4
10
Edges
2
Weights
 Routing protocols often use shortest path algorithms
Shortest Path Algorithms
 Assume non-negative edge weights
 Given a weighted graph and a node s, a shortest path tree T
rooted at s is a tree such that, for any other node v, the path
between s and v in T is a shortest path between the nodes
2
2
3
5
1
2
6
2
6
3
1
2
2
4
Graph
4
Shortest Path Spanning Tree
rooted at vertex 1
 Examples of the algorithms that compute these shortest
path trees are Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford algorithms
Distributed Asynchronous Shortest Path
Algorithms
 Each node computes the path with the shortest
weight to every network node
 There is no centralized computation
 Control messaging is required to distribute the
computation
 Asynchronous means here that there is no
requirement of inter-node synchronization for the
computation performed at each node for the
exchange of messages between nodes
Routing Protocols
Desired Properties
 Distributed
 Consider both uni- and bi-directional links
 Energy efficient
 Secure
Performance Metrics
 Data throughput
 Delay
 Overhead costs
 Power consumption
Proactive vs. Reactive
Proactive routing
maintains routes to
every other node in the
network
Reactive routing
maintains routes to only
those nodes which are
needed
Regular routing
updates impose large
overheads
Cost of finding routes is
expensive since
flooding is involved
Suitable for high
traffic networks
Good for low/medium
traffic networks
AODV – Path Finding
neighbors re-broadcast the packet until
it reaches the intended destination
source broadcasts
a route request packet
S
A
B
C
reply packet follows the reverse
path of the route request packet
recorded in broadcast packet
H
D
RREP
G
D
node discards packets
that have been seen
E
F
node discards packets
that have been seen
Traditional Routing Protocols
Source
Consider several routes
Find the best
Then use it as much as possible
Problems
 Energy depletion in certain nodes
 Not suitable for Wireless Sensor Networks
Destination
Wireless Sensor Networks
What is a sensor?
A device that produces a measurable response to a change in a
physical or chemical condition, e.g. temperature, ground
composition
Sensor Networks
A large grouping of low-cost, low-power, multifunctional, and
small-sized sensor nodes
They benefit from advances in 3 technologies:
• digital circuitry
• wireless communication
• silicon micro-machining
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs)
New technologies
have reduced the
cost, size, and power
of micro-sensors and
wireless interfaces
Circulatory Net
Environmental
Monitoring
Sensing
Networking
Computation
Structural
Some Applications of WSNs
Battlefield
Detection, classification and tracking
Examples: AWAIRS
(UCLA & Rockwell Science Center)
Habitat Monitoring Micro-climate and wildlife monitoring
Examples:
 ZebraNet (Princeton)
 Seabird monitoring in Maine’s Great
Duck Island (Berkeley & Intel)
Some Applications of WSNs
 Structural, seismic
Bridges, highways, buildings
Examples: Coronado Bridge San Diego
(UCSD), Factory Building (UCLA)
 Smart roads
Traffic monitoring, accident detection,
recovery assistance
Examples: ATON project (UCSD)
highway
camera
 Contaminants detection
Examples: Multipurpose Sensor Program
(Boise State University)
microphone
WSN Communications Architecture
Sensing node
Sensor nodes can be
data originators and
data routers
Internet
Sink
Manager Node
Sensor nodes
Sensor field
Examples of Sensor Nodes
Sensor Node Evolution
Mote Type
Date
WeC
Rene
Rene2
Dot
Mica
Sep-99
Oct-00
Jun-01
Aug-01
Feb-02
Microcontroller (4MHz)
Type
Prog. mem. (KB)
RAM (KB)
AT90LS8535
ATMega163
ATMega103/128
8
16
128
0.5
1
4
Communication
Radio
Rate (Kbps)
Modulation Type
RFM TR1000
10
10/40
OOK
OOK/ASK
Typical Features of WSNs










A very large number of nodes
Asymmetric flow of information
Communications are triggered by queries or events
At each node there is a limited amount of energy
Almost static topology
Low cost, size, and weight per node
Prone to failures
Broadcast communications instead of point-to-point
Nodes do not have a global ID such as an IP number
Limited security
Design Considerations
 Fault tolerance – The failure of nodes should not severely degrade the
overall performance of the network
 Scalability – The mechanism employed should be able to adapt to a wide
range of network sizes (number of nodes)
 Cost – The cost of a single node should be kept very low
 Power consumption – Should be kept to a minimum to extend the useful
life of network
 Hardware and software constraints – Sensors, location finding system,
antenna, power amplifier, modulation, coding, CPU, RAM, operating
system
 Topology maintenance – In particular to cope with the expected high rate
of node failure
 Deployment – Pre-deployment mechanisms and plans for node
replacement and/or maintenance
 Environment – At home, in space, in the wild, on the roads, etc.
 Transmission media – ISM bands, infrared, etc.
Sensor Network
Traditional Protocol Stack
Data Link
Physical
Task Management
Network
Mobility Management
Transport
Power Management
Application
Power Management – How
the sensor uses its power,
e.g. turns off its circuitry
after receiving a message
Topology Management –
Detects and registers
changes in the positions of
the nodes
Task Management –
Balances and schedules the
sensing tasks given to a
specific region
Physical Layer
 Frequency selection
ISM bands have often been proposed
 Carrier frequency generation and signal detection
Aim for simplicity, low power consumption, and low
cost per unit
 Modulation
Binary modulation schemes are simpler to implement
and thus deemed to be more energy-efficient for WSN
applications
 Low transmission power and simple transceiver
circuitry make Ultra Wideband (UWB) an attractive
candidate
Application
Transport
Network
Data Link
Physical
Physical Layer
Energy consumption minimization is of paramount
importance when designing the physical layer for
WSN in addition to the usual factors such as
scattering, shadowing, reflection, diffraction,
multipath, and fading
Energy Limitations
 Each sensor node has limited energy supply
 Nodes may not be rechargeable
 Energy consumption in
 Sensing
 Data processing
 Communication (most energy intensive)
Power (mW)
20
15
10
5
0
Sensing
CPU
TX
RX
IDLE
SLEEP
Power consumption of a typical node’s subsystems
CWC WIRO (WIreless Research Object )
CPU Board
2 Euro coin & RF Board
WIRO Box
RF Board
Tx
Rx
Sleep
CPLD
3mA/3.3V
9.9mW
3mA/3.3V
9.9mW
0.01mA/3.3V
0.033mW
RF-Transceiver
10mA/3.3V
33mW
5.8mA/3.3V
19mW
0.7μA/3.3V
0.0023mW
Other Circuitry
0.5mA/5V
2.5mW
0.5mA/5V
2.5mW
0.5mA/5V
2.5mW
RF Board Total
Power Consumption
Power (mW)
50
40
45.5
30
20
10
0
Tx
31.5
Rx
Sleep
2.5
Node Energy Model
A typical node has a sensor system, A/D conversion circuitry, DSP and a
radio transceiver. The sensor system is very application dependent. The
communication components consume most of the energy.
A simple model for a wireless link is:
Energy Model
The energy consumed when sending a packet of m bits over a one
hop wireless link can be expressed as:
Transmitter
E L ( m , d )  E T ( m , d )  PT T st  E encode
Receiver
  E R ( m )  PR T st
 E decode
where,
ET
= energy used by the transmitter circuitry and power amplifier
ER
= energy used by the receiver circuitry
PT
= power consumption of the transmitter circuitry
PR
= power consumption of the receiver circuitry
Tst
= startup time of the transceiver
Eencode = energy used to encode
Edecode = energy used to decode

Energy Model
Assuming a linear relationship for the energy spent per bit at the transmitter
and receiver circuitry ET and ER can be written as,

E T ( m , d )  m e TC  e TA d


E R ( m )  me RC
where eTC, eTA, and eRC are hardware dependent parameters and α is the
path loss exponent whose value varies from 2 (for free space) to 4 (for
multipath channel models).
The effect of the transceiver startup time, Tst, will greatly depend on the
type of MAC protocol used. To minimize power consumption it is
desirable to have the transceiver in a sleep mode as much as possible.
However, constantly turning the transceiver on and off to bring it to
readiness for transmission or reception also consumes energy.
Energy Model
An explicit expression for eTA can be derived as(†),
e TA 
 S 
 4 

 ( NF Rx )( N 0 )( BW ) 

 N r
  

( G ant )( am p )( R bit )
Where,
(S/N)r = minimum required signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver’s
demodulator for an acceptable Eb/N0
NFRx = receiver noise figure
N0 = thermal noise floor in a 1 Hertz bandwidth (Watts/Hz)
BW = channel noise bandwidth
λ
= wavelength in meters
α
= path loss exponent
Gant = antenna gain
ηamp = transmitter power efficiency
Rbit = raw bit rate in bits per second
(†) P. Chen, B. O’Dea, E. Callaway, “Energy Efficient System Design with Optimum Transmission Range for Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks,” IEEE International Conference on Comm. (ICC 2002), Vol. 2, pp. 945-952, 28 April -2 May 2002, pp. 945-952.
Energy Model
The expression for eTA can be used for those cases where a particular
hardware configuration is being considered. The dependence of eTA on
(S/N)r can be made more explicit if the previous equation is written as:
e TA     S N
r
( NF Rx
wh ere
 
 4 
)( N 0 )( BW ) 

  

( G ant )(  am p )( R bit )
This expression shows explicitly the relationship between eTA and (S/N)r.
The probability of bit error p depends on Eb/N0 which in turns depends
on (S/N)r.
Eb/N0 is independent of the data rate. In order to relate Eb/N0 to (S/N)r,
the data rate and the system bandwidth must be taken into account, i.e.,
Energy Model
S
N  r   E b N 0  R B T    b  R B T

where
Eb = energy required per bit of information
R = system data rate
BT = system bandwidth
γb = signal-to-noise ratio per bit, i.e., (Eb/N0)
Typical Bandwidths for Various Digital Modulation Methods
Modulation Method
Typical Bandwidth
(Null-To-Null)
QPSK, DQPSK
1.0 x Bit Rate
MSK
1.5 x Bit Rate
BPSK, DBPSK, OFSK
2.0 x Bit Rate
Energy Model
Power Scenarios
Two possible power scenarios are:
 Variable transmission power. In this case the radio dynamically adjusts its
transmission power so that (S/N)r is fixed to guarantee a certain level of
Eb/N0 at the receiver. The transmission energy per bit is given by:
e TA d

 S  
 
 d
 N r
Since (S/N)r is fixed at the receiver this also means that the probability p
of bit error is fixed at the same value for each link.
Energy Model
 Fixed transmission power. In this case the radio uses a fixed power for all
transmissions. This case is considered because several commercial radio
interfaces have a very limited capability for dynamic power adjustments.
In this case eTA d  is fixed to a certain value (ETA) at the transmitter and the
(S/N)r at the receiver will then be:
E TA
 S 

 

d
 N r
Since for most practical deployments d is different for each link, then
(S/N)r will also be different for each link. This translates to a different
probability of bit error for each wireless hop.
Energy Consumption - Multihop Network
Consider the following linear sensor array
To highlight the energy consumption due only to the actual
communication process; the energy spent in encoding,
decoding, as well as on the transceiver startup is not
considered in the analysis that follows
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
The initial assumption is that there is one data packet being relayed
from the node farthest from the sink node towards the sink. The
total energy consumed by the linear array to relay a packet of m
bits from node n to the sink is:
E linear

 
n




 m   e TC  e RC  e TA ( d i )  e TC  e TA ( d 1 )

 i2






It then can be shown that Elinear is minimum when all the distances
di’s are made equal to D/n, i.e. all the distances are equal.
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
It can also be shown that the optimal number of hops is,
n opt
 D 
 D 
 
 or 

d
d
 char 
 char 
where
1
d char
 e TC  e RC  


 e (  1) 
 TA

dchar depends only on the path loss exponent α and on the transceiver
hardware dependent parameters. Replacing the value of dchar in the
expression for Elinear
opt
E linear
 n opt ( e TC  e RC )

m
 e RC 
 1


Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
A more realistic assumption for the linear sensor array is that there is a
uniform probability along the array for the occurrence of events(†).
In this case, on the average, each sensor will detect the same number of
events and the information collected needs to be relayed towards the sink.
Without loss of generality one can then assume that each node senses one
event. This means that sensor i will have to relay (n-i) packets from the
upstream sensors plus the transmission of its own packet. The average
energy per bit consumption by the linear array is then
 e
n
E linear
 bit
  ne RC 
TC
 e RC  e TA ( d i )

n  1  i 
i 1
  ne RC 
( e TC  e RC ) n ( n  1)
2
n
 e TA

(n  1  i)(d i )

i 1
(†)Z. Shelby, C.A. Pomalaza-Ráez, and J. Haapola, “Energy Optimization in Multihop Wireless Embedded and Sensor
Networks,” to be presented at the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio
Communications, September 5-8, 2004, Barcelona, Spain.
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
n
Minimizing E linear  bit with constraint
minimizing the following expression
D 
 n  1  i ( d ) 




n
L  e TA

i
i 1
 d i is equivalent to
i 1
n

i 1

di  D 


where λ is a LaGrange’s multiplier. Taking the partial derivatives of L
with respect to di and equating it to 0 gives
L
d i
 e TA  ( n  1  i )( d i )
1

  1


d i  

e

(
n

1

i
)
 TA

 1
 0
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
n
The value of λ can be obtained using the condition  d i  D
i 1
Thus for α=2 the values for di are
di 
D




n

i 1

1 i   n  1  i 


For n=10 the next figure shows an equally spaced sensor array and a linear
array where the distances are computed using the equation above (α=2)
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
The sensors farther away consume most of their energy by transmitting over
longer distances whereas sensors closer to the sink consume a large portion
of their energy by relaying packets from the upstream sensors towards the
sink. The total energy per bit spent by a linear array with equally spaced
sensors is
equidistan t
 bit
E linear

n ( n  1)
2
e
2
TC

 e RC  e TA  D n   ne RC
The total energy per bit spent by a linear array with optimum separation
and α=2 is
E
optimum
linear  bit

n ( n  1)
2
e TC
 e RC   e TA
D
n
2
 1 i 
i 1
 ne RC
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
For eTC= eTR= 50 nJ/bit, eTA= 100 pJ/bit/m2, and α = 2, the total energy
consumption per bit for D= 1000 m, as a function of the number of sensors
is shown below.
Equally spaced
Optimum spaced
0.12
Energy (m J)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
5
10
15
20
Sensor Array Size (n )
25
30
Energy Consumption - Multihop Networks
The energy per bit consumed at node i for the linear arrays discussed can be
computed using the following equation. It is assumed that each node relays packets
from the upstream nodes towards the sink node via the closest downstream neighbor.
For simplicity’s sake only one transmission is used, e.g. no ARQ type mechanism

E linear ( i )  [( n  1  i )( e TC  e TA d i )  ( n  i ) e RC ]
Energy consumption at each node (n=20, D=1000 m)
Equally Spaced
Optimum Spaced
8.0
Total Energy=72.5 u J
Energy (u J)
6.0
4.0
2.0
Total Energy = 47.8 u J
0.0
0
5
10
15
Distance (hops) from the sink
20
Data Link Layer
Responsible for the multiplexing of the data
stream, data frame detection, medium access and
error control. Ensures reliable point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint connections in a
communication network
Application
Transport
Network
Data Link
Physical
Medium Access Control (MAC)
Lets multiple radios share the same
communication media
MAC protocols for sensor networks must
have built-in power conservation mechanisms
and strategies for the proper management of
node mobility or failure
Code
Time
Wireless MAC Protocols
Wireless MAC protocols
Distributed
MAC protocols
Random
access
Centralized
MAC protocols
Random
access
Guaranteed
access
Hybrid
access
Since it is desirable to turn off the radio as much as possible
in order to conserve energy some type of TDMA mechanism
is often suggested for WSN applications
Power Saving Mechanisms
 The amount of time and power needed to wake-up (start-up) a radio is not
negligible and thus just turning off the radio whenever it is not being used
is not necessarily efficient
 The values shown in the figure below clearly indicate that when the startup energy consumption is taken into account the energy per bit
requirements can be significantly higher for the transmission of short
packets than for longer ones
TR 1000 (115kbps)
60
Ebit ( pJ )
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
100
1000
Packet Size (bits)
10000
Error Control
Error control is an important issue in any radio link
 Forward Error Correction (FEC)
 Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ)
With FEC one pays an a priori battery power consumption
overhead and packet delay by computing the FEC code and
transmitting the extra code bits.
With ARQ one gambles that the packet will get through and if
it does not one has to pay battery energy and delay due to the
retransmission process.
Whether FEC or ARQ or a hybrid error control system is
energy efficient will depend on the channel conditions and the
network requirements such as throughput and delay.
Error Control – Multihop WSN
FEC
For link i assume that the probability of bit error is pi. Assume a packet
length of m bits. Then call plink(i) the probability of receiving a packet
with uncorrectable errors.
Conventional use of FEC is that a packet is accepted and delivered to
the next stage which in this case is to forward it to the next node
downstream. The probability of the packet arriving at the sink node
with no errors is then:
n
Pc 
 1 
i 1
p link ( i ) 
Error Control – Multihop WSN
Assume the case where all the di’s are the same, i.e. di = D/n. Since
variable transmission power mode is also being assumed the probability
of bit error for each link is fixed and Pc is
Pc  (1  p link )
n
The value of plink will depend on the received signal-to-noise ratio as well
as on the modulation method used. For a noncoherent (envelope or
square-law) detector with binary orthogonal FSK signals in a Rayleigh
slow fading channel the probability of bit error is
p FSK 
Where
 b is
1
2b
the average signal-to-noise ratio.
Error Control – Multihop WSN
Consider a linear code (m, k, d ) is being used. For FSK-modulation
with non-coherent detection and assuming ideal interleaving the
probability of a code word being in error is bounded by
M

PM 
i2
 2 wi  1


 w

i


2   
d m in
b
where wi is the weight of the ith code word and M=2k
Error Control – Multihop WSN
A simpler bound for PM is:
PM  ( M  1)[ 4 p FSK (1  p FSK )]
d min
For the multihop scenario being discussed here plink = PM and the
probability of packet error can be written as:
Pe  1  Pc  1  (1  p link )
n
 1  (1  PM )
k
 1  {1  ( 2  1)[ 4 p FSK (1  p FSK )]
n
d min
}
n
The probability of successful transmission of a single code
word is
Psuccess  (1  Pe )
Error Control – Multihop WSN
Radio parameters used to obtain the results shown in the next slides
Parameter
Value
NFRx
10dB
N0
-173.8 dBm/Hz or 4.17 * 10-21 J
Rbit
115.2 Kbits

0.3 m
Gant
-10dB or 0.1
amp
0.2

3
BW
For FSK-modulation, it is assumed to be the same as Rbit
eRC
50nJ/bit
eTC
50nJ/bit
Error Control – Multihop WSN
The expected energy consumption per information bit is defined as:
E linear
i  bit
E linear 
k Psuccess
Parameters for the studied codes are shown in the table below, t is the
error correction capability.
Code
m
k
dmin
Code rate
t
Hamming
7
4
3
0.57
1
Golay
23
12
7
0.52
3
Shortened
Hamming
6
3
3
0.5
1
Extended
Golay
24
12
8
0.5
3
Error Control – Multihop WSN
Error Control – Multihop WSN
D = 1000 m
Error Control – Multihop WSN
D = 1000 m
Error Control – Multihop WSN
D = 1000 m
Cooperative Communications in
Wireless Sensor Networks
 Diversity techniques have been proposed and developed to minimize the
errors in reception when the channel attenuation is large
 In frequency diversity the same information is transmitted on L carriers,
where the separation between successive carriers equals or exceeds the
coherence bandwidth of the channel
 In time diversity the same information is transmitted in L different time
slots, where the separation between successive time slots equals or
exceeds the coherence time of the channel
 In space, or multi-antenna diversity the antennas are sufficiently far apart
that the multipath components of the signal have different propagation
delays so they fade independently
 Unlike conventional space diversity techniques that rely on antenna
arrays at the transmitter or receiver terminal the cooperative
communications discussed here assume that each node has its own
information to transmit and has one antenna. The terminals cooperate,
i.e. share their antennas and other resources, to create a “virtual array”
Cooperative Communications
 T1 and T2 transmit to terminals T3 and T4
 T1 and T2 can listen to each other’s transmission and jointly
communicate their information
 For sensor networks the objective is to attain an improved
performance, e.g. decreased BER and/or decreased energy
consumption
 In cooperative mode each user transmits its own bits as well
as some information bits from its partners
T1
T3
T2
T4
Coded Cooperation(†)
Works by sending different portions of each user’s code word via independent
fading paths. Each terminal tries to transmit incremental redundancy for its
partner. If that is not possible the terminal transmits incremental redundancy
for itself. It is important that this mechanism works through code design and
not through actual communication between the cooperating terminals.
Diversity provided
by the coded bits
T1
T3
Percent of cooperatio n
N2
T2
N1  N 2
(†) M. Janani, A. Hedayat, T. E. Hunter, and A. Nosratinia, “Coded Cooperation in Wireless Communications: Space-Time
Transmission and Iterative Decoding,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 52, pp. 362-371, February 2004.
Coded Cooperation
 In this proposed method K bits of source bits (including CRC) are encoded with an
FEC code with an overall code rate R = K / N
 The users divide their transmissions into two time segments. In the first segment
each user transmits N1 bits (rate R1 = K / N1)
 Each user also receives and decodes the partner’s transmission. If this reception is
successful the user computes and transmits N2 additional parity bits for the
partner’s data, N1 + N2 = N. These additional parity bits are such that they can be
combined with the first frame code word to produce a more powerful R code word
 If the user does not successfully decode the partner, N2 additional parity bits for the
user’s own data are transmitted
N1 bits
User 1
User 1 bits
N2 bits
User 2 bits
Rx User 2 bits
N1 bits
User 2
Rx User 1 bits
Idle or sleep
User 2 bits
Idle or sleep
User 1 bits
User 2 bits
Rx User 1 bits
Idle or sleep
N2 bits
User 1 bits
time
U1 time slot
U2 time slot
U1 time slot
MAC Protocols for WSNs
 WSN protocols have to allow for a closer
collaboration or awareness among the layers of
the protocol stack, in particular the first three
layers
 MAC protocols should have the radio transceivers
in a sleeping mode as much as possible in order to
save energy
Application
Transport
Network
Data Link
Physical
 WSN routing algorithms designed with the concepts of data
centric and data aggregation create special requirements on
the underlying MAC protocols
 These observations can be extended to the design of other
layers as well since WSNs call for new networking
paradigms
Example of a MAC Protocol for WSN
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)(†) – Is an energy-aware protocol that
illustrates design considerations that MAC protocols for WSNs
Data Link
should address. Assumptions made in the design of S-MAC are:
 Most communications will be between neighboring sensor nodes rather
than between a node and a base station
 There are many nodes that are deployed in a casual, e.g. not precise,
manner and as such the nodes must be able to self-configure
 The sensor nodes are dedicated to a particular application and thus pernode fairness (channel access) is not as important as the application level
performance
 Since the network is dedicated to a particular application the application
data processing can be distributed through the network. This implies that
data will be processed as whole messages at a time in store-and-forward
fashion allowing for the application of data aggregation techniques which
can reduce the traffic
 The application can tolerate latency and has long idle periods
(†) W. Ye, J. Heidemann and D. Estrin, “An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks,” In Proceedings of
the 21st International Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2002),
New York, NY, USA, June, 2002, pp. 1-10.
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
The main features of S-MAC are:
 Periodic listen and sleep
 Collision and overhearing avoidance
 Message passing
The basic scheme for each node is:
 Each node goes into periodic sleep mode during which it switches the radio
off and sets a timer to awake later
 When the timer expires it wakes up and listens to see if any other node wants
to talk to it
 The duration of the sleep and awake cycles are application dependent and they
are set the same for all nodes
 Requires a periodic synchronization among nodes to take care of any type of
clock drift
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
 Unlike conventional TDMA schemes S-MAC tolerates a much looser
synchronization among neighboring nodes
 Requires a periodic synchronization among nodes to take care of any
type of clock drift
 Nodes are free to choose their own listen/sleep schedules but to reduce
control overhead the protocol prefers that neighboring nodes are
synchronized
 Because of the multihop scenario not all neighbors can be
synchronized, e.g.
Nodes A and B are neighbors but they are synchronized to their
“other” neighbors, C and D respectively. Nodes broadcast their
schedules from time to time to ensure that neighboring nodes can talk
to each other even if they have different schedules
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Choosing and Maintaining Schedules
 Each node maintains a schedule table that stores schedules of all its
known neighbors
 To establish the initial schedule the following steps are followed:
 A node first listens for a certain amount of time
 If it does not hear a schedule from another node, it randomly
chooses a schedule and broadcasts its schedule immediately
 This node is called a Synchronizer
 If a node receives a schedule from a neighbor before choosing its
own schedule, it just follows this neighbor’s schedule, i.e. becomes
a Follower and it waits for a random delay and broadcasts its
schedule
 If a node receives a neighbor’s schedule after it selects its own
schedule, it adopts both schedules and broadcasts its own schedule
before going to sleep
 It is expected that very rarely a node adopts multiple schedules since
every node tries to follow existing schedules before choosing an
independent one
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Maintaining Synchronization
 Timer synchronization among neighbors is needed to prevent clock drift.
The updating period can be relatively long (tens of seconds)
 Done by periodically sending a SYNC packet that only includes the
address of the sender and the time of its next sleeping period
 Time of next sleep is relative to the moment that the sender finishes
transmitting the SYNC packet
 A node will go to sleep when the timer fires
 Receivers will adjust their timer counters immediately after they receive
the SYNC packet
 A node periodically broadcasts a SYNC packet to its neighbors even if it
has no followers
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Maintaining Synchronization (cont.)
 Listen interval is divided into two parts: one for receiving SYNC
packets and the other for receiving RTS (Request To Send)
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Collision and Overhearing Avoidance
 Similar to IEEE 802.11, i.e. uses RTS/CTS mechanism to address the
hidden terminal problem
 Performs carrier sense before initiating a transmission
 If a node fails to get the medium, it goes to sleep and wakes up when the
receiver is free and listening again
 Duration field in each transmitted packet indicates how long the
remaining transmission will be, so if a node receives a packet destined
for another node, it knows how long it has to keep silent
 The node records this value in the network allocation vector (NAV) and
sets a timer for it
 When a node has data to send, it first looks at NAV. If this value is not
zero, then the medium is busy (virtual carrier sense)
 The medium is determined as free if both the virtual and physical carrier
sense indicate the medium is free
 All immediate neighbors of both the sender and receiver should sleep
after they hear the RTS or CTS packet until the current transmission is
over
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Message Passing
 A message is a collection of meaningful, interrelated units of data
 Transmitting a long message as a packet is disadvantageous as the retransmission cost is high if the packet is corrupted
 Fragmentation into small packets will lead to high control overhead as
each packet should contend using RTS/CTS
 S-MAC fragments message into small packets and transmits them as a
burst
 Only one RTS packet and one CTS packets are used
 Every time a data fragment is transmitted the sender waits for an ACK
from the receiver. If it does not arrive the fragment is retransmitted and
the reservation is extended for the duration of the fragment
 Advantages:
 Reduces latency of the message
 Reduces control overhead
 Disadvantage:
 Node-to-node fairness is reduced, as nodes with small packets to
send will have to wait until the message burst is transmitted
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Implementation
 Testbed
 Rene motes, developed at UCB
 Atmel AT90LS8535 microcontroller with TinyOS
 Uses the TR 1000 from RFM which provides a transmission rate of 19.2
Kbps (OOK). Three working modes: receiving (4.5mA), transmitting
(12mA, peak), and sleeping (5μA)
 Two type of packets. Fixed size data packets with a 6-byte header, a 30byte payload, and a 2-byte CRC. Control packets (RTS, CTS, ACK) with
a 6-byte header and a 2-byte CRC
 MAC protocols implemented
 Simplified IEEE 802.11 DCF
 Message passing with overhearing avoidance (no sleep and listen
periods). The radio goes to sleep when its neighbors are in transmission
 The complete S-MAC. Listen period is 300 ms and sleep time can take
different values, e.g. 300 ms, 500 ms, 1 s, etc.
The duration of the carrier sensing is random within the contention window.
The microcontroller does not go to sleep.
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Topology
 Two-hop network with two sources and two sinks
 Sources periodically generate a sensing message which is divided
into fragments
 Traffic load is changed by varying the inter-arrival period of the
messages
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC)
Conclusion
 The S-MAC protocol has good energy conserving properties when
compared with the IEEE 802.11 standard
Comments
 Need of a mathematical analysis
 Need to study the effect of different topologies
 Fragmenting long packets into smaller ones is not energy efficient. The argument
about more chances of the packet being corrupted is not correct unless other
options such as the use of error control coding have also been explored
 Several features behind the S-MAC protocol are still “captured” in the traditional
way to do business at the Link Layer level, e.g. use of RTS/CTS/ACK, etc.
 The protocol does not address the fact that in most sensor net applications
neighboring nodes are activated almost at the same time by the event to be
sensed and as such they will attempt to communicate at approximately the same
time. There is also a high degree of correlation between the data they want to
communicate
Network Layer
Basic issues :
 Power efficiency
 Data centric – The nature of the data determines
the traffic flow
 Data aggregation – To manage the potential
implosion of traffic because of the data centric
routing
 Rather than conventional node addresses, use
attribute-based addressing, e.g. “region where
humidity is below 5%”
 Locationing systems, i.e. ability of the nodes to
establish position information
 Internetworking with external networks via
gateway or proxy nodes
Application
Transport
Network
Data Link
Physical
Data Aggregation
Data coming from multiple
sensor nodes are aggregated
when they reach a common
routing or relaying node on their
way to the sink, if they have
about the same attributes of the
phenomenon being sensed
In this view the routing
mechanism in a sensor network
can be considered as a form of
reverse multicast tree
Phenomenon being sensed
Data Centrality
In data-centric routing, an “interest ” dissemination is performed in
order to assign the sensing tasks to the sensor nodes. This
dissemination can take different forms such as:
 The sink or controlling nodes broadcast the nature of the
interest, e.g. “four legged animals of at least 50 Kg in weight”
Four-legged animal of
at least 50 Kg
Sink
Flow of the request
Data Centrality
 Sensor nodes broadcast an advertisement of available sensed data
and wait for a request from the interested sinks
Flow of the advertisement
Sink
Routing
Phenomenon
being sensed
Data aggregation
takes place here
Sink
Multihop routing is common due to limited transmission range
Some routing issues in WSNs





Low node mobility
Power aware
Irregular topology
MAC aware
Limited buffer space
Routing
Problem – How to efficiently route:
 Data from the sensors to the sink and,
 Queries and control packets from the sink to the sensor nodes
Routing
In addition to the concepts of data aggregation and data
centrality, it is important to identify the nature of the WSN
traffic, which will depend on the application.
Assuming a uniform density of nodes, the number of
transmissions can be used as a metric for energy
consumption.
Since receiving a packet consumes almost as much energy
as transmitting a packet it is also important that the MAC
protocol limits the number of listening neighbors in order
to conserve energy.
Routing
If N is the number of nodes, Q the number of queries, and E the
number of events, and some type of flooding mechanism is
being used then:
 If the number of events is much higher than the number of queries
it is better to use some type of query flooding since the number of
transmissions is proportional to N*Q which is much less than N*E
 If the number of events is low compared with the number of
queries it is better to use some type of event flooding since now
N*E is much less than N*Q
 In both cases it is assumed that the “return path” (for the events or
the queries) is built during the flooding process
 Other underlying routing mechanisms are recommended if the
number of events and queries are of the same order
Proposed Routing Techniques
SPIN – Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation(†)
Attempts to correct the major deficiencies of classical
flooding, in particular the indiscriminate flow of packets with
the related energy waste
 SPIN messages
 ADV- advertise data
 REQ- request specific data
 DATA- requested data
ADV
A
B
REQ
A
 Resource management
 Nodes decide their capability of
participation in data transmissions
B
DATA
A
B
(†) W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, “Adaptive Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wireless
Sensor Networks,” Proc. 5th ACM/IEEE Mobicom Conference (MobiCom '99), Seattle, WA, August, 1999.
SPIN
A mechanism developed for the case where the number of queries is higher
than the number of events.
 Use information descriptors or meta-data for negotiation prior to
transmission of the data
 Each node has its own energy resource manager which is used to adjust
its transmission activity
 The family of SPIN protocols are:
 SPIN-PP – For point-to-point communication
 SPIN-EC – Similar to SPIN-PP but with energy conservation
heuristics added to it
 SPIN-BC – Designed for broadcast networks. Nodes set random
timers after receiving ADV and before sending REQ to wait for
someone else to send the REQ
 SPIN-RL – Similar to SPIN-BC but with added reliability. Each node
keeps track of whether it receives requested data within the time limit,
if not, data is re-requested
SPIN-BC
It
Sensor
sends
broadcasts
meta-data
data
toitself
neighbors
A
Neighbor
node
senses
sends
something
a REQ
listing
“interesting”
of the
data
The
Neighbors
process
aggregate
repeats
data
across
andall
broadcast
the
network
it would likemeta-data
to acquire
(advertise)
ADV
REQ
DATA
SPIN-BC
Advertise meta-data
Advertise
Send data
Send data
I am tired
Send
I need to
sleep …
data
Advertise
meta-data
Advertise
Send
data
Request
Nodes dodata
need
to
Requestnot
data
participate in the
process
Request data
SPIN
 Pros
 Energy – More efficient than flooding
 Latency – Converges quickly
 Scalability – Local interactions only
 Robust – Immune to node failures
 Cons
 Nodes always participating
 It does not propose the type of MAC layer needed to
support an efficient implementation of this protocol. The
simulation analysis uses a modified 802.11 MAC
protocol
Directed Diffusion(†)
A mechanism developed for the case where it is expected that the number of
events is higher than the number of queries
 Is data-centric in nature
 The sink propagates its queries or “interests” in the form of attributevalue pairs
 The interests are injected by the sink and disseminated throughout the
network. During this process, “gradients” are set at each sensor that
receives an interest pointing towards the sensor from which the interest
was received
 This process can create, at each node, multiple gradients towards the
sink. To avoid excessive traffic along multiple paths a “reinforcement”
mechanism is used at each node after receiving data, e.g. reinforce:
 Neighbor from whom new events are received
 Neighbor who is consistently performing better than others
 Neighbor from whom most events received
 There is also a mechanism of “negative reinforcement” to degrade the
importance of a particular path
(†) C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm
for Sensor Networks,” Proc. ACM Mobicom, Boston, MA, August 2000, pp. 1-12.
Directed Diffusion
Gradient
represents
both
direction
towards
data
matching
Uses
application-aware
communication
primitives
This
Consumer
Nodes
The
process
choice
diffuse
of sets
of
data
path
the
up
initiates
interest
gradients
is made
interest
towards
locally
in the
inproducers
at
network
data
every
with
node
tovia
certain
draw
afor
Every
route
has a probability
ofcost
being
chosen
Probability
 1/energy
Collect
energy
metrics
along
the way
and status
of demand
with
desired
expressed
terms
of
namedupdate
data rate
sequence
events
matching
every
ofin
attributes
local
packet
the
interactions
interest
Four-legged
animal
Source
Sink
Directed Diffusion
Reinforcement
andtolerance
negative to
reinforcement
used
Has built-in
nodes moving
to converge
to range
efficient
out of
ordistribution
dying
Source
Sink
Directed Diffusion
 Pros
 Energy – Much less traffic than flooding. For a network of
size N the total cost of transmissions and receptions is O ( n
whereas for flooding the order is O (nN )
 Latency – Transmits data along the best path
 Scalability – Local interactions only
 Robust – Retransmissions of interests
N)
 Cons
 The set up phase of the gradients is expensive
 It does not propose the type of MAC layer needed to support
an efficient implementation of this protocol. The simulation
analysis uses a modified 802.11 MAC protocol
Other Proposed Routing Techniques
Data Funneling(†) – Attempts to minimize the amount of communication from the
sensors to the information consumer node (sink). It facilitates data aggregation
and tries to concentrate the packet flow into a single stream from the group of
sensors to the sink.
Setup phase:
 Controller divides the sensing area into
regions
 Controller performs a directional flood
towards each region
 When the packet reaches the region the
first receiving node becomes a border
node and modifies the packet (adds
fields) for route cost estimations within
the region
 The border node flood the region with
modified packet
 Sensor nodes in the region use cost
information to schedule which border
nodes to use
(†) D. Petrovic, R. C. Shah, K. Ramchandran, and J. Rabaey, “Data Funneling: Routing with Aggregation and Compression
for Wireless Sensor Networks,” SNPA 2003, pp. 1-7.
Data Funneling
Data Communication Phase:
 When a sensor has data it uses the
schedule to choose the border
node that is to be used
 It then waits for time inversely
proportional to the number of
hops from the border
 Along the way to the border node,
the data packets join together until
they reach the border node
 The border node collects all
packets and then sends one packet
with all the data back to the
controller
Routing - Summary
 In recent years a very large number of routing algorithms
for WSNs have been proposed and analyzed
 Most of the analysis has been carried out using simulation
experiments
 The majority of the proposed routing algorithms are not
supported by a proper MAC protocol
 MAC protocols should also be more in tune with important
features of the WSN paradigm, e.g. asymmetric flow, no
need to have to use individual node addresses or links,
have the radio in sleep mode as much as possible, etc.
 An aspect that still needs more research is the impact of
error control coding on the consumption of energy
Transport Layer
TCP variants developed for traditional wireless networks
are not suitable for WSNs where the notion of end-to-end
reliability has to be reinterpreted in lieu of:
Application
 Multiple senders, the sensors, and one destination (the
sink), which creates a reverse multicast type of data flow
Data Link
Transport
Network
Physical
 For the same event there is a high level of redundancy or correlation
in the data collected by the sensors and thus there is no need for endto-end reliability between individual sensors and the sink, but instead
between the event and the sink
 On the other hand there is need of end-to-end reliability between the
sink and individual nodes for situations such as retasking or
reprogramming
 The protocols developed should be energy aware and simple enough
to be implemented for the low-end type of hardware and software of
many WSN applications
Proposed Transport Layer Techniques
Pump Slowly, Fetch Quickly (PSFQ)(†) – Designed to distribute data from a
source node by pacing the injection of packets into the network at relatively
low speed (pump slowly) which allows nodes that experience data loss to
aggressively recover missing data from their neighbors (fetch quickly).
Goals of this protocol are:
 Ensure that all data segments are delivered to the intended destinations
with minimum special requirements on the nature of the lower layers
 Minimize number of transmissions to recover lost information
 Operate correctly even in situations where the quality of the wireless
links are very poor
 Provide loose delay bounds for data delivery to all intended receivers
PFSQ has been designed to guarantee sensor-to-sensor delivery and to
provide end-to-end reliability for control management distribution from the
control node (sink) to the sensors. It does not address congestion control
(†) C-Y Wan, A. T. Campbell, and L. Krishnamurthy, “PSFQ: A Reliable Transport Protocol For Wireless Sensor Networks,”
First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA 2002), Atlanta, GA,
September 28, 2002, pp. 1-11.
PSFQ
A transport protocol for WSNs that attempts to pace the data from a source
node at a relatively low speed to allow intermediate nodes to fetch missing
data segments from their neighbors, e.g. hop-by-hop recovery instead of
traditional transport layer end-to-end recovery mechanisms
PSFQ
Three basic operations: pump, fetch, and report
Pump
 Node broadcasts a packet to its neighbors every Tmin until all the data
fragments have been sent out
 Neighbors who receive the packet check against their local cache
discarding any duplicates
 If it is just a new message the packet is buffered and the Time-To-Live
(TTL) field in the header is decreased by 1
 If TTL is not zero and there is no gap in the sequence number the packet
then is scheduled for transmission within a random time Ttx, where
Tmin  Ttx  Tmax
 The random delay before forwarding the message allows a downstream
node to recover missing segments before the next segment arrives from an
upstream node
 It also allows reducing the number of redundant broadcasts of the same
packet by neighbors
PFSQ
Fetch
A node goes into fetch mode when a sequence number gap is detected
 In fetch mode a node aggressively sends out NACK messages to its
immediate neighbors to request missing segments
 Since it is very likely that consecutive packets are lost because of fading
conditions, a “window” is used to specify the range of missing packets
 A node that receives a NACK message checks the loss window field
against its cache. If found the packet is scheduled for transmission at a
random time in (0, Tr)
 Neighbors cancel a retransmission when a reply for the same segment is
overheard
 NACK messages are not propagated to avoid message implosion
 There is also a “proactive fetch” mode to take care of situations such as
when the last segment of a message is lost. In this case the node sends a
NACK for the remaining segments when they have not been received after
a time period Tpro
PFSQ
Report
 Used to provide feedback data of delivery status to source nodes
 To minimize the number of messages, the protocol is designed so that a
report message travels back from a target node to the source nodes.
Intermediate nodes can also piggyback their report messages in an
aggregated manner
Simulation and experimental evaluation
 When compared to a previously proposed similar protocol (Scalable
Reliable Multicast) the simulation results show that the PFSQ protocol
has a better performance in terms of error tolerance, communications
overhead, and delivery latency
 The experimental results were obtained by using the TinyOS platform
on RENE motes. The performance results were much poorer than the
simulation results. The discrepancy is attributed to the simulation
experiment being unable to accurately model the wireless channel and
the computational demands on the sensor node processor
Proposed Transport Layer Techniques
Event-to-Sink Reliable Transport (ESRT) (†) – Designed to achieve reliable
event detection (at the sink node) with a protocol that is energy aware and has
congestion control mechanisms. Salient features are:
 Self-configuration – even in the case of a dynamic topology
 Energy awareness – sensor nodes are notified to decrease their frequency of
reporting if the reliability level at the sink node is above the minimum
 Congestion control – takes advantage of the high level of correlation between the
data flows corresponding to the same event
 Collective identification – sink only interested in the collective information from a
group of sensors, not in their individual reports
(†) Y. Sankarasubramaniam, O. B. Akan, and I. F. Akyildiz, “ESRT: Event-to-Sink Reliable Transport in Wireless Sensor
Networks” Proceedings of ACM MobiHoc`03, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, June 2003, pp. 177-188.
ESRT
 In a typical sensor network application the sink node is only interested in
the collective information of the sensor nodes within the region of an event
and not in any individual sensor data
 Traditional end-to-end reliability requirements do not then apply here
 What is needed is a measure of the accuracy of the information received at
the sink, i.e. and event-to-sink reliability
ESRT
 The basic assumption is that the sink does all the reliability evaluation using
parameters that are application dependent
 One such parameter is the decision time interval τ
 At the end of the decision interval the sink derives a reliability indicator ri
based on the reports received from the sensor nodes
 ri is the number of packets received in the decision interval
 If R is the number of packets required for reliable event detection then
ri > R is needed for reliable event detection
 There is no need to identify individual sensor nodes but instead there is the
need to have an event ID
 The reporting rate, f, of a sensor node is the number of packets sent out per unit
time by that node
 The ESRT protocol aims to dynamically adjust the reporting rate to achieve the
required detection reliability R at the sink
ESRT
r versus f based on simulation results
n = number of source nodes
for f > fmax the reliability
drops because of network
congestion
ESRT – Protocol Overview
 The algorithms mainly run on the sink
 Sensor nodes:
 Listen to sink broadcasts and update their reporting rates accordingly
 Have a simple congestion detection mechanism and report to the sink
 The sink:
 Computes a normalized reliability measure ηi = ri /R
 Updates f based on ηi and if f > fmax or < fmax in order to achieve the
desired reliability
 Performs congestion decisions based on feedback reports from the
source nodes
 Congestion detection:
 Uses local buffer level monitoring in sensor nodes
 When a routing buffer overflows the node informs the sink by setting
the congestion notification bit in the header packets traveling
downstream
ESRT – Network States
Optimal Operating Region
(Congestion, High reliability)
(No congestion, High reliability)
(Congestion, Low reliability)
(No congestion, Low reliability)
ESRT – Frequency Update
State
(NC, LR)
f update
f i 1 
(NC, HR)
f i 1
(C, HR)
fi
fi
i
(C, LR)
f i 1  f i
OOR
Multiplicatively increase f to achieve
required reliability as soon as possible
i
fi 
1
1 

2 
i
f i 1 
Action
( i k )
f i 1  f i




Decrease f conservatively, reduce energy
consumption and not lose reliability
Aggressively decrease f to relieve
congestion as soon as possible
Exponential decrease. k is the number of
successive decision intervals spent in state
(C, LR)
Unchanged
ESRT – Summary and Conclusions
 Uses a new paradigm for transport layer reliability
 Sensor networks are more interested in event-to-sink
reliability than on individual end-to-end reliability
 The congestion control mechanism results in energy savings
 Analytical performance evaluation and simulation results
show that the system converges to the state OOR regardless
of the initial state
 This self-configuration property of the protocol is very
valuable for random and dynamic topologies
 Issues still to be addressed are:
 Extension to handle concurrent multiple events
 Development of a bi-directional reliable protocol that
includes the sink-to-sensor transport
Application Layer
There has not been as much development for this layer
Application
as for the other layers. A promising area is the use of
Transport
distributed source coding
 In WSNs an event will usually cause several sensors Network
Data Link
to generate highly correlated measurements
 It is of interest to
explore how this
correlation can be
exploited to
compress the
information being
sent to the
controller or sink
node
Physical
Distributed Source Coding
Example
 Assume that the measurements X and Y are correlated
 Y is available at the decoder on the sink node but not at the node where X
is encoded
 How can X be encoded in a compressed manner knowing that Y is
available at the decoder?
X  Y  N
N is a random variable
that represents the
correlation between X
and Y. If N is Gaussian,
one can get the same
performance by knowing
only the statistics of N at
the encoder as when Y is
known at the encoder
Distributed Source Coding
 Consider an 8-level scalar quantizer and the correlated variables X and Y
 Partition the set of 8 quantization levels into 2 cosets (even and odd levels)
 If Y is available at the decoder only the index of the coset containing X, the
red coset, is needed to be transmitted (1 bit)
 Knowing Y, the decoder finds the closest quantization level in the red coset
and estimates that X takes on the value r4
Coding of Correlated Information
X
Y
X
Y
Encoder 1
Xˆ , Yˆ
Joint Decoder
Encoder 2
The encoders collaborate and a rate of H(X,Y) is sufficient
Encoder 1
Xˆ , Yˆ
Joint Decoder
Encoder 2
The encoders do not collaborate. The Slepian-Wolf
theorem says that a rate H(X,Y) is also sufficient
provided decoding of X and Y is done jointly. It puts
more burden on the decoding side
(†) D. Slepian and J. Wolf, “Noiseless Coding of Correlated Information Sources,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol.
19, pp. 471-480, July 1973.
Some Final Words
 New Paradigm – WSNs do not have many of the features of the
conventional networks for which the OSI protocol layer stack model
has proven to be successful. Therefore it is quite possible that a
different mix of layers might prove to be more efficient for many
WSN applications
 Avoid Conflicting Behavior – For example a routing protocol that
favors smaller hops to save transmission energy consumption does
require a proper MAC protocol to coordinate the transmissions along
the data flow to minimize contention and keep the transceivers off as
much as possible
 Remove Unnecessary Layers – Some applications do not require all
layers
WSNs provide a rich source of problems in communication
protocols, sensor tasking and control, sensor fusion, distributed
data bases, and algorithmic design