Low Duty Cycle Protocols and Wakeup Concepts - S-MAC (13 Marks)

Low duty cycle protocols are crucial in wireless sensor networks to conserve energy and minimize idle
listening. The goal is to maximize the time nodes spend in sleep mode and only activate them when
necessary, such as for transmitting or receiving packets. These protocols often employ wakeup schemes to
coordinate communication efficiently.

1. Periodic Wakeup Scheme

Low duty cycle protocols rely on periodic wakeup schemes to manage the active and sleep states of sensor
nodes. Nodes typically wake up at regular intervals (called wakeup periods) to check if they need to transmit
or receive data. In most cases, nodes spend most of their time in sleep mode and only become active during
designated listen periods. This periodic wakeup reduces energy consumption while supporting network
communication.

 Wakeup Period: A wakeup period consists of a listen period (when the node is active) and a sleep
period.
 Duty Cycle: The ratio of the listen period to the total wakeup period determines the node's duty
cycle. A smaller duty cycle results in more time spent in the sleep mode, conserving energy.

2. Observations on Low Duty Cycle Protocols

 Energy Efficiency: A small duty cycle conserves energy by reducing idle listening.
 Traffic Concentration: A smaller duty cycle focuses traffic during the short listen periods,
potentially leading to increased competition during high-load situations.
 Latency: Long sleep periods introduce latency, as a node may have to wait for the next listen period
to receive packets.
 Startup Costs: Extremely short sleep periods could lead to frequent startups, reducing the overall
energy savings.
S-MAC Protocol

The S-MAC (Sensor-MAC) protocol is designed to mitigate idle listening, collisions, and overhearing in
wireless sensor networks. It uses a periodic wakeup scheme and aims to synchronize the schedules of
neighboring nodes.

 Schedule Coordination: Nodes in S-MAC alternate between sleep and listen periods, where listen
periods are used for both transmission and reception. Neighboring nodes try to synchronize their
schedules to reduce energy wastage and simplify communication.
 Virtual Clustering: Nodes form virtual clusters by synchronizing schedules with their neighbors.
This clustering helps minimize the number of messages exchanged during listen periods.

Phases of S-MAC Listen Period

S-MAC divides the listen period into three phases:

 SYNCH Phase: Nodes exchange synchronization packets to share their schedules with neighbors. A
CSMA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access) scheme with backoff is used to manage contention.
 RTS Phase: Nodes listen for RTS (Request to Send) packets, used to coordinate communication and
avoid collisions.
 CTS Phase: Upon receiving an RTS packet, the node sends a CTS (Clear to Send) packet to confirm
the start of data transmission.

Message Passing and Fragmentation

S-MAC supports a message-passing approach, which is beneficial for in-network data aggregation. Large
messages are divided into fragments, and each fragment is acknowledged individually. The protocol
suppresses other transmissions during this process, which helps reduce latency but may limit fairness in
channel access.

 Fragmentation: A single RTS/CTS exchange covers the entire series of fragments, with
acknowledgments sent after each fragment.
 NAV Setting: Neighboring nodes set their NAV (Network Allocation Vector) according to the
duration field of the transmitted packets, reserving the medium for the full transmission.

Adaptive Listening

To reduce latency, S-MAC introduces an adaptive listening mechanism. If a node hears an RTS or CTS
packet, it schedules an extra listen period after the current transmission ends. This allows the node to receive
subsequent packets more quickly.
Drawbacks of S-MAC

While S-MAC is effective in reducing idle listening and conserving energy, it has some limitations:

 Fixed Wakeup Period: The length of the wakeup period is fixed, making it hard to adapt to varying
traffic loads.
 Latency: The periodic wakeup scheme can introduce significant latency, especially in multi-hop
scenarios.

ZigBee MAC Protocol

The ZigBee MAC protocol is designed for wireless communication in low-power, low-data-rate
applications. It employs two primary access methods for shared mediums: Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA). The MAC layer
organizes data into a structure known as a superframe, which consists of both active and inactive periods.

1. Superframe Structure

 Active Portion: Contains two main parts:

o Contention Access Period (CAP): During this period, devices communicate using the
slotted CSMA/CA mechanism, competing for access to the channel. This ensures that devices
can transmit data but may encounter collisions if multiple devices attempt to communicate
simultaneously.
o Contention Free Period (CFP): This part includes Guaranteed Time Slots (GTSs)
allocated by the network coordinator. The GTS allows devices to transmit data in a TDMA
manner, where a device is assigned specific time slots for transmission, ensuring no
competition during these slots.
 Inactive Portion: In this phase, the network coordinator can enter a low-power mode, conserving
energy while not interacting with its Personal Area Network (PAN).

2. Energy Efficiency

ZigBee's GTS management significantly reduces energy consumption compared to continuous listening
methods used during the CAP. When a device is granted a GTS, it transmits data only during its assigned
time slot and can enter sleep mode during other periods. This approach leads to considerable energy savings,
making ZigBee suitable for applications where battery life is crucial.
3. Performance Analysis

 Throughput and Energy Efficiency: Simulation results indicate that ZigBee MAC with GTS
management excels in scenarios prioritizing energy efficiency and throughput. The protocol is
particularly advantageous for Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs), where low power
consumption is critical.
 Comparison with T-MAC: Although T-MAC outperforms ZigBee with GTS at low data rates in
terms of energy consumption, it sacrifices throughput. At higher data rates, ZigBee experiences
issues with latency and synchronization, but various solutions have been proposed to mitigate these
problems.

4. Conclusion

Overall, the ZigBee MAC protocol, with its effective use of CSMA/CA and TDMA through GTS
management, offers a balanced approach to energy efficiency and data throughput, making it a preferred
choice for low-power wireless communication in various applications.

Mediation Device Protocol

The Mediation Device Protocol is designed for wireless sensor networks (WSNs) and operates in
conjunction with the IEEE 802.15.4 low-rate Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) standard. This
protocol enables efficient communication while allowing nodes to conserve energy by periodically entering
sleep mode.

1. Key Features

 Peer-to-Peer Communication: Each node can independently manage its wake and sleep cycles
without needing a global time reference, allowing for flexible communication patterns.
  Periodic Wakeup: Nodes periodically wake up to send short query beacons indicating their address
and availability to receive packets. If no packets are received during this short active period, the
nodes return to sleep mode.

2. Synchronization Mechanism

 Dynamic Synchronization: To avoid the energy costs of waiting for query beacons, the protocol
utilizes a Mediation Device (MD) that remains active and listens for all nodes' query beacons. This
device facilitates synchronization without requiring constant wakefulness from the transmitting and
receiving nodes.
 Request to Send (RTS) and Clear to Send (CTS):
o When a node (Node A) wants to communicate with another (Node B), it sends RTS packets
to the MD instead of query beacons.
o The MD captures the RTS, waits for Node B's next query beacon, and sends a query response
back to Node B, indicating when to send the CTS back to Node A.
o This allows Node A to transmit its data packet once it receives the CTS and ensures efficient
synchronization.

3. Advantages

 No Time Synchronization Needed: The protocol eliminates the need for all nodes to synchronize
their wake schedules, which can simplify implementation and reduce energy costs.
 Energy Efficiency: Most of the energy burden is shifted to the MD, allowing other nodes to remain
in sleep mode most of the time. This results in low duty cycles for the sensor nodes.
 Collision Management: By using an MD to manage communication, the protocol reduces the
likelihood of nodes actively waiting for each other's beacons, lowering energy consumption further.

4. Challenges

 Beacon Collisions: Nodes may transmit query beacons simultaneously, leading to collisions. This
can be mitigated if nodes randomize their wakeup times, especially in lower-density networks.
 Dependence on Mediation Devices: The protocol assumes that there are sufficient MDs available to
cover all nodes, which may not always be feasible in practical deployments.
 Energy Constraints: The initial assumption that the MD is energy unconstrained may not hold true
in all scenarios, particularly in sensor networks where all devices are designed to be energy-efficient.

5. Distributed Mediation Device Protocol

To address the limitations of the centralized MD, a distributed approach allows nodes to temporarily act as
MDs, waking up randomly to assist their neighbors. This approach requires nodes to stay awake long
enough to manage synchronization and can reduce the dependency on fixed MDs.

 Temporary MD Role: Nodes that serve as temporary MDs can help with communication between
neighboring nodes by managing their wake schedules and time offsets, further enhancing the
network's flexibility.
 Randomized Serving: By randomizing the times when nodes serve as MDs, the probability of
collisions during query responses can be minimized.

Conclusion

The Mediation Device Protocol presents an efficient communication method for WSNs, balancing energy
consumption and effective data transmission. While it offers significant advantages in energy efficiency and
decentralized communication, challenges such as beacon collisions and reliance on active MDs must be
addressed for optimal performance.
Routing Protocols: Energy-Efficient Routing and Geographic Routing
Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are essential for efficient communication between
sensor nodes. Two prominent types of routing protocols are Energy-Efficient Routing and Geographic
Routing.

1. Energy-Efficient Routing

Energy-Efficient Routing focuses on minimizing energy consumption during data transmission in sensor
networks. Given that sensor nodes often operate on limited battery power, these protocols aim to extend the
network's lifetime and enhance overall performance. Key aspects include:

 Data Aggregation: This technique involves combining data from multiple sensor nodes before
transmission. By reducing the amount of data sent over the network, energy consumption is
minimized.
 Adaptive Routing: Routes are dynamically adjusted based on current energy levels and traffic
conditions, allowing for the selection of paths that minimize energy use.
 Cluster-Based Routing: Nodes are grouped into clusters, and a cluster head (CH) is designated to
communicate with the base station. This reduces the distance that individual nodes must transmit
data, saving energy.
 Examples of Energy-Efficient Protocols:
o LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy): This protocol forms clusters in the
network and allows for periodic rotation of cluster heads to balance energy consumption.
o TEEN (Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network Protocol): TEEN focuses
on time-sensitive data and energy-efficient communication by establishing thresholds for data
transmission.
2. Geographic Routing

Geographic Routing uses the geographical location of nodes to make routing decisions, which can lead to
efficient communication and energy savings. This approach relies on location information provided by GPS
or other localization techniques. Key features include:

 Location-Based Forwarding: Each node forwards data packets to the next node based on
geographic coordinates, usually sending data to the node closest to the destination.
 Scalability: Geographic routing scales well with increasing node density, as it does not rely on a
predefined network topology.
 Reduced Overhead: Since routing decisions are made based on location, there is less need for
complex routing tables, which reduces overhead and enhances efficiency.

 Examples of Geographic Routing Protocols:

o GPSR (Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing): This protocol uses greedy forwarding,
sending packets to the neighbor closest to the destination. If no neighbor is closer, it uses a
perimeter mode to route around obstacles.
o Gossiping Protocols: Nodes forward data to their neighbors, which can be based on
proximity or specific criteria, ensuring data eventually reaches the intended recipient.

3. Advantages and Disadvantages

 Energy-Efficient Routing:
o Advantages: Prolongs network lifetime, minimizes energy consumption, and adapts to
varying network conditions.
o Disadvantages: May introduce latency, especially with data aggregation, and can lead to
uneven energy depletion in clusters.
 Geographic Routing:
o Advantages: Scalable, low overhead, and reduced latency due to direct forwarding based on
location.
 o Disadvantages: Requires reliable location information, which may not be available in all
scenarios, and may suffer from voids where no neighbor is closer to the destination.

Conclusion

Both Energy-Efficient Routing and Geographic Routing play crucial roles in optimizing communication in
wireless sensor networks. While Energy-Efficient Routing focuses on minimizing energy consumption and
extending network lifetime, Geographic Routing leverages location information for efficient data
transmission. The choice between these protocols depends on specific network requirements and
deployment scenarios.

Address and Name Management in Wireless Sensor Networks

Addressing and naming are critical components of networking, enabling the identification and location of
nodes, data, and other resources within a network. In Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), the unique
characteristics of sensor nodes necessitate a distinct approach to address and name management compared to
traditional networks.

1. Importance of Naming and Addressing

 Definitions:
o Names: Used to denote entities like nodes or data, providing a human-readable identification.
o Addresses: Supply the information required to locate these entities, crucial for routing and
communication in a multi-hop network.
 Functionality: Names and addresses allow sensor nodes to collaborate effectively, providing an
interface to the external environment. This shift from naming independent nodes to focusing on
naming aspects of the physical world or data is vital for effective data collection and processing.

2. Types of Identifiers in WSNs

 Unique Node Identifier (UID):

o A persistent identifier assigned to each node during manufacturing, such as a combination of
vendor name, product name, and serial number.
 MAC Address:
o Distinguishes one-hop neighbors, essential in contention-based MAC protocols. MAC
addresses facilitate overhearing avoidance, allowing nodes to enter sleep mode to conserve
energy.
 Network Address:
o Used for identifying nodes over multiple hops, essential for routing within the network.
 Network Identifiers:
o Differentiate networks operating in overlapping geographic areas, preventing confusion in
data from different sensor networks (e.g., medical body area sensor networks).
 Resource Identifiers:
o Represent names in a user-understandable format. For instance, the name "www.xemacs.org"
conveys specific information about the resource compared to its numerical IP address.

3. Name Resolution and Address Mapping

 Mapping Mechanisms:
o Binding services like Domain Name Service (DNS) and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
are used to map user-friendly names to network addresses.
o For example, DNS translates the name to an IP address, while ARP maps the IP address to a
MAC address.
4. Address Uniqueness Considerations

 MAC Addresses:
o These do not need to be globally unique; local uniqueness within a two-hop neighborhood is
sufficient. This reduces the address space required and simplifies address assignment
protocols.
 Network Layer Addresses:
o Traditionally require global uniqueness for routing. However, in WSNs, the focus shifts from
individual nodes to collaborative data processing, which diminishes the need for globally
unique addresses.

5. Data-Centric Networking

 Concept:
o In WSNs, users are primarily interested in the data generated by the sensor nodes rather than
the nodes themselves. This leads to the development of data-centric or content-based
addressing schemes.
 Significance:
o These schemes allow for efficient data retrieval and management, focusing on the
information being collected rather than the individual sensors delivering it. This approach
enhances the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the network.

Conclusion

Address and name management in wireless sensor networks is crucial for efficient communication and data
collection. The integration of unique identifiers, MAC addresses, network addresses, and resource
identifiers, along with an emphasis on data-centric networking, facilitates the effective operation of sensor
networks. By shifting the focus from individual nodes to the data they produce, WSNs can achieve
optimized performance and meet the needs of users more effectively.

Assignment of MAC Addresses in Wireless Sensor Networks

Introduction

In wireless sensor networks (WSNs), the assignment of MAC (Media Access Control) addresses is crucial
for efficient communication between nodes. Unlike traditional networks where globally unique MAC
addresses are standard, WSNs often handle small packets and may not require such a rigorous approach.
This section discusses various methods for assigning MAC addresses in WSNs, focusing on dynamic and
distributed assignment techniques that minimize overhead and collisions.

Key Considerations for MAC Address Assignment

1. Global Uniqueness is Unnecessary: Assigning globally unique MAC addresses can lead to
significant overhead, especially when using 48-bit addresses. For instance, a 14-bit address can
accommodate up to 16,384 nodes, making it more efficient for many sensor applications.
2. Dynamic and Distributed Approaches: Given the constraints of WSNs, it’s preferable to use
dynamic and distributed methods for address assignment, reducing the need for centralized
management.

Distributed Assignment Methods

1. Random Address Selection:

 o Each node can randomly select an address from a predefined range, hoping for uniqueness.
o This approach maximizes entropy but may lead to high collision rates, as demonstrated by the
"birthday problem" in probability theory.
2. Overhearing for Address Avoidance:
o Nodes can overhear transmissions from neighboring nodes to avoid selecting addresses that are
already in use. This method is effective in local coordination, particularly when nodes communicate
with a central aggregator.

Address Collision Handling

1. Accepting Collisions: The simplest approach is to accept collisions and rely on nodes to resolve
them, although this may lead to inefficiencies.
2. Auto Configuration Protocol:
o A node selects a temporary and a proposed fixed address and sends an address request packet.
o If the fixed address is already allocated (detected through an address reply), the node tries another
address. If no reply is received, it accepts the chosen address after a configurable number of
attempts.
3. Distributed Agreement Protocol:
o A requesting node (requester) contacts a neighboring node (initiator) that already has an address.
The initiator proposes an unused address.
o It then disseminates this proposal to all nodes, collecting accept or reject responses.
o If all responses are accept, the address is assigned. Otherwise, the initiator retries with another
address.

Hierarchical Address Configuration

 In a more organized approach, some nodes are designated as leaders and randomly select subnet IDs.
Duplicate address checks are conducted among these leaders.
 Other nodes derive their addresses from the leader’s subnet ID and their local identifiers (e.g., MAC
address).
 This hierarchical structure helps manage address assignments efficiently, especially during network
partitioning and merging.

Conclusion

The assignment of MAC addresses in wireless sensor networks requires careful consideration of the unique
challenges posed by their architecture. Methods that allow for dynamic and distributed assignment while
minimizing overhead are essential for the efficient functioning of these networks. By leveraging techniques
such as overhearing and hierarchical configurations, WSNs can effectively manage MAC address
assignments to support their operational needs without incurring excessive complexity.