A Cross-Layer-Based Routing With Qos-Aware Scheduling For Wireless Sensor Networks
A Cross-Layer-Based Routing With Qos-Aware Scheduling For Wireless Sensor Networks
A Cross-Layer-Based Routing With Qos-Aware Scheduling For Wireless Sensor Networks
I.
INTRODUCTION
In network layer, the main functions are to provide endto-end data routing and congestion control. Therefore, the
end-to-end requirements guarantee cannot be only provided
by QoS routing in a network layer; it is needed to
investigate the other layers that allocate resources like
Medium Access Control (MAC), which plays a key role in
determining the channel access delay, utilization and energy
consumption. MAC layer coordinates the sharing of the
wireless medium layer and can contribute to energy
efficiency by minimizing the number of collisions,
overhearing, overhead and ideal listening. Therefore, the
MAC layer dominates the performance of the QoS support
in the network [4].
Our proposed scheme extends the routing approach in
[5] and considers the joint functionalities among the layers
especially the routing and MAC layers. A cross-layer design
is proposed between the routing and MAC layers where the
end-to-end QoS requirements are enforced through sensors
decision of next hops according to the neighbors state and
the required QoS. However, the end-to-end requirement is
guaranteed jointly by the local decisions of these sensors
and the sink decision on the used paths and the number of
these paths. The proposed scheme prioritized traffic
according to the requirements such that the end-to-end
requirements can be improved with packet, path and queue
scheduling. When the traffic load on sensors in some area of
the network is high due to heavy communication activity,
the probability of routing through this area is decreased to
protect the traffic from dropping.
The rest of the paper is organized as the following:
Section 2 introduces an overview of existing related works.
Section 3 provides the proposed prioritized scheduling.
Section 4 describes the node-disjoint multipath routing
protocol in details. Section 5 presents the performance
evaluation. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
II.
RELATED WORK
) b,
and
are the energy
consumption to transmit and receive one bit of data,
is the energy consumption of
respectively,
power amplifier and b is the number of bits in the
transmitted packet. Therefore, the energy consumed
to transmit one data packet on a path of hop number
=
.
of nodes can be written as;
Queue length is one of the parameter used to estimate
congestion at a node and congestion of a node is
represented as the load on that node. Therefore, we
used link load,
, as one of the node metric as;
(1)
and
are the length of occupied
where
.
.
and maximum buffer of node , respectively.
at a node, the more chance to
The smaller
accept new traffic.
Link reliability, r, is calculated as the signal to noise
ratio (SNR) and is used to choose the node that
achieves high probability of data delivery.
priority queue may not get any service until the highest
priority traffic is served completely, which is commonly
known as the starvation problem.
The available bandwidth, BW, at a wireless link is shared
among these two queues using the weighted round robin
fashion. If the queue has packets to transmit during that time
BW
(2)
+ /
(3)
(4)
(5)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
np = 1;
//Initialization
<
)
if (
{
=
;
for (i = 2; i ; i++)
{
np = np++;
= 1
1
)
if 1
)
{
number of paths to be used = np;
break;
}
}
}
packets are sent, real time traffic are given the highest
priority and processed first and this introduces more
queuing delay for non-real-time traffic at each sensor node.
Average End-to-End Delay (second)
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10
3.
4.
200m 200m
Number of sensors
300
Simulation time
100s
MAC layer
IEEE 802.11
Transmission range
40m
128 byte
No. of sink
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
10
Class 1 - RT
20
30
Class 2 - RT
Class 3 - NRT
Class 4 - NRT
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Packet Arrival Rate (packet/second)
50 packets
50 nJ/bit
50 nJ/bit
100 pJ/(bit.
0.4
2J
30
40
50
60
70
Packet Arrival Rate (packet/second)
O n-Time Reachability
2.
20
Class 1 - RT
Class 2 - RT
Class 3 - NRT
Class 4 - NRT
80
90
100
B. Simulation Results
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the average end-to-end delay per
packet and the on time reachability for both real time and
non-real time traffic, respectively. In order to focus on the
timeliness domain, we use a non-strict reliability
requirement of 0.7. Conversely, we use a strict real time
requirement of 50ms. From the results, it is clear that the
average delay increases as traffic rate increases. When more
1.5
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Packet Arrival Rate (packet/second)
Class 1 - RT
Class 2 - RT
Class 3 - NRT
Class 4 - NRT
80
90
100
0.25
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.01
Class 1 - RT
Class 2 - RT
Class 3 - NRT
Class 4 - NRT
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Packet Arrival Rate (packet/second)
0.02
0.03
Packet Drop Probability
0.04
0.05
0.4
10
Class 1 - RT
Class 2 - RT
Delay (MQoSR)
Delay + Reliability (MQoSR)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Class 1 - RT
Class 2 - RT
Delay (MQoSR)
Delay + Reliability (MQoSR)
0.03
0.04
0.05
Packet Drop Probability
VI.
CONCLUSION
[4]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[1]
[2]
[3]
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: