Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar."— Presentation transcript:

1 Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar

2 Outline  Introduction  Motivation  Goals  GPSR  GEAR  Simulation  Results  Conclusions

3 Introduction  Topology changes are more frequent in wireless networks as opposed to wired networks  Traditional routing algorithms such as Distance Vector (DV) and Link State (LS) are not efficient (network congestion, mobility overhead) for packet forwarding in wireless networks  Routing protocols based on DV and LS consume enormous network bandwidth and have low scalability

4 Motivation  Routing table exchange proportional to network size & mobility  Nodes often overloaded with participating in the network; not enough time to sense  Routing information storage  Adaptability requirement  End-to-end route maintenance  No support for regional query

5 What to Do ???? Answer is LOCATION !!!!!

6 Why Geographical Routing ??? Geographic routing allows nodes to be nearly stateless and requires propagation of topology information for only a single hop The position of a packet’s destination and next-hop neighbor positions are sufficient for making packet forwarding decisions

7 Why Regional Support ??? What is the average temperature in a region R during time period (t 1, t 2 ) Find the road traffic flow in region X for time duration t

8 Goals  Reduce size of topology information stored (state) in the nodes  Provide geography-based forwarding  Minimize the mobility overhead traffic  Extend life-time of the network

9 Geographical Routing  Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR)  Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR)

10 GPSR Facts  Scalability  Location-based communication  Nearly Stateless  Routing adaptability  Mobility support

11 Assumptions  Source knows its position  Each node knows position of its neighbors by simple beacon message  Sources can determine the location of destinations  Local directory service (Node ID to location mapping), location registration  Bonus: location-based communication make directory service unnecessary

12 GPSR Modes  GPSR has two modes of operation for packet forwarding  Greedy Forwarding  Perimeter Forwarding

13 Greedy Forwarding Sourc e Destination Geographically Closest to Destination

14 When Greedy Forwarding Fails ??? Destination X Reached local maxima

15 Perimeter Forwarding X Destination

16 Assembling GPSR Together Perimeter Forwarding greedy fails have left local maxima greedy failsgreedy works Greedy Forwarding

17 GEAR Facts  Geographic packet forwarding  Extended overall network lifetime  High Scalability  Routing adaptability  Mobility Support  Nearly Stateless  Regional Support  Extension of GPSR

18 Assumptions  Each query packet has target region specified in the original packet  Each node knows its position (GPS) and remaining energy level  Each node knows its neighbors’ position (beacon) and their remaining energy levels  Links (Transmission) are bi- directional

19 GEAR Modes  GEAR has two modes of operation for packet forwarding  Energy-aware Regional Forwarding  Recursive Geographic Forwarding / Restricted Flooding

20 Sourc e Region Geographically Closest to Region Energy-aware Regional Forwarding

21 Recursive Geographic Forwarding Region

22 Restricted Flooding Region

23 Assembling GEAR Together Region Region arrived If RGF fails or sparse region Energy-aware Regional Routing Source-region Restricted Flooding Recursive Geographic Forwarding

24 Simulation Environment  Forward packets to all nodes in the region  No need for location database  Static sensor nodes  Existence of localization system  Energy-metrics + Geographical Information utilization

25 Simulation Scenarios  Uniform Traffic Distribution The source and target regions are randomly selected throughout the network  Non-uniform Traffic Distribution (Clustered sources and Destinations) Sources and Destinations are randomly selected but source-pairs and destination- pairs are geographically close to each other

26 Comparison For Uniform Traffic

27 Comparison For Non-uniform Traffic

28 Total broken pairs vs. Total data delivered

29 Results  Uniform Traffic (GEAR vs. GPRS)  25 – 35 % more packet delivery  Non-uniform Traffic (GEAR vs. GPRS)  70 – 80 % more packet delivery  GEAR vs. Flooding  40 – 100 times more packet delivery

30 Goals Achieved !!!! Reduced mobility traffic overhead Localized topology information storage Extended network life-time Geography-based Dissemination

31 Summary GEARGPSRDSR Scalability Energy- Awareness Regional Support Location-aided Routing Periodic Beaconing Routing Adaptability

32 Conclusions  GEAR propagates query to target region without flooding  GEAR provides extended life of the sensor networks  GEAR outperforms GPSR in both uniform and non-uniform scenarios in packet delivery  GEAR performs better in terms of connectivity after partition

33 Issues That I Recommend To Explore  Reliability of packet delivery  Sensor positional error  Secure data transmission  Protocol Implementation in 3-D space

34 References  Yan Yun., Ramesh Govindan, and Estrin Deborah: Geographical and Energy Aware Routing, August 2001 Paper Website: Brad Karp, H. T. Kung : GPSR-Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks, MobiComm 2000 Paper Website:  Rahul Jain, Anuj Puri, and Raja Sengupta: Geographical Routing Using Partial Information for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, 1999 Paper Website:  Chenyang Lu: GPSR Ad Hoc Routing III, Fall 2002 Presentation Website:  Brad Karp: Geographic Routing for Wireless Networks, Phd Dissertation, Harvard University, October 2002 Paper Website:

35 Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar


Download ppt "Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) vs. Geographical Energy Aware Routing (GEAR) A Presentation by: Noman Shahreyar."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google