1. Energy Efficient Data Management for Wireless Sensor Networks with Data Sink Failure Hyunyoung Lee, Kyoungsook Lee, Lan Lin and Andreas Klappenecker † Department of Computer Science, University of Denver † Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University IEEE International Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, MASS 2005 Shin-Wei Ho

2. Outline Introduction Related Works System Model And Assumptions The Protocol Experiments Conclusion

3. Introduction A wireless sensor node has limited resources runs on battery power has a very small memory space There is a need for an energy-efficient communication scheme to store and retrieve a vast amount of sensor data.

4. Introduction The networked sensor system The wireless sensors act as clients data sinks act as servers. The data sinks process the collected data and return feedback control data to the sensor nodes.

5. Introduction Data Sink

6. Introduction data storage and retrieval structure make the wireless sensing system fault- tolerant avoid the overhead of keeping routing tables The sensor system can be easily expanded by deploying new sensors and even adding new data sinks.

7. Related Works Directed Diffusion uses flooding of queries towards events and sets up reverse gradients for the best path designed for the single data sink scenario

8. Related Works Geographic Perimeter Stateless Routing its assumption that the locations of the sensor nodes are known to all nodes in the network

9. Related Works The authors designed a protocol based on ideas inspired by de Bruijn digraphs. De Bruijn Digraphs The de Bruijn digraph B(h, k) has vertex set V = {0, 1,..., h − 1} k There is an edge from vertex a = (a 1,..., a k ) to vertex b = (b 1,..., b k ) if and only if a i = b i +1 for all i in the range 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1

10. Related Works Example: B(2, 2) Destination b = (b1,..., bk) Source a = (a1,..., aℓ, b1,..., bk−ℓ) Then the routing can be done by left- shifting the source address ℓ times.

11. System Model and Assumptions Wireless Sensor Network W(t, n) t replicated data sinks D = {d 1,..., d t } regularly deployed over the sensor field stationary n sensors S = {s 1,..., s n }. maintain neighbor information The unique identifiers (ID) are given to data sinks and every sensor node, such as MAC address.

12. The Protocol Initialization Routing Fault-Tolerance

13. The protocol -- Initialization The data sink servers start the initialization step by a dynamic address assignment procedure. Suppose that the data sink server i has h sensors within its one-hop radio range. The data sink server i assigns the h sensor nodes the addresses (i, 0), (i, 1),..., (i, h − 1).

14. The protocol -- Initialization Data sink i (i, 0) (i, 1) (i, 2) (i, 3) (i, 4) Data sink j (j, 0) If s already has a valid address of length ℓ, then it keeps it as an alias address. (i, 1, 0) (i, 2, 0) If s has a valid address of length ℓ′ > ℓ, then it deletes all its address aliases and keeps it as a new address. And it once again assigns each one-hop neighbor, except j. If s has a valid address of length ℓ′ > ℓ, then it deletes all its address aliases and keeps it as a new address. And it once again assigns each one-hop neighbor, except j. (i, 1, 1)

15. The protocol -- Initialization In this way, every sensor node that is reachable from a data sink will receive at least one address. The number of address aliases of a sensor node does not exceed the number of its one-hop neighbors. A sensor node informs its one-hop neighbors about its address aliases.

16. The protocol -- Initialization This simple address assignment scheme has some remarkable properties: If a sensor node has an address alias (a 1, a 2,..., a ℓ ), then there is a path of ℓ−1 hops to the data sink a 1, and there is no shorter path to a 1. This assignment scheme realizes the partitioning into cells.

17. The protocol -- Initialization If a sensor node s has address (a1, a2,..., aℓ−1, aℓ), then there exists a node p with address (a1, a2,..., aℓ−1). p is a predecessor of s, and s a successor of p. The associates of s are all one-hop neighbors of s that are neither predecessors nor successors.

18. The protocol -- Routing To Sink message From Sink Message Peer message

19. The protocol -- Routing To sink message randomly selecting one predecessor; this is done by right-shifting one randomly selected address alias. One possible path from the address (a 1,..., a ℓ ) is through the predecessors (a 1,..., a ℓ−1 ), (a 1,..., a ℓ−2 ),..., (a 1, a 2 ) to the data sink a 1.

20. The protocol -- Routing 131=130 wants to send a toSink message to a data sink. 131->13->1 310->31->3

21. The protocol -- Routing From sink message sending the message from the data sink to its successors each sensor node receiving such a message forwards it to all its successors

22. The protocol -- Routing Peer message forwards it to the one-hop neighbor that has an address alias with the longest common prefix If several one-hop neighbors qualify, then the one with the shortest address alias is chosen.

23. The protocol -- Routing 110 wants to send peer message to node 210. 110->11->200->210

24. The protocol -- Routing 130 wants to send peer message to node 210. 130->13->1->12 ->20->2->21->210

25. The protocol -- Routing The protocol makes typically multiple paths available while routing from sensor node to a data sink. ensure that the selected route is optimal A node simply needs to keep the address aliases of itself and of its one-hop neighbor

26. The protocol -- Fault-Tolerance If a sensor node or a data sink fails, then this can be easily detected by a simple acknowledgment scheme. Therefore, the authors assume that the one-hop neighbors of a failed node s become aware of the failure of s within a short amount of time.

27. The protocol -- Fault-Tolerance Sensor Node Failure A predecessor of s informs the data sink that the node s has failed. All associates of s delete the address aliases that belong to s from their lists. All successors of s make their address aliases invalid that have an address alias of s as a prefix, and they send a nodeFail(s) message to their successors.

28. The protocol -- Fault-Tolerance

30. Data Sink Failure

31. The protocol -- Fault-Tolerance

32. Experiments

33. Conclusion The authors proposed an energy-efficient communication protocol for data storage and retrieval in a wireless sensor network. achieves resilience against sensor node and data sink failures does not require any location information avoid the overhead of keeping routing tables to the memory constraints of sensor nodes

34. Thank you!