4.2 Article

Carrier sense aware multipath geographic routing protocol

期刊

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS & MOBILE COMPUTING
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 1109-1123

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1002/wcm.2590

关键词

wireless sensor networks; carrier sense range; interference; multipath routing; disjoint paths; QoS

资金

  1. Projet de cooperation Maroco-Francaise: Contribution a l'optimisation de la qualite de service dans les reseaux de capteurs sans fil: Application a la supervision agricole

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last few years, wireless sensor networks have become a great field of interest for the scientific community. This novel kind of network provides an array of applications for different aspects of human life. To give a satisfying performance to the final user, the wireless sensor networks must ensure the quality of service. The use of multipath technique was widely applied in the literature. Nevertheless, there might be a problem if the interference issues are not taken into account by the multipath routing design. In this paper, we propose a novel multipath routing protocol called Carrier Sense Aware Multipath Geographic Routing protocol (CSA-MGR). This protocol creates multiple paths while avoiding any shared carrier sense range by using a distributed and dynamic process. In addition, the CSA-MGR employs a new metrics named the Number of Common Neighbors to guarantee a faster and an efficient path construction. Simulations conducted over the NS-2 simulator show promising results in terms of delay, Packet Delivery Ratio and routing overhead. The performance gain of CSA-MGR in terms of delay is up to 275% compared with the Two-Phase geographical Greedy Forwarding and up to 565% compared with the ad hoc on-demand multipath distance vector. For the Packet Delivery Ratio, the performance gain of CSA-MGR is up to 16% compared with the Two-Phase geographic Greedy Forwarding and up to 28% compared with the ad hoc on-demand multipath distance vector. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据