4.4 Article

Combination of greedy and compass approaches for efficient multipath geographic routing in wireless multimedia sensor networks

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpe.6703

关键词

compass approach; geographic routing; greedy approach; multimedia data; multipath routing; WMSNs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article proposes a multipath geographic routing protocol for WMSNs that combines the benefits of greedy and compass routing strategies. Simulation results demonstrate its superior performance in various performance criteria compared to fixed weight values and other routing protocols.
Several geographic routing protocols have been proposed for data transmission in wireless multimedia sensor networks (WMSNs), in which forwarding decisions are made locally based on one-hop neighborhood information of each sensor node. These routing protocols involve one of two routing strategies: distance-based strategy (greedy) which selects the closest neighbor from the base station as next-hop or direction-based strategy (compass) that chooses the neighbor with the smallest angle deviation toward the base station as next-hop. This article proposes a multipath geographic routing protocol for WMSNs that combines the two routing strategies while taking advantage of their benefits, called greedy-compass geographic multipath routing (GCGM) protocol. In GCGM, for the selection of a neighbor as next-hop, a weighting coefficient is associated to each of the two strategies. We performed extensive simulations using OMNeT++ simulator with different scenarios to illustrate the performance of our proposal with our proposed weight values and with various weight values. Simulation results showed that our proposal with the proposed weight values provides better performance compared to GCGM with fixed weight values in terms of several performance criteria. We also compared GCGM with other routing protocols. Simulation results showed that GCGM provides better performance compared to TIGMR, LQEAR, and AGEM.

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

4.4
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